Vehicle Assignment considering Battery Endurance for Electric Vehicle Carsharing Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On-demand station-based one-way carsharing is widely adopted for battery electric vehicle sharing systems, which is regarded as a supplement of urban mobility and a promising approach to the utilization of green energy vehicles. The service model of these carsharing systems allows users to select vehicles based on their own judgment on vehicle battery endurance, while users tend to pick up vehicles with the longest endurance distances. This phenomenon makes instant-access systems lose efficiency on matching available vehicles with diverse user requests and limits carsharing systems for higher capacity. We proposed a vehicle assignment method to allocate vehicles to users that maximize the utility of battery, which requires the system to enable short-term reservation rather than instant access. The methodology is developed from an agent-based discrete event simulation framework with a first-come-first-serve logic module for instant access mode and a resource matching optimization module for short-term reservation mode. Results show that the short-term reservation mode can at most serve 20% more users and create 47% more revenue than instant access mode under the scenario of this research. This paper also points out the equilibrium between satisfying more users by efficiently allocating vehicles and distracting users by disabling instant access and suggests that the reservation time could be 15 minutes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".