pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05474 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🧮 math.OC

Recognition: unknown

Bayesian Algorithm for Collaborative Optimization with Application to Aircraft Design

Mohamed Ali Belhafnaoui , Youssef Diouane
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 15:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords collaborative optimizationmultidisciplinary design optimizationBayesian optimizationGaussian processesaircraft designsurrogate modelingaero-structural optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

A Bayesian algorithm for collaborative optimization uses Gaussian process surrogates to reduce black-box evaluations while achieving better designs in multidisciplinary problems.

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

The paper introduces BACO to make collaborative optimization practical for expensive black-box problems by replacing direct evaluations with Gaussian process models. At each level, acquisition functions select points that respect predicted feasibility and enforce consistency through discrepancy constraints. This architecture is tested on a scalable MDO problem across many instances and on a coupled wing optimization, where it outperforms traditional methods by reaching lower objectives and near-zero violations within the evaluation limit. A sympathetic reader would care because it addresses the core bottleneck of high-fidelity multidisciplinary design, allowing more complex engineering problems to be solved with limited resources.

Core claim

The central claim is that BACO, by employing Gaussian process surrogates and acquisition function maximization at both the subsystem and system levels of collaborative optimization, reduces the required number of true disciplinary evaluations. On the Scalable MDO problem, it consistently yields lower objective values with constraint violations and discrepancies driven to near zero, outperforming CO variants for various initial design sizes. On the CRM-based aero-structural wing problem, it locates a feasible point satisfying bending stress and tip deflection constraints in 886 evaluations out of 1000.

What carries the argument

Gaussian process surrogates paired with acquisition functions that maximize improvement subject to predicted feasibility at subsystems and predicted discrepancy constraints at the system level.

If this is right

  • BACO requires fewer true black-box evaluations per iteration compared to standard collaborative optimization.
  • It achieves superior objective values on the scalable MDO benchmark across different initial sample sizes.
  • Both constraint violation and interdisciplinary discrepancy are reduced to near-zero levels within the budget.
  • It successfully identifies physically consistent feasible designs for the aero-structural CRM wing problem.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The surrogate-based consistency enforcement could be combined with other MDO decomposition strategies to further improve efficiency.
  • Extending the acquisition functions to include uncertainty estimates might provide robust designs under model error.
  • Application to problems with more than two disciplines would test the scalability of the bi-level surrogate approach.

Load-bearing premise

The Gaussian process approximations of the disciplinary models and their feasibility regions are accurate enough that optimizing over the predicted constraints leads to points that are actually feasible and consistent when evaluated exactly.

What would settle it

Observing that BACO fails to find a feasible solution for the CRM wing within 1000 evaluations or that its final objective value is not lower than that of a standard CO method on the scalable MDO problem would contradict the performance claims.

read the original abstract

Collaborative Optimization (CO) is a multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) framework that decomposes large-scale engineering problems into parallel, independently solvable subsystems coordinated by a system-level optimizer. Its practical utility is limited by the high frequency of expensive black-box disciplinary evaluations arising from the bi-level consistency constraints. This paper introduces BACO, a Bayesian Algorithm for Collaborative Optimization, which replaces the direct black-box calls at both levels with Gaussian process (GP) surrogates and acquisition function maximization. At the subsystem level, an acquisition function subject to GP-predicted feasibility constraints identifies the next evaluation point. At the system level, the same surrogate framework enforces consistency through predicted discrepancy constraints. This architecture reduces the number of true black-box evaluations required per major iteration. BACO is benchmarked against state-of-the-art CO variants on a Scalable MDO problem over 50 randomized instances. On this problem, BACO consistently achieves lower objective values and drives both constraint violation and interdisciplinary discrepancy to near-zero within the evaluation budget, outperforming all three CO variants across all tested DoE sizes. Further validation is conducted on a coupled aero-structural wing optimization problem based on the Common Research Model (CRM) geometry, where BACO identifies a feasible solution within 886 of 1000 allocated evaluations, recovering results physically consistent with active bending stress and tip deflection constraints. The BACO software, the state-of-the-art CO solvers, as well as standard MDO benchmarking problems are open-source and publicly available at https://moebehfn.github.io/mdotoolbox/.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces BACO, a Bayesian Algorithm for Collaborative Optimization that replaces direct black-box disciplinary evaluations in the standard CO bi-level framework with Gaussian process surrogates. At the subsystem level, acquisition functions subject to GP-predicted feasibility constraints select evaluation points; at the system level, predicted discrepancy constraints enforce consistency. The method is benchmarked on a Scalable MDO problem over 50 randomized instances (outperforming three CO variants in objective value, constraint violation, and discrepancy) and applied to a CRM-based aero-structural wing problem (finding a feasible design within 886 of 1000 evaluations). The software, solvers, and benchmarks are released open-source.

Significance. If the surrogate-based consistency enforcement holds under verification, BACO could meaningfully lower the evaluation budget required for practical CO in large-scale MDO, with direct relevance to aerospace design. The open-source release of BACO, the compared CO solvers, and the benchmarking problems is a clear strength that supports reproducibility and community validation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and system-level architecture description] Abstract and system-level architecture description: the headline claims of near-zero interdisciplinary discrepancy and feasible solutions on both the Scalable MDO and CRM problems rest on the assumption that GP-predicted discrepancy constraints reliably proxy true black-box consistency. No uncertainty-aware handling (e.g., chance constraints, robust acquisition, or posterior sampling) is described, raising the risk that low predicted discrepancy masks large true discrepancy in sparse-DoE or strongly nonlinear regimes.
  2. [Benchmarking and CRM results sections] Benchmarking and CRM results sections: the reported outperformance and feasibility should be accompanied by post-hoc evaluation of the true (black-box) discrepancy and constraint violation at the final reported solutions, rather than relying solely on surrogate predictions, to confirm that the observed near-zero values are not artifacts of surrogate error.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods section] Methods section: explicit statements on GP hyperparameter optimization (e.g., marginal likelihood maximization details) and the precise acquisition functions employed at each level would strengthen the description, even given the open-source code.
  2. [Experimental setup] Experimental setup: the generation process for the 50 randomized instances and the exact DoE sizes tested should be stated with sufficient precision for independent replication.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, agreeing where revisions are needed to strengthen the validation of our results. We plan to incorporate the suggested changes in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and system-level architecture description] Abstract and system-level architecture description: the headline claims of near-zero interdisciplinary discrepancy and feasible solutions on both the Scalable MDO and CRM problems rest on the assumption that GP-predicted discrepancy constraints reliably proxy true black-box consistency. No uncertainty-aware handling (e.g., chance constraints, robust acquisition, or posterior sampling) is described, raising the risk that low predicted discrepancy masks large true discrepancy in sparse-DoE or strongly nonlinear regimes.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out this key assumption in our surrogate-based consistency enforcement. BACO uses deterministic GP mean predictions for the discrepancy constraints at the system level to enable efficient acquisition function optimization without additional sampling overhead. This choice prioritizes reducing true black-box evaluations while still guiding the optimizer toward consistency. We acknowledge that this does not incorporate explicit uncertainty quantification, which could indeed lead to discrepancies between predicted and true values in regions of high surrogate uncertainty. In the revised manuscript, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the system-level architecture description (and update the abstract accordingly) to explicitly state this modeling assumption, discuss its implications for sparse or nonlinear regimes, and outline potential future extensions such as chance-constrained acquisition functions. This revision will clarify the scope of the current claims without altering the core method. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Benchmarking and CRM results sections] Benchmarking and CRM results sections: the reported outperformance and feasibility should be accompanied by post-hoc evaluation of the true (black-box) discrepancy and constraint violation at the final reported solutions, rather than relying solely on surrogate predictions, to confirm that the observed near-zero values are not artifacts of surrogate error.

    Authors: We fully agree that post-hoc verification against the true black-box models is necessary to substantiate the reported near-zero discrepancy and feasibility. The current results rely on the GP predictions at the final design points obtained after the budgeted evaluations. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection (or appendix) in both the Benchmarking and CRM results sections that reports the true (black-box) objective values, constraint violations, and interdisciplinary discrepancy evaluated at the final solutions for BACO and the baseline CO variants. For the Scalable MDO problem, this will be done across the 50 instances; for the CRM wing, at the identified feasible design. These true evaluations will be obtained by calling the original disciplinary models at the reported points, and we will include corresponding tables or plots to demonstrate that the near-zero values hold under true evaluation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: BACO algorithm and performance claims are defined and validated independently via empirical benchmarking

full rationale

The paper defines BACO as a surrogate-based variant of Collaborative Optimization using Gaussian process models and acquisition functions to replace black-box evaluations at subsystem and system levels. The central claims (lower objectives, near-zero discrepancy and constraint violation on Scalable MDO and CRM problems) are established through direct numerical benchmarking against published CO variants across randomized instances and DoE sizes. No derivation chain reduces a result to its own inputs by construction; the GP-predicted discrepancy constraints are an algorithmic choice whose effectiveness is tested against true black-box evaluations in the reported experiments. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing premises in the provided text. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method relies on standard Gaussian process assumptions and acquisition function properties from Bayesian optimization literature. No new entities are postulated. Hyperparameters of the GPs are fitted but are not load-bearing free parameters for the central claim.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Gaussian processes provide sufficiently accurate surrogates for the black-box disciplinary functions and their feasibility regions.
    Invoked when the acquisition function is maximized subject to GP-predicted constraints at both levels.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5578 in / 1272 out tokens · 31728 ms · 2026-05-08T15:59:35.027159+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: A Survey of Architectures,

    Martins, J. R. R. A., and Lambe, A. B., “Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: A Survey of Architectures,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 51, No. 9, 2013, pp. 2049–2075. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J051895

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j051895 2013

  2. [2]

    Collaborative Optimization: An Architecture for Large-Scale Distributed Design,

    Braun, R. D., “Collaborative Optimization: An Architecture for Large-Scale Distributed Design,” Ph.D. thesis, Stanford Uni- versity, San Francisco, 1996

    1996

  3. [3]

    Development and Application of the Collaborative Optimization Architecture in a Multidisci- plinary Design Environment,

    Braun, R. D., and Kroo, I. M., “Development and Application of the Collaborative Optimization Architecture in a Multidisci- plinary Design Environment,” Tech. Rep. 20040111288, NASA, Langley, Aug. 1995. 15

    1995

  4. [4]

    Analytical and Computational Aspects of Collaborative Optimization for Multidisci- plinary Design,

    Alexandrov, N. M., and Lewis, R. M., “Analytical and Computational Aspects of Collaborative Optimization for Multidisci- plinary Design,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2002, pp. 301–309. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.1646

    work page doi:10.2514/2.1646 2002

  5. [5]

    Enhanced Collaborative Optimization: Application to an Analytic Test Problem and Aircraft Design,

    Roth, B., and Kroo, I., “Enhanced Collaborative Optimization: Application to an Analytic Test Problem and Aircraft Design,” Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference , AIAA, Victoria, Canada, 2008. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008- 5841

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2008- 2008

  6. [6]

    Improved Collaborative Optimization Design Method Based on Ensemble Surrogate Model,

    Li, X., Sun, Y ., Li, G., Yin, C., Chen, Z., Jiang, Z., and Ma, J., “Improved Collaborative Optimization Design Method Based on Ensemble Surrogate Model,” Engineering Computations, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2026, pp. 911–939. https://doi.org/10.1108/EC- 02-2025-0149

    work page doi:10.1108/ec- 2026

  7. [7]

    Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J

    Jones, D. R., Schonlau, M., and Welch, W. J., “Efficient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions,” Journal of Global Optimization, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1998, pp. 455–492. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008306431147

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1008306431147 1998

  8. [8]

    Taking the Human out of the Loop: A Review of Bayesian Optimization,

    Shahriari, B., Swersky, K., Wang, Z., Adams, R. P ., and De Freitas, N., “Taking the Human out of the Loop: A Review of Bayesian Optimization,” Proceedings of the IEEE , Vol. 104, No. 1, 2016, pp. 148–175. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2015. 2494218

    work page doi:10.1109/jproc.2015 2016

  9. [9]

    A Tutorial on Bayesian Optimization

    Frazier, P . I., “A Tutorial on Bayesian Optimization,” , Jul. 2018. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1807.02811

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.02811 2018

  10. [10]

    Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning, The MIT Press (2006)

    Rasmussen, C. E., and Williams, C. K. I., Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning , MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 2005. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001 2005

  11. [11]

    A Tutorial on Bayesian Optimization of Expensive Cost Functions, with Appli- cation to Active User Modeling and Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning,

    Brochu, E., Cora, V . M., and de Freitas, N., “A Tutorial on Bayesian Optimization of Expensive Cost Functions, with Appli- cation to Active User Modeling and Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning,” , Dec. 2010. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1012. 2599

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1012 2010

  12. [12]

    An Efficient Application of Bayesian Opti- mization to an Industrial MDO Framework for Aircraft Design,

    Priem, R., Gagnon, H., Chittick, I., Dufresne, S., Diouane, Y ., and Bartoli, N., “An Efficient Application of Bayesian Opti- mization to an Industrial MDO Framework for Aircraft Design,”Aviation Forum, AIAA, 2020. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020- 3152

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2020- 2020

  13. [13]

    Partitioned Surrogates and Thompson Sampling for Multi- disciplinary Bayesian Optimization,

    Baars, S., Parekh, J., Antonau, I., Bekemeyer, P ., and Römer, U., “Partitioned Surrogates and Thompson Sampling for Multi- disciplinary Bayesian Optimization,” , Aug. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2408.08691

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.08691 2024

  14. [14]

    Non-Myopic Multipoint Multifidelity Bayesian Framework for Multidisciplinary Design,

    Di Fiore, F., and Mainini, L., “Non-Myopic Multipoint Multifidelity Bayesian Framework for Multidisciplinary Design,” Sci- entific Reports, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2023, p. 22531. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48757-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-48757-3 2023

  15. [15]

    Constrained Efficient Global Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Using Adaptive Disciplinary Surrogate Enrichment,

    Cardoso, I., Dubreuil, S., Bartoli, N., Gogu, C., and Salaün, M., “Constrained Efficient Global Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Using Adaptive Disciplinary Surrogate Enrichment,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization , Vol. 67, No. 2, 2024, p. 23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-023-03736-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00158-023-03736-0 2024

  16. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10770 , year=

    Zhan, D., Zhang, H., Righter, R., Zheng, Z., and Anderson, J., “Collaborative Bayesian Optimization via Wasserstein Barycen- ters,” , Apr. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.10770

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.10770 2025

  17. [17]

    ARCO-BO: Adaptive Resource-Aware Collaborative Bayesian Optimization for Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Design,

    Wang, Z., Chen, Y .-P ., Dolar, T., and Chen, W., “ARCO-BO: Adaptive Resource-Aware Collaborative Bayesian Optimization for Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Design,” , Oct. 2025. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2510.16652

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.16652 2025

  18. [18]

    Development of a Common Research Model for Applied CFD Validation Studies,

    Vassberg, J. C., DeHaan, M. A., Rivers, S. M., and Wahls, R. A., “Development of a Common Research Model for Applied CFD Validation Studies,” 26th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference , American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2008. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2008-6919

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2008-6919 2008

  19. [19]

    Aircraft Design Using Collaborative Optimization,

    Sobieski, I., and Kroo, I., “Aircraft Design Using Collaborative Optimization,” Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit , AIAA, Reno,NV ,U.S.A., 1996.https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1996-715

    work page doi:10.2514/6.1996-715 1996

  20. [20]

    Luo, Z.-Q., Pang, J.-S., and Ralph, D., Mathematical Programs with Equilibrium Constraints , Cambridge University Press,

  21. [21]

    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511983658

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511983658

  22. [22]

    61, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA, 2002

    Dempe, S., Foundations of Bilevel Programming, Nonconvex Optimization and Its Applications, Vol. 61, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, USA, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/b101970

    work page doi:10.1007/b101970 2002

  23. [23]

    MPEC Methods for Bilevel Optimization Problems,

    Kim, Y ., Leyffer, S., and Munson, T., “MPEC Methods for Bilevel Optimization Problems,” Bilevel Optimization, Vol. 161, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2020, pp. 335–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52119-6_12 . 16

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52119-6_12 2020

  24. [24]

    Ensemble of Surrogates in Black-Box-T ype Engineering Optimization: Recent Advances and Applications,

    Chen, H., Zhang, Z., Li, W., Liu, Q., Sun, K., Fan, D., and Cui, W., “Ensemble of Surrogates in Black-Box-T ype Engineering Optimization: Recent Advances and Applications,” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 248, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.eswa.2024.123427

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Multi-Fidelity Constrained Bayesian Optimization with Applica- tion to Aircraft Wing Design,

    Cordelier, O., Diouane, Y ., Bartoli, N., and Laurendeau, E., “Multi-Fidelity Constrained Bayesian Optimization with Applica- tion to Aircraft Wing Design,” Aviation Forum, AIAA, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2025. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2025-3474

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2025-3474 2025

  26. [26]

    Unexpected Improvements to Expected Improvement for Bayesian Optimization,

    Ament, S., Daulton, S., Eriksson, D., Balandat, M., and Bakshy, E., “Unexpected Improvements to Expected Improvement for Bayesian Optimization,” NeurIPS, Vol. 36, Curran Associates, Inc., 2023, pp. 20577–20612

    2023

  27. [27]

    Exploration of Metamodeling Sampling Criteria for Constrained Global Optimization,

    Sasena, M. J., Papalambros, P ., and Goovaerts, P ., “Exploration of Metamodeling Sampling Criteria for Constrained Global Optimization,” Engineering Optimization, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2002, pp. 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/03052150211751

    work page doi:10.1080/03052150211751 2002

  28. [28]

    A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code

    McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., and Conover, W. J., “A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code,” Technometrics, Vol. 21, No. 2, 1979, p. 239. https://doi.org/10.2307/1268522

    work page doi:10.2307/1268522 1979

  29. [29]

    Upper Trust Bound Feasibility Criterion for Mixed Constrained Bayesian Optimization with Application to Aircraft Design,

    Priem, R., Bartoli, N., Diouane, Y ., and Sgueglia, A., “Upper Trust Bound Feasibility Criterion for Mixed Constrained Bayesian Optimization with Application to Aircraft Design,” Aerospace Science and Technology , Vol. 105, 2020. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ast.2020.105980

    work page arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    A Taxonomy of Constraints in Black-Box Simulation-Based Optimization,

    Le Digabel, S., and Wild, S. M., “A Taxonomy of Constraints in Black-Box Simulation-Based Optimization,” Optimization and Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2024, pp. 1125–1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-023-09839-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s11081-023-09839-3 2024

  31. [31]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68913-5

    Audet, C., and Hare, W., Derivative-Free and Blackbox Optimization, Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68913-5

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68913-5 2017

  32. [32]

    Model-Based Derivative-Free Optimization Methods and Software,

    Ragonneau, T. M., “Model-Based Derivative-Free Optimization Methods and Software,” , Feb. 2023

    2023

  33. [33]

    SMT 2.0: A Surrogate Modeling Toolbox with a Focus on Hierarchical and Mixed Variables Gaussian Processes,

    Saves, P ., Lafage, R., Bartoli, N., Diouane, Y ., Bussemaker, J., Lefebvre, T., Hwang, J. T., Morlier, J., and Martins, J. R., “SMT 2.0: A Surrogate Modeling Toolbox with a Focus on Hierarchical and Mixed Variables Gaussian Processes,” Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 188, 2024, p. 103571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2023.103571

    work page doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2023.103571 2024

  34. [34]

    A Python Surrogate Modeling Framework with Derivatives,

    Bouhlel, M. A., Hwang, J. T., Bartoli, N., Lafage, R., Morlier, J., and Martins, J. R., “A Python Surrogate Modeling Framework with Derivatives,” Advances in Engineering Software , Vol. 135, 2019, p. 102662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advengsoft.2019. 03.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2019 2019

  35. [35]

    A Direct Search Optimization Method That Models the Objective and Constraint Functions by Linear Interpolation,

    Powell, M. J. D., “A Direct Search Optimization Method That Models the Objective and Constraint Functions by Linear Interpolation,” Advances in Optimization and Numerical Analysis , Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1994, pp. 51–67. https: //doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8330-5_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8330-5_4 1994

  36. [36]

    Benchmarking Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Algorithms,

    Tedford, N. P ., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Benchmarking Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Algorithms,” Optimization and Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2010, pp. 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11081-009-9082-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11081-009-9082-6 2010

  37. [37]

    A Study of Airplane Ranges and Useful Loads,

    Coffin, J. G., “A Study of Airplane Ranges and Useful Loads,” Tech. Rep. NACA-TR-69, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Jan. 1920

    1920

  38. [38]

    P ., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach , AIAA Education Series, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc, Reston, V A, 2018

    Raymer, D. P ., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach , AIAA Education Series, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc, Reston, V A, 2018

    2018

  39. [39]

    D., Aircraft Performance and Design, WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston, USA, 1999

    Anderson, J. D., Aircraft Performance and Design, WCB/McGraw-Hill, Boston, USA, 1999

    1999

  40. [40]

    The Calculation of Aerodynamic Loading on Surfaces of Any Shape,

    Falkner, V . M., “The Calculation of Aerodynamic Loading on Surfaces of Any Shape,” Tech. Rep. ARC/R&M-1910, Ministry of Aircraft Production, London, UK, Aug. 1943

    1910

  41. [41]

    H., and Pierce, G

    Hodges, D. H., and Pierce, G. A., Introduction to Structural Dynamics and Aeroelasticity , No. 15 in Cambridge Aerospace Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011

    2011

  42. [42]

    Multi-Fidelity Approaches for General Constrained Bayesian Optimization with Application to Aircraft Design,

    Cordelier, O., Diouane, Y ., Bartoli, N., and Laurendeau, E., “Multi-Fidelity Approaches for General Constrained Bayesian Optimization with Application to Aircraft Design,” , 2026. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.28987. 17

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.28987 2026