MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cyberphysical Fault Detection for Electric Vehicle Platoons using Graph Convolution Network

2025· article· W4415398256 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Al Janaideh, Deepa Kundur

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectric vehicleFault detection and isolationGraphFault (geology)Feature extractionPlatoonExploitConvolution (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smart city infrastructure requires increasing deployment of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) to match projected electric vehicle (EV) adoption. However, connected EV platoons pose physical and cyber-risks to charging stations—and by extension the smart grid—by the nature of their size and network surface. This work tackles the problem prophylactically by proposing a health-monitoring technique for EV platoons to identify vehicles that have a battery fault or have been exposed to cyberattacks prior to charging. Our method uses measurements acquired during vehicle operation and leverages the underlying communication structure of the platoon by using a spatiotempo-ral graph neural network (GNN). The GNN utilizes alternating layers of spatial feature extraction using Chebyshev convolution and time-series feature extraction using the attention mechanism. We compare our results with those obtained using learning-based methods that do not exploit the graph structure of data and demonstrate that our spatiotemporal GNN outperforms the baseline models after training on cyberphysical fault scenarios. Additionally, we discuss our future work into the advantages offered by GNNs for platoons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207