Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

DDD-GenDT: Dynamic Data-driven Generative Digital Twin Framework

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pretrained large language model, prompted with a text-encoded window of recent spindle-current readings, can act as a predictive digital twin for a CNC machine and track tool wear without any retraining.

desk verdict A credible architectural proposal for LLM-based digital twins, but the experimental evidence is too weak to support the accuracy and DT-aging claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00051 v2 pith:DNSWNRD2 submitted 2024-12-28 cs.LG cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY

Yu-Zheng Lin , Qinxuan Shi , Zhanglong Yang , Banafsheh Saber Latibari , Shalaka Satam , Sicong Shao , Soheil Salehi , Pratik Satam This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.SYeess.SY
keywords digitaltwinlargelanguagemodelszero-shotpredictiontimeseriesforecastingCNCmachiningtoolwearmonitoringDDDASIndustry4.0
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 tries to establish that a large language model can serve as the behavior model of a digital twin for a CNC machine: given only a short text-encoded history of spindle-current readings from recent runs, the model can forecast the next segment of the current signal and keep doing so as the cutting tool gradually wears, with no task-specific training or fine-tuning. The authors package this into an architecture called DDD-GenDT, which organizes past runs into a graph, extracts recent observation windows for the same process state, preprocesses them into token strings, and asks an ensemble of LLMs to continue the sequence. The reported result is an average RMSE of 0.479 A (4.79% of the 10 A maximum spindle current) in a zero-shot setting, with errors that decrease as more operational history becomes available. If correct, this would mean useful industrial digital twins can be built without extensive historical datasets, sidestepping the data-collection cost and proprietary-data barriers common in Industry 4.0.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Physical Twin Observation Graph (PTOG), a graph whose vertices are (run, process state) pairs and whose edges encode temporal succession within a run and alignment of the same process state across runs. It carries the argument by determining exactly which historical measurements are shown to the LLM; the observation window is the concatenation of the most recent measurements of the target process state from the current and earlier runs. The rest of the pipeline, including low-pass filtering, downsampling, string encoding, tokenization, prompt construction, and median aggregation over an ensemble of LLM outputs, turns that window into a forecast for the next process state.

What would settle it

On the same observation windows and runs, compute the RMSE of a persistence forecast (copy the last observed value) and of a linear extrapolation; if either matches or beats the reported GPT-4 average RMSE of 0.479 A, the claim that the LLM captures nonlinear dynamics and aging without training is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a pretrained large language model can act as the predictive core of a digital twin for a physical process: when prompted with a text-encoded window of recent spindle-current measurements for a given process state, the model can continue the sequence to predict the next state's current waveform, and it can maintain this capability as the physical tool degrades, without any retraining. DDD-GenDT is the architecture that makes this possible: the Physical Twin Observation Graph organizes runs and process states, observation window extraction pulls the most recent measurements of the same state across earlier runs, the preprocessing pipeline filters, downsamples, encodes, and tokenizes them, and an ensemble of GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4 models produces forecasts that are median-aggregated into a point estimate. The paper reports an average RMSE of 0.479 A in this zero-shot setting, with prediction error decreasing over later runs even as flank wear increases from 0.155 mm to 0.45 mm, which it interprets as evidence that the twin ages along with the physical system.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that a text-only history of spindle-current values from the most recent runs carries enough information to predict the next run's current, even though cutting parameters, tool geometry, and other sensor channels are not provided to the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Digital twins for industrial processes could be built from a prompt and a short sensor history, removing the main data-collection cost that blocks deployment in data-scarce or proprietary settings.
  • The DDDAS-style feedback loop lets the twin update at epoch points and issue control decisions (continue, warning, stop) based on forecast RMSE thresholds, keeping the twin synchronized as the physical tool degrades.
  • Because the observation window draws on the same process state across multiple runs, prediction accuracy improves as more operational history accumulates, even without retraining.
  • The architecture offers a reusable reference model with defined system-level indicators including fidelity, synchronization, security, accessibility, and interoperability, extending beyond the CNC case study.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A persistence baseline (copy the last observed current value) or a linear extrapolation on the same windows would sharpen the zero-shot claim; the paper does not report either, so part of the apparent accuracy could come from the smooth, slowly changing nature of the spindle current rather than genuine temporal modeling.
  • The same prompting pipeline could transfer to other periodic manufacturing signals such as vibration, power, or temperature, because the PTOG structure is sensor-agnostic; a testable extension is to run DDD-GenDT on a multi-sensor milling dataset.
  • If LLM-based twins prove robust, the DDDAS feedback loop could be closed in real time, with predictions crossing a health threshold triggering machine stops or parameter changes; the paper demonstrates the forecasting stage but not a live control experiment.
  • The reported result is on a single dataset and a single monitored variable; a harder test would be predicting across different workpiece materials or cutting speeds, where the observation window alone may not encode the changed physical conditions.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DDD-GenDT, a digital twin framework that represents a physical process as a Physical Twin Observation Graph (PTOG), extracts sliding observation windows of sensor measurements across process runs, and uses an ensemble of large language models (GPT-3.5 Turbo and GPT-4) in a zero-shot setting to predict spindle motor current. The framework is validated on the NASA CNC milling dataset with spindle current as the monitored variable. The authors report an average RMSE of 0.479 A for GPT-4 across runs 5-14, interpret this as accurate zero-shot modeling of nonlinear process dynamics, and attribute the observed decrease in RMSE over successive runs to 'DT-aging', i.e., autonomous synchronization of the digital twin with physical twin wear. The paper also contributes a generic digital twin reference architecture and formalizes the DDDAS feedback loop with health thresholds, though the experimental evaluation focuses only on RMSE of the predictions.

Significance. If the zero-shot prediction claim were established, the framework would be of interest for industrial settings where labeled data are scarce or proprietary, because it would show that an LLM prompted with recent sensor windows can produce useful predictive models without task-specific training. The PTOG and observation-window formulation are clearly described and the use of a public dataset is a strength. However, the central empirical claim is currently not supported by the evidence: no trivial baseline (e.g., persistence or linear extrapolation) is reported, and the DT-aging analysis is confounded by the sliding-window protocol. The paper also conflates next-state prediction with same-state future-run reconstruction. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main contributions, though they appear addressable through additional experiments and a revised task formulation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V-B.1, Table II] No trivial baseline is reported for the zero-shot prediction task. Because the observation window for run r consists of Pc from runs r-4,...,r-1 (Eq. 2), a persistence baseline that predicts the current run's Pc signal as the immediately preceding run's Pc signal is a direct null model; a linear extrapolation across the four window values is another. Without such baselines, the average RMSE of 0.479 A and the claim that the LLM 'accurately models nonlinear process dynamics' are not established, since the LLM may be approximately copying the most recent input. This is load-bearing for the paper's central contribution.
  2. [Section V-B.2, Figure 7] The DT-aging claim is confounded. The observation window always contains the most recent runs, so any method that uses the window (including persistence) will tend to produce lower errors as the target run's signal becomes more similar to the context, especially because the flank-wear increments are not constant across runs (e.g., runs 9-10 differ by 0.01 mm while run 11 jumps by 0.09 mm). Without comparing to a persistence baseline under the same sliding-window protocol, the decreasing RMSE over runs cannot be attributed to the LLM's autonomous adaptation or to 'DT-aging'.
  3. [Section IV-D.2 vs. Section V-B.1] The formal model states that the prediction engine maps the current state Pc to the forecasted next state Pc+1 (Eq. 4 and surrounding text), but the experiments evaluate reconstruction of the same state Pc in the current run: Algorithm 3 (lines 22-24) computes RMSE between the forecast and the observation for the same state, and the example in Section V-B.1 predicts P1 in run 7 from P1 in runs 3-6. This is a forecast of the same process state in a future run, not a forecast of the next process state. The task definition must be clarified; as written, the paper conflates two different forecasting problems.
  4. [Section IV-D.5, Section IV-D.6, Experiment 2] The DDDAS feedback path, including control decisions U(Qc) and health thresholds Tlow, Thigh, and Thealth (Eqs. 12-14), is described formally but is never implemented or evaluated. The experiments only compute RMSE; no threshold values are given, no control action is exercised, and no measurement of the feedback loop's effect is reported. Thus the claim that DDD-GenDT 'supports autonomous DT-aging' through the DDDAS mechanism is not supported by the experimental results.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 7] The while-loop condition '|Mhist| > 0 and Rptr ≠ ∅' can never be true because Mhist is initialized to an empty list; the loop would never execute. The condition should be based on reaching the observation window length Lw, as correctly implemented in Algorithm 3.
  2. [Section V-A.1] The 'Downsampling Factor (d): 20Hz' is dimensionally inconsistent; d should be a unitless integer. Please specify the original sampling rate and the resulting rate after downsampling.
  3. [Section V-A.1 and Section V-B.1] The term 'ensemble' is used for 10 reconstruction attempts from a single LLM, while GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 results are reported separately; it is unclear whether an ensemble across distinct model types is ever formed. Please clarify the ensemble definition.
  4. [Abstract and Section V-B.1] Calling GPT-4's errors 'competitive' is misleading: Table II shows the CNN AE trained on runs 1-4 achieves 0.119-0.204 A across runs 5-14, roughly 2-6 times lower than GPT-4's 0.243-0.951 A. The characterization should be revised to reflect the actual gap.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical slips, including 'decribes' (Section V-A), 'comprises of' (multiple places), and inconsistent spacing in table headers such as 'Erravg' and 'Errstd'. A thorough proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Zero-shot RMSE is independently evaluated, but the DT-aging claim reduces to the sliding-window definition in Eq. (2).

  1. self definitional [Section II.A (definition) and Section V.B.2 / Eq. (2), Algorithm 3]
    "In this work, this gradual evolution of the digital twin in response to the physical twin’s degradation and operational history is referred to as DT-aging. ... The combined observation of improving accuracy, decreasing variance, and alignment with the tool wear trajectory confirms that the DDD-GenDT framework effectively embodies DT-aging behavior."

    The paper defines DT-aging as the DT updating itself in response to PT degradation and operational history. The framework's only implementation of that response is Eq. (2)/Algorithm 3, which always feeds the Lw most recent runs of the same process state into the LLM before forecasting. Experiment 2 then concludes that the framework 'effectively embodies DT-aging behavior' from the fact that RMSE falls as the observation window slides toward the target run. That conclusion is a restatement of the window mechanism, not an independent test of an aging model; 'autonomous adaptation' is the input-update rule by construction.

full rationale

The headline zero-shot prediction result (average RMSE 0.479 A, Table II, Fig. 6) is computed against held-out NASA milling runs and does not depend on any parameter fitted to those runs, so it is not circular. The LLM is not trained on the target dataset, and the only self-citation ([9], used to motivate spindle current as a side-channel) is not load-bearing for the architecture or the numerical results. The circularity concern is limited to the DT-aging interpretation: the claimed autonomous adaptation is, by the paper's own equations, the sliding observation window of Eq. (2), and Experiment 2's improving-RMSE conclusion is therefore a definitional relabeling of that mechanism rather than an independently validated aging capability. A related methodological weakness—absence of trivial baselines such as persistence—is a correctness/validity concern, not a circularity concern, and does not change the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework depends on several hand-chosen preprocessing parameters, an untested assumption that spindle current alone is sufficient, and a feedback loop that is described but never executed. The formal model defines notation rather than deriving predictive guarantees.

free parameters (7)
  • Low-pass cutoff frequency f_c = 8 Hz
    Chosen in Section V-A.1 without sensitivity analysis; affects signal content and the resulting prediction error.
  • Downsampling factor d = 20 Hz (post-downsample rate)
    Set in Section V-A.1 to reduce sampling density; no justification or ablation provided.
  • Observation window length L_w = 4 process states
    The number of prior process states used as context; chosen without testing other window sizes.
  • LLM temperature tau = 0.7 (GPT-3.5), 1.0 (GPT-4)
    Selected per model in Section V-A.1; directly affects output stochasticity and prediction spread.
  • Top-p threshold p_top = 1.0
    Set in Section V-A.1; no other values tested.
  • Ensemble size n = 10
    Number of reconstruction attempts per prediction; chosen in Section V-A.1 with no analysis of its effect on the median.
  • Health thresholds T_low, T_high, T_health = Not specified
    Defined in Equations (12)-(14) but never instantiated or used in the experiments, so they remain free tunable parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Pretrained LLMs can perform zero-shot numerical time-series forecasting from token sequences.
    Relies on Gruver et al. [7] and Zhang and Gilpin [27]; the paper does not re-derive or validate this capability for spindle current signals.
  • domain assumption Spindle motor current is a sufficient observable to represent the CNC process state and tool wear.
    Section V-A.2 restricts monitoring to one sensor feed; no analysis of other available sensors or process parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper The three hand-segmented process states P1, P2, P3 are consistent and meaningful across runs.
    Figure 4 shows segmentation by visual inspection; the paper provides no formal criterion for the state boundaries.
  • domain assumption The most recent L_w observations are sufficient statistics for predicting the next process state.
    Equation (2) defines X_hist as the concatenation of the L_w most recent measurements; this is the core context mechanism and is not validated against other context selections.
  • domain assumption The DDDAS feedback loop can be instantiated by computing RMSE after the fact and issuing control decisions.
    Algorithm 3 lines 22-28 compute Q_c only when O_c is available, i.e., after the prediction has already been made; no online control experiment is performed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DDD-GenDT: Dynamic Data-driven Generative Digital Twin Framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DNSWNRD2

@misc{pith2026250100051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DDD-GenDT: Dynamic Data-driven Generative Digital Twin Framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DNSWNRD2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00051}
}
read the original abstract

Digital twin (DT) technology enables real-time simulation, prediction, and optimization of physical systems, but practical deployment faces challenges from high data requirements, proprietary data constraints, and limited adaptability to evolving conditions. This work introduces DDD-GenDT, a dynamic data-driven generative digital twin framework grounded in the Dynamic Data-Driven Application Systems (DDDAS) paradigm. The architecture comprises the Physical Twin Observation Graph (PTOG) to represent operational states, an Observation Window Extraction process to capture temporal sequences, a Data Preprocessing Pipeline for sensor structuring and filtering, and an LLM ensemble for zero-shot predictive inference. By leveraging generative AI, DDD-GenDT reduces reliance on extensive historical datasets, enabling DT construction in data-scarce settings while maintaining industrial data privacy. The DDDAS feedback mechanism allows the DT to autonomically adapt predictions to physical twin (PT) wear and degradation, supporting DT-aging, which ensures progressive synchronization of DT with PT evolution. The framework is validated using the NASA CNC milling dataset, with spindle current as the monitored variable. In a zero-shot setting, the GPT-4-based DT achieves an average RMSE of 0.479 A (4.79% of the 10 A spindle current), accurately modeling nonlinear process dynamics and PT aging without retraining. These results show that DDD-GenDT provides a generalizable, data-efficient, and adaptive DT modeling approach, bridging generative AI with the performance and reliability requirements of industrial DT applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00051 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Digital Twin Reference Architecture. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Proposed Dynamic Data-Driven Generative Digital Twin (DDD-GenDT) Architecture. The framework integrates the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Linking DDD-GenDT Architecture to the DDDAS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mapping the Physical Twin Measurement Space (PTMS) to the Physical Twin Observation Graph (PTOG) for the NASA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example results of mapping and predicting spindle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Boxplot of LLM-Based Dynamic DT Performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

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. Integrating Generative AI into Cybersecurity Education: A Study of OCR and Multimodal LLM-assisted Instruction

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An OCR-and-LLM pipeline integrated into a legacy cybersecurity lab platform delivers comparable instructional value to multimodal models on text-heavy slides with lower cost.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Machine learning based digital twin framework for production optimization in petrochemical industry,

    Q. Min, Y. Lu, Z. Liu, C. Su, and B. Wang, “Machine learning based digital twin framework for production optimization in petrochemical industry,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 49, pp. 502–519, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    The convergence of digital twin, iot, and machine learning: transforming data into action,

    M. J. Kaur, V. P. Mishra, and P. Maheshwari, “The convergence of digital twin, iot, and machine learning: transforming data into action,” Digital twin technologies and smart cities, pp. 3–17, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    The role of ai, machine learning, and big data in digital twinning: A systematic literature review, challenges, and opportunities,

    M. M. Rathore, S. A. Shah, D. Shukla, E. Bentafat, and S. Bakiras, “The role of ai, machine learning, and big data in digital twinning: A systematic literature review, challenges, and opportunities,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 32 030–32 052, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Developing Digital Twins for Earth Systems: Purpose, Requisites, and Benefits

    Y. Rao, R. Redmon, K. Dale, S. E. Haupt, A. Hopkinson, A. Bostrom, S. Boukabara, T. Geenen, D. M. Hall, B. D. Smith et al., “Developing digital twins for earth systems: Purpose, requisites, and benefits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11175, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Review of digital twin applications in manufacturing,

    C. Cimino, E. Negri, and L. Fumagalli, “Review of digital twin applications in manufacturing,” Computers in industry, vol. 113, p. 103130, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    The health digital twin: advancing precision cardiovascular medicine,

    G. Coorey, G. A. Figtree, D. F. Fletcher, and J. Redfern, “The health digital twin: advancing precision cardiovascular medicine,”Nature Reviews Cardiology, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 803–804, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Large language models are zero-shot time series forecasters,

    N. Gruver, M. Finzi, S. Qiu, and A. G. Wilson, “Large language models are zero-shot time series forecasters,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    The dynamic data driven applications systems (dddas) paradigm and emerging directions,

    F. Darema, E. P. Blasch, S. Ravela, and A. J. Aved, “The dynamic data driven applications systems (dddas) paradigm and emerging directions,” Handbook of Dynamic Data Driven Applications Systems: Volume 2, pp. 1–51, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Dt4i4-secure: Digital twin framework for industry 4.0 systems security,

    Y.-Z. Lin, S. Shao, M. H. Rahman, M. Shafae, and P. Satam, “Dt4i4-secure: Digital twin framework for industry 4.0 systems security,” in 2023 IEEE 14th Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON). IEEE, 2023, pp. 0200–0209

    2023

  2. [10]

    Respond to change with constancy: Instruction-tuning with llm for non-iid network traffic classification,

    X. Lin, G. Xiong, G. Gou, W. Dong, J. Yu, Z. Li, and W. Xia, “Respond to change with constancy: Instruction-tuning with llm for non-iid network traffic classification,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Draft modeling, simulation, information technology & processing roadmap,

    M. Shafto, M. Conroy, R. Doyle, E. Glaessgen, C. Kemp, J. LeMoigne, and L. Wang, “Draft modeling, simulation, information technology & processing roadmap,” Technology area, vol. 11, pp. 1–32, 2010

    2010

  4. [12]

    Machine learning surrogates for surface complexation model of uranium sorption to oxides,

    C. Li, E. O. Adeniyi, and P. Zarzycki, “Machine learning surrogates for surface complexation model of uranium sorption to oxides,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 6603, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Lifetime extension approach based on the levenberg–marquardt neural network and power routing of dc–dc converters,

    J. Zhang, J. Tian, A. M. Alcaide, J. I. Leon, S. Vazquez, L. G. Franquelo, H. Luo, and S. Yin, “Lifetime extension approach based on the levenberg–marquardt neural network and power routing of dc–dc converters,” IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 10 28...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Process monitoring for tower pumping units under variable operational conditions: From an integrated multitasking perspective,

    J. Zhang, K. Qian, H. Luo, Y. Liu, X. Qiao, X. Xu, and J. Tian, “Process monitoring for tower pumping units under variable operational conditions: From an integrated multitasking perspective,” Control Engineering Practice, vol. 156, p. 106229, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Digital twin: Values, challenges and enablers from a modeling perspective,

    A. Rasheed, O. San, and T. Kvamsdal, “Digital twin: Values, challenges and enablers from a modeling perspective,” IEEE access, vol. 8, pp. 21 980–22 012, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Dynamic network-centric multi-cloud platform for real-time and data-intensive science workflows,

    G. Papadimitriou, C. Wang, E. Lyons, K. Thareja, P. Ruth, J. Villalobos, I. Rodero, E. Deelman, M. Zink, and A. Mandal, “Dynamic network-centric multi-cloud platform for real-time and data-intensive science workflows,” in Handbook of Dynamic Data Driven Applications Systems: V...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Generative ai,

    S. Feuerriegel, J. Hartmann, C. Janiesch, and P. Zschech, “Generative ai,” Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 111–126, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,

    E. Kasneci, K. Seßler, S. K¨ uchemann, M. Bannert, D. Dementieva, F. Fischer, U. Gasser, G. Groh, S. G¨ unnemann, E. H¨ ullermeier et al., “Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learning and individual differences, vol. 103,...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Large language models are zero-shot reasoners,

    T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y. Matsuo, and Y. Iwasawa, “Large language models are zero-shot reasoners,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 35, pp. 22 199–22 213, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Autonomous chemical research with large language models,

    D. A. Boiko, R. MacKnight, B. Kline, and G. Gomes, “Autonomous chemical research with large language models,” Nature, vol. 624, no. 7992, pp. 570–578, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    An llm-based approach for enabling seamless human-robot collaboration in assembly,

    C. Gkournelos, C. Konstantinou, and S. Makris, “An llm-based approach for enabling seamless human-robot collaboration in assembly,” CIRP Annals, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    A large language model-based multi-agent manufacturing system for intelligent shopfloor,

    Z. Zhao, D. Tang, H. Zhu, Z. Zhang, K. Chen, C. Liu, and Y. Ji, “A large language model-based multi-agent manufacturing system for intelligent shopfloor,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16887, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Time-llm: Time series forecasting by reprogramming large language models,

    M. Jin, S. Wang, L. Ma, Z. Chu, J. Y. Zhang, X. Shi, P.-Y. Chen, Y. Liang, Y.-F. Li, S. Pan et al., “Time-llm: Time series forecasting by reprogramming large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01728, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Can llms understand time series anomalies?

    Z. Zhou and R. Yu, “Can llms understand time series anomalies?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05440, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Timegpt-1,

    A. Garza and M. Mergenthaler-Canseco, “Timegpt-1,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03589, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Zero-shot forecasting of chaotic systems,

    Y. Zhang and W. Gilpin, “Zero-shot forecasting of chaotic systems,” in The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations,

  20. [28]

    Digital twins: Universal interoperability for the digital age,

    V. Piroumian, “Digital twins: Universal interoperability for the digital age,” Computer, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 61–69, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Real-time synchronized calibration and computing system with epics based distributed controls in the tps xbpm system,

    J.-Y. Chuang, Y. Hsiao, Y. Lin, Y. Liu, Y. T. Cheng, C. Shueh, C. Cheng, and Y. Yang, “Real-time synchronized calibration and computing system with epics based distributed controls in the tps xbpm system,” in 8th International Beam Instrumentation Conference (IBIC’19), Malm¨o,...

    2019

  22. [30]

    Constrained optimization of sensor placement for nuclear digital twins,

    N. Karnik, M. G. Abdo, C. E. Estrada-Perez, J. S. Yoo, J. J. Cogliati, R. S. Skifton, P. Calderoni, S. L. Brunton, and K. Manohar, “Constrained optimization of sensor placement for nuclear digital twins,” IEEE Sensors Journal, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Ensuring safety, security, and sustainability of mission-critical cyber–physical systems,

    A. Banerjee, K. K. Venkatasubramanian, T. Mukherjee, and S. K. S. Gupta, “Ensuring safety, security, and sustainability of mission-critical cyber–physical systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 283–299, 2011

    2011

  24. [32]

    Digital twin: A comprehensive survey of security threats,

    C. Alcaraz and J. Lopez, “Digital twin: A comprehensive survey of security threats,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1475–1503, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Wireless anomaly detection based on ieee 802.11 behavior analysis,

    H. Alipour, Y. B. Al-Nashif, P. Satam, and S. Hariri, “Wireless anomaly detection based on ieee 802.11 behavior analysis,” IEEE transactions on information forensics and security, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 2158–2170, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Federated cybersecurity testbed as a service (fctaas): A framework to federate cybersecurity testbeds,

    M. Mamun, Y.-Z. Lin, I. Almazyad, S. Shao, S. Satam, S. Hariri, and P. Satam, “Federated cybersecurity testbed as a service (fctaas): A framework to federate cybersecurity testbeds,” Available at SSRN 4643053. 15

  27. [35]

    Ccri: Planning-c: Federated cloud platform for networked cyber physical systems research,

    P. Satam, “Ccri: Planning-c: Federated cloud platform for networked cyber physical systems research,” NSF Award Number 2213634. Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering, vol. 22, no. 2213634, p. 13634, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Digital-twin-enabled intelligent distributed clock synchronization in industrial iot systems,

    P. Jia, X. Wang, and X. Shen, “Digital-twin-enabled intelligent distributed clock synchronization in industrial iot systems,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 4548–4559, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Digital twins’ maturity: The need for interoperability,

    R. Klar, N. Arvidsson, and V. Angelakis, “Digital twins’ maturity: The need for interoperability,” IEEE Systems Journal, 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Improved multi-fidelity simulation-based optimisation: application in a digital twin shop floor,

    Z. Zhang, Z. Guan, Y. Gong, D. Luo, and L. Yue, “Improved multi-fidelity simulation-based optimisation: application in a digital twin shop floor,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1016–1035, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    A review of bearing failure modes, mechanisms and causes,

    F. Xu, N. Ding, N. Li, L. Liu, N. Hou, N. Xu, W. Guo, L. Tian, H. Xu, C.-M. L. Wu et al., “A review of bearing failure modes, mechanisms and causes,” Engineering Failure Analysis, p. 107518, 2023

    2023

  32. [40]

    Real-time drill wear estimation based on spindle motor power,

    H. Kim, J. Ahn, S. Kim, and S. Takata, “Real-time drill wear estimation based on spindle motor power,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 267–273, 2002

    2002

  33. [41]

    Tool condition monitoring for form milling of large parts by combining spindle motor current and acoustic emission signals,

    M. Uekita and Y. Takaya, “Tool condition monitoring for form milling of large parts by combining spindle motor current and acoustic emission signals,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 89, pp. 65–75, 2017

    2017

  34. [2025]

    Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=TqYjhJrp9m

    [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=TqYjhJrp9m

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.