Cited by 26Advanced Vision and ImagingAdvanced Memory and Neural ComputingCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors

A Power-Performance Approach to Comparing Sensor Families, with application to comparing neuromorphic to traditional vision sensors

Censi, Andrea, Mueller, Erich, Frazzoli, Emilio, Soatto, Stefano·2015·2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

Abstract

There is considerable freedom in choosing the sensors to be equipped on a robot. Currently many sensing technologies are available (radar, lidar, vision sensors, time-of-flight cameras, etc.). For each class, there are additional choices regarding the exact sensor parameters (spatial resolution, frame rate, etc.). Which sensor is best? In general, this question needs to be qualified. It depends on the task. In an estimation task, the answer depends on the prior for the signal. In a control task, the answer depends exactly on which are the sufficient statistics for computing the control signal. This paper shows that an ulterior qualification that needs to be made: the answer depends on the power available for sensing, even when the task is fixed. We define the “power-performance” curve as the performance attainable on a task for a given level of sensing power. We show that this approach is well suited to comparing a traditional CMOS sensor with the recently available “neuromorphic” sensors. We discuss estimation tasks with different priors for the signal. We find priors for which one sensor dominates the other and vice-versa, priors for which they are equivalent, and priors for which the answer depends on the power available. This shows that comparing sensors is a quite delicate problem. It also suggests that the optimal architecture might have more that one sensor, and would switch sensors on and off according to the performance level required instantaneously.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/icra.2015.7139657

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Censi, A., Mueller, E., Frazzoli, E., & Soatto, S.
Affiliations
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2015-05
Pages
3319-3326
ISSN
1050-4729 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1539726733
Cited by
26
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 4
FWCI
0.82
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Vision and Imaging
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advanced Memory and Neural Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › CCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Keywords
sensor selection, neuromorphic vision sensors, estimation tasks, robot sensing, sensor fusion, sensor architecture

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review