In the control of complex systems, we observe two diametrical trends: model-based control derived from digital twins, and model-free control through AI. There are also attempts to bridge the gap between the two by incorporating learning-based AI algorithms into digital twins to mitigate mismatches between the digital twin model and the physical system. One of the most straightforward approaches to this is direct input adaptation. In this paper, we ask whether it is useful to employ a generic learning algorithm in such a setting, and our conclusion is “not very”. We denote an algorithm to be more useful than another algorithm based on three aspects: 1) it requires fewer data samples to reach a desired minimal performance, 2) it achieves better performance for a reasonable number of data samples, and 3) it accumulates less regret. In our evaluation, we randomly sample problems from an industrially relevant geometry assurance context and measure the aforementioned performance indicators of 16 different algorithms. Our conclusion is that blackbox optimization algorithms, designed to leverage specific properties of the problem, generally perform better than generic learning algorithms, once again finding that “there is no free lunch”. Note to Practitioners—Digital twins have the potential to improve productivity and quality in complex systems such as manufacturing systems. Their impact on system performance hinges on the accuracy of their digital models around the system’s operating points. Difficult to measure phenomena, such as wear and tear of equipment, however, may cause a mismatch between the digital twin model and the physical system. In this paper, we formalize this problem and compare 16 potential solution strategies under practical aspects. We argue that readily available off-the-shelf blackbox optimization algorithms may prove more useful for this problem, than more recent learning-based approaches. Specifically, gradient-based algorithms will perform best in systems with high-dimensional, continuous, and non-linear performance functions–even in the presence of white measurement noise.

Safety critical systems are typically subjected to hazard analysis before commissioning to identify and analyse potentially hazardous system states that may arise during operation. Currently, hazard analysis is mainly based on human reasoning, past experiences, and simple tools such as checklists and spreadsheets. Increasing system complexity makes such approaches decreasingly suitable. Furthermore, testing-based hazard analysis is often not suitable due to high costs or dangers of physical faults. A remedy for this are model-based hazard analysis methods, which either rely on formal models or on simulation models, each with their own benefits and drawbacks. This paper proposes a two-layer approach that combines the benefits of exhaustive analysis using formal methods with detailed analysis using simulation. Unsafe behaviours that lead to unsafe states are first synthesised from a formal model of the system using Supervisory Control Theory. The result is then input to the simulation where detailed analyses using domain-specific risk metrics are performed. Though the presented approach is generally applicable, this paper demonstrates the benefits of the approach on an industrial human-robot collaboration system.