Charging and Discharging Strategies of Electric Vehicles: A Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature covering Plug-in Electric Vehicles (EVs) contains many charging/discharging strategies. However, none of the review papers covers such strategies in a complete fashion where all patterns of EVs charging/discharging are identified. Filling a gap in the literature, we clearly and systematically classify such strategies. After providing a clear definition for each strategy, we provide a detailed comparison between them by categorizing differences as follows: complexity; economics and power losses on the grid side; ability to provide ancillary services for integrity of the power grid; operation aspects (e.g., charging timing); and detrimental impact on the EV, the power grid, or the environment. Each one of these comparison categories is subdivided into even more detailed aspects. After we compare the EV charging/discharging strategies, we further provide recommendations on which strategies are suitable for which applications. Then, we provide ratings for each strategy by weighting all aspects of comparison together. Our review helps authors or aggregators explore likely choices that might suit the specific needs of their systems or test beds.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it