MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320180085 · doi:10.1109/glocomw.2013.6855711

VANET based online charging strategy for electric vehicles

2013· article· en· W2320180085 on OpenAlexaff
Miao Wang, Hao Liang, Ruilong Deng, Ran Zhang, Xuemin Shen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVehicular ad hoc networkElectric vehicleVoltage dropCharging stationPower (physics)Wireless ad hoc networkDistributed computingReal-time computingVoltageElectrical engineeringTelecommunicationsEngineeringWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An online charging strategy is an efficient approach to provide charging plans for electric vehicles (EVs) from a global point of view, aiming to improve energy efficiency while avoiding overloading of an electric power system. However, designing an efficient online charging strategy to achieve optimal energy utilization remains a challenging problem, especially when the coordinated behaviors of both EVs and charging stations are taken into consideration. In this paper, we first introduce an intelligent power distribution system which utilizes vehicular ad-hoc networks (VANETs) to enable communication among EVs on roads, road-side units (RSUs), and a vehicle-traffic server. Then, we propose a globally optimal online EV charging strategy, which not only improves energy utilization of the whole system but also prevents charging stations from overloading, which may cause a voltage drop in the power distribution system. Lagrange duality optimization techniques are exploited to address the associated optimal EV charging problem. The performance of our proposed strategy is evaluated by extensive simulations, and the results are compared with that of the traditional autonomous offline charging strategy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207