Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

MATE: Motion-Augmented Temporal Consistency for Event-based Point Tracking

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MATE reports that an event stream alone can track arbitrary points more accurately and over longer horizons than video-based and fusion baselines.

desk verdict The motion-guidance idea is sensible and the ablations back it, but the ground-truth-frequency-dependent time-surface window leaks oracle info into every reported metric, so the headline numbers are not yet trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01300 v2 pith:ZYRI2STU submitted 2024-12-02 cs.CV

Han Han , Wei Zhai , Yang Cao , Bin Li , Zheng-jun Zha This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords eventcamerastrackinganypointevent-basedtimesurfacemotionguidancetemporalconsistencyfeaturesimulateddatasets
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

Trajectory tracking methods that work from ordinary video assume motion is smooth between frames, so they lose points during fast or nonlinear motion. This paper claims that event cameras, which emit sparse brightness-change spikes at microsecond resolution, contain enough continuous motion information to track arbitrary surface points more accurately and for longer than video-based methods. The proposed framework, MATE, adds two modules: a motion-guidance module that reads local kinematic vectors from the event time surface, and a variable-motion aware module that keeps appearance matching stable when object speed changes. On simulated event versions of two tracking-any-point datasets, MATE reports a 17.9% relative improvement in $Survival_{50}$ over the event-only baseline, and on standard feature-tracking benchmarks it reports the best results in its comparisons, including against methods that use both events and video. If these results hold, event-only tracking could replace frame-based pipelines in fast-motion and low-power settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the time surface and two modules. The time surface is a per-pixel map that stores the timestamp of the most recent event, encoding motion history instead of intensity. The Motion-Guidance Module treats that map as a surface in $xyt$ space, fits a tangent plane to neighboring pixels with SVD, and uses its spatial gradients as kinematic vectors that estimate local motion tendency; an MLP reweights these vectors across time to correct ambiguities at object boundaries. The Variable Motion Aware Module takes local feature patches at times $t$, $t-2$, and $t-4$, aligns them under the kinematic vectors, fuses them by cross-attention, and passes them through a short-term temporal convolution plus a long-term temporal attention branch to produce correlation maps $C^{k}$. A transformer then takes the point positions $X^{k}$, kinematic vectors $V^{k}$, and correlation maps $C^{k}$ and iteratively predicts the displacement $\Delta X$ that updates the trajectory.

What would settle it

Re-run the Ev-PointOdyssey and Ev-Davis evaluations with the time-surface window length selected without ground-truth frequency (for example, fixed, or adapted from observed event rates), and check whether $Survival_{50}$ and median trajectory error still beat Ev-PIPs++ and the video baselines in Table 1; if the gap shrinks or reverses, the central practical claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

MATE's central claim is that an event stream alone can track arbitrary physical surface points more accurately and over longer horizons than video-based trackers, because events do not have a blind time between frames. The paper constructs simulated event versions of the PointOdyssey and TAP-Vid-Davis datasets, trains MATE on Ev-PointOdyssey, and reports the best numbers in its comparisons on four test sets: on Ev-PointOdyssey it reaches a $Survival_{50}$ of 0.560 against 0.475 for Ev-PIPs++ (a 17.9% relative gain) and a median trajectory error of 25.63 pixels, below the video-only PIPs++ at 26.95; on Ev-Davis it reaches 0.928 $Survival_{16}$ and an MTE of 3.47. On the EC and EDS feature-tracking benchmarks, it reports higher Feature Age than baselines that include event-plus-video methods such as FE-TAP and ETAP. The paper interprets this as evidence that motion guidance and temporal consistency, not appearance alone, should carry the matching signal for long-horizon point correspondence.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy depends on setting the time-surface window length using the ground-truth event frequency; in a real deployment that frequency is unknown, and the paper does not test how well MATE performs without that knowledge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Event-only point tracking can in principle replace video input for tracking-any-point under fast motion, since events sample motion continuously instead of interpolating it across blind times.
  • Fusing events with video frames may not be required to reach top accuracy on the tested feature-tracking benchmarks; the event-only model reports higher Feature Age than the frame-event baselines.
  • The framework's small parameter count (6.6M) suggests event-based trackers can be deployed on lower-power platforms such as drones and embedded agents.
  • Long-horizon tracking improves when later time steps are weighted more heavily in the loss, so the training objective can directly shape survival time.
  • The time-surface plane-fit provides a cheap per-point velocity estimate that can support corridor searches during matching, reducing the appearance ambiguity that limits event-based trackers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the biggest unmeasured risk is outside-lab deployment; if the time-surface window cannot use ground-truth frequency, the reported 17.9% survival gain may shrink, so a natural next test is self-calibrated or fixed-window evaluation.
  • Editorial inference: the kinematic vectors from the time-surface plane fit are a general motion prior, so they could be reused by event-based optical flow or visual odometry systems, though the paper does not test those extensions.
  • Editorial inference: because both new TAP datasets are simulated, real-event sequences with noise, contrast-threshold variation, and sensor mismatch would be the sharper test of whether kinematic guidance stays stable; the paper does not provide that evidence.
  • Editorial inference: the reported comparison against FE-TAP and ETAP relies on numbers taken from their papers rather than re-runs, so a shared-code re-evaluation on the same splits would make the ranking more certain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents MATE, an event-camera framework for tracking any point. Events are encoded as time surfaces, a motion-guidance module estimates kinematic vectors by local plane fitting, and a variable-motion-aware module builds temporally consistent correlation features; a transformer iteratively updates point positions. The authors simulate event versions of PointOdyssey and TAP-Vid-Davis, evaluate tracking metrics on those datasets and feature tracking metrics on the EC and EDS datasets, and report state-of-the-art results with 6.6M parameters. The main claims are a 17.9% Survival50 improvement over event-only TAP baselines and superiority over all existing trackers, including methods that combine events and video frames.

Significance. If the results hold, MATE would be a strong demonstration that event-only point tracking can compete with video-based TAP by using kinematic cues to resolve appearance ambiguity. The paper contributes a useful architectural decomposition: plane-fitting kinematic vectors, MLP-based correction, cross-attention temporal modeling, and component ablations. The simulated Ev-PointOdyssey and Ev-Davis datasets are a practical resource for a young subfield. The work is not merely incremental: it identifies a real failure mode of appearance-only event matching. However, the evaluation has gaps that must be closed before the claims can be accepted, most importantly an oracle-dependent time-surface window and missing comparisons against the only published event-based TAP method.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1] The sentence "The temporal window length is set according to the ground truth frequency" describes an oracle setting. Because the time surface normalizes timestamps within this window, the window length changes the actual values of the input representation consumed by the Motion-Guidance Module and the Variable Motion Aware Module; hence every result in Tables 1 and 3 is produced with a quantity that is unavailable when the method is deployed. No ablation with a fixed window, an event-rate-adaptive window, or any other ground-truth-free rule is reported. Please add such an experiment and state explicitly how the window length is chosen in practice.
  2. [Table 1] ETAP [14] is cited in Sec. 2.3 as an event-based TAP method but is absent from the TAP benchmark in Table 1. Without this comparison, the abstract's claims of improvement "over event-only tracking of any point baseline" and of outperforming "all existing methods" are unsupported. Add ETAP results on Ev-PointOdyssey and Ev-Davis, or restrict the claims to the methods actually compared.
  3. [Table 2 and Sec. 4.3] The statement that the method "outperforms all three categories of existing trackers" is contradicted by the table itself: on the EC dataset, ETAP reports EFA 0.876 while MATE reports 0.875, and several other margins are small enough to be within noise. Report variance or significance tests, and soften the "outperforms all existing methods" wording in the abstract and Sec. 4.3.
  4. [Abstract] The claimed 17.9% Survival50 improvement is relative to Ev-PIPs++ and only holds on Ev-PointOdyssey (0.560 vs. 0.475); on Ev-Davis the corresponding Survival16 gain is 0.928 vs. 0.874, which is a much smaller relative improvement. The abstract should state the comparison method and dataset explicitly rather than presenting the percentage as a universal result.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and spacing issues, including "Our apporach" in Fig. 1 and "MA TE" instead of "MATE" in the title and body; a copyediting pass is needed.
  2. [Supplementary Sec. 8] The additional ablations in the supplementary material are run on a baseline model without VMA and at a lower resolution (192x256); the main text should note these differences so readers do not compare them directly with Table 1.
  3. [Sec. 4.3] For FE-TAP, the results are taken from the original paper rather than re-run under the same protocol; please state explicitly which settings differ and whether the comparison is apples-to-apples.
  4. [Eq. (2)] The relation ∂Σ_e/∂x = (∂x/∂t)^{-1} = 1/v is dimensionally inconsistent unless v is understood as pixels per time unit; a short clarifying note would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: MATE's kinematic vectors and correlation modules are computed from event time surfaces, not fitted to the benchmark metrics; the GT-frequency window is an evaluation-leakage concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

MATE's claimed derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The time-surface representation (Sec 3.1), kinematic vectors from SVD plane fitting (Sec 3.2, Eqs. 2-3), and the VMA correlation features (Sec 3.3) are all computed from event data, with no parameter fitted to the reported Survival50/d_avg/MTE numbers. The event-rate/speed relation in Eq. 7 is used only to motivate the VMA design, not as a fitted prediction. Hyperparameters gamma and iteration count are tuned on validation (Fig. 9), which is standard practice. The one notable weakness is Sec. 4.1's statement that 'The temporal window length is set according to the ground truth frequency.' This means the input time surface is constructed with oracle knowledge of the GT event frequency, which is a deployment-realism/evaluation-leakage issue that could inflate the reported gains; however, it does not make the output equivalent to the GT by construction, since the network still predicts trajectories from the (GT-informed) input. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear, so there is no circularity in the derivation chain. The claim of outperforming all existing methods is weakened by the omission of ETAP from Table 1, but that is a comparison/completeness issue, not circularity.

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

The method rests on standard event camera physics (active event surface, contrast threshold event generation) and on several hand-chosen design parameters. No invented entities are introduced. The most fragile premise is the use of ground truth frequency to set the temporal window, listed under weakest assumption and red flags.

free parameters (4)
  • Loss weight gamma = 0.8
    Tuned to maximize Survival50 in ablation (Supplementary Sec 8, Fig 9a); directly weights per-timestep errors in Eq. 8.
  • Number of refinement iterations = 6
    Chosen via ablation (Supplementary Sec 8, Fig 9b); more iterations improve accuracy up to 6, then saturate.
  • Plane-fitting neighborhood size = not reported
    MGM fits a plane to neighboring event-surface points (Eq. 3); the number of neighbors is ablated in Supplementary Sec 8 but the final value is not stated.
  • VMA temporal sampling offsets = {0, t-4, t-2}
    Features are sampled at times 0, t-4, t-2 to build correlation maps (Sec 3.3); these offsets are chosen by hand.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Active event surface satisfies the gradient relationship ∂Σe/∂x = 1/v for a moving edge
    Used to derive kinematic vectors via plane fitting in MGM (Eq. 2 in Sec 3.2), based on Benosman et al. [4].
  • domain assumption Event generation model: logI(x,y,t) - logI(x,y,t-dt) = pC, with C a constant contrast threshold
    Standard event camera model; used to derive event frequency f ∝ v·∇I/C in Eq. 7 of Sec 3.3.
  • domain assumption Global illumination is constant, so ∂I/∂t = 0
    Used to simplify Eq. 4 to Eq. 5 in Sec 3.3, enabling the proportionality between event frequency and speed.
  • domain assumption ∇I depends only on material properties of the object
    Used in Sec 3.3 to conclude f ∝ v, ignoring spatial variation of the illuminance gradient.
  • domain assumption The local active event surface is smooth and approximately planar, except at motion boundaries
    Plane fitting via SVD in MGM (Eq. 3) assumes local planarity of the active event surface.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MATE: Motion-Augmented Temporal Consistency for Event-based Point Tracking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZYRI2STU

@misc{pith2026241201300,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MATE: Motion-Augmented Temporal Consistency for Event-based Point Tracking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZYRI2STU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01300}
}
abstract

Tracking Any Point (TAP) plays a crucial role in motion analysis. Video-based approaches rely on iterative local matching for tracking, but they assume linear motion during the blind time between frames, which leads to point loss under large displacements or nonlinear motion. The high temporal resolution and motion blur-free characteristics of event cameras provide continuous, fine-grained motion information, capturing subtle variations with microsecond precision. This paper presents an event-based framework for tracking any point, which tackles the challenges posed by spatial sparsity and motion sensitivity in events through two tailored modules. Specifically, to resolve ambiguities caused by event sparsity, a motion-guidance module incorporates kinematic vectors into the local matching process. Additionally, a variable motion aware module is integrated to ensure temporally consistent responses that are insensitive to varying velocities, thereby enhancing matching precision. To validate the effectiveness of the approach, two event dataset for tracking any point is constructed by simulation. The method improves the $Survival_{50}$ metric by 17.9% over event-only tracking of any point baseline. Moreover, on standard feature tracking benchmarks, it outperforms all existing methods, even those that combine events and video frames.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01300 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Video-based point tracking method (first row) face lim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The spatio-temporal distribution of events generated by a stick rotating uniformly around a pivot. Sampling from different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MATE Overview. At the initial stage, given query points and event data, the encoder extracts feature representations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Some examples from the Ev-PointOdyssey (top row) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative results for Ev-PointOdyssey and Ev-Davis datasets. (a) The predicted trajectories are visualized using a blue-to-green [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Tracking results on EC (top row) and EDS (bottom row) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effectiveness of VMA. The first row shows results us [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The survival metric is maximized when gamma and iter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Qualitative results for Ev-PointOdyssey dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Qualitative results for EDS dataset. performed to identify the optimal γ. Figure 9a demonstrates that the Survival50 is maximized when γ equals 0.8. The number of iterations. In addition to γ, the num￾ber of iterations also significantly affects tracking accuracy. Whi…

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. E-TraMamba: A New Paradigm for Efficient Long-Term 3D Feature Tracking with Event Cameras

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    E-TraMamba applies linear state-space Mamba blocks with multi-cue token fusion and affine prediction to achieve SOTA long-term 3D event feature tracking and introduces the EvD-PointOdyssey dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [14]

    ETAP: Event-based Tracking of Any Point

    Friedhelm Hamann, Daniel Gehrig, Filbert Febryanto, Kostas Daniilidis, and Guillermo Gallego. Event-based tracking of any point with motion-robust correlation features. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.00133, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 8

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Distance surface for event- based optical flow

    Mohammed Almatrafi, Raymond Baldwin, Kiyoharu Aizawa, and Keigo Hirakawa. Distance surface for event- based optical flow. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 42(7):1547–1556, 2020. 2

    2020

  3. [2]

    Ace: An efficient asynchronous corner tracker for event cameras

    Ignacio Alzugaray and Margarita Chli. Ace: An efficient asynchronous corner tracker for event cameras. In 2018 In- ternational Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 653–661. IEEE, 2018. 3

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    Haste: multi- hypothesis asynchronous speeded-up tracking of events

    Ignacio Alzugaray and Margarita Chli. Haste: multi- hypothesis asynchronous speeded-up tracking of events. In 31st British Machine Vision Virtual Conference (BMVC 2020), page 744. ETH Zurich, Institute of Robotics and In- telligent Systems, 2020. 3, 6, 8

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Event-based visual flow

    Ryad Benosman, Charles Clercq, Xavier Lagorce, Sio-Hoi Ieng, and Chiara Bartolozzi. Event-based visual flow. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems , 25 (2):407–417, 2013. 4

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    A method for registration of 3-d shapes

    Paul J Best. A method for registration of 3-d shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Vision, 14:239–256, 1992. 3

    work page 1992

  7. [6]

    Leap-vo: Long-term effective any point tracking for visual odometry

    Weirong Chen, Le Chen, Rui Wang, and Marc Pollefeys. Leap-vo: Long-term effective any point tracking for visual odometry. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 19844– 19853, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Local all-pair correspon- dence for point tracking

    Seokju Cho, Jiahui Huang, Jisu Nam, Honggyu An, Seun- gryong Kim, and Joon-Young Lee. Local all-pair correspon- dence for point tracking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15420,

    arXiv

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Spatio-temporal recurrent networks for event-based optical flow estimation

    Ziluo Ding, Rui Zhao, Jiyuan Zhang, Tianxiao Gao, Ruiqin Xiong, Zhaofei Yu, and Tiejun Huang. Spatio-temporal recurrent networks for event-based optical flow estimation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelli- gence, pages 525–533, 2022. 2

    2022

  2. [9]

    Tap-vid: A benchmark for track- ing any point in a video

    Carl Doersch, Ankush Gupta, Larisa Markeeva, Adria Re- casens, Lucas Smaira, Yusuf Aytar, Joao Carreira, Andrew Zisserman, and Yi Yang. Tap-vid: A benchmark for track- ing any point in a video. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:13610–13626, 2022. 1, 3, 6

    2022

  3. [10]

    Tapir: Tracking any point with per-frame initialization and temporal refinement

    Carl Doersch, Yi Yang, Mel Vecerik, Dilara Gokay, Ankush Gupta, Yusuf Aytar, Joao Carreira, and Andrew Zisserman. Tapir: Tracking any point with per-frame initialization and temporal refinement. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision , pag...

    2023

  4. [11]

    Eklt: Asynchronous photometric feature tracking using events and frames

    Daniel Gehrig, Henri Rebecq, Guillermo Gallego, and Da- vide Scaramuzza. Eklt: Asynchronous photometric feature tracking using events and frames. International Journal of Computer Vision, 128(3):601–618, 2020. 3, 6, 8

    2020

  5. [12]

    E-raft: Dense optical flow from event cam- eras

    Mathias Gehrig, Mario Millh ¨ausler, Daniel Gehrig, and Da- vide Scaramuzza. E-raft: Dense optical flow from event cam- eras. In 2021 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 197–206. IEEE, 2021. 3

    2021

  6. [13]

    Dense continuous-time optical flow from event cameras

    Mathias Gehrig, Manasi Muglikar, and Davide Scaramuzza. Dense continuous-time optical flow from event cameras. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intel- ligence, 2024. 2

    2024

  7. [15]

    Motion- prior contrast maximization for dense continuous-time mo- tion estimation

    Friedhelm Hamann, Ziyun Wang, Ioannis Asmanis, Kenneth Chaney, Guillermo Gallego, and Kostas Daniilidis. Motion- prior contrast maximization for dense continuous-time mo- tion estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10802, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Particle video revisited: Tracking through occlusions using point trajectories

    Adam W Harley, Zhaoyuan Fang, and Katerina Fragkiadaki. Particle video revisited: Tracking through occlusions using point trajectories. In European Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 59–75. Springer, 2022. 1, 3, 6

    2022

  9. [17]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 3, 1

    2016

  10. [18]

    Event-aided direct sparse odometry

    Javier Hidalgo-Carri ´o, Guillermo Gallego, and Davide Scaramuzza. Event-aided direct sparse odometry. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5781–5790, 2022. 7

    2022

  11. [19]

    ecdt: Event clustering for simultaneous fea- ture detection and tracking

    Sumin Hu, Yeeun Kim, Hyungtae Lim, Alex Junho Lee, and Hyun Myung. ecdt: Event clustering for simultaneous fea- ture detection and tracking. In 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 3808–3815, 2022. 3

    2022

  12. [20]

    Cotracker3: Simpler and better point tracking by pseudo-labelling real videos

    Nikita Karaev and et al. Cotracker3: Simpler and better point tracking by pseudo-labelling real videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11831, 2024. 6, 7

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Co- tracker: It is better to track together

    Nikita Karaev, Ignacio Rocco, Benjamin Graham, Natalia Neverova, Andrea Vedaldi, and Christian Rupprecht. Co- tracker: It is better to track together. In Proc. ECCV, 2024. 3, 6

    2024

  14. [22]

    Low-latency visual odometry using event- based feature tracks

    Beat Kueng, Elias Mueggler, Guillermo Gallego, and Da- vide Scaramuzza. Low-latency visual odometry using event- based feature tracks. In 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 16–

    2016

  15. [23]

    3d feature tracking via event camera

    Siqi Li, Zhikuan Zhou, Zhou Xue, Yipeng Li, Shaoyi Du, and Yue Gao. 3d feature tracking via event camera. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18974–18983, 2024. 3

    2024

  16. [24]

    A 128 × 128 120 db 15 µ s latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor

    Patrick Lichtsteiner, Christoph Posch, and Tobi Delbruck. A 128 × 128 120 db 15 µ s latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor. IEEE journal of solid-state circuits , 43(2):566–576, 2008. 1

    2008

  17. [25]

    Tracking any point with frame- event fusion network at high frame rate

    Jiaxiong Liu, Bo Wang, Zhen Tan, Jinpu Zhang, Hui Shen, and Dewen Hu. Tracking any point with frame- event fusion network at high frame rate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11953, 2024. 2, 3, 6, 8

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    I Loshchilov. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017. 6

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Data-driven feature tracking for event cameras

    Nico Messikommer, Carter Fang, Mathias Gehrig, and Da- vide Scaramuzza. Data-driven feature tracking for event cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 5642– 5651, 2023. 3, 7

    2023

  20. [28]

    Data-driven feature tracking for event cameras with and without frames

    Nico Messikommer, Carter Fang, Mathias Gehrig, Giovanni Cioffi, and Davide Scaramuzza. Data-driven feature tracking for event cameras with and without frames. IEEE Transac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2025. 6, 7, 8

    2025

  21. [29]

    Fast event-based corner detection

    Elias Mueggler, Chiara Bartolozzi, and Davide Scaramuzza. Fast event-based corner detection. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC) , pages 33–1,

  22. [30]

    The event-camera dataset and simulator: Event-based data for pose estimation, visual odometry, and slam

    Elias Mueggler, Henri Rebecq, Guillermo Gallego, Tobi Del- bruck, and Davide Scaramuzza. The event-camera dataset and simulator: Event-based data for pose estimation, visual odometry, and slam. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 36(2):142–149, 2017. 7

    2017

  23. [31]

    Tangentially elongated gaussian belief propagation for event-based incremental op- tical flow estimation

    Jun Nagata and Yusuke Sekikawa. Tangentially elongated gaussian belief propagation for event-based incremental op- tical flow estimation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 21940–21949, 2023. 2

    2023

  24. [32]

    Secrets of event-based optical flow, depth and ego-motion estimation by contrast maximization

    Shintaro Shiba, Yannick Klose, Yoshimitsu Aoki, and Guillermo Gallego. Secrets of event-based optical flow, depth and ego-motion estimation by contrast maximization. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence, pages 1–18, 2024. 2

    2024

  25. [33]

    Flowmap: High-quality camera poses, in- trinsics, and depth via gradient descent

    Cameron Smith, David Charatan, Ayush Tewari, and Vin- cent Sitzmann. Flowmap: High-quality camera poses, in- trinsics, and depth via gradient descent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15259, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Super-convergence: Very fast training of neural networks using large learn- ing rates

    Leslie N Smith and Nicholay Topin. Super-convergence: Very fast training of neural networks using large learn- ing rates. In Artificial intelligence and machine learning for multi-domain operations applications , pages 369–386. SPIE, 2019. 6

    2019

  27. [35]

    Learning dense and continuous optical flow from an event camera

    Zhexiong Wan, Yuchao Dai, and Yuxin Mao. Learning dense and continuous optical flow from an event camera. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 31:7237–7251, 2022. 2

    2022

  28. [36]

    Event-based optical flow via trans- forming into motion-dependent view

    Zengyu Wan, Ganchao Tan, Yang Wang, Wei Zhai, Yang Cao, and Zheng-Jun Zha. Event-based optical flow via trans- forming into motion-dependent view. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 33:5327–5339, 2024. 2

    2024

  29. [37]

    Emo- tive: Event-guided trajectory modeling for 3d motion esti- mation, 2025

    Zengyu Wan, Wei Zhai, Yang Cao, and Zhengjun Zha. Emo- tive: Event-guided trajectory modeling for 3d motion esti- mation, 2025. 2

    2025

  30. [38]

    Asynchronous blob tracker for event cameras

    Ziwei Wang, Timothy Molloy, Pieter Van Goor, and Robert Mahony. Asynchronous blob tracker for event cameras. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2024. 3, 6, 8

    2024

  31. [39]

    Context-pips: persistent independent particles demands spatial context features

    BIAN Weikang, Zhaoyang Huang, Xiaoyu Shi, Yitong Dong, Yijin Li, and Hongsheng Li. Context-pips: persistent independent particles demands spatial context features. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 2023. 1, 3, 7

    2023

  32. [40]

    Event-based asynchronous hdr imaging by temporal incident light modulation

    Yuliang Wu, Ganchao Tan, Jinze Chen, Wei Zhai, Yang Cao, and Zheng-Jun Zha. Event-based asynchronous hdr imaging by temporal incident light modulation. Optics Express, 32 (11):18527–18538, 2024. 1

    2024

  33. [41]

    On exploring multiplicity of prim- itives and attributes for texture recognition in the wild.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(1):403–420, 2023

    Wei Zhai, Yang Cao, Jing Zhang, Haiyong Xie, Dacheng Tao, and Zheng-Jun Zha. On exploring multiplicity of prim- itives and attributes for texture recognition in the wild.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(1):403–420, 2023. 3

    2023

  34. [42]

    Background activation suppression for weakly supervised object localization and semantic segmen- tation

    Wei Zhai, Pingyu Wu, Kai Zhu, Yang Cao, Feng Wu, and Zheng-Jun Zha. Background activation suppression for weakly supervised object localization and semantic segmen- tation. International Journal of Computer Vision , 132(3): 750–775, 2024. 3

    2024

  35. [43]

    Particlesfm: Exploiting dense point trajecto- ries for localizing moving cameras in the wild

    Wang Zhao, Shaohui Liu, Hengkai Guo, Wenping Wang, and Yong-Jin Liu. Particlesfm: Exploiting dense point trajecto- ries for localizing moving cameras in the wild. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 523–542. Springer,

  36. [44]

    Pointodyssey: A large-scale synthetic dataset for long-term point tracking

    Yang Zheng, Adam W Harley, Bokui Shen, Gordon Wet- zstein, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointodyssey: A large-scale synthetic dataset for long-term point tracking. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 19855–19865, 2023. 3, 6, 7

    2023

  37. [45]

    Event-based feature tracking with probabilistic data associ- ation

    Alex Zihao Zhu, Nikolay Atanasov, and Kostas Daniilidis. Event-based feature tracking with probabilistic data associ- ation. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 4465–4470. IEEE, 2017. 3, 6, 8

    2017

  38. [46]

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

    Alex Zihao Zhu, Liangzhe Yuan, Kenneth Chaney, and Kostas Daniilidis. Ev-flownet: Self-supervised optical flow estimation for event-based cameras. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06898, 2018. 2, 3

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Unsupervised event-based learning of optical flow, depth, and egomotion

    Alex Zihao Zhu, Liangzhe Yuan, Kenneth Chaney, and Kostas Daniilidis. Unsupervised event-based learning of optical flow, depth, and egomotion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 989–997, 2019. 3, 1

    2019

  40. [48]

    Ev-mgrflownet: Motion-guided recurrent network for unsupervised event-based optical flow with hybrid motion-compensation loss

    Hao Zhuang, Zheng Fang, Xinjie Huang, Kuanxu Hou, Delei Kong, and Chenming Hu. Ev-mgrflownet: Motion-guided recurrent network for unsupervised event-based optical flow with hybrid motion-compensation loss. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.