Introduction
Evaluation is at the heart of any successful research project. For my study, which applies Benford’s Law to detect anomalies in financial datasets, it is not enough to simply run the analysis, I must show that my outcomes are valid, reliable, and practically meaningful. My evaluation strategy therefore combines statistical testing, benchmarking, reproducibility, and ethical reflection.
Planned Evaluation Approach
Benford’s Law predicts the frequency of leading digits in naturally occurring datasets. Significant deviations may suggest anomalies, but the challenge is to distinguish between genuine irregularities and natural variation. To do this, I will adopt a multi-layered evaluation strategy:
-
Statistical tests such as χ², MAD, and K-S to measure deviations.
-
Benchmarking against datasets with known or simulated fraud.
-
Cross-validation across multiple datasets to ensure results are reproducible.
This approach recognises the limitation that Benford’s Law cannot prove fraud by itself, but it can highlight where deeper investigation is needed.
Tools, Techniques, and Trade-Offs
I will use Python (NumPy, SciPy, Matplotlib) for automation and reproducibility, R for advanced statistical modelling, and Excel for stakeholder accessibility. Each tool has trade-offs: Python and R are powerful but technical, while Excel is easier for non-specialists but less robust. By combining them, I balance depth with usability, though I must ensure consistency across tools.
Assessing Outcomes and Ethics
My outcomes will be judged on three levels:
-
Statistical accuracy – Are deviations statistically significant?
-
Detection performance – What are the false positive/negative rates?
-
Practical usability – Can stakeholders interpret and act on the results?
Ethics are crucial. Misclassifying legitimate records as fraudulent could damage reputations. To avoid this, I will report limitations clearly and avoid overstating results. I will also ensure that confidential data is handled securely, in line with professional standards.
Reflection and Limitations
Not all datasets conform to Benford’s Law. For example, assigned numbers (like invoice IDs) or capped values may not follow the expected distribution. Applying the method blindly risks false positives. This means evaluation must include contextual reasoning asking “does Benford’s Law make sense for this dataset?”
By reflecting critically, I can avoid misinterpretation and strengthen the reliability of my findings.
Conclusion
My evaluation approach integrates rigorous statistical testing, comparative validation, reproducibility checks, and ethical reflection. This ensures that my research outcomes are not only mathematically accurate but also practically useful and responsibly interpreted.
