Authors: Gwangtak Bae, Jaeho Shin, Seunggu Kang, Junho Kim, Ayoung Kim, Young Min Kim
Organizations: Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Seoul National University · University of Michigan · Dept. of Future Automotive Mobility, Seoul National University · Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Seoul National University
Event cameras in motion tend to detect object boundaries or texture edges, which produce lines of brightness changes, especially in man-made environments. While lines can constitute a robust intermediate representation that is consistently observed, the sparse nature of lines may lead to drastic deterioration with minor estimation errors. Only a few previous works, often accompanied by additional sensors, utilize lines to compensate for the severe domain discrepancies of event sensors along with unpredictable noise characteristics. We propose a method that can stably extract tracks of varying appearances of lines using a clever algorithmic process that observes multiple representations from various time slices of events, compensating for potential adversaries within the event data. We then propose geometric cost functions that can refine the 3D line maps and camera poses, eliminating projective distortions and depth ambiguities. The 3D line maps are highly compact and can be equipped with our proposed cost function, which can be adapted for any observations that can detect and extract line structures or projections of them, including 3D point cloud maps or image observations. We demonstrate that our formulation is powerful enough to exhibit a significant performance boost in event-based mapping and pose refinement across diverse datasets, and can be flexibly applied to multimodal scenarios. Our results confirm that the proposed line-based formulation is a robust and effective approach for the practical deployment of event-based perceptual modules. Project page: https://gwangtak.github.io/roel/
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : We present RoEL, an event-based 3D line reconstruction pipeline that achieves noise-robust reconstruction by leveraging line correspondences. Our 3D line maps not only provide efficient representations for edge-capturing event cameras, but also enable cross-modal applications such as registration and localization.
Fig. 2 : Method overview. Our 3D line mapping pipeline, RoEL, consists of two stages: correspondence search and 3D line reconstruction. The first stage takes events and camera poses as input. Through line detection, plane fitting, and matching processes that take into account the characteristics of event data, it finds line correspondences and identifies the events supporting each line. In the second stage, our method triangulates 2D lines to generate initial 3D lines. We further optimize 3D lines with multi-view observations using cost functions defined in 3D space based on the Grassmann distance. Finally, our method outputs 3D line segments that effectively represent the scene.
Fig. 3 : Detection-guided space-time plane fitting. Through plane fitting for each line, raw events are distilled into inlier events, and noisy initial lines are refined. In the center box, the black line depicts an initial line which is used for candidate events selection for plane fitting, the red plane indicates the fitted plane, the red line represents the refined line, and the green dots denote all inlier events. Each line is associated with its corresponding events, and the inaccurate 2D lines are refined, as highlighted in the orange circle.
Fig. 4 : Difference from reprojection error. The two columns illustrate the same error-calculation scenario consisting of 3D line estimates and a 2D observation. In this scenario, different 3D line estimates project to the same 2D location, leading to identical reprojection errors. Our Grassmann-based cost evaluates geometric consistency directly in 3D.
Fig. 5 : Two different cost functions defined for 2D line observations and 2D event observations. The geodesic distance on the Grassmann manifold serve as the basis for cost functions. The left figure illustrates the cost function defined between a 2D line and a 3D line. We use the plane-to-line Grassmann distance between the red plane, which is back-projected from the 2D line, and the blue 3D line. The right figure shows the cost function defined between an event and a 3D line. We use the plane-to-line Grassmann distance between the green line back-projected from the event and the blue plane connecting the 3D line and the camera center.
Parameter
Value
Inlier selection threshold τ
2
Inlier selection Ne
100
Time-axis scaling for plane fitting
20
Candidate distance to line in Equation 2
10
Epipolar score threshold
0.3
Inlier error threshold using Equation 9
1.4
TABLE I : Key parameters used in our pipeline.
Dataset
Sensor
Event
Pose
Replica [ 62 ]
Synthetic
VID2E [ 63 ]
GT
TUM-VIE [ 64 ]
Prophesee Gen4
Real
DEVO
VECtor [ 65 ]
Prophesee Gen3
Real
DEVO
I2 -SLAM [ 66 ]
Synthetic
VID2E [ 63 ]
GT
TABLE II : Summary of datasets and experimental settings.
Method
Scene
Acc.↓
Comp.↓
IoU 5↑
IoU 10↑
IoU 20↑
#Rep.
Rep.
EL-SLAM [ 5 ]
avg
248.92
153.47
0.006
0.021
0.063
1169
Line
[0.7pt/2pt]
room0
194.57
123.34
0.006
0.022
0.063
966
room1
344.48
99.50
0.004
0.014
0.048
1375
room2
254.05
177.93
0.007
0.026
0.074
1222
office0
242.14
81.87
0.009
0.028
0.081
1331
office1
236.25
72.84
0.006
0.023
0.071
1350
TABLE III : Quantitative comparison of reconstruction quality on the Replica [ 62 ] dataset. ↓: lower is better, ↑: higher is better. Bold indicates best. #Rep. indicates the number of reconstructed lines or points.
Fig. 6 : Qualitative comparison of reconstruction quality on the Replica [ 62 ] dataset.
Fig. 7 : Qualitative comparison of reconstruction quality on the TUM-VIE [ 64 ] dataset.
Method
Scene
Acc.↓
P 5↑
P 10↑
P 20↑
#Rep.
Rep.
EL-SLAM [ 5 ]
avg
221.85
0.021
0.069
0.140
1711
Line
[0.7pt/2pt]
desk-fast
184.96
0.020
0.062
0.121
1953
sofa-fast
308.12
0.016
0.052
0.107
1654
desk-normal
109.17
0.028
0.096
0.197
436
sofa-normal
285.13
0.021
0.067
0.135
2799
LIMAP [ 15 ]
avg
91.21
0.034
0.105
0.233
278
Line
TABLE IV : Quantitative comparison of reconstruction quality on the VECtor [ 65 ] dataset. Bold indicates best. #Rep. indicates the number of lines or points. We report Accuracy and Precision using the ground-truth 3D point map, as we could not obtain a reliable ground-truth 3D edge map due to misalignment between the RGB and depth images.
Fig. 8 : Qualitative comparison of reconstruction quality on desk-normal of the VECtor [ 65 ] dataset. The first column shows the input scene. The ground-truth map, in color, is overlaid on the reconstructed map, represented by black points or lines.
Fig. 9 : Qualitative comparison of registration on office4 of the Replica [ 62 ] dataset. The background shows a dense RGB map reconstructed with RGB-D SLAM, and the red-colored map represents the reconstruction results after registration.
Method
Scene
R error ( ∘ ) ↓
t error ( m ) ↓
EL-SLAM [ 5 ]
avg
4.681
0.271
[0.7pt/2pt]
room0
2.419
0.289
room1
6.520
0.257
room2
2.745
0.475
office0
5.901
0.120
office1
5.102
0.126
TABLE V : Quantitative comparison of registration performance of the Replica [ 62 ] dataset. Bold indicates best.
Method
Scene
R error ( ∘ ) ↓
t error ( m ) ↓
EL-SLAM [ 5 ]
avg
15.82
0.62
[0.7pt/2pt]
desk-fast
21.28
0.91
sofa-fast
26.09
0.88
desk-normal
6.42
0.28
sofa-normal
9.49
0.41
LIMAP [ 15 ]
avg
9.42
0.29
TABLE VI : Quantitative comparison of registration performance on the VECtor [ 65 ] dataset. Bold indicates best.
Fig. 10 : Qualitative comparison of panoramic localization performance on room0 of the Replica [ 62 ] dataset. The background shows a query RGB panoramic image, and the red lines represent the projected 3D line map at the estimated camera pose. The blue boxes indicate the zoom-in regions.
Method
R error ( ∘ ) ↓
t error ( m ) ↓
Success (0.1 m /5 ∘ ) ↑
Success (0.3 m /15 ∘ ) ↑
EL-SLAM [ 5 ]
104.30
2.37
10.5
30.5
LIMAP [ 15 ]
5.81
0.08
37.0
61.0
Ours
5.18
0.04
45.5
81.5
TABLE VII : Quantitative comparison of panoramic localization performance on the Replica [ 62 ] dataset. Bold indicates best.
LIMAP [ 15 ]
Ours Line Grass.
Ours Event Grass.
ATE ↓ (Synthetic)
ATE ↓ (Real-world)
-
-
-
33.25
0.89
✓
-
-
32.05
0.76
-
✓
-
27.95
0.73
-
✓
✓
6.92
0.67
TABLE VIII : Pose refinement performance analysis. We compare LIMAP’s projection-based line cost and our Grassmann-based line and event cost functions.
Fig. 11 : Qualitative comparison of pose refinement performance. Black dashed lines indicates the ground-truth camera trajectory, and the noisy and optimized poses are shown in blur lines.
Fig. 12 : Comparison between frame-based line mapping with [ 15 ] and our event-based line mapping under high speed motion and underexposure. Sharp image in favorable condition, blurry image in high speed motion, blurry and underexposed image in high speed motion are used for comparison. Noisy events are synthesized to simulate low-light shot noise by injecting noise events into the clean event stream.
MWMR
Plane Fitting
Opt. Line LIMAP [ 15 ]
Opt. Line Grass.
Opt. Event Grass.
Acc. ↓
Comp. ↓
IoU 20 ↑
-
-
-
-
-
65.98
104.93
0.068
✓
-
-
-
-
68.00
51.17
0.053
✓
✓
-
-
-
47.94
44.09
0.089
✓
✓
✓
-
-
46.57
58.36
0.092
✓
✓
-
✓
-
39.81
58.82
0.097
✓
✓
-
✓
✓
28.63
55.20
0.120
TABLE IX : Ablation study. MWMR refers to the multi-window, multi-representation line detection module. Plane fitting denotes the 2D line refinement step. LIMAP [ 15 ] ’s projection-based line cost and our projection-free line and event cost defined on the Grassmann manifold are also analyzed. When MWMR is not used, we report the average performance over all combinations.
Plane Fitting Method
Precision↑
Recall↑
F-score↑
Direct Plane Fitting
0.603
0.228
0.331
Detection-guided Plane Fitting
0.535
0.526
0.530
TABLE X : Quantitative analysis on plane fitting strategies.
Fig. 13 : Qualitative analysis on plane fitting strategies. The fitted planes are sliced to visualize the resulting line segments.
Multiple Prediction
Line Merging
#Line
Precision↑
Recall↑
F-score↑
-
-
31
0.612
0.344
0.434
✓
-
185
0.359
0.758
0.487
✓
✓
55
0.530
0.523
0.526
TABLE XI : Quantitative analysis across stages of multi-window, multi-representation line detection. When Multiple Prediction is not used, we report the average performance over all predictions.
Window Size
F-score↑
Image Rep.
F-score↑
1/10
0.368
[ 9 ] +TOS
0.502
1/5
0.523
[ 10 ] +TOS
0.523
1
0.526
[ 9 ] + [ 10 ]
0.526
5
0.484
[ 9 ] +SITS
0.499
10
0.443
[ 10 ] +SITS
0.496
TABLE XII : Sensitivity analysis of MWMR line detection with respect to temporal window size and image representations: TOS [ 88 ] and SITS [ 89 , 90 ] .
Image Rep.
#Line
Precision↑
Recall↑
F-score↑
TOS
42
0.527
0.380
0.441
SITS
62
0.443
0.412
0.427
MWMR
55
0.530
0.523
0.526
TABLE XIII : Comparison of velocity-invariant representations and MWMR line detection.
Stage
Time (s)
Line detection
0.064
Plane fitting
0.358
Local matching
0.001
Global matching
0.663
Triangulation
0.120
Optimization
0.351
TABLE XIV : Runtime analysis. The reported values indicate the processing time per frame (in seconds).
Fig. 14 : Example of our method applied to a curved-shape chair. The 2D line detection results from two viewpoints and the reconstructed 3D line map are shown.
The emergence of neural radiance fields (NeRF) and 3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS) has advanced novel view synthesis (NVS). These methods, however, require high-quality RGB inputs and accurate corresponding poses, limiting robustness under real-world conditions such as fast camera motion or adverse lighting. Event cameras, which capture brightness changes at each pixel with high temporal resolution and wide dynamic range, enable precise sensing of dynamic scenes and offer a promising solution. However, existing event-based NVS methods either assume known poses or rely on depth estimation models that are bounded by their initial observations, failing to generalize as the camera traverses previously unseen regions. We present E2EGS, a pose-free framework operating solely on event streams. Our key insight is that edge information provides rich structural cues essential for accurate trajectory estimation and high-quality NVS. To extract edges from noisy event streams, we exploit the distinct spatio-temporal characteristics of edges and non-edge regions. The event camera's movement induces consistent events along edges, while non-edge regions produce sparse noise. We leverage this through a patch-based temporal coherence analysis that measures local variance to extract edges while robustly suppressing noise. The extracted edges guide structure-aware Gaussian initialization and enable edge-weighted losses throughout initialization, tracking, and bundle adjustment. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real datasets demonstrate that E2EGS achieves superior reconstruction quality and trajectory accuracy, establishing a fully pose-free paradigm for event-based 3D reconstruction.
Yunsoo Kim, Changki Sung, Dasol Hong +1
Urban Robotics Lab, School of Electrical Engineering, KAIST
Reconstructing dynamic 3D scenes over time (4D reconstruction) from a single moving camera is central to robotics and AR/VR applications, yet state-of the-art feed-forward methods rely solely on RGB frames and therefore inherit the failure modes of conventional cameras, including motion blur and temporal aliasing under fast or non-uniform camera and object motion. Event cameras report per-pixel brightness changes asynchronously at microsecond resolution, offering a complementary signal that is largely immune to these artifacts, but whether this modality can be incorporated into existing RGB based 4D reconstruction pipelines without a full architectural redesign remains an open question. In this preliminary study, we investigate a minimal extension: we augment Monst3R, an existing RGB-only 4D reconstruction model, with an additional event-camera input branch, leaving the rest of the architecture unchanged. Across 3 benchmark datasets, this simple RGB-event fusion reduces Abs Rel by 3.4% on average relative to the RGB-only Monst3R baseline, and a sensitivity analysis shows that the improvement grows with the magnitude of camera and object motion, with the largest gains observed under high object motion conditions where RGB-only reconstruction degrades most. These early results suggest that even a lightweight, non-invasive fusion of event data can meaningfully improve 4D reconstruction robustness, motivating a more thorough architectural investigation in future work.
Dulanga Weerakoon, Darshana Rathnayake, Van Minh Do +7
Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research & Technology Centre · Singapore Management University · Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Event cameras are rapidly rising in popularity for robotic and computer vision tasks because their sparse activation delivers energy-efficient, high-dynamic-range, and fast sensing. Event cameras have been used in robotic navigation and localization tasks where positioning must occur in real time with sufficient accuracy. However, current event-based localization methods suffer from poor spatial understanding and are not viewpoint tolerant. In this paper, we address the problem of viewpoint-robust place recognition directly from event streams. We present EventGeM, a global-to-local feature fusion pipeline for event-based visual place recognition that combines whole-image feature detection to shortlist top candidates for 2D homography-based re-ranking with random sample consensus (RANSAC). We also contribute a regional generalized mean pooling (GeM) layer that learns to return the most relevant spatial features using per-row exponents to pool event streams into a compact global descriptor, trained on the NYC-Event-VPR dataset. These contributions overcome shortfalls in currently available event-based localization methods that fail to recognize similar places with large changes in viewpoint. To evaluate viewpoint-robust localization, we contribute a new event-based dataset that includes repeated traverses with a severe lateral shift. EventGeM improves absolute Recall@1 by 7 to 43 percentage points over the strongest baseline in each experiment. We also deploy EventGeM on a robotic platform, demonstrating real-time performance of our hierarchical pipeline. The code for EventGeM is available at https://github.com/AdamDHines/Event-GeM.
Adam D. Hines, Gokul B. Nair, Nicolás Marticorena +2
QUT Centre for Robotics, School of Electrical Engineering and Robotics, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia.