MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200288851 · doi:10.3390/en14248517

A Novel Mean Field Game-Based Strategy for Charging Electric Vehicles in Solar Powered Parking Lots

2021· article· en· W4200288851 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel M. Muhindo, Roland P. Malhamé, G. Joós

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHydro-QuébecPolytechnique Montréal
KeywordsNash equilibriumState of chargeElectric vehicleComputer sciencePopulationParking lotBayesian gameBattery (electricity)Automotive engineeringSimulationGame theoryMathematical optimizationEngineeringSequential gameMathematicsMathematical economicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop a strategy, with concepts from Mean Field Games (MFG), to coordinate the charging of a large population of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in a parking lot powered by solar energy and managed by an aggregator. A yearly parking fee is charged for each BEV irrespective of the amount of energy extracted. The goal is to share the energy available so as to minimize the standard deviation (STD) of the state of charge (SOC) of batteries when the BEVs are leaving the parking lot, while maintaining some fairness and decentralization criteria. The MFG charging laws correspond to the Nash equilibrium induced by quadratic cost functions based on an inverse Nash equilibrium concept and designed to favor the batteries with the lower SOCs upon arrival. While the MFG charging laws are strictly decentralized, they guarantee that a mean of instantaneous charging powers to the BEVs follows a trajectory based on the solar energy forecast for the day. That day ahead forecast is broadcasted to the BEVs which then gauge the necessary SOC upon leaving their home. We illustrate the advantages of the MFG strategy for the case of a typical sunny day and a typical cloudy day when compared to more straightforward strategies: first come first full/serve and equal sharing. The behavior of the charging strategies is contrasted under conditions of random arrivals and random departures of the BEVs in the parking lot.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207