MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415598864 · doi:10.1115/detc2025-168006

A Digital Twin Model Updating Method to Capture Lifecycle System Degradation

2025· article· W4415598864 on OpenAlexaff
Yifan Tang, Mostafa Rahmani Dehaghani, G. Gary Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDegradation (telecommunications)Robustness (evolution)System lifecycleArtificial neural networkData modelingExtreme learning machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Iterative update methods are important for digital twin (DT) models to learn from new data and maintain the DT performance during application. However, when considering system lifecycle degradations, current update methods fail to enable DT models to capture system responses affected by degradation over time. To alleviate this problem, degradation models of measurable physical parameters are often integrated into DT construction. This operation is costly since identifying the degradation parameters depends on prior knowledge of the system and requires expensive experiments. To overcome above limitations, this paper proposes a lifelong update method for DT models to capture the effects of degradation on system responses without any prior knowledge and expensive offline experiments on the system. In this work, the DT model is constructed as a feedforward neural network with a fixed structure, and the effect of system degradation is assumed to be reflected by the DT parameters obtained at each degradation stage. During the lifelong update process, an extreme learning machine is adopted to capture how the model parameters change in lifecycle for each layer. The constructed extreme learning machines could predict model parameters of the entire DT model at any future degradation stage. The proposed method is evaluated with the battery degradation dataset from Oxford University. The test results demonstrate that the proposed method could capture effects of system degradation on system responses during the lifecycle and outperform the conventional fine-tuning method in terms of prediction accuracy and robustness at future stages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207