System-of-systems Modeling and Optimization: An Integrated Framework for Intermodal Mobility

Jasper Bussemaker; Joseph Morlier; Nathalie Bartoli; Paul Saves; R\'emi Lafage; Thierry Lefebvre; Youssef Diouane

arxiv: 2507.08715 · v1 · submitted 2025-07-11 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.MA· cs.SY· eess.SY· math.OC

System-of-systems Modeling and Optimization: An Integrated Framework for Intermodal Mobility

Paul Saves , Jasper Bussemaker , R\'emi Lafage , Thierry Lefebvre , Nathalie Bartoli , Youssef Diouane , Joseph Morlier This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 05:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.MAcs.SYeess.SYmath.OC

keywords system-of-systemsintermodal mobilitysurrogate-based optimizationBayesian optimizationGaussian process modelsphysics-based simulationsmodeling and optimization

0 comments

The pith

An integrated framework uses Bayesian optimization with Gaussian processes to optimize system-of-systems for intermodal mobility.

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

The paper develops an integrated framework for modeling and optimizing system-of-systems architectures in intermodal mobility. Physics-based simulations are key to reducing complexity but bring high evaluation costs and risks of failure during optimization. Surrogate-based methods, particularly Bayesian optimization with Gaussian process models, are used to approximate these simulations and enable efficient exploration of new designs. This matters because it makes the architecting of complex mobility systems more practical by lowering computational barriers. A sympathetic reader would see this as a way to innovate in transportation without prohibitive simulation expenses.

Core claim

The paper claims that to address the challenges of increased evaluation costs and potential failures in using dedicated physics-based simulations for system-of-systems, surrogate-based optimization algorithms such as Bayesian optimization utilizing Gaussian process models have emerged as an effective solution for intermodal mobility applications.

What carries the argument

The surrogate-based optimization using Bayesian optimization and Gaussian process models, which approximates the expensive physics-based simulations to guide the search for optimal system architectures.

If this is right

Exploration of novel intermodal mobility architectures becomes computationally feasible.
Optimization processes can continue despite occasional simulation failures by relying on surrogate predictions.
The overall computational complexity of system-of-systems optimization is reduced.
More innovative designs can be evaluated within practical time and resource limits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If the surrogates prove accurate, this framework could be adapted to other system-of-systems problems in engineering.
Integrating real-world data with these models might further improve the reliability of the optimizations.
Scaling the approach to larger networks could reveal new insights into mobility system interactions.

Load-bearing premise

Gaussian-process surrogates can faithfully approximate the underlying physics-based simulations for intermodal mobility without introducing unacceptable approximation error or missing critical failure modes.

What would settle it

Running the optimization and finding that the surrogate model leads to architectures that perform poorly or fail in actual physics-based simulations, or that it misses known critical failure modes in the mobility system.

read the original abstract

For developing innovative systems architectures, modeling and optimization techniques have been central to frame the architecting process and define the optimization and modeling problems. In this context, for system-of-systems the use of efficient dedicated approaches (often physics-based simulations) is highly recommended to reduce the computational complexity of the targeted applications. However, exploring novel architectures using such dedicated approaches might pose challenges for optimization algorithms, including increased evaluation costs and potential failures. To address these challenges, surrogate-based optimization algorithms, such as Bayesian optimization utilizing Gaussian process models have emerged.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This applies known Bayesian optimization and Gaussian processes to intermodal mobility as a system-of-systems problem but offers no new methods or validation results.

read the letter

Hi, the main point is that this paper sets up an integrated framework for modeling and optimizing intermodal mobility using system-of-systems ideas, then points to surrogate-based methods like Bayesian optimization with Gaussian processes to deal with expensive physics simulations and occasional failures. It is an application piece rather than a methodological one. The authors correctly flag the practical headaches of high evaluation costs and simulation crashes when exploring new mobility architectures, and they note that surrogates have become a standard response in the literature. That framing is reasonable and useful for engineers who actually run these kinds of models. The paper earns credit for keeping the focus on a concrete domain where those costs matter. The soft spots are straightforward. The abstract contains no experiments, no error metrics, no comparisons against other optimizers, and no check on how faithfully the Gaussian processes approximate the underlying physics or whether they miss critical failure modes. The statement that these surrogate techniques have emerged is accurate but not a contribution from this work. Without seeing numbers or derivations in the full text, it is hard to judge whether the proposed framework actually reduces costs or improves reliability. The weakest assumption is that the surrogates will be faithful enough for the mobility simulations, yet nothing is shown to support or test that. This paper is mainly for transportation systems engineers or mobility architects who need a high-level template for combining physics models with surrogates. A reader already working in intermodal optimization might pick up a useful reference or starting point. Broader optimization or AI audiences will not find new techniques or strong evidence here. It deserves peer review so referees can check the full framework details and any empirical support that may be in the manuscript.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript outlines an integrated framework for system-of-systems modeling and optimization in intermodal mobility applications. It recommends physics-based simulations to manage computational complexity in architecting processes but notes that these approaches introduce challenges for optimization algorithms, specifically high evaluation costs and potential simulation failures. The text states that surrogate-based optimization methods, such as Bayesian optimization with Gaussian process models, have emerged to mitigate these issues.

Significance. If the proposed framework includes concrete implementations, integration details, and empirical validation showing that surrogates faithfully approximate physics-based intermodal mobility simulations with acceptable error, it could offer practical value for reducing optimization costs in complex mobility system design. The current high-level presentation, however, provides no experiments, metrics, or comparisons, limiting the assessed significance to a conceptual overview of existing techniques.

major comments (1)

Abstract: The statement that surrogate-based algorithms 'have emerged' to address evaluation costs and failures is presented without any supporting data, error analysis, or demonstration that Gaussian process models can approximate the underlying physics-based simulations without unacceptable approximation error or missed failure modes. This leaves the central motivation for the integrated framework unsupported by evidence in the provided text.

minor comments (1)

The abstract would benefit from explicit statements on the novel elements of the 'integrated framework' versus a review of prior surrogate methods.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We appreciate the referee's detailed review of our manuscript on the integrated framework for system-of-systems modeling and optimization in intermodal mobility. We address the major comment regarding the abstract below, providing clarifications and proposing revisions to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract: The statement that surrogate-based algorithms 'have emerged' to address evaluation costs and failures is presented without any supporting data, error analysis, or demonstration that Gaussian process models can approximate the underlying physics-based simulations without unacceptable approximation error or missed failure modes. This leaves the central motivation for the integrated framework unsupported by evidence in the provided text.

Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern that the abstract statement lacks specific supporting evidence within the manuscript. The claim that surrogate-based optimization methods have emerged to mitigate high evaluation costs and simulation failures is drawn from the broader literature in optimization and systems engineering, where Gaussian process-based Bayesian optimization has been extensively applied to expensive black-box functions, including physics-based simulations. While our manuscript focuses on proposing an integrated framework rather than conducting a new empirical study on approximation errors, we agree that adding supporting references would enhance the motivation. We will revise the abstract and introduction to include key citations, such as works demonstrating the use of surrogates in mobility and transportation optimization problems, and briefly discuss known error bounds and failure handling strategies in surrogate models. This revision will provide the necessary context without altering the core contribution of the framework. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper describes a high-level integrated framework for system-of-systems modeling and optimization in intermodal mobility. It notes the use of physics-based simulations and the emergence of surrogate-based methods such as Bayesian optimization with Gaussian processes to handle evaluation costs and failures. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citations are presented that reduce any claimed result to its own inputs by construction. The content remains at the level of background motivation and general approach without load-bearing steps that would trigger circularity analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no visible free parameters or invented entities. The text relies on the domain assumption that physics-based simulations are both necessary and prohibitively expensive for system-of-systems optimization.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Physics-based simulations are required for accurate system-of-systems modeling yet incur high evaluation costs and risk of failure inside optimization loops.
Directly stated in the abstract as the motivation for turning to surrogates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5643 in / 1134 out tokens · 56948 ms · 2026-05-19T05:21:02.065788+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

surrogate-based optimization algorithms, such as Bayesian optimization utilizing Gaussian process models have emerged
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

SEGOMOE ... based on surrogate models from SMT ... to handle hierarchical variables

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

System Architecture Optimization Strategies: Dealing with Expensive Hierarchical Problems,

Bussemaker, J. H., Saves, P., Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., and Lafage, R., “System Architecture Optimization Strategies: Dealing with Expensive Hierarchical Problems,”Journal of Global Optimization, Vol. 90, 2024, pp. 1–45

work page 2024
[2]

Adaptive modeling strategy for constrained global optimization with application to aerodynamic wing design,

Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., Dubreuil, S., Olivanti, R., Priem, R., Bons, N., Martin, J., and Morlier, J., “Adaptive modeling strategy for constrained global optimization with application to aerodynamic wing design,”Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 90, 2019, pp. 85–102

work page 2019
[3]

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. H., Lefebvre, T., Hwang, J. T., Morlier, J., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “SMT 2.0: A Surrogate Modeling Toolbox with a focus on Hierarchical and Mixed Variables Gaussian Processes,” Advances in Engineering Sofware, Vol. 188, 2024, pp. 1–15

work page 2024
[4]

SBArchOpt: Surrogate-Based Architecture Optimization,

Bussemaker, J. H., “SBArchOpt: Surrogate-Based Architecture Optimization,”Journal of Open Source Software, Vol. 8, 2023, p. 5564

work page 2023
[5]

System architecture optimization: An open source multidisciplinary aircraft jet engine architecting problem,

Bussemaker, J. H., Smedt, T. D., La Rocca, G., Ciampa, P. D., and Nagel, B., “System architecture optimization: An open source multidisciplinary aircraft jet engine architecting problem,”AIAA AVIATION 2021 Forum, 2021, p. 3078

work page 2021
[6]

Surrogate-Based Optimization of System Architectures Subject to Hidden Constraints,

Bussemaker, J. H., Saves, P., Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., and Nagel, B., “Surrogate-Based Optimization of System Architectures Subject to Hidden Constraints,”AIAA Aviation 2024 Forum, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

HALE multidisciplinary design optimization with a focus on eco-material selection,

Duriez, E., and Morlier, J., “HALE multidisciplinary design optimization with a focus on eco-material selection,”Aerospace Europe Conference, 2020

work page 2020
[8]

AnefficientapplicationofBayesianoptimization to an industrial MDO framework for aircraft design,

Priem,R.,Gagnon,H.,Chittick,I.,Dufresne,S.,Diouane,Y.,andBartoli,N.,“AnefficientapplicationofBayesianoptimization to an industrial MDO framework for aircraft design,”AIAA AVIATION 2020 FORUM, 2020, p. 3152

work page 2020
[9]

The AGILE Paradigm: the next generation of collaborative MDO,

Ciampa, P. D., and Nagel, B., “The AGILE Paradigm: the next generation of collaborative MDO,”18th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2017

work page 2017
[10]

A unified description of MDO architectures,

Lambe, A., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “A unified description of MDO architectures,”9th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2011

work page 2011
[11]

Extensions to the design structure matrix for the description of multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization processes,

Lambe, A., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Extensions to the design structure matrix for the description of multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization processes,”Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 46, 2012, pp. 273–284

work page 2012
[12]

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: A Survey of Architectures,

Martins, J. R. R. A., and Lambe, A., “Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: A Survey of Architectures,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 51, 2013, pp. 2049–2075

work page 2013
[13]

Large-Scale Path-Dependent Optimization of Supersonic Aircraft,

Jasa, J. P., Brelje, B. J., Gray, J. S., Mader, C. A., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Large-Scale Path-Dependent Optimization of Supersonic Aircraft,”Aerospace, Vol. 7, No. 10, 2020

work page 2020
[14]

Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions,

Jones, D. R., Schonlau, M., and Welch, W. J., “Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions,”Journal of Global Optimization, Vol. 13, 1998, pp. 455–492

work page 1998
[15]

OnBayesianmethodsforseekingtheextremum,

Močkus,J.,“OnBayesianmethodsforseekingtheextremum,”OptimizationTechniquesIFIPTechnicalConferenceNovosibirsk , 1974

work page 1974
[16]

AUnifyingViewofSparseApproximateGaussianProcessRegression,

Rasmussen,C.E.,andQuiñonero-Candela,J.,“AUnifyingViewofSparseApproximateGaussianProcessRegression,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 6, 2005, p. 1939–1959. 8 of 9 ODAS 2024: 24th joint ONERA-DLR Aerospace Symposium

work page 2005
[17]

Forrester, A., Sobester, A., and Keane, A.,Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling: A Practical Guide, Wiley, 2008

work page 2008
[18]

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, 2002, pp. 263–278

work page 2002
[19]

Constrained Bayesian optimization over mixed categorical variables, with application to aircraft design,

Saves, P., Bartoli, N., Diouane, Y., Lefebvre, T., Morlier, J., David, C., Nguyen Van, E., and Defoort, S., “Constrained Bayesian optimization over mixed categorical variables, with application to aircraft design,”AeroBest 2021, 2021

work page 2021
[20]

A mixed-categorical correlation kernel for Gaussian process,

Saves, P., Diouane, Y., Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., and Morlier, J., “A mixed-categorical correlation kernel for Gaussian process,” Neurocomputing, Vol. 550, 2023, p. 126472

work page 2023
[21]

High-dimensional mixed-categorical Gaussian processes with application to multidisciplinary design optimization for a green aircraft,

Saves, P., Diouane, Y., Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., and Morlier, J., “High-dimensional mixed-categorical Gaussian processes with application to multidisciplinary design optimization for a green aircraft,”Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 67, 2024, p. 81

work page 2024
[22]

A Python surrogate modeling framework with derivatives,

Bouhlel, M. A., Hwang, J. T., Bartoli, N., Lafage, R., Morlier, J., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “A Python surrogate modeling framework with derivatives,”Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 135, 2019, p. 102662

work page 2019
[23]

Regularized Infill Criteria for Multi-objective Bayesian Optimization with Application to Aircraft Design,

Grapin, R., Diouane, Y., Morlier, J., Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., Saves, P., and Bussemaker, J. H., “Regularized Infill Criteria for Multi-objective Bayesian Optimization with Application to Aircraft Design,”AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum, 2022

work page 2022
[24]

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, p. 105980

work page 2020
[25]

Bayesian optimization with hidden constraints for aircraft design,

Tfaily, A., Diouane, Y., Kokkolaras, M., and Bartoli, N., “Bayesian optimization with hidden constraints for aircraft design,” Les Cahiers du GERAD, Vol. 711, 2024, p. 2440

work page 2024
[26]

Efficient Acquisition Functions for Bayesian Optimization in the Presence of Hidden Constraints,

Tfaily, A., Kokkolaras, M., Bartoli, N., and Diouane, Y., “Efficient Acquisition Functions for Bayesian Optimization in the Presence of Hidden Constraints,”AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum, 2023

work page 2023
[27]

System Architecture Design Space Exploration: An Approach to Modeling and Optimization,

Bussemaker, J. H., Ciampa, P. D., and Nagel, B., “System Architecture Design Space Exploration: An Approach to Modeling and Optimization,”AIAA AVIATION 2020 FORUM, 2020

work page 2020
[28]

From system architecting to system design and optimization: A link between MBSE and MDAO,

Bussemaker, J. H., Boggero, L., and Ciampa, P. D., “From system architecting to system design and optimization: A link between MBSE and MDAO,”INCOSE International Symposium, 2022

work page 2022
[29]

Recent Advances in Data-Driven Modeling for Aerodynamic Applications using DLR’s SMARTy Toolbox,

Bekemeyer, P., Barklage, A., Chaves, D. A. H., Stradtner, M., and Görtz, S., “Recent Advances in Data-Driven Modeling for Aerodynamic Applications using DLR’s SMARTy Toolbox,”AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, 2024, p. 0010

work page 2024
[30]

WhatsOpt: a web application for multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization,

Lafage, R., Defoort, S., and Lefebvre, T., “WhatsOpt: a web application for multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization,” AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, 2019

work page 2019
[31]

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

Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., and Meyarivan, T., “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II,”IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, Vol. 6, 2002, pp. 182–197

work page 2002
[32]

High-dimensional multidisciplinary design optimization for aircraft eco-design/Optimisation multi-disciplinaire en grande dimension pour l’eco-conception avion en avant-projet,

Saves, P., “High-dimensional multidisciplinary design optimization for aircraft eco-design/Optimisation multi-disciplinaire en grande dimension pour l’eco-conception avion en avant-projet,” Ph.D. thesis, ISAE-SUPAERO, 2024

work page 2024
[33]

Bayesian optimization for mixed variables using an adaptive dimension reduction process: applications to aircraft design,

Saves, P., Nguyen Van, E., Bartoli, N., Diouane, Y., Lefebvre, T., David, C., Defoort, S., and Morlier, J., “Bayesian optimization for mixed variables using an adaptive dimension reduction process: applications to aircraft design,”AIAA SciTech 2022 Forum, 2022

work page 2022
[34]

RCE: an integration environment for engineering and science,

Boden, B., Flink, J., Först, N., Mischke, R., Schaffert, K., Weinert, A., Wohlan, A., and Schreiber, A., “RCE: an integration environment for engineering and science,”SoftwareX, Vol. 15, 2021, p. 100759. 9 of 9 ODAS 2024: 24th joint ONERA-DLR Aerospace Symposium

work page 2021

[1] [1]

System Architecture Optimization Strategies: Dealing with Expensive Hierarchical Problems,

Bussemaker, J. H., Saves, P., Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., and Lafage, R., “System Architecture Optimization Strategies: Dealing with Expensive Hierarchical Problems,”Journal of Global Optimization, Vol. 90, 2024, pp. 1–45

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Adaptive modeling strategy for constrained global optimization with application to aerodynamic wing design,

Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., Dubreuil, S., Olivanti, R., Priem, R., Bons, N., Martin, J., and Morlier, J., “Adaptive modeling strategy for constrained global optimization with application to aerodynamic wing design,”Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 90, 2019, pp. 85–102

work page 2019

[3] [3]

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. H., Lefebvre, T., Hwang, J. T., Morlier, J., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “SMT 2.0: A Surrogate Modeling Toolbox with a focus on Hierarchical and Mixed Variables Gaussian Processes,” Advances in Engineering Sofware, Vol. 188, 2024, pp. 1–15

work page 2024

[4] [4]

SBArchOpt: Surrogate-Based Architecture Optimization,

Bussemaker, J. H., “SBArchOpt: Surrogate-Based Architecture Optimization,”Journal of Open Source Software, Vol. 8, 2023, p. 5564

work page 2023

[5] [5]

System architecture optimization: An open source multidisciplinary aircraft jet engine architecting problem,

Bussemaker, J. H., Smedt, T. D., La Rocca, G., Ciampa, P. D., and Nagel, B., “System architecture optimization: An open source multidisciplinary aircraft jet engine architecting problem,”AIAA AVIATION 2021 Forum, 2021, p. 3078

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Surrogate-Based Optimization of System Architectures Subject to Hidden Constraints,

Bussemaker, J. H., Saves, P., Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., and Nagel, B., “Surrogate-Based Optimization of System Architectures Subject to Hidden Constraints,”AIAA Aviation 2024 Forum, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

HALE multidisciplinary design optimization with a focus on eco-material selection,

Duriez, E., and Morlier, J., “HALE multidisciplinary design optimization with a focus on eco-material selection,”Aerospace Europe Conference, 2020

work page 2020

[8] [8]

AnefficientapplicationofBayesianoptimization to an industrial MDO framework for aircraft design,

Priem,R.,Gagnon,H.,Chittick,I.,Dufresne,S.,Diouane,Y.,andBartoli,N.,“AnefficientapplicationofBayesianoptimization to an industrial MDO framework for aircraft design,”AIAA AVIATION 2020 FORUM, 2020, p. 3152

work page 2020

[9] [9]

The AGILE Paradigm: the next generation of collaborative MDO,

Ciampa, P. D., and Nagel, B., “The AGILE Paradigm: the next generation of collaborative MDO,”18th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2017

work page 2017

[10] [10]

A unified description of MDO architectures,

Lambe, A., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “A unified description of MDO architectures,”9th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2011

work page 2011

[11] [11]

Extensions to the design structure matrix for the description of multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization processes,

Lambe, A., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Extensions to the design structure matrix for the description of multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization processes,”Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 46, 2012, pp. 273–284

work page 2012

[12] [12]

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: A Survey of Architectures,

Martins, J. R. R. A., and Lambe, A., “Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: A Survey of Architectures,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 51, 2013, pp. 2049–2075

work page 2013

[13] [13]

Large-Scale Path-Dependent Optimization of Supersonic Aircraft,

Jasa, J. P., Brelje, B. J., Gray, J. S., Mader, C. A., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Large-Scale Path-Dependent Optimization of Supersonic Aircraft,”Aerospace, Vol. 7, No. 10, 2020

work page 2020

[14] [14]

Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions,

Jones, D. R., Schonlau, M., and Welch, W. J., “Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions,”Journal of Global Optimization, Vol. 13, 1998, pp. 455–492

work page 1998

[15] [15]

OnBayesianmethodsforseekingtheextremum,

Močkus,J.,“OnBayesianmethodsforseekingtheextremum,”OptimizationTechniquesIFIPTechnicalConferenceNovosibirsk , 1974

work page 1974

[16] [16]

AUnifyingViewofSparseApproximateGaussianProcessRegression,

Rasmussen,C.E.,andQuiñonero-Candela,J.,“AUnifyingViewofSparseApproximateGaussianProcessRegression,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 6, 2005, p. 1939–1959. 8 of 9 ODAS 2024: 24th joint ONERA-DLR Aerospace Symposium

work page 2005

[17] [17]

Forrester, A., Sobester, A., and Keane, A.,Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling: A Practical Guide, Wiley, 2008

work page 2008

[18] [18]

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, 2002, pp. 263–278

work page 2002

[19] [19]

Constrained Bayesian optimization over mixed categorical variables, with application to aircraft design,

Saves, P., Bartoli, N., Diouane, Y., Lefebvre, T., Morlier, J., David, C., Nguyen Van, E., and Defoort, S., “Constrained Bayesian optimization over mixed categorical variables, with application to aircraft design,”AeroBest 2021, 2021

work page 2021

[20] [20]

A mixed-categorical correlation kernel for Gaussian process,

Saves, P., Diouane, Y., Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., and Morlier, J., “A mixed-categorical correlation kernel for Gaussian process,” Neurocomputing, Vol. 550, 2023, p. 126472

work page 2023

[21] [21]

High-dimensional mixed-categorical Gaussian processes with application to multidisciplinary design optimization for a green aircraft,

Saves, P., Diouane, Y., Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., and Morlier, J., “High-dimensional mixed-categorical Gaussian processes with application to multidisciplinary design optimization for a green aircraft,”Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 67, 2024, p. 81

work page 2024

[22] [22]

A Python surrogate modeling framework with derivatives,

Bouhlel, M. A., Hwang, J. T., Bartoli, N., Lafage, R., Morlier, J., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “A Python surrogate modeling framework with derivatives,”Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 135, 2019, p. 102662

work page 2019

[23] [23]

Regularized Infill Criteria for Multi-objective Bayesian Optimization with Application to Aircraft Design,

Grapin, R., Diouane, Y., Morlier, J., Bartoli, N., Lefebvre, T., Saves, P., and Bussemaker, J. H., “Regularized Infill Criteria for Multi-objective Bayesian Optimization with Application to Aircraft Design,”AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum, 2022

work page 2022

[24] [24]

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, p. 105980

work page 2020

[25] [25]

Bayesian optimization with hidden constraints for aircraft design,

Tfaily, A., Diouane, Y., Kokkolaras, M., and Bartoli, N., “Bayesian optimization with hidden constraints for aircraft design,” Les Cahiers du GERAD, Vol. 711, 2024, p. 2440

work page 2024

[26] [26]

Efficient Acquisition Functions for Bayesian Optimization in the Presence of Hidden Constraints,

Tfaily, A., Kokkolaras, M., Bartoli, N., and Diouane, Y., “Efficient Acquisition Functions for Bayesian Optimization in the Presence of Hidden Constraints,”AIAA AVIATION 2023 Forum, 2023

work page 2023

[27] [27]

System Architecture Design Space Exploration: An Approach to Modeling and Optimization,

Bussemaker, J. H., Ciampa, P. D., and Nagel, B., “System Architecture Design Space Exploration: An Approach to Modeling and Optimization,”AIAA AVIATION 2020 FORUM, 2020

work page 2020

[28] [28]

From system architecting to system design and optimization: A link between MBSE and MDAO,

Bussemaker, J. H., Boggero, L., and Ciampa, P. D., “From system architecting to system design and optimization: A link between MBSE and MDAO,”INCOSE International Symposium, 2022

work page 2022

[29] [29]

Recent Advances in Data-Driven Modeling for Aerodynamic Applications using DLR’s SMARTy Toolbox,

Bekemeyer, P., Barklage, A., Chaves, D. A. H., Stradtner, M., and Görtz, S., “Recent Advances in Data-Driven Modeling for Aerodynamic Applications using DLR’s SMARTy Toolbox,”AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, 2024, p. 0010

work page 2024

[30] [30]

WhatsOpt: a web application for multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization,

Lafage, R., Defoort, S., and Lefebvre, T., “WhatsOpt: a web application for multidisciplinary design analysis and optimization,” AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, 2019

work page 2019

[31] [31]

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

Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., and Meyarivan, T., “A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II,”IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation, Vol. 6, 2002, pp. 182–197

work page 2002

[32] [32]

High-dimensional multidisciplinary design optimization for aircraft eco-design/Optimisation multi-disciplinaire en grande dimension pour l’eco-conception avion en avant-projet,

Saves, P., “High-dimensional multidisciplinary design optimization for aircraft eco-design/Optimisation multi-disciplinaire en grande dimension pour l’eco-conception avion en avant-projet,” Ph.D. thesis, ISAE-SUPAERO, 2024

work page 2024

[33] [33]

Bayesian optimization for mixed variables using an adaptive dimension reduction process: applications to aircraft design,

Saves, P., Nguyen Van, E., Bartoli, N., Diouane, Y., Lefebvre, T., David, C., Defoort, S., and Morlier, J., “Bayesian optimization for mixed variables using an adaptive dimension reduction process: applications to aircraft design,”AIAA SciTech 2022 Forum, 2022

work page 2022

[34] [34]

RCE: an integration environment for engineering and science,

Boden, B., Flink, J., Först, N., Mischke, R., Schaffert, K., Weinert, A., Wohlan, A., and Schreiber, A., “RCE: an integration environment for engineering and science,”SoftwareX, Vol. 15, 2021, p. 100759. 9 of 9 ODAS 2024: 24th joint ONERA-DLR Aerospace Symposium

work page 2021