Scheduling of EV Battery Swapping–Part II: Distributed Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Part I of this paper, we formulate an optimal scheduling problem for battery swapping that assigns to each electric vehicle (EV) a best station to swap its depleted battery based on its current location and state of charge. The schedule aims to minimize a weighted sum of EVs' travel distance and electricity generation cost over both station assignments and power flow variables, subject to EV range constraints, grid operational constraints, and ac power flow equations. We propose there a centralized solution based on second-order cone programming relaxation of optimal power flow and generalized Benders decomposition that is applicable when global information is available. In this paper, we propose two distributed solutions based on the alternating direction method of multipliers and dual decomposition, respectively, that are suitable for systems where the distribution grid, stations, and EVs are managed by separate entities. Our algorithms allow these entities to make individual decisions, but coordinate through privacy-preserving information exchanges to solve a convex relaxation of the global problem. We present simulation results to show that both algorithms converge quickly to a solution that is close to optimum after discretization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".