Table of Contents
Fetching ...

A Label-Free and Non-Monotonic Metric for Evaluating Denoising in Event Cameras

Chenyang Shi, Shasha Guo, Boyi Wei, Hanxiao Liu, Yibo Zhang, Ningfang Song, Jing Jin

TL;DR

This work introduces AOCC, a label-free and non-monotonic evaluation metric for denoising in event cameras, grounded in the area under the continuous contrast curve (CCC). By leveraging edge-contour–driven contrast captured across multiple time windows, AOCC jointly rewards effective noise removal while preserving genuine edge events, avoiding the biases of label-dependent and monotonic metrics. The authors define event-frame contrast, construct the CCC, and compute AOCC, validating the approach theoretically and through experiments on synthetic and real datasets. AOCC proves effective for parameter selection, offers a unified, label-free benchmark, and shows advantages over ESR and traditional metrics in identifying meaningful denoising performance. The metric promises practical impact for developing robust event-camera denoising methods applicable to real-world data.

Abstract

Event cameras are renowned for their high efficiency due to outputting a sparse, asynchronous stream of events. However, they are plagued by noisy events, especially in low light conditions. Denoising is an essential task for event cameras, but evaluating denoising performance is challenging. Label-dependent denoising metrics involve artificially adding noise to clean sequences, complicating evaluations. Moreover, the majority of these metrics are monotonic, which can inflate scores by removing substantial noise and valid events. To overcome these limitations, we propose the first label-free and non-monotonic evaluation metric, the area of the continuous contrast curve (AOCC), which utilizes the area enclosed by event frame contrast curves across different time intervals. This metric is inspired by how events capture the edge contours of scenes or objects with high temporal resolution. An effective denoising method removes noise without eliminating these edge-contour events, thus preserving the contrast of event frames. Consequently, contrast across various time ranges serves as a metric to assess denoising effectiveness. As the time interval lengthens, the curve will initially rise and then fall. The proposed metric is validated through both theoretical and experimental evidence.

A Label-Free and Non-Monotonic Metric for Evaluating Denoising in Event Cameras

TL;DR

This work introduces AOCC, a label-free and non-monotonic evaluation metric for denoising in event cameras, grounded in the area under the continuous contrast curve (CCC). By leveraging edge-contour–driven contrast captured across multiple time windows, AOCC jointly rewards effective noise removal while preserving genuine edge events, avoiding the biases of label-dependent and monotonic metrics. The authors define event-frame contrast, construct the CCC, and compute AOCC, validating the approach theoretically and through experiments on synthetic and real datasets. AOCC proves effective for parameter selection, offers a unified, label-free benchmark, and shows advantages over ESR and traditional metrics in identifying meaningful denoising performance. The metric promises practical impact for developing robust event-camera denoising methods applicable to real-world data.

Abstract

Event cameras are renowned for their high efficiency due to outputting a sparse, asynchronous stream of events. However, they are plagued by noisy events, especially in low light conditions. Denoising is an essential task for event cameras, but evaluating denoising performance is challenging. Label-dependent denoising metrics involve artificially adding noise to clean sequences, complicating evaluations. Moreover, the majority of these metrics are monotonic, which can inflate scores by removing substantial noise and valid events. To overcome these limitations, we propose the first label-free and non-monotonic evaluation metric, the area of the continuous contrast curve (AOCC), which utilizes the area enclosed by event frame contrast curves across different time intervals. This metric is inspired by how events capture the edge contours of scenes or objects with high temporal resolution. An effective denoising method removes noise without eliminating these edge-contour events, thus preserving the contrast of event frames. Consequently, contrast across various time ranges serves as a metric to assess denoising effectiveness. As the time interval lengthens, the curve will initially rise and then fall. The proposed metric is validated through both theoretical and experimental evidence.
Paper Structure (26 sections, 22 equations, 8 figures, 1 table)

This paper contains 26 sections, 22 equations, 8 figures, 1 table.

Figures (8)

  • Figure 1: Contrast comparison of RGB frame and event frame. (a) The RGB frame captured by the active pixel sensor (APS) of a DAVIS346 event camera. (b) The grayscale image corresponding to (a). (c) The binary frame of (a) with a contrast of 211.5. (d) The event frame with a contrast of 72.9. The red pixel indicates the most recently triggered positive event, while blue indicates a negative event. The contrast of APS binary frames is significantly greater than that of event frames.
  • Figure 2: An example of CCC for the QMLPF method with a threshold of 0.5.
  • Figure 3: The continuous contrast curves of QMLPF method with varying thresholds. (a) The curves at a noise level of 1 Hz/pixel. (b) The curves at a noise level of 3 Hz/pixel. (c) The curves at a noise level of 5 Hz/pixel. In these figures, we use arrows to indicate the CCC derived directly from the unaltered event sequence and the CCC obtained from the noise-added sequence that has not been processed.
  • Figure 4: The AOCC, NeRr, VeRr, ACC, and SNR of QMLPF method with varying thresholds on the driving sequence of the DND21 dataset. (a) The AOCC with a noise level of 1 Hz/pixel. (b) The AOCC with a noise level of 3 Hz/pixel. (c) The AOCC with a noise level of 5 Hz/pixel. We use red lines to indicate the AOCC values calculated for the sequence both before and after adding noise. (d) The benchmark metrics with a noise level of 1 Hz/pixel. (e) The benchmark metrics with a noise level of 3 Hz/pixel. (f) The benchmark metrics with a noise level of 5 Hz/pixel.
  • Figure 5: ROC and AUC of QMLPF method under different noise levels.
  • ...and 3 more figures