Model‐Driven Engineering for Digital Twins: Opportunities and Challenges
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
ABSTRACT Digital twins are increasingly used across a wide range of industries. Modeling is a key to digital twin development—both when considering the models which a digital twin maintains of its real‐world complement (“models in digital twin”) and when considering models of the digital twin as a complex (software) system itself. Thus, systematic development and maintenance of these models is a key factor in effective and efficient digital twin development, maintenance, and use. We argue that model‐driven engineering (MDE), a field with almost three decades of research, will be essential for improving the efficiency and reliability of future digital twin development. To do so, we present an overview of the digital twin life cycle, identifying the different types of models that should be used and re‐used at different life cycle stages (including systems engineering models of the actual system, domain‐specific simulation models, models of data processing pipelines, etc.). We highlight some approaches in MDE that can help create and manage these models and present a roadmap for research towards MDE of digital twins.
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