pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.19068 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-26 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.LG· math.OC· physics.optics

Learning Binary Sampling Patterns for Single-Pixel Imaging using Bilevel Optimisation

Serban Cristian Tudosie , Alexander Denker , Zeljko Kereta , Simon Arridge This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 21:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.LGmath.OCphysics.optics
keywords single-pixel imagingbinary pattern optimizationbilevel optimizationstraight-through estimatormicroscopy reconstructionundersampled imagingvariational regularization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bilevel optimization learns binary illumination patterns that improve single-pixel imaging reconstructions in undersampled regimes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a method to learn binary light patterns specifically for single-pixel imaging tasks using bilevel optimization. This allows the patterns to be optimized directly for reconstruction quality rather than using generic or hand-designed ones. By handling the binary constraint with a straight-through estimator and adding learned regularization, the approach shows better results on microscopy data, especially when few measurements are taken or training data is limited. A sympathetic reader would care because single-pixel imaging is used in settings where full sensors are impractical, and better patterns could mean faster or higher-quality scans with less hardware.

Core claim

The authors show that binary sampling patterns for single-pixel imaging can be learned end-to-end using a bilevel optimization framework, where the outer loop optimizes the patterns for a given reconstruction task and the inner loop performs the image recovery. Using the straight-through estimator to approximate gradients through the binary constraint, and incorporating a learned variational regularizer, the learned patterns yield superior reconstruction performance compared to conventional patterns and end-to-end deep learning methods, particularly in highly undersampled regimes and scarce-data settings on the CytoImageNet dataset.

What carries the argument

Bilevel optimization with the Straight-Through Estimator to learn task-specific binary illumination patterns for single-pixel reconstruction.

If this is right

  • Task-specific binary patterns can be optimized for applications such as single-pixel fluorescence microscopy.
  • Performance gains are most pronounced when the number of measurements is much smaller than the number of pixels.
  • The method generalizes better than end-to-end networks in settings with limited training data.
  • Combining pattern learning with variational regularization increases robustness of the reconstructions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The learned patterns may correspond to physically interpretable illumination strategies that could be derived analytically in future work.
  • This bilevel approach might extend to other non-differentiable constraints in imaging hardware design.
  • Real-time adaptation of patterns could be possible if the optimization is made efficient enough for online use.

Load-bearing premise

The straight-through estimator gives a good enough approximation to the true gradient of the binary pattern selection so the bilevel solver finds patterns that work on data outside the training set.

What would settle it

Evaluating the learned patterns on a separate test set from CytoImageNet or similar microscopy data and finding no improvement in reconstruction error metrics over random or Hadamard patterns in the low-sample regime would falsify the performance claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19068 by Alexander Denker, Serban Cristian Tudosie, Simon Arridge, Zeljko Kereta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: PSNR (left) and SSIM (right) for reconstructions using different illumination patterns with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Reconstructions using TDV regulariser with different illumination patterns for the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Reconstructions using Learned-STE with TDV (top row), and the first four learned patterns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the different sampling patterns for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison between classical approaches (Gaussian and SH using TV regularisers), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the TDV and TV regulariser during reconstruction for both the Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Single-Pixel Imaging (SPI) enables the reconstruction of objects using a single detector through sequential illuminations with structured light patterns. The choice of illumination patterns is critical, particularly in highly undersampled regimes, where it directly determines reconstruction quality and acquisition speed. Instead of relying on handcrafted or fixed patterns, we propose to learn task-specific patterns directly from data. Practical SPI hardware only supports binary patterns, making binary pattern design a necessary consideration. We propose a bilevel optimisation method for learning task-specific binary illumination patterns optimised for applications such as single-pixel fluorescence microscopy. We address the non-differentiable nature of binary optimisation using the Straight-Through Estimator. In addition, we incorporate learned variational regularisation, improving reconstruction quality and robustness. We demonstrate our method on the CytoImageNet microscopy dataset. We show that our learned patterns achieve superior reconstruction performance compared to baseline methods and end-to-end deep learning, particularly in highly undersampled regimes and in scarce-data settings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a bilevel optimization framework to learn task-specific binary illumination patterns for single-pixel imaging (SPI). It handles the non-differentiable binary constraint with the Straight-Through Estimator (STE), incorporates learned variational regularization in the inner reconstruction loop, and evaluates the resulting patterns on the CytoImageNet microscopy dataset. The central claim is that the learned patterns yield superior reconstruction quality compared to handcrafted baselines and end-to-end deep learning, particularly at high undersampling ratios and in low-data regimes.

Significance. If the empirical superiority holds under proper controls, the work would provide a practical data-driven alternative to fixed or random patterns in hardware-constrained SPI systems such as fluorescence microscopy. The combination of bilevel optimization with STE and variational regularization is a coherent way to jointly optimize sampling and reconstruction, and the emphasis on scarce-data settings addresses a realistic constraint in biological imaging applications.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Experiments section] The abstract and method description assert superior performance on CytoImageNet without reporting concrete metrics (PSNR, SSIM), error bars, or train/validation/test splits. This makes the central claim impossible to verify from the given text and weakens the comparison to baselines and end-to-end DL.
  2. [Method (bilevel optimization with STE)] The Straight-Through Estimator is used to relax the binary constraint in the outer loop, but no analysis is provided on whether the resulting bias leads to patterns that overfit the training distribution rather than generalize. In the scarce-data regime highlighted by the paper, this approximation could undermine the reported gains; an ablation comparing STE to a true subgradient or to a relaxed continuous relaxation would be needed to support the generalization claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Clarify the exact form of the inner-loop variational reconstruction problem and how the learned regularizer is parameterized.
  2. [Experiments] Add explicit sampling ratios (e.g., 5 %, 10 %, 20 %) and corresponding reconstruction tables so that the 'highly undersampled' regime can be compared quantitatively across methods.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback, which helps strengthen the clarity and rigor of our claims regarding the bilevel optimization framework for binary pattern learning in single-pixel imaging. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Experiments section] The abstract and method description assert superior performance on CytoImageNet without reporting concrete metrics (PSNR, SSIM), error bars, or train/validation/test splits. This makes the central claim impossible to verify from the given text and weakens the comparison to baselines and end-to-end DL.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including concrete quantitative metrics. In the revised version, we will update the abstract to report key results such as average PSNR and SSIM values (with standard deviations) for our learned patterns versus baselines and end-to-end DL at representative undersampling ratios (e.g., 5%, 10%). We will also explicitly describe the dataset splits in the experiments section, including the number of training, validation, and test images from CytoImageNet, the protocol for simulating scarce-data regimes (e.g., subsets of 100 or 500 images), and how error bars were computed across multiple random seeds or runs. These details are already present in the full experimental tables and figures but will be highlighted more clearly in the text. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method (bilevel optimization with STE)] The Straight-Through Estimator is used to relax the binary constraint in the outer loop, but no analysis is provided on whether the resulting bias leads to patterns that overfit the training distribution rather than generalize. In the scarce-data regime highlighted by the paper, this approximation could undermine the reported gains; an ablation comparing STE to a true subgradient or to a relaxed continuous relaxation would be needed to support the generalization claim.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation on the potential limitations of the Straight-Through Estimator (STE). While our empirical results demonstrate robust generalization in low-data settings, we acknowledge that a dedicated analysis of STE-induced bias and its impact on overfitting is absent. In the revision, we will expand the method section with a brief discussion of STE's known bias properties and their relevance to our bilevel setup. We will also add an ablation comparing patterns learned via STE against those from a continuous relaxation (e.g., sigmoid annealing) and report reconstruction metrics on held-out test data to empirically support that the learned patterns generalize rather than overfit the training distribution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; performance claims rest on external test-set evaluation

full rationale

The paper describes a bilevel optimization procedure in which the outer loop learns binary pattern parameters via the Straight-Through Estimator while the inner loop solves a variational reconstruction problem. The reported superiority is measured by reconstruction quality on held-out images from the CytoImageNet dataset, using metrics that are independent of the training loss. No equation or step equates the final performance figure to a quantity defined by the same fitted parameters or by a self-citation chain; the derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The method relies on standard bilevel optimization and the Straight-Through Estimator, which are treated as known background techniques.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5715 in / 1074 out tokens · 34078 ms · 2026-05-18T21:28:07.186674+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Gradient-Based Alternating Mini- mization Approach for Optimization of the Measurement Matrix in Compressive Sensing

    Vahid Abolghasemi, Saideh Ferdowsi, and Saeid Sanei. “A Gradient-Based Alternating Mini- mization Approach for Optimization of the Measurement Matrix in Compressive Sensing”. In: Signal Processing 92.4 (Apr. 2012), pp. 999–1009

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun

    Shaojie Bai, J. Zico Kolter, and Vladlen Koltun. Deep Equilibrium Models. 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Yoshua Bengio, Nicholas Léonard, and Aaron Courville.Estimating or Propagating Gradients Through Stochastic Neurons for Conditional Computation. 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Model Selection via Bilevel Optimization

    K.P. Bennett et al. “Model Selection via Bilevel Optimization”. In:The 2006 IEEE Interna- tional Joint Conference on Neural Network Proceedings. Vancouver, BC, Canada: IEEE, 2006, pp. 1922–1929

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Near-Optimal Signal Recovery From Random Projec- tions: Universal Encoding Strategies?

    Emmanuel J. Candes and Terence Tao. “Near-Optimal Signal Recovery From Random Projec- tions: Universal Encoding Strategies?” In:IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 52.12 (Dec. 2006), pp. 5406–5425

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    A First-Order Primal-Dual Algorithm for Convex Problems with Applications to Imaging

    Antonin Chambolle and Thomas Pock. “A First-Order Primal-Dual Algorithm for Convex Problems with Applications to Imaging”. In: Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision 40.1 (May 2011), pp. 120–145

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Single-Pixel Imaging via Compressive Sampling

    Marco F. Duarte et al. “Single-Pixel Imaging via Compressive Sampling”. In:IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 25.2 (Mar. 2008), pp. 83–91

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Diffraction-Limited Hyperspectral Mid-Infrared Single-Pixel Mi- croscopy

    Alexander Ebner et al. “Diffraction-Limited Hyperspectral Mid-Infrared Single-Pixel Mi- croscopy”. In: Scientific Reports 13.1 (Jan. 2023), p. 281

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Principles and Prospects for Single-Pixel Imaging

    Matthew P. Edgar, Graham M. Gibson, and Miles J. Padgett. “Principles and Prospects for Single-Pixel Imaging”. In: Nature Photonics 13.1 (Jan. 2019), pp. 13–20

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    JFB: Jacobian-Free Backpropagation for Implicit Networks

    Samy Wu Fung et al. “JFB: Jacobian-Free Backpropagation for Implicit Networks”. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 36.6 (June 2022), pp. 6648– 6656

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Deep Learning for Real-Time Single-Pixel Video

    Catherine F. Higham et al. “Deep Learning for Real-Time Single-Pixel Video”. In:Scientific Reports 8.1 (Feb. 2018), p. 2369

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Hua, Alex X

    Stanley Bryan Z. Hua, Alex X. Lu, and Alan M. Moses. CytoImageNet: A Large-Scale Pretraining Dataset for Bioimage Transfer Learning. 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Single-Pixel Camera Photoacoustic Tomography

    Nam Huynh et al. “Single-Pixel Camera Photoacoustic Tomography”. In:Journal of Biomedi- cal Optics 24.12 (Sept. 2019), p. 1

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Eric Jang, Shixiang Gu, and Ben Poole.Categorical Reparameterization with Gumbel-Softmax. 2016

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Total Deep Variation for Linear Inverse Problems

    Erich Kobler et al. “Total Deep Variation for Linear Inverse Problems”. In:Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2020, pp. 7549–7558

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Accelerated Proximal Gradient Methods for Nonconvex Pro- gramming

    Huan Li and Zhouchen Lin. “Accelerated Proximal Gradient Methods for Nonconvex Pro- gramming”. In: Advances in neural information processing systems 28 (2015)

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Exact Penalty Functions for Nonlinear Integer Programming Prob- lems

    S. Lucidi and F. Rinaldi. “Exact Penalty Functions for Nonlinear Integer Programming Prob- lems”. In: Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 145.3 (June 2010), pp. 479– 488

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    No-Reference Image Quality Assessment in the Spatial Domain

    A. Mittal, A. K. Moorthy, and A. C. Bovik. “No-Reference Image Quality Assessment in the Spatial Domain”. In: IEEE Transactions on Image Processing21.12 (Dec. 2012), pp. 4695– 4708. 5

    work page 2012

  19. [19]

    Optimizing Sampling Patterns for Compressed Sensing MRI with Diffusion Generative Models

    Sriram Ravula et al. Optimizing Sampling Patterns for Compressed Sensing MRI with Diffusion Generative Models. 2023

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Variational Methods in Imaging

    Otmar Scherzer et al. Variational Methods in Imaging. V ol. 167. Springer, 2009

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    Optimization of k -space Trajectories for Compressed Sensing by Bayesian Experimental Design

    Matthias Seeger et al. “Optimization of k -space Trajectories for Compressed Sensing by Bayesian Experimental Design”. In: Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 63.1 (Jan. 2010), pp. 116–126

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Truncated Back-Propagation for Bilevel Optimization

    Amirreza Shaban et al. “Truncated Back-Propagation for Bilevel Optimization”. In:Proceed- ings of the Twenty-Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. V ol. 89. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. PMLR, Apr. 2019, pp. 1723–1732

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    Learning the Sampling Pattern for MRI

    Ferdia Sherry et al. “Learning the Sampling Pattern for MRI”. In: IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 39.12 (Dec. 2020), pp. 4310–4321

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Single-Pixel Imaging Using Physics Enhanced Deep Learning

    Fei Wang et al. “Single-Pixel Imaging Using Physics Enhanced Deep Learning”. In:Photonics Research 10.1 (Jan. 2022), p. 104

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Learning Compressed Sensing

    Yair Weiss, Hyun Sung Chang, and William T Freeman. “Learning Compressed Sensing”. In: Snowbird Learning Workshop, Allerton, CA. Citeseer, 2007

    work page 2007

  26. [26]

    Learning a Compressed Sensing Measurement Matrix via Gradient Unrolling

    Shanshan Wu et al. “Learning a Compressed Sensing Measurement Matrix via Gradient Unrolling”. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning . V ol. 97. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. PMLR, June 2019, pp. 6828–6839

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Understanding Straight-Through Estimator in Training Activation Quan- tized Neural Nets

    Penghang Yin et al. Understanding Straight-Through Estimator in Training Activation Quan- tized Neural Nets. 2019

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Deep Equilibrium Learning of Explicit Regularization Functionals for Imaging Inverse Problems

    Zihao Zou et al. “Deep Equilibrium Learning of Explicit Regularization Functionals for Imaging Inverse Problems”. In: IEEE Open Journal of Signal Processing 4 (2023), pp. 390– 398. 6 A Additional Results Table 1: PSNR and SSIM for sampling patterns with respect to M, using the TV regulariser. M = 128 M = 256 M = 512 M = 1024 M = 2048 PSNR SSIM PSNR SSIM P...

    work page 2023