Automated invoice processing: Machine learning-based information extraction for long tail suppliers
Open accessAbstract
Automation of the processing of incoming invoices promises to yield vast efficiency improvements in accounting. Until a universal adoption of fully electronic invoice exchange formats has been achieved, machine learning can help bridge the adoption gaps in electronic invoicing by extracting structured information from unstructured invoice formats. Machine learning especially helps the processing of invoices of suppliers who only send invoices infrequently, as the models are able to capture the semantic and visual cues of invoices and generalize them to previously unknown invoice layouts. Since the population of invoices in many companies is skewed toward a few frequent suppliers and their layouts, this research examines the effects of training data taken from such populations on the predictive quality of different machine-learning approaches for the extraction of information from invoices. Comparing the different approaches, we find that they are affected to varying degrees by skewed layout populations: The accuracy gap between in-sample and out-of-sample layouts is much higher in the Chargrid and random forest models than in the LayoutLM transformer model, which also exhibits the best overall predictive quality. To arrive at this finding, we designed and implemented a research pipeline that pays special attention to the distribution of layouts in the splitting of data and the evaluation of the models.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Faster R-CNN: Towards Real-Time Object Detection with Region Proposal Networks
Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R., & Sun, J. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2016.2577031 · Cited by 56,035 · see citing works
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 48,293 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rong, W., & Swink, M. (2026) · Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management · doi:10.1016/j.pursup.2026.101177
- Authors
- Krieger, F., Drews, P., & Funk, B.
- Affiliations
- Leuphana University of Lüneburg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Krieger, Felix
- Venue
- Intelligent Systems with Applications
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-11
- Volume
- 20
- Pages
- 200285
- ISSN
- 2667-3053 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4387266791
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 1.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Intelligent Systems with Applications (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Multilingual Matters (Channel View Publications) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Handwritten Text Recognition Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Robotic Process Automation Applications
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems and Technology Applications
- Keywords
- electronic invoicing, random forest, data partitioning, model evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review