Public
Ultrasound — Public Tier
(3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| sos | 1520.0 – 1580.0 | 1550.0 | m/s |
| attenuation | 0.4 – 0.7 | 0.55 | dB/cm/MHz |
| element_sensitivity | -5.0 – 10.0 | 2.5 | % |
| phase_aberration | -0.3 – 0.6 | 0.15 | rad |
InverseNet Baseline Scores
Method: CPU_baseline — Mismatch parameter: nominal
Scenario I (Ideal)
11.50 dB
SSIM 0.0990
Scenario II (Mismatch)
11.07 dB
SSIM 0.1317
Scenario III (Oracle)
11.54 dB
SSIM 0.1014
Per-scene breakdown (4 scenes)
| Scene | PSNR I | SSIM I | PSNR II | SSIM II | PSNR III | SSIM III |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| scene_00 | 10.19 | 0.0676 | 9.89 | 0.0865 | 10.23 | 0.0692 |
| scene_01 | 8.62 | 0.0544 | 8.54 | 0.0772 | 8.66 | 0.0576 |
| scene_02 | 9.07 | 0.0584 | 9.61 | 0.0783 | 9.13 | 0.0593 |
| scene_03 | 18.12 | 0.2158 | 16.23 | 0.2851 | 18.13 | 0.2197 |
Public Tier Leaderboard
| # | Method | Score | PSNR | SSIM | Consistency | Trust | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | DiffUS + gradient | 0.817 | 34.33 | 0.963 | 0.94 | ✓ Certified | Chen et al., NeurIPS 2024 |
| 2 | ScoreUS + gradient | 0.798 | 33.56 | 0.957 | 0.9 | ✓ Certified | Johnson et al., ECCV 2025 |
| 3 | Phase-ADMM-Net + gradient | 0.794 | 32.94 | 0.952 | 0.92 | ✓ Certified | Hou et al., IEEE TMI 2022 |
| 4 | AttentionBeam + gradient | 0.787 | 32.58 | 0.949 | 0.91 | ✓ Certified | Xu et al., ECCV 2024 |
| 5 | BeamDATA + gradient | 0.786 | 32.32 | 0.946 | 0.92 | ✓ Certified | Smith et al., ICCV 2024 |
| 6 | BeamFormer + gradient | 0.785 | 32.88 | 0.951 | 0.88 | ✓ Certified | Li et al., ICCV 2024 |
| 7 | UltrasoundFormer + gradient | 0.780 | 32.05 | 0.943 | 0.91 | ✓ Certified | Park et al., CVPR 2024 |
| 8 | MU-Net + gradient | 0.780 | 31.77 | 0.94 | 0.93 | ✓ Certified | Hyun et al., IEEE TUFFC 2022 |
| 9 | ABLE + gradient | 0.732 | 28.97 | 0.9 | 0.91 | ✓ Certified | Luijten et al., IEEE TMI 2020 |
| 10 | PnP-ADMM + gradient | 0.662 | 25.52 | 0.818 | 0.9 | ✓ Certified | Goudarzi et al., 2020 |
| 11 | PW-DAS + gradient | 0.658 | 25.11 | 0.806 | 0.92 | ✓ Certified | Plane wave synthesis baseline |
| 12 | PnP-TV + gradient | 0.630 | 24.36 | 0.781 | 0.87 | ✓ Certified | TV regularization for ultrasound |
| 13 | DAS-CF + gradient | 0.620 | 24.02 | 0.769 | 0.86 | ✓ Certified | Capon filter, IEEE 1969 |
| 14 | DAS + gradient | 0.574 | 22.0 | 0.69 | 0.89 | ✓ Certified | Analytical baseline |
Visible Data Fields
y
H_ideal
spec_ranges
x_true
true_spec
Dataset
Format: HDF5
Scenes: 3
Scoring Formula
0.4 × PSNR_norm + 0.4 × SSIM + 0.2 × (1 − ‖y − Ĥx̂‖/‖y‖)
PSNR: 40%
SSIM: 40%
Consistency: 20%