pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26134 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🧮 math.OC

Recognition: unknown

Reachability-Based Design Optimization for Aircraft Maneuverability

Boris Kramer, Jorge Cort\'es, Nicholas Orndorff, Steven Nguyen

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 15:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords reachability analysisdesign optimizationaircraft maneuverabilityblended-wing-bodyreference trackinglinear dynamicstrim pointsangle of attack
0
0 comments X

The pith

Optimizing aircraft wing spans with reachable sets from linear dynamics cuts nonlinear angle-of-attack tracking error by up to 30 percent.

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

The paper develops a design optimization method for highly maneuverable aircraft that folds control analysis directly into the geometry search. Reachable sets computed from linear dynamics around trim points serve as a proxy for the aircraft's controlled capabilities, allowing the optimizer to favor configurations whose inputs can actually reach the needed states. In the blended-wing-body example, this produces new values for wing half-span and center half-span that, when the full nonlinear model is later controlled, deliver up to 30 percent smaller tracking error on angle of attack. A reader should care because conventional shape optimization often produces airframes whose open-loop performance looks good but whose closed-loop maneuverability turns out to be limited.

Core claim

By optimizing the longitudinal reachable sets of a blended-wing-body aircraft around its trim points, the method selects wing half-span and center half-span values that improve the closed-loop reference-tracking performance of the nonlinear dynamics, yielding up to 30 percent less tracking error on angle of attack.

What carries the argument

Reachable sets of linear dynamics around trim points, which encode the states reachable under asymmetric bounded inputs and thereby quantify controlled maneuverability for the optimizer.

If this is right

  • Aircraft geometry choices can be scored by the volume or shape of their reachable sets rather than by open-loop metrics alone.
  • The same linear-reachability proxy can be applied to other design variables such as tail size or control-surface placement.
  • Reference-tracking controllers designed after optimization inherit the performance gains already baked into the reachable-set criterion.
  • The approach avoids the computational cost of full nonlinear reachable-set calculations while still improving closed-loop behavior.
  • Trim-point accounting automatically respects the asymmetric actuator limits typical of real aircraft.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same linear-reachability idea could be tested on fixed-wing drones or eVTOL vehicles where trim-point linearizations are already routine.
  • If the linear approximation underestimates reachable volume in certain flight regimes, the optimizer might still produce designs that are only marginally better than non-reachability baselines.
  • Extending the method to include multiple trim points simultaneously or to add stability-margin constraints would be a direct next step that does not require new theory.

Load-bearing premise

Reachable sets computed from linear dynamics around trim points sufficiently represent the controlled capabilities of the full nonlinear aircraft dynamics.

What would settle it

Nonlinear closed-loop simulation of the optimized geometry that shows no reduction in angle-of-attack tracking error relative to a baseline geometry chosen without reachability constraints.

read the original abstract

This paper presents a method for incorporating control analysis into design optimization for highly-maneuverable aircraft. By studying reachable sets for aircraft dynamics, we ensure that the optimizer will take the aircraft's controlled capabilities into account. We compute reachable sets of linear dynamics for computational efficiency, and account for aircraft trim points to factor in asymmetric magnitude bounds on the input signals. We demonstrate the proposed method in design optimization of a blended-wing-body aircraft. Considering its wing half-span and center half-span as design variables, we optimize the aircraft based on its longitudinal dynamics' reachable sets to yield improvements in its controlled performance. When designing a reference tracking controller, we find up to 30\% less tracking error for angle of attack of the optimized model's nonlinear dynamics.

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 paper proposes incorporating reachability analysis into aircraft design optimization for improved maneuverability. It computes reachable sets from linearized longitudinal dynamics around trim points (accounting for asymmetric input bounds via trim) to optimize design variables such as wing half-span and center half-span of a blended-wing-body aircraft. The resulting design is validated in nonlinear simulation, where a reference-tracking controller achieves up to 30% lower angle-of-attack tracking error compared to a baseline.

Significance. If the linear reachable-set surrogate reliably ranks designs by their nonlinear closed-loop tracking performance, the approach would provide a computationally tractable way to embed controllability metrics directly into multidisciplinary design optimization, addressing a longstanding gap between aerodynamic design and control requirements for highly maneuverable vehicles.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported 30% tracking-error reduction is presented without a baseline design description, controller details, error metric definition (RMS, integral, peak), number of evaluated designs, or any correlation between linear reachable-set volume and nonlinear tracking error across candidates; this leaves the central claim that the linear surrogate preserves performance ordering unsupported.
  2. [Method] The method section (implied by the abstract description): the claim that reachable sets of linear dynamics around trim points suffice for design optimization rests on the untested assumption that enlarging these sets improves nonlinear tracking; no intermediate diagnostic (e.g., scatter plot of reachable-set volume vs. nonlinear error, or nonlinear reachability comparison for the same designs) is supplied to substantiate the ordering preservation.
  3. [Validation] Validation paragraph: the nonlinear simulation result is given as a single scalar improvement without error bars, sensitivity to trim-point selection, or comparison against a direct nonlinear reachability baseline, making it impossible to judge whether the linear approximation is load-bearing or merely coincidental for the chosen operating region.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should explicitly state the precise optimization objective (e.g., reachable-set volume, Hausdorff distance, or a weighted combination) rather than the generic phrase 'controlled performance.'
  2. Notation for the linearization points, asymmetric bound handling, and reachable-set computation algorithm should be introduced with equation references for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses below and indicate the planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported 30% tracking-error reduction is presented without a baseline design description, controller details, error metric definition (RMS, integral, peak), number of evaluated designs, or any correlation between linear reachable-set volume and nonlinear tracking error across candidates; this leaves the central claim that the linear surrogate preserves performance ordering unsupported.

    Authors: We agree that additional context in the abstract would strengthen the presentation of our central claim. In the revised manuscript, we will update the abstract to include a description of the baseline design, details on the reference-tracking controller, the specific error metric used (RMS tracking error), the number of designs evaluated during optimization, and a statement on the correlation observed between reachable-set volumes and nonlinear tracking performance. These elements will help substantiate that the linear surrogate preserves the performance ordering. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] The method section (implied by the abstract description): the claim that reachable sets of linear dynamics around trim points suffice for design optimization rests on the untested assumption that enlarging these sets improves nonlinear tracking; no intermediate diagnostic (e.g., scatter plot of reachable-set volume vs. nonlinear error, or nonlinear reachability comparison for the same designs) is supplied to substantiate the ordering preservation.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the assumption underlying our approach requires empirical support through intermediate diagnostics. While the final nonlinear validation shows improvement, we will add a scatter plot in the revised manuscript illustrating the relationship between linear reachable-set volumes and nonlinear tracking errors across the candidate designs. This will provide evidence for the ordering preservation and justify the use of the linear surrogate. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Validation] Validation paragraph: the nonlinear simulation result is given as a single scalar improvement without error bars, sensitivity to trim-point selection, or comparison against a direct nonlinear reachability baseline, making it impossible to judge whether the linear approximation is load-bearing or merely coincidental for the chosen operating region.

    Authors: We agree that the validation section would be improved by additional details and analyses. We will incorporate error bars from repeated simulations, perform sensitivity studies with respect to trim-point selection, and discuss the role of the linear approximation. A full comparison to nonlinear reachability is not feasible due to computational demands, but we will clarify why the linear approach is appropriate for the design optimization loop. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Full direct nonlinear reachability comparison for multiple designs, as it is computationally intractable within the optimization framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: reachable-set objective is independent of reported nonlinear tracking error

full rationale

The optimization objective is defined directly from the volume (or similar metric) of reachable sets computed from the linearized longitudinal dynamics around trim points, with design variables (wing half-span, center half-span) entering only through the system matrices. The reported 30% reduction in angle-of-attack tracking error is obtained by applying a separate reference-tracking controller to the full nonlinear dynamics of the optimized design and is not part of the optimization cost or any fitted parameter. No equation equates the final tracking error to a reachable-set quantity by construction, and no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the result. The linear-to-nonlinear validation step therefore remains an external check rather than a tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard linear-systems reachability theory and the assumption that trim-point linearizations adequately represent controlled nonlinear behavior for optimization purposes.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Reachable sets of linear time-invariant dynamics can be computed efficiently and used as a proxy for controlled maneuverability.
    Invoked to justify linear approximation for computational efficiency in design loop.
  • domain assumption Aircraft trim points produce asymmetric magnitude bounds on inputs that must be incorporated into reachability.
    Stated as necessary to account for realistic actuator limits.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5422 in / 1341 out tokens · 67107 ms · 2026-05-07T15:02:03.501998+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

60 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Optimal Mix of Passive and Active Control in Structures,

    Smith, M. J., Grigoriadis, K. M., and Skelton, R. E., “Optimal Mix of Passive and Active Control in Structures,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 15, No. 4, 1992, pp. 912–919. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.20924

    work page doi:10.2514/3.20924 1992

  2. [2]

    ASurveyofStructuralFlexibilityEffectsonSpacecraftControlSystems,

    Deyst,J.,“ASurveyofStructuralFlexibilityEffectsonSpacecraftControlSystems,”7thAerospaceSciencesMeeting,American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, New York, NY, U.S.A., 1969. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1969-116

    work page doi:10.2514/6.1969-116 1969

  3. [3]

    Initial Performance Improvements Due to Design Modifications for the Pointing Control System on the Hubble Space Telescope,

    Nurre, G. S., Sharkey, J. P., and Waites, H. B., “Initial Performance Improvements Due to Design Modifications for the Pointing Control System on the Hubble Space Telescope,”Guidance and Control 1991, 1991, pp. 493–511

    1991

  4. [4]

    Hubble Space Telescope Pointing Control System Design Improvement Study Results,

    Bukley, A. P., “Hubble Space Telescope Pointing Control System Design Improvement Study Results,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1995, pp. 194–199. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.21369

    work page doi:10.2514/3.21369 1995

  5. [5]

    Control Co-Design: An Engineering Game Changer,

    Garcia-Sanz, M., “Control Co-Design: An Engineering Game Changer,”Advanced Control for Applications, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019, p. 18. https://doi.org/10.1002/adc2.18

    work page doi:10.1002/adc2.18 2019

  6. [6]

    Control of Motorcycle Steering Instabilities,

    Evangelou, S., Limebeer, D. J. N., Sharp, R. S., and Smith, M. C., “Control of Motorcycle Steering Instabilities,”IEEE Control Systems, Vol. 26, No. 5, 2006, pp. 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCS.2006.1700046

    work page doi:10.1109/mcs.2006.1700046 2006

  7. [7]

    Analyzing the Interaction of Design and Control—1. A Multiobjective Framework and Application to Binary Distillation Synthesis,

    Luyben, M., and Floudas, C., “Analyzing the Interaction of Design and Control—1. A Multiobjective Framework and Application to Binary Distillation Synthesis,”Computers & Chemical Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 10, 1994, pp. 933–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-1354(94)E0013-D

    work page doi:10.1016/0098-1354(94)e0013-d 1994

  8. [8]

    Analyzing the Interaction of Design and Control—2. Reactor-Separator-Recycle System,

    Luyben, M., and Fluodas, C., “Analyzing the Interaction of Design and Control—2. Reactor-Separator-Recycle System,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 10, 1994, pp. 971–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-1354(94)85006-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0098-1354(94)85006-2 1994

  9. [9]

    Scheduling and Feedback Co-Design for Networked Control Systems,

    Branicky, M., Phillips, S., and Wei Zhang, “Scheduling and Feedback Co-Design for Networked Control Systems,”Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2002., Vol. 2, IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2002, pp. 1211–1217. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2002.1184679

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc.2002.1184679 2002

  10. [10]

    Device for Damping Vibrations of Bodies,

    Frahm, H., “Device for Damping Vibrations of Bodies,” , Apr. 1911

    1911

  11. [11]

    Dynamic Behavior of Taipei 101 Tower: Field Measurement and Numerical Analysis,

    Li, Q. S., Zhi, L.-H., Tuan, A. Y., Kao, C.-S., Su, S.-C., and Wu, C.-F., “Dynamic Behavior of Taipei 101 Tower: Field Measurement and Numerical Analysis,”Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 1, 2011, pp. 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000264. 28

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)st.1943-541x.0000264 2011

  12. [12]

    Multicriteria Optimization for Design of Structures with Active Control,

    Khot, N. S., “Multicriteria Optimization for Design of Structures with Active Control,”Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1998, pp. 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(1998)11:2(45)

    work page doi:10.1061/(asce)0893-1321(1998)11:2(45 1998

  13. [13]

    Integrated Rotor-Flight Control System Optimization with Aeroelastic and Handling Qualities Constraints,

    Sahasrabudhe, V., Celi, R., and Tits, A. L., “Integrated Rotor-Flight Control System Optimization with Aeroelastic and Handling Qualities Constraints,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1997, pp. 217–224. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.4034

    work page doi:10.2514/2.4034 1997

  14. [14]

    A Control-Configured Flexible Arm: Integrated Structure Control Design,

    Asada, H., Park, J.-H., and Rai, S., “A Control-Configured Flexible Arm: Integrated Structure Control Design,”Proceedings. 1991 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, IEEE Comput. Soc. Press, Sacramento, CA, USA, 1991, pp. 2356–2362. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROBOT.1991.131755

    work page doi:10.1109/robot.1991.131755 1991

  15. [15]

    Towards Integrated Multidisciplinary Synthesis of Actively Controlled Fiber Composite Wings,

    Livne, E., Schmit, L. A., and Friedmann, P. P., “Towards Integrated Multidisciplinary Synthesis of Actively Controlled Fiber Composite Wings,”Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 27, No. 12, 1990, pp. 979–992. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.45972

    work page doi:10.2514/3.45972 1990

  16. [16]

    Integrated Aerodynamic/Structural Design of a Sailplane Wing,

    Grossman, B., Gurdal, Z., Strauch, G. J., Eppard, W. M., and Haftka, R. T., “Integrated Aerodynamic/Structural Design of a Sailplane Wing,”Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 25, No. 9, 1988, pp. 855–860. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.45670

    work page doi:10.2514/3.45670 1988

  17. [17]

    On Making Things the Best-Aeronautical Uses of Optimization,

    Ashley, H., “On Making Things the Best-Aeronautical Uses of Optimization,”Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1982, pp. 5–28. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.57350

    work page doi:10.2514/3.57350 1982

  18. [18]

    Integrated Aerodynamic-Structural Design of a Transport Wing,

    Grossman, B., Haftka, R. T., Kao, P.-J., Polen, D. M., Rais-Rohani, M., and Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., “Integrated Aerodynamic-Structural Design of a Transport Wing,”Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 27, No. 12, 1990, pp. 1050–1056. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.45980

    work page doi:10.2514/3.45980 1990

  19. [19]

    Multilevel Decomposition Approach to the Preliminary Sizing of a Transport Aircraft Wing,

    Wrenn, G. A., and Dovi, A. R., “Multilevel Decomposition Approach to the Preliminary Sizing of a Transport Aircraft Wing,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 25, No. 7, 1988, pp. 632–638. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.45634

    work page doi:10.2514/3.45634 1988

  20. [20]

    Integrated Aeroservoelastic Tailoring of Lifting Surfaces,

    Zeiler, T. A., and Weisshaar, T. A., “Integrated Aeroservoelastic Tailoring of Lifting Surfaces,”Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1988, pp. 76–83. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.45544

    work page doi:10.2514/3.45544 1988

  21. [21]

    IntegratingNonlinearControllabilityintoaMultidisciplinaryDesignProcess,

    Cunis,T.,Kolmanovsky,I.,andCesnik,C.E.S.,“IntegratingNonlinearControllabilityintoaMultidisciplinaryDesignProcess,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 46, No. 6, 2023, pp. 1026–1037. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G007067

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g007067 2023

  22. [22]

    Controllability Gramian as Control Design Objective in Aircraft Structural Design Optimization,

    Gupta, R., Zhao, W., and Kapania, R. K., “Controllability Gramian as Control Design Objective in Aircraft Structural Design Optimization,”AIAA Journal, Vol. 58, No. 7, 2020, pp. 3199–3220. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J059102

    work page doi:10.2514/1.j059102 2020

  23. [23]

    Design Metrics for the Landing of Supersonic Aircraft under Stochastic Turbulence,

    Bahia Monteiro, B., Kolmanovsky, I., and Cesnik, C. E., “Design Metrics for the Landing of Supersonic Aircraft under Stochastic Turbulence,”AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Orlando, FL, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2024-0901

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2024-0901 2024

  24. [24]

    Design of the Blended Wing Body Subsonic Transport,

    Liebeck, R. H., “Design of the Blended Wing Body Subsonic Transport,”Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2004, pp. 10–25. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.9084. 29

    work page doi:10.2514/1.9084 2004

  25. [25]

    I.,Beyond Tube-and-Wing: The X-48 Blended Wing-Body and NASA’s Quest to Reshape Future Transport Aircraft, NASA, 2020

    Larrimer, B. I.,Beyond Tube-and-Wing: The X-48 Blended Wing-Body and NASA’s Quest to Reshape Future Transport Aircraft, NASA, 2020

    2020

  26. [26]

    TheChallengeandPromiseofBlended-Wing-BodyOptimization,

    Wakayama,S.,andKroo,I.,“TheChallengeandPromiseofBlended-Wing-BodyOptimization,”7thAIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, St. Louis, MO, U.S.A., 1998. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1998-4736

    work page doi:10.2514/6.1998-4736 1998

  27. [27]

    Aerodynamic Design Optimization Studies of a Blended-Wing-Body Aircraft,

    Lyu, Z., and Martins, J. R. R. A., “Aerodynamic Design Optimization Studies of a Blended-Wing-Body Aircraft,”Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 51, No. 5, 2014, pp. 1604–1617. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C032491

    work page doi:10.2514/1.c032491 2014

  28. [28]

    Comparison of Blended Wing Body and Tube-and-Wing Performance Characteristics,

    Ahuja, J., Perron, C., Bermudez Rivera, R. D., Tai, J. C., and Mavris, D. N., “Comparison of Blended Wing Body and Tube-and-Wing Performance Characteristics,”The Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 129, No. 1337, 2025, pp. 1764–1790. https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2025.8

    work page doi:10.1017/aer.2025.8 2025

  29. [29]

    Hamilton-Jacobi Reachability: A Brief Overview and Recent Advances,

    Bansal, S., Chen, M., Herbert, S., and Tomlin, C. J., “Hamilton-Jacobi Reachability: A Brief Overview and Recent Advances,” 2017 IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE, Melbourne, Australia, 2017, pp. 2242–2253. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2017.8263977

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc.2017.8263977 2017

  30. [30]

    Computing Reachable Sets : An Introduction,

    Maler, O., “Computing Reachable Sets : An Introduction,” Tech. rep., 2008

    2008

  31. [31]

    Set Propagation Techniques for Reachability Analysis,

    Althoff, M., Frehse, G., and Girard, A., “Set Propagation Techniques for Reachability Analysis,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2021, pp. 369–395. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-control-071420-081941

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-control-071420-081941 2021

  32. [32]

    Reachability of Uncertain Linear Systems Using Zonotopes,

    Girard, A., “Reachability of Uncertain Linear Systems Using Zonotopes,”Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, Vol. 3414, edited by D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M. Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, O. Nierstrasz, C. Pandu Rangan, B. Steffen, M. Sudan, D. Terzopoulos, D. Tygar, M. Y. Vardi, G. Weikum, M. Morari, and L. Thiele, Spr...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-31954-2_19 2005

  33. [33]

    Ellipsoidal Techniques for Reachability Analysis,

    Kurzhanski, A. B., and Varaiya, P., “Ellipsoidal Techniques for Reachability Analysis,”Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, Vol. 1790, edited by G. Goos, J. Hartmanis, J. Van Leeuwen, N. Lynch, and B. H. Krogh, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000, pp. 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46430-1_19

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-46430-1_19 2000

  34. [34]

    Ellipsoidal Techniques for Reachability Analysis of Discrete-Time Linear Systems,

    Kurzhanskiy, A. A., and Varaiya, P., “Ellipsoidal Techniques for Reachability Analysis of Discrete-Time Linear Systems,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 52, No. 1, 2007, pp. 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2006.887900

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.2006.887900 2007

  35. [35]

    SpaceEx: Scalable Verification of Hybrid Systems,

    Frehse, G., Le Guernic, C., Donzé, A., Cotton, S., Ray, R., Lebeltel, O., Ripado, R., Girard, A., Dang, T., and Maler, O., “SpaceEx: Scalable Verification of Hybrid Systems,”Computer Aided Verification, Vol. 6806, edited by G. Gopalakrishnan and S. Qadeer, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22110-1_30 2011

  36. [36]

    An Introduction to CORA 2015,

    Althoff, M., “An Introduction to CORA 2015,”ARCH14-15. 1st and 2nd International Workshop on Applied veRification for ContinuousandHybridSystems,EPiCSeriesinComputing,Vol.34,EasyChair,2015,pp.120–87.https://doi.org/10.29007/zbkv. 30

    work page doi:10.29007/zbkv 2015

  37. [37]

    Zonotope Bundles for the Efficient Computation of Reachable Sets,

    Althoff, M., and Krogh, B. H., “Zonotope Bundles for the Efficient Computation of Reachable Sets,”IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference, IEEE, Orlando, FL, USA, 2011, pp. 6814–6821. https: //doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2011.6160872

    work page doi:10.1109/cdc.2011.6160872 2011

  38. [38]

    Application of Level Set Methods to Control and Reachability Problems in Continuous and Hybrid Systems,

    Mitchell, I. M., “Application of Level Set Methods to Control and Reachability Problems in Continuous and Hybrid Systems,” Ph.D. thesis, 2002

    2002

  39. [39]

    Synthesizing Controllers for Nonlinear Hybrid Systems,

    Tomlin, C., Lygeros, J., and Sastry, S., “Synthesizing Controllers for Nonlinear Hybrid Systems,”Hybrid Systems: Computation andControl,Vol.1386,editedbyG.Goos,J.Hartmanis,J.Leeuwen,T.A.Henzinger,andS.Sastry,SpringerBerlinHeidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998, pp. 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-64358-3_51

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-64358-3_51 1998

  40. [40]

    Henrion and M

    Mitchell, I., Bayen, A., and Tomlin, C., “A Time-Dependent Hamilton-Jacobi Formulation of Reachable Sets for Continuous Dynamic Games,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 50, No. 7, 2005, pp. 947–957. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC. 2005.851439

    work page doi:10.1109/tac 2005

  41. [41]

    Convex Hulls of Reachable Sets,

    Lew, T., Bonalli, R., and Pavone, M., “Convex Hulls of Reachable Sets,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 70, No. 12, 2025, pp. 8195–8209. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2025.3586777

    work page doi:10.1109/tac.2025.3586777 2025

  42. [42]

    Sampling-BasedReachabilityAnalysis: ARandomSetTheoryApproachwithAdversarialSampling,

    Lew,T.,andPavone,M.,“Sampling-BasedReachabilityAnalysis: ARandomSetTheoryApproachwithAdversarialSampling,” Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Robot Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 155, edited by J. Kober, F. Ramos, and C. Tomlin, PMLR, 2021, pp. 2055–2070

    2020

  43. [43]

    A Simple and Efficient Sampling-Based Algorithm for General Reachability Analysis,

    Lew, T., Janson, L., Bonalli, R., and Pavone, M., “A Simple and Efficient Sampling-Based Algorithm for General Reachability Analysis,”Proceedings of the 4th Annual Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 168, edited by R. Firoozi, N. Mehr, E. Yel, R. Antonova, J. Bohg, M. Schwager, and M. Kochenderfer, ...

    2022

  44. [44]

    Reachability Analysis of Linear Dynamic Systems with Constant, Arbitrary, and Lipschitz Continuous Inputs,

    Villegas Pico, H. N., and Aliprantis, D. C., “Reachability Analysis of Linear Dynamic Systems with Constant, Arbitrary, and Lipschitz Continuous Inputs,”Automatica, Vol. 95, 2018, pp. 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2018.05.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2018.05.026 2018

  45. [45]

    Aircraft Autolander Safety Analysis Through Optimal Control-Based Reach Set Computation,

    Bayen, A. M., Mitchell, I. M., Oishi, M. M. K., and Tomlin, C. J., “Aircraft Autolander Safety Analysis Through Optimal Control-Based Reach Set Computation,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2007, pp. 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.21562

    work page doi:10.2514/1.21562 2007

  46. [46]

    Flight Demonstration of Provably Safe Closely Spaced Parallel Approaches,

    Teo, R., Jang, J. S., and Tomlin, C., “Flight Demonstration of Provably Safe Closely Spaced Parallel Approaches,”AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, San Francisco, California, 2005. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-6197

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2005-6197 2005

  47. [47]

    A Differential Game Formulation of Alert Levels in ETMS Data for High Altitude Traffic,

    Bayen, A., Santhanam, S., Mitchell, I., and Tomlin, C., “A Differential Game Formulation of Alert Levels in ETMS Data for High Altitude Traffic,”AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Austin, Texas, 2003. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2003-5341. 31

    work page doi:10.2514/6.2003-5341 2003

  48. [48]

    Contributions to the Theory of Optimal Control,

    Kalman, R., “Contributions to the Theory of Optimal Control,”Boletin de la Sociedad Matematica Mexicana, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1960, pp. 102–119

    1960

  49. [49]

    Reachability Analysis for Design Optimization,

    Nguyen, S., Cortés, J., and Kramer, B., “Reachability Analysis for Design Optimization,”2026 American Control Conference (ACC), IEEE, 2026

    2026

  50. [50]

    Reachable Sets for Linear Dynamical Systems,

    Pecsvaradi, T., and Narendra, K. S., “Reachable Sets for Linear Dynamical Systems,”Information and Control, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1971, pp. 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(71)90173-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(71)90173-2 1971

  51. [51]

    https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203749319

    Pontryagin, L.,Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes, 1st ed., Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203749319

    work page doi:10.1201/9780203749319 2018

  52. [52]

    The Quickhull Algorithm for Convex Hulls,

    Barber, C. B., Dobkin, D. P., and Huhdanpaa, H., “The Quickhull Algorithm for Convex Hulls,”ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1996, pp. 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1145/235815.235821

    work page doi:10.1145/235815.235821 1996

  53. [53]

    Open Vehicle Sketch Pad: An Open Source Parametric Geometry and Analysis Tool for Conceptual Aircraft Design,

    McDonald, R. A., and Gloudemans, J. R., “Open Vehicle Sketch Pad: An Open Source Parametric Geometry and Analysis Tool for Conceptual Aircraft Design,”AIAA SciTech 2022 Forum, 2022, p. 0004

    2022

  54. [54]

    L., Lewis, F

    Stevens, B. L., Lewis, F. L., and Johnson, E. N.,Aircraft Control and Simulation: Dynamics, Controls Design, and Autonomous Systems: Dynamics, Controls Design, and Autonomous Systems, 1st ed., Wiley, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119174882

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119174882 2015

  55. [55]

    A.,Robust and Adaptive Control: With Aerospace Applications, Advanced Textbooks in Control and Signal Processing, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2024

    Lavretsky, E., and Wise, K. A.,Robust and Adaptive Control: With Aerospace Applications, Advanced Textbooks in Control and Signal Processing, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38314-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-38314-4 2024

  56. [56]

    A Fast, Memory-Efficient Panel Method for Large-Scale Multidisciplinary Design Optimization under Uncertainty Using Graph-Based Modeling,

    Scotzniovsky, L., and Hwang, J. T., “A Fast, Memory-Efficient Panel Method for Large-Scale Multidisciplinary Design Optimization under Uncertainty Using Graph-Based Modeling,”Aiaa Aviation Forum and Ascend 2025, 2025, p. 3021

    2025

  57. [57]

    P., and Cummings, R

    Raymer, D. P., and Cummings, R. M.,Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, seventh edition ed., AIAA Education Series, The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc, Reston, Virginia, 2024

    2024

  58. [58]

    PySLSQP: A Transparent Python Package for the SLSQPoptimization Algorithm Modernized with Utilities for Visualization Andpost-Processing,

    Joshy, A. J., and Hwang, J. T., “PySLSQP: A Transparent Python Package for the SLSQPoptimization Algorithm Modernized with Utilities for Visualization Andpost-Processing,”Journal of Open Source Software, Vol. 9, No. 103, 2024, p. 7246. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.07246

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.07246 2024

  59. [59]

    Rudin, W.,Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed., International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976

    1976

  60. [60]

    Anderson, B., and Moore, J.,Optimal Control: Linear Quadratic Methods, Dover Books on Engineering, Dover Publications, 2007. 32

    2007