Intelligent Parking Garage EV Charging Scheduling Considering Battery Charging Characteristic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the electric vehicle (EV) charging scheduling problem under a parking garage scenario, aiming to promote the total utility for the charging operator subject to the time-of-use (TOU) pricing. Different from most existing works, we develop a multicharging system incorporating the practical battery charging characteristic, and design an intelligent charging management mechanism to maximize the interests of both the customers and the charging operator. First, to ensure the quality of service for each client, we implement an admission control mechanism to guarantee all admitted EVs' charging requirements being satisfied before their departure. Second, we formulate the charging scheduling process as a deadline constrained causal scheduling problem. Then, we propose an adaptive utility oriented scheduling (AUS) algorithm to optimize the total utility for the charging operator, which can robustly achieve low task declining probability and high profit. The charging operator can also apply the discussed reservation mechanism to mitigate the performance degradation caused by the charging information mismatching with vehicle stochastic arrivals. Finally, we conduct extensive simulations based on realistic EV charging parameters and TOU pricing. Simulation results exhibit the effectiveness of the proposed AUS algorithm in achieving desirable performance compared with other benchmark scheduling schemes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".