MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366779614 · doi:10.1016/j.egyai.2023.100267

A data-driven framework for medium-term electric vehicle charging demand forecasting

2023· article· en· W4366779614 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander Orzechowski, Loren Lugosch, Hao Shu, Raymond H. Yang, Wei Li, Brett H. Meyer

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy and AI · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Computer scienceDemand forecastingTerm (time)Software deploymentExploitElectricityMean absolute percentage errorPeak demandMean squared errorBaseline (sea)Work (physics)Operations researchArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid phase-in of electric vehicles (EV) will cause unprecedented issues with managing the supply of electricity and charging stations. It is in the interest of utility providers and everyday consumers to be able to plan for peak charging times, and related congestion. While past work has been done for localized, short-term forecasting, it has not included longer term forecasting, or considered the relationships between multiple stations. Importantly, past work has also not offered a framework for dataset construction and evaluated different dataset features. We propose a methodology to forecast demand at public EV charging stations, and use it to explore the potential of data-driven models to predict demand up to one week in advance. Our strategy includes selecting parameters for formatting a dataset given a list of charging events, a way to consider flexible prediction horizons, and deployment of deep and supervised learning-based models. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first study to propose machine learning to forecast medium-term public EV charging demand, to exploit weather and other features at public charging stations, and to forecast demand at multiple stations and the entire network. We validated our approach using data from eleven stations over three years from Scotland, UK. Our method outperforms the benchmark time series method, and predicts network demand with a symmetric mean absolute percentage error (SMAPE) of 5.9% and a mean absolute error (MAE) of 124.7 kWh, or less than twelve percent of average daily demand.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations66
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy and AISame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207