Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

EvDetMAV: Generalized MAV Detection from Moving Event Cameras

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Different drone types share a propeller event signature that lets a training-free pipeline detect them from moving event cameras.

desk verdict Clever, training-free drone detection from propeller event patterns, backed by a useful new dataset—but the generalization claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19416 v2 pith:6HZ6LGMW submitted 2025-06-24 cs.CV cs.RO

Yin Zhang , Zian Ning , Xiaoyu Zhang , Shiliang Guo , Peidong Liu , Shiyu Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.RO
keywords eventcameraMAVdetectionpropellersaliencymapperiodicitytraining-freeevent-basedvisionmicroaerialvehicle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Micro aerial vehicles of different makes and models share one feature that ordinary RGB images hide: fast-spinning propellers produce dense, periodic streams of positive and negative events in an event camera. This paper argues that this shared physical signature is enough for generalized MAV detection, and builds EvDetMAV, a training-free pipeline that detects propellers directly from raw event streams even when the camera itself is moving. The pipeline generates a density-aware saliency map by intersecting positive and negative event regions within short rotation slices, then scores candidate regions by periodicity and refines them with clustering. On the new EventMAV dataset of 25,335 event periods from three MAV types, the method reports 83.0% precision and 81.5% recall without any training, a gain of roughly 30 points over prior event-based detectors. The paper also releases the first moving-camera, multi-type event-based MAV dataset for the community.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a polarity-intersection saliency map. For a propeller spinning at thousands of RPM, each point on the blade sweeps through the same image location twice per revolution with opposite contrast, so within a short sub-interval $\frac{1}{n}\Delta T$ the positive-event image $I_p^t$ and negative-event image $I_n^t$ overlap in the propeller region; their intersection $I_s^t = I_p^t \cap I_n^t$ is nonempty and re-accumulates each rotation cycle. Summing $I_s^t$ over $n$ slices builds a saliency map in which the periodic propeller signature is enhanced while events from background objects and camera motion, which do not revisit the same pixels with alternating polarity, average out. The same periodicity is then quantified per candidate region through three descriptors, density fluctuation, structural similarity of consecutive slice images, and principal-direction angle change, and used with a coarse-to-fine clustering step to produce the final bounding box.

What would settle it

Record the event stream of a single spinning propeller whose blades trigger only one contrast polarity (for example, a blade with one reflective surface under steady illumination) and check whether the positive and negative event regions overlap within any 1/n slice of a rotation; if they never overlap, the density-aware saliency map cannot highlight the propeller and detection fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that fast-rotating MAV propellers leave a distinctive, appearance-independent trace in the raw event stream: a periodic alternation of positive and negative events that survives camera motion and background clutter, and that this trace can be exploited without learned features. In the proposed pipeline, each short period $\Delta T$ is split into $n$ slices; in each slice the binary positive image $I_p^t$ and negative image $I_n^t$ are intersected to form $I_s^t$, based on the observation that a rotating blade passes the same pixels with opposite contrast within a rotation. Accumulating these intersections over the period suppresses background noise produced by camera motion and yields a saliency map. Candidate areas are then scored by saliency and by periodicity descriptors (event density, structural similarity between consecutive slices, and principal-direction similarity of the point cloud), and a coarse-to-fine clustering stage outputs the bounding box. Without any training, the method reaches 83.0% precision and 81.5% recall on the proposed EventMAV testing set, outperforming EvPropNet by +30.3 precision and +36.4 recall and EV-Tach by similar margins, and also exceeding CNN-based baselines trained on other MAV subsets.

Load-bearing premise

The saliency map assumes that a spinning propeller repeatedly triggers both brightening and darkening events at the same set of pixels within each short slice of time.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An observer using a moving event camera can detect drones of types it has never seen, as long as their propellers are exposed and spinning.
  • The EventMAV dataset provides the first benchmark for this task, with 25,335 annotated event periods covering three MAV types, 15 environments, and multiple viewing angles and scales.
  • The full pipeline runs in about 20 ms per period on a CPU, so real-time detection on resource-limited platforms is plausible.
  • Performance degrades gracefully under hard conditions: it drops to 39.7% mAP for tiny targets and is worse indoors than outdoors, while large, close, vertical views achieve over 80% mAP.
  • Combining the propeller features with learned networks is an explicit direction for further improvement suggested by the paper.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the underlying signature is purely physical, so the same training-free pipeline should transfer to any rotorcraft with exposed rotating blades, such as helicopters or fixed-wing propellers, provided the rotation rate is high enough to produce alternating-polarity events within one slice.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, the method's failure modes suggest a natural fusion: a learned RGB or IR detector could supply appearance context at long range and close to the ground, while the propeller-periodicity detector covers unseen platforms and fast camera motion.
  • Beyond the paper's claims, the periodicity scores could be repurposed as a weak rotation-rate estimator, since the peak spacing in density and structural-similarity signals is tied to blade-passing frequency; this would make the saliency map a byproduct of tachometry rather than a separate stage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes EvDetMAV, a training-free event-camera pipeline for micro aerial vehicle (MAV) detection, built on the observation that rotating propellers produce periodic positive and negative event patterns that are common across different MAV types. The method consists of three modules: a density-aware saliency map that accumulates intersections of positive and negative event maps over slices of the event stream, a spatio-temporal feature extraction stage that scores candidate regions by periodicity, and a clustering-based coarse-to-fine module that outputs bounding boxes. The authors also introduce EventMAV, a new event-based MAV dataset with 25,335 event periods across three MAV types and multiple indoor/outdoor environments, and report state-of-the-art results (83.0% precision, 81.5% recall, F1 82.2%) without any training, outperforming EvPropNet and EV-Tach. The paper claims the first event-based MAV dataset and the first method to handle moving-camera scenarios in this setting.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to event-based MAV detection: it identifies a physically motivated, appearance-free cue (propeller periodicity in the event stream), demonstrates its viability in the previously underexplored moving-camera setting, and provides a new public dataset and codebase. The ablation study (Table VI) and robustness analysis (Table V) are valuable, and the training-free nature is a practical strength, as is the reported real-time operation. The main significance is conditional on the core assumption in Section IV-A being valid and on the method being robust to its hyperparameters; the current manuscript does not yet establish either point with sufficient evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV-A (Fig. 4)] The saliency map is defined by accumulating I_s^t = I_p^t ∩ I_n^t over n slices, so the entire pipeline depends on positive and negative propeller events overlapping in the same pixels within each ΔT/n interval and re-forming every rotation cycle. The paper never reports n, never shows the positive and negative event maps separately, and provides no measurement of the overlap fraction. At the cited 5k–15k RPM, one rotation lasts 4–12 ms, while the dataset periods are 10–30 ms; depending on n, opposite-polarity transitions can easily fall into different slices unless the slice length and contrast thresholds are favorable. Please report n and provide controlled evidence (simulation or event-level statistics) that the intersection is nonempty and dense enough to exceed τ_s=50. This is especially urgent given that the robustness table (Table V) already shows mAP dropping to 39.7% for tiny targets and 57.0% indoors, which is consistent with the saliency cue being marginal exactly when event density is low.
  2. [Section IV-B2 and Algorithm 1] The periodicity score s_p is described only as counting whether fd, fs, and fp 'have peaks and valleys' after moving-average filtering, with a maximum value of 6, but the peak/valley criterion, the moving-average window, the slice count m, and the scoring formula are not defined. Without these definitions the method is not reproducible, and the threshold τ_p=3 in Algorithm 1 cannot be interpreted or checked. Please specify precisely how peaks and valleys are detected, how the six-point score is accumulated, and what values of m and the filtering window are used.
  3. [Section V-A and V-D] The method relies on several hand-set thresholds—τ_s=50, τ_p=3, K=4, IoU=0.4—plus n, m, and the peak/valley detection parameters, but no sensitivity analysis, confidence intervals, or error bars are reported. Because these thresholds appear to be chosen on a single self-collected dataset, the generality claim would be much stronger with a sensitivity study showing, for example, that precision/recall are stable over a plausible range of τ_s and τ_p, and that the choice K=4 is not load-bearing. The discussion in Section V-F acknowledges K's role but does not quantify the effect of varying it.
  4. [Section V-B (Table III)] The evaluation is conducted entirely on the authors' own dataset, with manually annotated bounding boxes and IoU=0.4, and no error bars or per-sequence variability are reported. While this is understandable given the absence of other event-based MAV datasets, the headline numbers should be accompanied by a statement of how the thresholds were selected (training set, validation set, or test set) and by some measure of variance, so that the reader can judge whether the +30.3%/+36.4% margins over baselines are meaningful rather than the result of parameter tuning on the test distribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section V-B] The abstract reports a recall improvement of +36.4% over EvPropNet, but Section V-B says +34.6%; the arithmetic 81.5−45.1 = 36.4 supports the abstract, so the number in Section V-B should be corrected.
  2. [Section IV-B1, text near Eq. (1)] The sentence 'The largest eigenvalue λ_max and its corresponding eigenvector ξ has the relation λ_max C = ξ C' appears to be a typo; it should state C ξ = λ_max ξ. Please clarify.
  3. [Algorithm 1, fine stage] The phrase 'Calculate the Gaussian shape' is never defined in the text; the fine stage needs a precise description of what Gaussian fitting is performed and how 'consistent with P_i' is checked.
  4. [Section II-C] The abbreviation 'SSN' is used where 'SNN' (spiking neural network) is meant; this should be fixed throughout the paragraph.
  5. [Figure 6 caption] The caption states that the event images of EvPropNet contain a shorter period than the other two methods; this difference should be stated in the main text and the exact periods used for each method should be reported so that the qualitative comparison is fair and reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the method's load-bearing assumptions are empirical physical heuristics about propeller event patterns, and the reported results are measured on a self-collected dataset without any fitted parameter being renamed a prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a first-principles derivation; it proposes a training-free detector and validates it on a newly collected dataset. The load-bearing premise—that fast-rotating propellers emit both positive and negative events that overlap within each short slice and repeat every rotation (Sec. IV-A, I_s^t = I_p^t ∩ I_n^t)—is an empirical hypothesis about event-camera physics, not a consequence of the method's definitions. If the premise fails, performance degrades, as the paper's own robustness table shows for tiny targets and indoor illumination; that is a correctness risk, not circularity. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: thresholds τs=50 and τp=3 are fixed constants, and the reported precision/recall are not analytically forced by those choices. The self-citations in the related-work and introduction are contextual and not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or prior-work-by-authors result is invoked to forbid alternatives. The dataset is self-collected, which limits external generalization claims, and the K=4 / one-MAV-per-period assumption is an evaluation-protocol choice rather than a circular reduction. Overall, the claimed result stands or falls on the empirical validity of the propeller-event cue, not on circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical objects or forces are introduced. The ledger entries are the hand-set thresholds, the one-MAV-per-period dataset assumption, and the event-polarity overlap assumption that the saliency map relies on.

free parameters (5)
  • tau_s (saliency threshold) = 50
    Hand-set threshold applied to the saliency map to select potential propeller regions; no sensitivity analysis reported (Section V-A).
  • tau_p (periodicity threshold) = 3
    Hand-set threshold for accepting a candidate area based on peak and valley counts; controls the recall-precision trade-off and is not swept (Section V-A).
  • K (number of candidate areas) = 4
    Initial number of clustering seeds; explicitly tied to the dataset assumption of exactly one MAV per period (Section V-F and Algorithm 1).
  • IoU threshold = 0.4
    Evaluation matching threshold; affects all precision, recall, and mAP numbers and is reported without justification (Section V-A).
  • n and m (slice counts) and peak/valley detection parameters = not reported
    Number of temporal slices for saliency accumulation and periodicity analysis, plus the moving-average window and peak/valley criteria, are not specified, though they control the extracted features (Sections IV-A and IV-B).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Within each short sub-interval, a rotating propeller generates both positive and negative events at overlapping pixels, so the intersection I_s^t accumulates reliably over rotation cycles.
    Foundation of the density-aware saliency map (Section IV-A and Fig. 4); if false for some propellers or illumination conditions, the saliency signal disappears.
  • domain assumption Background objects and camera-motion events are not periodic at the propeller frequency, so periodicity descriptors can separate propellers from noise.
    Used in Section IV-B to compute periodicity scores; this is an empirical claim about event statistics in cluttered scenes.
  • domain assumption Every analyzed period contains exactly one MAV with at least one visible exposed propeller.
    Dataset annotation is one box per period and K is set to 4; multi-target or shielded-propeller cases are outside the method's scope (Section V-F).
  • domain assumption Manual bounding-box annotations around propeller areas are accurate and consistent.
    Ground truth is created by manual annotation with no inter-annotator agreement reported (Section III).
  • standard math Standard linear algebra and clustering primitives such as covariance eigen-decomposition, connected components, and clustering are correct.
    Used in Sections IV-B and IV-C; these are standard tools and not a source of claim uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EvDetMAV: Generalized MAV Detection from Moving Event Cameras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6HZ6LGMW

@misc{pith2026250619416,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EvDetMAV: Generalized MAV Detection from Moving Event Cameras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6HZ6LGMW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19416}
}
read the original abstract

Existing micro aerial vehicle (MAV) detection methods mainly rely on the target's appearance features in RGB images, whose diversity makes it difficult to achieve generalized MAV detection. We notice that different types of MAVs share the same distinctive features in event streams due to their high-speed rotating propellers, which are hard to see in RGB images. This paper studies how to detect different types of MAVs from an event camera by fully exploiting the features of propellers in the original event stream. The proposed method consists of three modules to extract the salient and spatio-temporal features of the propellers while filtering out noise from background objects and camera motion. Since there are no existing event-based MAV datasets, we introduce a novel MAV dataset for the community. This is the first event-based MAV dataset comprising multiple scenarios and different types of MAVs. Without training, our method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods and can deal with challenging scenarios, achieving a precision rate of 83.0\% (+30.3\%) and a recall rate of 81.5\% (+36.4\%) on the proposed testing dataset. The dataset and code are available at: https://github.com/WindyLab/EvDetMAV.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19416 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Four types of event images generated from different motion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization and statistics of the EventMAV dataset. The three rows of (a) contain three types of MAVs whose RGB appearances are shown in (b). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The proposed method consists of three modules. The module in (a) generates a saliency map based on a density-aware principle. The module in (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The principle of the saliency map generation process. The bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The illustration of the clustering distance principles of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The qualitative analysis of three methods. The event images of EvPropNet contain a shorter period for detection than the other two methods. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the outputs from each module of our method. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Label-Free Long-Horizon 3D UAV Trajectory Prediction via Motion-Aligned RGB and Event Cues

    cs.RO 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    A self-supervised video-only pipeline with LiDAR-generated pseudo-labels and a Vision-Mamba network predicts UAV 3D trajectories up to 5 seconds ahead on the MMAUD dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A bearing-angle approach for unknown target motion analysis based on visual measure- ments,

    Z. Ning, Y . Zhang, J. Li, Z. Chen, and S. Zhao, “A bearing-angle approach for unknown target motion analysis based on visual measure- ments,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Vision-based unmanned aerial vehicle detection and tracking for sense and avoid systems,

    K. R. Sapkota, S. Roelofsen, A. Rozantsev, V . Lepetit, D. Gillet, P. Fua, and A. Martinoli, “Vision-based unmanned aerial vehicle detection and tracking for sense and avoid systems,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 1556–1561, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Transformloc: Transforming MA Vs into mobile localization infrastructures in heterogeneous swarms,

    H. Wang, J. Xu, C. Zhao, Z. Lu, Y . Cheng, X. Chen, X.-P. Zhang, Y . Liu, and X. Chen, “Transformloc: Transforming MA Vs into mobile localization infrastructures in heterogeneous swarms,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (CCC) , pp. 1101– 1110, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Vision-based drone flocking in outdoor environments,

    F. Schilling, F. Schiano, and D. Floreano, “Vision-based drone flocking in outdoor environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2954–2961, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Dogfight: detecting drones from drone videos,

    M. W. Ashraf, W. Sultani, and M. Shah, “Dogfight: detecting drones from drone videos,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 7067–7076, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Domain adaptive detection of MA Vs: A benchmark and noise suppression network,

    Y . Zhang, J. Deng, P. Liu, W. Li, and S. Zhao, “Domain adaptive detection of MA Vs: A benchmark and noise suppression network,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Quan, Introduction to Multicopter Design and Control

    Q. Quan, Introduction to Multicopter Design and Control . Springer, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Event- based vision: A survey,

    G. Gallego, T. Delbr ¨uck, G. Orchard, C. Bartolozzi, B. Taba, A. Censi, S. Leutenegger, A. J. Davison, J. Conradt, K. Daniilidis, et al., “Event- based vision: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 154–180, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    EVPropNet: Detecting drones by finding propellers for mid-air landing and following,

    N. J. Sanket, C. D. Singh, C. M. Parameshwara, C. Fermuller, G. C. de Croon, and Y . Aloimonos, “EVPropNet: Detecting drones by finding propellers for mid-air landing and following,” in Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    EV-Tach: A handheld rotational speed estimation system with event camera,

    G. Zhao, Y . Shen, N. Chen, P. Hu, L. Liu, and H. Wen, “EV-Tach: A handheld rotational speed estimation system with event camera,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Event-based mo- tion capture system for online multi-quadrotor localization and tracking,

    C. Iaboni, D. Lobo, J.-W. Choi, and P. Abichandani, “Event-based mo- tion capture system for online multi-quadrotor localization and tracking,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 9, p. 3240, 2022

    2022

  4. [12]

    Detecting flying objects using a single moving camera,

    A. Rozantsev, V . Lepetit, and P. Fua, “Detecting flying objects using a single moving camera,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 879–892, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Tracking and relative localization of drone swarms with a vision-based headset,

    M. Pavliv, F. Schiano, C. Reardon, D. Floreano, and G. Loianno, “Tracking and relative localization of drone swarms with a vision-based headset,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1455– 1462, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Marker-less micro aerial vehicle detection and localization using convolutional neural networks,

    M. Vrba and M. Saska, “Marker-less micro aerial vehicle detection and localization using convolutional neural networks,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 2459–2466, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Global-local MA V detection under challenging conditions based on appearance and motion,

    H. Guo, Y . Zheng, Y . Zhang, Z. Gao, and S. Zhao, “Global-local MA V detection under challenging conditions based on appearance and motion,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Method for registration of 3-D shapes,

    P. J. Besl and N. D. McKay, “Method for registration of 3-D shapes,” in Proceedings of the Sensor Fusion IV: Control Paradigms and Data Structures, vol. 1611, pp. 586–606, 1992

    1992

  9. [17]

    YOLOv5 by Ultralytics,

    G. Jocher, “YOLOv5 by Ultralytics,” 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Get: Group event transformer for event-based vision,

    Y . Peng, Y . Zhang, Z. Xiong, X. Sun, and F. Wu, “Get: Group event transformer for event-based vision,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pp. 6038–6048, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Asyn- chronous convolutional networks for object detection in neuromorphic cameras,

    M. Cannici, M. Ciccone, A. Romanoni, and M. Matteucci, “Asyn- chronous convolutional networks for object detection in neuromorphic cameras,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) , 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Recurrent vision transformers for object detection with event cameras,

    M. Gehrig and D. Scaramuzza, “Recurrent vision transformers for object detection with event cameras,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pp. 13884– 13893, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Object detection with spiking neural networks on automotive event data,

    L. Cordone, B. Miramond, and P. Thierion, “Object detection with spiking neural networks on automotive event data,” inProceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) , pp. 1–8, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Chasing day and night: Towards robust and efficient all-day object detection guided by an event camera,

    J. Cao, X. Zheng, Y . Lyu, J. Wang, R. Xu, and L. Wang, “Chasing day and night: Towards robust and efficient all-day object detection guided by an event camera,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 9026–9032, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Low-latency automotive vision with event cameras,

    D. Gehrig and D. Scaramuzza, “Low-latency automotive vision with event cameras,” Nature, vol. 629, no. 8014, pp. 1034–1040, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Motion robust high-speed light-weighted object detection with event camera,

    B. Liu, C. Xu, W. Yang, H. Yu, and L. Yu, “Motion robust high-speed light-weighted object detection with event camera,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 72, pp. 1–13, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Event-based motion segmentation by motion compensation,

    T. Stoffregen, G. Gallego, T. Drummond, L. Kleeman, and D. Scara- muzza, “Event-based motion segmentation by motion compensation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 7244–7253, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Event-based moving object detection and tracking,

    A. Mitrokhin, C. Ferm ¨uller, C. Parameshwara, and Y . Aloimonos, “Event-based moving object detection and tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 1–9, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Evdodgenet: Deep dynamic obstacle dodging with event cameras,

    N. J. Sanket, C. M. Parameshwara, C. D. Singh, A. V . Kuruttukulam, C. Ferm ¨uller, D. Scaramuzza, and Y . Aloimonos, “Evdodgenet: Deep dynamic obstacle dodging with event cameras,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pp. 106...

    2020

  20. [28]

    SpikeMS: Deep spiking neural network for motion segmentation,

    C. M. Parameshwara, S. Li, C. Ferm ¨uller, N. J. Sanket, M. S. Evanusa, and Y . Aloimonos, “SpikeMS: Deep spiking neural network for motion segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pp. 3414–3420, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.