A Social Welfare Theory-Inspired Lexicographic Optimal Charging Scheduling Framework for Modular EV Fast Charging Stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fast charging technology is crucial for widespread electric vehicle (EV) adoption. To enhance efficiency and scalability, charging equipment manufacturers are shifting towards a modular architecture in fast charging stations (FCSs). This architecture features multiple converter modules and charging ports, allowing flexible power allocation through module-to-port assignment. However, it introduces challenges, particularly when ports operate with fewer modules, necessitating EV charging scheduling schemes to allocate limited FCS capacity while maintaining high quality-of-service (QoS). Traditional scheduling methods are ill-suited for modular FCS settings due to unique characteristics such as discrete module-to-port allocation, state-of-charge-dependent charge curves, and power ramp rate limits. This work proposes a social welfare-inspired EV scheduling framework for modular FCSs, using lexicographic optimization and receding horizon control. The framework includes a computationally efficient charge curve model based on sliding convex hulls and a mathematical model tailored for modular FCSs. The three-stage lexicographic model, derived from Rawlsian and Benthamite social welfare theories, accommodates customer preferences and EV characteristics for high QoS provision. A welfare score metric, adapted from social welfare theories, is also introduced for multi-faceted QoS assessment. Across ceteris paribus experiments, the proposed framework consistently outperforms three benchmark methods, with a margin of up to 34% in welfare scores over the second-best method. In a diverse set of randomized EV arrival scenarios, the framework enables a median welfare around 85%, outperforming the benchmarks by at least 7.8%, with statistical tests confirming its significance. Moreover, ramp rate violations are kept at a minimum, while the computational efficiency and scalability are verified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".