Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Range anxiety among electric vehicle (EV) drivers stems less from battery capacity itself than from the difficulty of trusting a dashboard range estimate and choosing, quickly, among charging options of unequal speed, price and compatibility. The authors' earlier work encoded this choice as a Boolean Satisfiability problem solved once, offline, using a fixed energy-consumption rate on short intra-city routes. This paper extends that formulation to Predictive Constraint-Verified EV Routing (PC-EVR), a system that (i) predicts a vehicle's achievable range from live telemetry using a trained XGBoost regressor rather than a fixed rate, and (ii) re-solves the next charging decision at every real stop as a Weighted Partial MaxSAT instance, using the RC2 core-guided solver, in which a 20% state-of-charge floor is a non-negotiable constraint that filters candidates outright rather than a factor the solver merely weighs in. The range predictor is selected after a controlled, identical-split comparison against Linear Regression, Random Forest and a neural network, and its selection is validated by a dedicated ablation study rather than an offline error metric alone. PC-EVR is benchmarked against two purpose-built greedy baselines (nearest-station, cheapest-station) under identical safety and traffic assumptions, across five real long-distance Indian trips and India's national government charging-station registry of 39,641 stations. The proposed system completes every trip without a single safety-constraint violation while reducing average trip time by approximately 8.7 hours against the nearest-station baseline and 21.6 hours against the cheapest-station baseline. The ablation study further shows that routing quality is insensitive to small prediction-accuracy differences among tree- and network-based models but degrades measurably once accuracy falls below a threshold, a finding with direct implications for range-model selection in future systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ravipati et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: