Resilience-Oriented Scheduling of Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicles: A Cooperation Framework for Electrical Distribution Networks and Transportation Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As autonomous electric vehicles and car-sharing services are becoming more popular, the contribution of shared autonomous electric vehicles (SAEVs) to the future of urban transportation is getting more achievable. Like conventional electric vehicles, SAEVs can provide power grids with ancillary services. This article proposes a new scheduling scheme for SAEV fleets within a cooperative plan to let power distribution networks benefit from the energy storage of vehicle batteries in recovering critical loads after a predictable extreme event. According to a long-term contract, the detailed request of the distribution system operator (DSO), together with desired constraints and perquisites, is sent to the SAEVs aggregator (SA) prior to the landfall of a predictable extreme event. Afterward, SA runs a targeted algorithm to schedule trip assignments and charging cycles of SAEVs so that the required constraints of DSO are satisfied. The SAEV participants will continue carrying passengers within the scheduled time horizon in addition to delivering energy to the distribution network at the scheduling deadline declared by DSO. This deadline is the time instant when the capacity of the SAEV fleet may be no more applicable to enhance the system preparedness against the approaching event. Numerical results illustrated that the proposed scheme helps improve the power grid resilience by delivering 2396.1 kWh of energy to the distribution network in addition to increasing the total income of each participant SAEV by about 130%. Thus, it is implied that the proposed method offers a win-win situation for both entities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".