The achievement of practical fusion energy remains one of the most pressing unsolved scientific challenges, with immense implications for carbon-free power. A critical factor in the success of Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) is the design of a Laser Pulse Shape (LP) that can optimally drive implosions under stringent physical constraints. Traditional LP design relies on computationally expensive simulations and manual iterative refinement. We introduce the ICF Laser Pulse Shape Design System (LPDS), a generative inverse modeling framework that maps desired outcomes and target pellet configurations directly to optimized LPs. Crucially, we design a multi-objective loss function to ensure the generated LPs satisfy fundamental physical constraints and experimental requirements. Furthermore, we present constraint-conditioning, inpainting, and gradient-based LP editing mechanisms for fine-grained control over specific pulse characteristics during generation. Moreover, we study the transfer of our framework to a limited set of real experimental shots. Our method establishes a data-driven inverse design framework for LP design in ICF, contributing to the advancement of practical and sustainable fusion energy.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Inverse design workflow. (1) Fit an outcome surrogate to simulations. (2) Train the inverse model using examples, outcome agreement, and constraints; freeze the surrogate. (3) Generate designs from desired outcomes and system properties without simulator or surrogate calls.
LPDS variant
Diversity ↑
m Error ↓
Reconstruction ↓
Energy Cons. ↓
LILAC Error ↓
(%)
( ×10−3 )
(%)
(%)
Diff
0.64±0.077
1.93±0.046
5.6±0.20
1.59±0.14
2.07
LSTM
–
1.65±0.09
0.1±0.05
0.66±0.07
2.01
Transformer
–
1.94±0.11
0.8±0.08
0.95±0.10
–
LSTM Gaussian
0.42±0.02
1.89±0.01
0.5±0.02
0.58±0.004
–
LSTM MixtureOfGaussian
0.56±0.10
1.95±0.09
0.6±0.08
1.58±0.006
–
Table 1: ICF model performance. ± denotes standard deviation over seeds and training runs. For the predictive autoregressive models ( LPDSLSTM and LPDSTransformer ), diversity is not defined because they are deterministic. The LILAC-error column reports true simulator validation rather than surrogate evaluation and is available only for the strongest models because simulator access is limited. The ablation experiments for the loss terms were performed for a subset of the models due to computational constraints.
Figure 2: Overview of LPDS capabilities. Panel (a) shows diverse conditional generation of valid pulse shapes, panel (b) shows constraint-based editing of specific pulse attributes, panel (c) shows inpainting of partially specified pulses, and panel (d) shows outcome-driven optimization followed by simulator validation.
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: ICF-specific LPDS architecture. The inverse model Gθ generates a laser pulse l′ from embedded pellet parameters p and desired implosion outcomes m . Training combines pulse reconstruction, surrogate-predicted outcome agreement, and physics-informed penalties. The dashed branch adds optional pulse-shape constraints c through a pulse-to-parameter model M .
Figure 4: The LP is typically characterized by 12 parameters, some of which are annotated here.
Transformer layers
4
Attention heads
4
Feed forward dimension
2048
Embedding layers
2
Embedding dimension
1024
Dropout
0.1
Learning rate
5e−5
Appendix
Table 2: Network Hyperparameters ϵθ used in diffusion model.
Num of layers
4
Number of hidden units
512
Learning rate
1e−5
Batch size
128
Appendix
Table 3: Network Hyperparameters used in the LSTM autoregressive model.
λS
0.5
λP
0.25
λL
0.25
Appendix
Table 4: Hyperparameters used for our inverse-model objective O(θ) .
Num. of layers
4
Num. of hidden units
256
Activation function
ReLU
Appendix
Table 5: Hyperparameters used for the LILAC surrogate Sϕ
Table 6: Comparison of surrogate architectures for approximating the LILAC outcomes m .
LPDS variant / Baseline
Diversity ↑
m Error ↓
Reconstruction ↓
Energy Cons. ↓
(%)
( ×10−3 )
(%)
LPDS Diff
0.64±0.077
1.93±0.046
5.6±0.20
1.59±0.14
LPDS LSTM
–
1.65±0.09
0.1±0.05
0.66±0.07
VAE
0.16±0.06
4.97±0.24
1.0±0.10
0.61±0.04
GAN
0.68±0.09
9.88±0.73
4.0±0.20
0.78±0.09
TabSyn
0.66±0.13
15.80±0.80
23.0±0.20
4.76±0.07
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of LPDS with off-the-shelf conditional generators and inverse-problem methods on the simulation test set. ± denotes standard deviation over seeds and training runs. Diversity is not defined for deterministic methods.
Figure 5: LPDS variants compared with off-the-shelf baselines on each metric. Error bars denote standard deviation over seeds and training runs. Diversity is omitted for deterministic models.
Figure 6: Ablation of the surrogate loss S and the physics-informed loss P (Table 1 ). Removing S more than doubles the m error of all three models, while removing P roughly doubles the energy violation of LPDSDiff .
Figure 7: Fidelity–Diversity analysis: (a) trade-off curve and (b) measured metrics across λL and λS settings.
Approach
Maximum Power Cap
Maximum Cumulative Energy
LSTM
0 %
0 %
Transformer
0 %
0 %
Diffusion
0 %
0 %
LSTM Gaussian
0 %
0 %
LSTM MixtureOfGaussian
0 %
0 %
LSTM Categorical
0 %
0 %
Appendix
Table 8: Violation rates of the benchmarked approaches for LP generation.
Offline-trained surrogates for Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) suffer a well-known failure mode that iterative optimizers drive inputs into out-of-distribution (OOD) regions where predictions become unreliable. Here we present Co4ICF, a co-evolving framework that couples a physics-informed surrogate with a PPO-based pulse optimizer. The surrogate is iteratively fine-tuned on policy-induced trajectories, correcting extrapolation errors as the optimizer shifts the input distribution; the optimizer queries this evolving surrogate as a fast environment. In the 1D MULTI environment, Co4ICF achieves 146.1% normalized yield based on current laser design baseline; as a post-hoc cross-fidelity check, the optimized pulse further attains 246.9% normalized yield when directly evaluated in 2D-MULTI without any 2D training or fine-tuning. Budget-matched ablations support that the gains are not explained solely by additional simulation data and are consistent with the co-evolving mechanism playing a key role. We release a large-scale MULTI-IFE simulation dataset to support future benchmarking.
Jiatong Zhao, Tengyue Zhang, Yuhan Wang +2
School of Physics and Astronomy Zhiyuan College Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China · School of Physics and Astronomy Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China · School of Artificial Intelligence Shanghai Jiao Tong University Shanghai, China
Controlling the longitudinal laser pulse shape in photoinjectors of Free-Electron Lasers is a powerful lever for optimizing electron beam quality, but systematic exploration of the vast design space is limited by the cost of brute-force pulse propagation simulations. We present a generative modeling framework based on Wasserstein Autoencoders to learn a differentiable latent interface between pulse shaping and downstream beam dynamics. Our empirical findings show that the learned latent space is continuous and interpretable while maintaining high-fidelity reconstructions. Pulse families such as higher-order Gaussians trace coherent trajectories, while standardizing the temporal pulse lengths shows a latent organization correlated with pulse energy. Analysis via principal components and Gaussian Mixture Models reveals a well behaved latent geometry, enabling smooth transitions between distinct pulse types via linear interpolation. The model generalizes from simulated data to real experimental pulse measurements, accurately reconstructing pulses and embedding them consistently into the learned manifold. Overall, the approach reduces reliance on expensive pulse-propagation simulations and facilitates downstream beam dynamics simulation and analysis.
Alexander Klemps, Denis Ilia, Pradeep Kr. Banerjee +3
Institute for Data Science Foundations, Hamburg University of Technology, Germany · Deutsches Elektron-Synchrotron (DESY), Hamburg, Germany
Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) is a leading pathway toward clean energy, but each shot at the National Ignition Facility costs on the order of one million dollars, making accurate AI surrogates a high-value target. We study exogenous-driven ICF waveform prediction, where a 512-step neutron-rate diagnostic must be inferred directly from a laser pulse and target design parameters, with no historical response observed. The regime stresses standard time-series predictors with temporal sparsity (picosecond peak in a nanosecond window), input-output scale mismatch (under 300 real shots), and peak sensitivity (picosecond timing). We propose ICF-DLM, to our knowledge the first LM-based ICF predictor, combining (i) a physics-typed decomposition into yield YDT, peak timing tpeak, and local waveform wlocal; (ii) bidirectional denoising that defers commitment to peak location; and (iii) a physics-driven PPO reward re-injecting metric structure across numeric tokens. On ICFBench (50K simulations + 232 experimental shots), ICF-DLM cuts peak-timing error from 11.6 to 9.2 steps over a matched autoregressive LLaMA-3-8B and outperforms classical sequence models and LLM-based time-series predictors. Beyond ICF, the recipe shows potential to address science domains with low data and sparse events.