Prediction of Charging Requirements for Electric Vehicles Based on Multiagent Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the spatiotemporal distribution of electric vehicle (EV) charging demands and operating efficiency of the charging system. The travel behavior of EV drivers is analyzed by considering the heterogeneity of range anxiety and bound rationality. Building on existing charging choice models, our more holistic perspective of charging demand distribution is obtained through multiagent system (MAS) modeling. In our study, the charging demand distribution in different areas is compared by considering two charging price schemes. The performance of the charging system is then evaluated based on three indicators, the charging request rejection rate, charging pile utilization rate, and charging load deviation, thereby verifying the effectiveness of our charging demand prediction model. This is done using multiagent-based simulations applied to the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) 2017 dataset. The results are analyzed according to different key indicators, mainly indicating (a) the limitations of the time-of-use (TOU) pricing strategy in reducing the peak-valley difference, (b) the transferability of charging demand among different functional areas, and (c) that there is less demand for charging piles in the workplace, as users mainly rely on home charging. These results facilitate further analyses to help the design and operation of the EV charging infrastructure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".