Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Event-based Motion Deblurring via Multi-Temporal Granularity Fusion

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 MTGNet fuses voxel-grid and point-cloud event representations with an aggregation-mapping module and an adaptive diffusion module, and reports state-of-the-art deblurring results on Ev-REDS, HS-ERGB, and MS-RBD.

desk verdict Novel point-cloud/voxel fusion for event deblurring, but the SOTA claim is undercut by an unmatched density-based cropping protocol. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11866 v1 pith:OQCTYQDT submitted 2024-12-16 cs.CV

Xiaopeng Lin , Hongwei Ren , Yulong Huang , Zunchang Liu , Yue Zhou , Haotian Fu , Biao Pan , Bojun Cheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords eventcameramotiondeblurringpointcloudrepresentationvoxelmulti-temporalgranularityadaptivefeaturediffusioncross-modalfusionimagerestoration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that event-based motion deblurring is held back by how events are represented: voxel grids preserve spatial density but blur the timing of events, while point clouds keep microsecond timestamps but are spatially sparse. It proposes MTGNet, which combines both representations in one network, with two new modules that map sparse point features onto image space and adaptively diffuse them. On the Ev-REDS and HS-ERGB benchmarks the method reports the best PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS among the compared deblurring methods, and it generalizes to the real-world MS-RBD dataset without adaptation. The reason this matters is that event cameras record motion at microsecond resolution, and a deblurring method that actually uses that fine timing could recover sharper edges and textures in fast-moving scenes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of event representations treated as complementary: the voxel grid $V \in \mathbb{R}^{h\times w\times b}$, which is dense in space but coarse in time, and the point cloud $P \in \mathbb{R}^{b\times m\times 3}$, which keeps each event's original timestamp as the z-coordinate and is fine in time but sparse in space. The paper motivates the fusion with a Taylor-expansion argument (Equation 9) showing that the error between the estimated sharp image and the true one shrinks as the temporal step $\Delta t$ decreases. Two modules carry the fusion: AMM performs coordinate-assisted mapping from point features to the image plane, and AFDM adaptively diffuses the sparse mapped features with Gaussian weights whose standard deviation is predicted from the coarse fusion features. The diffusion step acts as feature-level interpolation, which matters when the event sensor has lower resolution than the RGB sensor.

What would settle it

Retrain MTGNet under the same uniform random-cropping protocol used for the baselines and re-run the comparison on Ev-REDS and HS-ERGB; if the PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS leads disappear or reverse, the paper's state-of-the-art claim is not established. A second check: apply the density-based cropping to the baselines as well and see whether MTGNet still leads.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the temporal granularity of the event representation is a first-order factor in deblurring quality, and that no single representation is sufficient: voxel-based events give dense spatial features but coarse time bins, and point-cloud events give exact timestamps but almost no spatial density. MTGNet therefore fuses both, using a Coarse Temporal Fusion Branch built on a multi-scale U-Net for images and voxel events, and a Fine-grained Point Branch that treats events as points (x, y, t). The Aggregation and Mapping Module groups points by farthest-point sampling and k-nearest neighbors, aggregates each group's features by attention, fuses across time bins with an LSTM, and maps the result back to the image plane using the group centroids. The Adaptive Feature Diffusion Module then estimates a per-position Gaussian diffusion range from the fused coarse features and spreads each sparse point feature over that neighborhood. The paper reports that this combination sets new state-of-the-art numbers on synthetic and real datasets, with the largest gains coming from the diffusion step.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark claim assumes that training MTGNet only on patches cropped from high-event-density regions does not give it an advantage over comparison methods trained with standard random crops.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If MTGNet's reported gains hold, the deblurring community has a new best-practice input: keep raw event timestamps rather than collapsing them into bins, and spend network capacity on mapping sparse points into image space.
  • The ablation results imply that point-cloud events alone are not enough: without diffusion they barely change performance, so the benefit comes specifically from fusing fine time with dense space and then densifying the point features.
  • On the real-world MS-RBD dataset, where no ground truth is available, the method shows qualitative generalization when trained only on Ev-REDS, suggesting the representation choice transfers across sensors with different resolutions.
  • Because the AFDM produces a per-image diffusion map, the same architecture could adapt to variable event density and resolution mismatch without re-training for each sensor pair.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's theoretical argument that finer $\Delta t$ always helps suggests a testable scaling rule: holding the network fixed, deblurring quality should improve monotonically as the number of time bins $b$ increases, until spatial sparsity dominates. The paper does not run this sweep.
  • The density-based cropping strategy could be masking part of the gain: if the same cropping were applied to the baselines, the reported state-of-the-art margins might shrink or reverse. This is the main risk to the claim.
  • The point branch's LSTM temporal fusion and the Gaussian diffusion could be reused as a plug-in module for other event-vs-frame fusion tasks such as interpolation, super-resolution, or high-dynamic-range imaging, not just deblurring.
  • A direct comparison against a voxel-only variant with the same total parameter count and the same cropping protocol would isolate the contribution of the point branch; the paper's ablations vary both the representation and the presence of AFDM together.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes MTGNet, a network for event-based motion deblurring that fuses two event representations: a spatially dense, temporally coarse voxel representation and a spatially sparse, temporally fine point-cloud representation. A Coarse Temporal Fusion Branch processes the blurry image and voxel events, while a Fine-grained Point Branch uses an Aggregation and Mapping Module (AMM) to align point-cloud features to the image/voxel feature planes and an Adaptive Feature Diffusion Module (AFDM) to diffuse the sparse point features. The authors provide a Taylor-expansion argument (Eqs. (5)-(9)) that finer temporal sampling reduces the deblurring error, and they report state-of-the-art PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS on Ev-REDS and HS-ERGB, with qualitative results on MS-RBD. Ablations on HS-ERGB support the contribution of the voxel branch, the point-cloud branch with AFDM, and the loss-weight setting.

Significance. If the empirical claims were established under a controlled protocol, this paper would make a valuable contribution to event-based deblurring by demonstrating that point-cloud event representations, previously used mostly for high-level tasks, can be integrated with voxel representations for low-level restoration. The AMM and AFDM modules are reasonable and address genuine challenges of sparsity and resolution mismatch. The paper's analytic derivation, while in need of correction, correctly points toward the benefit of temporally fine event data. The ablation study provides clear evidence for the architectural components. However, the main empirical claim is currently undermined by a training-protocol confound (density-based cropping applied only to the proposed method), and no code is provided. These issues prevent the paper from establishing its central claim in its present form.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV-A (Implementation details; density-based random cropping) and Section IV-B (Comparisons with…] The density-based random cropping strategy is applied only to MTGNet, while the comparison methods are said to be trained 'under the optimal parameter settings as specified in the respective papers.' If baselines use uniform cropping, the training distributions differ: MTGNet sees only patches centered in regions with >80% event density, which may be systematically easier than the uniformly cropped patches used for the baselines. This confound undermines the state-of-the-art claim in Table I. The paper should either (i) train all methods with the same cropping strategy, (ii) train MTGNet with uniform random cropping, or (iii) provide an ablation showing that the reported ranking is invariant to the cropping rule. Without one of these, the gains of +0.26 dB over STCNet and +0.37 dB over TRMD on Ev-REDS cannot be reliably attributed to the proposed architecture.
  2. [Section III-A, Eqs. (8)-(9)] The discretization-error analysis is mathematically incorrect. For the left Riemann sum used in Eq. (8), the error between the integral and the sum is O(Δt) in general, not O(Δt^2) as claimed in Eq. (9). Specifically, the Euler-Maclaurin formula gives a leading term proportional to Δt [f(t0)+f(tn)], which is absent from Eq. (9). If the authors intended a trapezoidal or higher-order quadrature rule, that rule must be stated and used consistently. The qualitative conclusion that finer temporal sampling improves deblurring remains plausible, but the derivation as written needs to be corrected or replaced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-C2 (Related Work)] Reference [15] is cited for both 'DS-Deblur' and 'EIFNet'; these appear to be different methods, so the citation list or the text should be corrected to cite the appropriate paper for DS-Deblur.
  2. [Table II (Ablation study)] The check-mark layout in Table II is ambiguous in the provided format; for example, row 4 could be read as 'Image + Voxel + Cloud' or 'Image + Cloud + AFDM.' Please use explicit column labels or symbols so that each configuration is unambiguous.
  3. [Section III-B (Pre-Processing of the Events)] The point-cloud representation in Eq. (4) discards polarity by setting z = t. The paper should discuss this design choice and its potential effect on deblurring performance, since polarity encodes the direction of intensity change.
  4. [General] The paper does not state whether code or trained models will be released. Given the multi-representation pipeline and the dataset-specific preprocessing, providing code/checkpoints would aid reproducibility.
  5. [Figs. 3 and 4] The figure captions contain the fragment '/searc', which appears to be a typo for '/search'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the granularity error bound is an independent numerical derivation and the SOTA claim is tested against external baselines.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Eqs. (7)-(9) is self-contained: it starts from the standard event-based blur formation model B = (1/(tn-t0))∫I(t)dt and the event-integration model I(t)=I(t0)exp(Σ cj), substitutes one into the other, and uses Taylor expansion to bound the discretization error 1/I(t0)-1/Î(t0) by terms of order (Δt)^2 and (Δt)^3. This is a mathematical accuracy bound, not a fitted parameter, and it does not assume the network succeeds; it only shows that finer temporal sampling reduces the approximation error of the discrete event integral. The architectural conclusion drawn from it is therefore independent of the experimental results. The SOTA claim (Table I) is supported by comparisons on public datasets Ev-REDS, HS-ERGB, and MS-RBD against eight external methods, with metrics computed under the GEM benchmark. The paper cites the authors' own prior point-cloud event networks (FAPNet [20], TTPOINT [26], and related work), but only as background/building blocks for the point-cloud branch; those citations are not the source of the central deblurring claim. The density-based random cropping described in Section IV-A is a comparison-protocol concern that could affect the validity of the SOTA comparison, but it is not a circular reduction: no quantity in Table I is defined in terms of another fitted quantity or obtained by constructing the target result from its own definition. No circular step is exhibited, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; AMM and AFDM are architectural components, not postulated entities. The central claim depends mainly on architecture hyperparameters, with the loss weights tuned on an evaluation dataset and the cropping strategy selecting high-density training patches, both of which are free parameters that affect the reported performance.

free parameters (7)
  • temporal bin count b = 30
    Exposure time divided into 30 bins for both voxel and point cloud representations; chosen without ablation, and makes the voxel branch finer than the typical b=6 used in prior work.
  • sampled points m per bin = 1024
    Number of points randomly selected in each time bin, with repetition when sparse; hand-set in Section IV-A.
  • group number M and neighbors K = M=1024, K=24
    Farthest point sampling and k-NN grouping parameters for the point branch, stated in Network Details.
  • ResBlock depth = 20
    Depth of the Resblock layers in the Aggregation and Mapping Module, stated in Network Details.
  • max diffusion range alpha = 5
    Predefined maximum diffusion range in Eq (15), controlling the Gaussian spread in AFDM.
  • loss weights lambda1:lambda2:lambda3 = 10:1:0.1
    Selected via ablation on HS-ERGB (Table III), which is also the benchmark used for final reporting, so the final numbers partly reflect test-set tuning.
  • density cropping threshold = 80%
    Only regions with event density above 80% are used as cropping centers for training patches in the density-based random cropping strategy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Blur formation model B = (1/(tn-t0)) * integral of I(t) over the exposure interval
    Standard assumption that the blurry image is the time average of sharp intensities; used in Eq (5) and throughout the motivation.
  • domain assumption Event contrast model I(t) = I(t0) * exp(sum of c_j)
    Assumes logarithmic intensity change per event with a constant hardware threshold c; used in Eq (6). This is an idealized model that may not hold under noise or non-ideal sensors.
  • standard math Smoothness of f(E,t) for Taylor expansion
    Eq (9) requires f and its derivatives to be well-behaved over the exposure interval; this is a mathematical regularity assumption not guaranteed for raw event data.
  • domain assumption Treating event time as a z coordinate and discarding polarity
    The point cloud representation in Eq (4) drops polarity and uses t as z; this is a modeling choice that may discard useful contrast information.
  • ad hoc to paper Spatial alignment via bicubic interpolation and gamma scaling
    Resolution discrepancies between event and image sensors are handled by bicubic interpolation and scaling coordinates by gamma, without explicit calibration or uncertainty modeling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Event-based Motion Deblurring via Multi-Temporal Granularity Fusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OQCTYQDT

@misc{pith2026241211866,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Event-based Motion Deblurring via Multi-Temporal Granularity Fusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OQCTYQDT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11866}
}
read the original abstract

Conventional frame-based cameras inevitably produce blurry effects due to motion occurring during the exposure time. Event camera, a bio-inspired sensor offering continuous visual information could enhance the deblurring performance. Effectively utilizing the high-temporal-resolution event data is crucial for extracting precise motion information and enhancing deblurring performance. However, existing event-based image deblurring methods usually utilize voxel-based event representations, losing the fine-grained temporal details that are mathematically essential for fast motion deblurring. In this paper, we first introduce point cloud-based event representation into the image deblurring task and propose a Multi-Temporal Granularity Network (MTGNet). It combines the spatially dense but temporally coarse-grained voxel-based event representation and the temporally fine-grained but spatially sparse point cloud-based event. To seamlessly integrate such complementary representations, we design a Fine-grained Point Branch. An Aggregation and Mapping Module (AMM) is proposed to align the low-level point-based features with frame-based features and an Adaptive Feature Diffusion Module (AFDM) is designed to manage the resolution discrepancies between event data and image data by enriching the sparse point feature. Extensive subjective and objective evaluations demonstrate that our method outperforms current state-of-the-art approaches on both synthetic and real-world datasets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11866 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of deblurring results with the state-of-the-art event-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall framework of MTGNet. The event stream is shaped into the point cloud-based representation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparisons under Ev-REDS dataset. Best viewed on a screen and zoomed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparisons under Ev-REDS dataset. Best viewed on a screen and zoomed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative comparisons under HS-ERGB dataset. Best viewed on a screen and zoomed in. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparisons under MS-RBD dataset. Best viewed on a screen and zoomed in. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparisons of the ablation study. Image means image input, Voxel stands for the voxel-based event representation, Cloud is Point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparisons of the ablation study with the point feature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. ClearSight: Human Vision-Inspired Solutions for Event-Based Motion Deblurring

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    BDHNet, a bioinspired hybrid SNN-ANN network with neuron configuration and blur-region masking, achieves state-of-the-art event-based motion deblurring on GoPro, REBlur, and MS-RBD.

  2. Scalable Event Cloud Network for Event-based Classification

    cs.CV 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A frequency-aware network operating on raw-like event clouds matches or beats prior event-based models on nine benchmarks while using roughly 0.1 G MACs, far below frame and voxel baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Real-world deep local motion deblurring,

    H. Li, Z. Zhang, T. Jiang, P. Luo, H. Feng, and Z. Xu, “Real-world deep local motion deblurring,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 37, no. 1, 2023, pp. 1314–1322

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Adaptive window pruning for efficient local motion deblurring,

    H. Li, J. Zhao, S. Zhou, H. Feng, C. Li, and C. C. Loy, “Adaptive window pruning for efficient local motion deblurring,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Removing camera shake from a single photograph,

    R. Fergus, B. Singh, A. Hertzmann, S. T. Roweis, and W. T. Freeman, “Removing camera shake from a single photograph,” in Acm Siggraph 2006 Papers, 2006, pp. 787–794

    2006

  4. [4]

    Non-uniform blind deblurring by reblurring,

    Y . Bahat, N. Efrat, and M. Irani, “Non-uniform blind deblurring by reblurring,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 2017, pp. 3286–3294

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Blind deconvolution using alternating maximum a posteriori estimation with heavy-tailed priors,

    J. Kotera, F. ˇSroubek, and P. Milanfar, “Blind deconvolution using alternating maximum a posteriori estimation with heavy-tailed priors,” in Computer Analysis of Images and Patterns: 15th International Con- ference, CAIP 2013, York, UK, August 27-29, 2013, Proceedings, Part II 15. Springer, 2013, pp. 59–66

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Rethinking coarse-to-fine approach in single image deblurring,

    S.-J. Cho, S.-W. Ji, J.-P. Hong, S.-W. Jung, and S.-J. Ko, “Rethinking coarse-to-fine approach in single image deblurring,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , 2021, pp. 4641–4650

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Stripformer: Strip transformer for fast image deblurring,

    F.-J. Tsai, Y .-T. Peng, Y .-Y . Lin, C.-C. Tsai, and C.-W. Lin, “Stripformer: Strip transformer for fast image deblurring,” in European conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 146–162

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Frequency-aware event-based video deblurring for real-world motion blur,

    T. Kim, H. Cho, and K.-J. Yoon, “Frequency-aware event-based video deblurring for real-world motion blur,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 24 966–24 976

    work page 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

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

    C. Brandli, R. Berner, M. Yang, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “A 240 × 180 130 db 3 µs latency global shutter spatiotemporal vision sensor,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits , vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 2333–2341, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Event- based vision: A survey,

    G. Gallego, T. Delbr ¨uck, G. Orchard, C. Bartolozzi, B. Taba, A. Censi, S. Leutenegger, A. J. Davison, J. Conradt, K. Daniilidis et al., “Event- based vision: A survey,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 154–180, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Event-based image deblurring with dynamic motion awareness,

    P. Vitoria, S. Georgoulis, S. Tulyakov, A. Bochicchio, J. Erbach, and Y . Li, “Event-based image deblurring with dynamic motion awareness,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2022, pp. 95– 112

    2022

  4. [12]

    Unifying motion deblurring and frame interpo- lation with events,

    X. Zhang and L. Yu, “Unifying motion deblurring and frame interpo- lation with events,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 17 765–17 774

    2022

  5. [13]

    Learning event-driven video deblurring and interpolation,

    S. Lin, J. Zhang, J. Pan, Z. Jiang, D. Zou, Y . Wang, J. Chen, and J. Ren, “Learning event-driven video deblurring and interpolation,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part VIII 16 . Springer, 2020, pp. 695–710

    2020

  6. [14]

    Event-based fusion for motion deblurring with cross- modal attention,

    L. Sun, C. Sakaridis, J. Liang, Q. Jiang, K. Yang, P. Sun, Y . Ye, K. Wang, and L. V . Gool, “Event-based fusion for motion deblurring with cross- modal attention,” in European conference on computer vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 412–428

    2022

  7. [15]

    Event-based motion deblurring with modality-aware decomposition and recomposition,

    W. Yang, J. Wu, L. Li, W. Dong, and G. Shi, “Event-based motion deblurring with modality-aware decomposition and recomposition,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2023, pp. 8327–8335

    2023

  8. [16]

    Adaptive time-slice block-matching optical flow algorithm for dynamic vision sensors

    M. Liu and T. Delbruck, “Adaptive time-slice block-matching optical flow algorithm for dynamic vision sensors.” BMVC, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Bringing events into video deblurring with non-consecutively blurry frames,

    W. Shang, D. Ren, D. Zou, J. S. Ren, P. Luo, and W. Zuo, “Bringing events into video deblurring with non-consecutively blurry frames,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021, pp. 4531–4540

    2021

  10. [18]

    Hots: a hierarchy of event-based time-surfaces for pattern recognition,

    X. Lagorce, G. Orchard, F. Galluppi, B. E. Shi, and R. B. Benosman, “Hots: a hierarchy of event-based time-surfaces for pattern recognition,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1346–1359, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Event-based high dynamic range image and very high frame rate video generation using conditional generative adversarial networks,

    L. Wang, Y .-S. Ho, K.-J. Yoon et al., “Event-based high dynamic range image and very high frame rate video generation using conditional generative adversarial networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2019, pp. 10 081–10 090

    2019

  12. [20]

    Fapnet: An effective frequency adaptive point-based eye tracker,

    X. Lin, H. Ren, and B. Cheng, “Fapnet: An effective frequency adaptive point-based eye tracker,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 5789–5798

    2024

  13. [21]

    Temporal binary representation for event-based action recognition,

    S. U. Innocenti, F. Becattini, F. Pernici, and A. Del Bimbo, “Temporal binary representation for event-based action recognition,” in 2020 25th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 10 426–10 432

    2020

  14. [22]

    Bringing a blurry frame alive at high frame-rate with an event camera,

    L. Pan, C. Scheerlinck, X. Yu, R. Hartley, M. Liu, and Y . Dai, “Bringing a blurry frame alive at high frame-rate with an event camera,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019, pp. 6820–6829

    2019

  15. [23]

    Event-based vision meets deep learning on steering prediction for self- driving cars,

    A. I. Maqueda, A. Loquercio, G. Gallego, N. Garc ´ıa, and D. Scaramuzza, “Event-based vision meets deep learning on steering prediction for self- driving cars,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 5419–5427

    2018

  16. [24]

    Motion deblur by learning residual from events,

    K. Chen and L. Yu, “Motion deblur by learning residual from events,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Space-time event clouds for gesture recognition: From rgb cameras to event cameras,

    Q. Wang, Y . Zhang, J. Yuan, and Y . Lu, “Space-time event clouds for gesture recognition: From rgb cameras to event cameras,” in 2019 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1826–1835

    2019

  18. [26]

    Ttpoint: A tensorized point cloud network for lightweight action recognition with event cameras,

    H. Ren, Y . Zhou, H. Fu, Y . Huang, R. Xu, and B. Cheng, “Ttpoint: A tensorized point cloud network for lightweight action recognition with event cameras,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia , 2023, pp. 8026–8034

    2023

  19. [27]

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

    A. Sironi, M. Brambilla, N. Bourdis, X. Lagorce, and R. Benosman, “Hats: Histograms of averaged time surfaces for robust event-based ob- ject classification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 1731–1740

    2018

  20. [28]

    A simple and effective point-based network for event camera 6-dofs pose relocaliza- tion,

    H. Ren, J. Zhu, Y . Zhou, H. Fu, Y . Huang, and B. Cheng, “A simple and effective point-based network for event camera 6-dofs pose relocaliza- tion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 18 112–18 121

    2024

  21. [29]

    Rethinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework,

    X. Ma, C. Qin, H. You, H. Ran, and Y . Fu, “Rethinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07123 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Pointnext: Revisiting pointnet++ with improved training and scaling strategies,

    G. Qian, Y . Li, H. Peng, J. Mai, H. Hammoud, M. Elhoseiny, and B. Ghanem, “Pointnext: Revisiting pointnet++ with improved training and scaling strategies,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 23 192–23 204, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

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

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

  24. [32]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,

    C. R. Qi, L. Yi, H. Su, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    Modeling point clouds with self-attention and gumbel subset sampling,

    J. Yang, Q. Zhang, B. Ni, L. Li, J. Liu, M. Zhou, and Q. Tian, “Modeling point clouds with self-attention and gumbel subset sampling,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 3323–3332

    2019

  26. [34]

    Efficient human pose estimation via 3d event point cloud,

    J. Chen, H. Shi, Y . Ye, K. Yang, L. Sun, and K. Wang, “Efficient human pose estimation via 3d event point cloud,” in 2022 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–10

    2022

  27. [35]

    3d pose estimation of two interacting hands from a monocular event camera,

    C. Millerdurai, D. Luvizon, V . Rudnev, A. Jonas, J. Wang, C. Theobalt, and V . Golyanik, “3d pose estimation of two interacting hands from a monocular event camera,” in 2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). IEEE, 2024, pp. 291–301

    2024

  28. [36]

    Multi- scale network for single image deblurring based on ensemble learning module,

    W. Wu, Y . Pan, N. Su, J. Wang, S. Wu, Z. Xu, Y . Yu, and Y . Liu, “Multi- scale network for single image deblurring based on ensemble learning module,” Multimedia Tools and Applications , pp. 1–20, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Blind image deblurring via superpixel segmentation prior,

    B. Luo, Z. Cheng, L. Xu, G. Zhang, and H. Li, “Blind image deblurring via superpixel segmentation prior,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1467–1482, 2021. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 12

    2021

  30. [38]

    Lightvid: Efficient video deblurring with spatial-temporal feature fusion,

    L. Lin, G. Wei, K. Liu, W. Feng, and T. Zhao, “Lightvid: Efficient video deblurring with spatial-temporal feature fusion,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology , 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Multi-scale frequency separation network for image deblurring,

    Y . Zhang, Q. Li, M. Qi, D. Liu, J. Kong, and J. Wang, “Multi-scale frequency separation network for image deblurring,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 5525– 5537, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Vdtr: Video deblurring with transformer,

    M. Cao, Y . Fan, Y . Zhang, J. Wang, and Y . Yang, “Vdtr: Video deblurring with transformer,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 160–171, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Event enhanced high-quality image recovery,

    B. Wang, J. He, L. Yu, G.-S. Xia, and W. Yang, “Event enhanced high-quality image recovery,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XIII 16. Springer, 2020, pp. 155–171

    2020

  34. [42]

    Aggregating long-term sharp features via hybrid transformers for video deblurring,

    D. Ren, W. Shang, Y . Yang, and W. Zuo, “Aggregating long-term sharp features via hybrid transformers for video deblurring,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.07054, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Generalizing event- based motion deblurring in real-world scenarios,

    X. Zhang, L. Yu, W. Yang, J. Liu, and G.-S. Xia, “Generalizing event- based motion deblurring in real-world scenarios,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 10 734–10 744

    2023

  36. [44]

    Motion-oriented hybrid spiking neural networks for event-based motion deblurring,

    Z. Liu, J. Wu, G. Shi, W. Yang, W. Dong, and Q. Zhao, “Motion-oriented hybrid spiking neural networks for event-based motion deblurring,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2023

    2023

  37. [45]

    Motion deblurring via spatial- temporal collaboration of frames and events,

    W. Yang, J. Wu, J. Ma, L. Li, and G. Shi, “Motion deblurring via spatial- temporal collaboration of frames and events,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 7, 2024, pp. 6531– 6539

    2024

  38. [46]

    Learning to extract a video sequence from a single motion-blurred image,

    M. Jin, G. Meishvili, and P. Favaro, “Learning to extract a video sequence from a single motion-blurred image,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 6334–6342

    2018

  39. [47]

    Exposure trajectory recovery from motion blur,

    Y . Zhang, C. Wang, S. J. Maybank, and D. Tao, “Exposure trajectory recovery from motion blur,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 7490–7504, 2021

    2021

  40. [48]

    Ntire 2019 challenge on video deblurring and super-resolution: Dataset and study,

    S. Nah, S. Baik, S. Hong, G. Moon, S. Son, R. Timofte, and K. Mu Lee, “Ntire 2019 challenge on video deblurring and super-resolution: Dataset and study,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops , 2019, pp. 0–0

    2019

  41. [49]

    Video to events: Recycling video datasets for event cameras,

    D. Gehrig, M. Gehrig, J. Hidalgo-Carri ´o, and D. Scaramuzza, “Video to events: Recycling video datasets for event cameras,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. 3586–3595

    2020

  42. [50]

    Time lens: Event-based video frame interpolation,

    S. Tulyakov, D. Gehrig, S. Georgoulis, J. Erbach, M. Gehrig, Y . Li, and D. Scaramuzza, “Time lens: Event-based video frame interpolation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 16 155–16 164

    2021

  43. [51]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

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