MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571097389 · doi:10.1109/rtss.2016.016

On-Line Event-Driven Scheduling for Electric Vehicle Charging via Park-and-Charge

2016· article· en· W2571097389 on OpenAlexaff
Fanxin Kong, Qiao Xiang, Linghe Kong, Xue Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Scheduling (production processes)Computer sciencePark and rideElectric vehicleEnablingTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale charging stations become indispensable infrastructure to support the rapid proliferation of electric vehicles. Their operation modes have drawn great attention from both academia and industry. One promising mode called park-and-charge has been recently introduced. This new mode allows customers to park their electric vehicles at a parking lot, where the vehicles are charged during the parking time. Several small-scale experiments, such as the V-Charge project and General Motors' E-Motor plant, have demonstrated its potential. A key enabler for deploying this mode to large-scale stations is effective and efficient charging load scheduling methods. Most existing works confine to the time-driven scheduling policy due to their sole focus on the charging service. Applying their solutions to the park-and-charge mode would jeopardize the unitization of charging resource or cause frequent charging mode switching. This inapplicability motivates us to explore the feasibility and benefits of exploiting the event-driven scheduling policy in park-and-charge systems. Further, to better characterize charging load in this mode, we propose to adopt a metered model, by which a system gains value in proportion to the served charging demand. To be specific, the objective of this paper is to carry out both theoretical and experimental analysis for event-driven algorithms adapted to this metered model. We leverage both the competitive analysis and resource augmentation to demonstrate the non-constant and constant performance bounds for the earliest-deadline-first and highest-value-first algorithms respectively. Moreover, we provide a stronger theoretical result, i.e., the performance bound for the whole class of work-conserving scheduling algorithms. Through extensive simulations, we validate the proposed theoretical results and further provide interesting findings from the in-depth analysis of the simulation 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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations36
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207