Public
High Dynamic Range (HDR) Imaging — Public Tier
(5 scenes)Full-access development tier with all data visible.
What you get
Measurements (y), ideal forward operator (H), spec ranges, ground truth (x_true), and true mismatch spec.
How to use
Load HDF5 → compare reconstruction vs x_true → check consistency → iterate.
What to submit
Reconstructed signals (x_hat) and corrected spec as HDF5.
Parameter Specifications
✓
True spec visible — use these exact values for Scenario III oracle reconstruction.
| Parameter | Spec Range | True Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| camera_response_function_error | -2.0 – 4.0 | 1.0 | - |
| exposure_ratio_error | -2.0 – 4.0 | 1.0 | - |
| ghost_artifact_(motion_between_exposures) | -1.0 – 2.0 | 0.5 | px |
InverseNet Baseline Scores
Method: CPU_baseline — Mismatch parameter: nominal
Scenario I (Ideal)
7.84 dB
SSIM 0.3015
Scenario II (Mismatch)
7.84 dB
SSIM 0.1991
Scenario III (Oracle)
10.94 dB
SSIM 0.3682
Per-scene breakdown (4 scenes)
| Scene | PSNR I | SSIM I | PSNR II | SSIM II | PSNR III | SSIM III |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| scene_00 | 7.64 | 0.2894 | 7.66 | 0.2019 | 10.79 | 0.3739 |
| scene_01 | 7.65 | 0.3040 | 7.65 | 0.1960 | 10.77 | 0.3632 |
| scene_02 | 8.07 | 0.3073 | 8.08 | 0.2002 | 11.17 | 0.3690 |
| scene_03 | 8.02 | 0.3052 | 7.95 | 0.1985 | 11.04 | 0.3666 |
Public Tier Leaderboard
| # | Method | Score | PSNR | SSIM | Consistency | Trust | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DiffusionPhoto + gradient | 0.853 | 37.47 | 0.98 | 0.93 | ✓ Certified | Zhang et al., NeurIPS 2024 |
| 2 | HDRFormer + gradient | 0.822 | 35.22 | 0.969 | 0.91 | ✓ Certified | Eilertsen et al., ICCV 2024 |
| 3 | Uformer + gradient | 0.822 | 34.95 | 0.967 | 0.93 | ✓ Certified | Wang et al., CVPR 2022 |
| 4 | DeblurGaussian + gradient | 0.818 | 35.1 | 0.968 | 0.9 | ✓ Certified | Liang et al., CVPR 2024 |
| 5 | U-Net + gradient | 0.809 | 34.03 | 0.961 | 0.92 | ✓ Certified | Ronneberger et al., MICCAI 2015 |
| 6 | HDR-CNN + gradient | 0.804 | 33.38 | 0.956 | 0.94 | ✓ Certified | Eilertsen et al., ACM TOG 2017 |
| 7 | PhotoFormer + gradient | 0.802 | 33.67 | 0.958 | 0.91 | ✓ Certified | Zhang et al., ICCV 2024 |
| 8 | ScorePhoto + gradient | 0.792 | 33.34 | 0.956 | 0.88 | ✓ Certified | Wei et al., ECCV 2025 |
| 9 | LaplacianFormer + gradient | 0.755 | 30.49 | 0.924 | 0.9 | ✓ Certified | Chen et al., CVPR 2022 |
| 10 | PnP-ADMM + gradient | 0.732 | 29.0 | 0.9 | 0.91 | ✓ Certified | Venkatakrishnan et al., 2013 |
| 11 | PnP-FFDNet + gradient | 0.728 | 28.86 | 0.898 | 0.9 | ✓ Certified | Zhang et al., 2017 |
| 12 | Wiener-Deconv + gradient | 0.691 | 26.7 | 0.851 | 0.92 | ✓ Certified | Analytical baseline |
| 13 | Lucy-Richardson + gradient | 0.631 | 24.33 | 0.78 | 0.88 | ✓ Certified | Lucy, AJ 1974 |
| 14 | Laplacian Pyramid + gradient | 0.624 | 23.94 | 0.766 | 0.89 | ✓ Certified | Burt & Adelson, TPAMI 1983 |
Visible Data Fields
y
H_ideal
spec_ranges
x_true
true_spec
Dataset
Format: HDF5
Scenes: 5
Scoring Formula
0.4 × PSNR_norm + 0.4 × SSIM + 0.2 × (1 − ‖y − Ĥx̂‖/‖y‖)
PSNR: 40%
SSIM: 40%
Consistency: 20%