Digital Twin Evolution for Sustainable Smart Ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smart ecosystems are the drivers of modern society. They control infrastructures of socio-techno-economic importance, ensuring their stable and sustainable operation. Smart ecosystems are governed by digital twins---real-time virtual representations of physical infrastructure. To support the open-ended and reactive traits of smart ecosystems, digital twins need to be able to evolve in reaction to changing conditions. However, digital twin evolution is challenged by the intertwined nature of physical and software components, and their individual evolution. As a consequence, software practitioners find a substantial body of knowledge on software evolution hard to apply in digital twin evolution scenarios and a lack of knowledge on the digital twin evolution itself. The aim of this paper, consequently, is to provide software practitioners with tangible leads toward understanding and managing the evolutionary concerns of digital twins. We use four distinct digital twin evolution scenarios, contextualized in a citizen energy community case to illustrate the usage of the 7R taxonomy of digital twin evolution. By that, we aim to bridge a significant gap in leveraging software engineering practices to develop robust smart ecosystems.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".