MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dynamic Load Balancing for EV Charging Stations Using Reinforcement Learning and Demand Prediction

2025· article· en· W4410887455 on OpenAlexaff
Hesam Mosalli, Saba Sanami, Yang Yu, Hen‐Geul Yeh, Amir G. Aghdam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningComputer scienceReinforcementLoad balancing (electrical power)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a method for load balancing and dynamic pricing in electric vehicle (EV) charging networks, utilizing reinforcement learning (RL) to enhance network performance. The proposed framework integrates a pre-trained graph neural network to predict demand elasticity and inform pricing decisions. The spatio-temporal EV charging demand prediction (EVCDP) dataset from Shenzhen is utilized to capture the geographic and temporal characteristics of the charging stations. The RL model dynamically adjusts prices at individual stations based on occupancy, maximum station capacity, and demand forecasts, ensuring an equitable network load distribution while preventing station overloads. By leveraging spatially-aware demand predictions and a carefully designed reward function, the framework achieves efficient load balancing and adaptive pricing strategies that respond to localized demand and global network dynamics, ensuring improved network stability and user satisfaction. The efficacy of the approach is validated through simulations on the dataset, showing significant improvements in load balancing and reduced overload as the RL agent iteratively interacts with the environment and learns to dynamically adjust pricing strategies based on real-time demand patterns and station constraints. The findings highlight the potential of adaptive pricing and load-balancing strategies to address the complexities of EV infrastructure, paving the way for scalable and user-centric solutions.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207