Exploring the Boundary of Diffusion-based Methods for Solving Constrained Optimization
Shutong Ding, Yimiao Zhou, Ke Hu, Xi Yao, Junchi Yan, Xiaoying Tang, Ye Shi

TL;DR
This paper introduces DiOpt, a diffusion-based framework for solving continuous constrained optimization problems, combining supervised warm-starting and iterative refinement to improve solutions while satisfying constraints.
Contribution
The paper presents a novel diffusion-based approach, DiOpt, specifically designed for continuous constrained optimization, with a dual-phase architecture and extensive experimental validation.
Findings
DiOpt effectively improves solution quality across diverse optimization problems.
The dual-phase architecture enhances constraint satisfaction and objective optimization.
Hyperparameter analysis reveals key factors influencing DiOpt's performance.
Abstract
Diffusion models have achieved remarkable success in generative tasks such as image and video synthesis, and in control domains like robotics, owing to their strong generalization capabilities and proficiency in fitting complex multimodal distributions. However, their full potential in solving Continuous Constrained Optimization problems remains largely underexplored. Our work commences by investigating a two-dimensional constrained quadratic optimization problem as an illustrative example to explore the inherent challenges and issues when applying diffusion models to such optimization tasks and providing theoretical analyses for these observations. To address the identified gaps and harness diffusion models for Continuous Constrained Optimization, we build upon this analysis to propose a novel diffusion-based framework for optimization problems called DiOpt. This framework operates in…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
- The idea of training a diffusion model in an "unsupervised" way, i.e., without a ground truth dataset of samples (solutions), is very interesting and has not been explored before to the best of my knowledge. The authors effectively show that with appropriate weighting, they can train the diffusion model to generate samples in the desired region, which in this case, corresponds to the feasible space of solutions to the optimization problem. This could be a significant contribution both to the l
- The baselines to which the proposed method is compared are not well established in the main text, making it difficult to interpret the results of Table 2. The main result of the paper in Table 2 requires the reader to know how the two baselines (DC3, MBD) work to get a clear picture of the advantages of the proposed algorithm. It seems that DC3 trains a network to perform the optimization, whereas MBD runs some kind of solver within its algorithm (and seems not to work at all). Thus, apart fro
- **Empirical Analysis:** The evaluation includes several different optimization problems, the majority of which require adherence to nonconvex constraints sets. In particular, I appreciate the results on the ACOPF settings, which are considered to be an important problem; I believe these experiments add real-world significance to the results. - **Methodological Simplicity:** The method proposed is fairly intuitive, and the analysis motivating its adoption sets this up well. As the results are
- **Novelty:** I have some concerns regarding the novelty of the method, considering the similarity to [1]. While the overlap methodologically leads me to view this work as more of an application paper, it is not currently presented this way. I believe this work could differentiate itself better by leaning further into an exploration the specific weighting function used for this domain. From a theoretical perspective, the analysis surrounding the weighting scheme is fairly limited, and, in its c
- the bootstrapping self-supervised training can effectively bias the sample towards the feasible region and is compatible with different diffusion formulations - the proposed method is empirically validated on diverse constrained optimization problems with detailed ablation
- the method introduces extra hyperparameters including weight, reset frequency and lookup updates. It would be beneficial if author and provide heuristics on how to choose those hyperparameters and how sensitive the algorithm are to those parameters. - the author only report evaluation time in the main text. It would be helpful to also report training time for different method to see the overhead introduced by two-stage training.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
MethodsDiffusion · Sparse Evolutionary Training
