Tax Fraud Detection Using Artificial Intelligence-Based Technologies: Trends and Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the role of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in enhancing tax fraud detection within the ambit of the OECD Tax Administration 3.0, focusing on how these technologies streamline the detection process through a new “Adaptive AI Tax Oversight” (AATO) framework. Through a textometric systematic review covering the period from 2014 to 2024, the integration of AI in tax fraud detection is explored. The methodology emphasizes the evaluation of AI’s predictive, analytical, and procedural benefits in identifying and combating tax fraud. The research underscores AI’s significant impact on increasing detection accuracy, predictive capabilities, and operational efficiency in tax administrations. Key findings reveal the ways by which the development and application of the AATO framework improves the tax fraud detection process. The implications highlight not only the governance benefits and ethical challenges that arise, but also provide practical guidance for tax authorities worldwide in leveraging AI to reduce compliance costs and strengthen regulatory frameworks. Finally, the study offers recommendations for future research, particularly in refining AI methodologies, differentiating policy implications across high-income and low- and middle-income countries, and addressing governance and ethical issues to ensure equitable and sustainable tax administration practices.
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 | 0.019 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".