Thermoelectric cooler (TEC) design couples Peltier pumping, Fourier back-conduction and Joule heating, making Pareto solutions sensitive to calibration, bounds and omitted transport. We combine a manufacturer-calibrated lumped model, an algebraic physics-informed neural network (PINN) surrogate audit that does not solve a partial differential equation, direct multi-objective optimization and requirement-based selection. Thermal scaling fitted at 5.2 A yielded withheld cooling-capacity RMSE values of 0.601 W at 1.7 A and 1.410 W for nonzero-lift 8.7 A points. With 40,000 samples, surrogate holdout RMSE values were 0.655 W for cooling capacity and 1.174 W for input power. A matched ablation confirmed that the algebraic residual adds no independent information at labelled points. Collocation reduced mean sparse-label errors in all five paired runs, but the exact tests gave p = 0.0625 two-sided and p = 0.03125 for the directional alternative, limiting inference. At N = 127 , MOPSO achieved the best mean HV and IGD + in a matched four-algorithm benchmark. The source-bounded balanced design gave COP = 0.854 and PD = 55.21 kW m − 2 . Relaxing bounds raised PD to 76.34 kW m − 2 without increasing COP. Contact resistance changed COP ranking and selected geometry; a one-dimensional Thomson audit preserved Pareto membership but changed exact selections. The workflow supports conditional TEC design selection within the stated bounds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çakan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: