Enabling In-Depot Automated Routing and Recharging Scheduling for Automated Electric Bus Transit Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bus transit system is promising to enable electric and autonomous vehicles for massive urban mobility, which relies on high-level automation and efficient resource management. Besides the on-road automation, the in-depot automated scheduling for battery recharging has not been adequately studied yet. This paper presents an integrated in-depot routing and recharging scheduling (IDRRS) problem, which is modeled as a constraint programming (CP) problem with Boolean satisfiability conditions (SAT). The model is converted to a flexible job-shop problem (FJSP) and is feasible to be solved by a CP-SAT solver for the optimal solution or feasible solutions with acceptable performance. This paper also presents a case study in Shanghai and compares the results from the FJSP model and the first-come first-serve (FCFS) method. The result demonstrates the allocation of routes and chargers under multiple scenarios with different numbers of chargers. The results show that the FJSP model shortens the delay and increases the time conservation for future rounds of operation than FCFS, while FCFS presents the simplicity of programming and better computational efficiency. The multiple random input test suggests that the proposed approach can decide the minimum number of chargers for stochastic charging requests. The proposed method can conserve the investment by increasing the utilization of automated recharging devices, improving vehicles’ in-depot efficiency.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".