Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Low-Latency Scalable Streaming for Event-Based Vision

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that latency-driven track dropping lets event-camera streams meet a 5 ms latency target with only a 0.36 mAP drop on object detection.

desk verdict A solid first systems study of receiver-driven rate adaptation for event streams, but the headline latency claim rests on means while the reported maxima exceed the targets. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07889 v2 pith:VCFT2YTO submitted 2024-12-10 cs.CV cs.MMcs.NI

Andrew Hamara , Benjamin Kilpatrick , Alex Baratta , Brendon Kofink , Andrew C. Freeman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.MMcs.NI
keywords eventcameradynamicvisionsensorstreamingrateadaptationMediaoverQUICobjectdetectionrecurrenttransformerlatency
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 argues that event-based camera streams, which record asynchronous brightness changes rather than frames, can be transmitted over a rate-adaptive streaming system without sacrificing much object-detection accuracy. It first shows that a recurrent vision transformer for object detection withstands heavy event loss, losing only 0.17 mAP when 64.9% of events are discarded. It then partitions each time window of events into multiple complementary tracks carried over Media over QUIC, and has the receiver subscribe or unsubscribe tracks to hold end-to-end latency at a target. With a 5 ms target on a simulated small network, average mAP drops only 0.36; with a 50 ms target it drops 0.19. A reader should care because this suggests low-power event cameras can offload heavy vision computation to remote servers while keeping real-time response.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a two-part design: a bucket-based event partitioning scheme and a latency-driven track selection algorithm. For each 50 ms window, events are divided sequentially across N tracks, with each track carrying at most E events per window, so reconstruction is a simple concatenation. The receiver measures the time between a track's send time and reconstruction, and if the latency exceeds the target L it reduces the chunk size by 20%, which maps to dropping one or more track subscriptions; if latency is below target, it increases the chunk size and subscribes to more tracks. Because the tracks are complementary, the receiver's subscription count directly sets the received event rate, and thus trades accuracy against latency. The other key ingredient is the demonstration that the detection model tolerates lossy event streams, which makes the dropped-track regime viable.

What would settle it

Run the identical track-selection system with a live event camera transmitting over a real network, using the same test scenes, and measure end-to-end latency and object detection mAP under matching bandwidth limits; if the 5 ms target cannot be met with an mAP reduction around 0.36 at 100 Mbps, the simulated-network assumption is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that receiver-driven rate adaptation of raw event data is feasible and effective: even with dramatic data loss, object detection degrades gracefully, so a streaming system can drop data to meet latency targets. The authors establish this by first measuring the loss tolerance of a recurrent vision transformer on a traffic-monitoring event dataset, then building a multi-track streaming system where the receiver adjusts the number of subscribed tracks based on measured chunk latency. They report that with a 5 ms end-to-end latency target and sufficient bandwidth, mean latency stays under 4 ms with an average mAP reduction of 0.36, and with a relaxed 50 ms target the average mAP reduction drops to 0.19. The paper also observes that lossy streaming sometimes outperforms the lossless baseline because event dropping can act as a noise filter when the camera's pixel sensitivity is high.

Load-bearing premise

The results depend on the simulated network—pre-recorded event videos replayed through a single Dockerized Media over QUIC relay with traffic-control bandwidth limits—faithfully reproducing the latency, jitter, and relay desynchronization of a real event-camera streaming deployment; if real networks desynchronize tracks differently, the track-selection algorithm's latency/accuracy tradeoff could be worse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Event cameras can be deployed on low-power edge devices while heavy object-detection inference runs on remote servers, as long as the network can carry a latency-adaptive subset of the event stream.
  • Receiver-driven rate adaptation, not just sender-side compression, is a viable tool for event-based vision, and the same track-selection algorithm can be applied to other real-time event-based applications.
  • For multi-consumer setups, one relay can serve both a low-latency application receiving few tracks and an archival server subscribing to all tracks, since Media over QUIC supports multiple receivers with different subscriptions.
  • With a relaxed 50 ms latency target, the system achieves an mAP reduction as low as 0.19, suggesting that high-accuracy event-based detection does not require lossless full-rate transmission.
  • Lossy streaming can sometimes improve detection accuracy relative to the lossless stream, because dropping events can normalize event-count distributions and act as noise filtering, which motivates rate-normalization research.

Reading between the lines

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

  • On a real network, the relay desynchronization observed in simulation—where higher track counts sometimes underperform—is likely to become more pronounced, so the paper's track-count tradeoff may shift and deserves a live-network evaluation.
  • The bucket partitioning ignores event semantics; a track-selection scheme that weights tracks by spatial or temporal importance could push the latency/accuracy tradeoff further than uniform buckets.
  • The claimed noise-filter effect implies that adaptive streaming could be combined with application-level event-rate normalization, potentially making detection accuracy more robust across cameras with different pixel sensitivities.
  • The 20% multiplicative chunk-size step is a simple controller; a controller using a moving average of received data rate, which the paper itself suggests, could eliminate the observed latency thrashing at relaxed targets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a systems study of lossy, receiver-driven adaptive streaming for event-camera data targeting low-latency object detection. The authors first evaluate the resilience of the RVT detector to event loss on ten eTraM videos, finding modest mAP degradation even at high loss. They then partition the event stream into complementary MoQ tracks with two strategies and propose a receiver-side algorithm that adjusts chunk size and track subscriptions from measured latency. On a simulated single-relay network with tc/tbf bandwidth limits, the headline results are an average mAP reduction of 0.36 at a 5 ms mean-latency target and 0.19 at a 50 ms target. The paper also reports that lossy streaming occasionally improves detection accuracy.

Significance. This is a worthwhile first systems contribution, and it is clearly scoped as an initial evaluation rather than a full deployment study. The testbed (10 real videos, Dockerized moq-rs relay, tc/tbf shaping, RVT detector) is concrete and reproducible in principle, and the experiments directly measure the latency/mAP tradeoff that the proposed protocol claims to control. The observation of detector resilience and even accuracy improvement under high event loss is interesting for the event-vision community. However, the central latency claim is currently not established because the reported evidence uses means and ignores tail latency, and the evaluation is limited to a single simulated topology. The core ideas are defensible, so these issues are fixable within scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, Sec. 5.4, Sec. 5.5, Tables 2-3, Conclusion] The claim that the system 'can meet' a 5 ms (or 50 ms) end-to-end latency target is supported only by mean latency, not by a latency guarantee. In Table 2, the configuration with the best strict-target mAP (B=100 Mbps, N=10) has mean latency 3.5 ms but maximum 91.1 ms; the N=5 rows at 50 and 100 Mbps have means of 2.8 and 1.3 ms but maxima of 108.2 and 85.5 ms. In Table 3, the relaxed-target configuration at 100 Mbps has mean 32.5 ms and maximum 190.6 ms, and the 25 Mbps row has a maximum of 8349.9 ms. Section 5.5 itself states that 'our maximum latency often exceeds the threshold,' so the abstract and conclusion should not state that the latency target is met. Please report tail quantiles (p95/p99 or worst-case per configuration) and either redefine the target as a percentile or restrict the claims to what the data support.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Sec. 5.5] The adaptation algorithm has no mechanism for bounding the latency tail. It reactively adjusts the chunk size by ±20% based on the last measured latency, adds one new track at a time after a subscription handshake, and unsubscribes only after a spike has already occurred. The measured maxima (e.g., 190.6 ms under a 50 ms target) are consistent with this reactive design. The paper should analyze the tail behavior explicitly, for example by plotting the per-time-window latency distribution and by stress-testing the algorithm with bursty source rates or abrupt bandwidth changes, rather than relying on means over the full video.
  3. [Sec. 5.3, Sec. 3, Sec. 6] The evaluation is limited to a simulated network: pre-recorded videos are replayed with inserted timing delays through one Dockerized MoQ relay under tc/tbf shaping. This setup does not include real network delay, jitter, loss, or multi-relay topologies, even though the claimed application (smart-city streaming) would operate on such networks. The track-desynchronization behavior that drives the algorithm could differ under real network conditions. I ask for at least one validation with an emulator that injects realistic delay/jitter/loss (e.g., netem) or a clear statement limiting all conclusions to the simulated single-relay setting.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Tables 2-3] Reporting only means across 10 videos hides the spread; please add per-configuration standard deviations or per-video results, and state how many repetitions (if any) were run for each configuration.
  2. [Secs. 5.4-5.5] The sensitivity analysis that selects E=250 and E=2500 is not reported; please include the sensitivity curves and state whether E was chosen on the same test videos used for the final evaluation.
  3. [Sec. 4] The conclusion that temporal event distribution is not a major factor rests on only two bandwidth levels (25 and 50 Mbps); consider acknowledging this limitation or testing across the full bandwidth range.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The 'up to a 26-second increase in average latency' for the even-partitioning strategy is stated without measurement details; please provide the experiment that produced this number.
  5. [Sec. 5.5] The explanation for mAP improvement under high loss as 'noise filtering' is plausible but post hoc; a controlled experiment with synthetic noise events would make that interpretation more convincing.
  6. [Sec. 5.3] The paper states that source code will be released upon publication; please confirm availability or provide a reproducibility appendix, since the systems claims depend on exact relay and timing behavior.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the reported mAP and latency values are experimental outputs of a real implementation measured against external benchmarks, not derivations from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical systems evaluation rather than a derivation chain. Section 4 measures RVT mAP after applying a fixed-bandwidth event-drop scheme using external reference weights for RVT and the eTraM dataset; the reported mAP reductions (e.g., 0.17 at 64.9% data loss) are observed outputs of that inference, not predictions computed from any fitted formula. Sections 5.4 and 5.5 tune the E parameter ('events per track') by sensitivity analysis so that the track-selection loop can keep average latency near the target, and then report the measured mAP reductions (0.36 for the 5 ms target and 0.19 for the 50 ms target); this is hyperparameter tuning, not fitting a parameter to reproduce the headline mAP values, and the mAP values are measured after the streaming experiments rather than derived from the tuning choice. The track-selection algorithm uses the latency target as a control set-point but does not define the reported latency or accuracy outcomes; Section 5.5 even reports configurations where the target is missed (mean 173.5 ms and maximum 8349.9 ms at B=25), demonstrating that the results are not forced by construction. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in through citation; all supporting models and datasets are external (RVT [26], eTraM [65], moq-rs [33]). The skeptic's observation about maximum latency exceeding the target is a validity or correctness concern about whether 'meeting' a target should be judged by mean rather than tail latency, but it is not a circularity of the kind addressed by derivation-chain analysis.

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

The central claim rests on the tuned E parameter, the simulation setup, and the representativeness of the eTraM test subset. No invented entities are introduced. The 20% chunk adjustment is an arbitrary heuristic rather than a derived quantity.

free parameters (3)
  • E (events per track per 50 ms window) = 250 for 5 ms latency target; 2500 for 50 ms latency target
    Chosen by sensitivity analysis (Sec. 5.4 and 5.5). Determines the per-track data rate and affects the receiver's ability to recover from latency spikes.
  • Chunk size adjustment step = 20% increase or decrease
    Arbitrary multiplicative step in the track selection algorithm (Sec. 5.2); not derived from theory.
  • Token bucket burst level = not specified
    The paper states 'we set the matching burst level' (Sec. 5.3) without giving the values used, making this an unstated experimental parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MoQ relay behavior matches the moq-rs 0.5.2 implementation and provides the described track synchronization semantics.
    The track selection algorithm's behavior depends on the relay's synchronization and buffering characteristics (Sec. 5.2-5.4).
  • domain assumption Simulated timing, where a variable delay is inserted to match real-world event production, accurately represents a live event camera's production schedule.
    The authors simulate a live camera by adding delays between event windows (Sec. 5.3).
  • domain assumption tc/tbf bandwidth limiting with the configured burst levels reproduces the relevant dynamics of a real network path.
    All reported latencies are measured on a simulated network using Linux traffic control (Sec. 5.3).
  • domain assumption The selected 10-video subset of eTraM is representative of the distribution of event rates and detection difficulty in event-based traffic monitoring.
    The results are averaged over this subset (Sec. 4), and the paper does not report per-video variance or a larger evaluation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-Latency Scalable Streaming for Event-Based Vision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCFT2YTO

@misc{pith2026241207889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-Latency Scalable Streaming for Event-Based Vision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCFT2YTO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07889}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, we have witnessed the rise of novel ``event-based'' camera sensors for high-speed, low-power video capture. Rather than recording discrete image frames, these sensors output asynchronous ``event'' tuples with microsecond precision, only when the brightness change of a given pixel exceeds a certain threshold. Although these sensors have enabled compelling new computer vision applications, these applications often require expensive, power-hungry GPU systems, rendering them incompatible for deployment on the low-power devices for which event cameras are optimized. Whereas receiver-driven rate adaptation is a crucial feature of modern video streaming solutions, this topic is underexplored in the realm of event-based vision systems. On a real-world event camera dataset, we first demonstrate that a state-of-the-art object detection application is resilient to dramatic data loss, and that this loss may be weighted towards the end of each temporal window. We then propose a scalable streaming method for event-based data based on Media Over QUIC, prioritizing object detection performance and low latency. The application server can receive complementary event data across several streams simultaneously, and drop streams as needed to maintain a certain latency. With a latency target of 5 ms for end-to-end transmission across a small network, we observe an average reduction in detection mAP as low as 0.36. With a more relaxed latency target of 50 ms, we observe an average mAP reduction as low as 0.19.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07889 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of event reduction at various bandwidth limits, with object detections overlaid. At lower bandwidths, there [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of a “smart city” video system made possible by scalable streaming with MoQ. Heavy vision application [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The change in object detection accuracy at various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of event partitioning and reconstruction with the two strategies described in Sec. 5.1. The receiver is subscribed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental results from sample video test_day_013 with 𝑁 = 5 tracks and 𝐵 = 100 Mbps, showing various metrics across the timespan of the video. These results demonstrate a case where the event loss induced by our streaming system actually increases the mAP for many t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representative example (from video test_night_- 005) of the strict latency experiments described in Sec. 5.4. As the network bandwidth decreases, the receiver has less data to pass to the RVT application, so object detection ac￾curacy decreases. The configuration with …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Zoomed-in inference example from the fixed bitrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Static in Frames, Dynamic in Events: Rethinking Features in Event Cameras as Motion Cues

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Harris eigenvalues and spatiotemporal density values from event cameras encode motion direction and, when added to an optical flow network, improve accuracy in data-scarce settings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    Wes Baldwin, Ruixu Liu, Mohammed Almatrafi, Vijayan Asari, and Keigo Hirakawa

    R. Wes Baldwin, Ruixu Liu, Mohammed Almatrafi, Vijayan Asari, and Keigo Hirakawa. 2023. Time-Ordered Recent Event (TORE) Volumes for Event Cameras. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45, 2 (2023), 2519–

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Chopp, Jianping Zhang, Zihao W

    Srutarshi Banerjee, Henry H. Chopp, Jianping Zhang, Zihao W. Wang, Peng Kang, Oliver Cossairt, and Aggelos Katsaggelos. 2024. A Joint Intensity-Neuromorphic Event Imaging System With Bandwidth-Limited Communication Channel. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 35, 5 (May 2024), 7216–

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Lossy Event Compression based on Image-derived Quad Trees and Poisson Disk Sampling

    Srutarshi Banerjee, Zihao W. Wang, Henry H. Chopp, Oliver Cossairt, and Aggelos Katsaggelos. 2020. Lossy Event Compression based on Image-derived Quad Trees and Poisson Disk Sampling. http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00974 arXiv:2005.00974 [cs]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Sami Barchid, José Mennesson, and Chaabane Djéraba. 2022. Bina-Rep Event Frames: A Simple and Effective Representation for Event-Based Cameras. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) . 3998–4002. https: //doi.org/10.1109/ICIP46576.2022.9898061

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Davison, and Stefan Leutenegger

    Patrick Bardow, Andrew J. Davison, and Stefan Leutenegger. 2016. Simultaneous Optical Flow and Intensity Estimation From an Event Camera. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Guillaume Bellec, Franz Scherr, Anand Subramoney, Elias Hajek, Darjan Salaj, Robert Legenstein, and Wolfgang Maass. 2020. A solution to the learning dilemma for recurrent networks of spiking neurons. Nature communications 11, 1 (2020), 3625

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Henriques, Andrea Vedaldi, and Philip H

    Luca Bertinetto, Jack Valmadre, João F. Henriques, Andrea Vedaldi, and Philip H. S. Torr. 2016. Fully-Convolutional Siamese Networks for Object Tracking. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2016 Workshops , Gang Hua and Hervé Jégou (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 850–865

    2016

  8. [8]

    Goutam Bhat, Martin Danelljan, Luc Van Gool, and Radu Timofte. 2019. Learning Discriminative Model Prediction for Tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    work page 2019

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Shristi Das Biswas, Adarsh Kosta, Chamika Liyanagedera, Marco Apolinario, and Kaushik Roy. 2024. HALSIE: Hybrid Approach to Learning Segmentation by Simultaneously Exploiting Image and Event Modalities. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W A...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Marco Cannici, Marco Ciccone, Andrea Romanoni, and Matteo Matteucci. 2019. Asynchronous Convolutional Networks for Object Detection in Neuromorphic Cameras. In 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). IEEE, Long Beach, CA, USA, 165...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Andrea Censi and Davide Scaramuzza. 2014. Low-latency event-based visual odometry. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 703–710. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2014.6906931

    2014

  4. [12]

    William Chamorro, Joan Solà, and Juan Andrade-Cetto. 2022. Event-Based Line SLAM in Real-Time. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7, 3 (July 2022), 8146–

    2022

  5. [13]

    Nicholas F. Y. Chen. 2018. Pseudo-Labels for Supervised Learning on Dynamic Vision Sensor Data, Applied to Object Detection Under Ego-Motion. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops

    2018

  6. [14]

    Zhiwen Chen, Zhiyu Zhu, Yifan Zhang, Junhui Hou, Guangming Shi, and Jinjian Wu. 2023. Segment Any Events via Weighted Adaptation of Pivotal Tokens. http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.16222 arXiv:2312.16222

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Loïc Cordone, Benoît Miramond, and Philippe Thierion. 2022. Object Detection with Spiking Neural Networks on Automotive Event Data. In 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ IJCNN55064.2022.9892618

    2022

  8. [16]

    Martin Danelljan, Goutam Bhat, Fahad Shahbaz Khan, and Michael Felsberg

  9. [18]

    Yongjian Deng, Youfu Li, and Hao Chen. 2020. AMAE: Adaptive Motion-Agnostic Encoder for Event-Based Object Classification. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 5, 3 (2020), 4596–4603. https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2020.3002480

    2020

  10. [19]

    Rika Sugimoto Dimitrova, Mathias Gehrig, Dario Brescianini, and Davide Scara- muzza. 2020. Towards Low-Latency High-Bandwidth Control of Quadrotors using Event Cameras. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, Paris, France, 4294–4300. htt...

    2020

  11. [20]

    Tobias Fischer and Michael Milford. 2022. How Many Events Do You Need? Event-Based Visual Place Recognition Using Sparse But Varying Pixels. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 7, 4 (Oct. 2022), 12275–12282. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/LRA.2022.3216226 Conference Name: IEEE Robo...

    2022

  12. [21]

    Yihua Fu, Jianing Li, Siwei Dong, Yonghong Tian, and Tiejun Huang. 2019. Spike Coding: Towards Lossy Compression for Dynamic Vision Sensor. In2019 Data Compression Conference (DCC). 572–572. https://doi.org/10.1109/DCC.2019.00084

    2019

  13. [22]

    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. 2022. Event-Based Vision: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine ...

    2022

  14. [23]

    Jin Gao, Weiming Hu, and Yan Lu. 2020. Recursive Least-Squares Estimator-Aided Online Learning for Visual Tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . arXiv, 2024, Hamara et al

    2020

  15. [24]

    Yue Gao, Jiaxuan Lu, Siqi Li, Yipeng Li, and Shaoyi Du. 2024. Hypergraph-Based Multi-View Action Recognition Using Event Cameras. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 46, 10 (Oct. 2024), 6610–6622. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2024.3382117 Conferenc...

    2024

  16. [25]

    Yue Gao, Jiaxuan Lu, Siqi Li, Nan Ma, Shaoyi Du, Yipeng Li, and Qionghai Dai. 2023. Action Recognition and Benchmark Using Event Cameras. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 45, 12 (Dec. 2023), 14081–14097. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2023.3300741 ...

    2023

  17. [26]

    Mathias Gehrig and Davide Scaramuzza. 2023. Recurrent Vision Transformers for Object Detection with Event Cameras. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 13884–13893. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52729.2023.01334

    2023

  18. [27]

    Arren Glover, Valentina Vasco, Massimiliano Iacono, and Chiara Bartolozzi

  19. [28]

    Erinc, and Ali C

    Zafer Gurel, Tugce Erkilic Civelek, Deniz Ugur, Yigit K. Erinc, and Ali C. Begen

  20. [29]

    Massimiliano Iacono, Stefan Weber, Arren Glover, and Chiara Bartolozzi. 2018. Towards Event-Driven Object Detection with Off-the-Shelf Deep Learning. In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS.2018.8594119

    2018

  21. [30]

    Zhuangyi Jiang, Pengfei Xia, Kai Huang, Walter Stechele, Guang Chen, Zhen- shan Bing, and Alois Knoll. 2019. Mixed Frame-/Event-Driven Fast Pedestrian Detection. In 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . 8332–8338. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA.2019.8793924

    2019

  22. [31]

    Jianhao Jiao, Huaiyang Huang, Liang Li, Zhijian He, Yilong Zhu, and Ming Liu. 2021. Comparing Representations in Tracking for Event Camera-based SLAM. In 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW). IEEE, Nashville, TN, USA, 1369–1376....

    2021

  23. [32]

    Nabeel Khan, Khurram Iqbal, and Maria G. Martini. 2020. Lossless Compression of Data From Static and Mobile Dynamic Vision Sensors-Performance and Trade- Offs. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 103149–103163. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020. 2996661

    2020 doi

  24. [33]

    kixelated. 2024. kixelated/moq-rs. https://github.com/kixelated/moq-rs original- date: 2022-06-29T16:16:37Z

    2024

  25. [34]

    Chankyu Lee, Syed Shakib Sarwar, Priyadarshini Panda, Gopalakrishnan Srini- vasan, and Kaushik Roy. 2020. Enabling spike-based backpropagation for training deep neural network architectures. Frontiers in neuroscience 14 (2020), 497482

    2020

  26. [35]

    Jianing Li, Jia Li, Lin Zhu, Xijie Xiang, Tiejun Huang, and Yonghong Tian. 2022. Asynchronous Spatio-Temporal Memory Network for Continuous Event-Based Object Detection. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 31 (2022), 2975–2987. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2022.3162962

    2022

  27. [36]

    Peixia Li, Boyu Chen, Wanli Ouyang, Dong Wang, Xiaoyun Yang, and Huchuan Lu. 2019. GradNet: Gradient-Guided Network for Visual Object Tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2019

  28. [37]

    Patrick Lichtsteiner, Christoph Posch, and Tobi Delbruck. 2008. A 128x128 120 dB 15 microsend Latency Asynchronous Temporal Contrast Vision Sensor. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 43, 2 (Feb. 2008), 566–576. https://doi.org/10.1109/ JSSC.2007.914337 Conference Name: IEEE ...

    2008

  29. [38]

    Songnan Lin, Jiawei Zhang, Jinshan Pan, Zhe Jiang, Dongqing Zou, Yongtian Wang, Jing Chen, and Jimmy Ren. 2020. Learning Event-Driven Video Deblurring and Interpolation. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2020, Andrea Vedaldi, Horst Bischof, Thomas Brox, and Jan-Michael Frahm (Eds.). Vo...

    2020 doi

  30. [39]

    Lam, and Ngai Wong

    Chang Liu, Xiaojuan Qi, Edmund Y. Lam, and Ngai Wong. 2022. Fast Classification and Action Recognition With Event-Based Imaging.IEEE Access 10 (2022), 55638– 55649. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3177744 Conference Name: IEEE Access

    2022

  31. [40]

    Maqueda, Antonio Loquercio, Guillermo Gallego, Narciso García, and Davide Scaramuzza

    Ana I. Maqueda, Antonio Loquercio, Guillermo Gallego, Narciso García, and Davide Scaramuzza. 2018. Event-Based Vision Meets Deep Learning on Steering Prediction for Self-Driving Cars. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2018

  32. [41]

    Maria Martini, Jayasingam Adhuran, and Nabeel Khan. 2022. Lossless Compres- sion of Neuromorphic Vision Sensor Data Based on Point Cloud Representation. IEEE Access 10 (2022), 121352–121364. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022. 3222330

    2022 doi

  33. [42]

    Steven Ray McCanne. [n. d.]. Scalable Compression and Transmission of Internet Multicast Video. ([n. d.])

  34. [43]

    Milde, Olivier J.N

    Moritz B. Milde, Olivier J.N. Bertrand, Ryad Benosmanz, Martin Egelhaaf, and Elisabetta Chicca. 2015. Bioinspired event-driven collision avoidance algorithm based on optic flow. In 2015 International Conference on Event-based Control, Communication, and Signal Processing (EBCC...

    2015

  35. [44]

    Elias Mueggler, Guillermo Gallego, Henri Rebecq, and Davide Scaramuzza. 2018. Continuous-Time Visual-Inertial Odometry for Event Cameras.IEEE Transactions on Robotics 34, 6 (2018), 1425–1440. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2018.2858287

    2018

  36. [45]

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

    2017 doi

  37. [46]

    Nair, Michael Milford, and Tobias Fischer

    Gokul B. Nair, Michael Milford, and Tobias Fischer. 2024. Enhancing Visual Place Recognition via Fast and Slow Adaptive Biasing in Event Cameras. http: //arxiv.org/abs/2403.16425 arXiv:2403.16425

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Hyeonseob Nam and Bohyung Han. 2016. Learning Multi-Domain Convolutional Neural Networks for Visual Tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    2016

  39. [48]

    Neftci, Hesham Mostafa, and Friedemann Zenke

    Emre O. Neftci, Hesham Mostafa, and Friedemann Zenke. 2019. Surrogate Gradi- ent Learning in Spiking Neural Networks: Bringing the Power of Gradient-Based Optimization to Spiking Neural Networks. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 36, 6 (2019), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP....

    2019

  40. [49]

    Etienne Perot, Pierre de Tournemire, Davide Nitti, Jonathan Masci, and Amos Sironi. 2020. Learning to Detect Objects with a 1 Megapixel Event Camera. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , H. Larochelle, M. Ran- zato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin (Eds.),...

    2020

  41. [50]

    Bibrat Ranjan Pradhan, Yeshwanth Bethi, Sathyaprakash Narayanan, Anirban Chakraborty, and Chetan Singh Thakur. 2019. N-HAR: A Neuromorphic Event- Based Human Activity Recognition System using Memory Surfaces. In 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS)...

    2019

  42. [51]

    Bharath Ramesh, Andrés Ussa, Luca Della Vedova, Hong Yang, and Garrick Orchard. 2019. PCA-RECT: An Energy-Efficient Object Detection Approach for Event Cameras. In Computer Vision – ACCV 2018 Workshops , Gustavo Carneiro and Shaodi You (Eds.). Springer International Publishing...

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    Bharath Ramesh, Hong Yang, Garrick Orchard, Ngoc Anh Le Thi, Shihao Zhang, and Cheng Xiang. 2020. DART: Distribution Aware Retinal Transform for Event- Based Cameras. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 42, 11 (2020), 2767–2780. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2020

  44. [53]

    Henri Rebecq, Rene Ranftl, Vladlen Koltun, and Davide Scaramuzza. 2021. High Speed and High Dynamic Range Video with an Event Camera. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 43, 6 (June 2021), 1964–1980. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2019.2963386

    2021

  45. [54]

    David E Rumelhart, Geoffrey E Hinton, and Ronald J Williams. 1986. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. nature 323, 6088 (1986), 533–536

    1986

  46. [55]

    Ionut Schiopu and Radu Ciprian Bilcu. 2022. Lossless Compression of Event Camera Frames. IEEE Signal Processing Letters 29 (2022), 1779–1783. https: //doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2022.3196599

    2022

  47. [56]

    Ionut Schiopu and Radu Ciprian Bilcu. 2022. Low-Complexity Lossless Coding of Asynchronous Event Sequences for Low-Power Chip Integration. Sensors 22, 24 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/s222410014

    2022 doi

  48. [57]

    Ionut Schiopu and Radu Ciprian Bilcu. 2023. Entropy Coding-based Lossless Compression of Asynchronous Event Sequences. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) . 3923–3930. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW59228.2023.00407

    2023

  49. [58]

    Heiko Schwarz, Detlev Marpe, and Thomas Wiegand. 2007. Overview of the Scalable Video Coding Extension of the H.264/AVC Standard. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology 17, 9 (Sept. 2007), 1103–1120. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TCSVT.2007.905532 Conference...

    2007

  50. [59]

    Ahmadreza Sezavar, Catarina Brites, and Joao Ascenso. 2024. Learning- based Lossless Event Data Compression. http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03010 arXiv:2411.03010 version: 1

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Sumit B Shrestha and Garrick Orchard. 2018. Slayer: Spike layer error reassign- ment in time. Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  52. [61]

    Timo Stoffregen, Guillermo Gallego, Tom Drummond, Lindsay Kleeman, and Davide Scaramuzza. 2019. Event-Based Motion Segmentation by Motion Com- pensation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2019

  53. [62]

    Timo Stoffregen and Lindsay Kleeman. 2018. Simultaneous Optical Flow and Segmentation (SOFAS) using Dynamic Vision Sensor. arXiv:1805.12326 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.12326

    2018 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Zhengzhong Tu, Hossein Talebi, Han Zhang, Feng Yang, Peyman Milanfar, Alan Bovik, and Yinxiao Li. 2022. MaxViT: Multi-axis Vision Transformer. In Com- puter Vision – ECCV 2022 , Shai Avidan, Gabriel Brostow, Moustapha Cissé, Gio- vanni Maria Farinella, and Tal Hassner (Eds.). ...

    2022

  55. [64]

    Stepan Tulyakov, Francois Fleuret, Martin Kiefel, Peter Gehler, and Michael Hirsch. 2019. Learning an Event Sequence Embedding for Dense Event-Based Deep Stereo. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV)

    2019

  56. [65]

    Aayush Atul Verma, Bharatesh Chakravarthi, Arpitsinh Vaghela, Hua Wei, and Yezhou Yang. 2024. eTraM: Event-based Traffic Monitoring Dataset. 22637– 22646. https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/CVPR2024/html/Verma_eTraM_ Event-based_Traffic_Monitoring_Dataset_CVPR_2024_paper.html

    2024

  57. [66]

    Antoni Rosinol Vidal, Henri Rebecq, Timo Horstschaefer, and Davide Scara- muzza. 2018. Ultimate SLAM? Combining Events, Images, and IMU for Robust Visual SLAM in HDR and High Speed Scenarios. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 3, 2 (April 2018), 994–1001. https://doi.org/10....

    2018

  58. [67]

    Antonio Vitale, Alpha Renner, Celine Nauer, Davide Scaramuzza, and Yulia San- damirskaya. 2021. Event-driven Vision and Control for UAVs on a Neuromorphic Chip. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA48506...

    2021

  59. [68]

    Man Yao, Huanhuan Gao, Guangshe Zhao, Dingheng Wang, Yihan Lin, Zhaoxu Yang, and Guoqi Li. 2021. Temporal-Wise Attention Spiking Neural Networks for Event Streams Classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) . 10221–10230

    2021

  60. [69]

    Jiqing Zhang, Bo Dong, Haiwei Zhang, Jianchuan Ding, Felix Heide, Baocai Yin, and Xin Yang. 2022. Spiking Transformers for Event-Based Single Object Tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 8801–8810

    2022

  61. [70]

    Alex Zhu, Liangzhe Yuan, Kenneth Chaney, and Kostas Daniilidis. 2018. EV- FlowNet: Self-Supervised Optical Flow Estimation for Event-based Cameras. In Robotics: Science and Systems XIV (RSS2018) . Robotics: Science and Systems Foundation. https://doi.org/10.15607/rss.2018.xiv.062

    2018 doi

  62. [71]

    Alex Zihao Zhu, Liangzhe Yuan, Kenneth Chaney, and Kostas Daniilidis. 2019. Unsupervised Event-Based Learning of Optical Flow, Depth, and Egomotion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Received 22 November 2024

    2019

  63. [180]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2020.3008413 Publisher: IEEE Computer Society

    2020

  64. [2017]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    ECO: Efficient Convolution Operators for Tracking. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

  65. [2018]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI 4 (Jan

    The Event-Driven Software Library for YARP—With Algorithms and iCub Applications. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 4 (Jan. 2018), 73. https: //doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2017.00073

    2018

  66. [2024]

    Low-Latency DASH: a Deathmatch Testbed

    Media-over-QUIC Transport vs. Low-Latency DASH: a Deathmatch Testbed. In Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia Systems Conference 2024 on ZZZ . ACM, Bari Italy, 448–452. https://doi.org/10.1145/3625468.3652191

    2024

  67. [2532]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2022.3172212

    2022

  68. [7230]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3214779 Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems

    2022

  69. [8153]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA.2022.3187266

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.