World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Engineering and Technology

D-Index
42
Citations
9519
World Ranking
6412
National Ranking
128

Paul M.J. Van den Hof publication distribution in Engineering and Technology in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Engineering and Technology in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Paul M.J. Van den Hof sits on this spectrum.

38–47 publications: 20 scientists 48–57 publications: 35 scientists 58–67 publications: 96 scientists 68–77 publications: 135 scientists 78–87 publications: 190 scientists 88–97 publications: 259 scientists 98–107 publications: 283 scientists 108–117 publications: 369 scientists 118–127 publications: 341 scientists 128–137 publications: 386 scientists 138–147 publications: 372 scientists 148–157 publications: 457 scientists 158–167 publications: 415 scientists 168–177 publications: 407 scientists 178–187 publications: 421 scientists 188–197 publications: 378 scientists 198–207 publications: 403 scientists 208–217 publications: 317 scientists 218–227 publications: 346 scientists 228–237 publications: 321 scientists 238–247 publications: 260 scientists 248–257 publications: 280 scientists 258–267 publications: 240 scientists 268–277 publications: 214 scientists 278–287 publications: 242 scientists 288–297 publications: 203 scientists 298–307 publications: 166 scientists 308–317 publications: 154 scientists 318–327 publications: 175 scientists 328–337 publications: 159 scientists 338–347 publications: 99 scientists 348–357 publications: 131 scientists 358–367 publications: 106 scientists 368–377 publications: 118 scientists 378–387 publications: 97 scientists 388–397 publications: 108 scientists 398–407 publications: 82 scientists 408–417 publications: 71 scientists 418–427 publications: 64 scientists 428–437 publications: 55 scientists 438–447 publications: 54 scientists 448–457 publications: 60 scientists 458–467 publications: 47 scientists 468–477 publications: 40 scientists 478–487 publications: 30 scientists 488–497 publications: 29 scientists 498–507 publications: 38 scientists 508–517 publications: 40 scientists 518–527 publications: 32 scientists 528–537 publications: 23 scientists 538–547 publications: 28 scientists 548–557 publications: 23 scientists 558–567 publications: 19 scientists 568–577 publications: 16 scientists 578–587 publications: 17 scientists 588–597 publications: 18 scientists 598–607 publications: 22 scientists 608–617 publications: 15 scientists 618–627 publications: 9 scientists 628–637 publications: 11 scientists 638–647 publications: 21 scientists 648–657 publications: 12 scientists 658–667 publications: 9 scientists 668–677 publications: 11 scientists 678–687 publications: 9 scientists 688–697 publications: 6 scientists 698–707 publications: 14 scientists 708–717 publications: 7 scientists 718–727 publications: 8 scientists 728–737 publications: 10 scientists 738–747 publications: 9 scientists 748–757 publications: 5 scientists 758–767 publications: 5 scientists 768–777 publications: 11 scientists 778–787 publications: 7 scientists 788–797 publications: 2 scientists 798–803 publications: 4 scientists 804+ publications: 100 scientists
38 publications 804+

This scientist: 293 publications — 75th percentile

75% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 804 publications or more.

Paul M.J. Van den Hof D-index placement in Engineering and Technology in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Engineering and Technology scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Paul M.J. Van den Hof sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 59 scientists 31 D-Index: 114 scientists 32 D-Index: 129 scientists 33 D-Index: 189 scientists 34 D-Index: 200 scientists 35 D-Index: 262 scientists 36 D-Index: 311 scientists 37 D-Index: 312 scientists 38 D-Index: 350 scientists 39 D-Index: 385 scientists 40 D-Index: 348 scientists 41 D-Index: 362 scientists 42 D-Index: 426 scientists 43 D-Index: 380 scientists 44 D-Index: 310 scientists 45 D-Index: 341 scientists 46 D-Index: 301 scientists 47 D-Index: 306 scientists 48 D-Index: 271 scientists 49 D-Index: 246 scientists 50 D-Index: 210 scientists 51 D-Index: 253 scientists 52 D-Index: 213 scientists 53 D-Index: 221 scientists 54 D-Index: 195 scientists 55 D-Index: 186 scientists 56 D-Index: 170 scientists 57 D-Index: 167 scientists 58 D-Index: 166 scientists 59 D-Index: 144 scientists 60 D-Index: 152 scientists 61 D-Index: 141 scientists 62 D-Index: 138 scientists 63 D-Index: 131 scientists 64 D-Index: 118 scientists 65 D-Index: 114 scientists 66 D-Index: 119 scientists 67 D-Index: 95 scientists 68 D-Index: 87 scientists 69 D-Index: 77 scientists 70 D-Index: 89 scientists 71 D-Index: 69 scientists 72 D-Index: 54 scientists 73 D-Index: 46 scientists 74 D-Index: 55 scientists 75 D-Index: 54 scientists 76 D-Index: 49 scientists 77 D-Index: 53 scientists 78 D-Index: 46 scientists 79 D-Index: 28 scientists 80 D-Index: 39 scientists 81 D-Index: 36 scientists 82 D-Index: 24 scientists 83 D-Index: 26 scientists 84 D-Index: 36 scientists 85 D-Index: 18 scientists 86 D-Index: 25 scientists 87 D-Index: 19 scientists 88 D-Index: 26 scientists 89 D-Index: 27 scientists 90 D-Index: 23 scientists 91 D-Index: 15 scientists 92 D-Index: 12 scientists 93 D-Index: 9 scientists 94 D-Index: 15 scientists 95 D-Index: 10 scientists 96 D-Index: 13 scientists 97 D-Index: 13 scientists 98 D-Index: 9 scientists 99 D-Index: 7 scientists 100 D-Index: 7 scientists 101 D-Index: 8 scientists 102 D-Index: 7 scientists 103 D-Index: 7 scientists 104 D-Index: 9 scientists 105 D-Index: 6 scientists 106 D-Index: 9 scientists 107+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 107+

This scientist: 42 D-Index — 35th percentile

35% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 107 D-Index or more.

Research.com Recognitions

  • 2008 - IEEE Fellow For contribution to system identification for control systems
  • 2007 - Fellow of the International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC)

Overview

Paul M.J. Van den Hof is affiliated with Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands. Their research primarily lies within the field of Engineering, with a strong emphasis on Control and Systems Engineering.

The main topics addressed in their research include:

  • Control Systems and Identification
  • Fault Detection and Control Systems
  • Advanced Control Systems Optimization
  • Structural Health Monitoring Techniques
  • Neural Networks and Applications
  • Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Probabilistic and Robust Engineering Design

Van den Hof's significant contributions are reflected in recent publications such as:

  • On Data-Driven Control: Informativity of Noisy Input-Output Data With Cross-Covariance Bounds (2021), IEEE Control Systems Letters
  • Allocation of Excitation Signals for Generic Identifiability of Linear Dynamic Networks (2021), IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
  • Active Deformation Control for a Magnetically Levitated Planar Motor Mover (2021), IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
  • Abstractions of linear dynamic networks for input selection in local module identification (2020), Automatica
  • Single Module Identifiability in Linear Dynamic Networks With Partial Excitation and Measurement (2021), IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control

Frequent co-authors with whom Van den Hof has collaborated extensively include:

  • Magnus Egerstedt
  • Carolyn L. Beck
  • Elisa Franco
  • Jonathan P. How
  • Miroslav Krstić

Their research outputs have been published in multiple venues, with the highest number of publications appearing in:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • IFAC-PapersOnLine
  • IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology
  • IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems
  • IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control

Recognized by professional societies, Van den Hof was named IEEE Fellow in 2008 for contributions to system identification for control systems. They were also made a Fellow of the International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC) in 2007.

Best Publications

  • Identification and control—closed-loop issues

    Paul M. J. van den Hof;Ruud J. P. Schrama;Ruud J. P. Schrama

  • System identification with generalized orthonormal basis functions

    Paul M. J. van den Hof;Peter S. C. Heuberger;József Bokor

  • Robust Waterflooding Optimization of Multiple Geological Scenarios

    Gijs van Essen;Maarten Zandvliet;Paul Van den Hof;Okko Bosgra

  • A generalized orthonormal basis for linear dynamical systems

    Unknown

  • An indirect method for transfer function estimation from closed loop data

    Paul M.J. Van Den Hof;Ruud J.P. Schrama

  • Modelling and Identification with Rational Orthogonal Basis Functions

    Paul Van den Hof;Bo Wahlberg;Peter Heuberger;Brett Ninness

  • Closed-Loop Issues in System Identification

    Paul Van den Hof

  • Systems & Control for the future of humanity, research agenda: Current and future roles, impact and grand challenges

    Françoise Lamnabhi-Lagarrigue;Anuradha Annaswamy;Sebastian Engell;Alf J. Isaksson

  • Least costly identification experiment for control

    X. Bombois;G. Scorletti;M. Gevers;P. M. J. Van Den Hof

  • Identification of dynamic models in complex networks with prediction error methods : basic methods for consistent module estimates

    Paul M. J. Van den Hof;Arne G. Dankers;Peter S. C. Heuberger;Xavier Bombois

  • Model-based control of multiphase flow in subsurface oil reservoirs

    Jan-Dirk Jansen;Jan-Dirk Jansen;Okko H. Bosgra;Paul M.J. Van den Hof

  • Instrumental variable methods for closed-loop system identification

    Marion Gilson;Paul Van Den Hof

  • Hierarchical Long-Term and Short-Term Production Optimization

    Gijs van Essen;Paul Van den Hof;Jan-Dirk Jansen

  • Opportunities and challenges for process control in process intensification

    Nikola M. Nikačević;Adrie E.M. Huesman;Paul M.J. Van den Hof;Andrzej I. Stankiewicz

  • Identification of Normalised Coprime Plant Factors from Closed-loop Experimental Data

    Paul M.J. Van den Hof;Ruud J.P. Schrama;Raymond A. de Callafon;Okko H. Bosgra

  • Identification of Dynamic Models in Complex Networks With Prediction Error Methods: Predictor Input Selection

    Arne Dankers;Paul M. J. Van den Hof;Xavier Bombois;Peter S. C. Heuberger

  • Discrete time LPV I/O and state space representations, differences of behavior and pitfalls of interpolation

    Roland Toth;Federico Felici;Peter S. C. Heuberger;Paul M. J. Van den Hof

  • Quantification of uncertainty in transfer function estimation: a mixed probabilistic—worst-case approach

    Douwe K. De Vries;Paul M. J. Van den Hof

  • Identifiability of linear dynamic networks

    Unknown

  • Asymptotically optimal orthonormal basis functions for LPV system identification

    Roland Tóth;Peter S. C. Heuberger;Paul M. J. Van den Hof

  • Refined Instrumental Variable methods for closed-loop system identification

    Marion Gilson;Hugues Garnier;Peter C. Young;Paul M.J. Van den Hof

  • Least costly closed-loop performance diagnosis and plant re-identification

    A Ali Mesbah;Xja Bombois;M Forgione;H Hjalmarsson

  • IdentificationofDynamicModelsinComplexNetworkswith PredictionErrorMethods-BasicMethodsforConsistentModule Estimates

    Paul M. J. Van den Hof;Arne Dankers;Peter S. C. Heuberger;Xavier Bombois

Frequent Co-Authors

Jan Dirk Jansen
Jan Dirk Jansen Delft University of Technology
Ali Mesbah
Ali Mesbah University of California, Berkeley
Mircea Lazar
Mircea Lazar Eindhoven University of Technology
Peter C. Young
Peter C. Young Lancaster University
Bo Wahlberg
Bo Wahlberg Royal Institute of Technology
József Bokor
József Bokor Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Hugues Garnier
Hugues Garnier University of Lorraine
Håkan Hjalmarsson
Håkan Hjalmarsson Royal Institute of Technology
Carsten W. Scherer
Carsten W. Scherer University of Stuttgart

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Exploring engineering and technology in the USA can open doors to a wide range of interdisciplinary career paths. Many students find that supplementing their technical background with related online degrees boosts their professional versatility and job prospects.

For example, understanding the legal landscape can be crucial in tech sectors like intellectual property or compliance. Those interested in this area may consider aba accredited paralegal programs to gain foundational legal skills relevant to technology fields.

The ability to lead teams or manage talent is essential in today’s workforce. Pursuing a master degree in human resources can be a valuable complement for engineers looking to advance into leadership or managerial roles.

Strong communication skills are also in high demand. An online master’s in communications can help engineering professionals excel in areas such as project management and stakeholder engagement.

Lastly, for those interested in launching their own ventures, an mba entrepreneurship online offers essential business acumen for aspiring tech entrepreneurs.

Best Scientists Citing Paul M.J. Van den Hof

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles