Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing market share of electric vehicles (EVs) makes large-scale charging stations indispensable infrastructure for integrating EVs into the future smart grid. Thus their operation modes have drawn great attention from researchers. One promising mode called park-and-charge was recently proposed. It allows people to park their EVs at a parking lot, where EVs can get charged during the parking time. This mode has been experimented and demonstrated in small scale. However, the missing of an efficient market mechanism is an important gap preventing its large-scale deployment. Existing pricing policies, e.g., pay-by-use and flat-rate pricing, would jeopardize the efficiency of electricity allocation and the corresponding social welfare in the park-and-charge mode, and thus are inapplicable. To find an efficient mechanism, this paper explores the feasibility and benefits of utilizing auction mechanism in the EV park-and-charge mode. The auction allows EV users to submit and update bids on their charging demand to the charging station, which makes corresponding electricity allocation and pricing decisions. To this end, we propose Auc2Charge, an online auction framework. Auc2Charge is truthful and individual rational. Running in polynomial time, it provides an efficient electricity allocation for EV users with a close-form approximation ratio on system social welfare. Through both theoretical analysis and numerical simulation, we demonstrate the efficacy of Auc2Charge in terms of social welfare and user satisfaction.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.015 |
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".