Empirical Information on the Small Size Effect Bias Relative to the False Positive Rejection Error for Benford Test-Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the theoretical work of Hill Benford digital profile testing is now a staple in screening data for forensic investigations and audit examinations. Prior empirical literature indicates that Benford testing when applied to a large Benford Conforming Dataset often produces a bias called the FPE Screening Signal [FPESS] that misleads investigators into believing that the dataset is Non-Conforming in nature. Interestingly, the same FPESS can also be observed when investigators partition large datasets into smaller datasets to address a variety of auditing questions. In this study, we fill the empirical gap in the literature by investigating the sensitivity of the FPESS to partitioned datasets. We randomly selected 16 balance-sheet datasets from: China Stock Market Financial Statements Database™, that tested to be Benford Conforming noted as RBCD. We then explore how partitioning these datasets affects the FPESS by repeated randomly sampling: first 10% of the RBCD and then selecting 250 observations from the RBCD. This created two partitioned groups of 160 datasets each. The Statistical profile observed was: For the RBCD there were no indications of Non-Conformity; for the 10%-Sample there were no overall indications that Extended Procedures would be warranted; and for the 250-Sample there were a number of indications that the dataset was Non-Conforming. This demonstrated clearly that small datasets are indeed likely to create the FPESS. We offer a discussion of these results with implications for audits in the Big-Data context where the audit In-charge would find it necessary to partition the datasets of the client.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.181 | 0.661 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".