MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208895056 · doi:10.1002/nav.22027

Capacity expansion strategies for electric vehicle charging networks: Model, algorithms, and case study

2021· article· en· W3208895056 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Qianqian Chen, Kai Huang, Mark R. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueNaval Research Logistics (NRL) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRange (aeronautics)Electric vehicleSolverMathematical optimizationHeuristicOperations researchCharging stationAlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Governments in many jurisdictions are taking measures to promote the use of electric vehicles. As part of this goal, it is crucial to provide a sufficient number of charging stations to alleviate drivers' anxieties associated with the range of the vehicle. The goal of this research is to help governments develop vehicle charging networks for public use via the application of multistage stochastic integer programming model that determines both the locations and capacities of charging facilities over finite planning horizons. The logit choice model is used to estimate drivers' choices of nearby charging stations. Moreover, we characterize the charging demand as a function of the charging station quantity to reflect the range anxiety of consumers. The objective of the model is to minimize the expected total cost of installing and operating the charging facilities. An approximation algorithm, a heuristic algorithm, and a branch‐and‐price algorithm are designed to solve the model. We conduct numerical experiments to test the efficiency of these algorithms. Importantly, each algorithm has advantages over the CPLEX MIP solver. Finally, the City of Oakville in Ontario, Canada, is used to demonstrate the effectiveness of this model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.172
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNaval Research Logistics (NRL)Same topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207