MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410633995 · doi:10.1016/j.trc.2026.105803

Joint Optimization of Electric Bus Scheduling and Fast Charging Infrastructure Location Planning

2025· preprint· en· W4410633995 on OpenAlexafffund
Kayhan Alamatsaz, Frédéric Quesnel, Ursula Eicker

Bibliographic record

VenueTransportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)Joint (building)Computer scienceElectric vehicleOperations researchBusinessOperations managementEngineeringCivil engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transit authorities are transitioning from conventional buses to electric buses (EBs) due to growing concerns about air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Many mathematical optimization models have been developed for scheduling conventional buses. However, such models would not fit EBs due to their limited travelling range and long charging time. Such operational differences have prompted new research into the literature on the charging station location problem. This study combines EB scheduling with fast-charging infrastructure location planning to minimize total scheduling and charger installation costs. We propose an Integer Linear Programming (ILP) formulation for a path-based model, solved using four developed branch-and-price algorithms, and test their performance across various instances. Our computational experiments show which branching strategy is computationally efficient in terms of execution time and optimality gap. Finally, we conduct a real case study and perform a sensitivity analysis to identify the most cost-effective type of electric bus, considering the specific characteristics of different EB types.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransportation Research Part C Emerging TechnologiesSame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207