Table 4 Structural comparison between... | Emerald Publishing

Table 4

Structural comparison between representative physics-informed digital twin approaches

Feature	Conventional PINN digital twins	Mechanism-specific digital twins	Present framework
Primary objective	High-fidelity prediction	Mechanism-level modelling	Physically consistent degradation tracking
State dimensionality	Often high-dimensional	Multi-parameter	Compact, physically governed state
Governing physics	PDE-based or system-specific	Constitutive or mechanism-dependent	Irreversible kinetic formulation
Physical admissibility	May depend on training	System-dependent	Enforced structurally
Data requirement	Moderate to high	Moderate	Low to moderate
Interpretability	Variable	Moderate	High

Feature	Conventional PINN digital twins	Mechanism-specific digital twins	Present framework
Primary objective	High-fidelity prediction	Mechanism-level modelling	Physically consistent degradation tracking
State dimensionality	Often high-dimensional	Multi-parameter	Compact, physically governed state
Governing physics	PDE-based or system-specific	Constitutive or mechanism-dependent	Irreversible kinetic formulation
Physical admissibility	May depend on training	System-dependent	Enforced structurally
Data requirement	Moderate to high	Moderate	Low to moderate
Interpretability	Variable	Moderate	High