Financial-risk aware machine learning for industrial anomaly detection

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.68210/jgeor.a48

Keywords:

Machine Learning, Digital Twin, Predictive Maintenance, Financial Risk Analysis, Industrial IoT, Cost-Sensitive Decision Making

Abstract

Digital transformation in asset-intensive industries is constrained by the separation between Information Technology (IT), which supports enterprise decision-making, and Operational Technology (OT), which monitors and controls physical assets. This study proposes a Financial-Risk Aware Digital Twin framework that combines machine-learning-based anomaly detection with event-specific economic consequence analysis. Using the benchmark 3W oil and gas dataset, an XGBoost classifier was developed to identify operational states including severe slugging, spurious Downhole Safety Valve closure, flow instability, productivity loss, scaling, and hydrate formation. The model achieved 93% overall accuracy, with weighted-average precision and F1-score of 0.94 and 0.93, respectively. Predicted class probabilities were then converted into class-specific expected financial exposure using illustrative consequence scenarios. At a predicted probability of 20%, the corresponding exposure was $200,000 for hydrate formation, $100,000 for DHSV closure, and $10,000–$20,000 for one day of severe slugging under the selected scenario assumptions. Financial weighting also changed event prioritization in an illustrative re-ranking example. For hydrate formation, a base-case failure consequence of $1,000,000 and preventive-action cost of $5,000 produced a 0.5% break-even intervention probability; sensitivity analysis across alternative assumptions yielded thresholds from 0.125% to 2.0%. The results show how probabilistic condition monitoring can be extended into an economically informed decision-support framework that prioritizes operational responses according to both likelihood and consequence.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Hikmat Allahverdiyev, Azerbaijan State Oil and Industry University

    Azerbaijan State Oil and Industry University, Baku, Azerbaijan

References

Agostini, L., & Filippini, R. (2019). Organizational and managerial challenges in the path toward Industry 4.0. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(3), 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-02-2018-0030

Champion, B. P., Gandini, G., & Gabbiani, A. (2011). Development and qualification of a new wirelessly controlled retrofit safety valve: An alternative to well workover that enhances well safety and maximizes production uptime. SPE Production & Operations, 26(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.2118/130427-PA

Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016). XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (pp. 785–794). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785

Elkan, C. (2001). The foundations of cost-sensitive learning. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 973–978).

European Parliament & Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending certain Union legislative acts (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/1689. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj

Fuller, A., Fan, Z., Day, C., & Barlow, C. (2020). Digital twin: Enabling technologies, challenges and open research. IEEE Access, 8, 108952–108971. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2998358

Kim, Y., Afonso, I. I. Q., Jang, H., & Lee, J. (2020). Prevention of hydrate plugging by kinetic inhibitor in subsea flowline considering the system availability of offshore gas platform. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 82, 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2019.10.034

Lu, Y., Liu, C., Wang, K. I.-K., Huang, H., & Xu, X. (2020). Digital Twin-driven smart manufacturing: Connotation, reference model, applications and research issues. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 61, 101837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2019.101837

Stouffer, K., Pease, M., Tang, C., Zimmerman, T., Pillitteri, V., Lightman, S., Hahn, A., Saravia, S., Sherule, A., & Thompson, M. (2023). Guide to operational technology (OT) security (NIST Special Publication 800-82 Rev. 3). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-82r3

Tabassi, E. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

Vargas, R. E. V., Munaro, C. J., Ciarelli, P. M., Medeiros, A. G., Amaral, B. G. D., Barrionuevo, D. C., Araújo, J. C. D., Ribeiro, J. L., & Magalhães, L. P. (2019). A realistic and public dataset with rare undesirable real events in oil wells. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 181, 106223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.106223

Zhao, X., Xu, Q., Fu, J., Chang, Y., Wu, Q., & Guo, L. (2024). Study on eliminating severe slugging by manual and automatic choking in long pipeline-riser system. Chemical Engineering Science, 292, 119978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2024.119978

Downloads

Published

2026-10-01

How to Cite

Allahverdiyev, H. (2026). Financial-risk aware machine learning for industrial anomaly detection. Journal of Green Economy and Optimization Research, 1(3), 48-54. https://doi.org/10.68210/jgeor.a48

Certificate of Publication