Aligning feature-mapping designs to given density fields, first and second order

The geometric primitive used throughout this work is a capsule-shaped bar with endpoints $P=(p_{x},p_{y})$, $Q=(q_{x},q_{y})$ and profile radius $r$, i.e. $r$ is the half-width of the capsule and $2r$ its full width. For the single feature case, this defines the shape variables

see Fig. 1. In structural optimization this is an obvious model, e.g., employed in Norato et al. (2015). The other common bar representation is by a rectangle or trapezoid; however, its convex corners come with minor differentiability issues and, unlike the $C^{1}$ capsule boundary, do not admit level sets parallel to the boundary everywhere.

Crucial for feature mapping is the definition of a differentiable signed distance function $d({\boldsymbol{x}};{\boldsymbol{s}})$, which gives the shortest distance of a point ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ to the feature boundary. For the present capsule feature, the distance is measured either to the nearer endpoint or, if the orthogonal projection of ${\boldsymbol{x}}$ onto the axis falls within the segment, to the side. The relative position of this foot point,

selects the case,

where ${\boldsymbol{n}}$ is perpendicular to the line segment from $P$ to $Q$ and normalized. As shown in Fig. 1, we obtain a continuous distance field, which is $C^{1}$ everywhere except for a kink at the line segment $\overline{PQ}$ (uncritical with $a<r$), and $C^{2}$ apart from the boundaries between the cap and side cases. There the gradient of $d$ stays continuous and only its second derivatives jump, as the level sets change from straight lines parallel to the axis within the side case to concentric circles within the caps. Outside the feature, the distance is positive, inside it is negative, and on the boundary it is zero, see Fig. 2. This is very similar to the level-set function $\phi({\boldsymbol{x}})$ used in level-set methods (usually with opposite sign convention). The efficiency of the evaluation of the distance function is a key factor for the computational efficiency of feature-mapping methods. To apply different feature types, one just needs to provide an appropriate signed distance function.

The intention is to map the feature, given by its parameters ${\boldsymbol{s}}$, to a density field $\rho({\boldsymbol{x}};{\boldsymbol{s}})\in[0,1]$ with the idea of 1 (solid) inside the feature and 0 (void) outside. In structural optimization, a small positive lower bound $\rho_{\min}$ is often used instead of zero. To obtain a differentiable mapping with $\frac{\partial{\rho}}{\partial{s}}$ available, we introduce a transition function $H:\mathbb{R}\to[0,1]$ that maps the signed distance to a (continuous) pseudo-density field. A common choice is a transition function symmetric around the feature boundary with a width of $2\,a$, see Fig. 2. In Sec. 2.3 this will be extended to the asymmetric case. The requirements are $H(-a)=1,\,H(0)=0.5,\,H(a)=0$ and $H^{\prime}(-a)=H^{\prime}(a)=0$. This is fulfilled by a cubic polynomial

The final step for the mapping is to obtain piecewise constant pseudo density values $\rho_{e}\in[0,1]$ by integrating $H$, which is practically realized by numerical integration

Many authors apply midpoint evaluation, i.e., $N_{\text{ip}}=1$, but as pointed out in Wein et al. (2020), a sufficiently accurate numerical integration (e.g., $5\times 5$ in 2D) indeed matters.

The first-order analysis is standard, but we give it in some detail, as the intermediate derivatives are reused for the second-order analysis in Sec. 4.2. This is the single-feature formulation, multi-feature aggregation is added in Sec. 2.4.

In full formulation, we have $\rho({\boldsymbol{x}})=H(d({\boldsymbol{x}};{\boldsymbol{s}});a)$ and obtain the sensitivity via chain rule using (6), (5) and (4):

with

and $s_{j}$ being one of the shape parameters in (2). We label the three cases of (4) as

We use the notation with $\text{cap}_{P}$, $\text{cap}_{Q}$ and side as a marker for the derivatives of the corresponding part of the feature with the closest distance to ${\boldsymbol{x}}$. The side case expands to

We need sensitivity expressions for each variable $s_{j}$ and each case in the distance function, e.g., for $s_{0}=p_{x}$, we have, with the case selection of (9),

$\operatorname{sgn}(N)$ is non-differentiable at $N=0$. As the side case applies only for $0\leq\beta\leq 1$, this happens exclusively on the axis within the feature, where $a<r$ places the point outside the transition zone with $\frac{\partial{H}}{\partial{d}}=0$, hence it does not cause any issues. Furthermore, we need $D=\|P-Q\|>0$. It is useful to store the case when evaluating the distance function. For comprehensive coverage of all cases, we refer to Jung (2025). This feature model is just an example of our tracking approach, and users can directly apply it to their favorite feature model by providing the corresponding distance function and its sensitivities.

From (8) we see that the sensitivity of $\rho$ (7) is zero outside the transition zone. A specific pseudo density $\rho_{e}$ therefore reacts to a slight variation of ${\boldsymbol{s}}$ only if at least one of its integration points falls into the transition zone around the feature boundary. All other elements are blind to the shape variables. See Fig. 3 for a visualization of $\frac{\partial{H}}{\partial{d}}\frac{\partial{d}}{\partial{s}}$.

With a symmetric transition zone (5), we cannot simply make it arbitrarily large since we want and need solid inside, hence we need $a<r$. We therefore introduce an asymmetric transition zone with $a$ inside and $b$ outside. We present a $C^{1}$ version for the standard first-order optimization in topology optimization but also a $C^{2}$ version, to be motivated in Sec. 4. Our requirements are monotonicity, smoothness,

and for $C^{2}$ also

In the symmetric case $a=b$, polynomials suffice: the cubic (5) for $C^{1}$ and a quintic one for $C^{2}$. For $a\neq b$, it is much more difficult to fulfill all requirements, especially monotonicity and $C^{1}$ or $C^{2}$ smoothness everywhere. We propose a Bézier-curve-based approach, which can be parametrized to fulfill all requirements under certain conditions on the parametrization. A general formulation for a Bézier curve of degree $n$ using Bernstein polynomials with

is given by

with the curve parameter $t$ and control points ${\boldsymbol{W}}_{i}$. Interpreted as a transition function, we have $b_{x}(t)=d$ and $b_{y}(t)=H(d)$, hence $H(d)=b_{y}(b_{x}^{-1}(d))$ for $d\in[-a,b]$, under the condition that $b_{x}$ is strictly increasing on $t\in[0,1]$. In practice, one does not analytically invert $t(d)=b_{x}^{-1}(d)$ but searches for it. For fast numerics, we sample $H(d)$ and its derivatives and interpolate using look-up tables. For proper convergence, high accuracy is required.

The derivative of a Bézier curve of degree $n$ is again a Bézier curve of degree $n-1$,

We are actually interested in

and

Note the third power. To obtain $H^{\prime}(-a)=H^{\prime}(b)=0$ for a cubic Bézier curve, it is sufficient to set the $y$-components of the control points ${\boldsymbol{W}}_{0}$ to ${\boldsymbol{W}}_{3}$ to 1, 1, 0, 0, and for a quintic one to 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0 to also obtain $H^{\prime\prime}(-a)=H^{\prime\prime}(b)=0$. We need $H(0)=0.5$ and ask this for $t=0.5$, hence $b_{y}(t=0.5)=0.5$ and $b_{x}(t=0.5)=0$. The first is given already by the chosen $y$-components of the control points. The second is fulfilled by setting the $x$-components of the cubic control points to $-a,c-\gamma,c+\gamma,b$ with

which is $c_{\text{cubic}}=\frac{a-b}{6}$ for the cubic case and we are left with a single parameter $\gamma$ to control the shape of the transition function and make sure that $b_{x}$ is invertible. For the quintic case we have two more control points ${\boldsymbol{W}}_{4}$ and ${\boldsymbol{W}}_{5}$ and could control their $x$-components by an additional parameter, but we choose to double the inner control points to have a single parameter $\gamma$ with $c_{\text{quintic}}=\frac{a-b}{30}$ and the $x$-components of the control points $-a,c-\gamma,c-\gamma,c+\gamma,c+\gamma,b$. See Fig. 4 for example curves.

The parameters $a$ and $b$ are user choices to define the transition zone. A heuristic to define $\gamma$ for a given pair $a,b$ is to make the largest second derivative in the transition zone as small as possible. We apply it separately to the cubic and the quintic case,

This leaves only the question of the range to search for $\gamma^{*}$. The $x$-coordinates of the inner control points need to lie inside the outer control points, hence we have $c-\gamma>-a$ and $c+\gamma<b$. Within this range we check numerically for $\frac{\partial{b_{x}(t;a,b,\gamma)}}{\partial t}>0\;\forall\,t\in[0,1]$, see Fig. 5.

If one instead minimized $\max_{d\in[-a,b]}|H^{\prime}(d)|$, the solution for $a=b$ would approach a straight line, with the inner control points collapsing onto the outer ones. In this degenerate case, we have a kink at the endpoints, causing a singularity in the formula for $H^{\prime\prime}(d)$, making the Bézier parametrization unsuitable for computing second-order derivatives.

The transition function becomes, as an alternative to the symmetric polynomial-based form (5), the following, which is to be efficiently evaluated based on precalculated data

Both $a$ and $b$ are naturally measured in units of the element size $h$, because the mapping (6) resolves the transition zone by sampling the elements it crosses. This bounds $a$ from below: a transition zone much narrower than the spacing of the integration points is sampled by too few of them, and the mapped density $\rho_{e}$ then changes abruptly as a feature moves. Together with $a<r$ from above, we obtain the scale chain

The outer zone $b$ carries no such restriction and is a pure modeling choice: it is the distance over which a feature senses a target, hence the parameter to enlarge when features are initialized far away from the target regions. All numerical examples in this work use $h=1/60$ with $a=3h$, so that the full symmetric transition zone $2\,a$ spans six elements, an asymmetric extension of $12h$ giving $b=15h$, and profile bounds $r_{\mathrm{min}}=3.6h$ and $r_{\mathrm{max}}=30h$; see Sec. 7.

We provide an interactive JavaScript tool to explore the parametrization of the Bézier-based transition function and its derivatives at https://am-ko.mi.uni-erlangen.de/bezier.html.

In realistic designs, many geometric features coexist and must be represented jointly. There are two principal approaches: map-then-combine and combine-then-map, see Wein et al. (2020) for more details. We follow here the more common and easier-to-implement map-then-combine approach. We assume ${\text{N}_{\text{f}}}$ features, each consisting of ${\text{N}_{\text{s}}^{f}}$ shape parameters, and for simplicity we assume here all features to be capsules with ${\text{N}_{\text{s}}^{f}}=5$, see (2). The per-feature vectors ${\boldsymbol{s}}^{f}\in\mathbb{R}^{{\text{N}_{\text{s}}^{f}}}$ are collected in the design vector ${\boldsymbol{s}}\in\mathbb{R}^{{\text{N}_{\text{s}}}}$ of dimension ${\text{N}_{\text{s}}}=\sum_{f=1}^{{\text{N}_{\text{f}}}}{\text{N}_{\text{s}}^{f}}=5\,{\text{N}_{\text{f}}}$. We use the common $p$-norm aggregation

where $\widetilde{\rho}_{e}$ is the aggregated density for element $e$ and $\rho_{e}^{f}$ are the integrated feature densities for all features $f=1,\ldots,{\text{N}_{\text{f}}}$, evaluated by (6).

Overlapping of $N$ features results in maximal values

For $p=1$ we have the simple sum. E.g., 4 features and $p=4$ give a maximum value of $\approx 1.414$ and for $p=8$ still $\approx 1.189$. For common topology optimization, e.g., compliance minimization, overlapping of features can therefore give a slight benefit. In our later tracking functional, we can make use of overshooting to gain a repulsive effect. The gradient is straightforward

When overshooting, or the implicit effect of it, becomes an issue for standard problems, other aggregation functions are used, some are listed in Wein et al. (2020). Another approach is to fade features via additional variables $\alpha_{f}\in[0,1]$, see Norato et al. (2015). We take up this variable in Sec. 5 as the basis of our optional consolidation stage.

The primary objective is a least-squares functional penalizing deviations between a given target density ${\boldsymbol{\rho}}^{*}$ and the aggregated element density $\widetilde{{\boldsymbol{\rho}}}({\boldsymbol{s}})$

This functional penalizes both uncovered target regions and features outside the target density. A local minimum for the latter, when the target density cannot be reached, is to shrink features or move them (partially) outside the domain. We therefore use a reward-only functional for early exploration

which maximizes the overlap with the target region and sees nothing else; the minus sign performs this maximization in a minimization framework. Note that expanding the features across the whole domain is a trivial optimum. We therefore keep the profile $r$ fixed while the reward functional is active, see Sec. 6.

The objective derivatives follow directly,

Note that $\frac{\partial{J_{\mathrm{reward}}}}{\partial{\widetilde{\rho}_{e}}}$ vanishes wherever $\rho^{*}_{e}=0$, and it is the asymmetric transition zone (18) which lets a distant feature reach a target element at all.

Standard in feature mapping are constraints on the geometry of the features. Restricting the length of a feature $f$ by

prevents the degenerate case $P^{f}=Q^{f}$. A not too small bound also prevents singularities, as this length appears as $D$ in the denominator of the shape derivatives (11). In the standard case we have a rectangular design domain

and when we restrict all $P^{f},Q^{f}\in\Omega$, we make sure the features cannot fully leave the domain, but parts of a feature can reach beyond.

With a state-based objective $J({\boldsymbol{u}}({\boldsymbol{\rho}}({\boldsymbol{s}})))$, the function factor $\frac{\partial{J}}{\partial{\widetilde{\rho}_{e}}}$ is a global field influenced by support, load and potentially also far-away features. Even though the transition factor $\frac{\partial{H}}{\partial{d}}$ vanishes outside the transition zone, such that $\frac{\partial{J({\boldsymbol{u}}({\boldsymbol{\rho}}))}}{\partial{\widetilde{\rho}_{e}}}$ is collected only within the zone, the global information remains. With our stateless $\frac{\partial{J({\boldsymbol{\rho}})}}{\partial{\widetilde{\rho}_{e}}}$ for tracking and reward, there are no global effects and we therefore use the asymmetric transition zone.

In standard density-based topology optimization, e.g., the common compliance minimization problem, we have a huge number of design variables which control a finite-element-based state problem. It is practically prohibitive to compute or even store the dense full Hessian matrix. This can be shown with the SIMP compliance gradient, already augmented by the residual

and, following the standard adjoint-approach, the second derivative is given as

So for every element $e$ we need a specific right-hand side and get the corresponding adjoint solution ${\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{e}$. See Rojas-Labanda and Stolpe (2016) and Fu and Kennedy (2023) for a detailed discussion of the Hessian in the context of SIMP and approaches to actually use second-order information for specific formulations.

The optimizer IPOPT Wächter and Biegler (2006), far less established in the structural optimization community, internally solves Newton-type problems and usually does a limited-memory approximation (L-BFGS) of the Hessian. As such, SIMP problems can be solved reasonably using IPOPT. For appropriate problems, e.g., with a small number of design variables, IPOPT also takes exact full Hessian matrices. Because of this option we mainly use IPOPT in this manuscript to present a fair comparison between the first- and second-order formulations.

The Hessian ${\boldsymbol{H}}$ collects the entries $H_{ij}^{fg}$ (31), which differentiate any gradient of variable $s_{i}^{f}$ in feature $f$ with respect to $s_{j}^{g}$, a variable of feature $g$.

We can characterize $H_{ij}^{fg}$ as follows. $H_{ii}^{ff}$ is the curvature; it expresses the variable-specific scaling – important as the variables $q_{x},r,\ldots$ have widely varying impact. Then we have within-feature coupling blocks $H_{ij}^{ff}$ for $i\neq j$, which support moving and rotating a feature, with its variables acting as a team. Finally we have cross-feature coupling blocks $H_{ij}^{fg}$ for $f\neq g$, which support coordinating the movement of different features. Under the tracking objective (22), two features competing for the same target region repel each other already through the overshoot of the $p$-norm aggregation; the cross-feature coupling adds the information that both features move at the same time. We have non-zero cross-feature coupling blocks only when the features overlap the same density elements $\rho_{e}$.

${\boldsymbol{H}}$ is symmetric and in our examples with at most 10 features and without additional fading variables $50\times 50$ in size. The derivation of the Hessian is straightforward, purely technical but tedious to do manually and difficult to write and to read in compact form. For the derivative of the distance function (4) we have to consider the three cases for the closest part of the capsule. Users might use automatic differentiation or code generation. We restrict the presentation here to sample cases to improve readability and refer to Jung (2025) for the full derivation and the implementation within openCFS (see code availability section).

As neither objective is convex, the exact Hessian is in general indefinite. IPOPT handles this by its inertia correction, adding a multiple of the identity to the Hessian block of the KKT system whenever the factorization reports the wrong inertia; we never modify or convexify the exact Hessian ourselves. Second-order information changes the steps, not the landscape: the sensitivities still vanish outside the transition zone, and the local minima which follow from this remain.

It is outside the scope of this work, but for completeness we also give here the extension for arbitrary state-based functions like the compliance. We then have to consider the general term

which is generally a dense matrix and, in the compliance case, computed by the standard adjoint approach (30), so that we need to solve for ${\text{N}_{\text{e}}}$ right-hand sides. The function block in (32) then becomes non-local: the diagonal objective curvature $\frac{\partial^{2}{J}}{\partial{\widetilde{\rho}_{e}}^{2}}$ is replaced by the dense mixed term $\frac{\partial^{2}{J}}{\partial{\widetilde{\rho}_{e}}\,\partial{\widetilde{\rho}_{e^{\prime}}}}$ and a second element sum enters,

while the aggregation and feature terms of (32), which only contract the first-order sensitivity $\frac{\partial{J}}{\partial{\widetilde{\rho}_{e}}}$, keep their single sum over $e$ and stay unchanged. For simplicity we assume a linear mapped density $\rho_{e}$ in the finite element solution, hence the second derivative of ${\boldsymbol{K}}$ in (30) vanishes. With the sparse shape Jacobian (zero outside the transition zones)

the adjoint solution ${\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_{e}=2\,{\boldsymbol{K}}^{-1}\frac{\partial{{\boldsymbol{K}}}}{\partial{\widetilde{\rho}_{e}}}\,{\boldsymbol{u}}$ of (30) and the symmetry of ${\boldsymbol{K}}$, ${\boldsymbol{K}}^{-1}$ and $\frac{\partial{{\boldsymbol{K}}}}{\partial{\widetilde{\rho}_{e}}}$, the double sum becomes

with the pseudo-load ${\boldsymbol{a}}_{i}^{f}=\sum_{e=1}^{{\text{N}_{\text{e}}}}D_{ei}^{f}\,\frac{\partial{{\boldsymbol{K}}}}{\partial{\widetilde{\rho}_{e}}}\,{\boldsymbol{u}}$ and the state derivative ${\boldsymbol{K}}\,{\boldsymbol{g}}_{i}^{f}={\boldsymbol{a}}_{i}^{f}$. Collected over all variables this is $2\,{\boldsymbol{A}}^{\top}{\boldsymbol{G}}\in\mathbb{R}^{{\text{N}_{\text{s}}}\times{\text{N}_{\text{s}}}}$, with ${\boldsymbol{A}}=[\,{\boldsymbol{a}}_{i}^{f}\,]$ and ${\boldsymbol{G}}=[\,{\boldsymbol{g}}_{i}^{f}\,]\in\mathbb{R}^{{\text{N}_{\text{u}}}\times{\text{N}_{\text{s}}}}$, one column per feature variable, and the global system matrix ${\boldsymbol{K}}\in\mathbb{R}^{{\text{N}_{\text{u}}}\times{\text{N}_{\text{u}}}}$. This requires ${\text{N}_{\text{s}}}$ solutions with the same system matrix ${\boldsymbol{K}}$. With the common direct solvers for 2D, based on some form of triangular factorization, these are very cheap operations. The same factorization has been used for SIMP with a linear filter matrix in place of our shape Jacobian in Rojas-Labanda and Stolpe (2016) and Fu and Kennedy (2023), where the latter uses it to identify the positive semi-definite part of the Hessian rather than to evaluate it.

To motivate the usage of the reward function, we start with a study of the tracking objective (22) with a classical symmetric transition zone. We perform $p$-norm aggregation with a moderate $p=4$, hence overlapping is significantly larger than one and penalized by the tracking function. In Fig. 7, we see the expected result: the target is occupied by the features (b) and (g) in their initial order. They overlap only by their gray regions. The isolated features (r) and (c) do not see the target and more or less stay where they are and shrink to their minimal size to avoid the penalty of the tracking function. Feature (c) initially sees the domain boundary and also moves to the side. These results are more or less identical for the first-order case, the shown design is reached in fewer than 15 iterations.

Surprisingly, IPOPT with the exact Hessian finds the target for all four features. This is likely due to a slight numerical drift of its internal barrier function for the constraints, and we consider this behavior to be incidental and therefore do not show it. A reference computation with the SciPy optimizer trust-constr also fails to bring features (r) and (c) to the target.

Next, we run the same problems with an extension of $b=a+0.5$ and the quintic Bézier transition zone, see Fig. 8. Although all features see the target, GCMMA converges to a local minimum where the isolated features (r) and (c) are driven partially out of the domain.

The value of the tracking function can be reduced by the intended overlapping with the target or by minimizing the area of the feature (shrinking). However, overlapping of features is also penalized (20). This makes the tracking function, especially as initial stage, rather restrictive and sensitive to local minima.

Our proposal to mitigate the tendency of the tracking function to get trapped in local optima is the reward function (23). The reward function gives a benefit when features overlap the target, but does not penalize non-overlapping. It also allows features to overlap each other: by the overshoot (20), stacking features on the target even yields a slightly higher reward. We increase the parameter for the $p$-norm aggregation to $p=8$; however, the actual value is somewhat specific to the target geometry. Assume a more complex target than the trivial bar here, for instance one of the numerical examples in Sec. 7. Let one part of the target with $n_{A}$ grid elements be already overlapped by $k$ features. Then for an additional feature, and ignoring gray elements, it is only beneficial to overlap a different blank target with $n_{B}$ elements if

We furthermore fix the profile of the features to their initial value $r=0.1$. Enlarging to maximal features would be a trivial optimum.

In Fig. 9, we show the optimization result for the reward problem. All runs end in a similar design. For the Hessian case $P=(0.004306,0.666667)$ and for the GCMMA case $P=(0,0.666667)$ for all features. For first-order IPOPT, we get $P_{x}\in[0.0191,0.0231]$ and $P_{y}\in[0.6660,0.6668]$ when converging with our very relaxed tolerance $0.01$. All reward values coincide to 6 digits, those of the Hessian and GCMMA case even to 9. The identical overlapping of all features is correct for the reward function, but it becomes an issue for GCMMA when overlapping is penalized by a subsequent tracking problem.

As can also be seen in the convergence plot, for the Hessian and GCMMA case, the features are roughly moved and oriented one after the other.

The reward stage has brought the features onto the target, but with fixed profiles and unpenalized overlap. The bridging stage therefore starts from the reward design and performs tracking, while we keep the asymmetric transition zone and the aggregation parameter $p=8$: removing the extension together with the switch to tracking would leave features which still have to travel to a non-overlapping area without a gradient. The results are shown in Fig. 10a.

The benefit of the intermediate stage was observed in a random-start study in (Jung, 2025), which we do not repeat here.

The GCMMA start design was perfectly overlapped and the optimizer could not separate the features. What was beneficial with the reward function is here a clearly poor local saddle point with a tracking value of $131.51$.

The IPOPT gradient problem also ends in a local optimum. One feature remains large to overlap the full target, the other three features shrink to their minimal size and stack. The tracking value is $100.97$. GCMMA finds a similar design when starting with the non-exact reward design.

With the Hessian formulation IPOPT finds the best solution in the sense of the tracking objective ($99.26$) with features only overlapping by their transition zones. Due to the large transition zones, a smaller value cannot be achieved. A similar design is also found when starting with the other reward solutions.

Bridging already used the tracking function. We now remove the extension for the third and, in principle, final stage and set $p=4$ for the $p$-norm aggregation. The relaxed $p$-norm removes a little of the nonlinearity and increases the repelling effect for the features, but overlapping is still not aggressively prevented. As expected, the change for this trivial example is minimal, see Fig. 10b.

Removing the extension reduces the obtained objective value, while reducing $p$ from 8 to 4 penalizes remaining overlapping more. As GCMMA cannot remove the exact overlap, its obtained $J_{\mathrm{track}}^{*}$ remains large at 120.7. Gradient IPOPT and Hessian IPOPT obtain 54.1 and 44.3, respectively. Because of our rather large symmetric transition zone, we cannot expect zero tracking.

We adopt Norato’s idea of scaling/fading variables $\alpha_{f}$, see Sec. 5; however, this is an extension of standard feature-mapping formulations, and we apply our consolidating feature minimization formulation (36) only as an option.

The $\varepsilon$ of the $(1+\varepsilon)J_{\mathrm{track}}^{*}$ tracking bound with the $\sum_{f}\alpha_{f}$ objective is very much problem dependent and reflects how much the features still have to be rearranged. A larger relaxation helps. When the final fading variables $\alpha_{f}$ were not already close to binary 0 or 1, even a trivial threshold of 0.5 was sufficient in our numerical experiments. A further option, outside the scope of this work, is to solve the actual optimization problem, e.g., compliance, in the sense of geometry projection with an $\alpha$ formulation, starting from the tracking or bridging design. For all optimizers, the consolidation stage finds a single bar as a solution, even for the GCMMA case, see Fig. 11. As the tracking bound for GCMMA is rather large due to the poor local optimum, three features become zero and the remaining feature can be intermediate. In that case the bound could even be tightened below $J_{\mathrm{track}}^{*}$, but a robust threshold gives the same optimal design, a single bar.