Trial-and-error FE simulation of sheet forming could be computationally expensive, neural-network-based learned simulators are used to accelerate design. These simulators should accurately capture localised responses, such as thinning around sharp radii or near ribs, which determine formability. Transformer-based neural operators propagate information efficiently across the mesh but tend to smooth such localised responses. This study develops BiLoGo, a Bipartite Local-Global learned simulator with an FE-guided design that connects local node-element message passing with a Transformer-based neural operator for long-range information exchange. BiLoGo has three modules: a bidirectional node-element GraphSAGE model that learns nodal-elemental coupling on a bipartite graph and predicts each quantity on its native FE entity without interpolation; a dual-stream Transformer-based neural operator that processes blank deformation and tool contact with separate token sets, preventing localised contact information from being averaged with the whole-blank state; and a fusion and element update module that combines global and local features via gated residual fusion and updates element features conditioned on element-node kinematics. Evaluated on a dome-shaped cold forming case and two corner-shaped hot stamping cases (one with ribs), BiLoGo achieves the lowest positional and threshold-based thinning errors on all three cases compared with single-level and hierarchical graph-based models and Transformer-based neural operators. Near the ribs, the smoothing index of predicted thinning increases from 0.41-0.56 for Transformer-based neural operators to 0.94 for BiLoGo-U. Compared with the hierarchical graph network CAtt-BiUGNN, BiLoGo-T reduces mean positional error by 15.5% on the Corner case and BiLoGo-U by 8.3% on the Corner+Rib case, with 66-69% less training memory.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Autoregressive rollout of BiLoGo, shown for a Corner+Rib simulation. At each learned step, the predicted displacement increment updates the nodal positions, the predicted thinning is used as the input of the next step, and the contact state is recomputed from the predicted geometry and the prescribed tool positions.
Figure 2: Dome dataset. (a) Tool set-up of the quarter model. (b) Die geometry and design variables Rdome and Rdie . (c) Thinning distribution of one simulation over the 11 saved stages.
Figure 3: Corner dataset. (a) Tool set-up of the quarter model. (b) Die geometry and design variables Rdie , Rpunch , Rplanview and H . (c) Thinning distribution of one simulation over the 11 saved stages.
Figure 4: Corner+Rib dataset. (a) Tool set-up of the quarter model. (b) Die geometry of the quarter model with the rib parameters. The rib centre prib is located on the straight top edge between pstart at the symmetry plane and pend at the corner fillet by the position parameter u (Eq. ( 10 )), and A/2 and B/2 are the semi-axes of the half-elliptical rib along and normal to the side wall. (c) Thinning distribution of one simulation over the 11 saved stages.
Parameter
Range
Description
u
25–75%
Position of the rib centre along the top edge
A/2
35–50 mm
Half-length of the rib along the side wall
B/2
22.5–30 mm
Outward extent of the rib from the side wall
Table 1: Design variables of the Corner+Rib dataset.
Figure 5: Construction of the node–element bipartite graph. (a) Triangular mesh. (b) Bipartite graph with mesh-nodes and element centre-nodes. Each element centre-node is connected to the three nodes of its element, and information is passed in both directions along each edge. The highlighted edges show the neighbourhood used to update an element from its three nodes (magenta, Eq. ( 14 )) and the neighbourhood used to update a node from its neighbouring elements (teal, Eq. ( 15 )).
Stream
Entity
Features
State
Node v
svn=[xvn,Δuvn,bv,l]
State
Element i
sin=[xin,Δuin,θin,l]
Contact
Node v
cvn : proximity c(d) and surface normal n for each tool, l
Contact
Element i
cin : mean of the node contact inputs over v∈N(i) , l
Output
Node v
displacement increment Δuvn+1
Output
Element i
thinning θin+1
Table 2: Input and output features of BiLoGo at learned step n .
Figure 6: Architecture of BiLoGo. The contact and state streams are encoded separately and processed by the bipartite GraphSAGE layers of the bidirectional node–element GraphSAGE model. In the global module, each stream is compressed into tokens and processed by self-attention, and the contact tokens query the state tokens through cross-attention. The result is broadcast back to the nodes and elements, combined with the local state features by the gated residual fusion, and used in the kinematics-conditioned element update. After the bipartite GraphSAGE layers that follow the global module, the node and element decoders predict the displacement increment and the thinning. Dashed lines show the local features passed directly to later components. The gated residual fusion and the kinematics-conditioned element update, which form the fusion and element update module, are highlighted in green. The tokeniser is either the physical-slice tokeniser (BiLoGo-T) or the spatial supernode tokeniser (BiLoGo-U).
Component
Hyperparameter
Value
All
Latent dimension d
128
Local message passing
Pre-global layers per stream
2
Post-global layers
2
Global interaction
Attention heads
4
Self-attention blocks per stream
1
Cross-attention blocks
1
Table 3: Hyperparameters of BiLoGo.
Model
epos (mm)
Position MAE (mm)
Threshold-based thinning error (%)
Top-5% critical thinning error
MGN [ 57 ]
0.5137
0.2385
0.581
2.49%
FEIH-GNN [ 19 ]
0.5291
0.2488
0.502
2.67%
CAtt-BiGNN [ 75 ]
0.4001
0.1893
0.377
1.80%
Transolver [ 66 ]
0.3510
0.1681
0.612
2.64%
GNN-Transformer
0.3505
0.1691
0.602
1.52%
BiLoGo-T
0.3371
0.1608
0.396
1.61%
Table 4: Prediction accuracy on the Dome dataset at the final learned step of the 10-step rollout. The values are averaged over the test simulations. The best value in each column is shown in bold, and the second-best value is underlined.
Figure 7: Errors over the 10 learned steps of the rollout on the Dome test set. (a) Mean positional Euclidean error. (b) Threshold-based thinning error. The lines show the mean over the test simulations. The thinning error is shown from the second step, since few elements exceed the thinning threshold at the first step.
Figure 8: Final-step comparison for an example simulation from the Dome test set. (a) Thinning (top) and absolute thinning error (bottom). (b) Final positions (top) and positional Euclidean errors (bottom).
Model
epos (mm)
Position MAE (mm)
Threshold-based thinning error (%)
Top-1% critical relative thinning error
UMGN [ 72 ]
0.4971
0.2299
0.428
14.20%
RUGNN [ 72 ]
0.4005
0.1865
0.396
13.27%
CAtt-BiUGNN [ 75 ]
0.3209
0.1490
0.185
3.02%
Transolver [ 66 ]
1.0231
0.4787
0.480
10.75%
GNN-Transformer
0.4199
0.1989
0.353
8.89%
BiLoGo-T
0.2713
0.1266
0.170
3.57%
Table 5: Prediction accuracy on the Corner dataset at the final learned step of the 10-step rollout. The values are averaged over the test simulations. The best value in each column is shown in bold, and the second-best value is underlined.
Figure 9: Errors over the 10 learned steps of the rollout on the Corner test set. (a) Mean positional Euclidean error. (b) Threshold-based thinning error. The lines show the mean over the test simulations, and the shaded regions show the standard deviation. The thinning error is shown from the second step, since few elements exceed the thinning threshold at the first step.
Figure 10: Final-step comparison for an example simulation from the Corner test set. (a) Thinning (top) and absolute thinning error (bottom). (b) Final positions (top) and positional Euclidean errors (bottom).
Model
epos (mm)
Position MAE (mm)
Threshold-based thinning error (%)
Top-0.25% critical thinning error
CAtt-BiUGNN [ 75 ]
0.2637
0.1248
0.206
5.11%
Transolver [ 66 ]
1.3091
0.6243
0.989
16.75%
GNN-Transformer
0.7410
0.3575
0.726
10.96%
UPT [ 1 ]
1.3466
0.6366
0.486
9.40%
BiLoGo-T
0.4493
0.2146
0.391
3.37%
BiLoGo + Transolver++
0.6526
0.3170
0.507
6.77%
Table 6: Prediction accuracy on the Corner+Rib dataset at the final learned step of the 10-step rollout. The values are averaged over the test simulations. The best value in each column is shown in bold, and the second-best value is underlined.
Figure 11: Errors over the 10 learned steps of the rollout on the Corner+Rib test set. (a) Mean positional Euclidean error. (b) Threshold-based thinning error. The lines show the mean over the test simulations, and the shaded regions show the standard deviation.
Figure 12: Final-step comparison for an example simulation from the Corner+Rib test set. (a) Thinning (top), thinning near one rib (middle) and absolute thinning error (bottom). (b) Final positions (top) and positional Euclidean errors (bottom).
Figure 13: Regions used for the local metrics, shown on the undeformed configuration with the FE thinning of one test design at the final learned step. (a) Corner region of the Corner dataset. (b) Rib region of the Corner+Rib dataset. The black lines show the region boundaries.
Model
Region thinning error (%)
S
G (%/mm)
eˉpos (mm)
UMGN [ 72 ]
0.305
0.295
0.141
0.332
RUGNN [ 72 ]
0.302
0.301
0.140
0.298
CAtt-BiUGNN [ 75 ]
0.127
1.009
0.030
0.251
Transolver [ 66 ]
0.443
0.453
0.147
0.517
GNN-Transformer
0.322
0.469
0.137
0.270
BiLoGo-T
0.157
1.001
0.037
0.189
Table 7: Local accuracy near the corner on the Corner test set. The region thinning error, S and G are evaluated at the final learned step, and eˉpos is averaged over all 10 learned steps. The values are averaged over the 25 test designs. The best value in each column is shown in bold, and the second-best value is underlined. For S , the value closest to 1 is regarded as the best.
Model
Region thinning error (%)
S
G (%/mm)
eˉpos (mm)
CAtt-BiUGNN [ 75 ]
0.608
0.989
0.167
0.156
Transolver [ 66 ]
1.838
0.562
0.480
0.745
GNN-Transformer
1.487
0.489
0.454
0.461
UPT [ 1 ]
1.202
0.415
0.442
0.959
BiLoGo-T
0.585
0.874
0.193
0.295
BiLoGo + GINO
0.346
0.957
0.140
0.177
Table 8: Local accuracy near the ribs on the Corner+Rib test set. The region thinning error, S and G are evaluated at the final learned step, and eˉpos is averaged over all 10 learned steps. The values are averaged over the 50 test designs. The best value in each column is shown in bold, and the second-best value is underlined. For S , the value closest to 1 is regarded as the best.
Figure 14: Thinning along a path that crosses one rib, for one test simulation of the Corner+Rib dataset at the final learned step. (a) Position of the path on the FE thinning field. (b)–(g) FE and predicted thinning along the path.
Model
epos (mm)
Position MAE (mm)
Threshold-based thinning error (%)
Top-1% critical thinning error
BiLoGo-T
0.2713
0.1266
0.170
3.57%
w/o kinematics-conditioned element update
0.2915
0.1355
0.269
7.53%
w/o gated fusion
0.3467
0.1614
0.216
4.47%
w/o cross-attention
0.2692
0.1251
0.173
3.93%
w/o dual stream
0.4053
0.1918
0.222
3.82%
w/o bipartite GraphSAGE
0.7167
0.3352
0.275
5.78%
Table 9: Ablation study of the BiLoGo components on the Corner dataset at the final learned step of the 10-step rollout. The values are averaged over the test simulations. The best value in each column is shown in bold, and the second-best value is underlined.
Model
epos (mm)
Position MAE (mm)
Threshold-based thinning error (%)
Top-0.25% critical thinning error
BiLoGo-U
0.2419
0.1158
0.184
3.86%
w/o kinematics-conditioned element update
0.2429
0.1169
0.235
4.34%
w/o gated fusion
0.2783
0.1328
0.208
3.92%
w/o cross-attention
0.3017
0.1440
0.198
3.88%
w/o dual stream
0.2611
0.1254
0.222
4.51%
w/o bipartite GraphSAGE
0.2732
0.1318
0.209
4.10%
Table 10: Ablation study of the BiLoGo-U components on the Corner+Rib dataset at the final learned step of the 10-step rollout. The values are averaged over the test simulations. The best value in each column is shown in bold, and the second-best value is underlined.
Figure 15: Slice assignment of BiLoGo-T for one test simulation of the Corner+Rib dataset at learned step 9, with the FE state as input. (a)–(f) State stream. (g)–(l) Contact stream. (a), (g) Dominant slice of each node. (b), (h) Dominant slice of each element. (c)–(f) Assignment weights of state slices 0, 1, 2 and 5. (i)–(l) Assignment weights of contact slices 0, 1, 4 and 12. Each weight panel uses its own colour scale.
Figure 16: Supernodes of BiLoGo-U and comparison of the recovered global features, for the simulation in Fig. 15 . (a) Positions of the 2048 supernodes. (b) Entities collected by three supernodes in the region marked in (a), with the collection radius r=20 mm, in the reference coordinates. (c) Cumulative explained variance of the principal components of the recovered nodal global features ge of BiLoGo-T and BiLoGo-U.
Model
Trainable
Training time
Training GPU
Inference time
parameters
(s/epoch)
memory (GiB)
(s/simulation)
UMGN [ 72 ]
82.9M
49.25
1.590
1.025
RUGNN [ 72 ]
85.3M
65.99
1.753
0.986
CAtt-BiUGNN [ 75 ]
239.5M
129.11
4.497
1.285
Transolver [ 66 ]
0.31M
24.89
0.447
0.427
GNN-Transformer
0.97M
37.62
0.815
0.482
Table 11: Computational cost on the Corner dataset, measured on an NVIDIA L4 GPU.
Figure 17: Prediction accuracy, peak training GPU memory and number of trainable parameters of the models in Table 11 . (a) Mean positional Euclidean error. (b) Threshold-based thinning error. The bubble area increases with the square root of the number of trainable parameters, as indicated by the reference bubbles.
Model
Trainable
Training time
Training GPU
Inference time
Inference GPU
parameters
(s/epoch)
memory (GiB)
(s/simulation)
memory (GiB)
CAtt-BiUGNN [ 75 ]
678.6M
134.64
12.860
7.037
3.576
Transolver [ 66 ]
0.31M
25.33
0.996
6.721
0.606
GNN-Transformer
0.97M
43.10
1.608
6.840
0.612
UPT [ 1 ]
1.70M
88.58
0.754
6.917
0.611
BiLoGo-T
2.13M
79.68
3.626
6.876
0.621
Table 12: Computational cost on the Corner+Rib dataset, measured on an NVIDIA A40 GPU.
Figure 18: Prediction accuracy, peak training GPU memory and number of trainable parameters of the models in Table 12 . (a) Mean positional Euclidean error. (b) Threshold-based thinning error. The bubble area increases with the square root of the number of trainable parameters, as indicated by the reference bubbles.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 1: Assignment weights of three slices of BiLoGo-T for one test simulation of the Dome dataset at learned steps 0, 4 and 9, with the FE state as input. (a)–(i) State stream. (j)–(r) Contact stream. Here, k denotes the slice index. The three panels of each slice share one colour scale, and different slices use different colour scales.
Figure 2: Assignment weights of three slices of BiLoGo-T for one test simulation of the Corner dataset at learned steps 0, 4 and 9, with the FE state as input. (a)–(i) State stream. (j)–(r) Contact stream. Here, k denotes the slice index. The three panels of each slice share one colour scale, and different slices use different colour scales.
Explicit dynamic finite element (FE) simulations are widely used for large-deformation analysis but remain expensive for design-space exploration. In explicit FE analysis, nodal kinematics and element-level deformation measures evolve through a coupled node-element update process. An FE-inspired learned simulator can preserve this structure and learn nodal kinematics and elemental deformation on their native domains. Nodal displacement describes geometry evolution, while elemental thinning identifies local deformation and critical regions. Feeding both outputs back during rollout allows each field to inform subsequent updates of the other. This work proposes CAtt-BiGNN, a cross-attention-based bipartite graph neural network for coupled nodal-elemental learning. The bipartite graph encodes FE-guided state organisation and information flow without imposing equilibrium or constitutive constraints. Mesh nodes and elements are represented as distinct graph entities connected by directed node-element edges, enabling prediction of nodal displacement increments and elemental deformation on their native domains. An edge-aware cross-attention processor dynamically updates edge representations and weights messages using the receiving state and evolving local relations. For larger graphs, CAtt-BiUGNN uses separate nodal and elemental downsampling and upsampling to enhance long-range propagation while preserving their interaction across graph levels. The method is evaluated on dome-shaped cold-forming and corner-shaped hot-forming benchmarks. Comparisons with node-centred baselines, an FE-inspired hypergraph model, a Physics-Attention-based neural operator, a graph Transformer, and attention ablations show improved joint accuracy in nodal displacement and elemental thinning prediction during autoregressive rollout.
Yingxue Zhao, Haoran Li, Haosu Zhou +2
Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK · NVIDIA, UK
High-fidelity finite-element simulations provide accurate crashworthiness predictions, but their cost limits iterative design exploration. Deep learning surrogates can reduce this cost, but many component-level models are developed under a single prescribed boundary condition, limiting generalisation to boundary variations. This work proposes a Boundary-Condition-Aware Transformer Neural Operator (BAT-NO) for autoregressive prediction of transient displacement fields and scalar crashworthiness responses under variations in geometry and boundary conditions. A B-pillar simulation framework evaluates generalisation across variations in geometry, impact position and velocity, and support stiffness. BAT-NO combines recurrent mesh processing with latent-grid Fourier operator processing. Boundary-condition information is transferred to the latent grid through a hybrid local--global mechanism. Slice-based attention models interactions among physically related regions, while direct boundary-to-grid projection preserves local spatial structure. Across the validation sets for the shape-only, shape-and-loading, and shape-loading-boundary cases, BAT-NO achieves the lowest mean final-step mean nodal Euclidean displacement error among the evaluated baselines. In the most challenging case, it reduces the mean error by 32.6% relative to the second-best model. Hyperparameter tuning reduces the validation error from 0.451 to 0.269 mm, with a comparable error of 0.267 mm on 300 unseen test simulations sampled within the investigated design space. An attention-based scalar decoder jointly predicts six response trajectories with a mean relative error of 2.46%. Most derived crashworthiness indicators have median errors below 3%. These results show that explicit local and global boundary-condition representations improve crashworthiness prediction over expanded component-level design spaces.
Haoran Li, Yingxue Zhao, Haosu Zhou +4
Dyson School of Design Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK · Keysight Technologies, Bagneux, France · Prometheus, UK
Neural operators have become a common approach for learning PDE solution maps and accelerating numerical simulations. Transformer-based neural operators are of particular interest, since attention can learn long-range dependencies in the computational domain. However, standard attention has two major limitations when applied to PDEs: it scales quadratically with the number of computational nodes, and it lacks an explicit bias toward local interactions. To address these issues, we introduce Local Linear Transformer (LLT) for PDE operator learning. The architecture combines linear global attention with local spatial mixing, and incorporates coordinate and geometry information. We evaluate LLT on several PDE problems, including elasticity, plasticity, airfoil flow, pipe flow, and Darcy flow. The reference data for these problems span finite-element, finite-volume, and finite-difference discretizations on structured and unstructured meshes. Compared with other neural-operator and transformer baselines from prior studies, LLT achieves competitive or lower relative L2 error across these problems. On matched structured discretizations, wall-clock time per training iteration is reduced by factors of 1.8 to 2.5 relative to Transolver. We also scale the approach and apply it to a three-dimensional car aerodynamics dataset with 32,186 unstructured mesh points per sample. Together, these results indicate that LLT provides an accurate and computationally efficient operator for PDE problems across discretizations, mesh types, and problem settings.
Oded Ovadia, Eli Turkel
School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel