The Role of AI in Warehouse Digital Twins: Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the era of industry 5.0, digital twins (DTs) play an increasingly pivotal role in contemporary society. Despite the literature’s lack of a consistent definition, DTs have been applied to numerous areas as virtual replicas of physical objects, machines, or systems, particularly in manufacturing, production, and operations. One of the major advantages of digital twins is their ability to supervise the system’s evolution and run simulations, making them connected and capable of supporting decision-making. Additionally, they are highly compatible with artificial intelligence (AI) as they can be mapped to all data types and intelligence associated with the physical system. Given their potential benefits, it is surprising that the utilization of DTs for warehouse management has been relatively neglected over the years, despite its importance in ensuring supply chain and production uptime. Effective warehouse management is crucial for ensuring supply chain and production continuity in both manufacturing and retail operations. It also involves uncertain material handling operations, making it challenging to control the activity. This paper aims to evaluate the synergies between AI and digital twins as state-of-the-art technologies and examines warehouse digital twins’ (WDT) use cases to assess the maturity of AI applications within WDT, including techniques, objectives, and challenges. We also identify inconsistencies and research gaps, which pave the way for future development and innovation. Ultimately, this research work’s findings can contribute to improving warehouse management, supply chain optimization, and operational efficiency in various industries.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".