The Role of AI, Machine Learning, and Big Data in Digital Twinning: A Systematic Literature Review, Challenges, and Opportunities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital twinning is one of the top ten technology trends in the last couple of years, due to its high applicability in the industrial sector. The integration of big data analytics and artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI-ML) techniques with digital twinning, further enriches its significance and research potential with new opportunities and unique challenges. To date, a number of scientific models have been designed and implemented related to this evolving topic. However, there is no systematic review of digital twinning, particularly focusing on the role of AI-ML and big data, to guide the academia and industry towards future developments. Therefore, this article emphasizes the role of big data and AI-ML in the creation of digital twins (DTs) or DT-based systems for various industrial applications, by highlighting the current state-of-the-art deployments. We performed a systematic review on top of multidisciplinary electronic bibliographic databases, in addition to existing patents in the field. Also, we identified development-tools that can facilitate various levels of the digital twinning. Further, we designed a big data driven and AI-enriched reference architecture that leads developers to a complete DT-enabled system. Finally, we highlighted the research potential of AI-ML for digital twinning by unveiling challenges and current opportunities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it