MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417054948 · doi:10.3390/s25237381

MA-EVIO: A Motion-Aware Approach to Event-Based Visual–Inertial Odometry

2025· article· en· W4417054948 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohsen Shahraki, Ahmed Elamin, Ahmed El‐Rabbany

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotics and Sensor-Based Localization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOdometryUnavailabilityRobustness (evolution)Visual odometryMotion estimationRGB color modelFeature (linguistics)Feature trackingInertial measurement unit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indoor localization remains a challenging task due to the unavailability of reliable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals in most indoor environments. One way to overcome this challenge is through visual-inertial odometry (VIO), which enables real-time pose estimation by fusing camera and inertial measurements. However, VIO suffers from performance degradation under high-speed motion and in poorly lit environments. In such scenarios, motion blur, sensor noise, and low temporal resolution reduce the accuracy and robustness of the estimated trajectory. To address these limitations, we propose a motion-aware event-based VIO (MA-EVIO) system that adaptively fuses asynchronous event data, frame-based imagery, and inertial measurements for robust and accurate pose estimation. MA-EVIO employs a hybrid tracking strategy combining sparse feature matching and direct photometric alignment. A key innovation is its motion-aware keyframe selection, which dynamically adjusts tracking parameters based on real-time motion classification and feature quality. This motion awareness also enables adaptive sensor fusion: during fast motion, the system prioritizes event data, while under slow or stable motion, it relies more on RGB frames and feature-based tracking. Experimental results on the DAVIS240c and VECtor benchmarks demonstrate that MA-EVIO outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving a lower mean position error (MPE) of 0.19 on DAVIS240c compared to 0.21 (EVI-SAM) and 0.24 (PL-EVIO), and superior performance on VECtor with MPE/mean rotation error (MRE) of 1.19%/1.28 deg/m versus 1.27%/1.42 deg/m (EVI-SAM) and 1.93%/1.56 deg/m (PL-EVIO). These results validate the effectiveness of MA-EVIO in challenging dynamic indoor environments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicRobotics and Sensor-Based LocalizationFrench-language works237,207