Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2506.19384 v1 pith:N4UF5AK3 submitted 2025-06-24 cs.LG eess.SPphysics.comp-ph

Deep Electromagnetic Structure Design Under Limited Evaluation Budgets

classification cs.LG eess.SPphysics.comp-ph
keywords designbudgetsdesignselectromagneticevaluationevaluationshigh-dimensionallimited
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Electromagnetic structure (EMS) design plays a critical role in developing advanced antennas and materials, but remains challenging due to high-dimensional design spaces and expensive evaluations. While existing methods commonly employ high-quality predictors or generators to alleviate evaluations, they are often data-intensive and struggle with real-world scale and budget constraints. To address this, we propose a novel method called Progressive Quadtree-based Search (PQS). Rather than exhaustively exploring the high-dimensional space, PQS converts the conventional image-like layout into a quadtree-based hierarchical representation, enabling a progressive search from global patterns to local details. Furthermore, to lessen reliance on highly accurate predictors, we introduce a consistency-driven sample selection mechanism. This mechanism quantifies the reliability of predictions, balancing exploitation and exploration when selecting candidate designs. We evaluate PQS on two real-world engineering tasks, i.e., Dual-layer Frequency Selective Surface and High-gain Antenna. Experimental results show that our method can achieve satisfactory designs under limited computational budgets, outperforming baseline methods. In particular, compared to generative approaches, it cuts evaluation costs by 75-85%, effectively saving 20.27-38.80 days of product designing cycle.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.