Recalibration of the Lusk & Halperin Benford Screening Intervals: The Relative FPE and FNE Jeopardy Considerations
Abstract
Lusk & Halperin [1,2] offered a screening interval for the first digit Benford Profile that was basically founded on the usual parametric distribution that is associated with proportions. They created the precision using the wide-spanning 99thpercentile z-value. It was validated on the dataset offered by Reddy & Sebastin [3]. In this paper we offer a recalibrated screening protocol centered on the corrected Benford empirical bin-means founded only on the Empirical Distribution of additional Conforming and Non-Conforming datasets reported in the literature. We should find that, as expected, the initial Screening Interval is wider than the re-calibrated Screening Interval. This of course begs questions as to the False Negative and False Positive screening jeopardy. We present and discuss these relative error profiles in the context of the certified audit where the Benford Screenings are then used to identify Extended Procedure candidates.Â
Keywords: Newcomb-Benford First Digit Profiles Empirical Re-CalibrationReferences
Lusk E, Halperin M (2014a) Using the Benford Datasets and the Reddy &Sebastin Results to Form an Audit Alert Screening Heuristic: A Note, IUP Journal of Accounting Research and Audit Practices, 8:56-69.
Lusk E, Halperin M (2014b) Test of Proportions Screening for the Newcomb-Benford Screen in the Audit Context: A Likelihood Triaging Protocol. Accounting and Finance Research, 4:166-180.
Reddy YV, Sebastin A (2012) Entropic analysis in financial forensics.The IUP Journal of Accounting Research and Audit Practices, 11:42-57.
Nigrini M (1996) A taxpayer compliance application of Benford’s law. Journal of American Taxation Association, 18:72-91.
Geyer C, Williamson-Pepple P (2004) Detecting fraud in data sets using Benford’s law. Communications in Statistics: Simulation and Computation, 33:229-246.
Hogan C, Rezaee Z, Riley Jr., R, Velury U (2008) Financial statement fraud: Insights from the academic literature, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory American Accounting Association, 27:231-252.
Holz C (2014) The quality of China's GDP statistics. China Economic Review, 30:309-338.
Amiram D, Bozanic Z, Rouen E (2015) Financial statement errors: Evidence from the distributional properties of financial statement numbers. Rev Account Stud, 20:1540-1593.
Mir T (2016) The leading digit distribution of the worldwide illicit financial flows.Qual Quant, 50:271-281.
Newcomb S (1881) Note on the frequency of use of the different digits in natural numbers. American Journal of Mathematics, 4:39-40.
Hill T (1995a) The significant-digit phenomenon, American Mathematical Monthly, 102:322-327.
Hill T (1995b) Base-invariance implies Benford's law. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 123:887-895.
Hill T (1995c) A statistical derivation of the significant-digit law. Statistical Science,10:354-363.
Hill T (1998) The first digit phenomenon: A century-old observation about an unexpected pattern in many numerical tables applies to the stock market, census statistics and accounting data. American Scientist, 86:358-363.
Cho WKT, Gaines BJ (2007) Breaking the (Benford) Law: Statistical fraud detection in campaign finance. American Statistician, 61:218-223.
Brown M, Forsythe A (1974) Robust tests for the equality of variances. J. American Statistical Association, 69:364-367.
Levene H (1960) Robust tests for the equality of variances, In (Olkin I; Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hoteling), Stanford University Press. Palo Alto, CA:USA.
O’Brien R (1979) A general ANOVA method for robust tests of additive models for variation. J. American Statistical Association, 74:877-880.
Miller S (2013) Remembrances: Billie Sol Estes. Wall Street Journal: US 15 May2013.
Adhikari AK, Sarkar BP (1968) Distributions of most significant digit in certain functions whose arguments are random variables, Sankhya-The Indian Journal of Statistics Series B, 30:47-58.
Allaart PC (1997) An invariant-sum characterization of Benford’s Law Journal of Applied Probability, 34:288-291.
Benford F (1938) The law of anomalous numbers. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 78:551-572.
Bradley J, Farnsworth D (2009) Testing for Mutual Exclusivity. Journal of Applied Statistics, 36:1307-1314.
Diaconis P (1977) The distribution of leading digits and uniform distribution mod 1.Annals of Probability, 5:72-81.
Durtschi C, Hillison W, Pacini C (2004) The effective use of Benford's Law to assist in detecting fraud in accounting data. Journal of Forensic Accounting, 5:17-34.
Duncan R (1969) Note on the initial digit. Fibonacci Quarterly, 7:474-475.
Fewster RM (2009) A simple explanation of Benford’s Law. American Statistician, 63:26-32.
Giles DE (2007) Benford’s Law and naturally occurring prices in certain eBay auctions. Applied Economics Letters, 14:157-161. .
Hickman M, Rice S (2010) Digital analysis of crime statistics: Does crime conform to Benford’s law? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26:333-349.
Ley E (1996) On the peculiar distribution of the U.S. stock indexes’ digits. American Statistician, 50:311-313.
Marchi de S, Hamilton J (2006) Assessing the accuracy of self-reported data: An evaluation of the toxics release inventory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 13:57-76.
Nigrini M, Mittermaier L (1997) The Use of Benford’s Law as an aid in analytical
procedures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 16:52-67.
Nigrini M (1999) I’ve got your number. Journal of Accountancy, 187:79-83.
Raimi R (1969) The peculiar distribution of first digits. Scientific American, 221:109-120.
Raimi R (1976) The first digit problem. American Mathematical Monthly, 83, 521-538.
Rauch B, Göttsche M, Brähler B, Engel S (2011) Fact and fiction in EU-Governmental economic data. German Economic Review, 12:243-255.
Ross K (2011) Benford’s Law: A growth industry. American Mathematical Monthly, 118:571-583.
