Evaluating system architectures for driving range estimation and charge planning for electric vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Due to sparse charging infrastructure and short driving ranges, drivers of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) can experience range anxiety, which is the fear of stranding with an empty battery. To help eliminate range anxiety and make BEVs more attractive for customers, accurate range estimation methods need to be developed. In recent years, many publications have suggested machine learning algorithms as a fitting method to achieve accurate range estimations. However, these algorithms use a large amount of data and have high computational requirements. A traditional placement of the software within a vehicle's electronic control unit could lead to high latencies and thus detrimental to user experience. But since modern vehicles are connected to a backend, where software modules can be implemented, high latencies can be prevented with intelligent distribution of the algorithm parts. On the other hand, communication between vehicle and backend can be slow or expensive. In this article, an intelligent deployment of a range estimation software based on ML is analyzed. We model hardware and software to enable performance evaluation in early stages of the development process. Based on simulations, different system architectures and module placements are then analyzed in terms of latency, network usage, energy usage, and cost. We show that a distributed system with cloud‐based module placement reduces the end‐to‐end latency significantly, when compared with a traditional vehicle‐based placement. Furthermore, we show that network usage is significantly reduced. This intelligent system enables the application of complex, but accurate range estimation with low latencies, resulting in an improved user experience, which enhances the practicality and acceptance of BEVs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".