Safety-critical perception for unmanned aerial vehicles and rotating machinery requires microsecond-latency tracking of fast, periodic motion under egomotion and strong distractors. Frame-based and event-based trackers drift or break on propellers because periodic signatures violate their smooth-motion assumptions. We tackle this gap with HelixTrack, a fully event-driven method that jointly tracks propeller-like objects and estimates their rotations per minute (RPM). Incoming events are back-warped from the image plane into the rotor plane via a homography estimated on the fly. A Kalman Filter maintains instantaneous estimates of phase. Batched iterative updates refine the object pose by coupling phase residuals to geometry. To our knowledge, no public dataset targets joint tracking and RPM estimation of propeller-like objects. We therefore introduce the Timestamped Quadcopter with Egomotion (TQE) dataset with 13 high-resolution event sequences, containing 52 rotating objects in total, captured at distances of 2 m / 4 m, with increasing egomotion and microsecond RPM ground truth. On TQE, HelixTrack processes full-rate events (approx. 11.8x real time) faster than real time and microsecond latency. It consistently outperforms per-event and aggregation-based baselines adapted for RPM estimation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: HelixTrack – tracking and instantaneous rotations per minute estimation of propeller-like objects from asynchronous events. Incoming events are back‑warped from the image plane “ z ” into the rotor plane “ u ” by a homography. Rotor‑plane coordinates are gated with rin and rout to a ring‑shaped band and used for: (i) per-event phase update via Kalman filter, and (ii) batched pose refinement via iterative homography update.
Figure 2: Aggregated events from two sequences in the Timestamped Quadcopter with Egomotion dataset. Top row: smallest egomotion ( Mego=1 ); bottom row: largest egomotion ( Mego=7 ). Events are aggregated from the first 10 ms of five 1-second intervals.
MArE ( % ) ↓
MAE (RPM) ↓
RMSE (RPM) ↓
d
Mego
l (s)
propeller
ours
AEB [ 15 ]
DeepEv [ 4 ]
ours
AEB [ 15 ]
DeepEv [ 4 ]
ours
AEB [ 15 ]
DeepEv [ 4 ]
2 m
1
28.7
rear
right
1.3
61.4
8564.8
93.7
5980.8
652423.7
215.9
7186.8
785896.2
rear
left
1.3
0.9
402.4
81.4
73.0
32090.3
241.4
241.2
46466.0
front
left
1.5
35.3
4132.0
118.4
2487.0
303141.3
194.1
3302.9
359054.3
front
right
1.2
65.5
94.6
77.8
5650.8
8759.2
186.3
7673.3
9700.4
3
27.7
rear
right
1.2
1198.7
5013.6
85.1
102482.5
386360.6
223.2
192935.8
437954.9
Table 1: Benchmark on selected recordings of Timestamped Quadcopter with Egomotion (TQE). For each presented method and setting (camera-target distance d , egomotion level Mego ), the average shaft-RPM mean absolute relative error (MArE), mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean squared error (RMSE) are reported over 4‑fold cross‑validation across the four propellers (one training propeller per fold). Both AEB-Tracker [ 15 ] and DeepEv [ 4 ] methods were modified to allow RPM estimation (see Sec. 4.3 ). TQE ground-truth RPM has μ±σ=11193±3540 , min917 , max15768 . Duration l of recording reported in seconds. Mego=1 roughly means “slow camera movement”, while Mego=5 means “fast camera movement” (see Fig. 2 ). As Mego increases, the camera experiences stronger egomotion, leading to increase of the number of events generated in the background. Complete results are provided in supplementary Table S3 .
Event
Stride
MAE (RPM) ↓
RTFest↑
Uevt/UGN
1
105.6±
48.8
13.6±
3.6
775.00±
249.17
2
1382.2±
3277.8
30.3±
12.5
1520.84±
1477.22
3
1339.7±
2933.5
42.8±
12.2
1081.24±
854.28
4
2492.1±
3520.2
53.1±
22.8
559.09±
645.35
Table 2: Runtime-accuracy trade‑off for event subsampling. We report mean ± standard deviation across 4-fold cross-validation on the 23 successfully tracked propellers (MAE ≤ 300 RPM) from Timestamped Quadcopter with Egomotion dataset. Metrics: Mean Absolute Error (MAE, RPM; lower is better), the estimated real‑time factor RTFest (higher is better) computed as sequence duration divided by the total compute time (per‑event EKF updates plus batched Gauss-Newton (GN) solves), and the mean per‑update costs Uevt/UGN for a single event update and a single GN pose solve, respectively. “Event stride = k” means only every k-th event is processed. See Sec. 4.5 for the details and definitions.
Figure 3: Projection of per‑propeller unit circles under the final homography estimate, overlaid with HelixTrack trajectories on selected Timestamped Quadcopter with Egomotion sequences. Propellers are color‑coded: rear left green, rear right orange, front left red, front right cyan. Markers encode time: size increases and opacity decreases backward in time, so older states appear larger and more transparent.
Figure 4: Robustness to initialization errors. We perturb the initial tracker position, in‑plane scale, and initial RPM by ±{1,2,…,100}% around the nominal initialization and run HelixTrack end‑to‑end. For position, we average shifts “toward” and “away from” the nearest distractor (propeller). The plot reports shaft‑RPM Mean Absolute Error (MAE) across propellers with MAE ≤300 (lower is better); red line marks 10,000 RPM.
Figure S1 : Aggregated events from all sequences in the Timestamped Quadcopter with Egomotion dataset with camera-to-quadcopter distance of 2 m, from the smallest (top row, Mego =1), to the largest (bottom row, Mego =7) egomotion intensity. Events from the first 10 ms of five 1-second intervals are shown. Positive events displayed in black, negative in gray.
Figure S2 : Aggregated events from all sequences in the Timestamped Quadcopter with Egomotion dataset with camera-to-quadcopter distance of 4 m, from the smallest (top row, Mego =1), to the largest (bottom row, Mego =7) egomotion intensity. Events from the first 10 ms of five 1-second intervals are shown. Positive events displayed in black, negative in gray.
rin
rout
MAE (RPM) ↓
median
0.0
1.4
25897.838 ±
64560.838
6837.504
0.0
1.5
31173.431 ±
89359.956
6623.163
0.0
1.6
21958.240 ±
62330.271
7017.397
0.0
1.7
33919.799 ±
133795.000
7763.656
0.0
1.8
17984.723 ±
43510.488
6545.428
0.0
1.9
15783.097 ±
43241.885
7078.281
Table S1 : Grid search over rin and rout with qjerk=400 , λϕ=1.0 , λr=1.0 , λpol=0.25 , λband=5.0 , λBTO=1.0 , γx=γy=6.0 , γpersp=1.0 . The best setting (lowest MAE mean) is highlighted in bold. See Sec. S4
d
Mego
all
λϕ=0
λr=0
λpol=0
λband=0
λBTO=0
2 m
1
92.8 ±
18.4
98.8 ±
21.5
F
5701.9 ±
3786.9
92.8 ±
18.4
92.8 ±
18.4
2 m
2
90.1 ±
16.9
2347.5 ±
2766.6
9327.1 ±
175.7
2103.3 ±
4024.6
89.7 ±
16.6
90.1 ±
16.9
2 m
3
680.2 ±
974.9
3883.1 ±
7372.4
8430.9 ±
1589.7
7438.6 ±
1700.5
1319.7 ±
1522.6
612.5 ±
841.1
2 m
4
7212.5 ±
332.2
7807.8 ±
3357.2
8720.0 ±
1068.0
7427.7 ±
950.7
F
6821.1 ±
475.0
2 m
5
7488.4 ±
2162.5
6718.4 ±
2246.1
F
7142.7 ±
1866.7
7452.8 ±
1056.6
8434.2 ±
974.4
2 m
6
7981.4 ±
1705.1
8902.2 ±
307.7
8210.8 ±
2099.4
8182.7 ±
1695.0
7997.8 ±
1939.9
7868.9 ±
899.4
Table S2 : Loss term ablation. Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of RPM (lower is better) under 4‑fold cross‑validation on the Timestamped Quadcopter with Egomotion (TQE) dataset, reported for two camera–target distances (2 m / 4 m) and seven egomotion levels Mego . “All” uses the full batch objective in Eq. ( 4 ) with: phase–geometry alignment rϕ , radial centering rr , polarity alignment rpol , soft annulus barriers rin,rout , and Balanced Tip Occupancy ℓBTO . Each ablation zeroes the indicated coefficient (λϕ,λr,λpol,λband,λBTO) . TQE ground-truth RPM has μ±σ=11193.5±3540.2 . Values are mean ± std.
MArE (%) ↓
MAE (RPM) ↓
RMSE (RPM) ↓
d
Mego
propeller
ours
AEB [ 15 ]
DeepEv [ 4 ]
ours
AEB [ 15 ]
DeepEv [ 4 ]
ours
AEB [ 15 ]
DeepEv [ 4 ]
2 m
1
rear
right
1.3
61.4
8564.8
93.7 ✓
5980.8
652423.7
215.9
7186.8
785896.2
rear
left
1.3
0.9
402.4
81.4 ✓
73.0
32090.3
241.4
241.2
46466.0
front
left
1.5
35.3
4132.0
118.4 ✓
2487.0
303141.3
194.1
3302.9
359054.3
front
right
1.2
65.5
94.6
77.8 ✓
5650.8
8759.2
186.3
7673.3
9700.4
2
rear
right
1.2
52.1
9523.5
85.0 ✓
4637.6
749060.3
178.9
5549.9
904654.7
Table S3 : Benchmark, Timestamped Quadcopter with Egomotion (TQE). For each presented method and setting (camera-target distance d , egomotion level Mego ), the average shaft-RPM mean absolute relative error (MArE), mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean squared error (RMSE) are reported over 4‑fold cross‑validation across the four propellers (one training propeller per fold). Both AEB-Tracker [ 15 ] and DeepEv [ 4 ] methods were modified to allow RPM estimation (see Sec. 4.3 ). TQE ground-truth RPM has μ±σ=11193±3540 , min917 , max15768 . Mego=1 roughly means “slow camera movement”, while Mego=5 means “fast camera movement” (see Fig. 2 ). As Mego increases, the camera experiences stronger egomotion, leading to increase of the number of events generated in the background.
rb
Δt
qxy
qq
MArE (%) ↓
median
MAE (RPM) ↓
median
22
2
0.2
0.25
496.419 ±
402.402
428.662
39026.775 ±
35704.452
27149.123
22
2
0.2
0.5
538.978 ±
532.238
335.813
41383.706 ±
40575.234
24252.682
22
2
0.2
1
650.760 ±
610.255
580.914
49669.433 ±
45197.183
44281.303
22
2
0.2
2
697.412 ±
668.144
537.904
53110.765 ±
50873.870
39796.295
22
2
1
0.25
587.555 ±
478.454
411.100
39086.051 ±
29527.280
26570.284
22
2
1
0.5
544.618 ±
510.582
401.498
41860.949 ±
39341.854
30303.074
Table S4 : AEB-Tracker grid search results. MAE and MArE reported as μ±σ . See Sec. S3 for description.
Visual object tracking follows objects across video frames, maintaining their locations and identities despite motion, occlusion, and changing appearance.
Estimating propeller rates from a moving event camera requires separating blade rotation from the changing image geometry. Background activity mixes with blade events, while repeated blade appearances admit half- and double-rate ambiguities. We propose CoHelix, a recursive filter that estimates one shared homography and separate rotation states for four rigidly mounted, coplanar propellers. Each admitted event updates its assigned rotation state, and its accepted geometry measurements correct the shared homography used to interpret later events from every propeller. We report lock, the fraction of evaluated time for which an estimate remains within 2% of synchronized ground truth, because mean error alone does not show how long a tracker follows the true rate. With fixed-rate initialization, leave-one-recording-out evaluation on moving-camera data gives CoHelix 62.9% lock, compared with 39.8% for HelixTrack and 22.2% for EventPro. With other settings fixed, allowing four geometry contributors instead of one raises lock from 3.4% to 62.9%. On a private target-follower dataset with a different target quadcopter, CoHelix retains the measurement settings selected on moving-camera data and uses a fixed initial rate. It reaches 95.9% lock, compared with 56.2% for HelixTrack and 61.1% for EventPro.
Radim Spetlik, Tobiáš Vinklárek, Jan Klivan +3
Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Electrical Engineering
Autonomous swarms of multi-Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) system requires an accurate and fast relative state estimation. Although monocular frame-based camera methods perform well in ideal conditions, they are slow, suffer scale ambiguity, and often struggle in visually challenging conditions. The advent of event cameras addresses these challenging tasks by providing low latency, high dynamic range, and microsecond-level temporal resolution. This paper proposes a framework for relative state estimation for quadrotors using event-based propeller sensing. The propellers in the event stream are tracked by detection to extract the region-of-interests. The event streams in these regions are processed in temporal chunks to estimate per-propeller frequencies. These frequency measurements drive a kinematic state estimation module as a thrust input, while camera-derived position measurements provide the update step. Additionally, we use geometric primitives derived from event streams to estimate the orientation of the quadrotor by fitting an ellipse over a propeller and backprojecting it to recover body-frame tilt-axis. The existing event-based approaches for quadrotor state estimation use the propeller frequency in simulated flight sequences. Our approach estimates the propeller frequency under 3% error on a test dataset of five real-world outdoor flight sequences, providing a method for decentralized relative localization for multi-robot systems using event camera.
Ravi Kumar Thakur, Luis Granados Segura, Jan Klivan +4
Department of Cybernetics, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Karlovo Namesti 13, 121 35 Prague 2, Czechia
Event cameras provide high-temporal-resolution visual sensing that is well suited for observing fast-moving aerial objects; however, their use for drone trajectory prediction remains limited. This work introduces an event-only drone forecasting method that exploits propeller-induced motion cues. Propeller rotational speed are extracted directly from raw event data and fused within an RPM-aware Kalman filtering framework. Evaluations on the FRED dataset show that the proposed method outperforms learning-based approaches and vanilla kalman filter in terms of average distance error and final distance error at 0.4s and 0.8s forecasting horizons. The results demonstrate robust and accurate short- and medium-horizon trajectory forecasting without reliance on RGB imagery or training data.
Hari Prasanth S. M., Pejman Habibiroudkenar, Eerik Alamikkotervo +2
Department of Energy and Mechanical Engineering, Aalto University, 02150 Espoo, Finland