Prediction of electric vehicle charging duration time using ensemble machine learning algorithm and Shapley additive explanations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electric vehicles (EVs) are the most important components of smart transportation systems. Limited driving range, prolonged charging times, and inadequate charging infrastructure are the key barriers to EV adoption. To address the problem of prolonged charging time, the simple approach of developing a new charging station to enhance the charging capacity may not work due to the limitation of physical space and strain on power grids. Prediction of precise EV charging time can assist the drivers in effective planning of their trips to alleviate range anxiety during trips. Therefore, this study employed four different ensemble machine learning (EML) algorithms: random forest, extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), categorical boosting, and light gradient boosting machine, for predicting EVs' charging time. The prediction experiments were based on 2 years of real-world charging event data from 500 EVs in Japan's private and commercial vehicles. The study emphasized predicting charging time for different charging modes, that is, normal and fast charging operations. The results indicate that EML models performed well under various scenarios, with the XGBoost model having the highest accuracy. Moreover, we also employ the newly developed Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) approach to tackle the non-interpretability issues of the ML algorithm by interpreting the XGBoost model outputs. The obtained SHAP value plots demonstrated the nonlinear relationship between explanatory variables and EV charging time.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".