pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17424 · v1 · pith:B5PBNIS5new · submitted 2026-05-17 · 💻 cs.CE · cs.MS

A Hybrid Optimization Framework for Spatial Packaging of Interconnected Systems

S. Westerhof , T. Hofman This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 22:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE cs.MS
keywords spatial packaginginterconnected systemshybrid optimizationcomponent placementroutingbenchmarkgeometric abstraction
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hybrid optimization framework for spatial packaging of interconnected systems achieves over 10% improvement and 0.6-2% accuracy to analytical optima.

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

This paper introduces a framework for optimizing the placement and routing of components in three-dimensional interconnected systems by focusing on geometric constraints alone. It combines the Maximal Disjoint Ball Decomposition to simplify shapes with a hybrid method that starts with random configurations and refines them using gradients and interior point techniques. The approach targets the difficult nonlinear and non-convex nature of these design problems. Evaluations on existing use cases and a new benchmark demonstrate better performance than previous methods along with close matches to ideal solutions. Readers interested in engineering design would value this because compact and efficient layouts matter for systems in transportation, electronics, and machinery.

Core claim

The proposed framework integrates the Maximal Disjoint Ball Decomposition for geometric abstraction with a hybrid optimization strategy that combines stochastic initialization and gradient-based refinement with interior point optimization. It is formulated to handle the nonlinear, non-convex, and continuous characteristics of spatially coupled design problems, achieving more than a 10% improvement over existing SPI2 implementations and converging to spatially analytical optima with 0.6-2% accuracy.

What carries the argument

Hybrid optimization strategy that combines stochastic initialization and gradient-based refinement with interior point optimization, supported by Maximal Disjoint Ball Decomposition for geometric abstraction.

If this is right

  • The method handles nonlinear, non-convex, and continuous characteristics of spatially coupled design problems.
  • It achieves more than a 10% improvement over existing SPI2 implementations.
  • It converges to spatially analytical optima across various benchmark scenarios.
  • Benchmark experiments show solution accuracy of 0.6-2% relative to the ground truth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Re-integrating physical interactions into this spatial optimizer could show trade-offs between geometry and other system properties.
  • The new benchmark for verifiable assessment could become a standard for testing spatial packaging algorithms.
  • Applying the framework to additional use cases beyond the tested ones might uncover limitations in real-world interconnected systems.

Load-bearing premise

Isolating the spatial optimization aspect from physical interactions allows independent and meaningful evaluation of placement and routing performance.

What would settle it

Running the method on the new benchmark and finding no improvement over 10% or accuracy outside the 0.6-2% range relative to ground truth would indicate the claims do not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.17424 by S. Westerhof, T. Hofman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the framework. Where a CAD design is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Depiction of the model with various components: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of the Nested Approach algorithm. Step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the Analytical Target Cascading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Object Spheres bi,µ (1, Light Purple), and Encom￾passing Sphere (Sphere of Influence) (2, red). Where an overlap in the Encompassing Spheres is seen. Problem 4. Subsystem Optimization Problem min x L i ζ∥x L i ∥ 2 + λ T i (x L i − γi ) + 1 2 ρ∥x L i − γi∥ 2 s.t. g obj-obj(x L i , x u i ) ≤ 0, where γi denotes the target position communicated from the system level, x u i are the shared or upper-level variab… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Cuboid Schematic: the dimensions 1x1x2 are shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: L-Shape Schematic; with on the left a single L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Unique benchmark schematic. The left shows the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The figure displays the difference between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Apples-to-apples comparison for configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Results of initialization with Genetic Algorithm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Results with randomized initialization using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: CasADi inter point optimization iteration step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Different Initializations from previous best [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: This figure displays two situations, the placement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: 14 Spheres placed in a 2x1x1 Cuboid TABLE XII: Comparison of Brute-Force and Marching Cubes performance and accuracy. Grid Size (Rough/Fine) Brute￾Force Time (s) Brute￾Force Error Marching Cubes Time (s) Marching Cubes Error 32/64 0.0846 0.0128% 0.1069 0.119% 64/128 0.5410 0.0031% 0.1636 0.039% 32/128 0.5194 0.0064% 0.1323 0.059% 128/256 5.0941 0.0007% 0.3526 0.007% 128/512 78.301 0.0004% 0.5999 0.004% me… view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The visual results of the nested algorithm with 4 objects, no routing and 20 spheres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The visual results of the SOI algorithm with 4 objects, no routing and 20 spheres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The visual results of the ATC algorithm with 4 objects, no routing and 20 spheres [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_22.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents an optimization framework for Spatial Packaging of Interconnected Systems with Physical Interactions (SPI2) that addresses the geometric challenges of three-dimensional component placement and routing. While SPI2 generally includes physical interactions, this study isolates the spatial optimization aspect to evaluate placement and routing performance independently. The framework integrates the Maximal Disjoint Ball Decomposition (MDBD) for geometric abstraction with a hybrid optimization strategy that combines stochastic initialization and gradient-based refinement with interior point optimization. It is formulated to handle the nonlinear, non-convex, and continuous characteristics of spatially coupled design problems. The proposed framework is evaluated against a use case from prior SPI2 research and tested with a newly introduced benchmark that enables verifiable assessment of optimization performance. Results indicate that the presented method achieves more than a 10% improvement over existing SPI2 implementations and converges to spatially analytical optima across various benchmark scenarios. Benchmark experiments show solution accuracy of 0.6-2% relative to the ground truth.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a hybrid optimization framework for Spatial Packaging of Interconnected Systems with Physical Interactions (SPI2), isolating the spatial optimization aspect from physical interactions. It combines Maximal Disjoint Ball Decomposition (MDBD) for geometric abstraction with a hybrid strategy of stochastic initialization and gradient-based refinement using interior-point optimization. The approach is evaluated on a prior SPI2 use case and a newly introduced benchmark, claiming more than 10% improvement over existing implementations, convergence to spatially analytical optima, and solution accuracy of 0.6-2% relative to ground truth.

Significance. If validated, the framework could advance practical tools for 3D component placement and routing in engineering design by addressing non-convex spatial coupling. The introduction of a verifiable benchmark is a constructive step toward reproducible assessment. However, the overall significance is constrained by the high-level presentation of results without supporting derivations or robustness checks.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central performance claims (>10% improvement, 0.6-2% accuracy, convergence to analytical optima) rest on high-level descriptions only, with no detailed derivations, error analysis, or data tables provided to support the quantitative figures.
  2. [Benchmark experiments] Benchmark experiments: The accuracy figures relative to ground truth are reported without variance across restarts, sensitivity analysis to initialization, or comparisons against a global solver on the same instances, leaving open the possibility that results reflect favorable test selection rather than consistent global optimality in non-convex landscapes.
  3. [Hybrid optimization strategy] Hybrid optimization strategy: The description of stochastic initialization plus interior-point refinement does not include formal convergence analysis or exhaustive verification, which is load-bearing for the claim that the method reliably reaches spatially analytical optima.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Clarify the precise formulation of the MDBD abstraction and how it interfaces with the continuous optimization variables.
  2. [Benchmark] Add explicit statements on the dimensionality and coupling structure of the new benchmark cases to allow readers to judge generalizability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where we agree revisions are warranted and providing our honest assessment of the claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central performance claims (>10% improvement, 0.6-2% accuracy, convergence to analytical optima) rest on high-level descriptions only, with no detailed derivations, error analysis, or data tables provided to support the quantitative figures.

    Authors: The abstract is by design a concise summary. The manuscript body contains the benchmark setup, optimization results, and comparisons that support the reported figures. To improve clarity, we will add a dedicated results table with the quantitative metrics, a brief error analysis summary, and explicit cross-references from the abstract to the supporting sections in the revised version. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Benchmark experiments] Benchmark experiments: The accuracy figures relative to ground truth are reported without variance across restarts, sensitivity analysis to initialization, or comparisons against a global solver on the same instances, leaving open the possibility that results reflect favorable test selection rather than consistent global optimality in non-convex landscapes.

    Authors: We agree that additional robustness checks would strengthen the presentation. The revised manuscript will report results from multiple restarts including variance, and will include sensitivity analysis to initialization. Direct comparison against a global solver is feasible only on the smallest instances due to computational cost on larger non-convex problems; we will add such comparisons for the verifiable benchmark cases to address the concern. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Hybrid optimization strategy] Hybrid optimization strategy: The description of stochastic initialization plus interior-point refinement does not include formal convergence analysis or exhaustive verification, which is load-bearing for the claim that the method reliably reaches spatially analytical optima.

    Authors: The hybrid strategy is presented as an empirical method that combines stochastic exploration with local refinement. Formal convergence guarantees are difficult to obtain for general non-convex spatial problems of this type. The manuscript relies on empirical verification through the new benchmark that permits comparison to analytical ground truth. We will expand the discussion section to include more detail on the verification procedure and the observed convergence behavior across the test cases. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected in derivation or claims

full rationale

The paper describes a hybrid optimization framework combining MDBD geometric abstraction with stochastic initialization plus interior-point gradient refinement for isolated spatial SPI2 problems. Central results (10%+ improvement, 0.6-2% accuracy to ground truth, convergence to analytical optima) are obtained by direct comparison to external prior SPI2 implementations and a newly introduced benchmark with verifiable ground truth. No equations or steps reduce by construction to the method's own inputs; no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions; no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work appear in the provided text. The evaluation is externally benchmarked rather than self-referential.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the framework relies on standard assumptions of nonlinear non-convex optimization and geometric abstraction techniques from prior literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5690 in / 866 out tokens · 36516 ms · 2026-05-19T22:42:04.915728+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

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Y. Haga, T. Matsunaga, T. Kobayashi, and N. Tsuruoka, ‘Min- imally Invasive Medical Devices and Healthcare Devices Using Microfabrication Technology’, in Advanced Mechatronics and MEMS Devices II, D. Zhang and B. Wei, Eds., in Microsystems and Nanosystems. , Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 329–340. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32180-6 15

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32180-6 2017

  2. [2]

    D. V. Kladko and V. V. Vinogradov, ‘Magnetosurgery: Princi- ples, design, and applications’, Smart Materials in Medicine, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 24–35, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.smaim.2023.06.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.smaim.2023.06.008 2024

  3. [3]

    Van Kampen, M

    J. Van Kampen, M. Salazar, and T. Hofman, ‘A Two-dimensional Spatial Optimization Framework for Vehicle Powertrain Sys- tems’, in 2023 IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Confer- ence (VPPC), Milan, Italy: IEEE, Oct. 2023, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/VPPC60535.2023.10403195

    work page doi:10.1109/vppc60535.2023.10403195 2023

  4. [4]

    Hofstetter, M

    M. Hofstetter, M. Hirz, M. Gintzel, and A. Schmidhofer, ‘Multi- Objective System Design Synthesis for Electric Powertrain De- velopment’, in 2018 IEEE Transportation Electrification Confer- ence and Expo (ITEC), Long Beach, CA: IEEE, Jun. 2018, pp. 286–292. doi: 10.1109/ITEC.2018.8450113

    work page doi:10.1109/itec.2018.8450113 2018

  5. [5]

    Cheng, Z

    R. Cheng, Z. Zhang, L. Jia, X. Zhang, and L. Yang, ‘Com- ponent matching optimization of high-performance turbofan engine based on experiment test and adaptive performance model to control the average gas temperature’, Propulsion and Power Research, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–13, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jppr.2025.02.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jppr.2025.02.001 2025

  6. [6]

    Avionics and Military Electronics Thermal Management Challenges are Sparking Innovative Solutions to Keep These Systems Cool,

    Howard, C., 2010, “Avionics and Military Electronics Thermal Management Challenges are Sparking Innovative Solutions to Keep These Systems Cool,” Military Aerospace Magazine

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Power and Thermal Management Considera- tions Move to the Forefront of Aerospace and Defense Electronic Systems,

    Howard, C., 2011, “Power and Thermal Management Considera- tions Move to the Forefront of Aerospace and Defense Electronic Systems,” Military Aerospace Magazine

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Borsboom, M

    O. Borsboom, M. Salazar, and T. Hofman, ‘Design Optimization of Electric Vehicle Drivetrains Using Surrogate Modeling Frame- works’, IEEE Open J. Veh. Technol., vol. 6, pp. 2776–2788, 2025, doi: 10.1109/OJVT.2025.3616195

    work page doi:10.1109/ojvt.2025.3616195 2025

  9. [9]

    S. R. T. 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 Oppor- tunities,” in *Volume 3B: 47th Design Automation Conference (DAC)*, Virtual, Online: American Society of Mech...

    work page doi:10.1115/detc2021- 2021

  10. [10]

    Spatial Packaging and Routing Optimization of Complex Interacting Engineered Systems,

    M. M. Behzadi, P. Zaffetti, J. Chen, L. E. Zeidner, and H. T. Ilie¸ s, “Spatial Packaging and Routing Optimization of Complex Interacting Engineered Systems,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 147, no. 7, p. 071704, July 2025, doi: 10.1115/1.4067427

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4067427 2025

  11. [11]

    Guirardello and R

    R. Guirardello and R. E. Swaney, ‘Optimization of pro- cess plant layout with pipe routing’, Computers & Chemi- cal Engineering, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 99–114, Nov. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.compchemeng.2005.08.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.compchemeng.2005.08.009 2005

  12. [12]

    2008, pp

    Natsuko Yano, Takashi Morinaga, and Tsutomu Saito, ‘Packing optimization for cargo containers’, in 2008 SICE Annual Con- ference, Chofu, Japan: IEEE, Aug. 2008, pp. 3479–3482. doi: 10.1109/SICE.2008.4655264

    work page doi:10.1109/sice.2008.4655264 2008

  13. [13]

    Accessed: Apr

    Wikipedia, ‘STL (file format)’, Wikipedia. Accessed: Apr. 17,

    work page

  14. [14]

    Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STL (file format)

    [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STL (file format)

    work page

  15. [15]

    Schneider, ‘NURB Curves: A Guide for the Uniniti- ated’, Develop, The Apple Technical Journal, no

    Philip J. Schneider, ‘NURB Curves: A Guide for the Uniniti- ated’, Develop, The Apple Technical Journal, no. 25, p. 128, Mar. 1996

    work page 1996

  16. [17]

    J. A. Norato, B. K. Bell, and D. A. Tortorelli, ‘A geometry projection method for continuum-based topology optimization with discrete elements’, Computer Methods in Applied Mechan- ics and Engineering, vol. 293, pp. 306–327, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.cma.2015.05.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cma.2015.05.005 2015

  17. [18]

    Chen and H

    J. Chen and H. T. Ilie¸ s, ‘Maximal Disjoint Ball Decompositions for shape modeling and analysis’, Computer-Aided Design, vol. 126, p. 102850, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2020.102850

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cad.2020.102850 2020

  18. [19]

    W. B. Bello et al., ‘Underhood Spatial Packing and Routing of an Automotive Fuel Cell System (AFCS) Using 2D Geometric Projection’, in AIAA SCITECH 2022 Forum, San Diego, CA & Virtual: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Jan. 2022. doi: 10.2514/6.2022-0804

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2022-0804 2022

  19. [20]

    Jessee, S

    A. Jessee, S. R. T. Peddada, D. J. Lohan, J. T. Allison, and K. A. James, ‘Simultaneous Packing and Routing Optimization Using Geometric Projection’, Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 142, no. 11, p. 111702, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1115/1.4046809

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4046809 2020

  20. [21]

    S. R. T. Peddada, K. A. James, and J. T. Allison, ‘A Novel Two- Stage Design Framework for Two-Dimensional Spatial Packing of 16 Interconnected Components’, Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 143, no. 3, p. 031706, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1115/1.4048817

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4048817 2021

  21. [23]

    W. B. Bello, S. R. T. Peddada, A. Bhattacharyya, L. E. Zei- dner, J. T. Allison, and K. A. James, ‘Multi-Physics Three- Dimensional Component Placement and Routing Optimization Using Geometric Projection’, Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 146, no. 8, p. 081702, Aug. 2024, doi: 10.1115/1.4064488

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4064488 2024

  22. [24]

    Parrott, S

    C. Parrott, S. Peddada, J. T. Allison, and K. James, ‘Ma- chine Learning Surrogates for Optimal 2D Spatial Packaging of Interconnected Systems with Physics Interactions (SPI2)’, in AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum, San Diego, CA and Online: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Jun. 2023. doi: 10.2514/6.2023-4375

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2023-4375 2023

  23. [25]

    S. R. T. Peddada, N. M. Dunfield, L. E. Zeidner, K. A. James, and J. T. Allison, ‘Systematic Enumeration and Iden- tification of Unique Spatial Topologies of 3D Systems Using Spatial Graph Representations’, in Volume 3A: 47th Design Automation Conference (DAC), Virtual, Online: American So- ciety of Mechanical Engineers, Aug. 2021, p. V03AT03A042. doi: 10...

    work page doi:10.1115/detc2021-66900 2021

  24. [26]

    Accessed: Mar

    Kyle Vu, ‘Computing Ball Insertion Sites for Maximal Disjoint Ball Decompositions’, Master Thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 2024. Accessed: Mar. 04, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://prod.ctda.dgicloud.com/node/3795011

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [27]

    Accessed: Jun

    Jiangce Chen, ‘Non-uniform Disjoint Ball Decomposition: For- mulations and Applications in Engineering Design’, Doctoral Thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 2023. Accessed: Jun. 04, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://archives.lib.uconn. edu/node/515065

    work page 2023

  26. [28]

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

    S. R. T. Peddada, L. E. Zeidner, H. T. Ilie¸ s, 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, no. 12, Aug. 2022. doi: 10.1115/1.4055055

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4055055 2022

  27. [30]

    Rosich, K

    A. Rosich, K. Berx, and G. Pinte, ‘Model-based design synthe- sis: application to optimal air-compressor system design**This work is partially granted by the IWT Agentschap voor Inno- vatie door Wetenschap en Technologie in the framework of the MBSE4Mechatronics project (ref. 130013). The authors grate- fully acknowledge the support. ’, IFAC-PapersOnLine,...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.10.604 2016

  28. [31]

    Svanberg, ‘The method of moving asymptotes—a new method for structural optimization’, Numerical Meth En- gineering, vol

    K. Svanberg, ‘The method of moving asymptotes—a new method for structural optimization’, Numerical Meth En- gineering, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 359–373, Feb. 1987, doi: 10.1002/nme.1620240207

    work page doi:10.1002/nme.1620240207 1987

  29. [32]

    mathworks, 2025

    ‘fmincon’ . mathworks, 2025. Accessed: Apr. 16, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://nl.mathworks.com/help/optim/ug/fmincon. html

    work page 2025

  30. [33]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, ‘Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization’, 2014, arXiv. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.1412.6980

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 2014

  31. [34]

    van de Wouw, Multibody and Nonlinear Dynamics, vol

    N. van de Wouw, Multibody and Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. Lec- ture Notes for the part on Multibody Dynamics 2017. Semester 1, Quartile 2. 4DM10. Eindhoven: TU/e Dereumaux Printservice, 2016

    work page 2017

  32. [35]

    Accessed: Aug

    Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, ‘Smooth maximum’, Boltz- mann operator. Accessed: Aug. 10, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth maximum

    work page 2025

  33. [36]

    CasADi — A software framework for nonlinear op- timization and optimal control,

    J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “CasADi — A software framework for nonlinear op- timization and optimal control,” Mathematical Programming Computation, 2018

    work page 2018

  34. [37]

    R. M. Freund and S. Mizuno, ‘Interior Point Methods: Current Status and Future Directions’, in High Performance Optimiza- tion, vol. 33, H. Frenk, K. Roos, T. Terlaky, and S. Zhang, Eds., in Applied Optimization, vol. 33. , Boston, MA: Springer US, 2000, pp. 441–466. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-3216-0 18

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3216-0 2000

  35. [38]

    Tosserams, L

    S. Tosserams, L. F. P. Etman, P. Y. Papalambros, and J. E. Rooda, ‘An augmented Lagrangian relaxation for analytical target cascading using the alternating direction method of multi- pliers’, Struct Multidisc Optim, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 176–189, Mar. 2006, doi: 10.1007/s00158-005-0579-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s00158-005-0579-0 2006

  36. [39]

    P. Wang, W. Xu, H. Zhu, H. Tian, and G. Cai, ‘An Application of Analytical Target Cascading for a Hierarchical Multidisci- plinary System: The Preliminary Design of a Launch Vehicle Powered by Hybrid Rocket Motors’, Aerospace, vol. 9, no. 12, p. 778, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.3390/aerospace9120778

    work page doi:10.3390/aerospace9120778 2022

  37. [40]

    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, no. 3, pp. 481–489, Sep. 2003, doi: 10.1115/1.1586308

    work page doi:10.1115/1.1586308 2003

  38. [41]

    pymoo: Multi-Objective Optimization in Python,

    J. Blank and K. Deb, “pymoo: Multi-Objective Optimization in Python,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 89497–89509, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2990567

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2020.2990567 2020

  39. [42]

    Ac- cessed: Oct

    Python Software Foundation, Python: Version 3.11.9, 2024. Ac- cessed: Oct. 30, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.python. org/ 17 Appendix A There are no standard programs yet to create Maximal Disjoint Ball Decomposition (MDBD) objects. The master thesis [25] describes a method to create a MDBD Object, however, this script is not publicly available. ...

    work page 2024

  40. [43]

    Computed mesh(x) using OPEN3D (closest point to Φ mesh)

    Coarse grid setup and mesh distance field Generate a rectilinear coarse gridG r ={xijk}⊂Ω withN r nodes per axis. Computed mesh(x) using OPEN3D (closest point to Φ mesh). Mask: setϕmesh(x) =−∞for outside,ϕmesh(x) = 0 on surface, andϕmesh(x)>0 inside. Initialized sph(x)←+∞onGr

    work page

  41. [44]

    Findx ⋆= arg maxϕcomb(x) and r⋆ coarse = maxϕcomb(x)

    Iterative placement (coarse→fine) form= 1toKdo Computeϕcomb(x) = min(ϕmesh(x),d sph(x)). Findx ⋆= arg maxϕcomb(x) and r⋆ coarse = maxϕcomb(x). ifr ⋆ coarse≤0then break Construct local fine gridG f aroundx ⋆. Recomputeϕmesh(p) andd sph(p) onG f. Computeϕcomb(p) = min(ϕmesh(p),d sph(p)). Findp ⋆= arg maxϕcomb(p) and r⋆= maxϕcomb(p). ifr ⋆≤0then continue App...

    work page 1905

  42. [45]

    TABLE XI: Sphere centers and radii within the 2×1×1 cuboid

    2x1x1 cuboid with 14 Spheres:First, the results of the cuboid filled with 14 spheres. TABLE XI: Sphere centers and radii within the 2×1×1 cuboid. Sphere Center X Center Y Center Z Radius 1 0.500031 0.500000 0.500000 0.500000 2 1.499969 0.499938 0.499938 0.499938 3 1.000000 0.177103 0.177103 0.177103 4 1.000000 0.177103 0.822897 0.177103 5 1.000000 0.82289...

    work page

  43. [46]

    Comparison:When comparing the marching cube approach from [25] to the brute-force method developed for this paper, the numerical results can be seen in Ta- ble XII and this table is also displayed in Fig. 19. From the results we can see that the Brute-Force algorithm is more accurate, but also slower than the Marching Cube Algorithm. D. Conclusion To rest...

    work page 2097