Analysis of Electric Vehicle Charging Behavior Patterns with Function Principal Component Analysis Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This manuscript focused on analyzing electric vehicles’ (EV) charging behavior patterns with a functional data analysis (FDA) approach, with the goal of providing theoretical support to the EV infrastructure planning and regulation, as well as the power grid load management. 5-year real-world charging log data from a total of 455 charging stations in Kansas City, Missouri, was used. The focuses were placed on analyzing the daily usage occupancy variability, daily energy consumption variability, and station-level usage variability. Compared with the traditional discrete-based analysis models, the proposed FDA modeling approach had unique advantages in preserving the smooth function behavior of the data, bringing more flexibility in the modeling process with little required assumptions or background knowledge on independent variables, as well as the capability of handling time series data with different lengths or sizes. In addition to the patterns revealed in the EV charging station’s occupancy and energy consumption, the differences between EV driver’s charging time and parking time were analyzed and called for the needs for parking regulation and enforcement. The different usage patterns observed at charging stations located on different land-use types were also analyzed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".