Inverse Modeling for Laser Pulse Shape Design in Inertial Confinement Fusion

Let $\mathbf{m}=\text{LILAC}(\mathbf{l},\mathbf{p})$ denote the vector of implosion outcomes produced by the LILAC ICF simulator for a given LP ($\mathbf{l}$) and target pellet parameters ($\mathbf{p}$). These outcomes include quantities such as energy yield, areal density, burn width, and ion temperature. The pellet parameters are defined by attributes such as outer radius, ice thickness, ablator thickness, and ice-tritium fraction.

To construct an inverse design model, we first generate a dataset $D_{F}=\left\{\left(\mathbf{l}_{i},\mathbf{p}_{i},\mathbf{m}_{i}\right)\right\}_{i=1}^{I}$ of 1 million examples via systematic simulation sweeps, capturing the relationship between pulse shapes, target parameters, and resulting implosion outcomes. The LP $\mathbf{l}_{i}$ is represented as a real-valued sequence of length 256. $\mathbf{p}_{i}$ and $\mathbf{m}_{i}$ are real-valued vectors of size 5 and 12, respectively. The underlying simulation inputs live in a 20-dimensional design space that combines target specifications with an internal parameterization of the pulse shape; to sample high-value regions of this space efficiently, we combine random physically valid draws with perturbations of known high-performing implosions.

Our goal is to learn a data-driven inverse model conditioned on desired implosion outcomes $\mathbf{m}$ and pellet parameters $\mathbf{p}$. For stochastic generators, this corresponds to learning a conditional distribution $p_{\theta}(\mathbf{l}\mid\mathbf{m},\mathbf{p})$ from which candidate LPs can be sampled; for deterministic predictors, it corresponds to learning a point estimate $G_{\theta}(\mathbf{m},\mathbf{p})$. In the terminology of simulation-based inference, the stochastic variants are amortized neural posterior estimators [9]: because LILAC is too expensive to query during training or inference, LPDS learns the posterior from a fixed set of simulations and is then applied to new targets without further simulator calls. For simplicity, we denote a generated candidate pulse by:

Conditioning parameters $\mathbf{p}$ and $\mathbf{m}$ are linearly embedded before entering $G_{\theta}$; Appendix Figure 3 shows the ICF-specific architecture and optional pulse-shape constraints.

This inverse design problem has multiple plausible solutions, since multiple pulse shapes can lead to similar outcomes. To address this, we consider two modeling approaches:

While the reconstruction objective enables LP reproduction, our broader goal is scientific exploration through plausible, diverse LP generation consistent with implosion outcomes. This provides a wider array of selectable, high-performing candidates and facilitates scientific discovery by potentially identifying novel LP configurations. To achieve this, we integrate a differentiable physics surrogate directly into the generative training loop.

From an optimization perspective, this process can be viewed as a bilevel problem in which a generative model proposes candidate designs while a physics model evaluates their feasibility and performance. LPDS approximates this process by optimizing the inverse model end to end through a frozen differentiable surrogate, directly aligning the generative distribution with the physically valid solution manifold. By incorporating differentiable physics surrogates into the training loop, the model does not merely condition on observed data but actively optimizes generated designs toward target physical outcomes.

For this purpose, we train a surrogate model$^{1}$ $\mathbf{S}_{\phi}$ to approximate the LILAC simulator. This model learns the mapping from an LP $\mathbf{l}$ and target parameters $\mathbf{p}$ to the corresponding implosion outcomes $\mathbf{m}$. This can be represented as $\hat{\mathbf{m}}=\mathbf{S}_{\phi}(\mathbf{l},\mathbf{p})$, where $\phi$ represents the learnable parameters of the surrogate model. The surrogate is trained on the simulation dataset $D_{F}$ by minimizing the prediction error:

After training, $\mathbf{S}_{\phi}$ is kept frozen and is used during training of the inverse model to evaluate the physical fidelity of generated LPs. Given a generated pulse $\mathbf{l}^{\prime}=G_{\theta}(\mathbf{m},\mathbf{p})$, the surrogate model predicts the corresponding outcomes $\hat{\mathbf{m}}=\mathbf{S}_{\phi}(\mathbf{l}^{\prime},\mathbf{p})$, which are then compared to the target outcomes $\mathbf{m}$. Our new objective can be defined as:

Here, $\lambda_{\mathcal{L}}$ and $\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}$ control the trade-off between faithfully reconstructing the original LP and generating physically consistent alternatives. Properly tuning these weights allows the model to generalize beyond pure reconstruction, producing diverse yet plausible LPs tailored to the specified design goals. In practice, we first train only on the reconstruction loss ${\mathcal{L}(\theta)}$ since at the beginning of training $G_{\theta}$ can produce LPs that are incoherent and out-of-distribution for $S_{\phi}$.

For our diffusion model, this loss formulation $\mathcal{S}(\theta)$ appears to require knowledge of the clean LP at each reverse step. However, DDIM’s non-Markovian formulation allows us to estimate $\hat{\mathbf{l}}_{0}$ at any intermediate timestep $n$ using Equation 5.

While our goal is to generate a diverse set of LPs for a given target configuration, the practical utility of these designs depends critically on their adherence to the fundamental physics of ICF and their feasibility under real-world experimental constraints. One essential constraint is energy conservation. Specifically, generated LPs should not exceed the total energy budget of corresponding reference pulses. For any $\mathbf{l}_{i}\in D_{F}$, we impose the following constraint on a generated LP $\mathbf{l}^{\prime}_{i}$:

where $T$ is the total pulse duration. To enforce this, we introduce a physics-based penalty term:

This term penalizes excess energy, encouraging designs within experimental and physical limits. Incorporating this constraint into our overall loss function, we define the complete training objective as:

where $\lambda_{\mathcal{L}}$, $\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}$, and $\lambda_{\mathcal{P}}$ are hyperparameters that control the relative importance of each loss term in the overall objective (Ablation of $\lambda$ in Appendix Section E.1). This joint objective enables the generation of LPs that are diverse, outcome-consistent, physically plausible, and experimentally viable.

We compare LPDS variants across deterministic models (an autoregressive Transformer [49], $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{Transformer}}$, and an LSTM [22], $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{LSTM}}$) and generative models (a diffusion model, $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{Diff}}$, and three autoregressive LSTM variants with Gaussian, Mixture-of-Gaussians, and categorical output distributions). A comparison against seven off-the-shelf conditional generators and inverse-problem methods is reported in Appendix D, and generalization to unseen pellet configurations is evaluated in Appendix E.3.

We also perform an ablation study to assess the impact of our proposed objectives by evaluating versions of the model without the surrogate loss $\mathcal{S}(\theta)$ ($w/o\ \mathcal{S}$) and without the physics-informed loss $\mathcal{P}(\theta)$ ($w/o\ \mathcal{P}$).

We report four key metrics: implosion-outcome error in $\mathbf{m}$, reconstruction error, generation diversity, and energy-conservation violation. All models were evaluated over $5$ full training runs and $R=10$ random seeds (50 runs per model) on a test set $D_{F_{\text{test}}}=\left\{\left(\mathbf{l}_{e},\mathbf{p}_{e},\mathbf{m}_{e}\right)\right\}_{e=1}^{E}$, where $D_{F_{\text{test}}}\cap D_{F}=\emptyset$.

The implosion-outcome error in $\mathbf{m}$ is computed via the surrogate loss (Equation 10) and reported as mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). Reconstruction error is computed as $\frac{1}{E}\sum_{e=1}^{E}\frac{1}{R}\sum_{r=1}^{R}\left\|\mathbf{l}_{e}-\mathbf{l}^{\prime}_{e,r}\right\|$. Energy-conservation violation is reported as the mean positive excess-energy percentage, $\frac{1}{E}\sum_{e=1}^{E}\frac{1}{R}\sum_{r=1}^{R}\frac{\left(\int_{0}^{J}\mathbf{l}^{\prime}_{e,r}(j)\,dj-\int_{0}^{J}\mathbf{l}_{e}(j)\,dj\right)^{+}}{\int_{0}^{J}\mathbf{l}_{e}(j)\,dj}\times 100$, so lower values indicate fewer budget violations. Diversity is measured by average pairwise $L_{2}$ distance across generated samples: $\frac{1}{E}\sum_{e=1}^{E}\frac{1}{\binom{R}{2}}\sum_{1\leq j<k\leq R}\left\|\mathbf{l}^{\prime}_{j,e}-\mathbf{l}^{\prime}_{k,e}\right\|_{2}$. The estimated upper bound for diversity is $1.9$, obtained when comparing randomly selected LPs from $D_{F_{\text{test}}}$.

We also evaluate the implosion-outcome error on the true LILAC simulator, rather than relying only on the surrogate, and report this quantity as the LILAC error. Because simulator access is limited, this validation is performed for the two best-performing models ($\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{LSTM}}$ and $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{Diff}}$). The LILAC error therefore serves as the primary simulator-grounded validation of LPDS and should not be conflated with surrogate-based screening.

Table 1 summarizes the main results. The ablation studies confirm the critical roles of $\mathcal{S}(\theta)$ and $\mathcal{P}(\theta)$. Among LPDS variants, $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{LSTM}}$ achieves the highest reconstruction fidelity but yields zero diversity. The generative variants ($\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{Diff}}$ and $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{*AR}}$) maintain low implosion-outcome error while producing varied, high-quality pulses (Figure 2a), with $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{Diff}}$ providing the greatest diversity while preserving low $\mathbf{m}$ error. This precision–diversity trade-off enables scientists to select predictive models for exact replication or generative models for constraint-driven exploration; example generations are shown in Appendix Figures 9(b)–11(b). The two best variants ($\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{Diff}}$ and $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{LSTM}}$) both achieve less than $2.1\%$ error on the true LILAC simulator, confirming that surrogate-based gains transfer to the simulator. Per-metric bar plots of these results are provided in Appendix D (Figures 5 and 6).

The above approach enables $G_{\theta}$ to satisfy the specified constraints. However, exhaustively training separate diffusion models for all combinations of one or two parameters in $C$ is computationally infeasible due to combinatorial complexity.

To address this challenge, we propose a rapid adaptation strategy  [5, 37, 14, 23]. Rather than retraining from scratch, we adapt a pre-trained model $G_{\theta}(\mathbf{m},\mathbf{p})$ with a small number of gradient updates to satisfy a new constraint $c$.

Our adaptation approach employs an embedding network $\mathcal{B}_{\delta}$ that encodes constraint parameters $c\in C$ to condition LP generation. This results in a conditioned noise model: $\epsilon_{\theta}(\mathbf{l}_{n},n,\mathbf{m},\mathbf{p},\mathcal{B}_{\delta}(c))$. To simplify conditioning, we enforce equal embedding dimensionality for $n$ and $c=\mathcal{B}_{\delta}(c)$, enabling their combination into a single conditioning variable $u=n+c$. This allows us to condition the model as $\epsilon_{\theta}(\mathbf{l}_{t},u,\mathbf{m},\mathbf{p})$, requiring no architectural changes to the original model. During adaptation, only the parameters of $\mathcal{B}_{\delta}$ are fine-tuned, according to Equation 14, while the remaining weights are frozen.

Conceptually, the proposed adaptation mechanism can be interpreted as learning a low-dimensional constraint embedding that shifts the generative distribution toward constraint-satisfying submanifolds. Rather than retraining the full generative model for each new constraint configuration, LPDS performs lightweight updates that reconfigure the generative process while preserving the learned global structure of the design space.

Examples of this adaptation technique for picket power are shown in Figure 9(a) (Appendix). For a given constraint $c$, the model is fine-tuned once and can then generate an arbitrary number of pulses for different specifications of $\mathbf{m}$ and $\mathbf{p}$.

Alternatively, the LP can be adapted after generation using a model-agnostic technique without additional fine-tuning. To honor constraints in $\mathcal{C}$ while maintaining desired implosion outcomes, a loss combining the pulse constraining loss $\mathcal{J(\theta)}$ (Equation 13) and the LILAC surrogate loss $\mathcal{S(\theta)}$ (Equation 10) is formulated. Since both losses are differentiable w.r.t. the pulse $\mathbf{l}^{\prime}$ (now referred to as $\mathcal{J(\mathbf{l}^{\prime})}$ and $\mathcal{S(\mathbf{l}^{\prime})}$), we can perform gradient descent with respect to the following loss and update the pulse $\mathbf{l}^{\prime}$:

where $\alpha$ is the learning rate. One drawback of this technique is that gradient descent can push the LP into undesirable regions, such as negative values or peaks that violate the maximum power. In practice, we mitigate these issues by clipping the pulse. In addition, gradient-based adaptation must be performed separately for each constrained LP, whereas our diffusion-based adaptation produces a fine-tuned model that can be reused indefinitely.

We evaluate the ability of LPDS to rapidly adapt to specific design constraints $c$, using both diffusion-based and gradient-based adaptation strategies. For the diffusion-based approach, the model is fine-tuned for only 10 epochs on a new constraint parameter $c^{m}$, requiring minimal computational overhead. In parallel, we apply the gradient-based adaptation to the deterministic model $\text{LPDS}_{\text{LSTM}}$, allowing for direct post-generation refinement.

We focus our evaluation on two physically meaningful parameters: picket power and foot power (see Figure 4). To quantify adaptation accuracy, we compute the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) between the specified constraint value $c$ and the corresponding value extracted from the generated pulse (as defined in Equation 13). The gradient-based approach achieves a MAPE of $\mathbf{2.5\%\pm 0.12}$, while the diffusion-based method yields a MAPE of $\mathbf{3.4\%\pm 0.14}$. Importantly, both adaptation methods preserve LPDS’s performance on the target implosion outcomes ($\mathbf{m}$-Error remains unaffected).

These constraint adaptation strategies empower scientists to generate diverse, high-quality pulse shapes that meet desired implosion outcomes and can be interactively tuned to satisfy evolving experimental or engineering constraints.

Inpainting provides control directly in LP space: users specify a prefix or fixed regions rather than parameters in $\mathcal{C}$. Autoregressive models complete the pulse from a supplied prefix, while diffusion conditions denoising on specified segments. In our evaluation, the autoregressive prompt covers the first 10% of the pulse (the first peak); diffusion receives random observed segments with the remainder masked. Diffusion and LSTM achieve $\mathbf{m}$ errors of $(2.00\pm 0.012)\%$ and $(1.55\pm 0.010)\%$, respectively, with reconstruction errors of $(2.0\pm 0.2)\times 10^{-5}$ and $(0.3\pm 0.02)\times 10^{-5}$ ($\pm$ denotes standard deviation over seeds). Appendix Figures 8(a) and 8(b) show example completions.

Beyond reconstructing existing pulse shapes, LPDS can discover novel laser pulse designs that improve implosion performance under strict physical constraints. We formulate pulse optimization as a constrained generative inverse-design problem in which the goal is to generate new pulse shapes that outperform high-quality baseline designs while preserving energy feasibility.

Specifically, given an initial high-performing pulse $\mathbf{l}_{e}$ with system parameters $\mathbf{p}_{e}$ and measured implosion outcomes $\mathbf{m}_{e}$, we define a target outcome by increasing the energy yield component by 10%:

Using this target, LPDS generates candidate optimized pulses via

The generated pulse must satisfy two constraints: (i) achieving a predicted energy yield at least as high as the target and (ii) maintaining the original total energy budget,

Here, $\mathbf{S}_{\phi}$ denotes the surrogate model used to estimate implosion performance. Since the generated LP may lie beyond the physically viable distribution, we further impose a frequency-domain similarity constraint to ensure the generated LPs are physically plausible:

where $\mathcal{F}$ is the discrete Fourier transform, $J$ is the number of temporal samples and $\tau$ controls the allowable structural deviation. This constraint ensures that LPDS explores novel yet physically realistic pulse variations within the learned design manifold.

For each initial design, we generate 20 candidate pulses using different random seeds and select the pulse that maximizes predicted energy gain while satisfying all constraints. Crucially, the final optimization results are not reported through the surrogate: the selected optimized pulses are evaluated with the true LILAC hydrodynamic simulator on 60 unique high-performing baseline pulses.

We compare the diffusion-based generator $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{Diff}}$ with the autoregressive variant $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{LSTM}}$. Under true LILAC validation, the autoregressive model achieves a modest mean energy-yield improvement of 2.79%. In contrast, $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{Diff}}$ consistently discovers novel pulse structures that produce a substantially higher mean gain of 17.74% while respecting the original energy budget, and 86% of the optimized pulses exceed the 10% yield-improvement target. A mean gain of $17.74\%$ corresponds to $\sim$1.18$\times$ neutron yield, obtained on top of baseline pulses that are already high-performing. These results demonstrate that LPDS can effectively explore the constrained design space and uncover superior pulse configurations beyond the baseline designs.

ML-based inverse modeling spans diffusion models [10, 8, 25, 46], autoregressive sequence models [12, 36, 52], GANs and VAEs [42, 3, 28, 35], and other paradigms [50, 26, 1]. In the physical sciences, inverse methods have been applied to thermodynamics [24], materials discovery [47, 18], geophysics [40], and high-energy/plasma physics [43, 13, 31, 38]. However, these methods are typically domain-specific and focus on reconstructive inverse problems under fixed forward operators, producing single or narrowly distributed solutions. Simulation-based inference [9] provides a general framework for amortized posterior estimation with expensive simulators, but neural posterior estimators are typically applied to low-dimensional parameter vectors and do not natively address three requirements of LP design: a 256-dimensional structured output, hard physical constraints that must hold for every sample, and interactive control through inpainting and editing. Flow matching [33] is a further generative family that could in principle be combined with the surrogate coupling, energy penalty, and inpainting used in LPDS; we leave its evaluation to future work.

Statistical models calibrated on experimental data have substantially improved direct-drive implosion performance, most notably tripling the fusion yield on OMEGA [16] and enabling a hydrodynamically equivalent burning plasma [17]; related work identifies the experimental dependencies of fusion yield on implosion parameters [30]. Machine learning has also been applied to fusion plasmas for tomography, inverse rendering, and accelerated simulation [13, 38, 34]. These works address forward modeling, diagnostics, or simulation acceleration; LPDS addresses the inverse direction, learning a conditional generative model that proposes multiple pulse shapes for desired outcomes and supports controllable editing and simulator-validated optimization. To our knowledge, no prior work develops such a model for the direct-drive LP design setting studied here.

When evaluating the objective requires an expensive simulator, Bayesian optimization [44] and evolution strategies such as CMA-ES [20] are standard black-box optimizers. These methods solve one design problem at a time and must be rerun for every new target, whereas LPDS amortizes the inverse mapping across targets and pellet configurations. Direct optimization over a low-dimensional pulse parameterization against our surrogate is evaluated in Appendix C.

The method depends on a learned surrogate during training and most large-scale evaluation, so surrogate bias remains a central limitation. In addition, the real experimental study is necessarily small, and the experimental data are noisier and less abundant than the simulation data. Finally, although the energy-conservation term enforces an important physical constraint, it does not by itself guarantee full facility-level experimental feasibility or robustness under out-of-distribution target requests. Regarding safety, a mis-designed pulse in direct-drive ICF degrades implosion performance rather than creating a runaway condition; generated pulses are additionally screened by the energy-conservation and frequency-domain constraints and, like any new design, would undergo the standard facility safety review before being fielded.

The LILAC surrogate ($\mathbf{S_{\phi}}$) is a MLP with the following hyper-params. It is trained with the Adam optimizer [27], with a batch size of 128, learning rate of $1e^{-5}$ for 100 epochs.

The surrogate has an average error of 1.4% across all the outputs.

The mapping function ($\mathcal{M}$) is a 1 layer bidirectional LSTM with 64 hidden units. We concatenate the hidden state from both directions, before passing it through an output linear layer. It is trained with the Adam optimizer, with a batch size of 64, learning rate of $1e^{-5}$ for 250 epochs. The model achieves an average error of 1.1% across all 12 parameters in $C$.

Inputs for experiments and LILAC simulations are specified by target and the laser pulse shape. The laser pulse shape is prescribed using an internal library that parameterizes the laser pulse shape into an ad-hoc descriptive featurization such as the time delay between gaussian shaped features, maximum power and total energy. Therefore, the input is defined within a 20-dimensional parameter space, consisting of target specifications and a parameterized laser-pulse description. Although this space can be uniformly sampled under physical constraints (e.g., maximum laser energy, allowable target thicknesses), random sampling of the 20-D hypervolume does not represent the way experimental and consequently simulation designs are chosen. In practice, high-performing implosions occupy only a small subset of this high-dimensional space, guided by physics intent, rather than being distributed throughout the full admissible hypervolume. Consequently, the region of desirable inputs does not fill the full 20-D space but instead lies on a lower-dimensional manifold embedded within it. This manifold is not explicitly known or parameterized: it emerges from complex physics couplings between target geometry and laser-pulse features. To more effectively sample this region, we supplement random draws with perturbations of known high-performing implosions. Perturbing their laser-pulse features and target parameters produces a family of nearby points that remain close to the underlying manifold while still providing variation in implosion performance. This strategy implicitly captures the trait that for a fixed target specification, laser-pulse shapes close to physics-based designs typically outperform large random perturbed ones. The resulting dataset therefore reflects a distribution with multiple high-performance pockets concentrated on an unknown manifold within the 20-D input space, rather than a uniform distribution over the entire hypervolume.

We performed an ablation study by systematically varying the relative weights assigned to the reconstruction term ($\lambda_{\mathcal{L}}$) and the outcome-consistency term ($\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}$) in the composite loss 12, while keeping the physics penalty weight ($\lambda_{\mathcal{P}}$) constant. This analysis isolates the inherent trade-off surface between generating highly faithful, but potentially less diverse, laser pulse shapes (high $\lambda_{\mathcal{L}}$) and generating diverse solutions that effectively satisfy the target outcome (high $\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}$).

Figure 7 illustrates this critical trade-off. As the model’s objective shifts towards maximizing exploration of the design space (increasing $\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}$), it must tolerate a corresponding degradation in the reconstruction fidelity ($\mathcal{L}$).

The results demonstrate a clear Pareto frontier. When $\lambda_{\mathcal{L}}=1.0$ and $\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}=0.0$ (strong emphasis on reconstruction), the model acts primarily as an autoencoder, achieving near-perfect fidelity ($\mathcal{L}=1.0\times 10^{-5}$) but minimal design diversity ($0.13$). Conversely, as the weight shifts to strongly prioritize the surrogate outcome ($\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}=0.8$), diversity reaches its maximum ($0.66$) at the expense of fidelity ($\mathcal{L}=0.0064$). We excluded $\lambda_{\mathcal{L}}=0.0$ and $\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}=1.0$ because the model failed to learn physically viable representations.

This section evaluates the violation rates for the two primary operational constraints investigated: the instantaneous per-timestep maximum power caps and the maximum cumulative energy allowed during ICF experiments. These rates, detailed in Table 8, are crucial indicators of the robustness and feasibility of the generated LPs.

The data in Table 8 show that all approaches, including all LSTM variants (standard, Gaussian, mixture of Gaussians, and categorical), the Transformer, and the diffusion model, achieved 0% violation rates for both the instantaneous power cap and the cumulative energy constraint on this evaluation. This outcome indicates that $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{P}$ provide sufficient guidance during training for generation to remain within physically viable designs in the evaluated setting, without explicit constraint enforcement at inference time.

The random 70%–30% split used in the main experiments may place pulses from the same perturbation family in both the training and test sets. To evaluate generalization to genuinely unseen target designs, we construct a pellet-stratified split: we cluster the dataset with $k$-means ($k=10$) on the pellet parameters $\mathbf{p}$ and hold out the two clusters closest to the median cluster size, so that test pellet configurations are disjoint from those seen during training. Table 9 reports the $\mathbf{m}$ error of $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{Diff}}$ on the held-out clusters. As a reference, we also report the $\mathbf{m}$ error obtained by passing the ground-truth pulses of the held-out clusters through the surrogate, which gives the error floor attainable on these clusters.

On the held-out pellet clusters, $\mathbf{LPDS}_{\text{Diff}}$ reaches a $2.02\%$ $\mathbf{m}$ error, only $0.49$ percentage points above the surrogate floor and $0.09$ percentage points above its performance on the random split. This indicates that LPDS generalizes to unseen pellet configurations rather than interpolating within known perturbation families.

We analyze the computational overhead for training and inference (sampling) across the different approaches. While the training and inference costs are negligible when considering the month lead time and scale of the ICF experimental cycle, we study these properties because they are paramount for evaluating the model’s scalability and applicability to other scientific inverse design tasks where time-to-solution is a critical constraint. All reported times are based on the execution using a single NVIDIA H100 GPU for both training and inference tasks.

Table 10 presents the average training duration, samples generated per second and latency in milliseconds (time per batch). The training time is an average over 5 independent runs, with convergence defined as the point where the validation loss did not meaningfully improve over 20 consecutive epochs. The sampling time reports the average samples/time, when evaluated over the entire test set. These results highlight the intrinsic trade-offs among model complexity, training investment, and broader scientific utility.

The systematic benchmarking and ablation studies provide concrete, data-driven guidance for selecting the optimal generative strategy based on the specific goals of ICF LP generation. The decision-making process involves two stages: 1) selecting the appropriate generative architecture (Table 1), and 2) tuning the composite loss weights ($\lambda_{\mathcal{L}},\lambda_{\mathcal{S}}$) to manage the Bias-Variance trade-off (Figure 7).

Equation 12 defines the composite loss

where $\mathcal{L}(\theta)$ denotes the reconstruction or likelihood term, $\mathcal{S}(\theta)$ the outcome-consistency term using the differentiable surrogate $S_{\phi}$, and $\mathcal{P}(\theta)$ the physics penalty. Because $\mathcal{O}(\theta)$ is a nonconvex objective, global optimality cannot be guaranteed. However, under standard smoothness and bounded-variance assumptions for stochastic gradients, stochastic gradient descent (SGD) with a suitable step-size schedule converges to a first-order stationary point in expectation. Formally, if $\nabla_{\theta}\mathcal{O}$ is $L_{\mathcal{O}}$-Lipschitz and stochastic gradients $\hat{g}_{t}$ satisfy $\mathbb{E}[\|\hat{g}_{t}-\nabla\mathcal{O}(\theta_{t})\|^{2}]\leq\sigma^{2}$, then with constant step size $\eta<1/L_{\mathcal{O}}$ we obtain the standard rate $\mathbb{E}\|\nabla\mathcal{O}(\theta_{T})\|^{2}\leq O(1/T)+O(\eta\sigma^{2})$. In practice, adaptive methods such as Adam used in our experiments empirically achieve similar convergence behavior. This statement clarifies that the optimization of Equation 12 yields approximate stationary points of the joint empirical objective.

Below we provide an analysis of how surrogate approximation error affects the surrogate-based outcome-consistency loss. This makes explicit the mechanisms by which a nonzero surrogate error can propagate through the inverse model.

Let $\mathbf{l}^{\prime}\!=\!G_{\theta}(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{m})$ be a generated pulse for condition $p$, let

and define the pointwise surrogate error

The surrogate-based outcome-consistency term is

Noting $r_{\phi}=r_{\mathrm{true}}+\varepsilon_{\phi}$ we have the exact identity

Applying the reverse triangle inequality yields the simple bound

Thus, pointwise surrogate error translates directly into an additive bound on the surrogate-implied outcome error: the surrogate loss is a proxy for the true outcome error up to the pointwise surrogate deviation.

The primary risk of using a surrogate model ($S_{\phi}$) in the loss function $\mathcal{S}(\theta)$ is that the generator ($G_{\theta}$) may exploit the surrogate’s approximation error $\varepsilon_{\phi}$ to satisfy the loss function $\mathcal{S}(\theta)$ without satisfying the true physical objective.

Conditional Bound: The generator $G_{\theta}$ minimizes the true LILAC residual provided that the surrogate pointwise approximation error, $\varepsilon_{\phi}(\mathbf{l}^{\prime})\coloneqq S_{\phi}(\mathbf{l}^{\prime},\mathbf{p})-\mathrm{LILAC}(\mathbf{l}^{\prime},\mathbf{p})$, remains uniformly small across the region of laser-pulse space explored by the generator. Using the bound from Section F.2, $\big|\sqrt{\mathcal{L}_{S}}-\|r_{\mathrm{true}}(\mathbf{l}^{\prime})\|\big|\leq\|\varepsilon_{\phi}(\mathbf{l}^{\prime})\|$, the surrogate-implied outcome error and the true LILAC outcome error differ only up to the magnitude of the surrogate approximation error.

Adversarial Exploitation: This robustness can fail if the generator produces an LP, $\mathbf{l}^{*}$, that acts as an adversarial example for the surrogate. This occurs when $\mathbf{l}^{*}$ lies in a region of the design space where the surrogate $S_{\phi}$ is inaccurate, so $\|\varepsilon_{\phi}(\mathbf{l}^{*})\|$ is large. In that case, the generator may achieve low surrogate error $\mathcal{S}(\theta)$ while the true LILAC error remains large, that is, $\|r_{\mathrm{true}}(\mathbf{l}^{*})\|\gg 0$. This constitutes exploitation of the surrogate and can produce a physically misleading design. The reconstruction loss $\mathcal{L}(\theta)$ and physics penalty $\mathcal{P}(\theta)$ help mitigate this failure mode by filtering implausible designs. This interpretation is consistent with the ablation results in Section E.1, where removing $\mathcal{L}(\theta)$ prevents the model from learning physically viable pulses.

The ICF LP inverse design problem is a classic example of an ill-posed inverse problem, meaning the solution is non-identifiable: multiple distinct LPs ($\mathbf{l}^{\prime}_{1}\neq\mathbf{l}^{\prime}_{2}$) can produce close fusion outcomes ($\mathbf{m}$).