Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Balancing Passenger Transport and Power Distribution: A Distributed Dispatch Policy for Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicles

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single dispatch policy can keep passenger queues bounded while using fleet batteries to restore critical electric loads after a disaster.

desk verdict A useful integration of maximum-stability dispatch with grid restoration, but the headline guarantee is asserted, not proven—worth refereeing with the expectation of fixing or softening that claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10444 v2 pith:YIWTETCK submitted 2024-11-15 eess.SY cs.SY

Jake Robbennolt , Meiyi Li , Javad Mohammadi , Stephen D. Boyles This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords sharedautonomouselectricvehiclesdispatchpolicymaximumthroughputgridresilienceservicerestorationADMMmodelpredictivecontrolvehicle-to-grid
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a fleet of shared autonomous electric vehicles can do two jobs at once after a disaster: keep carrying passengers (especially essential workers) and use its batteries to restore electric loads that the damaged grid cannot serve. The proposed model predictive control policy maximizes combined revenue from passenger fares and energy delivery, and it is claimed to provide maximum passenger throughput—meaning it keeps the expected number of waiting passengers bounded whenever any dispatch policy could do so. The paper also proposes a two-level distributed solution method based on the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM), so that the fleet operator and grid operator solve separate problems and only exchange predicted power flows at charging stations. If these claims are right, the practical consequence is that disaster recovery does not have to choose between mobility and power: one coordinated policy can serve both, and ignoring either side leads to misleading performance estimates.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the objective function of the centralized MILP: a demand-responsive pricing term $\mu_0(r,s,t)w_{rs}(t)$ multiplying passenger pickups, which grows without bound as queue lengths grow. That term makes passenger service eventually dominate all other revenues and costs, which is what forces vehicles to serve the longest queues first and keeps expected waiting passengers bounded; the paper asserts the same argument holds within the electric vehicle framework as in the maximum-stability dispatch theorem. Around this objective, the paper builds a two-level distributed algorithm based on the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM): the grid operator and vehicle dispatcher solve separate subproblems and exchange only predicted power flows at charging stations until consensus, and the dispatcher further splits per-vehicle routing subproblems so they run in parallel. The LinDistFlow model, a linearized radial distribution power-flow model, together with radial-topology constraints, describes how vehicle power transfers move through the distribution network.

What would settle it

Solve the centralized model on a small network with grid-service revenue $\mu_2$ set well above the demand-responsive price $\mu_0$ and queues that grow long; if the resulting dispatch lets the expected waiting queue diverge while a stabilizing schedule exists, the maximum-throughput claim fails. The paper's simulations use one fixed set of prices and do not probe this boundary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dispatch policy obtained by solving the model predictive control problem—a mixed-integer linear program over the joint transportation and distribution network—stabilizes passenger demand whenever stabilization is possible, even while vehicles charge and discharge to serve electric loads. The objective includes a demand-responsive price term that grows without bound as passenger queues grow, so that eventually serving the longest queues dominates any revenue from grid service, battery degradation, or electricity generation. The paper presents this as an extension of the maximum-stability dispatch theorem for shared autonomous vehicles to the SAEV/grid setting, with the detailed proof deferred to the first author's thesis. Simulations on small and large networks show queues staying bounded while nearly all unserved electric demand is restored, and the distributed ADMM heuristic reproduces the centralized behavior in a fraction of the computation time.

Load-bearing premise

The bounded-queue guarantee rests on the demand-responsive price term growing without limit as queues grow, and the paper assumes this dominance still holds when vehicles must also charge and discharge for the grid, deferring the proof to the first author's thesis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the maximum-throughput claim holds, the same fleet can serve every passenger demand that any feasible dispatch policy could serve while also restoring critical loads, so disaster response planners do not have to sacrifice mobility for power.
  • Ignoring grid constraints when planning SAEV dispatch understates passenger queues; ignoring passenger service overstates how much energy the fleet can deliver, so joint models are needed for accurate restoration estimates.
  • The ADMM heuristic finds near-optimal solutions in 1–5 minutes on the 150-vehicle Sioux Falls / IEEE 85-node test case, where centralized solvers take tens of minutes to hours, making real-time implementation plausible.
  • Queues grow more stable as congestion increases because the distributed subproblems have fewer conflicts, so the algorithm is fastest exactly when optimal dispatch matters most.
  • Because only aggregate pickup and charging decisions are exchanged, the hierarchical approach preserves privacy for individual vehicle routes and for each operator's internal costs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the demand-responsive price term is what makes queues stable, capping fares or letting grid-service revenue dominate could break the guarantee; this is a regime the paper's fixed-price simulations do not test.
  • Editorial inference: the same two-level ADMM decomposition could serve day-to-day vehicle-to-grid functions such as peak shaving and frequency regulation, not only disaster restoration, since the model already captures charging and discharging dynamics.
  • Editorial inference: because vehicles only report aggregate pickups and charging amounts, competing fleet operators could contribute to grid restoration without revealing routing or payment data, which the paper motivates but does not formalize.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a model predictive control (MPC) dispatch policy for shared autonomous electric vehicles (SAEVs) that coordinates passenger pickup with grid services (charging/discharging) in a distribution network. The policy is claimed to provide maximum passenger throughput if any policy can, based on an asserted transfer of a maximum-stability theorem for shared autonomous vehicles. The paper also develops a hierarchical distributed solution method based on ADMM, with local vehicle subproblems and a central coordinator, and reports case studies on a small 5-node system and a combined Sioux Falls / IEEE 85-node network comparing SAEVs, SA Vs, and TESSs.

Significance. If the maximum-throughput guarantee were rigorously established, the work would be a valuable extension of max-stability dispatch to coupled transportation-power systems, with clear practical relevance for disaster recovery. The model is comprehensive and the case studies illustrate that joint modeling of passenger and grid constraints matters. The ADMM decomposition with privacy preservation is a reasonable practical contribution. However, the central theoretical claim is not proven in the manuscript, the ADMM heuristic is acknowledged to lack convergence guarantees, and the numerical evaluation does not quantify near-optimality. As it stands, the paper's advertised guarantee is unsupported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II-E and Abstract] The maximum-throughput guarantee is asserted, not derived. The paper states that the Kang-Levin stability proof [30] applies 'within this electric vehicle framework the same is true' and defers the proof to thesis [34]. Since this property is the paper's central claimed contribution, the manuscript must include a self-contained proof or at least a precise statement of conditions under which the Lyapunov drift argument carries over. The transfer is nontrivial because objective (35) includes finite grid revenue, generation cost, and battery degradation terms that must be dominated by the queue-dependent term, and because battery limits (14), charger limits (12), and radiality constraints (15)-(24) can restrict the set of stabilizing actions.
  2. [Section IV-A (paragraph after Fig. 4)] The text says 'the service rate is less than the incoming demand rate (meaning in the long run all passengers will be served).' This is internally inconsistent: if the service rate is below the arrival rate, queues grow without bound. If the intended statement is that the service rate is greater than the incoming demand rate, the reported queue growth should be reconciled with the bounded-queue claim. In the larger network, the statement that neither fleet stabilizes passenger demands within the first 3 hours also needs to be reconciled with the maximum-throughput guarantee; a transient explanation should be made explicit and supported.
  3. [Section III-B and Section IV] The ADMM heuristic is acknowledged to have no convergence guarantees for the MILP, and the near-optimality claim is supported only by two scenarios. For the toy network, the comparison with the centralized solution is limited to 3 hours and no optimality gap is reported. For the Sioux Falls network, the text states that centralized solutions can take hours or may not be found, so no exact benchmark is available. The claim 'near-optimal solutions quickly' should be either quantified with objective-value gaps on instances where an exact solution is available, or softened to 'empirically good performance on the tested instances.'
  4. [Section II-A and Eq. (4)] The passenger queue evolution inside the MPC horizon uses predicted demand \tilde d_{qr}(t\tau). The maximum-stability theorem in [30] is stated for a policy that reacts to realized queue lengths. The paper does not show that the receding-horizon implementation with forecast errors and finite horizon preserves the bounded-queue guarantee. This is a distinct issue from the grid constraints and should be addressed as part of the missing proof.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-C (near Eq. (12))] The sentence 'we also need to ensure that vehicle are only allowed to charge and discharge' should be 'vehicles are only allowed.'
  2. [Section III-A] The phrase 'retaining a the vehicle dispatcher' should be 'retaining the vehicle dispatcher.'
  3. [Eq. (9)] The symbol \bar{e}^{sv}_q is used but not defined; please define it in the text.
  4. [Figure 9 caption] The caption 'points are lower-level iterations and lines are upper-level iterations' is unclear; please clarify what the lines connect.
  5. [References] The central theoretical claim is supported by citation to thesis [34]; if this remains the basis, please include the relevant argument or a rigorous sketch in the paper itself, since readers of a journal article should not need to consult a thesis to verify the main theorem.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The maximum-throughput guarantee rests on an unproven, self-cited transfer of the Kang-Levin stability theorem to the SAEV/grid setting.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section II-E, Objective Function (pages 4-5); cf. Abstract]
    "The objective function proposed in Kang and Levin [30] for SAV dispatch is proven to stabilize demand if it is possible to do so. Within this electric vehicle framework the same is true. That proof relies on the first objective term (the demand responsive price) increasing to infinity if queues increase to infinity. This will eventually prioritize passenger service more than providing power to the electric grid and will ensure vehicles serve the longest queues first to maintain stability."

    The paper's central advertised guarantee, 'provides maximum passenger throughput if any policy can' (Abstract), is not derived in this paper. Section II-E asserts 'Within this electric vehicle framework the same is true' and then defers the proof of the electrified transfer to Robbennolt [34], the first author's thesis. The external Kang-Levin theorem covers pure SAV dispatch; the transfer to this model requires showing that the Lyapunov/drift argument survives battery limits (13)-(14), charger limits (12), LinDistFlow/topology constraints, finite pricing coefficients in objective (35), and the receding-horizon MPC queue updates. No such argument appears in the paper.

full rationale

One load-bearing circular step was identified. The maximum-throughput claim is supported by asserting that the Kang-Levin maximum-stability theorem transfers to the SAEV/grid model, and the actual proof is deferred to the first author's thesis [34]. Because [34] is a self-citation that is not machine-checked, code-reproduced, or independently established in this paper, the central guarantee is not self-contained; this is exactly the self-citation-load-bearing pattern. The ADMM heuristic is not circular: the paper honestly states that ADMM 'has no guarantees of convergence for the MILPs' and that tuning is required, so it is a heuristic rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The numerical comparisons against the centralized CPLEX solution and against SAV/TESS baselines are external and are not circular. One non-circular correctness issue should be flagged: the text around Figure 4 says 'the service rate is less than the incoming demand rate (meaning in the long run all passengers will be served),' which literally describes an unstable queue and contradicts the stability claim; this is a correctness or typographical problem, not circularity. Overall score is 6 because the central claim reduces to a self-citation chain for the EV/grid transfer, but not to a definitional identity or a fitted input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central guarantees rest on a small set of modeling assumptions and an unproven transfer from prior work. The paper's own new contribution is the integration and heuristic, not new physical entities or free parameters used to fit the claimed result.

free parameters (3)
  • pricing coefficients mu0, mu1, mu2, mu3, mu4 = mu0=1 $/pass, mu1=20 $/hr, mu2=500 $/MWh, mu3=100 $/MWh, mu4=50 $/MWh
    Chosen by hand in Section IV to define the tradeoff between passenger revenue, energy revenue, generation cost, and battery degradation. The dispatch behavior and any stability result depend on these weights.
  • ADMM penalty parameters rhoE and rhoR, time-decay alpha, proximal limit epsilon_bar = not fully specified
    Section III-B describes tuning of rho by variable type, time-dependent decay rho/(tau+1)^alpha, and random proximal terms. Values are not listed, so the reported convergence is configuration-dependent.
  • random proximal epsilon vector epsilon_v = drawn from U(0, epsilon_bar)
    Added to break vehicle symmetry and improve ADMM convergence. The value of epsilon_bar is not specified.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The Kang-Levin maximum-stability proof for SAV dispatch applies unchanged to the SAEV model with charging, discharging, and grid constraints.
    Section II-E states 'within this electric vehicle framework the same is true' with the proof deferred to thesis [34]. This transfer is the load-bearing theoretical assumption.
  • domain assumption LinDistFlow with a radial, reconfigurable distribution network and continuously divisible loads is an adequate model.
    Section II-C and II-D use LinDistFlow and fractional load service l_i in [0,1]. This is standard in distribution system literature but is an approximation.
  • domain assumption EVs can inject or absorb reactive power without affecting state of charge or battery life.
    Section II-B cites Singh and Tiwari [36] for bidirectional chargers. This assumption is used to couple reactive power constraints.
  • domain assumption Travel times are constant and unaffected by SAEV dispatch decisions.
    Section II-A defines exogenous travel time C_qs as constant. Vehicle conservation and queue evolution depend on this assumption.
  • domain assumption Future passenger and energy demand is known via predictions, and unknown future demand does not break MPC stability.
    Section II-A evolves queues using predicted demand. The stability property is stated for the closed-loop policy but is not proven here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Balancing Passenger Transport and Power Distribution: A Distributed Dispatch Policy for Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIWTETCK

@misc{pith2026241110444,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Balancing Passenger Transport and Power Distribution: A Distributed Dispatch Policy for Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIWTETCK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10444}
}
read the original abstract

Shared autonomous electric vehicles can provide on-demand transportation for passengers while also interacting extensively with the electric distribution system. This interaction is especially beneficial after a disaster when the large battery capacity of the fleet can be used to restore critical electric loads. We develop a dispatch policy that balances the need to continue serving passengers (especially critical workers) and the ability to transfer energy across the network. The model predictive control policy tracks both passenger and energy flows and provides maximum passenger throughput if any policy can. The resulting mixed integer linear programming problem is difficult to solve for large-scale problems, so a distributed solution approach is developed to improve scalability, privacy, and resilience. We demonstrate that the proposed heuristic, based on the alternating direction method of multipliers, is effective in achieving near-optimal solutions quickly. The dispatch policy is examined in simulation to demonstrate the ability of vehicles to balance these competing objectives with benefits to both systems. Finally, we compare several dispatch behaviors, demonstrating the importance of including operational constraints and objectives from both the transportation and electric systems in the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10444 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Joint optimization between the fleet dispatcher and the electric grid operator. Consider a roadway network GR = (NR, AR) and an elec￾tric network GE = (NE, AE) with nodes N and links A. We will use indices i and j to refer to nodes in the electric network and q, r, and s to refer to nodes in the transportation system. We also define a fleet of vehicles V. We optimize vehicle dispatch through a model predictive contr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Communications between power distribution system operator and SAEV dispatcher. Many of the constraints in section II are separable by system (roadway or electric network). However, constraints (10) and (11) aggregate the charge taken by vehicles from the grid at the charging stations and link the vehicle dispatch and power flow problems. In order to create an algorithm to split the decisions of the vehicle dispatche… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Communications between vehicles and central controller. penalty parameter, λ v as the Lagrange multipliers associated with ADMM constraint. As above, u v is the scaled form of the Lagrangian multiplier λ v (u v = λ v ρR ). Also, based on the formulation by Boyd et al. [35], we replace η v with η¯ for efficiency, Then, we can write the scaled form of ADMM as: z v k+1 = argmin zv  f v (z v ) + ρR 2 ∥z v − z v k + ¯zk… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative unserved passengers for different vehicle fleets. Queues are only stable for fleets of SAEVs and SAVs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative unserved energy (MWh) for different vehicle fleets. SAEVs and 50/50 fleets are able to serve almost all energy demand that cannot be served by the grid. and energy service. After a simulation window of three hours (solving the dispatch problem every 5 minute…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Validation of ADMM algorithm based on cumulative un￾served passengers. The decentralized method achieves queues that are comparable to the centralized approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Validation of ADMM algorithm for the Sioux Falls network (points are lower-level iterations and lines are upper-level iterations. carrying passengers can stop for a short time to discharge before carrying passengers the other direction and recharg￾ing. While neither fl…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Cumulative unserved passengers for different vehicle fleets. SAEVs have slightly longer queues than SAVs, though demand starts to stabilize after 3 hours for both fleets [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Cumulative unserved energy (MWh) for different vehicle fleets. Both SAEVs and TESSs serve almost all of the energy demand. several implications for practical applications of SAEV routing methodologies and for future algorithmic improvements. This study suggests that i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    Resilience and Operational Benefits of Electric Vehicle and Grid Integration,

    J. Robbennolt, “Resilience and Operational Benefits of Electric Vehicle and Grid Integration,” MSE, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [30]

    Maximum-Stability Dispatch Policy for Shared Autonomous Vehicles,

    D. Kang and M. W. Levin, “Maximum-Stability Dispatch Policy for Shared Autonomous Vehicles,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological , vol. 148, pp. 132–151, Jun. 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [1]

    Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Planning for Inte- grated Transportation and Power Distribution Networks: A Review,

    T. Unterluggauer, J. Rich, P. B. Andersen, and S. Hashemi, “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Planning for Inte- grated Transportation and Power Distribution Networks: A Review,” eTransportation, vol. 12, p. 100163, May 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [2]

    Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Rec- ommendations,

    D. J. Fagnant and K. Kockelman, “Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Rec- ommendations,” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 77, pp. 167–181, Jul. 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [3]

    Transportable Energy Storage for More Resilient Distribution Systems With Multiple Microgrids,

    S. Yao, P. Wang, and T. Zhao, “Transportable Energy Storage for More Resilient Distribution Systems With Multiple Microgrids,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 3331– 3341, May 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [4]

    A Real-Time Dispatching Strategy for Shared Automated Electric Vehicles with Performance Guarantees,

    L. Li, T. Pantelidis, J. Y . J. Chow, and S. E. Jabari, “A Real-Time Dispatching Strategy for Shared Automated Electric Vehicles with Performance Guarantees,” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review , vol. 152, Aug. 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [5]

    Towards an Energy Future with Ubiquitous Electric Vehicles: Barriers and Opportunities,

    M. Mohammadi, J. Thornburg, and J. Mohammadi, “Towards an Energy Future with Ubiquitous Electric Vehicles: Barriers and Opportunities,” Energies, vol. 16, no. 17, p. 6379, Jan. 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [6]

    Routing a Mixed Fleet of Electric and Conventional Vehicles,

    D. Goeke and M. Schneider, “Routing a Mixed Fleet of Electric and Conventional Vehicles,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 245, no. 1, pp. 81–99, Aug. 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 45 references
  1. [7]

    Optimal Rout- ing and Charging of Energy-Limited Vehicles in Traffic Net- works,

    S. Pourazarm, C. G. Cassandras, and T. Wang, “Optimal Rout- ing and Charging of Energy-Limited Vehicles in Traffic Net- works,” International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control , vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1325–1350, 2016

    2016

  2. [8]

    Impact of Electric Vehicles on Power Distri- bution Networks,

    G. A. Putrus, P. Suwanapingkarl, D. Johnston, E. C. Bentley, and M. Narayana, “Impact of Electric Vehicles on Power Distri- bution Networks,” in 2009 IEEE V ehicle Power and Propulsion Conference, Sep. 2009, pp. 827–831

    2009

  3. [9]

    Using Fleets of Electric-Drive Vehicles for Grid Support,

    J. Tomi ´c and W. Kempton, “Using Fleets of Electric-Drive Vehicles for Grid Support,” Journal of Power Sources, vol. 168, no. 2, pp. 459–468, Jun. 2007

    2007

  4. [10]

    Integration of Renewable Energy into the Transport and Electricity Sectors Through V2g,

    H. Lund and W. Kempton, “Integration of Renewable Energy into the Transport and Electricity Sectors Through V2g,”Energy Policy, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 3578–3587, Sep. 2008

    2008

  5. [11]

    Integrating Pevs into Smart Home Energy Management: A Vehicle-to-Home Backup 11 Power Solution with Solar Power System,

    T. R. S. Reddy and I. Kumaraswamy, “Integrating Pevs into Smart Home Energy Management: A Vehicle-to-Home Backup 11 Power Solution with Solar Power System,” International Jour- nal of Electrical and Electronics Research , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 253–261, Mar. 2024

    2024

  6. [12]

    Strategic EV Charging and Renewable Integration in Texas,

    M. Mohammadi and J. Thornburg, “Strategic EV Charging and Renewable Integration in Texas,” in 2024 IEEE Texas Power and Energy Conference (TPEC) , Feb. 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  7. [13]

    Optimal Management of Coupled Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicles and Power Grids: Potential of Renewable Energy Integration,

    X. Yang, A. Abdin, and J. Puchinger, “Optimal Management of Coupled Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicles and Power Grids: Potential of Renewable Energy Integration,” Transporta- tion Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , vol. 165, p. 104726, Aug. 2024

    2024

  8. [14]

    Enhancing Resilient Restoration of Distribution Systems Utilizing Electric Vehicles and Supporting Incentive Mechanism,

    C. Wu, C. Chen, Y . Ma, F. Li, Q. Sui, X. Lin, F. Wei, and Z. Li, “Enhancing Resilient Restoration of Distribution Systems Utilizing Electric Vehicles and Supporting Incentive Mechanism,” Applied Energy, vol. 322, p. 119452, Sep. 2022

    2022

  9. [15]

    Resilience-Oriented Scheduling of Shared Au- tonomous Electric Vehicles: A Cooperation Framework for Electrical Distribution Networks and Transportation Sector,

    M. H. Amirioun, S. Jafarpour, A. Abdali, J. M. Guerrero, and B. Khan, “Resilience-Oriented Scheduling of Shared Au- tonomous Electric Vehicles: A Cooperation Framework for Electrical Distribution Networks and Transportation Sector,” Journal of Advanced Transportation , vol. 20...

    2023

  10. [16]

    Assessing the Effect of Ge- ographically Correlated Failures on Interconnected Power- Communication Networks,

    S. Neumayer and E. Modiano, “Assessing the Effect of Ge- ographically Correlated Failures on Interconnected Power- Communication Networks,” in 2013 IEEE International Con- ference on Smart Grid Communications , Oct. 2013

    2013

  11. [17]

    Optimal Distribution System Restoration Using PHEVs,

    W. Sun, N. Kadel, I. Alvarez-Fernandez, R. R. Nejad, and A. Golshani, “Optimal Distribution System Restoration Using PHEVs,” IET Smart Grid , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 42–49, 2019

    2019

  12. [18]

    Resilient Restoration of Distribution Systems in Coordination With Elec- tric Bus Scheduling,

    B. Li, Y . Chen, W. Wei, S. Huang, and S. Mei, “Resilient Restoration of Distribution Systems in Coordination With Elec- tric Bus Scheduling,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 3314–3325, Jul. 2021

    2021

  13. [19]

    The Travel and Envi- ronmental Implications of Shared Autonomous Vehicles, Using Agent-Based Model Scenarios,

    D. J. Fagnant and K. M. Kockelman, “The Travel and Envi- ronmental Implications of Shared Autonomous Vehicles, Using Agent-Based Model Scenarios,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , vol. 40, pp. 1–13, Mar. 2014

    2014

  14. [20]

    A General Framework for Modeling Shared Autonomous Vehicles with Dynamic Network-Loading and Dynamic Ride-Sharing Application,

    M. W. Levin, K. M. Kockelman, S. D. Boyles, and T. Li, “A General Framework for Modeling Shared Autonomous Vehicles with Dynamic Network-Loading and Dynamic Ride-Sharing Application,” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems , vol. 64, pp. 373–383, Jul. 2017

    2017

  15. [21]

    Shared Autonomous Vehicle Simulation and Service Design,

    R. V osooghi, J. Puchinger, M. Jankovic, and A. V ouillon, “Shared Autonomous Vehicle Simulation and Service Design,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , vol. 107, pp. 15–33, Oct. 2019

    2019

  16. [22]

    Control of Robotic Mobility-on- Demand Systems: A Queueing-Theoretical Perspective,

    R. Zhang and M. Pavone, “Control of Robotic Mobility-on- Demand Systems: A Queueing-Theoretical Perspective,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 35, no. 1-3, pp. 186–203, Jan. 2016, publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd STM

    2016

  17. [23]

    Fleet Operational Policies for Automated Mobility: A Simula- tion Assessment for Zurich,

    S. H ¨orl, C. Ruch, F. Becker, E. Frazzoli, and K. Axhausen, “Fleet Operational Policies for Automated Mobility: A Simula- tion Assessment for Zurich,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 102, pp. 20–31, May 2019

    2019

  18. [24]

    Dynamic Autonomous Ve- hicle Fleet Operations: Optimization-Based Strategies to Assign Avs to Immediate Traveler Demand Requests,

    M. Hyland and H. S. Mahmassani, “Dynamic Autonomous Ve- hicle Fleet Operations: Optimization-Based Strategies to Assign Avs to Immediate Traveler Demand Requests,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 92, pp. 278–297, Jul. 2018

    2018

  19. [25]

    Maximum Throughput Dis- patch for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Including Vehicle Re- balancing,

    J. Robbennolt and M. W. Levin, “Maximum Throughput Dis- patch for Shared Autonomous Vehicles Including Vehicle Re- balancing,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pp. 1–15, 2023

    2023

  20. [26]

    Optimization of Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicles Operations with Charge Scheduling and Vehicle-to-Grid,

    R. Iacobucci, B. McLellan, and T. Tezuka, “Optimization of Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicles Operations with Charge Scheduling and Vehicle-to-Grid,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies , vol. 100, pp. 34–52, Mar. 2019

    2019

  21. [27]

    A Vehicle Coordination and Charge Scheduling Algorithm for Electric Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand Systems,

    F. Boewing, M. Schiffer, M. Salazar, and M. Pavone, “A Vehicle Coordination and Charge Scheduling Algorithm for Electric Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand Systems,” in 2020 American Control Conference (ACC) , Jul. 2020, pp. 248–255

    2020

  22. [28]

    Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicle Dispatch with Mobility and Distri- bution System Resilience Benefits,

    J. Robbennolt, J. Mohammadi, and S. D. Boyles, “Shared Autonomous Electric Vehicle Dispatch with Mobility and Distri- bution System Resilience Benefits,” in 2024 IEEE Texas Power and Energy Conference (TPEC) , Feb. 2024, pp. 1–6

    2024

  23. [29]

    Model Predictive Control of Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand Systems,

    R. Zhang, F. Rossi, and M. Pavone, “Model Predictive Control of Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand Systems,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , May 2016, pp. 1382–1389

    2016

  24. [31]

    A Zone-based Dynamic Queueing Model and Maximum-stability Dispatch Policy for Shared Autonomous Vehicles,

    T. Xu, M. W. Levin, and M. Cieniawski, “A Zone-based Dynamic Queueing Model and Maximum-stability Dispatch Policy for Shared Autonomous Vehicles,” in 2021 IEEE Inter- national Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC) , Sep. 2021, pp. 3827–3832

    2021

  25. [32]

    A Modular and Transferable Reinforcement Learning Framework for the Fleet Rebalancing Problem,

    E. Skordilis, Y . Hou, C. Tripp, M. Moniot, P. Graf, and D. Bi- agioni, “A Modular and Transferable Reinforcement Learning Framework for the Fleet Rebalancing Problem,” IEEE Transac- tions on Intelligent Transportation Systems , vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 11 903–11 916, Aug. 2022

    2022

  26. [33]

    Reinforcement Learning for Ridesharing: An Extended Survey,

    Z. Qin, H. Zhu, and J. Ye, “Reinforcement Learning for Ridesharing: An Extended Survey,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 144, p. 103852, Nov. 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Al- ternating Direction Method of Multipliers,

    S. Boyd, N. Parikh, E. Chu, B. Peleato, and J. Eckstein, “Distributed Optimization and Statistical Learning via the Al- ternating Direction Method of Multipliers,” F oundations and Trends in Machine Learning, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–122, Jul. 2011

    2011

  28. [36]

    Electric Vehicles Reactive Power Management and Reconfiguration of Distribution System to Minimise Losses,

    J. Singh and R. Tiwari, “Electric Vehicles Reactive Power Management and Reconfiguration of Distribution System to Minimise Losses,” IET Generation, Transmission & Distribu- tion, vol. 14, no. 25, pp. 6285–6293, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Single-Phase On-Board Bidirectional PEV Charger for V2G Reactive Power Operation,

    M. C. Kisacikoglu, M. Kesler, and L. M. Tolbert, “Single-Phase On-Board Bidirectional PEV Charger for V2G Reactive Power Operation,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 767–775, Mar. 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Optimal Capacitor Placement on Radial Distribution Systems,

    M. Baran and F. Wu, “Optimal Capacitor Placement on Radial Distribution Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 725–734, Jan. 1989

    1989

  31. [39]

    Distributed Control of Reactive Power Flow in a Radial Distribution Circuit with High Photovoltaic Penetration,

    K. Turitsyn, P. ˇSulc, S. Backhaus, and M. Chertkov, “Distributed Control of Reactive Power Flow in a Radial Distribution Circuit with High Photovoltaic Penetration,” in IEEE PES General Meeting, Jul. 2010, pp. 1–6

    2010

  32. [40]

    Adaptive V AR Control for Distribution Circuits With Photovoltaic Generators,

    H.-G. Yeh, D. F. Gayme, and S. H. Low, “Adaptive V AR Control for Distribution Circuits With Photovoltaic Generators,” IEEE Transactions on Power Systems , vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 1656–1663, Aug. 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    A Rolling Horizon Optimization Framework for Resilient Restoration of Active Distribution Systems,

    N. Xin, L. Chen, L. Ma, and Y . Si, “A Rolling Horizon Optimization Framework for Resilient Restoration of Active Distribution Systems,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 9, Jan. 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    A Comparative Study of Benders Decomposition and ADMM for Decentralized Op- timal Power Flow,

    S. Candas, K. Zhang, and T. Hamacher, “A Comparative Study of Benders Decomposition and ADMM for Decentralized Op- timal Power Flow,” in 2020 IEEE Power & Energy Society Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conference (ISGT) , Feb. 2020, pp. 1–5

    2020

  35. [43]

    Two-Stage Fully Distributed Approach for Unit Commitment with Consensus Admm,

    C. Zhang, L. Yang, and J. Jian, “Two-Stage Fully Distributed Approach for Unit Commitment with Consensus Admm,” Elec- tric Power Systems Research , vol. 181, p. 106180, Apr. 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Transportation Networks for Research,

    T. N. for Research Core Team, “Transportation Networks for Research,” Tech. Rep., accessed 2022-06-13. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/bstabler/TransportationNetworks

    2022

  37. [45]

    A Two- Stage Approach to Locate and Size PV Sources in Distribution Networks for Annual Grid Operative Costs Minimization,

    O. D. Montoya, E. Rivas-Trujillo, and J. C. Hern ´andez, “A Two- Stage Approach to Locate and Size PV Sources in Distribution Networks for Annual Grid Operative Costs Minimization,” Electronics, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 961, Jan. 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.