Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

FRED: The Florence RGB-Event Drone Dataset

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper presents FRED, the largest synchronized RGB-event drone dataset to date, and shows event-based detectors clearly outperform RGB-based ones across detection, tracking, and forecasting benchmarks.

desk verdict FRED is a genuinely new, useful event-RGB drone dataset, but its headline event-beats-RGB result rests on an unvalidated synchronization and an event-first annotation protocol that likely inflate the gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05163 v1 pith:JN7QT3L3 submitted 2025-06-05 cs.CV

Gabriele Magrini , Niccolò Marini , Federico Becattini , Lorenzo Berlincioni , Niccolò Biondi , Pietro Pala , Alberto Del Bimbo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords dronedetectioneventcameraneuromorphicvisionmultimodaldatasetobjecttrackingtrajectoryforecastingRGB-eventsynchronization
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 introduces FRED, a multimodal dataset that pairs more than seven hours of 1280x720 RGB video with event-camera streams, all spatiotemporally synchronized and densely annotated with drone bounding boxes and track IDs. It is designed to be the largest event-based drone dataset to date and the first to include benchmarks for drone tracking and trajectory forecasting alongside detection. Baseline experiments on the dataset show a clear gap: event-based detectors reach roughly 88 mAP50 on the standard split while the same RGB detectors reach only about 35, and event-only models also hold up far better under lighting and weather shifts. The paper argues that this gap, plus the complementary signals in the two modalities, makes FRED a useful testbed for high-speed drone perception and multimodal spatiotemporal learning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing artifact is the dataset itself: a hardware setup with a Prophesee EVK4 event camera and an HD RGB camera on a shared mount, distortion-corrected and padded into a common pixel reference frame, with timestamps aligned at recording start and event frames extracted at the RGB frame rate. Annotations are produced on the sparse event frames, where drones are easier to isolate, then transferred to RGB via the spatial-temporal correspondence, and refined through automatic spatter tracking, manual correction, and interpolation. The benchmarks encode protocol choices—detection evaluated with the COCO mAP family, tracking with CLEAR MOT metrics over a 33 ms evaluation interval, forecasting with ADE/FDE/mIoU over 0.4 s and 0.8 s horizons—that define what it means for a model to succeed on FRED.

What would settle it

Record a known periodic pattern, such as an LED blinking at a measured frequency, with both cameras at the start and end of each recording session; if the phase offset between the event stream's timestamps and the RGB frame times drifts or jitters by more than a frame over time, the cross-modal annotations become invalid for that segment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

FRED is presented as a new reference benchmark for drone perception: over 7 hours per modality of synchronized HD RGB and event streams from five drone models, with dense per-frame annotations, evaluation protocols, and canonical and challenging splits that deliberately separate easy images from domain-shifted hard cases. The central empirical claim is that event-based detectors substantially outperform RGB-only detectors on this data, with the best event model reaching 87.68 mAP50 versus 35.24 for the same YOLO architecture on RGB in the canonical split, and with a smaller gap persisting on the challenging split. The dataset is further claimed to be the first to offer event-based drone tracking and forecasting benchmarks, and the presented baselines indicate that event input alone, or combined with RGB, improves forecasting accuracy over box-only or RGB-only inputs. The authors state that fusing the modalities reduces the performance drop under distribution shift, showing the two streams capture complementary information.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that aligning the RGB and event camera start times once, together with a fixed 30 FPS RGB clock, keeps the two modalities temporally synchronized to pixel-and-frame accuracy across the entire 7-hour corpus, without measurable drift or jitter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Event-only drone detectors are a stronger starting point than RGB-only detectors for high-speed and low-light drone perception, at least on this data.
  • Combining event and RGB streams helps maintain detection accuracy when the visual domain shifts (e.g., day-to-night, rain, insects), narrowing the performance drop seen by single-modality models.
  • The first standardized event-based tracking and forecasting benchmarks mean future work can compare drone trackers and predictors on a common, reproducible protocol.
  • The challenging split provides a quantitative way to test robustness to distracting events and adverse conditions, not just average accuracy on easy frames.
  • With over 7 hours per modality and five drone models, the dataset supports training of data-hungry multimodal detectors and forecasting models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the event-vs-RGB gap generalizes beyond FRED, low-power drone detection systems may be able to deploy event-only sensors for many airspace-monitoring applications, using RGB only when texture or color matter.
  • The forecasting benchmarks could be extended to longer horizons and to predicting 3D position if depth or GPS telemetry were added, turning the data into a platform for interaction-aware trajectory prediction.
  • A direct check of the synchronization assumption—recording a blinking LED and measuring phase drift over time—would strengthen the dataset's claims and is a concrete experiment the authors do not report.
  • The fusion results suggest room for better fusion strategies; since event-only YOLO beats fused ER-DETR on the canonical split, a stronger event-RGB fusion that outperforms both is an open, testable target.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces FRED, a multimodal dataset combining RGB video and event streams for drone detection, tracking, and trajectory forecasting. The dataset contains more than 7 hours per modality captured at 1280x720 resolution, with five drone models and scenarios including rain, nighttime, and insect distractor presence. The authors provide two evaluation splits (canonical and challenging), define detection, tracking, and forecasting protocols, and report baselines using YOLO, RT-DETR, Faster-RCNN, and the authors' own ER-DETR model. The headline empirical claim is that event-based detectors clearly outperform RGB-based detectors on the canonical split (e.g., YOLO event mAP50 87.68 vs. RGB mAP50 35.24, Table 2).

Significance. If the dataset and its annotations hold up, FRED is the largest event-based drone dataset to date and the first to offer tracking and forecasting benchmarks, which would be a valuable contribution to neuromorphic vision and drone perception. The paper provides explicit task definitions, standard metrics, two splits, and baseline results, and the dataset is released openly. The resource is potentially very impactful for the community. However, the central empirical conclusion—that events are dramatically better than RGB—depends on unmeasured temporal synchronization and an annotation protocol that constructs ground truth on event frames and transfers it to RGB, so the significance is conditional on validation of this pipeline.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3 (Sensors)] The manuscript states that temporal synchronization is achieved by aligning the starting points of RGB and event recordings, with no measured synchronization error, drift, or jitter over the approximately 120-second recordings. This is load-bearing because the cross-modal annotations and the central event-vs-RGB comparison in Table 2 rely on per-frame alignment. At the reported maximum speed of 100 km/h for the Betafpv air75, a tens-of-millisecond offset can shift the drone by many pixels at typical ranges, which would systematically penalize RGB detectors whose labels came from event frames. I request a synchronization validation (e.g., a blinking LED or calibration target with known event/RGB timestamps), per-sequence sync error metadata, and a sensitivity analysis of the Table 2 results to simulated temporal offsets.
  2. [Section 3 (Annotation)] The annotation protocol creates bounding boxes on event frames and then transfers them to RGB frames, assuming the boxes are equally valid for both modalities. This assumption is questionable under the very conditions the dataset highlights, including motion blur, lens flare, shadows, and low light (Fig. 3). A box that is accurate on events may be systematically offset or have different extents on RGB appearance cues, and vice versa. Since the headline result (event detectors outperform RGB by a large margin) is obtained using these transferred labels, I request an RGB-native validation: annotate a random subset of RGB frames independently, report the agreement (e.g., mean IoU) between event-derived and RGB-native boxes, and re-evaluate the detection comparison on that subset. This is necessary to rule out that a large part of the 52-point mAP50 gap is an artifact of the annotation procedure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3] Several rows in Table 3 have missing separators, e.g., '57.147.6436' and '45.130177.4', making the MOTA, IDF1, and ID switch values ambiguous. Please reformat the table clearly.
  2. [Section 6 (Conclusions)] The first sentence contains a typo: 'neurmorphic' should be 'neuromorphic'.
  3. [Section 3 (Drones)] The reported maximum speed of 100 km/h for the Betafpv air75 is not clarified as measured or manufacturer-specified; please identify the source of this value.
  4. [Section 4 (Drone Trajectory Forecasting)] The loss weight λ is fixed at 0.5 with no ablation; a brief sensitivity check or a citation for the choice would help reproducibility.
  5. [Table 1] The table uses 'Rain' and 'Day/Night' columns, but VisEvent is marked as lacking rain despite the text mentioning adverse lighting; please make these categories consistent with the text or define them precisely.
  6. [General] The dataset is released at a project URL; providing a DOI or versioned release would improve archival stability and citeability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FRED's benchmark conclusions are empirical and self-contained; the minor internal aspects (self-defined splits, author's own ER-DETR as one baseline) are normal for a dataset paper.

full rationale

The paper is a dataset contribution, not a derivation. Its central claims are empirical: FRED is described as a new 7-hour RGB-event dataset, and the detection/tracking/forecasting results in Tables 2-4 are actual training and evaluation outcomes of standard architectures (YOLO, RT-DETR, Faster-RCNN, ByteTrack, LSTM, Transformer, CNN+Transformer) on the released splits. The headline event-vs-RGB gap (e.g., YOLO event mAP50 87.68 vs RGB 35.24) is not forced by construction: no parameter of these models is fitted to guarantee the gap, and the labels are not derived from the models' outputs. The annotation protocol (labels drawn on event frames then transferred to RGB thanks to synchronization, Section 3, Annotation) is a potential fairness/validity concern and is explicitly flagged by the skeptic, but it does not make the RGB results equivalent to the event results by definition; it is a measurement-bias risk, not circularity. The use of the authors' own prior method ER-DETR [12] as one of five baselines is a self-citation, but it is not load-bearing: the central comparison (Table 2) is dominated by external methods, and the conclusion that events beat RGB does not rest on ER-DETR's performance. The related-work comparisons (Table 1) and forecasting benchmarks are standard. The paper includes no uniqueness theorem, no fitted-parameter-renamed-as-prediction, and no result that reduces to its own assumptions by equation. The absence of measured temporal-synchronization drift, noted in Section 3 (Sensors), is a technical limitation that threatens cross-modal validity, but it does not rise to circularity under the criteria. Score 1 reflects the minor internal benchmark aspect rather than any derivation-level circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on unquantified calibration assumptions: the temporal offset, the spatial padding, and the transferability of event-based annotations to RGB. These are hand-tuned or assumed rather than measured. The forecasting baseline also uses a hand-chosen loss weight. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Temporal alignment offset (hand correction)
    Manual correction to align RGB and event stream start times; the paper gives no value or tolerance, yet the entire spatio-temporal synchronization claim depends on it (Section 3 Sensors).
  • RGB image padding width for x-axis shift
    Minor padding added around the RGB image to match the event camera's x-axis shift; exact amount not specified (Section 3 Sensors).
  • lambda (forecasting loss weight) = 0.5
    Scaling coefficient for the reconstruction term in the forecasting baselines; chosen by hand (Section 5).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Temporal synchronization is achieved by aligning start points with a fixed 30 FPS RGB clock and no drift.
    Section 3 Sensors: 'we opted for a mixture of software and handmade corrections... once we align the RGB and Event camera recordings starting point.' No drift or jitter measurement reported.
  • domain assumption Field-of-view alignment is achieved by undistortion plus padding, giving a shared pixel reference system.
    Section 3 Sensors: after undistortion, adding 'a minor padding around the RGB camera image' is assumed to produce a shared reference system.
  • domain assumption Annotations made on event frames transfer exactly to RGB frames.
    Section 3 Annotation: 'The resulting annotations are also valid for the RGB videos, thanks to the spatio-temporal synchronization.' This assumes the synchronization is exact enough for pixel-level box transfer.
  • ad hoc to paper The challenging split represents a meaningful domain shift.
    Section 3: the challenging split is described verbally ('a clear shift in data distribution') without a quantitative shift measure, so the 'challenging' label is defined by the authors' judgement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FRED: The Florence RGB-Event Drone Dataset." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JN7QT3L3

@misc{pith2026250605163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FRED: The Florence RGB-Event Drone Dataset},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JN7QT3L3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05163}
}
read the original abstract

Small, fast, and lightweight drones present significant challenges for traditional RGB cameras due to their limitations in capturing fast-moving objects, especially under challenging lighting conditions. Event cameras offer an ideal solution, providing high temporal definition and dynamic range, yet existing benchmarks often lack fine temporal resolution or drone-specific motion patterns, hindering progress in these areas. This paper introduces the Florence RGB-Event Drone dataset (FRED), a novel multimodal dataset specifically designed for drone detection, tracking, and trajectory forecasting, combining RGB video and event streams. FRED features more than 7 hours of densely annotated drone trajectories, using 5 different drone models and including challenging scenarios such as rain and adverse lighting conditions. We provide detailed evaluation protocols and standard metrics for each task, facilitating reproducible benchmarking. The authors hope FRED will advance research in high-speed drone perception and multimodal spatiotemporal understanding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05163 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In the Florence RGB-Event Drone dataset (FRED), RGB and Event frames are spatio-temporally synchronized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Fixed recordings in an evolving scenario, highlighting the Event camera resilience to RGB domain shifts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Challenging frames for the RGB and/or event modality. With adverse lighting conditions (night, shadows, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

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. SkyEV: RGB-Event UAV detection and tracking dataset and baseline

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper introduces SkyEV, a 2.17-hour RGB-event drone detection dataset with ego-motion and varied optics, plus a SAST+YOLOX fusion baseline.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Drone detection approach based on radio-frequency using convolutional neural network

    Sara Al-Emadi and Felwa Al-Senaid. Drone detection approach based on radio-frequency using convolutional neural network. In2020 IEEE International Conference on Informatics, IoT, and Enabling Technologies (ICIoT), pages 29–34. IEEE, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Neuromorphic event-based facial expression recognition

    Lorenzo Berlincioni, Luca Cultrera, Chiara Albisani, Lisa Cresti, Andrea Leonardo, Sara Picchioni, Federico Becattini, and Alberto Del Bimbo. Neuromorphic event-based facial expression recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 4109–4119, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Evaluating multiple object tracking performance: the clear mot metrics

    Keni Bernardin and Rainer Stiefelhagen. Evaluating multiple object tracking performance: the clear mot metrics. EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing, 2008:1–10, 2008

    2008

  4. [4]

    Davison, Jörg Conradt, Kostas Daniilidis, and Davide Scaramuzza

    Guillermo Gallego, Tobi Delbrück, Garrick Orchard, Chiara Bartolozzi, Brian Taba, Andrea Censi, Stefan Leutenegger, Andrew J. Davison, Jörg Conradt, Kostas Daniilidis, and Davide Scaramuzza. Event-based vision: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(1):154–180, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Recurrent vision transformers for object detection with event cameras

    Mathias Gehrig and Davide Scaramuzza. Recurrent vision transformers for object detection with event cameras. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 13884–13893, June 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Long short-term memory.Neural computation, 9(8):1735–1780, 1997

    Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory.Neural computation, 9(8):1735–1780, 1997

    1997

  7. [7]

    Temporal binary represen- tation for event-based action recognition

    Simone Undri Innocenti, Federico Becattini, Federico Pernici, and Alberto Del Bimbo. Temporal binary represen- tation for event-based action recognition. In2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 10426–10432. IEEE, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17725, 2024

    Rahima Khanam and Muhammad Hussain. Yolov11: An overview of the key architectural enhancements.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17725, 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. InComputer vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceedings,...

    2014

  2. [10]

    Drone detection using a low-power neuromorphic virtual tripwire

    Anton Lundin, Rasmus Winzell, Hanna Hamrell, David Gustafsson, and Hannes Ovren. Drone detection using a low-power neuromorphic virtual tripwire. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Ev-flying: an event-based dataset for in-the-wild recognition of flying objects

    Gabriele Magrini, Federico Becattini, Giovanni Colombo, and Pietro Pala. Ev-flying: an event-based dataset for in-the-wild recognition of flying objects. InComputer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2025

    2025

  4. [12]

    Neuromorphic drone detection: an event-rgb multimodal approach

    Gabriele Magrini, Federico Becattini, Pietro Pala, Alberto Del Bimbo, and Antonio Porta. Neuromorphic drone detection: an event-rgb multimodal approach. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    Towards real-time fast unmanned aerial vehicle detection using dynamic vision sensors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11875, 2024

    Jakub Mandula, Jonas Kühne, Luca Pascarella, and Michele Magno. Towards real-time fast unmanned aerial vehicle detection using dynamic vision sensors.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11875, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Towards real-time fast unmanned aerial vehicle detection using dynamic vision sensors

    Jakub Mandula, Jonas Kühne, Luca Pascarella, and Michele Magno. Towards real-time fast unmanned aerial vehicle detection using dynamic vision sensors. InProceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference (I2MTC), pages 1–6, 05 2024...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Dual view fusion detection method for event camera detection of unmanned aerial vehicles, 2024

    Li Miao, Chen Nuo, An Wei, Li Boyang, Ling Qiang, and Li Weixing. Dual view fusion detection method for event camera detection of unmanned aerial vehicles, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Learning to detect objects with a 1 megapixel event camera

    Etienne Perot, Pierre de Tournemire, Davide Nitti, Jonathan Masci, and Amos Sironi. Learning to detect objects with a 1 megapixel event camera. InProceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’20, Red Hook, NY , USA, 2020. Curr...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Learning to detect objects with a 1 megapixel event camera.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:16639–16652, 2020

    Etienne Perot, Pierre De Tournemire, Davide Nitti, Jonathan Masci, and Amos Sironi. Learning to detect objects with a 1 megapixel event camera.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:16639–16652, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation

    Charles R Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 652–660, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks.Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    Drone virtual fence using a neuromorphic camera

    Terrence Stewart, Marc-Antoine Drouin, Guillaume Gagne, and Guy Godin. Drone virtual fence using a neuromorphic camera. InInternational Conference on Neuromorphic Systems 2021, ICONS 2021, New York, NY , USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery

    2021

  14. [22]

    Drone virtual fence using a neuromorphic camera

    Terrence Stewart, Marc-Antoine Drouin, Guillaume Gagne, and Guy Godin. Drone virtual fence using a neuromorphic camera. InInternational Conference on Neuromorphic Systems 2021, pages 1–9, 2021

    2021

  15. [23]

    A virtual fence for drones: Efficiently detecting propeller blades with a dvxplorer event camera

    Terrence Stewart, Marc-Antoine Drouin, Michel Picard, Frank Billy Djupkep Dizeu, Anthony Orth, and Guillaume Gagné. A virtual fence for drones: Efficiently detecting propeller blades with a dvxplorer event camera. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Neuromorphic ...

    2022

  16. [24]

    Real-time drone detection and tracking with visible, thermal and acoustic sensors

    Fredrik Svanström, Cristofer Englund, and Fernando Alonso-Fernandez. Real-time drone detection and tracking with visible, thermal and acoustic sensors. In2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 7265–7272. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Mann, Alessandro Renzaglia, and Christian Laugier

    Abhishek Tomy, Anshul Paigwar, Khushdeep S. Mann, Alessandro Renzaglia, and Christian Laugier. Fusing event-based and rgb camera for robust object detection in adverse conditions. In2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 933–939, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Visevent: Reliable object tracking via collaboration of frame and event flows.IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2023

    Xiao Wang, Jianing Li, Lin Zhu, Zhipeng Zhang, Zhe Chen, Xin Li, Yaowei Wang, Yonghong Tian, and Feng Wu. Visevent: Reliable object tracking via collaboration of frame and event flows.IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Event stream-based visual object tracking: A high-resolution benchmark dataset and a novel baseline

    Xiao Wang, Shiao Wang, Chuanming Tang, Lin Zhu, Bo Jiang, Yonghong Tian, and Jin Tang. Event stream-based visual object tracking: A high-resolution benchmark dataset and a novel baseline. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, page...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Wang, Peiqi Duan, Oliver Cossairt, Aggelos Katsaggelos, Tiejun Huang, and Boxin Shi

    Zihao W. Wang, Peiqi Duan, Oliver Cossairt, Aggelos Katsaggelos, Tiejun Huang, and Boxin Shi. Joint filtering of intensity images and neuromorphic events for high-resolution noise-robust imaging. In2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pag...

    2020

  21. [29]

    Bytetrack: Multi-object tracking by associating every detection box

    Yifu Zhang, Peize Sun, Yi Jiang, Dongdong Yu, Fucheng Weng, Zehuan Yuan, Ping Luo, Wenyu Liu, and Xinggang Wang. Bytetrack: Multi-object tracking by associating every detection box. InEuropean conference on computer vision, pages 1–21. Springer, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Detrs beat yolos on real-time object detection

    Yian Zhao, Wenyu Lv, Shangliang Xu, Jinman Wei, Guanzhong Wang, Qingqing Dang, Yi Liu, and Jie Chen. Detrs beat yolos on real-time object detection. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16965–16974, 2024. 9

    2024

  23. [2022]

    Association for Computing Machinery

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.