Decentralized Quality of Service Based System for Energy Trading Among Electric Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper incorporates a new perspective into P2P energy trading coordination schemes for EVs by considering Quality of Service (QoS) management. QoS could be utilized as a control metric to facilitate resilient and reliable transactions according to user preferences. To that end, this paper proposes a novel decentralized QoS-based system for P2P energy trading among EV energy providers and consumers. The system utilizes smart contracts to carry out the matching between EVs and monitor the delivery of a QoS-based P2P contract without the presence of a third party. Two QoS-based mechanisms are proposed to match trading EVs in this system. The proposed mechanisms are designed to match single-consumer to multiple-providers and multiple-consumers to multiple-providers based on consumers’ and providers’ QoS requirements and offers, respectively. A fuzzy-based approach with minimum and intelligible input is introduced to determine the weight values of each QoS attribute. Further, a penalty mechanism is developed to discourage dishonest requests/offers and ensure that trading parties stick to their contractual obligations. Numerical simulations are conducted to validate the effectiveness of the proposed QoS-based mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".