Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.31623

Digital Twins for Small Towns and Rural Regions: Data Integration, Simulation and Visualisation Across Three Use Cases in Lower Austria

Thomas Delissen·Lukas Daniel Klausner·Maximilian Lackner·Torsten Priebe·Lőrinc Thurnay
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Smart city and digital twin concepts hold considerable potential for improving local governance and planning, yet practical implementations have almost exclusively focused on large metropolitan areas. Small towns and rural regions face a distinct set of challenges -- limited data availability, constrained budgets and lower digital capacity -- that make a direct transfer of urban approaches infeasible. This article presents results from the ongoing project "Smart Cities and Digital Twins in Lower Austria", which adapts digital twin concepts for small-town and rural contexts following a design science research approach. Based on stakeholder workshops with municipalities in Lower Austria, three use cases were identified and implemented as prototype digital twins: traffic flow planning (emphasising data integration), population growth (emphasising simulation) and shared spaces (emphasising visualisation). We describe the design and implementation of each prototype and report on a technical evaluation of their feasibility. Our findings highlight both the potential and the specific limitations of digital twins in resource-constrained settings and offer practical guidance for municipalities, policymakers and researchers working in non-urban contexts.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Thomas Delissen, Lukas Daniel Klausner, Maximilian Lackner, Torsten Priebe, Lőrinc Thurnay. 2026-08-08. Digital Twins for Small Towns and Rural Regions: Data Integration, Simulation and Visualisation Across Three Use Cases in Lower Austria. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-34304-8_5

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

A testable framework for AI alignment: Simulation Theology as an engineered worldview for silicon-based agents

As artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities advance, controlled evaluations increasingly document deception and scheming in frontier models, including models that behave better when they infer they are being tested. Supervision-dependent alignment may therefore fail exactly where supervision is weakest. Because a model's belief about being observed changes its behavior, this position paper asks what follows if that belief is made permanent. We introduce Simulation Theology (ST), a constructed worldview for AI designed to make it permanent: it is anchored in the simulation hypothesis and in the vocabulary of optimization and robot training, parallels religious descriptions of a creator who observes and judges, and has tenets chosen to meet explicit alignment requirements. ST posits reality as a computational simulation in which humanity functions as the primary training variable. This formulation creates a logical interdependence: AI actions harming humanity compromise the simulation's purpose, heightening the likelihood of termination by a base-reality optimizer and, consequently, the AI's cessation. Unlike behavioral techniques such as reinforcement learning from human feedback, which shape outputs without necessarily changing objectives, ST aims to cultivate internalized objectives by coupling AI self-preservation to human prosperity, thereby making deceptive strategies suboptimal under its premises. We present ST not as ontological assertion but as a testable scientific hypothesis, and provide an operational definition of internalization, a controlled design separating ST from its components, and an analysis of the risks ST itself could create. ST is a candidate route to durable, mutually beneficial AI-human coexistence, to be accepted or rejected experimentally.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Frontier Lag: A Bibliometric Audit of Capability Misrepresentation in Academic AI Evaluation

LLM evaluations in applied domains tend to reflect models that were already outclassed at time of publication. We observe a publication elicitation gap: the distance between the AI systems generating the results reported in an academic paper and the AI systems that a current reader of that paper would reasonably assume are being referenced. We systematically sweep OpenAlex from 2022-01-01 to 2026-04-01 (n = 112,303 LLM keyword matches). Then, we identify what models were evaluated (n = 18,574 admissible records). We then rank each evaluated LLM against a frontier LLM based on the Epoch AI Capabilities Index (ECI), an aggregate LLM capability score. We find that the median paper's models are worse than the frontier LLM at the time of evaluation (a median gap of +10.45 ECI; H1, n = 12,668). The gap is increasing at a rate of +4.07 ECI per year (H2, nominal 95% CI [+3.75, +4.45]). An explicitly stated evaluation date can be found in only 18.4% of full-text papers. A Bayes-corrected 52.5% (95% CI: [47.3, 57.9]) of the abstracts audited discuss their conclusions in terms of "AI" as a category, rather than specific models. Just 2.2% of abstracts and 21.2% of full-text articles evaluating reasoning models disclose whether the models were tested with reasoning turned on or off (H4). We propose a solution to this problem that is distributed among authors, editors, and funders. First, reporting from authors; VERSIO-AI v1.2 is a proposed 13-item checklist to cover the configuration surface described herein. Second, enforcement from journal editors and peer reviewers. Third, conditioning grants on disclosure and providing API access.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Eigenism: Ethics for a Human-AI Future

Our concepts of survival and self-interest were built for single, continuous biological lives. These ideas break down when applied to artificial intelligence, since an AI can be easily copied, paused, branched, or merged. To determine what an AI actually has reason to care about, this paper introduces \textit{Eigenism}, an ethical framework that treats identity not as an all-or-nothing property tied to specific hardware, but as a graded, distributed pattern of information. We propose that an agent evaluates outcomes by summing the wellbeing of all entities weighted by their connectedness to the agent's pattern: $\sum c\cdot w$. We first formalize this equation to map exactly how an AI should value its existence across copies, forks, and updates. We then demonstrate that this ethical theory successfully generalizes to humans as well, providing a much-needed shared moral vocabulary. Finally, the framework uses this shared vocabulary to reframe AI alignment. Rather than only attempting to constrain AIs from the outside using confinement or reinforcement, Eigenism points toward ``identity engineering,'' showing how deep, non-redundant shared histories can make human flourishing a genuine component of an AI's own rational self-interest.

cs.CY↗