Maximum flow‐based formulation for the optimal location of electric vehicle charging stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With the increasing effects of climate change, the urgency to step away from fossil fuels is greater than ever before. Electric vehicles (EVs) are one way to diminish these effects, but their widespread adoption is often limited by the insufficient availability of charging stations. In this work, our goal is to expand the infrastructure of EV charging stations, in order to provide a better quality of service in terms of user satisfaction (and availability of charging stations). Specifically, our focus is directed towards urban areas. We first propose a model for the assignment of EV charging demand to stations, framing it as a maximum flow problem. This model is the basis for the evaluation of user satisfaction with a given charging infrastructure. Secondly, we incorporate the maximum flow model into a mixed‐integer linear program, where decisions on the opening of new stations and on the expansion of their capacity through additional outlets is accounted for. We showcase our methodology for the city of Montreal, demonstrating the scalability of our approach to handle real‐world scenarios. We conclude that considering both spacial and temporal variations in charging demand is meaningful when solving realistic instances.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".