Smart Charging for Electric Vehicles: A Survey From the Algorithmic Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart interactions among the smart grid, aggregators, and EVs can bring various benefits to all parties involved, e.g., improved reliability and safety for the smart gird, increased profits for the aggregators, as well as enhanced self benefit for EV customers. This survey focuses on viewing this smart interactions from an algorithmic perspective. In particular, important dominating factors for coordinated charging from three different perspectives are studied, in terms of smart grid oriented, aggregator-oriented, and customer-oriented smart charging. Firstly, for smart grid oriented EV charging, we summarize various formulations proposed for load flattening, frequency regulation, and voltage regulation, then explore the nature and substantial similarity among them. Secondly, for aggregator-oriented EV charging, we categorize the algorithmic approaches proposed by research works sharing this perspective as direct and indirect coordinated control, and investigate these approaches in detail. Thirdly, for customer-oriented EV charging, based on a commonly shared objective of reducing charging cost, we generalize different formulations proposed by studied research works. Moreover, various uncertainty issues, e.g., EV fleet uncertainty, electricity price uncertainty, regulation demand uncertainty, etc., have been discussed according to the three perspectives classified. At last, we discuss challenging issues that are commonly confronted during modeling the smart interactions, and outline some future research topics in this exciting area.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".