MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388106840 · doi:10.1145/3616392.3623411

Fastest Route and Charging Optimization of an Electric Vehicle With Battery's Life Consideration

2023· article· en· W4388106840 on OpenAlexaff
Dariush Ebrahimi, Maryam Qusay Yousif Helae, Sabah Mohammed, Fadi Alzhouri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityTrent UniversityLakehead UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHeuristicContext (archaeology)Battery (electricity)Electric vehicleMathematical optimizationVehicle routing problemGridPath (computing)Routing (electronic design automation)Distributed computingArtificial intelligenceEmbedded systemComputer networkPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tremendous development in battery technology has made the use of electric vehicles (EVs) a reality and the growing usage of autonomous electric vehicles (AEVs) over the past couple of years has posed many serious challenges. To date, much IoT research exists on EV transportation systems in general, particularly in the routing, energy, and grid system balance. In this context, throughout this paper, we revisit the task of finding the fastest path for AEVs. In contrast to the state-of-the-art, we explore the capabilities of minimizing the traveling time and maximizing the battery life for the effective utilization of electric vehicles. We first model the problem mathematically to obtain optimal solutions for small instances, and then owing to the complexity of the optimization model, we propose several heuristic algorithms to solve the problem on large instances. Our analysis and evaluations, which are based on small and large networks of nodes, demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed approaches and which one is superior in practice. We believe that this study provides a very strong step towards finding the optimal usage of AEVs in terms of time and battery life alike.

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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207