Advancing Fluid-Based Thermal Management Systems Design: Leveraging Graph Neural Networks for Graph Regression and Efficient Enumeration Reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study introduces a graph-based framework developed for representing various aspects of optimal thermal management system design, with the aim of rapidly and efficiently identifying optimal design candidates. Initially, the graph-based framework is utilized to generate diverse thermal management system architectures. The dynamics of these system architectures are modeled under various loading conditions, and an open-loop optimal controller is employed to determine each system’s optimal performance. These modeled cases constitute the dataset, with the corresponding optimal performance values serving as the labels for the data. In the subsequent step, a Graph Neural Network (GNN) model is trained on 11,134 (30%) of the labeled data to predict the systems’ performance, effectively addressing a regression problem. Utilizing this trained model, we estimate the performance values for the remaining 26,195 (70%) of the data, which serves as the test set. The reason for larger number of test points was to ensure that the model is capable of predicting performance across all the diversity of inputs. In the third step, the predicted performance values are employed to rank the test data, facilitating prioritized evaluation of the design scenarios. Specifically, a small subset of the test data with the highest estimated ranks undergoes evaluation via an open-loop optimal control solver. This targeted approach concentrates on evaluating higher-ranked designs identified by the GNN, replacing the exhaustive search (enumeration-based) of all design cases. The results demonstrate a significant average reduction of over 92% in the number of system dynamic modeling and optimal control analyses required to identify optimal design scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".