Benchmarking deep inverse models over time, and the neural-adjoint method

We consider the task of solving generic inverse problems, where one wishes to determine the hidden parameters of a natural system that will give rise to a particular set of measurements. Recently many new approaches based upon deep learning have arisen generating impressive results. We conceptualize these models as different schemes for efficiently, but randomly, exploring the space of possible inverse solutions. As a result, the accuracy of each approach should be evaluated as a function of time rather than a single estimated solution, as is often done now. Using this metric, we compare several state-of-the-art inverse modeling approaches on four benchmark tasks: two existing tasks, one simple task for visualization and one new task from metamaterial design. Finally, inspired by our conception of the inverse problem, we explore a solution that uses a deep learning model to approximate the forward model, and then uses backpropagation to search for good inverse solutions. This approach, termed the neural-adjoint, achieves the best performance in many scenarios.

[1]  Max Welling,et al.  Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes , 2013, ICLR.

[2]  Zongfu Yu,et al.  Training Deep Neural Networks for the Inverse Design of Nanophotonic Structures , 2017, 2019 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO).

[3]  Feng Cheng,et al.  Probabilistic Representation and Inverse Design of Metamaterials Based on a Deep Generative Model with Semi‐Supervised Learning Strategy , 2019, Advanced materials.

[4]  拓海 杉山,et al.  “Unpaired Image-to-Image Translation using Cycle-Consistent Adversarial Networks”の学習報告 , 2017 .

[5]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  A Kernel Two-Sample Test , 2012, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[6]  Jordan M. Malof,et al.  Deep learning for accelerated all-dielectric metasurface design. , 2019, Optics express.

[7]  Peter Maass Deep Learning for Trivial Inverse Problems , 2019 .

[8]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Forward Models: Supervised Learning with a Distal Teacher , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[9]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  NICE: Non-linear Independent Components Estimation , 2014, ICLR.

[10]  Jimmy Ba,et al.  Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , 2014, ICLR.

[11]  Tao Xiang,et al.  Learning to Sketch with Shortcut Cycle Consistency , 2018, 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[12]  Max Welling,et al.  Improved Variational Inference with Inverse Autoregressive Flow , 2016, NIPS 2016.

[13]  Toshiaki Koike-Akino,et al.  Deep Neural Network Inverse Design of Integrated Nanophotonic Devices. , 2018, 1809.03555.

[14]  W. Cai,et al.  A Generative Model for Inverse Design of Metamaterials , 2018, Nano letters.

[15]  Yi Yang,et al.  Nanophotonic particle simulation and inverse design using artificial neural networks , 2018, Science Advances.

[16]  Giulia Marcucci,et al.  Machine learning inverse problem for topological photonics , 2018, Communications Physics.

[17]  E. Tabak,et al.  DENSITY ESTIMATION BY DUAL ASCENT OF THE LOG-LIKELIHOOD ∗ , 2010 .

[18]  M. Bendsøe,et al.  Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a homogenization method , 1988 .

[19]  S. Srihari Mixture Density Networks , 1994 .

[20]  Hugo Larochelle,et al.  Neural Autoregressive Distribution Estimation , 2016, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[21]  Hugo Larochelle,et al.  MADE: Masked Autoencoder for Distribution Estimation , 2015, ICML.

[22]  Ullrich Köthe,et al.  Analyzing Inverse Problems with Invertible Neural Networks , 2018, ICLR.

[23]  Ullrich Köthe,et al.  Benchmarking Invertible Architectures on Inverse Problems , 2021, ArXiv.

[24]  Ali Adibi,et al.  Deep learning approach based on dimensionality reduction for designing electromagnetic nanostructures , 2019, npj Computational Materials.

[25]  Manolis Papadrakakis,et al.  Advances in structural optimization , 1994 .

[26]  Samy Bengio,et al.  Density estimation using Real NVP , 2016, ICLR.