Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

An Ising Machine Formulation for Design Updates in Topology Optimization of Flow Channels

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that swapping the gradient-based design update for an annealing-solved QUBO in flow-channel topology optimization cuts iteration counts by 63–77% on two benchmarks, while final designs incur 6–20% higher energy dissipation.

desk verdict First QUBO formulation for flow-channel topology optimization, with an honest trade-off, but the acceleration claim rests on iteration counts that may not survive wall-clock comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08405 v1 pith:X3WXQDOP submitted 2024-11-13 cs.CE math.OC

Yudai Suzuki , Shiori Aoki , Fabian Key , Katsuhiro Endo , Yoshiki Matsuda , Shu Tanaka , Marek Behr , Mayu Muramatsu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CEmath.OC
keywords IsingmachineQUBOtopologyoptimizationflowchannelsenergydissipationannealinglevel-setmethoddesignupdate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that an Ising machine—a hardware solver for quadratic binary optimization—can act as the design-update engine inside topology optimization of flow channels, and that this substitution accelerates convergence. The update is written as a quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problem—minimize dissipation energy subject to a volume constraint—and solved with a GPU-based annealing engine on two benchmark channel problems. The reported effect is large: iteration counts drop from 19 to 7 (diffuser) and from 30 to 7 (double pipe) compared with a classical density-based method, and the final channel shapes look qualitatively similar. The tradeoff is also reported: the annealed designs dissipate about 6% and 20% more energy. The paper's case for acceleration rests on iteration counts, not wall-clock time, and the authors note the annealer-based search is less exploratory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a QUBO (quadratic unconstrained binary optimization) problem—an Ising-model energy function over binary variables—used as the design-update step. In full form the objective is $H = H_{\mathrm{dis}} + H_{\mathrm{reg}} + H_{\mathrm{vol}} + H_{\mathrm{char}}$, coupling element-wise dissipation, regularization, volume, and level-set/characteristic consistency. After numerical experiments show the regularization term is unnecessary for flow channels, the paper condenses the objective to $\hat{H} = H_{\mathrm{dis}} + \lambda_{\mathrm{vol}} H_{\mathrm{vol}}$, leaving exactly one binary variable per finite element. Solving that QUBO on a GPU-based annealing engine at each iteration produces the new material distribution, and the condensed form is what enables the claimed iteration-count reduction.

What would settle it

Measure the total wall-clock time for both full loops—FEM solve plus annealer timeout of 1,000 ms for the diffuser and 10,000 ms for the double pipe—and compare with the classical method; if the annealing-based total is larger, the acceleration claim is false for that hardware.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the design-update step of a two-step topology-optimization loop can be replaced by solving a QUBO, and that doing so—at least on the two benchmarks studied—converges in far fewer optimization steps than the classical density-based method while producing channels of similar shape. It presents what it calls the first Ising machine formulation for topology optimization in fluid flow: for a fixed finite-element flow field, the annealer minimizes the porous-medium dissipation plus a volume penalty, and the binary minimizer is the next design. The reported iteration counts are 7 versus 19 for the diffuser and 7 versus 30 for the double pipe. The paper is equally explicit about the price: the annealed designs have about 6% (diffuser) and 20% (double pipe) higher energy dissipation, because each update is optimal only for the current flow field and carries no sensitivity information about how the design change will affect the flow.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of acceleration assumes that counting optimization steps is a fair proxy for computational time, because the comparison never measures the time per step; if each annealing call takes longer than the flow solve it replaces, the method could be slower in wall-clock time despite using fewer iterations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On the diffuser test case, the annealing-based update converges in 7 optimization steps instead of 19, a 63% reduction.
  • On the double pipe test case, it converges in 7 steps instead of 30, a 77% reduction.
  • The final designs are qualitatively comparable but quantitatively worse: about 6% higher dissipation for the diffuser and 20% higher for the double pipe.
  • The regularization term, standard in level-set topology optimization for structural mechanics, can be dropped for flow channels, reducing the QUBO to one binary variable per element.
  • Because the design update is optimal only for the current flow field, the method is less exploratory; final designs depend noticeably on the initial design and can settle into local optima.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If total wall-clock time were measured including the per-update annealer timeout (1,000 ms for the diffuser, 10,000 ms for the double pipe), the annealer could be slower overall than the classical method despite the fewer iterations; the paper leaves this comparison unmade.
  • The condensed one-variable-per-element QUBO is close to a binary density-method update; running the same QUBO on a classical QUBO solver would show whether the iteration savings come from the Ising hardware or from the binary discretization itself.
  • The paper's own suggested direction—encoding the flow equations into the QUBO to eliminate the two-step loop—would replace 'intermediate optimality' with a more global solve, and the cited reduced Navier-Stokes QUBO work at least sketches that path.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a QUBO formulation for computing design updates in the topology optimization of flow channels, with the goal of minimizing energy dissipation under a volume constraint. The design field is represented by a binary characteristic function per element; the authors first formulate a richer QUBO with level-set variables and a consistency term, then show empirically that the regularization and consistency terms are unnecessary, reducing the QUBO to a single binary variable per element. They integrate the QUBO solve (performed on the Fixstars Amplify AE) into a two-step optimization loop and compare against a classical density-based method on a diffuser and a double-pipe problem. The annealer-based approach converges in fewer optimization steps (7 vs. 19 and 7 vs. 30) but yields worse objective values (6% and 20% higher dissipation). The paper claims this demonstrates acceleration of topology optimization while producing comparable designs.

Significance. If the acceleration claim were established, this would be a valuable addition to the literature on applying Ising machines to engineering design, as it is the first QUBO formulation for flow-channel topology optimization. The derivation from the dissipation objective to the QUBO is algebraically clean, and the simplification to one binary variable per element is elegant and well supported by the parameter study. The authors provide open-source code and use a real annealing engine, which strengthens reproducibility. The main weakness is that the central 'acceleration' claim rests on iteration counts only, without wall-clock timing; this is a correctable but load-bearing gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Comparison with a Classical Optimization Approach] The claim that the proposed update strategy 'can accelerate the topology optimization process' is not supported because wall-clock time is never measured. The authors justify using iteration count by stating that per-step time 'heavily depends on the efficiency of the implementation and the hardware resources in use, and is therefore not suitable for comparison.' This reasoning is invalid for concluding acceleration: an iteration-count reduction only implies speedup if the per-iteration cost of the proposed method is not larger by a compensating factor. The annealer timeout is set to 1,000 ms (diffuser) and 10,000 ms (double pipe) per update; even if the annealer terminates early, these values are orders of magnitude larger than typical per-step costs of the classical density-based method. Please either report wall-clock timing for both methods or revise the abstract and conclusion to claim 'fewer optimization steps' rather than 'acceleration.'
  2. [Abstract and Comparison with a Classical Optimization Approach] The characterization of the annealer-based designs as 'comparable designs' is not supported by the quantitative results: the final objective values are 6% and 20% worse than the classical method, respectively. A 20% increase in energy dissipation is a substantial performance degradation, and even 6% is meaningful in an optimization context. The phrase 'qualitatively comparable' used in the results section is more accurate; please adjust the abstract and conclusion accordingly.
  3. [Comparison with a Classical Optimization Approach] The comparison of iteration counts is confounded by the different natures of the two update strategies. The classical method is an established continuous density-based optimization (Ref. 52), while the proposed method is a greedy binary update that ignores sensitivity information; the text acknowledges that it 'settles in one of the many local optima faster.' Thus, the lower iteration count reflects premature convergence rather than computational efficiency. To support a meaningful acceleration claim, the paper should either demonstrate that the proposed method reaches the same final objective value in fewer iterations or explicitly discuss the trade-off between iteration count and design quality.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Comparison with a Classical Optimization Approach] The value of λdis is not reported in the comparison section; only λvol is given. Since the condensed objective (22) includes H_dis with a weight λdis, please state the value used for both test cases to ensure reproducibility.
  2. [Comparison with a Classical Optimization Approach] The statement that 'the overall computational time for the optimization is often dominated by the time needed to solve the state equations' is presented without supporting evidence for the specific test cases. In the proposed method, the annealer timeout is set to seconds, which may dominate the FEM solve time; please clarify or remove this assumption.
  3. [Figure 6 and Figure 8] The legends are somewhat confusing, e.g., 'Classical (final, filtered)' versus 'Annealing (final)'. Consider using consistent labels such as 'Classical (filtered)' and 'Annealing' for the final points.
  4. [Equation (13)] There is a typo: 'trough corresponding binary variables' should be 'through corresponding binary variables'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QUBO update is derived from the stated physical objective and volume constraint, hyperparameters are hand-set rather than fitted, and the comparison baseline is an external classical method.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its central claims. The QUBO objective H in Eq. (15) is assembled term-by-term from the physical dissipation objective (Eq. 9), a regularization term (Eq. 10), the volume constraint (Eq. 12b), and a consistency constraint (Eq. 19); after the parameter study, the condensed objective in Eq. (22) is simply Hdis plus the penalty-weighted volume constraint. No quantity is defined in terms of the outcome it is later said to predict. The hyperparameters (λdis, λreg, λvol, λchar) are chosen by the authors and varied in the study; they are not fitted to reproduce the classical baseline or the reported acceleration. The classical comparison uses an external method from Ref. 52, and the annealing solver is a commercially available engine. Overlapping-author citations (Refs. 23, 29, 54) appear in background discussion or for a binary-representation modeling choice that is later dropped, so they are not load-bearing for the central comparison. The only notable validity threat is the use of optimization-step count as a proxy for computational time while explicitly excluding per-step wall-clock time; the authors state that the latter 'heavily depends on the efficiency of the implementation and the hardware resources in use, and is therefore not suitable for comparison.' This is a correctness or external-validity limitation, not a circular derivation, because the measured fewer-steps claim is an empirical observation rather than a consequence of the formulation's definitions. The paper also openly acknowledges limitations (single Ising-machine type, only two 2D test cases), which further supports treating the submission as an honest benchmark comparison rather than a self-confirming construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced. The 'binary resolution' concept is a derived quantity, not an entity. The method relies on a standard porous-medium model and a standard QUBO encoding, with hyperparameters chosen by hand.

free parameters (6)
  • λ_dis (dissipation weight) = 100 (parameter study), otherwise fixed
    Chosen by hand; controls the balance between dissipation and other terms.
  • λ_vol (volume-constraint weight) = 0.2 (diffuser), 0.05 (double pipe)
    Chosen by hand; must be large enough to enforce the volume target at binary resolution.
  • λ_reg (regularization weight) = 1.0 in parameter study, later dropped
    Varied in the parameter study to test necessity; concluded unnecessary for flow channels.
  • λ_char (consistency weight) = varied 0.5 to 5.0
    Varies to enforce consistency between level-set and characteristic functions; later dropped with the regularization term.
  • α_bar (solid resistance coefficient) = 12.5
    The resistance of the solid region; chosen as a sufficiently large value following prior topology optimization practice.
  • N (binary bits per element for level-set) = 8
    Number of binary variables used to encode the real-valued level-set function; follows the uniform-weighted representation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The porous-medium model with resistance α = α_bar (1 - χ) accurately represents solid and fluid regions in generalized Stokes flow.
    Equation (8) in Methods; this is the standard Brinkman-type penalization in topology optimization for fluids, cited to Ref. 36.
  • domain assumption The level-set function can be approximated by a uniform-weighted binary sum (Eq. 13) without bias.
    Equation (13) in Methods; the choice of binary representation is known to affect annealing performance (Ref. 54).
  • standard math The finite element method provides a sufficiently accurate solution of the state equations at each iteration.
    Used in the two-step procedure; the paper relies on FEM for flow fields.
  • ad hoc to paper The regularization term H_reg is unnecessary for flow-channel problems, so the condensed objective H = H_dis + λ_vol H_vol is sufficient.
    Equation (22) in Results; the authors conclude this from the parameter study on the diffuser problem, then use the condensed form for both test cases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Ising Machine Formulation for Design Updates in Topology Optimization of Flow Channels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X3WXQDOP

@misc{pith2026241108405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Ising Machine Formulation for Design Updates in Topology Optimization of Flow Channels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X3WXQDOP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08405}
}
read the original abstract

Topology optimization is an essential tool in computational engineering, for example, to improve the design and efficiency of flow channels. At the same time, Ising machines, including digital or quantum annealers, have been used as efficient solvers for combinatorial optimization problems. Beyond combinatorial optimization, recent works have demonstrated applicability to other engineering tasks by tailoring corresponding problem formulations. In this study, we present a novel Ising machine formulation for computing design updates during topology optimization with the goal of minimizing dissipation energy in flow channels. We explore the potential of this approach to improve the efficiency and performance of the optimization process. To this end, we conduct experiments to study the impact of various factors within the novel formulation. Additionally, we compare it to a classical method using the number of optimization steps and the final values of the objective function as indicators of the time intensity of the optimization and the performance of the resulting designs, respectively. Our findings show that the proposed update strategy can accelerate the topology optimization process while producing comparable designs. However, it tends to be less exploratory, which may lead to lower performance of the designs. These results highlight the potential of incorporating Ising formulations for optimization tasks but also show their limitations when used to compute design updates in an iterative optimization process. In conclusion, this work provides an efficient alternative for design updates in topology optimization and enhances the understanding of integrating Ising machine formulations in engineering optimization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08405 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The problem setting of the diffuser problem (left) and the double pipe problem (right). 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 5 10 15 20 λchar # Inconsistent Elements Effect of λchar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diffuser problem: the number of elements k with inconsistent values of φ k and χ k f for different values of λchar. Study of the Objective Function in the QUBO Problem The objective function in the QUBO problem H, given in Equation (15), has four different contributions: Hdis, Hreg, Hvol, and Hchar. Consequently, the weighting of these contributions relative to each other through the corresponding hyperparameters wi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diffuser problem: effect of the regularization term on the level-set function φ k (top) and the characteristic function χ k f (bottom) through different values of λreg, increasing from left to right. the regularization term leads to smoother distributions of the level-set field (top), which is the intended effect. On the other hand, the regularization does not change the final distribution of the characteristic func… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diffuser problem: final designs for different values of λdis (rows) and λreg (columns). FEM, which scales with the number of optimization steps. Furthermore, the total computational time can be expressed as the product of the number of optimization steps and the time t…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Diffuser problem: final designs for the classical approach (left) and the annealing approach (right). 0 5 10 15 1 2 3 ·10−2 Optimization Step Objective Function J Comparison Objective Function Classical Classical (final, filtered) Annealing Annealing (final) 0 5 10 15 …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Diffuser problem: optimization history for the objective function J (left) and the volume fraction Vf /|Ω| (right). For the volume fraction, Binary Resolution depicts the change in the volume fraction around Vmax by adding or subtracting one element of solid material. …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Double pipe problem: final designs for the classical approach (left) and the annealing approach (right). Quantity Classical Annealing Relative Difference Number of Opt. Steps n nC = 30 nA = 7 nA−nC nC = −76.7% Objective Function J JC = 0.999×10−2 JA = 1.20×10−2 JA−JC J…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Double pipe problem: optimization history for the objective function J (left) and the volume fraction Vf /|Ω| (right). For the volume fraction, Binary Resolution depicts the change in the volume fraction around Vmax by adding or subtracting one element of solid materia…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mohseni, N., McMahon, P. L. & Byrnes, T. Ising machines as hardware solvers of combinatorial optimization problems. Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 363–379 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    & De Falco, D

    Apolloni, B., Carvalho, C. & De Falco, D. Quantum stochastic optimization. Stoch. Process. their Appl. 33, 233–244 (1989)

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    B., Gomez, M

    Finnila, A. B., Gomez, M. A., Sebenik, C., Stenson, C. & Doll, J. D. Quantum annealing: A new method for minimizing multidimensional functions. Chem. Phys. Lett. 219, 343–348 (1994)

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    & Nishimori, H

    Kadowaki, T. & Nishimori, H. Quantum annealing in the transverse ising model. Phys. Rev. E 58, 5355 (1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    & Chakrabarti, B

    Tanaka, S., Tamura, R. & Chakrabarti, B. K. Quantum spin glasses, annealing and computation (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    & Lidar, D

    Albash, T. & Lidar, D. A. Adiabatic quantum computation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015002 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    G., Lechner, W., Nishimori, H

    Hauke, P., Katzgraber, H. G., Lechner, W., Nishimori, H. & Oliver, W. D. Perspectives of quantum annealing: Methods and implementations. Reports on Prog. Phys. 83, 054401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    & Schmitt, S

    Yarkoni, S., Raponi, E., Bäck, T. & Schmitt, S. Quantum annealing for industry applications: Introduction and review. Reports on Prog. Phys. 85, 104001 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Inagaki, T. et al. A coherent Ising machine for 2000-node optimization problems. Science 354, 603–606 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    & Dixon, A

    Goto, H., Tatsumura, K. & Dixon, A. R. Combinatorial optimization by simulating adiabatic bifurcations in nonlinear Hamiltonian systems. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav2372 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Matsubara, S. et al. Digital Annealer for High-Speed Solving of Combinatorial optimization Problems and Its Applications. In 2020 25th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC), 667–672 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Goto, H. et al. High-performance combinatorial optimization based on classical mechanics. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe7953 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    & Goto, H

    Tatsumura, K., Yamasaki, M. & Goto, H. Scaling out Ising machines using a multi-chip architecture for simulated bifurcation. Nat. Electron. 4, 208–217 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Neukart, F. et al. Traffic flow optimization using a quantum annealer. Front. ICT 4, 29 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Ohzeki, M., Miki, A., Miyama, M. J. & Terabe, M. Control of automated guided vehicles without collision by quantum annealer and digital devices. Front. Comput. Sci. 1, 9 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Stollenwerk, T. et al. Quantum annealing applied to de-conflicting optimal trajectories for air traffic management. IEEE Transactions on Intell. Transp. Syst. 21, 285–297 (2019). 13/15

    2019

  9. [17]

    & Tanaka, S

    Kanai, H., Yamashita, M., Tanahashi, K. & Tanaka, S. Annealing-Assisted Column Generation for Inequality-Constrained Combinatorial optimization Problems. IEEE Access 12, 157669–157685 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Rieffel, E. G. et al. A case study in programming a quantum annealer for hard operational planning problems. Quantum Inf. Process. 14, 1–36 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Rosenberg, G. et al. Solving the optimal trading trajectory problem using a quantum annealer. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process. 10, 1053–1060 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    & Kondratyev, A

    Venturelli, D. & Kondratyev, A. Reverse quantum annealing approach to portfolio optimization problems. Quantum Mach. Intell. 1, 17–30 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    van Vreumingen, D. et al. Quantum-assisted finite-element design optimization., DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1908.03947 (2019)

    2019 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Raisuddin, O. M. & De, S. FEqa: Finite element computations on quantum annealers. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 395, 115014 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    & Muramatsu, M

    Endo, K., Matsuda, Y ., Tanaka, S. & Muramatsu, M. A phase-field model by an ising machine and its application to the phase-separation structure of a diblock polymer. Sci. Reports 12, 10794 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    & Karra, S

    Ray, N., Banerjee, T., Nadiga, B. & Karra, S. On the viability of quantum annealers to solve fluid flows. Front. Mech. Eng. 8, 906696 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    & Pan, W

    Ye, Z., Qian, X. & Pan, W. Quantum topology optimization via quantum annealing. IEEE Transactions on Quantum Eng. 4, 1–15 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Honda, R. et al. Development of optimization method for truss structure by quantum annealing. Sci. Reports 14, 13872 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Wang, X., Wang, Z. & Ni, B. Mapping structural topology optimization problems to quantum annealing.Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 67, 74 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    & Igarashi, H

    Maruo, A., Soeda, T. & Igarashi, H. Topology optimization of electromagnetic devices using digital annealer. IEEE Transactions on Magn. 58, 1–4 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    & Freinberger, L

    Key, F. & Freinberger, L. A formulation of structural design optimization problems for quantum annealing. Mathematics 12, 482 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Okada, A. et al. Design optimization of noise filter using quantum annealer. IEEE Access 11, 44343–44349 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Inoue, T. et al. Towards optimization of photonic-crystal surface-emitting lasers via quantum annealing. Opt. Express 30, 43503–43512 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    & Kadowaki, T

    Matsumori, T., Taki, M. & Kadowaki, T. Application of qubo solver using black-box optimization to structural design for resonance avoidance. Sci. Reports 12, 12143 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Kitai, K. et al. Designing metamaterials with quantum annealing and factorization machines. Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013319 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    & Miura, Y

    Nawa, K., Suzuki, T., Masuda, K., Tanaka, S. & Miura, Y . Quantum Annealing Optimization Method for the Design of Barrier Materials in Magnetic Tunnel Junctions. Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 024044 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Sampei, H. et al. Quantum Annealing Boosts Prediction of Multimolecular Adsorption on Solid Surfaces Avoiding Combinatorial Explosion. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 3, 991–996 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    & Petersson, J

    Borrvall, T. & Petersson, J. Topology optimization of fluids in Stokes flow. Int. J. for Numer. Methods Fluids 41, 77–107 (2003)

    2003

  29. [37]

    Challis, V . J. & Guest, J. K. Level set topology optimization of fluids in Stokes flow.Int. J. for Numer. Methods Eng. 79, 1284–1308 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    & Zhang, R

    Duan, X., Ma, Y . & Zhang, R. Optimal shape control of fluid flow using variational level set method.Phys. Lett. A 372, 1374–1379 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Zhou, S. & Li, Q. A variational level set method for the topology optimization of steady-state Navier–Stokes flow. J. Comput. Phys. 227, 10178–10195 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    & Takezawa, A

    Yamada, T., Izui, K., Nishiwaki, S. & Takezawa, A. A topology optimization method based on the level set method incorporating a fictitious interface energy. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 199, 2876–2891 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    H., Okkels, F

    Olesen, L. H., Okkels, F. & Bruus, H. A high-level programming-language implementation of topology optimization applied to steady-state Navier–Stokes flow. Int. J. for Numer. Methods Eng. 65, 975–1001 (2006). 14/15

    2006

  34. [42]

    Deng, Y ., Liu, Z., Zhang, P., Liu, Y . & Wu, Y . Topology optimization of unsteady incompressible Navier–Stokes flows.J. Comput. Phys. 230, 6688–6708 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    & Kawamoto, A

    Kondoh, T., Matsumori, T. & Kawamoto, A. Drag minimization and lift maximization in laminar flows via topology optimization employing simple objective function expressions based on body force integration. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 45, 693–701 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    & Haber, R

    Gersborg-Hansen, A., Sigmund, O. & Haber, R. B. Topology optimization of channel flow problems. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 30, 181–192 (2005)

    2005

  37. [45]

    & Giannakoglou, K

    Papoutsis-Kiachagias, E., Kontoleontos, E., Zymaris, A., Papadimitriou, D. & Giannakoglou, K. Constrained topology optimization for laminar and turbulent flows, including heat transfer. In EUROGEN 2011 PROCEEDINGS — Evolutionary and Deterministic Methods for Design, Optimizati...

    2011

  38. [46]

    Yoon, G. H. Topology optimization for stationary fluid–structure interaction problems using a new monolithic formulation. Int. J. for Numer. Methods Eng. 82, 591–616 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Bendsøe, M. P. & Sigmund, O. Topology optimization: theory, methods, and applications (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    & Toader, A.-M

    Allaire, G., Jouve, F. & Toader, A.-M. A level-set method for shape optimization. Comptes Rendus Math. 334, 1125–1130 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    Y ., Wang, X

    Wang, M. Y ., Wang, X. & Guo, D. A level set method for structural topology optimization.Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 192, 227–246 (2003)

    2003

  42. [50]

    & Toader, A.-M

    Allaire, G., Jouve, F. & Toader, A.-M. Structural optimization using sensitivity analysis and a level-set method. J. Comput. Phys. 194, 363–393 (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    H., Pereira, A

    Talischi, C., Paulino, G. H., Pereira, A. & Menezes, I. F. PolyTop: a Matlab implementation of a general topology optimization framework using unstructured polygonal finite element meshes. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 45, 329–357 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    Pereira, A., Talischi, C., Paulino, G. H., M. Menezes, I. F. & Carvalho, M. S. Fluid flow topology optimization in PolyTop: stability and computational implementation. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 54, 1345–1364 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Yaji, K. et al. Topology optimization using the lattice Boltzmann method incorporating level set boundary expressions. J. Comput. Phys. 274, 158–181 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    & Muramatsu, M

    Endo, K., Matsuda, Y ., Tanaka, S. & Muramatsu, M. Novel real number representations in Ising machines and performance evaluation: Combinatorial random number sum and constant division. PLoS ONE 19, e0304594 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Available online: https://amplify.fixstars.com/en/engine

    Fixstars Amplify Annealing Engine (AE). Available online: https://amplify.fixstars.com/en/engine

  48. [56]

    & Muramatsu, M

    Key, F., Aoki, S. & Muramatsu, M. EngiOptiQA/TopoFlow: v0.1.0, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14129614 (2024). 15/15

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.