MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212620435 · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3128491

Performance Analysis of LSTMs for Daily Individual EV Charging Behavior Prediction

2021· article· en· W3212620435 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Shaharyar Khwaja, Bala Venkatesh, Alagan Anpalagan

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceDuration (music)Performance predictionTraining setTerm (time)Work (physics)Artificial intelligenceReal-time computingMachine learningSimulationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we evaluate and analyze the performance of long short-term memory networks (LSTMs) for individual electric vehicle (EV) charging behavior prediction over the next day. The charging behavior consists of the charging duration level within a certain upper and lower range, the time slots in which charging will take place, the number of times charging will take place in each time slot, and whether the next day will be a charging day or not. Unlike existing work, we evaluate the behavior prediction performance for increasing resolutions of charging duration levels and charging time slots, using varying lengths of training data. The performance of the proposed approach is validated using real EV charging data, and comparison with other machine learning methods shows its generally superior prediction accuracy for all resolutions. We show that the best performance is achieved when around 8-10 months of data are used as training data. It is also shown that although the performance of the LSTMs degrades with increasing resolution, the performance for charging time slot prediction is affected less compared to that for charging duration prediction. We further propose, analyze and evaluate a new technique that improves the charging duration prediction performance.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207