Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Electric-vehicle (EV) charging is a localized, time-varying load that challenges distribution networks. This study offers practical insights into when spatial graph structure adds value beyond temporal context, utilizing real-world data and a transparent evaluation. We compare Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) models for hourly EV-charging energy forecasting, based on 145,778 sessions recorded in Boulder, Colorado (2018–2023). After preprocessing and temporal alignment, temporal covariates (hour, day, month, year) and, when applicable, ZIP-code indicators were engineered. LSTMs were trained with 1 h and 24 h input windows, with or without ZIP features, and evaluated through 5-fold cross-validation. GCNs operated on hourly node–time tensors with a dense adjacency (no self-loops) and were trained on an 80/20 temporal split, using a 1% subsample for tractability. All models used Adam (lr = 0.005), early stopping, and ReduceLROnPlateau. Temporal context was the main driver of LSTM accuracy: 24 h inputs outperformed 1 h, while ZIP features improved only the shorter window. For GCNs, depth and node features shaped performance: a 2-layer GCN with ZIP features achieved the lowest RMSE (4.75 kWh), whereas a 6-layer GCN without node features reached the lowest MAE (2.46 kWh). Despite higher computational cost, GCNs captured spatial coupling effectively. Overall, 24 h LSTMs provide a strong and efficient baseline, while GCNs add value when spatial correlations are relevant. A hybrid GCN–LSTM architecture is a promising next step to jointly leverage spatial and temporal dependencies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alaraj et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: