Event cameras capture per-pixel brightness changes with microsecond resolution, offering continuous motion information lost between RGB frames. However, existing event-based motion estimators depend on large-scale synthetic data that often suffers from a significant sim-to-real gap. We propose TETO (Tracking Events with Teacher Observation), a teacher-student framework that learns event motion estimation from only ∼25 minutes of unannotated real-world recordings through knowledge distillation from a pretrained RGB tracker. Our motion-aware data curation and query sampling strategy maximizes learning from limited data by disentangling object motion from dominant ego-motion. The resulting estimator jointly predicts point trajectories and dense optical flow, which we leverage as explicit motion priors to condition a pretrained video diffusion transformer for frame interpolation. We achieve state-of-the-art point tracking on EVIMO2 and optical flow on DSEC using orders of magnitude less training data, and demonstrate that accurate motion estimation translates directly to superior frame interpolation quality on BS-ERGB and HQ-EVFI.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Training data scale of event-based trackers.
Figure 2: Real event vs. synthetic event analysis. (a) Inter-Event Interval (IEI) distributions show that real events concentrate in short intervals with rapid decay, while synthetic events exhibit long tails and periodic artifacts. (b) The appearance of real and synthetic events differs substantially, with synthetic events from V2E [ 29 ] and Voltmeter [ 38 ] exhibiting artifacts not present in real-world recordings.
Dataset
Align
Modality
Motion dyn
Scene
Resolution
Challenge
FPS
E-POSE [ 27 ]
✗
E+R
Cam
Indoor
346 × 260
-
-
M3ED [ 7 ]
✗
E+R
Cam
Indoor/Outdoor
1280 × 720
-
20
MTevent [ 2 ]
✗
E+R
Obj+Cam
Indoor
640 × 480
-
25, 100
HS-ERGB [ 57 ]
✗
E+R
Obj+Cam
Indoor/Outdoor
1280 × 720
Non-linear Motion
240
RELI11D [ 62 ]
✗
E+R
Obj+Cam
Indoor/Outdoor
1280 × 800
Complex Motion
60
DSEC [ 16 ]
✗
E+R
Cam
Outdoor
640 × 480
Low Light
20
Table 1: Public event-RGB paired datasets. (E: Event, R: RGB, G:Grayscale.) Align indicates beamsplitter-based spatial alignment between event and frame sensors. Challenge denotes the dominant difficulty of each dataset. Both BS-ERGB and ERF-X170FPS capture extreme object motion, but the higher frame rate of ERF-X170FPS (170 vs. 28 FPS) allows the RGB teacher to produce stable pseudo-label trajectories. Blue rows denote our training sets.
Figure 3: Object motion query sampling. Given teacher-predicted optical flow, we estimate a global affine model via RANSAC and compute residual flow to identify independently moving regions. Queries are oversampled from these regions to prevent bias toward dominant ego-motion patterns.
Figure 4: Overall architecture. The concentration network aggregates multi-scale events into a 3-channel representation. Pseudo-labels for tracking and optical flow are provided by the teacher tracker.
Figure 5: Video frame interpolation architecture. (a) Motion signals from TETO and event motion mask construction. (b) Overall pipeline with latent-space flow warping and trajectory-guided attention supervision.
Table 7
Method
Setting
All
interlaken_00_b
interlaken_01_a
thun_01_a
thun_01_b
zurich_city_12_a
zurich_city_14_c
zurich_city_15_a
EPE ↓
AE ↓
EPE ↓
AE ↓
EPE ↓
AE ↓
EPE ↓
AE ↓
EPE ↓
AE ↓
EPE ↓
AE ↓
EPE ↓
AE ↓
EPE ↓
AE ↓
RTEF [ 3 ]
In-domain
4.88
–
8.59
–
5.94
–
3.01
–
3.91
–
3.14
–
4.00
–
3.78
–
MultiCM [ 52 ]
In-domain
3.47
13.98
5.74
9.19
3.74
9.77
2.12
11.06
2.48
12.05
3.86
28.61
2.72
12.62
2.35
11.82
BTEB [ 46 ]
In-domain
3.86
–
6.32
–
4.91
–
2.33
–
3.04
–
2.62
–
3.36
–
2.97
–
Paredes et al. [ 47 ]
In-domain
2.33
10.56
3.34
6.22
2.49
6.88
1.73
9.75
1.66
8.41
2.72
23.16
2.64
10.23
1.69
8.88
EV-FlowNet [ 68 ]
In-domain
3.86
–
6.32
–
4.91
–
2.33
–
3.04
–
2.62
–
3.36
–
2.97
–
Table 3: Quantitative comparison on DSEC. Lower EPE, AE is better. Bold and underline denote the best and second-best results within each category.
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison under dynamic motion.
Methods
BS-ERGB [ 56 ]
OATS0 ↑
OATS1 ↑
OATS2 ↑
OATS4 ↑
OATS8 ↑
OATS16 ↑
OATSavg ↑
ETAP [ 22 ]
0.7134
0.7256
0.7388
0.7568
0.7824
0.8149
0.7553
TETO
0.8294
0.8438
0.8587
0.8785
0.9047
0.9324
0.8746
Table 4: OATS on BS-ERGB.
Figure 8: Robust tracking in extreme conditions on BS-ERGB (Top) and EVFI-LL (Bottom) [ 64 ] .
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison under dynamic motion.
Method
× 1
× 3
× 6
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
TimeLens-XL [ 43 ]
15.29
0.0808
28.2734
0.8223
38.11
0.0695
29.7315
0.8367
38.11
0.1314
22.4263
0.7574
CBMNet-Large [ 36 ]
10.64
0.1667
29.2348
0.7737
11.23
0.1730
28.4550
0.7580
13.31
0.1791
27.6728
0.7511
RE-VDM [ 8 ]
16.37
0.1004
28.0351
0.8631
16.66
0.1268
27.0266
0.8119
19.40
0.1258
26.9337
0.8426
TETO-VFI
10.41
0.0684
25.7317
0.8346
7.65
0.0689
26.2135
0.8314
7.88
0.0859
25.1521
0.7955
Table 5: Video frame interpolation comparison on BS-ERGB
Method
× 7
× 15
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
TimeLens-XL [ 43 ]
26.50
0.0601
25.5082
0.8856
28.83
0.0559
25.6656
0.8942
CBMNet-Large [ 36 ]
18.92
0.0717
29.0001
0.8849
26.19
0.0827
27.3779
0.8767
RE-VDM [ 8 ]
21.18
0.0695
26.9527
0.8714
33.42
0.0901
25.5576
0.8565
TETO-VFI
17.39
0.0401
26.7525
0.9093
19.89
0.0501
25.3575
0.8923
Table 6: Comparison on HQ-EVFI.
Methods
AJ↑
δavgx ↑
OA↑
TETO
67.9
81.4
92.2
w/o Lflow
66.3
79.9
92.1
w/o temporal augmentation
63.3
77.0
92.2
w/o Mobj
60.3
74.6
91.5
w/ feature loss
63.7
76.6
91.9
Table 7: Ablation study on EVIMO2.
Methods
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
Model Component
TETO-VFI
10.11
0.0821
25.4232
0.8022
−Mevent
11.06
0.0867
23.5839
0.8076
−Lattn
10.82
0.0869
23.3661
0.8014
−Fwarp
13.88
0.1203
21.9624
0.7573
Motion Estimator
Table 8: Ablation study on BS-ERGB.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Methods
AJ↑
δavgx ↑
OA↑
TETO
67.9
81.4
92.2
w/o ConcentNet
56.5
69.4
91.6
Appendix
Table 1: Architecture design ablation on EVIMO2.
Figure 1: Layer and head ablation for matching property.
Figure 2: Visualization of Event Motion Mask Mevent .
Figure 3: OATS evaluation pipeline. Motion regions are extracted solely from events, and then query trajectories are evaluated based on whether they remain within the corresponding object masks over time.
Scene Name
Model
BS-ERGB
OATS0 ↑
OATS1 ↑
OATS2 ↑
OATS4 ↑
OATS8 ↑
OATS16 ↑
OATSavg ↑
ball_05
ETAP
0.4538
0.4677
0.4840
0.5095
0.5518
0.6234
0.5150
TETO
0.7131
0.7321
0.7542
0.7872
0.8357
0.8976
0.7867
ball_06
ETAP
0.6553
0.6684
0.6831
0.7076
0.7456
0.8085
0.7114
TETO
0.7602
0.7747
0.7927
0.8209
0.8633
0.9168
0.8214
basket_08
ETAP
0.6785
0.6851
0.6930
0.7068
0.7314
0.7694
0.7107
Appendix
Table 2: Per-scene OATS comparison on BS-ERGB dataset.
Figure 4: Visualization of SAM3 video segmentation masks.
Method
Training data
Total recording
InivTAP
DrivTAP
Mean δavgx ↑
AJ↑
δavgx ↑
OA↑
AJ↑
δavgx ↑
OA↑
E2Vid-PIPs++ [ 66 ]
-
-
-
14.3
-
-
30.4
-
22.4
E2Vid-Chrono [ 34 ]
-
-
10.4
17.9
68.8
8.1
16.9
68.7
17.4
E2Vid-CoTracker3 [ 32 ]
-
-
12.8
19.4
56.6
18.6
27.0
89.4
23.2
ETAP [ 22 ]
synthetic
5 h
12.8
22.3
86.3
13.5
27.8
68.1
25.1
TAPFormer-E [ 41 ]
synthetic
6 h
20.9
29.8
79.0
28.9
37.6
90.2
33.7
Appendix
Table 3: Quantitative results on real-world TAP benchmark.
Figure 5: Scenes selected for the main quantitative results on HQ-EVFI. Scenes with highly dynamic motion are chosen to evaluate models under complex real-world motion.
Method
× 7
FID ↓
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
TimeLens-XL [ 43 ]
24.09
0.0569
26.9754
0.8696
CBMNet-Large [ 36 ]
10.40
0.0781
31.3721
0.8855
TETO-VFI
5.73
0.0417
27.9414
0.9069
Appendix
Table 4: Video frame interpolation result on full HQ-EVFI dataset.
Methods
Inference time (sec)
VDM-EVFI [ 8 ]
2428.00
TETO
283.60 ( × 8.56)
Appendix
Table 5: Inference time comparison between diffusion based frame interpolation models. Inference time is measured on a single RTX 3090 GPU. TETO is 8.56 times faster than VDM-EVFI.
Figure 6: Visualization of TETO showing tracking beyond appearance.
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison under dynamic motion.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison of video frame interpolation.
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of video frame interpolation.
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison of video frame interpolation ablations. (A) is the baseline model without any conditional signal, (B) adds Fwarp , and (C) adds Lattn and adds Mevent for final TETO-VFI. Each result corresponds to the respective entry in the ablation table.
Event cameras report asynchronously per-pixel brightness changes with microsecond latency, encoding dynamic visual information as a sparse stream of events. However, their extreme temporal resolution floods perception systems with entangled events from ego-motion and independently moving objects (IMOs), which existing solutions fail to efficiently decouple, relying instead on prohibitive dense 3D reconstructions or limited hand-tuned filters. In this work, we introduce the first framework for Motion-aware Event Suppression, which learns to filter events triggered by IMOs and ego-motion in real time. Our model jointly segments IMOs in the current event stream while predicting their future motion, enabling anticipatory suppression of dynamic events before they occur. Our lightweight architecture achieves 173 Hz inference on consumer-grade GPUs with less than 1 GB of memory usage, outperforming previous state-of-the-art methods on the challenging EVIMO benchmark by 67% in segmentation accuracy while operating at a 53% higher inference rate. Moreover, we demonstrate significant benefits for downstream applications: our method accelerates Vision Transformer inference by 83% via token pruning and improves event-based visual odometry accuracy, reducing Absolute Trajectory Error (ATE) by 13%.
Roberto Pellerito, Nico Messikommer, Giovanni Cioffi +2
Robotics and Perception Group, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Event cameras capture intensity changes asynchronously with high temporal resolution, requiring novel preprocessing methods for downstream tasks. Unlike static intensity snapshots, event data inherently encode information about scene dynamics and object motion, meaning that features derived from events can exhibit behaviors with no direct analogue in frame-based vision. In this paper, we analyze two features used in event-based corner detection---the eigenvalues of the structure tensor and the spatiotemporal density values---and show that they are motion cues. We hypothesize that these features, combined with local geometric information, can enhance motion estimation tasks. To validate this, we first theoretically analyze how the eigenvalues of the structure tensor at moving corner points relate to the direction of motion. We then design controlled experiments on a synthetic dataset, confirming that extending local geometric features with eigenvalues and density values provides complementary motion information and is robust to texture and shot noise. Finally, we integrate the proposed features into a state-of-the-art event-based optical flow network and evaluate on the real-world DSEC benchmark, where the added features consistently improve accuracy, with the largest gains in data-scarce scenarios and for lower-capacity models. The code for this paper can be found at: https://github.com/hesamaraghi/static-in-frames-dynamic-in-events.
Hesam Araghi, Jan van Gemert, Nergis Tomen
Computer Vision Lab, Delft University of Technology
Event-based scene synthesis reconstructs target RGB frames from sparse image observations and asynchronous event streams, encompassing both video frame prediction and interpolation. Existing event-based synthesis methods commonly estimate optical flow to warp the observed frames toward the target time, but are vulnerable to inaccurate flow under large motion and occlusion and often rely on flow supervision or pretrained estimators. In this work, we propose EvFRA, an Event-based scene synthesis framework based on inter-Frame Residual Alignment. We identify a structural correspondence between event measurements and frame-to-frame scene changes, and exploit this correspondence for target frame synthesis. Our training pipeline consists of two stages: 1) an Event-to-Residual Alignment Variational Autoencoder (ER-VAE) aligns the event frame captured between the anchor and target frames with the corresponding inter-frame residual, and 2) a ControlNet-conditioned diffusion model is fine-tuned to denoise the residual latent using event data. Our method outperforms state-of-the-art methods by up to 2.61 dB and 1.85 dB in PSNR for frame prediction and interpolation, respectively, with consistent SSIM improvements. Code is available at https://github.com/jiyun-kong/EvFRA.
Jiyun Kong, Jun-Hyuk Kim, Jong-Seok Lee
Yonsei University, Korea · Chung-Ang University, Korea