Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Composition of Digital Twins for Systems-of-Systems: a Systematic Literature Review

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This systematic review of 21 studies finds that digital twin composition for systems-of-systems is mostly orchestrated and validated by simulation, with formal verification rarely used.

desk verdict Useful synthesis, but the 31/21 corpus mismatch undermines the results and must be fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20435 v1 pith:L7WLG7I6 submitted 2025-06-25 cs.SE

Mennatullah T. Khedr , John S. Fitzgerald This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords DigitalTwinCyber-PhysicalSystemsofVerificationandValidationSystematicLiteratureReviewcompositionFormalSimulation-based
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a systematic literature review of how digital twins are composed for cyber-physical systems-of-systems and how those compositions are verified and validated. Examining 21 studies published between 2022 and 2024, the review finds that while composition is widely discussed—orchestrated integration being the most common pattern—formalization of composition is limited. Verification and validation are dominated by semi-formal methods such as simulation-based testing and co-simulation; formal verification, including model checking and theorem proving, is underutilized. The review also classifies the digital twin properties, quality attributes, and V&V challenges addressed in the literature, highlighting model uncertainty, integration complexity, and the absence of standardized DT-specific V&V frameworks. A sympathetic reader would care because these results indicate that current practice lacks the rigorous guarantees needed to trust digital twins in safety-critical systems-of-systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism of this paper is its systematic review protocol, conducted following Kitchenham's guidelines and reported under PRISMA, with a Boolean search query applied to five databases and supplemented by manual and forward-citation searching. The query requires the title to contain 'digital twin*' and the abstract to contain both a systems term ('cyber physical', 'system* of systems', or 'complex system*') and a V&V term ('verif*' or 'validat*'). This protocol generated 390 records and, after screening and quality assessment, a final corpus of 21 studies. The analytical core is a structured classification scheme that sorts composition approaches, digital twin properties and qualities, V&V approaches by formality level (formal, semi-formal, informal), and recurring challenges, which then carries the answers to the four research questions.

What would settle it

Re-run the search without the 'verif* OR validat*' abstract requirement, or add a second search stream using terms such as 'model checking', 'theorem proving', 'runtime verification' and 'formal verification' without requiring the 'verif*' stem, and compare how many additional studies on formal verification of composed digital twins are recovered; if the count is substantial, the review's central finding of underutilized formal verification would need to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the review establishes that the current literature on digital twin composition for systems-of-systems is growing but formally shallow. Among the 21 studies analyzed, seven composition approaches were identified, with orchestrated integration used in 11 papers, followed by federated, service-based, and co-simulation approaches. V&V practice splits across three formality levels—formal, semi-formal, and informal—but the weight of practice falls on semi-formal and informal methods: simulation-based testing, co-simulation, experimental validation, and case studies, while formal model checking and theorem proving appear in only a handful of studies. The review further identifies five V&V scope dimensions (model fidelity validation, behavioural correctness verification, integration validation, performance assessment, and cyber-physical consistency) and a catalogue of technical, methodological, and data-related challenges, with model uncertainty and integration complexity named as key technical obstacles and the lack of standardized DT-specific V&V frameworks as the central methodological gap. The conclusion is that the field needs to move beyond model validation toward integration and cyber-physical consistency, with standardized, scalable V&V and rigorous composition methodologies.

Load-bearing premise

The review assumes that requiring the words 'verif*' or 'validat*' together with cyber-physical or systems-of-systems terms in the abstract produces a representative corpus, so studies on formal verification that use different vocabulary could be missed and change the conclusion that formal methods are underutilized.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the review's findings hold, practitioners cannot currently rely on composed digital twins to provide formal guarantees in systems-of-systems, so safety-critical deployments must supplement simulation with formal verification.
  • Orchestrated integration's dominance suggests that centralized coordination is the default pattern, while federated and service-based patterns that preserve constituent autonomy remain less explored.
  • The absence of standardized DT-specific V&V frameworks means results across studies are difficult to compare, and developing such frameworks is a prerequisite for scalable, trustworthy digital twin deployment.
  • The growing attention to integration validation and cyber-physical consistency in 2023-2024 studies points to a shift in V&V scope that future research and tooling should target.
  • Model uncertainty and integration complexity will continue to obstruct rigorous V&V unless addressed by dedicated modelling and analysis techniques.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the corpus is restricted to 2022-2024 and to English, peer-reviewed, access-available publications, the review likely undercounts earlier and grey-literature work on formal digital twin verification, so the reported underutilization may be a lower bound.
  • The classification of composition approaches against SoS characteristics could be turned into a practical selection guide: federation for distributed autonomy, service-based integration for heterogeneity, orchestration for emergence.
  • A direct extension of the review would be to build a standardized V&V benchmark from the five scope dimensions it identifies, allowing different composition approaches to be compared on fidelity, interoperability, and cyber-physical consistency.
  • The review's future direction toward model-based SoS engineering case studies, such as a greenhouse digital twin, offers a concrete testbed for whether runtime verification and co-simulation can be scaled to composed digital twins.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a systematic literature review of digital twin (DT) composition and verification and validation (V&V) approaches in cyber-physical systems-of-systems contexts. The authors follow PRISMA and Kitchenham-style guidelines, define four research questions, and analyze what they state is a final corpus of 21 studies from 2022--2024. They classify DT composition approaches, properties and qualities addressed in V&V, levels of V&V formality, and reported challenges. Their central findings are that composition is discussed but formalization is limited, that semi-formal and simulation-based V&V dominate while formal verification is underutilized, and that there is a lack of standardized DT-specific V&V frameworks.

Significance. If the corpus were consistently and transparently defined, the paper would provide a useful structured map of an emerging area, particularly through the classification tables (Tables 2--6), which are traceable to specific cited studies. The authors also make a genuine effort at transparency by following PRISMA and by candidly listing threats to validity in Section 5, including the search-term limitation and the exclusion of grey literature. However, the review's quantitative claims (e.g., the percentages in Section 4.3) and its central qualitative conclusion about underutilization of formal verification depend on an exact, reproducible corpus, and the manuscript currently contains a material inconsistency between the reported corpus size and the PRISMA flow diagram. That inconsistency must be resolved before the findings can be considered reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4 and Figure 2] The final corpus is inconsistently defined. Section 3.4 states 'the final selection was 21 papers', and the percentages in Section 4.3 (52.4%, 66.7%, 42.9%) correspond exactly to fractions of 21 (11, 14, and 9 papers, respectively). However, the PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 2 reports 'New studies included in review (n = 31)' from databases and 'New studies included in review (n = 31)' from citation searching, and reports 'Reports excluded (n = 0)' at the eligibility stage. These numbers are never reconciled with the 21 papers actually analyzed. If the included set is 31, the classifications and percentages may change; if it is 21, the flow diagram is incorrect. As written, the data basis for the central claim is not reproducible, and this must be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.4 and reference [42]] The stated date window for the final corpus is inconsistent with one cited primary study. Section 3.4 says the final selection is 21 papers 'published between 2022 and 2024', and Section 3.3 says 'No suitable references (except for supporting information) predated 2021.' Reference [42] (Van Den Brand et al., 'Models meet data', 2021) is dated 2021 and is cited as a primary study in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 5. If [42] is part of the 21-paper corpus, the date-window statement is wrong; if it is not, the classification tables include a non-corpus study. The authors should either correct the date window or remove/reclassify [42].
  3. [Section 3.1 and Section 5] The search strategy embeds a potential selection bias that directly affects the central conclusion about formal verification being underutilized. Requiring 'verif* OR validat*' in the abstract means that formal-methods papers that do not use these terms will not be retrieved, as the authors themselves acknowledge in Section 5. To support the claim that formal verification is underutilized, the review should test the sensitivity of this conclusion, for example by reporting how many of the 21 papers actually use formal methods and whether a supplementary search on terms such as 'model checking', 'theorem proving', and 'formal methods' without the 'verif* OR validat*' constraint would add formal-verification papers to the corpus. Without such a check, the finding may reflect the search string rather than the state of the literature.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'The resulting corpus consisted of 115 journal articles, 85 papers in conference proceedings, and 11 book sections' appears to describe all screened records, not the final 21 selected studies; please clarify whether these counts refer to the initial screening pool or to the included corpus, and reconcile them with the PRISMA flow numbers.
  2. [Figure 1] The text states that Figure 1 shows a near doubling of publication volume in 2023--2024, but the figure as presented lacks clear axis labels or a data table; please ensure the figure is legible and that the counts underlying the claim are stated.
  3. [Section 4.3] The claim that 'earlier papers (2022--2023) focused more on basic model validation, while recent papers (2023--2024) show increased attention to integration challenges and multi-domain verification' is not supported by a table, figure, or per-year counts; please provide the underlying distribution.
  4. [Section 5] The statement that 'a few promising papers were excluded because their full text is unavailable' should specify how many papers were excluded for this reason and whether any of them plausibly used formal verification, since this could affect the main conclusion.
  5. [References] Several references (e.g., [6], [10], [40]) lack complete venue or page information; please complete the bibliography to support reproducibility and reader follow-up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's conclusions are empirical summaries of an external corpus; minor self-citations in background are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This paper is a systematic literature review, not a mathematical derivation, so most circularity patterns do not apply. The central claims—that DT composition formalization is limited and that V&V is dominated by semi-formal and simulation-based approaches—are inductive classifications of the 21 included studies, not predictions derived from fitted parameters or from assumptions built into the analysis. The search strategy in Section 3.1 does require abstracts to contain 'verif* OR validat*', which shapes the corpus, but the paper explicitly acknowledges in Section 5 that studies not using these terms would not appear; this is a stated threat to external validity, not a circular reduction of a conclusion to its input. The self-citations [12] and [13] are used only for background definitions (the digital twin engineering discipline and the term 'Physical Twin') and are not load-bearing for the review's findings. The PRISMA flow diagram reports 31 included studies while the text and all percentages (52.4%, 66.7%, 42.9%) use 21, creating an internal inconsistency and a reproducibility concern; however, this is a reporting error rather than a case where a claimed result is equivalent to its inputs by construction. No specific circular step can be exhibited, so the score is 1, reflecting only the presence of minor background self-citations that do not carry the argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are about corpus representativeness and the adequacy of the classification categories, both acknowledged as validity threats in Section 5.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The search query with title 'digital twin*', abstract terms covering CPS/SoS/complex system and verif/valid, and keyword constraints identifies the relevant literature.
    Invoked in Section 3.1; if this query is not comprehensive, the 21-paper corpus is biased and the central claims may not generalize.
  • domain assumption The corpus of 21 peer-reviewed English papers accessible through institutional subscriptions is representative of research on DT composition and V&V in SoS.
    Invoked in Sections 3.2-3.4 and acknowledged as a threat in Section 5.
  • domain assumption The three-level taxonomy (formal, semi-formal, informal) used to classify V&V approaches captures meaningful differences in rigor.
    Presented in Table 5 without a prior established benchmark; the boundaries between categories are judgment-based.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Composition of Digital Twins for Systems-of-Systems: a Systematic Literature Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7WLG7I6

@misc{pith2026250620435,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Composition of Digital Twins for Systems-of-Systems: a Systematic Literature Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7WLG7I6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20435}
}
read the original abstract

Digital Twins (DTs) are increasingly used to model complex systems, especially in Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) and System-of-Systems (SoS), where effective integration is key. This systematic literature review investigates DT composition and verification and validation (V&V) methodologies. Analyzing 21 studies from 2022-2024, we examined composition mechanisms, SoS characteristics, and V&V formality, scope, and challenges. While composition is discussed, formalization is limited. V&V approaches vary, with semi-formal methods and simulations dominating; formal verification is underutilized. Key technical challenges include model uncertainty and integration complexity. Methodological challenges highlight the lack of standardized DT-specific V&V frameworks. There is a need to move beyond model validation to address integration and cyber-physical consistency. This review contributes a structured classification of V&V approaches and emphasizes the need for standardized, scalable V&V and rigorous composition methodologies for complex DT implementations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20435 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Number of publications per year 3.4 Quality Assessment Following the PRISMA guidelines, each study was evaluated based on: clarity of research questions and objectives; appropriateness of research methodology; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for the SLR relevance of findings to digital twins, systems-of-systems, verification and/or validation of digital twins; credibility of data sources and study reliability. After full-text reading and assessment of papers, the final selection was 21 papers, published between 2022 and 2024, that discuss a DT composition approach and address a form of verification and/or validation of their DT … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Application Domain Distribution within SoS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Trans-Domain Digital Twin: Conceptual Foundations, Architecture, and Research Outlook

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    TDDT defines a composite/federated digital twin system-of-systems that requires shared state, operational coupling, temporal coordination, and feedback, and details a seven-layer architecture.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [42]

    https://doi.org/10

    Van Den Brand, M., Cleophas, L., Gunasekaran, R., et al.: Models meet data: Challenges to create virtual entities for digital twins (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1109/models-c53483.2021.00039

    arXiv 2021

  2. [1]

    IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications41(11), 3504–3516 (2023)

    Aloqaily, M., Ridhawi, I.A., Kanhere, S.: Reinforcing industry 4.0 with digital twins and blockchain-assisted federated learning. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications41(11), 3504–3516 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/icccn61486.2024.10637565

    Barbone, A., Burattini, S., Martinelli, M., Picone, M., Ricci, A., Virdis, A.: Digital twin continuum: a key enabler for pervasive cyber-physical environments (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/icccn61486.2024.10637565

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Bitencourt, J., Wooley, A., Harris, G.: Verification and validation of digital twins: a systematicliteraturereviewformanufacturingapplications.Intl.Jnl.ofProduction Research63(1), 342–370 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    In: 14th An- nual Conf

    Borth, M., Verriet, J., Muller, G.: Digital Twin Strategies for SoS. In: 14th An- nual Conf. System of Systems Engineering. pp. 164–169 (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.1109/SYSOSE.2019.8753860

    arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    Computers in Industry143, 103763 (2022)

    Boyes, H., Watson, T.: Digital twins: An analysis framework and open issues. Computers in Industry143, 103763 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind. 2022.103763

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    Cavalcante, E., Batista, T.: Exploring synergies and challenges of digital twins in systems-of-systems (2024), manuscript submitted to 1st Intl. Conf. on Engineering Digital Twins. ACM, New York, NY, USA

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Dahmen, U., Osterloh, T., Roßmann, J.: Verification and validation of digital twins and virtual testbeds. Intl. Jnl. of Advances in Applied Sciences11(1) (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    In: 2023 Annual Modeling and Simulation Conference

    Diakité, M., Traoré, M.K.: Formal approach to digital twin specification. In: 2023 Annual Modeling and Simulation Conference. pp. 233–244 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    In: 17th Intl

    Dobaj, J., Riel, A., Krug, T., et al.: Towards Digital Twin-enabled DevOps for CPS providing Architecture-Based Service Adaptation & Verification at Runtime. In: 17th Intl. Symp. on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. pp. 132–143. IEEE (2022). https://...

    2022

  3. [10]

    In: Intl

    Esterle, L., Gomes, C., Frasheri, M., et al.: Digital twins for collaboration and self-integration. In: Intl. Conf. on Autonomic Computing and Self-Organizing Sys- tems Companion. pp. 172–177 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACSOS-C52956. 2021.00040

    2021

  4. [11]

    Sensors23(24) (2023)

    Fett, M., Wilking, F., Goetz, S., et al.: A literature review on the development and creation of digital twins, cyber-physical systems, and product-service systems. Sensors23(24) (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/s23249786

    2023 doi

  5. [12]

    (eds.): The Engineering of Digital Twins

    Fitzgerald, J., Gomes, C., Larsen, P.G. (eds.): The Engineering of Digital Twins. Springer (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Fitzgerald, J., Larsen, P.G., Pierce, K.: Multi-modelling and Co-simulation in the Engineering of Cyber-Physical Systems: Towards the Digital Twin, pp. 40–55. Springer, Cham (2019) 14 M T Khedr and J S Fitzgerald

    2019

  7. [14]

    In: 29th IEEE Intl

    Gill, M.S., Zhang, J., Wortmann, A., Fay, A.: Toward automating the composition of digital twins within system-of-systems. In: 29th IEEE Intl. Conf. on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation. pp. 1–4 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/ ETFA61755.2024.10710740

    2024

  8. [15]

    Resilient Cities and Structures 3(3), 1–19 (2024)

    Gordan, M., Kountche, D.A., McCrum, D., et al.: Protecting critical infrastructure against cascading effects: The precinct approach. Resilient Cities and Structures 3(3), 1–19 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcns.2024.04.001

    2024 doi

  9. [16]

    Campbell Systematic Reviews18(2), e1230 (2022)

    Haddaway, N.R., Page, M.J., Pritchard, C.C., McGuinness, L.A.: PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow dia- grams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews18(2), e1230 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems54(11), 6873–6888 (2024)

    He, X., Tang, Y., Ma, S., et al.: Redefinition of digital twin and its situation aware- ness framework designing toward fourth paradigm for energy internet of things. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems54(11), 6873–6888 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/T...

    2024

  11. [18]

    Wiley (2023)

    INCOSE: INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook. Wiley (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ecce55643.2024.10861242

    Jeon, H., Nguyen, D.T., Zadeh, M.: Reliability-based design framework for assess- ment of digital twin models applied to vessel controllers (2024). https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ecce55643.2024.10861242

    2024

  13. [20]

    The Journal of Engineering2021(10), 569–581 (2021)

    Kalyvas, M.: An innovative industrial control system architecture for real-time response, fault-tolerant operation and seamless plant integration. The Journal of Engineering2021(10), 569–581 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1049/tje2.12064

    2021 doi

  14. [21]

    Keele, UK, Keele Univ.33(08 2004)

    Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele Univ.33(08 2004)

    2004

  15. [22]

    IEEE Systems Journal13(3), 2201–2212 (2019)

    Lana, C.A., Guessi, M., Antonino, P.O., et al.: A systematic identification of for- mal and semi-formal languages and techniques for software-intensive systems-of- systems requirements modeling. IEEE Systems Journal13(3), 2201–2212 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2018.2874061

    2019

  16. [23]

    Advanced Engineering Informatics58, 14 (2023)

    Leng, B.H., Gao, S., Xia, T.B., et al.: Digital twin monitoring and simulation inte- grated platform for reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Advanced Engineering Informatics58, 14 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2023.102141

    2023

  17. [24]

    In: Procedia CIRP

    Liu, H., Zhang, J., Cheng, Y., et al.: Digital twin shop-floor: A complex system- oriented construction method and operation mechanism. In: Procedia CIRP. vol. 119, pp. 52–57. Elsevier (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.03.083

    2023 doi

  18. [25]

    Energy292(2024)

    Liu, S., Tian, J., Ji, Z., et al.: Research on multi-digital twin and its application in wind power forecasting. Energy292(2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy. 2024.130269

    2024

  19. [26]

    Springer (2022)

    Lv, Z., Fersman, E.: Digital twins: basics and applications. Springer (2022)

    2022

  20. [27]

    In: 17th Annual System of Systems Engineering Conf

    Mandel, C., Guenther, M., Martin, A., et al.: Towards a system of systems engi- neering architecture framework. In: 17th Annual System of Systems Engineering Conf. pp. 221–226 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1109/SOSE55472.2022.9812634

    2022

  21. [28]

    In: IEEE/ACM 10th Intl

    Michael, J., Pfeiffer, J., Rumpe, B., Wortmann, A.: Integration challenges for dig- ital twin systems-of-systems. In: IEEE/ACM 10th Intl. Workshop on Software Engineering for Systems-of-Systems and Software Ecosystems. pp. 9–12 (2022)

    2022

  22. [29]

    IEEE Access8, 107781–107801 (2020)

    Moyne, J., Qamsane, Y., Balta, E.C., et al.: A requirements driven digital twin framework: Specification and opportunities. IEEE Access8, 107781–107801 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3000437

    2020

  23. [30]

    In: IEEE 27th Intl

    Nguyen, T.: Formal Requirements and Constraints Modelling in FORM-L for the Engineering of Complex Socio-Technical Systems. In: IEEE 27th Intl. Require- ments Engineering Conference Workshops. pp. 123–132 (2019). https://doi.org/ 10.1109/REW.2019.00027 Composition of Digital T...

    2019

  24. [31]

    Processes10(2), 27 (2022)

    Novák, P., Vyskočil, J.: Digitalized Automation Engineering of Industry 4.0 Pro- duction Systems and Their Tight Cooperation with Digital Twins. Processes10(2), 27 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    In: 2023 18th Annual System of Systems Engineering Conf

    Olsson, T., Axelsson, J.: Systems-of-systems and digital twins: A survey and analy- sis of the current knowledge. In: 2023 18th Annual System of Systems Engineering Conf. pp. 1–6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1109/SoSE59841.2023.10178527

    2023

  26. [33]

    Overbeck, L., Graves, S.C., Lanza, G.: Development and analysis of digital twins of production systems. Intl. Jnl. of Production Research62(10), 3544–3558 (2024)

    2024

  27. [34]

    BMJ372(2021)

    Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., et al.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ372(2021). https: //doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

    2021 doi

  28. [35]

    Journal of Computational Design and Engineering10(2), 809–829 (2023)

    Park, K.T., Park, Y.H., Park, M.W., Noh, S.D.: Architectural framework of digital twin-based cyber-physical production system for resilient rechargeable battery pro- duction. Journal of Computational Design and Engineering10(2), 809–829 (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    Electronics13(16), 32 (2024)

    Perisic, A., Perisic, B.: Digital twins verification and validation approach through the quintuple helix conceptual framework. Electronics13(16), 32 (2024). https: //doi.org/10.3390/electronics13163303

    2024 doi

  30. [37]

    Energies17(2) (2024)

    Piras, G., Agostinelli, S., Muzi, F.: Digital twin framework for built environment: A review of key enablers. Energies17(2) (2024). https://doi.org/10.3390/en17020436

    2024 doi

  31. [38]

    IEEE Access12, 78534–78548 (2024)

    Samadi, M., Fattahi, J.: Low-inertia microgrid synchronization using data-driven digital twins. IEEE Access12, 78534–78548 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2024.3408715

    2024

  32. [39]

    Robotics12(3) (2023)

    Samak, T., Samak, C., Kandhasamy, S., Krovi, V., Xie, M.: AutoDRIVE: A Comprehensive, Flexible and Integrated Digital Twin Ecosystem for Autonomous Driving Research & Education. Robotics12(3) (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/ robotics12030077

    2023

  33. [40]

    In: 2016 IEEE/ACM 4th International Workshop on Software Engineering for Systems-of-Systems (SESoS)

    Seo, D., Shin, D., Baek, Y.M., et al.: Modeling and verification for different types of system of systems using prism. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM 4th International Workshop on Software Engineering for Systems-of-Systems (SESoS). pp. 12–18 (2016). https: //doi.org/10.1145/2897829.2897833

    2016

  34. [41]

    In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science

    Temperekidis, A., Kekatos, N., Katsaros, P., et al.: Towards a digital twin archi- tecture with formal analysis capabilities for learning-enabled autonomous systems. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. vol. 13866, pp. 163–181. Springer (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-...

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Journal of Manufacturing Systems77, 780–797 (2024)

    Wen, X.J., Sun, Y.C., Liu, S.M., Bao, J.S., Zhang, D.: Fine-grained decomposition of complex digital twin systems driven by semantic-topological-dynamic associa- tions. Journal of Manufacturing Systems77, 780–797 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Advanced Engineering Informatics52, 18 (2022)

    Wu, Y.D., Zhou, L.Z., Zheng, P., Sun, Y.Q., Zhang, K.K.: A digital twin-based multidisciplinary collaborative design approach for complex engineering product development. Advanced Engineering Informatics52, 18 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art 6(1), 10 (2023)

    Yao, J.F., Yang, Y., Wang, X.C., Zhang, X.P.: Systematic review of digital twin technology and applications. Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art 6(1), 10 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    IEEE Trans

    Zhou, L., Leng, S., Wang, Q.: A federated digital twin framework for uavs-based mobile scenarios. IEEE Trans. Mobile Computing23(6), 7377–7393 (2024). https: //doi.org/10.1109/tmc.2023.3335386

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.