A Game-Theoretic Framework for Intelligent EV Charging Network Optimisation in Smart Cities

Real-world infrastructure planning increasingly involves strategic interactions among autonomous agents competing over congestible, limited resources. Applications such as Electric Vehicle (EV) charging, emergency response, and intelligent transportation require coordinated resource placement and pricing decisions, while anticipating the adaptive behaviour of decentralised, self-interested agents. We propose a novel multi-agent framework for joint placement and pricing under such interactions, formalised as a bi-level optimisation model. The upper level represents a central planner, while the lower level captures agent responses via coupled non-atomic congestion games. Motivated by the EV charging domain, we study a setting where a central planner provisions chargers and road capacity under budget and profitability constraints. The agent population includes both EV drivers and non-charging drivers (NCDs), who respond to congestion, delays, and costs. To solve the resulting NP-hard problem, we introduce ABO-MPN, a double-layer approximation framework that decouples agent types, applies integer adjustment and rounding, and targets high-impact placement and pricing decisions. Experiments on benchmark networks show that our model reduces social cost by up to 40% compared to placement- or pricing-only baselines, and generalises to other MAS-relevant domains.

The rapid growth of electric vehicles is shifting the main constraint on transport electrification from vehicle adoption to the deployment and operation of charging infrastructure. Charging-network design requires decisions across three interdependent layers: Planning, which determines where and how much infrastructure to build; Scheduling, which governs charging dispatch, pricing, and grid interaction; and Behavior, which captures how users choose stations, charging times, and charging durations. Existing studies have advanced each layer substantially, but the literature remains fragmented, and cross-layer interactions are often treated through simplifying assumptions. This survey develops a three-layer Planning-Scheduling-Behavior (PSB) framework to organize EV charging research according to decision horizon, actor objective, and coupling structure. We further identify a fidelity-tractability tradeoff, termed the PSB trilemma: each layer is computationally difficult in isolation, and realistic integration across layers generally requires reducing the fidelity of at least one layer. Reviewing the three pairwise-coupling literatures - Planning-Scheduling, Scheduling-Behavior, and Planning-Behavior - we show that the omitted third layer is typically fixed exogenously or represented by a static aggregate surrogate. These simplifications enable tractability but impose distinct costs: they can obscure long-term investment feedback, temporal grid and emissions dynamics, or heterogeneous user response and equity outcomes. Building on this diagnosis, we identify open challenges in emerging charging technologies, behavioral incentives, equity metrics, and city-scale learning-based methods that balance fidelity, interpretability, and policy relevance.

The rapid growth of electric vehicles (EVs) requires more effective charging infrastructure planning. Infrastructure layout not only determines deployment cost, but also reshapes charging behavior and influences overall system performance. In addition, destination charging and en-route charging represent distinct charging regimes associated with different power requirements, which may lead to substantially different infrastructure deployment outcomes. This study applies an agent-based modeling framework to generate trajectory-level latent public charging demand under three charging regimes based on a synthetic representation of the Melbourne (Australia) metropolitan area. Two deployment strategies, an optimization-based approach and a utilization-refined approach, are evaluated across different infrastructure layouts. Results show that utilization-refined deployments reduce total system cost, accounting for both infrastructure deployment cost and user generalized charging cost, with the most significant improvement observed under the combined charging regime. In particular, a more effective allocation of AC slow chargers reshapes destination charging behavior, which in turn reduces unnecessary reliance on en-route charging and lowers detour costs associated with en-route charging. This interaction highlights the behavioral linkage between destination and en-route charging regimes and demonstrates the importance of accounting for user response and multiple charging regimes in charging infrastructure planning.