MINFLUX Nanoscopy
MINFLUX Nanoscopy
Standard reconstruction benchmark — forward model perfectly known, no calibration needed. Score = 0.5 × clip((PSNR−15)/30, 0, 1) + 0.5 × SSIM
| # | Method | Score | PSNR (dB) | SSIM | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🥇 |
ANNA-PALM
ANNA-PALM Ouyang et al., Nat. Biotechnol. 2018
33.08 dB
SSIM 0.953
Checkpoint unavailable
|
0.778 | 33.08 | 0.953 | ✓ Certified | Ouyang et al., Nat. Biotechnol. 2018 |
| 🥈 |
DECODE
DECODE Speiser et al., Nat. Methods 2021
32.1 dB
SSIM 0.915
Checkpoint unavailable
|
0.743 | 32.1 | 0.915 | ✓ Certified | Speiser et al., Nat. Methods 2021 |
| 🥉 | SPARCOM | 0.677 | 28.76 | 0.896 | ✓ Certified | Solomon et al., SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 2019 |
| 4 | MLE Localization | 0.665 | 28.28 | 0.887 | ✓ Certified | Balzarotti et al., Science 2017 |
Dataset: PWM Benchmark (4 algorithms)
Blind Reconstruction Challenge — forward model has unknown mismatch, must calibrate from data. Score = 0.4 × PSNR_norm + 0.4 × SSIM + 0.2 × (1 − ‖y − Ĥx̂‖/‖y‖)
| # | Method | Overall Score | Public PSNR / SSIM |
Dev PSNR / SSIM |
Hidden PSNR / SSIM |
Trust | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🥇 | ANNA-PALM + gradient | 0.672 |
0.759
31.2 dB / 0.933
|
0.642
24.95 dB / 0.801
|
0.615
24.55 dB / 0.788
|
✓ Certified | Ouyang et al., Nat. Biotechnol. 2018 |
| 🥈 | DECODE + gradient | 0.667 |
0.764
30.7 dB / 0.927
|
0.631
24.99 dB / 0.802
|
0.605
23.97 dB / 0.767
|
✓ Certified | Speiser et al., Nat. Methods 2021 |
| 🥉 | MLE Localization + gradient | 0.649 |
0.701
27.2 dB / 0.863
|
0.658
25.75 dB / 0.825
|
0.589
22.94 dB / 0.729
|
✓ Certified | Balzarotti et al., Science 2017 |
| 4 | SPARCOM + gradient | 0.641 |
0.704
27.13 dB / 0.861
|
0.620
24.69 dB / 0.792
|
0.598
23.86 dB / 0.764
|
✓ Certified | Solomon et al., SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 2019 |
Complete score requires all 3 tiers (Public + Dev + Hidden).
Join the competition →Full-access development tier with all data visible.
What you get & how to use
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.
Public Leaderboard
| # | Method | Score | PSNR | SSIM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DECODE + gradient | 0.764 | 30.7 | 0.927 |
| 2 | ANNA-PALM + gradient | 0.759 | 31.2 | 0.933 |
| 3 | SPARCOM + gradient | 0.704 | 27.13 | 0.861 |
| 4 | MLE Localization + gradient | 0.701 | 27.2 | 0.863 |
Spec Ranges (2 parameters)
| Parameter | Min | Max | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| beam_center_error | -1.0 | 2.0 | nm |
| photon_count | 200.0 | 1100.0 | photons |
Blind evaluation tier — no ground truth available.
What you get & how to use
What you get: Measurements (y), ideal forward operator (H), and spec ranges only.
How to use: Apply your pipeline from the Public tier. Use consistency as self-check.
What to submit: Reconstructed signals and corrected spec. Scored server-side.
Dev Leaderboard
| # | Method | Score | PSNR | SSIM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MLE Localization + gradient | 0.658 | 25.75 | 0.825 |
| 2 | ANNA-PALM + gradient | 0.642 | 24.95 | 0.801 |
| 3 | DECODE + gradient | 0.631 | 24.99 | 0.802 |
| 4 | SPARCOM + gradient | 0.620 | 24.69 | 0.792 |
Spec Ranges (2 parameters)
| Parameter | Min | Max | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| beam_center_error | -1.2 | 1.8 | nm |
| photon_count | 140.0 | 1040.0 | photons |
Fully blind server-side evaluation — no data download.
What you get & how to use
What you get: No data downloadable. Algorithm runs server-side on hidden measurements.
How to use: Package algorithm as Docker container / Python script. Submit via link.
What to submit: Containerized algorithm accepting y + H, outputting x_hat + corrected spec.
Hidden Leaderboard
| # | Method | Score | PSNR | SSIM |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ANNA-PALM + gradient | 0.615 | 24.55 | 0.788 |
| 2 | DECODE + gradient | 0.605 | 23.97 | 0.767 |
| 3 | SPARCOM + gradient | 0.598 | 23.86 | 0.764 |
| 4 | MLE Localization + gradient | 0.589 | 22.94 | 0.729 |
Spec Ranges (2 parameters)
| Parameter | Min | Max | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| beam_center_error | -0.7 | 2.3 | nm |
| photon_count | 290.0 | 1190.0 | photons |
Blind Reconstruction Challenge
ChallengeGiven measurements with unknown mismatch and spec ranges (not exact params), reconstruct the original signal. A method must be evaluated on all three tiers for a complete score. Scored on a composite metric: 0.4 × PSNR_norm + 0.4 × SSIM + 0.2 × (1 − ‖y − Ĥx̂‖/‖y‖).
Measurements y, ideal forward model H, spec ranges
Reconstructed signal x̂
Spec DAG — Forward Model Pipeline
C → D
Mismatch Parameters
| Symbol | Parameter | Description | Nominal | Perturbed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| b_c | beam_center_error | Beam center error (nm) | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| p_c | photon_count | Photon count (photons) | 500.0 | 800.0 |
Credits System
Spec Primitives Reference (11 primitives)
Free-space or medium propagation kernel (Fresnel, Rayleigh-Sommerfeld).
Spatial or spatio-temporal amplitude modulation (coded aperture, SLM pattern).
Geometric projection operator (Radon transform, fan-beam, cone-beam).
Sampling in the Fourier / k-space domain (MRI, ptychography).
Shift-invariant convolution with a point-spread function (PSF).
Summation along a physical dimension (spectral, temporal, angular).
Sensor readout with gain g and noise model η (Gaussian, Poisson, mixed).
Patterned illumination (block, Hadamard, random) applied to the scene.
Spectral dispersion element (prism, grating) with shift α and aperture a.
Sample or gantry rotation (CT, electron tomography).
Spectral filter or monochromator selecting a wavelength band.