Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Some Aspects of Geometric Computer Vision for Analysing Dynamical Scenes focusing Automotive Applications

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives the continuous relation between optical flow, scene depth, and camera motion, and uses it to unify the main algorithms for automotive visual odometry and moving-object detection.

desk verdict A useful automotive vision tutorial whose central flow equation has a sign error that propagates; fixable but unreliable as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06726 v1 pith:WM7SZRLW submitted 2019-08-19 cs.CV

Volker Willert , Martin Buczko This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords geometriccomputervisionopticalflowvisualodometryego-motionestimationstructurefrommotionepipolarconstraintplanargroundassumptionmovingobjectdetection
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

This draft reviews the geometric foundations needed to build real-time vision algorithms for cameras mounted on moving vehicles. Its central object is the continuous relation between optical flow, scene depth, and camera ego-motion, which the paper derives and then uses to organize the standard pipeline of optical-flow estimation, visual odometry, structure estimation, and outlier rejection. The paper's aim is to show that once this flow–depth–motion relation is in hand, the remaining algorithmic choices—discrete versus continuous motion models, reduced car-motion priors, planar-ground assumptions, and consistency checks—are mostly a matter of constraining the solution space of non-convex estimation problems. A sympathetic reader would take away a coherent map of how flow, structure, and ego-motion estimates are intertwined and which practical subtleties decide whether such a system works on a car.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the continuous optical-flow–ego-motion–structure relation (Eq. 16), obtained by differentiating the normalized perspective projection $x = X_C/Z_C$, $y = Y_C/Z_C$ and substituting the rigid-body twist equations (7)–(8). In intermediate form it reads $\dot{x} = \hat{\omega}x + \nu/Z_C - (\dot{Z}_C/Z_C)x$; solving the third component for $\dot{Z}_C/Z_C$ yields the explicit two-component flow formula. This identity does the paper's main work: eliminating depth from it produces the continuous epipolar constraint that static-point correspondences must satisfy; specializing it to car-like motion produces the three-parameter, one-parameter, and circular-motion models; and replacing depth by the planar-ground relation produces the ground-plane-motion model used in constrained direct methods.

What would settle it

Re-derive the second component of Eq. (16) directly from the paper's equations (8), (13), and (15): differentiate the normalized projection, solve the third row for $\dot{Z}_C/Z_C$, and substitute; if the resulting $v$ component does not match Eq. (16) exactly, the stated relation is falsified as written.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a calibrated camera moving rigidly through a static scene, the instantaneous optical flow at image point $(x,y)$ can be written exactly as $$u = \frac{\nu_1 - x\nu_3}{Z_C} + \omega_2(1+$x^{2}$) - \omega_3 y - \omega_1 x y, \qquad v = \frac{\nu_2 - y\nu_3}{Z_C} + \omega_1(1-$y^{2}$) + \omega_3 x + \omega_2 x y,$$ where $(\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3)$ is the camera's angular velocity, $(\nu_1,\nu_2,\nu_3)$ its translational velocity, and $Z_C$ the depth of the projected scene point. The paper's key observation is that the first terms depend on inverse depth while the rotational term is independent of depth. This split underlies the rest of the paper: it explains why rotational velocity can be estimated before any structure is known, why monocular translation is ambiguous up to a single scale, and how reduced motion models and planar-ground priors can turn the same equation into fast outlier-rejection and direct motion-estimation schemes for automotive cameras.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the formula that splits optical flow into a depth-dependent part and a depth-independent rotational part; if that formula has a sign or coefficient error, the downstream motion models and outlier rejections inherit the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rotation of a car-mounted camera can be estimated from image measurements alone, before any depth or structure is computed, because the rotational flow term is depth-independent.
  • A monocular system can recover translation only up to a single global scale; physical scale must come from a prior such as camera height over a planar ground, a known object size, or a stereo baseline.
  • Restricting the general six-degree-of-freedom motion to car-appropriate models (three-parameter, one-parameter, or circular motion) reduces ego-motion estimation to very small parameter fits, supporting real-time RANSAC-style outlier rejection.
  • Points that violate the epipolar constraint, or the positive-depth and positive-height constraints, are candidates for independent motion or measurement outliers, giving a direct link from ego-motion estimation to moving-object detection.
  • When depth is supplied or constrained, the same flow relation defines a warp for a photometric objective, so ego-motion can be estimated directly from image intensities without explicit feature matching.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The depth-independence of the rotational flow term suggests a practical self-check for a calibrated camera: fit the quadratic rotational flow model to flow measurements in a region of unknown depth, subtract it, and inspect the residual for structure; the paper does not develop this as a standalone calibration procedure.
  • The continuous-versus-discrete distinction could be made adaptive by estimating per-frame angular change and switching models when the change crosses a threshold; the paper presents the two models but leaves such a switching rule to the implementer.
  • Combining the circular-motion model with the planar-ground prior would yield a monocular scale estimate from a single tracked point plus known camera height; the paper treats these as separate priors, but their conjunction is a natural and inexpensive extension.
  • A quantitative version of the paper's reliability discussion could weight features by inverse depth and by the magnitude of their rotational contamination when solving for translation; this follows from Eq. (16) but is not formulated in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper is a tutorial-style survey of geometric relations underlying visual odometry, optical flow, and moving-object detection for automotive camera systems. It derives the continuous and discrete rigid-body motion models, the relation between optical flow, depth, and ego-motion, epipolar constraints, and reduced motion models suited to cars. It then reviews Lucas-Kanade optical flow and its efficient inverse compositional implementation, prior motion and scene models (planar ground, three-parameter and one-parameter car motion), direct and indirect ego-motion estimation, outlier-rejection strategies, and constraints for detecting moving objects. No new algorithms or experimental evaluations are presented; the contribution is a compact, practice-oriented restatement of known results and a compilation of relevant literature.

Significance. If corrected, this is a useful pedagogical and reference document for practitioners who need the standard continuous-time flow model and reduced automotive motion models. The paper's value lies in making explicit the assumptions behind the continuous versus discrete formulations, in connecting the flow equations to outlier-rejection and scale-estimation practice, and in pointing to degeneracies such as critical surfaces, insufficient parallax, and the twisted-pair ambiguity. The discussion of direct versus indirect methods and of reliability criteria for features is sensible and reflects current practice. The manuscript provides no code, data, or experiments, and its novelty is limited; its reliability depends entirely on the correctness of the displayed formulas, which is why the sign errors discussed below are decisive for its current status.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (16)] The v-component of Eq. (16) is inconsistent with the paper's own kinematic model Eq. (8). From the third row of Eq. (15) one obtains dot Z / Z = omega_1 y - omega_2 x + nu_3 / Z. Substituting this into the second row of Eq. (15) gives v = (nu_2 - y nu_3)/Z + omega_3 x - omega_1 - omega_1 y^2 + omega_2 x y = (nu_2 - y nu_3)/Z - omega_1 (1 + y^2) + omega_3 x + omega_2 x y. The paper prints +omega_1 (1 - y^2) instead. The first row of Eq. (16) is consistent with Eq. (8), so this is not a global sign-convention issue but an internal algebraic inconsistency. Since Eq. (16) is the basis for the depth/rotation separation and is reused in Eq. (47), in the ground-plane motion model of Section 4.2.3, and in the Scaramuzza re-parameterization of Section 4.2.3, all downstream motion models inherit the wrong rotational coefficient. The correction must be propagated through these equations.
  2. [Section 4.2.2 and Section 4.2.3, Eq. (47) and ground-plane model] The reduced three-parameter model in Eq. (47) repeats the incorrect term +omega_1 (1 - y^2). With nu_1 = nu_2 = omega_3 = 0, the corrected version is v = -y nu_3 / Z - omega_1 (1 + y^2) + omega_2 x y. The same incorrect term appears in the ground-plane motion model of Section 4.2.3 and in the Scaramuzza re-parameterization, where the printed v-component should be -cos(theta) (1 + y^2), not +cos(theta) (1 - y^2). These reduced models are explicitly presented as the basis for outlier rejection and 1-point RANSAC, so the sign error changes the predicted flow and hence the rejection thresholds and motion estimates derived from them.
  3. [Section 4.1.1, Eq. (45)] The homography formula in Eq. (45) contains a sign error in its third column. For a point on the plane n^T XC = d, solving gives ZC = (d - n1 XC - n2 YC)/n3. Substituting this into lambda x' = pi_1 XC + pi_2 YC + pi_3 ZC + pi_4 yields the constant term pi_4 + (d/n3) pi_3, not pi_4 - (d/n3) pi_3. For the canonical projection pi = [I | 0], the printed third row of H becomes [-n1/n3, -n2/n3, -d/n3], which maps points on the plane to the wrong depth; the correct third entry is +d/n3. This should be corrected because the planar-ground assumption is used later in the scale-estimation and reduced-motion-model discussion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The manuscript contains numerous typos and stylistic inconsistencies, including 'diffeti-ation' in Section 2, 'kalibration matrix' in Eq. (11), 'Horn and Schunk' for 'Horn and Schunck', and inconsistent use of 'Lucas-Kanade' versus 'Lukas-Kanade'. A careful copy-edit is needed.
  2. [Section 4.2.3] The phrase 'ground plane is parallel to the YZ-plane' is wrong for the stated normal n = (0,1,0); a plane with this normal is parallel to the XZ-plane (or, in the usual automotive convention, horizontal). The wording should be corrected to 'parallel to the XZ-plane' or 'with normal along the Y-axis'.
  3. [References] Reference [10] has blank page numbers '(pp. )', and several other entries lack complete bibliographic data (e.g., [44], [45]). The reference list should be standardized.
  4. [Section 2.6, Eqs. (29)-(30)] The notation in Eqs. (29)-(30) mixes times t and t - Delta t without an explicit statement of which frame is the reference frame; defining the reference frame and the convention for Delta t would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flow equation is derived from the stated kinematic and projection models rather than fitted, renamed, or imported from a self-citation.

full rationale

This manuscript is a tutorial/review, and its central derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. Equation (16) is obtained by combining the kinematic twist model (8), the normalized perspective projection (13), and its temporal derivative (14), then eliminating depth through the third row of (15). Each quantity is defined independently, and no parameter is fitted to the target relation; the translational/rotational split is a consequence of the algebra, not an input. The continuous and discrete epipolar constraints (17)-(18) and (22)-(25) likewise follow directly from the derived relations, and the reduced motion models in Section 4 are advertised restrictions of (16), not renamed predictions. The many self-citations are used for literature pointers, practical recommendations such as estimating rotation first, and references to previously published algorithms; none is invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem or as the source of the central derivation. The Scaramuzza circular-motion reduction in Section 4.2.3 applies an externally published motion model to the textbook flow equation, so it is an application rather than a circular step. The algebraic sign discrepancy in the v-component of (16) noted by the reader is a correctness or consistency concern, not an instance of circular reasoning: it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters, fitted constants, or invented entities. It reuses standard geometry and standard modeling assumptions from the cited literature. The assumptions listed are the ones the tutorial's equations depend on.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pinhole camera model with known intrinsics K.
    Used in Eq. (9)-(12); all depth and flow relations assume a calibrated camera.
  • domain assumption Brightness constancy: I(x,t) is approximately I(x+u, t+delta t).
    Foundation of Lucas-Kanade optical flow (Eq. 31) and the direct method (Eq. 50).
  • domain assumption Camera motion as a rigid-body SE(3) transformation; the continuous case assumes small acceleration.
    Eq. (1) and Eq. (7); neglects vehicle dynamics and large acceleration changes.
  • domain assumption Planar ground assumption for scale estimation and reduced motion models.
    Section 4.1.1 and Eq. (54); used for monocular scale recovery and outlier rejection in automotive scenes.
  • domain assumption Feature correspondences satisfy epipolar constraints and positive depth constraints.
    Section 2.3 and 6.4; used in RANSAC and moving-object detection algorithms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Some Aspects of Geometric Computer Vision for Analysing Dynamical Scenes focusing Automotive Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WM7SZRLW

@misc{pith2026190806726,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Some Aspects of Geometric Computer Vision for Analysing Dynamical Scenes focusing Automotive Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WM7SZRLW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06726}
}
read the original abstract

This draft summarizes some basics about geometric computer vision needed to implement efficient computer vision algorithms for applications that use measurements from at least one digital camera mounted on a moving platform with a special focus on automotive applications processing image streams taken from cameras mounted on a car. Our intention is twofold: On the one hand, we would like to introduce well-known basic geometric relations in a compact way that can also be found in lecture books about geometric computer vision like [1, 2]. On the other hand, we would like to share some experience about subtleties that should be taken into account in order to set up quite simple but robust and fast vision algorithms that are able to run in real time. We added a conglomeration of literature, we found to be relevant when implementing basic algorithms like optical flow, visual odometry and structure from motion. The reader should get some feeling about how the estimates of these algorithms are interrelated, which parts of the algorithms are critical in terms of robustness and what kind of additional assumptions can be useful to constrain the solution space of the underlying usually non-convex optimization problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06726 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The basic idea of consecutive motion estimation. Flow components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rigid-body motion of a camera with respect to the cam￾era frame (see direction of trans￾lation in cyan) [9]. XW YW ZW XW pW RCW (t) XC YC ZC XC(t) TW(t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Perspective projection from 3D world coordinates to 2D pixel coordi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Optical flow u at image coordinate x induced by a continuous camera motion (ω, ν) and a fixed scene point p with coordinates XC. Equation (16) shows, that if the depth ZC is not known, then only the ratios ν1/ZC, ν2/ZC, ν3/ZC or in other words only the direction of the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Planar ground assumption and homography. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of a B-spline fit along the longitudinal direction taken from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: An example of a free space detection taken from [34]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Camera movements consisting of three translational components, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Circular motion model of Scaramuzza [36]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The classical visual odometry pipeline taken from Scaramuzza [15]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The height over ground and planar surface model for scale estimation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ground plane estimation from 3D points lying on the ground (green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ground plane normal estimation from vanishing point using vertical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Side view: Positive depth constraint. The camera is moving from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Side view: Positive height constraint. The camera is moving from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ma, Y., Soatto, S., Kosecka, J., Sastry, S. S. (2012): An invitation to 3-d vision: from images to geometric models. Springer Science & Business Media

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    (2003): Multiple view geometry in com- puter vision

    Hartley, R., Zisserman, A. (2003): Multiple view geometry in com- puter vision. Cambridge university press

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    (2008): Probabilistic Optical Flow Estimation for Large Pixel Dis- placements Utilizing Egomotion Flow Compensation

    Willert, V., Schmuedderich, J., Eggert, J., Goerick, C., Koerner, E. (2008): Probabilistic Optical Flow Estimation for Large Pixel Dis- placements Utilizing Egomotion Flow Compensation. In British Ma- chine Vision Conference (BMVC) (pp. 1-10)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    (2008): Estimating Objects Proper Motion using Optical Flow, Kinematics and Depth Information

    Schmuedderich, J., Willert, V., Eggert, J., Rebhan, S., Goerick, C., Sagerer, G., Koerner, E. (2008): Estimating Objects Proper Motion using Optical Flow, Kinematics and Depth Information. In: IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B, 38 (4) 1139 - 1151

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    (2009): Es- timating objects proper motion using optical flow, kinematics, and depth information

    Willert, V., Schmuedderich, J., Rebhan, S., Eggert, J. (2009): Es- timating objects proper motion using optical flow, kinematics, and depth information. European Patent

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    C., Prazdny, K

    Longuet-Higgins, H. C., Prazdny, K. (1980): The interpretation of a moving retinal image. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 208(1173), 385-397

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    (2006): Recurrent visual motion segmentation

    Willert, V. (2006): Recurrent visual motion segmentation. PhD The- sis, TU Darmstadt, VDI Fortschritt-Berichte, Reihe 8, Nr. 1101

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    (2007): Motion Seg- mentation Using Inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks

    Toussaint, M., Willert, V., Eggert, J., Koerner, E. (2007): Motion Seg- mentation Using Inference in Dynamic Bayesian Networks. In BMVC (pp. 1-10). 29

    work page 2007

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    (2012): Image processing for engineers – Basics of image- guided measuring and control

    Willert, V. (2012): Image processing for engineers – Basics of image- guided measuring and control. Lecture slides, TU Darmstadt

    2012

  2. [10]

    (2016): How to Distinguish Inliers from Out- liers in Visual Odometry for High-Speed Automotive Applications

    Buczko, M., Willert, V. (2016): How to Distinguish Inliers from Out- liers in Visual Odometry for High-Speed Automotive Applications. In Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2016 IEEE (pp. ). IEEE

    2016

  3. [11]

    (2016): Flow-decoupled normalized repro- jection error for visual odometry

    Buczko, M., Willert, V. (2016): Flow-decoupled normalized repro- jection error for visual odometry. In 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 1161- 1167). IEEE

    2016

  4. [12]

    (2017): Monocular outlier detection for vi- sual odometry

    Buczko, M., Willert, V. (2017): Monocular outlier detection for vi- sual odometry. In 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (pp. 739-745). IEEE

    2017

  5. [13]

    (2004): An efficient solution to the five-point relative pose problem

    Nist´ er, D. (2004): An efficient solution to the five-point relative pose problem. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transac- tions on, 26(6), 756-770

    2004

  6. [14]

    (2012): An efficient hidden variable approach to minimal-case camera motion estimation

    Hartley, R., Li, H. (2012): An efficient hidden variable approach to minimal-case camera motion estimation. Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on, 34(12), 2303-2314

    2012

  7. [15]

    (2011): Visual odometry: Part I: The first 30 years and fundamentals

    Scaramuzza, D., Fraundorfer, F. (2011): Visual odometry: Part I: The first 30 years and fundamentals. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine, 18(4), 80-92

    2011

  8. [16]

    (2012): Visual odometry: Part II: Matching, robustness, optimization, and applications

    Fraundorfer, F., Scaramuzza, D. (2012): Visual odometry: Part II: Matching, robustness, optimization, and applications. Robotics and Automation Magazine, IEEE, 19(2), 78-90

    2012

  9. [17]

    (2004): Keyframe selection for camera motion and structure estimation from multiple views

    Thormaehlen, T., Broszio, H., Weissenfeld, A. (2004): Keyframe selection for camera motion and structure estimation from multiple views. In Computer Vision-ECCV 2004 (pp. 523-535). Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2004

  10. [18]

    (2014): SVO: Fast semi- direct monocular visual odometry

    Forster, C., Pizzoli, M., Scaramuzza, D. (2014): SVO: Fast semi- direct monocular visual odometry. In Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 15-22). IEEE

    2014

  11. [19]

    (2015): Large-scale direct slam with stereo cameras

    Engel, J., St¨ uckler, J., Cremers, D. (2015): Large-scale direct slam with stereo cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)

    2015

  12. [20]

    D., Kanade, T

    Lucas, B. D., Kanade, T. (1981): An iterative image registration technique with an application to stereo vision. In IJCAI (Vol. 81, pp. 674-679)

    1981

  13. [21]

    Bouguet, J. Y. (2001): Pyramidal implementation of the affine lucas kanade feature tracker description of the algorithm. Intel Corporation, 5(1-10), 4

    2001

  14. [22]

    (2004): Lucas-Kanade 20 years on: A unify- ing framework

    Baker, S., Matthews, I. (2004): Lucas-Kanade 20 years on: A unify- ing framework. International journal of computer vision, 56(3), 221- 255

    2004

  15. [23]

    (2007): Uncer- tainty optimization for robust dynamic optical flow estimation

    Willert, V., Toussaint, M., Eggert, J., Koerner, E. (2007): Uncer- tainty optimization for robust dynamic optical flow estimation. In Sixth International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA 2007) (pp. 450-457). IEEE. 30

    2007

  16. [24]

    (2008): Proba- bilistic Exploitation of the Lucas and Kanade Smoothness Constraint

    Willert, V., Eggert, J., Toussaint, M., Koerner, E. (2008): Proba- bilistic Exploitation of the Lucas and Kanade Smoothness Constraint. In Machine Learning and Applications, 2008. ICMLA’08. Seventh In- ternational Conference on (pp. 259-266). IEEE

    2008

  17. [25]

    (2005): Non-gaussian velocity distributions integrated over space, time, and scales

    Willert, V., Eggert, J., Adamy, J., Koerner, E. (2005): Non-gaussian velocity distributions integrated over space, time, and scales. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernet- ics), 36(3), 482-493

    2005

  18. [26]

    (2009): A stochastic dynamical system for optical flow estimation

    Willert, V., Eggert, J. (2009): A stochastic dynamical system for optical flow estimation. In Computer Vision Workshops (ICCV Work- shops), 2009 IEEE 12th International Conference on (pp. 711-718). IEEE

    2009

  19. [27]

    (2003): Lucas-Kanade 20 years on: A uni- fying framework: Part 2

    Baker, S., Matthews, I. (2003): Lucas-Kanade 20 years on: A uni- fying framework: Part 2. The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

    2003

  20. [28]

    (2018): Self- validation for automotive visual odometry

    Buczko, M., Willert, V., Schwehr, J., Adamy, J. (2018): Self- validation for automotive visual odometry. In 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (pp. 1-6). IEEE

    2018

  21. [29]

    Willert, V., Adamy, J

    Schreier, M. Willert, V., Adamy, J. (2014): Grid Mapping in Dy- namic Road Environments: Classification of Dynamic Cell Hypothe- sis via Tracking. In: IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Hong Kong, China

    2014

  22. [30]

    (2012): Robust free space detection in occu- pancy grid maps by methods of image analysis and dynamic B-spline contour tracking

    Schreier, M., Willert, V. (2012): Robust free space detection in occu- pancy grid maps by methods of image analysis and dynamic B-spline contour tracking. In 2012 15th International IEEE Conference on In- telligent Transportation Systems (pp. 514-521). IEEE

    2012

  23. [31]

    (2013): From grid maps to para- metric free space maps?A highly compact, generic environment rep- resentation for ADAS

    Schreier, M., Willert, V., Adamy, J. (2013): From grid maps to para- metric free space maps?A highly compact, generic environment rep- resentation for ADAS. In 2013 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (pp. 938-944). IEEE

    2013

  24. [32]

    (2015): Compact representation of dynamic driving environments for ADAS by parametric free space and dynamic object maps

    Schreier, M., Willert, V., Adamy, J. (2015): Compact representation of dynamic driving environments for ADAS by parametric free space and dynamic object maps. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems, 17(2), 367-384

    2015

  25. [33]

    (2009): B-spline modeling of road surfaces with an application to free- space estimation

    Wedel, A., Badino, H., Rabe, C., Loose, H., Franke, U., Cremers, D. (2009): B-spline modeling of road surfaces with an application to free- space estimation. Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE Transac- tions on, 10(4), 572-583

    2009

  26. [34]

    (2015): Free Space Detection: A Corner Stone of Au- tomated Driving

    Neumann, L., Vanholme, B., Gressmann, M., Bachmann, A., Kahlke, L., Schule, F. (2015): Free Space Detection: A Corner Stone of Au- tomated Driving. In Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on (pp. 1280-1285). IEEE

    2015

  27. [35]

    P., Mano, O., Shashua, A

    Stein, G. P., Mano, O., Shashua, A. (2000): A robust method for computing vehicle ego-motion. In Intelligent Vehicles Symposium,

    2000

  28. [36]

    (2009): Real-time monocular visual odometry for on-road vehicles with 1-point ransac

    Scaramuzza, D., Fraundorfer, F., Siegwart, R. (2009): Real-time monocular visual odometry for on-road vehicles with 1-point ransac. In Robotics and Automation, 2009. ICRA’09. IEEE International Con- ference on (pp. 4293-4299). IEEE

    2009

  29. [37]

    (2014): LSD-SLAM: Large-scale direct monocular SLAM

    Engel, J., Schoeps, T., Cremers, D. (2014): LSD-SLAM: Large-scale direct monocular SLAM. In Computer Vision?ECCV 2014 (pp. 834- 849). Springer International Publishing

    2014

  30. [38]

    (2015): Stereo odometry based on careful fea- ture selection and tracking

    Cvisic, I., Petrovic, I. (2015): Stereo odometry based on careful fea- ture selection and tracking. In European Conference on Mobile Robots 2015

    2015

  31. [39]

    (2014): Robust scale estimation in real- time monocular SFM for autonomous driving

    Song, S., Chandraker, M. (2014): Robust scale estimation in real- time monocular SFM for autonomous driving. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2014 IEEE Conference on (pp. 1566- 1573). IEEE

    2014

  32. [40]

    (2011): Stereoscan: Dense 3d recon- struction in real-time

    Geiger, A., Ziegler, J., Stiller, C. (2011): Stereoscan: Dense 3d recon- struction in real-time. IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (Baden- Baden, Germany)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Grater, J., Schwarze, T., Lauer, M. (2015). Robust scale estimation for monocular visual odometry using structure from motion and van- ishing points. In Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2015 IEEE (pp. 475-480). IEEE

    2015

  34. [42]

    Amit and E

    A. Amit and E. Rivlin and I. Shimshoni (2001): ROR: Rejection of outliers by rotations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

    2001

  35. [43]

    Grinstead and others (2006): Improving video-based robot self lo- calization through outlier removal

    B. Grinstead and others (2006): Improving video-based robot self lo- calization through outlier removal. Proceedings of the 1st Joint Emer. Prep. & Response/Robotic & Remote Sys. Top. Mtg

    2006

  36. [44]

    Santana and L

    P. Santana and L. Correia (2008): Improving visual odometry by removing outliers in optic flow

    2008

  37. [45]

    Olson and L.H

    C.F. Olson and L.H. Matthies and M. Schoppers and M.W. Mai- mone (2000): Robust Stereo Ego-motion for Long Distance Naviga- tion IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Proceedings

    2000

  38. [46]

    S¨ underhauf and K

    N. S¨ underhauf and K. Konolige and S. Lacroix and P. Protzel (2005): Visual Odometry Using Sparse Bundle Adjustment on an Autonomous Outdoor Vehicle. Autonome Mobile Systeme 2005,Springer Berlin Hei- delberg

    2005

  39. [47]

    Badino and T

    H. Badino and T. Kanade (2011): A Head-Wearable Short-Baseline Stereo System for the Simultaneous Estimation of Structure and Mo- tion. IAPR Conference on Machine Vision Application

    2011

  40. [48]

    Fischler and R

    M. Fischler and R. Bolles (1981): Random Sample Consensus: A Paradigm for Model Fitting with Applications to Image Analysis and Automated Cartography. Communications of the ACM 24.6

    1981

  41. [49]

    Maimone and C

    M. Maimone and C. Yang and L. Matthies (2007): Two years of visual odometry on the mars exploration rovers. Journal of Field Robotics 24.3. 32

    2007

  42. [50]

    Kitt and A

    B. Kitt and A. Geiger and H. Lategahn (2010): Visual odometry based on stereo image sequences with ransac-based outlier rejection scheme. IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium

    2010

  43. [51]

    Bellavia and others (2013): Robust selective stereo slam with- out loop closure and bundle adjustment

    F. Bellavia and others (2013): Robust selective stereo slam with- out loop closure and bundle adjustment. International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing, Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2013

  44. [52]

    Scaramuzza (2011): 1-point-ransac structure from motion for vehicle-mounted cameras by exploiting non-holonomic constraints

    D. Scaramuzza (2011): 1-point-ransac structure from motion for vehicle-mounted cameras by exploiting non-holonomic constraints. In- ternational Journal of Computer Vision 95.1

    2011

  45. [53]

    Raguram and F

    R. Raguram and F. M. Frahm and M. Pollefeys (2008): A compar- ative analysis of RANSAC techniques leading to adaptive real-time random sample consensus. European Conference on Computer Vision

    2008

  46. [54]

    (2015): Robust stereo visual odometry from monocular techniques

    Persson, M., Piccini, T., Felsberg, M., Mester, R. (2015): Robust stereo visual odometry from monocular techniques. In Intelligent Ve- hicles Symposium (IV), 2015 IEEE (pp. 686-691). IEEE

    2015

  47. [55]

    (2006): Monocular motion de- tection using spatial constraints in a unified manner

    Klappstein, J., Stein, F., Franke, U. (2006): Monocular motion de- tection using spatial constraints in a unified manner. In Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2006 IEEE (pp. 261-267). IEEE

    2006

  48. [56]

    (2008): A model-selection frame- work for multibody structure-and-motion of image sequences

    Schindler, K., Suter, D., Wang, H. (2008): A model-selection frame- work for multibody structure-and-motion of image sequences. Inter- national Journal of Computer Vision, 79(2), 159-177

    2008

  49. [57]

    (2013): Piecewise rigid scene flow

    Vogel, C., Schindler, K., Roth, S. (2013): Piecewise rigid scene flow. In Computer Vision (ICCV), 2013 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1377-1384). IEEE

    2013

  50. [58]

    (2015): 3D Scene Flow Estimation with a Piecewise Rigid Scene Model

    Vogel, C., Schindler, K., Roth, S. (2015): 3D Scene Flow Estimation with a Piecewise Rigid Scene Model. International Journal of Com- puter Vision, 115(1), 1-28

    2015

  51. [59]

    (2012): Unsupervised learning of motion patterns

    Guthier, T., Eggert, J., Willert, V. (2012): Unsupervised learning of motion patterns. In ESANN

    2012

  52. [60]

    (2013): Non-negative sparse coding for motion extraction

    Guthier, T., Willert, V., Schnall, A., Kreuter, K., Eggert, J. (2013): Non-negative sparse coding for motion extraction. In The 2013 In- ternational Joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN) (pp. 1-8). IEEE

    2013

  53. [61]

    (2015): Topological sparse learn- ing of dynamic form patterns

    Guthier, T., Willert, V., Eggert, J. (2015): Topological sparse learn- ing of dynamic form patterns. Neural computation, 27(1), 42-73. 33

    2015

  54. [2000]

    Proceedings of the IEEE (pp

    IV 2000. Proceedings of the IEEE (pp. 362-368). IEEE. 31

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.