Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 40 references

Component Placement Becomes an Optimization Variable, Not an Afterthought

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-08 16:55 UTC pith:A7BE4L3U

load-bearing objection Legitimate methodological integration of spatial placement into decomposed vehicle optimization, but the headline runtime claim conflates early-stopping with converged quality. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06087 v1 pith:A7BE4L3U submitted 2026-07-07 cs.CE cs.CGcs.NAcs.SYeess.SYmath.NA

A Decomposition-Based Framework for Joint Optimization and Spatial Packaging of Interconnected Systems with Physical Interactions

Julian B\"uckmann , Jorn van Kampen , Theo Hofman This is my paper
classification cs.CE cs.CGcs.NAcs.SYeess.SYmath.NA
keywords spatial packagingmulti-objective optimizationproblem decompositionvehicle designcomponent placementNSGA-IIanalytical target cascadingsigned distance field
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the physical placement of mechanical components within a vehicle can be treated as an active optimization variable alongside powertrain sizing and structural design, rather than as a geometric constraint checked after the fact. The authors extend an existing spatial packaging framework called SPI2 (Spatial Packaging of Interconnected Systems with Physical Interactions) with quaternion-based rotation, signed distance field boundary handling, and port-alignment constraints to make it numerically robust enough for gradient-based solvers. They then embed SPI2 within a decomposed multi-objective optimization loop where a genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) proposes battery placements, SPI2 enforces geometric feasibility, and subsystem models for powertrain energy use and chassis stiffness respond to the resulting mass distribution. The coordination between subsystems is maintained through a quadratic penalty on the mismatch between target and realized center-of-gravity positions. Applied to an automotive case combining powertrain scaling with battery-chassis integration, the framework finds Pareto-optimal trade-offs between energy consumption and structural stiffness with a 95.11% runtime reduction compared to exhaustive search, while keeping placement error within 2 mm.

Core claim

The central mechanism is the use of SPI2 as a placement feasibility enforcer inside a decomposed optimization loop. By treating component positions as design variables and penalizing the mismatch between target and realized center-of-gravity positions, the framework creates a bidirectional coupling: spatial placement decisions feed into powertrain and structural models through mass distribution, while those models' responses guide subsequent placement proposals. The paper shows that this coupling converges to Pareto-optimal solutions with substantially fewer evaluations than brute-force search, because SPI2 filters infeasible placements before subsystem evaluation rather than discarding them

What carries the argument

Quaternion-based rotation parameterization; signed distance field boundary constraints; port-alignment constraints; maximal disjoint ball decomposition; ATC-inspired quadratic penalty coordination; NSGA-II multi-objective optimization

Load-bearing premise

The framework's efficiency and convergence results are demonstrated on simplified, low-fidelity subsystem models — an equivalent beam model for chassis stiffness and interpolation-based efficiency maps for the powertrain. If the real design space is more non-convex or subsystem responses are more expensive to evaluate, the quadratic penalty coordination may not converge as cleanly and the runtime advantage could shrink.

What would settle it

Apply the framework to the same automotive problem with higher-fidelity subsystem models (e.g., finite element chassis analysis, high-resolution motor efficiency maps) and check whether the NSGA-II coordination still converges to a Pareto front that dominates or matches the exhaustive-search reference, and whether the runtime advantage persists.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the framework scales to higher-fidelity subsystem models, it could enable early-stage designers to jointly explore packaging and performance trade-offs that are currently evaluated sequentially, potentially missing beneficial configurations.
  • The placement-as-variable approach could extend beyond automotive design to any domain with tightly coupled spatial and performance constraints, such as aerospace packaging, robotics layout, or modular building design.
  • The 95% runtime reduction over exhaustive search suggests that similar decomposition-with-feasibility-enforcement strategies could make other combinatorially expensive engineering optimization problems tractable that are currently solved by brute force or heuristic rules.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The runtime advantage is measured against a discretized exhaustive search at 5mm and 1mm grid resolution; a finer grid or a continuous ground-truth Pareto front could narrow or eliminate the reported efficiency gap, though the framework's continuous-variable formulation inherently avoids discretization artifacts.
  • The quadratic penalty coordination without iterative multiplier updates is a simplification of full analytical target cascading; convergence behavior on more non-convex or tightly coupled problems may require the augmented Lagrangian formulation the authors set aside.
  • If the SPI2 placement solver accounts for 80% of runtime as reported, improvements to the geometric feasibility evaluation (e.g., GPU-accelerated signed distance field queries or coarser sphere decompositions during early generations) could yield disproportionate total speedups.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents a decomposition-based framework that integrates Spatial Packaging of Interconnected Systems with Physical Interactions (SPI2) into a system-level multi-objective optimization for automotive component placement. The SPI2 method is extended with quaternion-based rotation, signed distance field (SDF) boundary constraints, and port-alignment constraints. The framework couples a powertrain sizing subproblem and a battery-chassis integration subproblem through an ATC-inspired quadratic penalty coordination, orchestrated by NSGA-II. Results are presented on a benchmark placement problem (comparing four SPI2 variants) and on a vehicle use case where the framework is compared against an exhaustive grid search. The headline claims are a 95.11% runtime reduction versus exhaustive search and Pareto-front quality metrics (HV ratio = 1.036, IGD = 0.025) with placement accuracy within 2 mm.

Significance. The integration of geometric placement feasibility into a decomposed system-level optimization is a meaningful methodological contribution. The quaternion and SDF extensions to SPI2 are reasonable engineering choices, and the benchmark in Table II / Figure 6 across 100 randomized initializations provides a defensible comparison of solver variants. The port-alignment constraint formulation (Eqs. 19–24) is a useful addition for mechanical routing problems. The overall framework design—using SPI2 as a feasibility enforcer within NSGA-II-coordinated ATC—is clearly articulated and addresses a genuine gap in the literature, namely the coupling of spatial placement with powertrain and structural optimization.

major comments (3)
  1. §III.D.2, and the Conclusion (§V): The headline 95.11% runtime reduction is computed at NSGA-II generation 6 (6.6 hours, 240 evaluations), where Figure 11 shows the HV ratio is approximately 1.0—i.e., NSGA-II merely matches the exhaustive search. However, Table III reports HV ratio = 1.036 and IGD = 0.025, which Figure 11 indicates corresponds to the fully converged run (roughly generation 30–40). The paper thus presents the runtime advantage from the early-stopping point alongside the quality advantage from the converged run, without reporting the wall-clock time required to actually achieve the Table III metrics. The text in §III.D.1 acknowledges that the HV ratio 'exceeds 1 and converges to 1.036,' but §III.D.2 and the Conclusion frame the 95.11% figure without this qualification. This is load-bearing because the runtime reduction is the central quantitative result. The authors should
  2. §II.D.3, Eq. (62): The quadratic coordination penalty J_coord = ρ_x·e_x² + ρ_z·e_z² uses fixed penalty parameters ρ_x and ρ_z without Lagrangian multiplier updates (acknowledged in the text). No sensitivity analysis on these parameters is provided, yet they directly affect both the Pareto front quality (Eqs. 63–64) and the placement accuracy reported in Table III. Since the maximum placement error (1.6 mm) and average error (0.08 mm) are partly functions of these penalty weights, the reader cannot assess robustness. A brief sensitivity study or at least a justification for the chosen values would strengthen the claim that the coordination approach is reliable.
  3. §III.A, Table II, Figure 6: The SPI2 benchmark reports solve rates and solution quality across 100 randomized initializations, but no error bars, standard deviations, or confidence intervals are provided. Given that the improvement claims for Method 3 (quaternion + SDF) over the benchmark are central to justifying the framework's use in the system-level optimization, some measure of statistical dispersion is needed to confirm the trends are not artifacts of the specific random seed.
minor comments (7)
  1. §II.B.4: The fixed 1:1 powersplit during driving (Eq. 35) is a strong simplification. The text acknowledges this is intentional, but a brief note on how this affects the generality of the energy-consumption results would help the reader calibrate expectations.
  2. §II.C.1, Eqs. (53)–(54): The efficiency factors η_bend and η_torsion are described qualitatively but their numerical values are not stated. Please report the values used.
  3. Figure 11: The y-axis range (0.88–1.06) makes it difficult to read the exact HV ratio at generation 6. A marker or annotation at generation 6 would improve clarity.
  4. §III.D.1: 'resutlts,' 'exhuastive,' 'furhter' — several typos in this section. Proofreading needed throughout (also 'efficiency,' 'computation,' 'evalualte' in various places).
  5. §II.A.5, Eq. (24): The alignment objective J_align = n_align − c is defined but it is unclear whether this is summed over all ports or per-port. Please clarify.
  6. Table III caption could note that HV ratio and IGD are computed at full convergence, not at generation 6, to avoid the conflation noted in the major comments.
  7. §III.B: The observation that the front and rear axle powertrain converge to different positions (local optima) is mentioned but not analyzed. A brief discussion of whether this affects the system-level results would be helpful.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive review. The referee raises three major comments concerning: (1) an apparent inconsistency between the reported 95.11% runtime reduction (computed at generation 6) and the Pareto-front quality metrics in Table III (achieved at convergence), (2) the absence of a sensitivity analysis for the fixed quadratic coordination penalty parameters, and (3) the lack of statistical dispersion measures in the SPI2 benchmark. We agree with all three points and will revise the manuscript accordingly. Specifically, we will report the wall-clock time to full convergence alongside the early-stopping time, add a sensitivity study on the penalty parameters, and include standard deviations in the benchmark table. No standing objections remain.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The headline 95.11% runtime reduction is computed at NSGA-II generation 6 (6.6 hours, 240 evaluations), where Figure 11 shows the HV ratio is approximately 1.0—i.e., NSGA-II merely matches the exhaustive search. However, Table III reports HV ratio = 1.036 and IGD = 0.025, which Figure 11 indicates corresponds to the fully converged run (roughly generation 30–40). The paper thus presents the runtime advantage from the early-stopping point alongside the quality advantage from the converged run, without reporting the wall-clock time required to actually achieve the Table III metrics.

    Authors: The referee is correct, and we acknowledge that the current presentation conflates two distinct points on the convergence curve. The 95.11% runtime reduction is computed at generation 6, where the HV ratio first reaches approximately 1.0—meaning NSGA-II matches but does not yet exceed the exhaustive search. The Table III metrics (HV ratio = 1.036, IGD = 0.025) correspond to the fully converged run at approximately generation 30–40, which requires substantially more wall-clock time than 6.6 hours. We agree this distinction is load-bearing and must be made transparent. In the revised manuscript, we will: (1) report the wall-clock time to full convergence alongside the generation-6 early-stopping time, presenting both runtime figures clearly; (2) reframe the 95.11% figure explicitly as the reduction to reach parity with the exhaustive search, and report a separate (smaller) reduction for achieving the improved HV ratio; and (3) qualify the Conclusion and §III.D.2 to ensure the runtime and quality claims are not presented as if they arise from the same point on the convergence trajectory. We thank the referee for identifying this important presentation issue. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The quadratic coordination penalty J_coord = ρ_x·e_x² + ρ_z·e_z² uses fixed penalty parameters ρ_x and ρ_z without Lagrangian multiplier updates. No sensitivity analysis on these parameters is provided, yet they directly affect both the Pareto front quality and the placement accuracy reported in Table III.

    Authors: We agree that a sensitivity analysis on the penalty parameters ρ_x and ρ_z is needed to substantiate the robustness of the coordination approach. The current manuscript acknowledges the absence of Lagrangian multiplier updates but does not justify the chosen penalty values or demonstrate that the reported placement accuracy (maximum 1.6 mm, average 0.08 mm) is not an artifact of a specific parameter tuning. In the revised manuscript, we will add a brief sensitivity study in which ρ_x and ρ_z are varied over a reasonable range (e.g., one order of magnitude above and below the chosen values), reporting the effect on placement error and Pareto-front quality metrics. We will also provide a justification for the baseline parameter selection. This will allow the reader to assess whether the coordination approach is reliable across parameter settings or whether the results depend on careful tuning. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The SPI2 benchmark reports solve rates and solution quality across 100 randomized initializations, but no error bars, standard deviations, or confidence intervals are provided. Given that the improvement claims for Method 3 over the benchmark are central to justifying the framework's use in the system-level optimization, some measure of statistical dispersion is needed.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the benchmark results in Table II and Figure 6 would be substantially strengthened by reporting statistical dispersion. The 100 randomized initializations provide the data necessary to compute standard deviations for the mean iteration counts and per-iteration solve times, as well as confidence intervals or binomial proportion intervals for the solve rates. We will revise Table II to include standard deviations for the mean number of iterations and time per iteration, and we will add confidence intervals (or Wilson score intervals) for the solve-rate percentages in Figure 6. This will allow the reader to assess whether the observed improvements of Method 3 (quaternion + SDF) over the benchmark are statistically meaningful rather than seed-dependent artifacts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; self-citations are for building blocks, not load-bearing for central claims

full rationale

The paper's central claims—(1) that quaternion+SDF extensions improve SPI2 solve rate and solution quality (Table II), (2) that NSGA-II with SPI2 achieves a better Pareto front than exhaustive search (Fig. 10–11, Table III), and (3) that this yields a 95.11% runtime reduction (Section III.D.2)—are each evaluated against external benchmarks, not against the paper's own fitted inputs. The exhaustive search serves as an independent ground truth for the Pareto front comparison. The SPI2 method comparison (Table II) benchmarks against prior approaches using a standardized test problem with 100 randomized initializations. The self-citations to [13] (Westerhof, Hofman, Van Kampen—same group) are for objective component implementations (J_vol, J_CoG in Eq. 25) and constraint equation formulations, which are methodological building blocks rather than the central claims. The paper does not claim to derive or predict these components from first principles; it explicitly states it extends prior work. The skeptic's concern about conflating generation-6 runtime (HV≈1.0) with converged quality metrics (HV=1.036) is a presentation/correctness issue, not circularity—the runtime comparison is a genuine wall-clock measurement against an independent exhaustive search. The objective weights (w_vol, w_align, w_CoG) are free design parameters, but the paper does not claim to 'predict' anything from them; they are part of the optimization formulation. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction. The minor self-citation to [13] for building-block formulations warrants a score of 2, but it is not load-bearing for the paper's contributions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

11 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. The framework is constructed from established mathematical and engineering components. The free parameters are numerous and mostly unstated, which is the primary concern—not invention but opacity. The axioms are domain assumptions typical of early-stage design exploration, with the 1:1 powersplit being the most ad hoc choice.

free parameters (11)
  • w_vol = not stated
    Weight for volume objective in Eq. 25; value not provided in the paper.
  • w_align = not stated
    Weight for alignment objective in Eq. 25; value not provided.
  • w_CoG = not stated
    Weight for center of gravity objective in Eq. 25; value not provided.
  • rho_x = not stated
    Quadratic penalty parameter for longitudinal coordination error in Eq. 62; value not provided.
  • rho_z = not stated
    Quadratic penalty parameter for vertical coordination error in Eq. 62; value not provided.
  • epsilon = not stated
    Regularization constant in Eqs. 11, 19, 20, 21; prevents numerical singularities but value not given.
  • theta_max = not stated
    Maximum admissible port misalignment angle in Eq. 23; value not provided.
  • eta_bend = not stated
    Bending load transfer efficiency factor in Eq. 53; described as product of physically motivated terms but value not given.
  • eta_torsion = not stated
    Torsional load transfer efficiency in Eq. 54; value not provided.
  • K_bending,base = 18000 N/mm
    Baseline bending stiffness from [37], stated in Section III.C.
  • K_torsion,base = 22000 Nm/deg
    Baseline torsional stiffness from [37], stated in Section III.C.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption MDBD sphere decomposition adequately represents component geometry for placement optimization
    Section II.A.1; the entire SPI2 formulation depends on this approximation from Chen [21].
  • domain assumption Equivalent beam model sufficiently captures battery-chassis integration stiffness for design space exploration
    Section II.C.2; the paper explicitly states this is 'highly simplified' but 'sufficient for the use case.'
  • ad hoc to paper Fixed 1:1 powersplit during driving is adequate for representing energy consumption dependencies on mass distribution
    Section II.B.4; this simplification is made to avoid adding a powersplit optimization level, but it weakens the coupling between placement and energy use.
  • ad hoc to paper Quadratic penalty coordination without Lagrangian multiplier updates converges to consistent system-level solutions
    :

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 21369 in / 2870 out tokens · 284036 ms · 2026-07-08T16:55:22.898844+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper presents an approach and application of optimization of spatial packaging of interconnected systems with physical interactions (SPI2) in three-dimensional component placement problems. To enable its application for an automotive use case, SPI2 must support both initial design generation, including component alignment, and robust system-level coordination, requiring improved solution reliability and tractable computational cost. To address these requirements, the proposed methodology improves convergence rate and solution quality by enhancing numerical robustness in gradient-based optimization while reducing computational load. Existing SPI2 approaches are extended through the addition of alignment capabilities, enabling the representation of port-to-port alignments between components. Furthermore, the applicability of SPI2 is expanded by treating component placement locations as design variables, allowing for penalty-based coordination to ensure design feasibility and enabling integration within system-level optimization. The approach is validated using a multi-objective optimization framework based on Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II), applied to a combined powertrain optimization and battery chassis integration problem. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the SPI2 in a system-level design context. The results show a twofold application of SPI2 in an automotive use case: first, as a tool for initial design generation, and second, as part of a system-level design coordinator that outperforms a discretized exhaustive search while requiring lower computational cost.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06087 by Jorn van Kampen, Julian B\"uckmann, Theo Hofman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of framework, where MDBD component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Depiction of components in model: Workspace [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Smooth SDF constructed using cubic B-splines of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Depiction of battery integration in to chassis (not [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The ATC-inspired consistency coordination ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Percentage of boundary box constraint placement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Equivalent section beam model approximations on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Result for the placement problem to place pow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Pareto front obtained through Brute force approx [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Pareto front hypervolume ratio per generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Best obtained result for method 2 Euler rotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Best obtained result for the Benchmark Euler [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Best obtained result for method 1 Quaternion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png] view at source ↗

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

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Application of optimization algorithms for robot systems designing,

    A. Sapietová, M. Sága, I. Kuric, and ￿. Václav, “Application of optimization algorithms for robot systems designing,” Interna- tional Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 15, 1 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Toward Holistic Design of Spatial Packaging of Interconnected Systems with Physical Interactions (SPI2),

    S. R. Peddada, L. E. Zeidner, H. T. Ilies, K. A. James, and J. T. Allison, “Toward Holistic Design of Spatial Packaging of Interconnected Systems with Physical Interactions (SPI2),” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 144, 12 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    S. R. Peddada, L. E. Zeidner, K. A. James, and J. T. Allison, “An Introduction to 3D SPI2 (Spatial Packaging of Intercon- nected Systems With Physics Interactions) Design Problems: A Review of Related Work, Existing Gaps, Challenges, and Opportunities,” Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, vol. 3B-2021, 11 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Multi-objective optimisation for battery electric vehicle powertrain topologies,

    P. Othaganont, F. Assadian, and D. J. Auger, “Multi-objective optimisation for battery electric vehicle powertrain topologies,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, vol. 231, pp. 1046–1065, 7 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Integrated system-level optimization for concurrent engineering with para- metric subsystem modeling,

    T. Schuman, O. L. De Weck, and J. Sobieski, “Integrated system-level optimization for concurrent engineering with para- metric subsystem modeling,” Collection of Technical Papers - AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dy- namics and Materials Conference, vol. 7, pp. 4989–5008, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Decomposition-Based Design Optimization of Hybrid Electric Powertrain Architectures: Simultaneous Configuration and Sizing Design,

    A. E. Bayrak, N. Kang, and P. Y. Papalambros, “Decomposition-Based Design Optimization of Hybrid Electric Powertrain Architectures: Simultaneous Configuration and Sizing Design,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 138, 7 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Fifty years of multi-objective optimization and decision-making: From mathematical programming to evolutionary computa- tion,

    M. Ehrgott, M. Köksalan, M. Kadziński, and K. Deb, “Fifty years of multi-objective optimization and decision-making: From mathematical programming to evolutionary computa- tion,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 330, pp. 1–25, 4 2026

    work page 2026

  8. [8]

    Optimization by Decomposition and Coordination: A Unified Approach,

    G. Cohen, “Optimization by Decomposition and Coordination: A Unified Approach,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Con- trol, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 222–232, 1978

    work page 1978

  9. [9]

    Multi- Objective System Design Synthesis for Electric Powertrain Development,

    M. Hofstetter, M. Hirz, M. Gintzel, and A. Schmidhofer, “Multi- Objective System Design Synthesis for Electric Powertrain Development,” 2018 IEEE Transportation and Electrification Conference and Expo, ITEC 2018, pp. 274–279, 8 2018

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    A Two- dimensional Spatial Optimization Framework for Vehicle Pow- ertrain Systems,

    J. Van Kampen, M. Salazar, and T. Hofman, “A Two- dimensional Spatial Optimization Framework for Vehicle Pow- ertrain Systems,” 2023 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, VPPC 2023 - Proceedings, pp. 1–6, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    A Topology Optimization Process for Discrete Mod- ular Design based on Discrete Element Modelling for generating reconfigurable funicular structures,

    Q. Chen, “A Topology Optimization Process for Discrete Mod- ular Design based on Discrete Element Modelling for generating reconfigurable funicular structures,” 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Spatial Packaging and Routing Optimization of Complex Interacting Engineered Systems,

    M. M. Behzadi, P. Zaffetti, J. Chen, L. E. Zeidner, and H. T. Ilies, “Spatial Packaging and Routing Optimization of Complex Interacting Engineered Systems,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 147, 7 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    Hybrid Op- timization for Spatial Packaging of Interconnected Systems.,

    S. Westerhof, T. Hofman, and J. Van Kampen, “Hybrid Op- timization for Spatial Packaging of Interconnected Systems.,” tech. rep., TU Eindhoven, Eindhoven, 12 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Review of Optimization Strategies for System-Level Design in Hybrid Electric Vehicles,

    E. Silvas, T. Hofman, N. Murgovski, L. F. Etman, and M. Stein- buch, “Review of Optimization Strategies for System-Level Design in Hybrid Electric Vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 57–70, 2016

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Automated Three- Dimensional Spatial Optimization for Multidomain Systems With Alignment Constraints,

    J. van Kampen, M. Salazar, and T. Hofman, “Automated Three- Dimensional Spatial Optimization for Multidomain Systems With Alignment Constraints,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 148, 5 2026

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    A Traction Control Strategy with an Efficiency Model in a Distributed Driving Electric Vehicle,

    C. Lin and X. Cheng, “A Traction Control Strategy with an Efficiency Model in a Distributed Driving Electric Vehicle,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2014, p. 261085, 2014. 14

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Stability Issues of Rear–Wheel– Drive Electric Vehicle During Regenerative Braking,

    R. Levickas and V. Žuraulis, “Stability Issues of Rear–Wheel– Drive Electric Vehicle During Regenerative Braking,” Applied Sciences 2025, Vol. 15,, vol. 15, 10 2025

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Topology optimization of electric vehicle chassis structure with distributed load-bearing batteries,

    Y. Lu, H. Mao, and M. Zhou, “Topology optimization of electric vehicle chassis structure with distributed load-bearing batteries,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 2023 66:6, vol. 66, pp. 134–, 5 2023

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Decomposition-Based Integrated Optimal Electric Powertrain Design,

    C. A. Fahdzyana, M. Salazar, M. C. Donkers, and T. Hofman, “Decomposition-Based Integrated Optimal Electric Powertrain Design,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 6044–6058, 2022

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Analytical Target Cascading in Automotive Vehicle Design,

    H. M. Kim, D. G. Rideout, P. Y. Papalambros, and J. L. Stein, “Analytical Target Cascading in Automotive Vehicle Design,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 125, pp. 481–489, 9 2003

    work page 2003

  21. [21]

    Maximal Disjoint Ball Decompositions for shape modeling and analysis,

    J. Chen and H. T. Ilieş, “Maximal Disjoint Ball Decompositions for shape modeling and analysis,” Computer-Aided Design, vol. 126, p. 102850, 9 2020

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Animating Rotation with Quaternion Curves,

    K. Shoemake, “Animating Rotation with Quaternion Curves,” in SIGGRAPH ’85, vol. 19, (San Fransisco), pp. 245–254, 7 1985

    work page 1985

  23. [23]

    Model- ing Human Motion with Quaternion-based Neural Networks,

    D. Pavllo, C. Feichtenhofer, M. Auli, and D. Grangier, “Model- ing Human Motion with Quaternion-based Neural Networks,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 128, pp. 855– 872, 10 2019

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    Quaternion kinematics for the error-state Kalman filter

    J. Solà, “Quaternion kinematics for the error-state Kalman filter,” CoRR, vol. abs/1711.02508, 11 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Representing Attitude: Euler Angles, Unit Quater- nions, and Rotation Vectors,

    J. Diebel, “Representing Attitude: Euler Angles, Unit Quater- nions, and Rotation Vectors,” Matrix, vol. 58, pp. 1–35, 2006

    work page 2006

  26. [26]

    A shape preserving C2 non-linear, non- uniform, subdivision scheme with fourth-order accuracy,

    H. Yang and J. Yoon, “A shape preserving C2 non-linear, non- uniform, subdivision scheme with fourth-order accuracy,” Ap- plied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, vol. 60, pp. 267– 292, 9 2022

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    A Practical Guide to Splines.,

    J. R. and C. de Boor, “A Practical Guide to Splines.,” Mathe- matics of Computation, vol. 34, p. 325, 1 1980

    work page 1980

  28. [28]

    Guzzella and A

    L. Guzzella and A. Sciarretta, Vehicle propulsion systems: Introduction to modeling and optimization. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007

    work page 2007

  29. [29]

    Development of the World-wide harmonized Light duty Test Cycle (WLTC) and a possible pathway for its introduction in the European legislation,

    M. Tutuianu, P. Bonnel, B. Ciuffo, T. Haniu, N. Ichikawa, A. Marotta, J. Pavlovic, and H. Steven, “Development of the World-wide harmonized Light duty Test Cycle (WLTC) and a possible pathway for its introduction in the European legislation,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 40, pp. 61–75, 10 2015

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Electric Powertrain Topology Analysis and Design for Heavy-Duty Trucks,

    F. Verbruggen, T. Hofman, and E. Silvas, “Electric Powertrain Topology Analysis and Design for Heavy-Duty Trucks,” Ener- gies, vol. 13, no. 10, p. 2434, 2020

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Convergence Properties of the Nelder–Mead Simplex Method in Low Dimensions,

    J. C. Lagarias, J. A. Reeds, M. H. Wright, and P. E. Wright, “Convergence Properties of the Nelder–Mead Simplex Method in Low Dimensions,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 9, pp. 112–147, 1 1998

    work page 1998

  32. [32]

    R. T. Fenner and J. N. Reddy, Mechanics of solids and structures. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, 2012

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    Euler-Bernoulli beam theory,

    O. A. Bauchau and J. I. Craig, “Euler-Bernoulli beam theory,” in Structural Analysis (O. A. Bauchau and J. I. Craig, eds.), pp. 173–221, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2009

    work page 2009

  34. [34]

    Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain,

    W. C. Young, R. G. Budynas, N. York, C. San, F. Lisbon, L. Madrid, M. City, M. New, D. San, and J. Seoul, “Roark’s Formulas for Stress and Strain,” 1976

    work page 1976

  35. [35]

    Battery Pack and Under- body: Integration in the Structure Design for Battery Electric Vehicles—Challenges and Solutions,

    G. Belingardi and A. Scattina, “Battery Pack and Under- body: Integration in the Structure Design for Battery Electric Vehicles—Challenges and Solutions,” Vehicles 2023, Vol. 5, Pages 498-514, vol. 5, pp. 498–514, 4 2023

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II,

    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, pp. 182–197, 4 2002

    work page 2002

  37. [37]

    Influence of body stiffness on vehicle dynamics characteristics,

    O. Danielsson, A. González Cocaña, K. Ekström, M. Bayani Khaknejad, M. Klomp, and R. Dekker, “Influence of body stiffness on vehicle dynamics characteristics,” The Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks - Proceedings of the 24th Symposium of the International Association for Vehicle System Dynamics, IA VSD 2015, pp. 45–56, 2016

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    Efficient Design of Integrated Underbody and Bat- tery Pack for Battery Electric Vehicles,

    G. Rosso, “Efficient Design of Integrated Underbody and Bat- tery Pack for Battery Electric Vehicles,” tech. rep., Politecnico Di Torino, 10 2021

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Performance indicators in multiobjective optimization,

    C. Audet, J. Bigeon, D. Cartier, S. Le Digabel, and L. Salomon, “Performance indicators in multiobjective optimization,” Euro- pean Journal of Operational Research, vol. 292, pp. 397–422, 7 2021. 15 Appendix A SPI2 approach methods results X Y Z Fig. 12: Best obtained result for the Benchmark Euler rotation and Boundary Box Sphere approach X Y Z Fig. 13: ...

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    (68) with: f 0 2 = r2 (69) Only rectangles with positive width and height con- tribute to the hypervolume. B. Hypervolume Ratio (HV Ratio) To compare the NSGA-II Pareto front against the brute- force reference Pareto front, the Hypervolume Ratio was used. This metric expresses how much of the reference Pareto front hypervolume is captured by the approxima...

    work page