Optimising Electric Vehicle Charging Station Placement Using Advanced Discrete Choice Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a new model for finding the optimal placement of electric vehicle charging stations across a multiperiod time frame so as to maximise electric vehicle adoption. Via the use of stochastic discrete choice models and user classes, this work allows for a granular modelling of user attributes and their preferences in regard to charging station characteristics. We adopt a simulation approach and precompute error terms for each option available to users for a given number of scenarios. This results in a bilevel optimisation model that is, however, intractable for all but the simplest instances. Our major contribution is a reformulation into a maximum covering model, which uses the precomputed error terms to calculate the users covered by each charging station. This allows solutions to be found more efficiently than for the bilevel formulation. The maximum covering formulation remains intractable in some instances, so we propose rolling horizon, greedy, and greedy randomised adaptive search procedure heuristics to obtain good-quality solutions more efficiently. Extensive computational results are provided, and they compare the maximum covering formulation with the current state of the art for both exact solutions and the heuristic methods. History: Accepted by Andrea Lodi, Area Editor for Design & Analysis of Algorithms–Discrete. Funding: This work was supported by Hydro-Québec and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Discovery Grant 2017-06054; Collaborative Research and Development Grant CRDPJ 536757–19]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2022.0185 .
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".