Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study introduces Conditional Flow Matching (CFM) as a novel approach for inverse design problems constrained by partial differential equations, addressing the high computational costs and initialization sensitivity of traditional iterative solvers. By comparing CFM with conditional diffusion models and conditional generative adversarial networks (cGANs) on structural and thermal benchmarks, the authors demonstrate that CFM significantly outperforms the baselines in terms of cumulative optimality gap (COG) and final optimality gap (FOG). Notably, CFM achieves a throughput of 53.2 samples/s on the beams2d task, vastly exceeding the diffusion model's performance while maintaining superior design quality metrics.
Conditional Flow Matching outperforms traditional generative models, achieving 66 times the throughput of diffusion models while delivering higher quality designs for inverse problems.
Engineering inverse design is often limited by the high computational cost of iterative solvers for optimization problems constrained by partial differential equations (PDEs) and by their sensitivity to initialization. Deep generative models can produce candidate designs without rerunning the simulator at inference time. Generative adversarial networks (GANs) sample in one forward pass, whereas diffusion models require iterative reverse-time integration. In this work, we add conditional flow matching (CFM) to EngiOpt and compare it with a conditional diffusion model and a conditional generative adversarial network (cGAN) on structural (beams2d) and thermal (heatconduction2d) benchmarks from EngiBench using the same downstream optimization protocol. We use cumulative optimality gap (COG) and final optimality gap (FOG) as the primary metrics for evaluating the generated designs as warm starts for gradient-based refinement. On the evaluated EngiOpt implementations and two EngiBench tasks, CFM achieves the lowest measured COG, FOG, maximum mean discrepancy (MMD), and volume-fraction deviation on both tasks. CFM has mean volume-fraction deviations of 0.4% and 1.0% on beams2d and heatconduction2d, respectively, compared with 3.8% and 11.2% for diffusion. At Euler s = 16, CFM achieves 53.2 samples/s on beams2d, about 66 times the measured throughput of the evaluated diffusion baseline using 1000 network evaluations under the same timing protocol, with COG 1.182 +/- 3.126, compared with 1.173 +/- 3.100 for Euler s = 32. Across the two tasks, CFM produces warm starts with lower measured COG than both baselines and uses fewer network evaluations than diffusion.
ETH