Artificial Intelligence No 58: Digital twins v.s. traditional IoT applications
In the recently concluded Digital Twins course at the University of Oxford – the question of what exactly is a digital twin is still high on the agenda.
There are a few reasons for this
So, its important to define twins in terms of functionality that only digital twins can implement
The term ‘Digital Twin’ has several definitions, but for the proposes of this post, we shall consider a Digital Twin is defined as a dynamic representation of a physical system using interconnected data (1). This definition makes the Digital twin a complex system in itself. A complex system is defined as “a large network of components, many-to-many communication channels, and sophisticated information processing that makes prediction of system states difficult” (2).
So, how do you distinguish Digital twins v.s. traditional IoT applications?
If we consider Digital twins from a systems perspective, then things become much more clearer. Firstly, twins have specific characteristics that can be only implemented when viewed as a system (or indeed a system of systems)
?All the above in most cases take a systems perspective
Which algorithms can be used to implement digital twins? That’s one more differentiator
?On the other hand, most IoT applications can be considered as a simple twin ie from a non systemic perspective
领英推荐
That's the best way I can think of to differentiate digital twins from traditional IoT applications.
By this perspective, it implies that
a) ?Digital twins need a systems thinking perspective
b) IoT applications can be seen as a simplified digital twin (not as a system) - so the twin can be seen as a superset of traditional IoT Edge based applications.
c) Digital twins need a capacity for simulation (updated)
comments welcome if you can explain this better!
?
Image source IBM https://www.solvingforpattern.org/2012/06/30/ibm-system/
Data Scientist with masters degree in AI, leveraging 10 years as software developer | Python | Pytorch | NLP - Natural Language Processing | Computer Vision | SQL | AWS | C#
2 年Digital Twins is still a new concept for me, but I recall Paul Clarke pointing out that the difference between a Digital Shadow and a Digital Twin is that a Digital Shadow creates a simulator model built from data input, whilst a Digital Twin has a 2 way communication from the data source. For example a monitor recording road usage can general a Digital Shadow simulator of that road usage. However if based on the incoming data it can calculate whether a traffic light should be changed and send an instruction to that traffic light to do so, then the Digital Shadow becomes a Digital Twin. It seemed to me that this was a key defining point.
SensAE are better than IoT projects; mature with connection, communication, contextualization, collaboration, causation, conceptualization and cognition into Sensor Analytics Ecosystems
2 年I agree that digital twins need a system perspective. I don’t see IoT applications as simplified digital twins, as an IoT application need not perform any simulation, but I can not imagine a digital twin that does not have multiple simulations, even if each simulation is simplistic.
Digital Twin maker: Causality & Data Science --> TwinARC - the "INSIGHT Digital Twin"!
2 年Ajit Jaokar You say, "IoT applications can be seen as a simplified digital twin". This can be taken to mean Digital Twin is a SUPERset. Which the definition that I use...