A UNIFIED COMPUTATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR GENERATIVE AESTHETICS AND INVERSE DESIGN IN AUTONOMOUS ARTIFACT DESIGN SYSTEMS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v7.i7s.2026.7926Keywords:
Next-Generation AI, Inverse Design, Artifact Design Systems, Digital ArtAbstract [English]
With the rapid development of artificial intelligence, a shift in the approach to artifact crafting is occurring. Instead of artisans creating artifacts, autonomous systems are beginning to create artifacts with the same intention as their human creators. One proposed method for accomplishing this goal is the development of an AI-driven computational framework that integrates the concepts of both generative aesthetics and inverse design. Each of these concepts contributes to the development of autonomous systems capable of understanding the relationship between artifacts, their components, and their intended performance, allowing for the creation of diverse and optimal artifacts. More specifically, AI models can propose a variety of different artifacts, surrogate models can evaluate each of those proposed artifacts for their potential performance, and the incorporation of inverse optimization techniques can allow for the artifacts to be continuously refined until they exhibit the optimal performance. Additionally, incorporating models with the interpretability and complex nonlinear relationship mapping capabilities of Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) can increase the performance of the entire framework. Furthermore, implementing a method of evaluating various performance criteria simultaneously, such as efficiency, robustness, and aesthetic quality, allows for artifacts to be evaluated based on the priorities of their creators. Through simulating various scenarios of artifact creation using this new framework, it becomes possible to evaluate the performance of the framework relative to existing methods of artifact creation. As a result, it becomes evident that the framework is able to create artifacts with increased performance optimality compared to existing designs. Furthermore, the framework has the potential to be applied to various different types of artifact creation fields, ranging from engineering to digital art. Thus, this AI-driven framework forms the basis for next-generation AI methods of creating artifacts.
References
O. Sigmund, “A 99 line topology optimization code written in Matlab,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 120–127, 2001. doi: 10.1007/s001580050176
S. Molesky, Z. Lin, A. Y. Piggott, W. Jin, J. Vučković, and A. W. Rodriguez, “Inverse design in nanophotonics,” Nature Photonics, vol. 12, pp. 659–670, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41566-018-0246-9
J. S. Jensen and O. Sigmund, “Topology optimization for nano-photonics,” Laser & Photonics Reviews, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 308–321, 2011. doi: 10.1002/lpor.201000014
J. Peurifoy, Y. Shen, L. Jing, Y. Yang, F. Cano-Renteria, B. G. DeLacy, J. D. Joannopoulos, M. Tegmark, and M. Soljačić, “Nanophotonic particle simulation and inverse design using artificial neural networks,” Science Advances, vol. 4, no. 6, p. eaar4206, 2018. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aar4206
Z. Liu, Y. Wang, T. Wang, and Z. Zhang, “Materials discovery and design using machine learning,” Nature Reviews Materials, vol. 4, pp. 83–100, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41578-018-0075-4
C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001
D. Xiu and G. E. Karniadakis, “The Wiener–Askey polynomial chaos for stochastic differential equations,” SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 619–644, 2002. doi: 10.1137/S1064827501387826
K. Hornik, M. Stinchcombe, and H. White, “Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators,” Neural Networks, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 359–366, 1989. doi: 10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8
M. Raissi, P. Perdikaris, and G. E. Karniadakis, “Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 378, pp. 686–707, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.045
H. Wang, M. Tang, and X. Liang, “Deep learning-based surrogate modeling for engineering design,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 92, p. 103650, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2020.103650
K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan, “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182–197, 2002. doi: 10.1109/4235.996017
C. A. Coello Coello, “Evolutionary multi-objective optimization: A historical view of the field,” IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 28–36, 2006. doi: 10.1109/MCI.2006.1597059
R. T. Marler and J. S. Arora, “Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, vol. 26, pp. 369–395, 2004. doi: 10.1007/s00158-003-0368-6
B. Sanchez-Lengeling and A. Aspuru-Guzik, “Inverse molecular design using machine learning: Generative models for matter engineering,” Science, vol. 361, no. 6400, pp. 360–365, 2018. doi: 10.1126/science.aat2663
P. Nikolaev, D. Hooper, F. Webber, R. Rao, K. Decker, M. Krein, J. Poleski, R. Barto, and B. Maruyama, “Autonomy in materials research: A case study in carbon nanotube growth,” Nature, vol. 552, pp. 80–84, 2017. doi: 10.1038/nature24651
Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature, vol. 521, pp. 436–444, 2015. doi: 10.1038/nature14539
J. Schmidhuber, “Deep learning in neural networks: An overview,” Neural Networks, vol. 61, pp. 85–117, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003
T. DebRoy, W. Zhang, J. Turner, and S. S. Babu, “Building digital twins of 3D printing machines,” Nature Materials, vol. 17, pp. 766–773, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41563-018-0097-7
J. H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. MIT Press, 1992. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/1090.001.0001
S. Kirkpatrick, C. D. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, “Optimization by simulated annealing,” Science, vol. 220, no. 4598, pp. 671–680, 1983. doi: 10.1126/science.220.4598.671
A. Krishnan, M. A. Rajan, and A. I. Cooper, “Autonomous discovery in materials science,” Nature Reviews Materials, vol. 6, pp. 1–14, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41578-021-00327-6
J. Chen and K. Shea, “A review of design optimization methods and their applicability to engineering design,” AI EDAM, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 121–139, 2019. doi: 10.1017/S0890060419000010
W. Ma, F. Cheng, and Y. Liu, “Deep-learning-enabled on-demand design of chiral metamaterials,” ACS Nano, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 6326–6334, 2018. doi: 10.1021/acsnano.8b01698
F. Ren, J. Ward, T. Williams, K. J. Laws, B. Wolverton, J. Hattrick-Simpers, and A. Mehta, “Accelerated discovery of metallic glasses through iteration of machine learning and high-throughput experiments,” Science Advances, vol. 4, no. 4, p. eaaq1566, 2018. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaq1566
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dr. Suchita Yogesh Shelke, B. Lakshmana Swamy, Venkata Deepth, Girish Madhaorao Lonare, Savita Patil, Rajesh R. Waghulde, Leena Rajesh Waghulde
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
With the licence CC-BY, authors retain the copyright, allowing anyone to download, reuse, re-print, modify, distribute, and/or copy their contribution. The work must be properly attributed to its author.
It is not necessary to ask for further permission from the author or journal board.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
