Benford's law for integrity tests of high-volume databases: a case study of internal audit in a state-owned enterprise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The technical feasibility of using Benford's law to assist internal auditors in reviewing the integrity of high-volume data sets is analysed. This study explores whether Benford's distribution applies to the set of numbers represented by the quantity of records (size) that comprise the different tables that make up a state-owned enterprise's (SOE) enterprise resource planning (ERP) relational database. The use of Benford's law streamlines the search for possible abnormalities within the ERP system's data set, increasing the ability of the internal audit functions (IAFs) to detect anomalies within the database. In the SOEs of emerging economies, where groups compete for power and resources, internal auditors are better off employing analytical tests to discharge their duties without getting involved in power struggles. Design/methodology/approach Records of eight databases of an SOE in Argentina are used to analyse the number of records of each table in periods of three to 12 years. The case develops step-by-step Benford's law application to test each ERP module records using Chi-squared ( χ ²) and mean absolute deviation (MAD) goodness-of-fit tests. Findings Benford's law is an adequate tool for performing integrity tests of high-volume databases. A minimum of 350 tables within each database are required for the MAD test to be effective; this threshold is higher than the 67 reported by earlier researches. Robust results are obtained for the complete ERP system and for large modules; modules with less than 350 tables show low conformity with Benford's law. Research limitations/implications This study is not about detecting fraud; it aims to help internal auditors red flag databases that will need further attention, making the most out of available limited resources in SOEs. The contribution is a simple, cheap and useful quantitative tool that can be employed by internal auditors in emerging economies to perform the first scan of the data contained in relational databases. Practical implications This paper provides a tool to test whether large amounts of data behave as expected, and if not, they can be pinpointed for future investigation. It offers tests and explanations on the tool's application so that internal auditors of SOEs in emerging economies can use it, particularly those that face divergent expectations from antagonist powerful interest groups. Originality/value This study demonstrates that even in the context of limited information technology tools available for internal auditors, there are simple and inexpensive tests to review the integrity of high-volume databases. It also extends the literature on high-volume database integrity tests and our knowledge of the IAF in Civil law countries, particularly emerging economies in Latin America.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".