Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

TOFFE -- Temporally-binned Object Flow from Events for High-speed and Energy-Efficient Object Detection and Tracking

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TOFFE estimates an object's position, direction, and speed directly from event-camera streams, using a hybrid spiking-and-convolutional network that cuts energy and latency several-fold versus prior event-based detectors.

desk verdict TOFFE's efficiency numbers are believable and the trainable speed separation is a real step up from DOTIE, but the multi-object claim in Fig. 6 is structurally impossible with one output head per speed bin. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12482 v1 pith:E25BSOKE submitted 2025-01-21 cs.CV cs.ETcs.LGcs.NEcs.RO

Adarsh Kumar Kosta , Amogh Joshi , Arjun Roy , Rohan Kumar Manna , Manish Nagaraj , Kaushik Roy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.ETcs.LGcs.NEcs.RO
keywords event-basedvisionspikingneuralnetworksobjectdetectiontrackingflowneuromorphichardwareedgecomputingsyntheticdataset
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

The paper claims that the full object detection-and-tracking task for high-speed edge robots can be reformulated as "object flow" — a per-object pose, direction, and speed estimate computed directly from sparse event-camera streams — and that this reformulation can be served by a hybrid network far cheaper than prior event-based detectors. TOFFE splits the problem into a speed-separation spiking network and a small convolutional pose-and-direction network, trains them on a new synthetic high-speed event dataset, and reports pose error around 5 pixels, direction error around 11 degrees, and speed error around 11 m/s at the best time window, while using 5.7-8.3x less dynamic energy and 4.6-5.8x lower latency than its nearest baselines on edge-grade hardware. If correct, the result would make event cameras practical for low-power, real-time navigation of small autonomous vehicles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the speed-bin separation chain made of trained leaky integrate-and-fire spiking neurons. The OFS block uses LIF neurons with learnable firing threshold $v_{th}$ and leak $\lambda$ (Eqs. 1-2) so that each OFS$_k$ fires for objects at speed bin $k$ and above, acting as a temporal high-pass filter; during inference the outputs are processed in descending speed order, each stage's binary event mask (built by morphological closing and inversion) removes already-assigned events from the input to the next stage. The resulting speed-separated event bins are fed to the OFPD network, a two-layer CNN plus fully-connected layer with separate pose $(x,y)$ and direction (angle) heads. This division lets each subnetwork stay tiny: the spiking network only discriminates temporal rates, and the ANN only reads spatial structure from already-isolated objects.

What would settle it

Run TOFFE on a synthetic or real event sequence in which two objects of different shapes move at speeds within the same speed bin but at different image locations; the OFPD head can emit only one pose and direction per bin, so the pipeline must either miss one object or produce a blended estimate, which a simple check of the two ground-truth poses would expose.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In TOFFE's own terms, the central discovery is that object flow can be computed by a trainable division of labor: a single-layer spiking network with learnable leak and threshold acts as a velocity filter, separating events into four speed bins by exploiting the high-pass behavior of leaky integrate-and-fire neurons, and a lightweight two-layer convolutional network then predicts one pose and one motion direction per speed bin from the speed-separated event bins. The full system replaces per-pixel optical flow and clustering-based detection with sparse, speed-discretized object-level estimates, and the paper reports that on the Jetson TX2 and on a Loihi-2 plus Jetson TX2 hybrid setup the approach reduces dynamic energy by 5.7x/8.3x and latency by 4.6x/5.8x compared with Adaptive-SpikeNet and DOTIE baselines, at dt=500 achieving 5.355 pixels pose error, 10.769 degrees direction error, and 10.649 m/s speed error.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline assumes that at most one object ends up in any one speed bin at a time, because the pose-and-direction head returns just one $(x, y, angle)$ per bin; the paper never trains or tests the multi-object case, and two objects sharing a speed bin would violate the architecture's output capacity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If TOFFE's speed-bin reformulation holds, object tracking on edge robots no longer needs dense per-pixel optical flow or iterative clustering; a per-object estimate is enough to feed downstream control loops, which is the main reason for the latency and energy reductions.
  • The same hybrid split (spiking temporal filter plus analog spatial network) could be applied to other event-stream tasks that decompose into a temporal-rate component and a spatial component, such as gesture recognition or landing-site selection.
  • The synthetic dataset's ground truth at 20 kHz means training and evaluation are no longer capped by the frame rate of traditional sensors, so the reported error numbers are the first benchmark for truly high-speed object flow.
  • On hybrid Loihi-2 plus Jetson TX2 hardware, TOFFE runs at roughly 65 inferences per second, which the paper argues is sufficient for real-world edge autonomy; if the OFPD part were also mapped to neuromorphic hardware, the same approach could go even lower in energy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The single-output-per-bin assumption is the natural stress point; a production deployment would need the OFPD head to either output a variable number of objects per bin or be preceded by a lightweight segmentation of the speed-separated events, otherwise multi-object scenes with matched speeds will silently drop objects.
  • The paper's error metrics are reported only on synthetic data; a real event camera would add noise, varying object textures, and ego-motion, so the accuracy and latency numbers should be re-measured on recorded real events before relying on them in a drone controller.
  • The speed-bin idea suggests a testable scaling prediction: if the number of speed bins grows, the sequential cascade of morphological masks and OFS stages should add roughly linearly to latency, so the architecture's sweet spot will be a small number of bins (as the four used here).
  • A direct extension the paper doesn't explore: using the direction head's angle for simple constant-velocity extrapolation of pose could turn the system into a tracker with zero extra computation, since the pose and direction are already aligned in time.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes TOFFE, a hybrid SNN-ANN pipeline for estimating "object flow" (pose, motion direction, and speed) from event-camera data. The architecture first separates events into four speed bins using independently trained LIF-based SNN models (OFS), then passes each bin's events through a shared lightweight ANN (OFPD) that regresses a single (x,y) pose and a single motion angle per bin. The authors introduce a synthetic Gazebo-based dataset with high-rate ground truth, train OFS and OFPD in a supervised manner on single-object sequences, and report accuracy errors at several event time windows (Table III). They also measure dynamic energy and latency on CPU, RTX 3090-Ti, Jetson TX2, and a Loihi-2 + Jetson TX2 hybrid setup, reporting large efficiency gains over Adaptive-SpikeNet and DOTIE (Table IV). The central claimed capability, stated in the abstract and Fig. 6, is pose, direction, and speed estimation for many independently moving objects.

Significance. The efficiency comparison is a concrete strength: energy and latency are measured on real hardware with a clearly described methodology, and the hybrid Loihi-2 + Jetson TX2 measurement is a useful data point for neuromorphic edge deployment. The proposed split of speed separation (SNN) and pose/direction regression (ANN) is architecturally sensible for the single-object-per-speed-bin case, and the synthetic dataset with 20 kHz ground truth is a potentially reusable resource for high-speed event-vision research. However, the accuracy evaluation is narrow: it uses only the authors' synthetic dataset, contains no accuracy comparison against any baseline, and reports no error bars or repeated-run statistics. Moreover, the multi-object claim in the abstract and Fig. 6 is not supported by the architecture, which outputs exactly one pose and direction per speed bin. If scoped to one object per speed bin, the efficiency results stand; as written, the paper overclaims its functional capability.

major comments (3)
  1. [III-D, III-F, Fig. 6] The central claim that TOFFE estimates pose, direction, and speed for many independently moving objects is structurally inconsistent with the architecture. In Section III-D, each OFPD head outputs a single (x,y) pose and a single direction angle per speed bin, and in Section III-F the events for each speed bin are passed to one OFPD copy. If two objects move at speeds that fall in the same bin, their events are merged before OFPD, so the bin's head can return at most one centroid and one direction. The training setup (Section III-E) also uses inputs with a single moving object at a single speed, so the network never observes multi-object inputs. The manuscript should either explicitly restrict all claims to scenarios with at most one object per speed bin, or replace the single-head OFPD with a set-valued/region output and evaluate on a multi-object benchmark. As it stands, Fig. 6 overstates the method's capability.
  2. [IV-A, Table III, Conclusion] The accuracy evaluation is not sufficient to support the conclusion that TOFFE achieves "performance comparable to state-of-the-art object detection and optical flow methods." Table III reports only TOFFE's own pose, direction, and speed errors on the authors' synthetic dataset; there is no accuracy comparison against DOTIE, Adaptive-SpikeNet, or any other baseline, no error bars over dataset splits or repeated training runs, and no real-world validation. A comparison on a shared benchmark (or a clearly justified reason why such a comparison is infeasible) is needed for the claimed functional performance.
  3. [IV-A, Tables II and III] The reported speed error of 10.649 m/s at the optimal dt=500 is large relative to the speed-bin widths in Table II (bin 1 is 1–18 m/s, bin 2 is 18–42 m/s). This error is comparable to the width of bin 1, so a substantial fraction of speed estimates may be assigned to the wrong speed bin. The paper should report speed-classification accuracy (confusion matrix or per-bin accuracy) and discuss how the speed error affects the claimed speed-separation capability. Without this, the practical usefulness of the speed estimates for tracking is unclear.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III-C] There are several typos: "inforamtion" should be "information", "an frame" should be "a frame", and the caption of Fig. 3a contains a duplicated "for" ("trajectories for for TOFFE dataset").
  2. [III-E] "evetns" should be "events" in the description of OFS training.
  3. [III-F] The post-processing step in Eq. (3)–(4) uses a closing operation followed by inversion to mask higher-speed events; the sentence describing it says "The Closing operation ... incorporates dilation followed by erosion operations," which is the standard definition, but the text immediately after uses "and above" inconsistently ("events corresponding to speed > speedk and above"). Please clarify the ordering and the exact set of speeds removed.
  4. [IV-B, Table IV] The hybrid latency of 15.33 ms for TOFFE is described as "approximately 65 frames per second"; 1000/15.33 ≈ 65.2, so this is consistent, but the text should state whether this is per-inference latency or includes the post-processing overhead of the OFS masking steps, since that overhead is part of the inference pipeline.
  5. [III-D] The OFPD architecture is described as "a two layered convolutional network followed by a fully-connected layer," but no kernel sizes, channel counts, or final activation details are provided. Sufficient detail should be given to reproduce the network.
  6. [III-C] The paper states the dataset is "provided" but does not give a URL or repository reference. Please include the release location or state clearly that it is available upon request.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; TOFFE's central efficiency and accuracy claims are measured, not derived from their own assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: energy and latency (Table IV) are measured on CPU/GPU/edge GPU and hybrid Loihi-2/Jetson TX2 hardware, and pose/direction/speed errors (Table III) are evaluated on a held-out synthetic test split with simulator-generated ground truth. The OFS speed-separation component is a trained SNN and the OFPD pose/direction head is a trained ANN; the error metrics are computed against ground-truth labels rather than recovered from training targets. The baselines (Adaptive-SpikeNet [14], DOTIE [15]) are prior works from the same laboratory, but they are published, externally accessible systems and the comparison is a measurement, not a derivation; no load-bearing argument reduces to those self-citations. The TOFFE dataset is author-generated, but the test trajectories are held out and labels come from the simulator's pose logger, so accuracy is not constructed by definition. A scope limitation exists in the multi-object claim: the OFPD head outputs a single (x,y,angle) per speed bin (Section III-D) and training uses one object per input (Section III-E), so multiple objects sharing a speed bin cannot be resolved; however, this is a correctness/generalization gap, not a circularity, because the overclaim does not make the reported results equivalent to their inputs. The 'Object Flow' terminology is a renaming/simplification of optical flow for objects, but the paper does not present this renaming as a derivation. No equation is shown to be its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; 'Object Flow' is a task representation rather than an entity. The load-bearing choices are hand-set speed bins, the binning window, and the implicit single-object-per-bin assumption.

free parameters (4)
  • Speed bin boundaries = 1-18, 18-42, 42-84, 84-500 m/s
    Hand-chosen in Table II to define OFS training targets; bin-4 ceiling 500 m/s is set above the 144 m/s max programmed speed to absorb stray events.
  • Event time window dt = 500 (selected from 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000)
    Chosen after evaluating Table III; dt500 reported as optimal. Units not specified in the paper.
  • Number of event bins B = 5
    Fixed design choice for temporally binning the event stream into SNN timesteps.
  • Morphological kernel size = 5
    Used for closing and inversion in the OFS post-processing mask (Eq. 3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Discretizing raw events into B=5 bins in a time window preserves the temporal information needed for speed separation and pose estimation.
    Used in Section III-A to convert AER stream into a volume for SNN input; no analysis of information loss.
  • domain assumption LIF neuron dynamics with trainable threshold and leak can separate events by object speed.
    Section III-B and III-D; the paper does not prove or benchmark this against other temporal encodings.
  • domain assumption Gazebo DVS simulation at 20,000 samples/s with the specified sensor models faithfully represents real event-camera behavior for high-speed motion.
    Section III-C; no real-world validation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Training on inputs with a single moving object generalizes to scenes with many independently moving objects.
    Section III-E says each input has a single speed; Fig. 6 asserts multi-object inference without supporting experiments.
  • domain assumption The OFS cascade plus morphological closing masks cleanly separates speed classes without error accumulation.
    Section III-F, Eqs. (3) and (4); no sensitivity analysis of the mask size or cascade order.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TOFFE -- Temporally-binned Object Flow from Events for High-speed and Energy-Efficient Object Detection and Tracking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E25BSOKE

@misc{pith2026250112482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TOFFE -- Temporally-binned Object Flow from Events for High-speed and Energy-Efficient Object Detection and Tracking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E25BSOKE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12482}
}
read the original abstract

Object detection and tracking is an essential perception task for enabling fully autonomous navigation in robotic systems. Edge robot systems such as small drones need to execute complex maneuvers at high-speeds with limited resources, which places strict constraints on the underlying algorithms and hardware. Traditionally, frame-based cameras are used for vision-based perception due to their rich spatial information and simplified synchronous sensing capabilities. However, obtaining detailed information across frames incurs high energy consumption and may not even be required. In addition, their low temporal resolution renders them ineffective in high-speed motion scenarios. Event-based cameras offer a biologically-inspired solution to this by capturing only changes in intensity levels at exceptionally high temporal resolution and low power consumption, making them ideal for high-speed motion scenarios. However, their asynchronous and sparse outputs are not natively suitable with conventional deep learning methods. In this work, we propose TOFFE, a lightweight hybrid framework for performing event-based object motion estimation (including pose, direction, and speed estimation), referred to as Object Flow. TOFFE integrates bio-inspired Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) and conventional Analog Neural Networks (ANNs), to efficiently process events at high temporal resolutions while being simple to train. Additionally, we present a novel event-based synthetic dataset involving high-speed object motion to train TOFFE. Our experimental results show that TOFFE achieves 5.7x/8.3x reduction in energy consumption and 4.6x/5.8x reduction in latency on edge GPU(Jetson TX2)/hybrid hardware(Loihi-2 and Jetson TX2), compared to previous event-based object detection baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12482 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Color wheels for optical flow and object flow. Optical flow has a continuous speed representation while object flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) A Leaky-Integrate and Fire (LIF) spiking neuron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Train and Test set trajectories for for TOFFE dataset. b) Accumulated event-bin images corresponding to speeds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Data collection setup in Gazebo. an uncontrolled real-world enviornment. Some sensors such as event-based cameras aid in capturing high-speed motion in some datasets [44], [45], however the groundtruth generation for this data is still capped at a low temporal resoluti…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: TOFFE Training with four speeds (N=4). TOFFE is trained on many different objects, trajectories and speeds. TOFFE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: TOFFE Inference with four speeds (N=4). TOFFE can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.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. Neuro-LIFT: A Neuromorphic, LLM-based Interactive Framework for Autonomous Drone FlighT at the Edge

    cs.RO 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Neuro-LIFT integrates a fine-tuned Llama 3.2 model, a Davis346B event camera with a spiking neural network, and the EV-Planner to enable a Parrot Bebop2 drone to execute spoken navigation commands in an indoor ring-cr...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Vision for mobile robot navigation: A survey,

    G. N. DeSouza and A. C. Kak, “Vision for mobile robot navigation: A survey,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intel- ligence, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 237–267, 2002

    2002

  2. [2]

    Rapid object detection using a boosted cascade of simple features,

    P. Viola and M. Jones, “Rapid object detection using a boosted cascade of simple features,” in Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. CVPR 2001 , vol. 1, pp. I–I, Ieee, 2001

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection,

    N. Dalal and B. Triggs, “Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection,” in 2005 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR’05) , vol. 1, pp. 886–893, Ieee, 2005

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Object detection with discriminatively trained part-based models,

    P. F. Felzenszwalb, R. B. Girshick, D. McAllester, and D. Ramanan, “Object detection with discriminatively trained part-based models,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1627–1645, 2009

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Object detection with deep learning: A review,

    Z.-Q. Zhao, P. Zheng, S.-t. Xu, and X. Wu, “Object detection with deep learning: A review,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 30, no. 11, pp. 3212–3232, 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation,

    R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik, “Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 580–587, 2014

    2014

  7. [7]

    Faster r-cnn: Towards real- time object detection with region proposal networks,

    S. Ren, K. He, R. Girshick, and J. Sun, “Faster r-cnn: Towards real- time object detection with region proposal networks,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, and R. Garnett, eds.), vol. 28, Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2014 (D. Fleet, T. Pajdla, B. Schiele, and T. Tuytelaars, eds.), (Cham), pp. 346–361, Springer International Publishing, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,

    J. Redmon, S. Divvala, R. Girshick, and A. Farhadi, “You only look once: Unified, real-time object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 779–788, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Focal loss for dense object detection,

    T.-Y . Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He, and P. Doll ´ar, “Focal loss for dense object detection,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision , pp. 2980–2988, 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    Ssd: Single shot multibox detector,

    W. Liu, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, C. Szegedy, S. Reed, C.-Y . Fu, and A. C. Berg, “Ssd: Single shot multibox detector,” in Computer Vision– ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 14 , pp. 21–37, Springer, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    End-to-end object detection with transformers,

    N. Carion, F. Massa, G. Synnaeve, N. Usunier, A. Kirillov, and S. Zagoruyko, “End-to-end object detection with transformers,” in European conference on computer vision, pp. 213–229, Springer, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Planning-oriented autonomous driving,

    Y . Hu, J. Yang, L. Chen, K. Li, C. Sima, X. Zhu, S. Chai, S. Du, T. Lin, W. Wang, et al. , “Planning-oriented autonomous driving,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 17853–17862, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Adaptive-spikenet: event-based optical flow estimation using spiking neural networks with learnable neuronal dynamics,

    A. K. Kosta and K. Roy, “Adaptive-spikenet: event-based optical flow estimation using spiking neural networks with learnable neuronal dynamics,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 6021–6027, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Dotie-detecting objects through temporal isolation of events using a spiking architecture,

    M. Nagaraj, C. M. Liyanagedera, and K. Roy, “Dotie-detecting objects through temporal isolation of events using a spiking architecture,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4858–4864, IEEE, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Fly motion vision,

    A. Borst, J. Haag, and D. F. Reiff, “Fly motion vision,” Annual Review of Neuroscience, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 49–70, 2010. PMID: 20225934

    2010

  9. [17]

    Honeybee navigation en route to the goal: visual flight control and odometry,

    M. Srinivasan, S. Zhang, M. Lehrer, and T. Collett, “Honeybee navigation en route to the goal: visual flight control and odometry,” Journal of Experimental Biology , vol. 199, no. 1, pp. 237–244, 1996

    1996

  10. [18]

    Optic flow-based collision-free strategies: From insects to robots,

    J. R. Serres and F. Ruffier, “Optic flow-based collision-free strategies: From insects to robots,” Arthropod structure & development , vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 703–717, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    The silicon retina,

    M. Mahowald, “The silicon retina,” in An Analog VLSI System for Stereoscopic Vision, pp. 4–65, Springer, 1994

    1994

  12. [20]

    A low power, fully event-based gesture recognition system,

    A. Amir, B. Taba, D. Berg, T. Melano, J. McKinstry, C. Di Nolfo, T. Nayak, A. Andreopoulos, G. Garreau, M. Mendoza, et al., “A low power, fully event-based gesture recognition system,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pp. 7243–...

    2017

  13. [21]

    A 128 ×128 120 db 15 µs latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor,

    P. Lichtsteiner, C. Posch, and T. Delbruck, “A 128 ×128 120 db 15 µs latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor,” IEEE journal of solid-state circuits , vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 566–576, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    Enabling deep spiking neural networks with hybrid conversion and spike timing dependent backpropagation,

    N. Rathi, G. Srinivasan, P. Panda, and K. Roy, “Enabling deep spiking neural networks with hybrid conversion and spike timing dependent backpropagation,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Unflow: Unsupervised learning of optical flow with a bidirectional census loss,

    S. Meister, J. Hur, and S. Roth, “Unflow: Unsupervised learning of optical flow with a bidirectional census loss,” in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , vol. 32, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th International Conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, Pro- ceedings, Part III 18 ...

    2015

  17. [25]

    Ev-flownet: Self- supervised optical flow estimation for event-based cameras,

    A. Z. Zhu, L. Yuan, K. Chaney, and K. Daniilidis, “Ev-flownet: Self- supervised optical flow estimation for event-based cameras,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06898, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Spiking optical flow for event-based sensors using ibm’s truenorth neurosynaptic system,

    G. Haessig, A. Cassidy, R. Alvarez, R. Benosman, and G. Orchard, “Spiking optical flow for event-based sensors using ibm’s truenorth neurosynaptic system,” IEEE transactions on biomedical circuits and systems, vol. 12, pp. 860–870, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    A spiking neural network architecture for visual motion estimation,

    G. Orchard, R. Benosman, R. Etienne-Cummings, and N. V . Thakor, “A spiking neural network architecture for visual motion estimation,” in 2013 IEEE Biomedical Circuits and Systems Conference (BioCAS) , pp. 298–301, IEEE, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    Unsupervised learning of a hierarchical spiking neural network for optical flow esti- mation: From events to global motion perception,

    F. Paredes-Vall ´es, K. Y . Scheper, and G. C. De Croon, “Unsupervised learning of a hierarchical spiking neural network for optical flow esti- mation: From events to global motion perception,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 42, no. 8, pp....

    2019

  21. [29]

    Spike-flownet: event-based optical flow estimation with energy-efficient hybrid neural networks,

    C. Lee, A. K. Kosta, A. Z. Zhu, K. Chaney, K. Daniilidis, and K. Roy, “Spike-flownet: event-based optical flow estimation with energy-efficient hybrid neural networks,” in European Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 366–382, Springer, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Fast sensory motor control based on event-based hybrid neuromorphic-procedural system,

    T. Delbruck and P. Lichtsteiner, “Fast sensory motor control based on event-based hybrid neuromorphic-procedural system,” in 2007 IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems , pp. 845–848, IEEE, 2007

    2007

  23. [31]

    Robotic goalie with 3 ms reaction time at 4% cpu load using event-based dynamic vision sensor,

    T. Delbruck and M. Lang, “Robotic goalie with 3 ms reaction time at 4% cpu load using event-based dynamic vision sensor,” Frontiers in neuroscience, vol. 7, p. 223, 2013

    2013

  24. [32]

    Asynchronous event-based multikernel algorithm for high-speed vi- sual features tracking,

    X. Lagorce, C. Meyer, S.-H. Ieng, D. Filliat, and R. Benosman, “Asynchronous event-based multikernel algorithm for high-speed vi- sual features tracking,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1710–1720, 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    Event-based moving object detection and tracking,

    A. Mitrokhin, C. Fermuller, C. Parameshwara, and Y . Aloimonos, “Event-based moving object detection and tracking,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.04523, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A motion-based feature for event-based pattern recognition,

    X. Clady, J.-M. Maro, S. Barr ´e, and R. B. Benosman, “A motion-based feature for event-based pattern recognition,” Frontiers in neuroscience, vol. 10, p. 594, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Dart: distribution aware retinal transform for event-based cameras,

    B. Ramesh, H. Yang, G. Orchard, N. A. Le Thi, S. Zhang, and C. Xiang, “Dart: distribution aware retinal transform for event-based cameras,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence, vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 2767–2780, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Hats: Histograms of averaged time surfaces for robust event-based object classification,

    A. Sironi, M. Brambilla, N. Bourdis, X. Lagorce, and R. Benosman, “Hats: Histograms of averaged time surfaces for robust event-based object classification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 1731–1740, 2018

    2018

  29. [37]

    Adaptive temporal pooling for object detection using dynamic vision sensor.,

    J. Li, F. Shi, W.-H. Liu, D. Zou, Q. Wang, P. K. Park, and H. Ryu, “Adaptive temporal pooling for object detection using dynamic vision sensor.,” in BMVC, 2017

    2017

  30. [38]

    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 , pp. 0–0, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,

    M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, X. Xu, et al. , “A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,” in kdd, vol. 96, pp. 226–231, 1996

    1996

  32. [40]

    Lapicque’s introduction of the integrate-and-fire model neuron (1907),

    L. F. Abbott, “Lapicque’s introduction of the integrate-and-fire model neuron (1907),” Brain research bulletin, vol. 50, no. 5-6, pp. 303–304, 1999

    1907

  33. [41]

    Diet-snn: A low-latency spiking neural network with direct input encoding and leakage and threshold optimization,

    N. Rathi and K. Roy, “Diet-snn: A low-latency spiking neural network with direct input encoding and leakage and threshold optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,

    P. Sun, H. Kretzschmar, X. Dotiwalla, A. Chouard, V . Patnaik, P. Tsui, J. Guo, Y . Zhou, Y . Chai, B. Caine, et al., “Scalability in perception for autonomous driving: Waymo open dataset,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , ...

    2020

  35. [43]

    nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,

    H. Caesar, V . Bankiti, A. H. Lang, S. V ora, V . E. Liong, Q. Xu, A. Kr- ishnan, Y . Pan, G. Baldan, and O. Beijbom, “nuscenes: A multimodal dataset for autonomous driving,” in Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    The multivehicle stereo event camera dataset: An event camera dataset for 3d perception,

    A. Z. Zhu, D. Thakur, T. ¨Ozaslan, B. Pfrommer, V . Kumar, and K. Daniilidis, “The multivehicle stereo event camera dataset: An event camera dataset for 3d perception,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 2032–2039, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Dsec: A stereo event camera dataset for driving scenarios,

    M. Gehrig, W. Aarents, D. Gehrig, and D. Scaramuzza, “Dsec: A stereo event camera dataset for driving scenarios,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Fedora: Flying event dataset for reactive behavior,

    A. Joshi, A. Kosta, W. Ponghiran, M. Nagaraj, and K. Roy, “Fedora: Flying event dataset for reactive behavior,” 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    A 240 × 180 130 db 3 µs latency global shutter spatiotemporal vision sensor,

    C. Brandli, R. Berner, M. Yang, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “A 240 × 180 130 db 3 µs latency global shutter spatiotemporal vision sensor,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits , vol. 49, pp. 2333–2341, Oct 2014

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.