skip to main content
10.1145/3550356.3552393acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodelsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

How alike are my physical and digital twins?

Published:09 November 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

A digital twin is a virtual replica of a system defined at a certain level of fidelity, and synchronized at a specific frequency. Digital twins are often used to replicate physical systems whose simulations are usually computationally costly. One of the solutions proposed in the literature to this problem is to define a hierarchy of multi-fidelity digital twins, where we use one twin or another depending on the specific purpose. However, one of the challenges of this proposal is the need to determine whether these twins are equivalent to each other and the physical system according to their purpose. In this work, we explore different methods to measure this equivalence by analyzing the state and behavior of the twins using high-level software models.

References

  1. Bert Van Acker et al. 2019. Valid (Re-)Use of Models-of-the-Physics in Cyber-Physical Systems Using Validity Frames. In Proc. of SpringSim'19. IEEE, 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. John Ahlgren et al. 2021. Facebook's Cyber-Cyber and Cyber-Physical Digital Twins. In Proc. of EASE'21. ACM, 1--9. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Aitor Arrieta. 2021. Multi-Fidelity Digital Twins: a Means for Better Cyber-Physical Systems Testing? CoRR abs/2101.05697 (2021). arXiv:2101.05697Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. K. Bojarczuk et al. 2021. Measurement Challenges for Cyber Cyber Digital Twins: Experiences from the Deployment of Facebook's WW Simulation System. In Proc. of ESEM'21. ACM, Article 2, 10 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. F. Bordeleau, B. Combemale, R. Eramo, M. v.d. Brand, and M. Wimmer. 2020. Towards Model-Driven Digital Twin Engineering: Current Opportunities and Future Challenges. In Proc. of ICSMM'20. Springer, 43--54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Fabian Büttner and Martin Gogolla. 2014. On OCL-based imperative languages. Sci. Comput. Program. 92 (2014), 162--178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Digital Twin Consortium. 2021. Glossary of Digital Twins. https://www.digitaltwinconsortium.org/glossary/index.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Martin Gogolla, Jörn Bohling, and Mark Richters. 2005. Validating UML and OCL Models in USE by Automatic Snapshot Generation. Sosym 4, 4 (2005), 386--398.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Martin Gogolla, Fabian Büttner, and Mark Richters. 2007. USE: A UML-Based Specification Environment for Validating UML and OCL. Sci. Comput. Program. 69 (2007), 27--34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Michael Grieves. 2014. Digital Twin: Manufacturing Excellence through Virtual Factory Replication. White Paper. Florida Institute of Technology, Florida,US.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. David C. Gross. 1999. Report from the fidelity implementation study group. In Proc. of the Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshops.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Rihan Hai, Christoph Quix, and Matthias Jarke. 2021. Data lake concept and systems: a survey. CoRR abs/2106.09592 (2021). arXiv:2106.09592Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Edward A. Lee and Marjan Sirjani. 2018. What Good are Models?. In Proc. of FACS 2018 (LNCS, Vol. 11222). Springer, 3--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Alexandra Mazak, Sabine Wolny, Abel Gómez, Jordi Cabot, Manuel Wimmer, and Gerti Kappel. 2020. Temporal Models on Time Series Databases. J. Object Technol. 19, 3 (2020), 3:1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Il-Chul Moon and Jeong-Hee Hong. 2013. Theoretic interplay between abstraction, resolution, and fidelity in model information. In Proc. of WSC'13. IEEE, 1283--1291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Paula Muñoz, Priyanka Karkhanis, Mark van den Brand, and Antonio Vallecillo. 2020. Modeling Objects with Uncertain Behaviors. Proc. of ECMFA'21. Journal of Object Technology 20, 3 (June 2020), 8:1--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Paula Muñoz, Javier Troya, and Antonio Vallecillo. 2021. Digital Twins Modeling Framework - Git Repository. https://github.com/atenearesearchgroup/digitalTwinModelingFrameworkGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Paula Muñoz, Javier Troya, and Antonio Vallecillo. 2021. Using UML and OCL Models to Realize High-Level Digital Twins. In Proc. of ModDiT2021@MODELS'21. IEEE, 212--220. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Ian Robinson, Jim Webber, and Emil Eifrem. 2015. Graph Databases: New Opportunities for Connected Data (2 ed.). O'Reilly Media, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Fei Tao, He Zhang, Ang Liu, and Andrew Y. C. Nee. 2019. Digital Twin in Industry: State-of-the-Art. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics 15, 4 (2019), 2405--2415.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. K. Worden, E. J. Cross, R. J. Barthorpe, D. J. Wagg, and P. Gardner. 2020. On Digital Twins, Mirrors, and Virtualizations: Frameworks for Model Verification and Validation. ASCE-ASME J Risk and Uncert in Engrg Sys Part B Mech Engrg 6, 3 (05 2020). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. V Zhidchenko, I Malysheva, H Handroos, and A Kovartsev. 2018. Faster than realtime simulation of mobile crane dynamics using digital twin concept. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1096 (sep 2018), 012071. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. How alike are my physical and digital twins?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      MODELS '22: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems: Companion Proceedings
      October 2022
      1003 pages
      ISBN:9781450394673
      DOI:10.1145/3550356
      • Conference Chairs:
      • Thomas Kühn,
      • Vasco Sousa

      Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 9 November 2022

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • extended-abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate118of382submissions,31%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)44
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader