I think there are two models for From A to B, to C, and to D in English, but which one is correct:
For example, this sentence:
Models also differ in the approach for representing processes, from empirical models that are based on regression equations, to analytical models that use differential equations to provide a continuous or semi-continuous representation of processes, to models based on energy and mass conservation approaches.
How to understand its structure?
I don't really understand what your pictures are meant to show. The sentence just describes a "spectrum" of different approaches. A simpler example
There are different colours in the rainbow: from red, to green, to blue.
The given sentence has the same structure:
Models also differ in the approach for representing processes:
- from empirical models that are based on regression equations,
- to analytical models that use differential equations to provide a continuous or semi-continuous representation of processes,
- to models based on energy and mass conservation approaches.
It is just a list of three points on a spectrum.
There are roughly two options for this construction, indicated by context. Though the usage of “from” and “to” alone doesn’t indicate which is in use, I would not consider these ambiguous in almost all cases, since
If you are talking about things that are sequential, ordered, have steps, etc., then it will (probably) be A→B→C→D, as in your first suggestion. Very common for routes, where the things are places you intend to visit.
For example, “I am going from home, to the store, to the gas station, to the library” indicates that I’m starting at home, then going to the store, then going to the gas station, and then going to the library, in that order.
If you are talking about a collection, a set, various alternatives, etc., then it will (probably) be (A, B, C, D), without any particular relation between these. (So if I was drawing a diagram like yours, it would be the four boxes inside a circle, with no arrows between them.) This construction is usually used with a non-exhaustive list of examples, especially if those examples are near the “edges” or “limits” of whatever they’re an example of, so that the examples serve to plot a vague “bounding box” on the subject in question.
For example, “The town has many destinations, from houses, to the store, to the gas station, to the library,” there is no sense of order to this. Houses, the store, the gas station, and the library are just places you could go to in the town. They are almost-certainly not the only places you could go to in the town, but it gives you an idea of the scope of the place. It suggests a small town, with mostly just services for residents. You wouldn’t expect a wonder of the world in this town.
This construction would not be used to describe something like your second option. To describe a situation like that, an English speaker would be more likely to say something like “some variety of A, such as B, C, or D” or “from A, we have several options, such as B, C, or D,” something like that.
Anyway, as for your example text, I know nothing about the models being discussed in your quote, but the meaning there is that empirical data, differential equations, and energy and mass approximations are three examples of “approaches” that may differ among models. There is no direct relationship between them. Ideally, however, these examples seem to have been chosen to demonstrate the breadth of the field, that all of these different approaches are all considered valid.
