LAPSE:2025.0177
Published Article

LAPSE:2025.0177
A Comparative Evaluation of Complexity in Mechanistic and Surrogate Modeling Approaches for Digital Twins
June 27, 2025
Abstract
A Digital Twin (DT) is a purposeful digital representation of a physical entity that employs data, algorithms, and software to enhance operations, making it possible to e.g., forecast failures, or evaluate new designs through the simulation of real-world scenarios. DTs are enablers for real-time monitoring, simulation, and optimization. However, traditional simulation DTs often rely on complex, non-linear mechanistic models with high computational demands, complex structures, and a large number of specific parameters and thus pose quite a challenge to maintainability. Surrogate models, on the other hand, are simplified approximations of more complex, higher-order models. These approximations are typically built using data-driven approaches, such as Random Forest Regression, facilitating faster simulations, simpler adaptation, and quicker deployment. This study analyzes the complexity of mechanistic and surrogate modeling approaches in the context of DTs to aid model selection. A model with reduced complexity enhances computational efficiency, simplifies implementation, and supports real-time monitoring and predictive maintenance. Complexity analysis evaluates metrics such as analytical, structural, space, behavioral, training, and prediction complexity, resulting in an overall complexity score for model selection. However, the decision involves trade-offs, such as balancing high fidelity with low complexity or prioritizing high explainability over structural simplicity. Addressing these trade-offs is essential in selecting a model that balances the accuracy, usability, and efficiency of DTs. Using a stirred tank reactor as a use case, the mechanistic model is compared to a surrogate model to quantify complexity scores and select a less complex model for DT development.
A Digital Twin (DT) is a purposeful digital representation of a physical entity that employs data, algorithms, and software to enhance operations, making it possible to e.g., forecast failures, or evaluate new designs through the simulation of real-world scenarios. DTs are enablers for real-time monitoring, simulation, and optimization. However, traditional simulation DTs often rely on complex, non-linear mechanistic models with high computational demands, complex structures, and a large number of specific parameters and thus pose quite a challenge to maintainability. Surrogate models, on the other hand, are simplified approximations of more complex, higher-order models. These approximations are typically built using data-driven approaches, such as Random Forest Regression, facilitating faster simulations, simpler adaptation, and quicker deployment. This study analyzes the complexity of mechanistic and surrogate modeling approaches in the context of DTs to aid model selection. A model with reduced complexity enhances computational efficiency, simplifies implementation, and supports real-time monitoring and predictive maintenance. Complexity analysis evaluates metrics such as analytical, structural, space, behavioral, training, and prediction complexity, resulting in an overall complexity score for model selection. However, the decision involves trade-offs, such as balancing high fidelity with low complexity or prioritizing high explainability over structural simplicity. Addressing these trade-offs is essential in selecting a model that balances the accuracy, usability, and efficiency of DTs. Using a stirred tank reactor as a use case, the mechanistic model is compared to a surrogate model to quantify complexity scores and select a less complex model for DT development.
Record ID
Keywords
Complexity metric, Complexity Score, Digital Twin, Mechanistic Model, Surrogate Model
Subject
Suggested Citation
Parbat S, Viedt I, Urbas L. A Comparative Evaluation of Complexity in Mechanistic and Surrogate Modeling Approaches for Digital Twins. Systems and Control Transactions 4:166-172 (2025) https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.122855
Author Affiliations
Parbat S: Technische Universität Dresden, Process-to-Order Group, Process Systems Engineering Group, Dresden, Germany
Viedt I: Technische Universität Dresden, Process-to-Order Group, Process Systems Engineering Group, Dresden, Germany; Technische Universität Dresden, Process-to-Order Group, Process-to-Order Lab Learning Factory, Dresden, Germany
Urbas L: Technische Universität Dresden, Process-to-Order Group, Process Systems Engineering Group, Dresden, Germany; Technische Universität Dresden, Process-to-Order Group, Chair of Process Control Systems, Dresden, Germany; Technische Universität Dresden, Pro
Viedt I: Technische Universität Dresden, Process-to-Order Group, Process Systems Engineering Group, Dresden, Germany; Technische Universität Dresden, Process-to-Order Group, Process-to-Order Lab Learning Factory, Dresden, Germany
Urbas L: Technische Universität Dresden, Process-to-Order Group, Process Systems Engineering Group, Dresden, Germany; Technische Universität Dresden, Process-to-Order Group, Chair of Process Control Systems, Dresden, Germany; Technische Universität Dresden, Pro
Journal Name
Systems and Control Transactions
Volume
4
First Page
166
Last Page
172
Year
2025
Publication Date
2025-07-01
Version Comments
Original Submission
Other Meta
PII: 0166-0172-1349-SCT-4-2025, Publication Type: Journal Article
Record Map
Published Article

LAPSE:2025.0177
This Record
External Link

https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.122855
Article DOI
Download
Meta
Record Statistics
Record Views
1088
Version History
[v1] (Original Submission)
Jun 27, 2025
Verified by curator on
Jun 27, 2025
This Version Number
v1
Citations
Most Recent
This Version
URL Here
https://psecommunity.org/LAPSE:2025.0177
Record Owner
PSE Press
Links to Related Works
References Cited
- Parbat S, Iqbal I, Viedt I, Urbas L. Architecture of digital twin for automating waste and recycling material sorting process. 2024 IEEE 29th International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA) :1-4 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1109/ETFA61755.2024.10710670
- Asprion N. Modeling, simulation, and optimization 4.0 for a distillation column. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 92:879-89 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.202000001
- Bárkányi Á, Chován T, Németh S, Abonyi J. Modelling for digital twins-potential role of surrogate models. Processes 9 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9030476
- Beisheim B, Rahimi-Adli K, Krämer S, Engell S. Energy performance analysis of continuous processes using surrogate models. Energy 183:776-87 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.176
- McBride K, Sundmacher K. Overview of surrogate modeling in chemical process engineering. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 91:228-39 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201800091
- Winz J, Nentwich C, Engell S. Surrogate modeling of thermodynamic equilibria: applications, sampling and optimization. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 93:1898-906 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.202100092
- Thompson JS, Hodson DD, Grimaila MR, Hanlon N, Dill R. Toward a simulation model complexity measure. Information 14 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3390/info14040202
- Zhao X, Gray J. Towards a metrics suite for the complexity analysis of labview systems models. Science of Computer Programming 227:102931 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2023.102931
- Robinson S. Exploring the relationship between simulation model accuracy and complexity. Journal of the Operational Research Society 74:1992-2011 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2022.2122740
- Hu X, Chu L, Pei J, Liu W, Bian J. Model complexity of deep learning: a survey. Knowledge and Information Systems 63:2585-619 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-021-01605-0
- Paleyes A, Urma R-G, Lawrence ND. Challenges in deploying machine learning: a survey of case studies. ACM Comput. Surv. 55 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1145/3533378
- Forrester AIJ, Bressloff NW, Keane AJ. Optimization using surrogate models and partially converged computational fluid dynamics simulations. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 462:2177-204 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2006.1679
- Blondel VD, Tsitsiklis JN. A survey of computational complexity results in systems and control. Automatica 36:1249-74 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-1098(00)00050-9
- Mädler J, Rahm J, Viedt I, Urbas L. A digital twin-concept for smart process equipment assemblies supporting process validation in modular plants. Computer Aided Chemical Engineering 51:1435-40 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-95879-0.50240-X
(0.09 seconds)
[0.09 s]

