MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290673075 · doi:10.1155/2022/4372168

Charging-Related State Prediction for Electric Vehicles Using the Deep Learning Model

2022· article· en· W4290673075 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
De Zhao, Hua Wang, Zhiyuan Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsBattery (electricity)State of chargeTrajectorySensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceBattery capacityElectric vehiclePower (physics)SimulationArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric vehicles (EVs) are becoming the potential contender for the conventional gasoline vehicles in view of the environment-friendly and energy-efficient characteristics. The prediction of EV charging-related states (defined in this study as home charge, outside charge, home stop, outside stop, low-battery travel, and high-battery travel) could help to identify the future charging demand (power consumption) of EV individuals. Specifically, it could guide the operation and management of charging facilities and also provide tailored charger availability information based on users’ real-time locations. This study aims to predict charging-related states of individual EVs using a deep learning approach. We first propose a tangible approach to convert EV trajectory data into state sequences and then develop a bidirectional gated recurrent unit model with attention mechanism (Bi-GRU-Attention) to forecast EV states. A sensitivity analysis is conducted to tune and/or calibrate parameters in the model based on plug-in hybrid EV trajectories dataset collected in Shanghai, China. Experiment results show that (i) the proposed method could achieve an average accuracy of 77.15% with a 1-hour prediction length and it outperforms the baseline models for all tested prediction lengths; (ii) it is also revealed that the prediction accuracy varies dramatically with different states and time periods. Among all states, the proposed model has a higher prediction accuracy on “home stop” (89.0%). As for time periods, the EV states around 08:00 am and 04:00 pm are hard to predict, and a comparatively low prediction accuracy (close to 60%) is obtained; and (iii) the stability and robustness analysis implies that the proposed model is stable and insensitive to SOC noise or season.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207