A Two-Stage Optimization Framework for Electric Vehicle Fleet Day-ahead Charging Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays electric vehicles (EVs) have become one of the important means of transportation all over the world. The importance of EV owners’ privacy as well as smart EV fleet charging has always been one of the challenges in smart charging planning and management. Furthermore, in smart charging, the distribution system operator must also coordinate with EV aggregators to insure that the power system is operated within security limits while reducing charging costs and satisfying EV users’ energy needs. In this paper, a semi-private framework for EV owners has been introduced which solves a two-stage optimization problem for the smart control of EV charging. This framework considers charging cost reduction and peak load shaving as well as satisfying power grid constraints. At the higher stage, based on optimal power flow calculations, the proposed control signals are transferred to the lower stage in order to facilitate optimal scheduling in accordance with the mentioned goals. The obtained results based on the proposed optimal method implemented on the IEEE 33-bus network show that compared to uncontrolled charging, the cost of charging and the peak of the network are reduced by 5.31% and 4.90%, respectively. Moreover, all the constraints of the power grid are satisfied.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".