MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2405311362 · doi:10.5555/2984464.2984468

Smart rate control and demand balancing for electric vehicle charging

2016· article· en· W2405311362 on OpenAlexaff
Fanxin Kong, Xue Liu, Zhonghao Sun, Qinglong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSmart gridQuality of serviceGridMathematical optimizationScheduleApproximation algorithmVehicle-to-gridDistributed computingPower (physics)Electric vehicleComputer networkAlgorithmElectrical engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The anticipated high electric vehicle (EV) penetration motivates many research efforts to alleviate the potential associated grid impact. However, few works discuss the crucial issue: quality of service (QoS) degradation caused by competing for charging resources. This issue arises due to the limitation on power supply and charging space that charging stations can usually provide. Our work studies this issue and proposes an operational scheme that optimizes QoS for EV users while satisfying the stability of the power grid. The scheme consists of two levels. The lower level deals with charging rate control, for which we propose an efficient algorithm with provable QoS-optimal allocation of power supply to EVs. The upper level handles charging demand balancing, for which we design two approximation algorithms that schedule EVs to multiple charging stations. One algorithm is a 3-approximation with polynomial complexity; while the other is a (2 + e)-approximation using a fully polynomial time approximation scheme. Through extensive simulations based on realistic data traces and simulations tools, we demonstrate the efficiency and efficacy of our operational scheme and further provide interesting findings from in-depth analysis of the experimental results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Cyber-Physical SystemsSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207