Fog-Computing-Based Energy Storage in Smart Grid: A Cut-Off Priority Queuing Model for Plug-In Electrified Vehicle Charging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electric vehicles (EVs) are likely to become very popular within the next few years. With possibly millions of such vehicles operating across the smart cities, smart grid energy providers can be directly impacted by the charging of EV batteries. In order to reduce this impact and optimize energy saving, in this article, we propose a coordinated model for scheduling the plug-in of EVs for charging and discharging energy. The model is based on a new decentralized Fog architecture for smart grid in order to reduce the completion and communication delay of EV energy demand scheduling. To enhance the scheduling of EV demands and predict the future energy flows, we propose a plug-in system of EVs based on calendar planning. We develop a mathematical formalism based on Markov chains using a multipriority queuing theory with cut-off discipline in order to reduce the waiting time to plug-in. We implement three planning algorithms in order to assign priority levels and then optimize the plug-in time into each EV public supply station. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first article that proposes a model that tries to save energy by planning the plug-in of EVs using a cut-off priority queuing model and a decentralized Fog architecture. We evaluate the performances of our solution via extensive simulations using a realistic energy loads from the city of Toronto, and we compare it with other recent works.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".