INTELLIGENT EXPERT MATCHING ARCHITECTURES FOR HIGH-SCALE DIGITAL TAX ASSISTANCE PLATFORMS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15680/f6179367Keywords:
Intelligent Expert Matching, Digital Tax Assistance, Expert Recommendation Systems, Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing, Semantic Matching, Learning-to-Rank, Tax Technology, Recommendation Architecture, Distributed Systems, Expert Routing, Artificial Intelligence, High-Scale Platforms, Decision Support Systems, Human-AI CollaborationAbstract
The increasing complexity of taxation, rapid digitization of financial services, and growing demand for real-time advisory support have accelerated the adoption of digital tax assistance platforms. Such platforms may serve millions of individuals, small businesses, enterprises, and professionals whose tax-related requirements vary significantly in complexity, jurisdiction, urgency, language, and required expertise. In this environment, conventional expert-assignment mechanisms based on static categories, manual routing, or simple availability rules become increasingly inadequate. An intelligent expert matching architecture provides a more scalable approach by dynamically identifying and assigning the most suitable tax professional to each assistance request.
This article examines a generalized architecture for intelligent expert matching in high-scale digital tax assistance platforms. The proposed approach treats expert selection as a multi-dimensional decision problem involving user requirements, tax- domain specialization, jurisdictional knowledge, historical expert performance, current workload, service-level expectations, communication preferences, and contextual characteristics of the request. A layered architecture is considered in which request understanding, expert profiling, candidate retrieval, suitability scoring, ranking, availability assessment, and feedback-driven optimization operate as coordinated services. Natural Language Processing (NLP) and machine-learning techniques can be used to transform unstructured tax queries into structured intent representations, while hybrid retrieval and ranking mechanisms can identify experts whose knowledge and operating characteristics best correspond to the user's requirements.
Particular attention is given to challenges associated with operating such architectures at large scale. These include low-latency expert retrieval, continuously changing expert availability, data sparsity for newly onboarded experts, changing taxation rules, explainability of automated recommendations, fairness in expert allocation, privacy protection, and resilience during seasonal demand peaks. The article also discusses the role of event-driven services, distributed caching, feature stores, knowledge representations, semantic embeddings, learning-to-rank models, and feedback loops in supporting scalable expert allocation. Rather than relying entirely on automated decision-making, the architecture incorporates policy controls and human oversight to ensure that machine-generated recommendations remain aligned with regulatory, operational, and service-quality requirements.
The analysis indicates that effective expert matching should optimize multiple objectives simultaneously rather than merely maximizing similarity between a user query and an expert profile. Matching quality must be balanced with response time, workload distribution, expert availability, regulatory eligibility, user preferences, and platform-wide utilization. A modular and feedback-driven architecture can therefore improve the accuracy, scalability, consistency, and adaptability of digital tax assistance services. The architectural principles presented in this article are also applicable to other knowledge-intensive digital service platforms requiring real-time matching between complex user requirements and specialized human expertise.
References
[1] E. Zangerle and C. Bauer, “Evaluating recommender systems: Survey and framework,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 8, Art. no. 170, pp. 1–38, 2022, doi: 10.1145/3556536.
[2] D. Jin, L. Wang, H. Zhang, Y. Zheng, W. Ding, F. Xia, and S. Pan, “A survey on fairness- aware recommender systems,” Information Fusion, vol. 100, Art. no. 101906, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101906.
[3] D. Roy and M. Dutta, “A systematic review and research perspective on recommender systems,” Journal of Big Data, vol. 9, Art. no. 59, 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40537-022-00592- 5.
[4] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), NIST AI 100-1, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2023.
[5] National Institute of Standards and Technology, Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile, NIST AI 600-1, Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2024.
[6] E. Pitoura, K. Stefanidis, and G. Koutrika, “Fairness in rankings and recommendations: An overview,” The VLDB Journal, published online Oct. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s00778- 021-00697-y.
[7] Y. Deldjoo, D. Jannach, A. Bellogín, A. Difonzo, and D. Zanzonelli, “Fairness in recommender systems: Research landscape and future directions,” User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 34, pp. 59–108, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11257-023-09364-z.
[8] Y. Wang, W. Ma, M. Zhang, Y. Liu, and S. Ma, “A survey on the fairness of recommender systems,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 41, no. 3, Art. no. 52, 2023, doi: 10.1145/3547333.
[9] P. Castells and A. Moffat, “Offline recommender system evaluation: Challenges and new directions,” AI Magazine, 2022, doi: 10.1002/aaai.12051.
[10] N. Silva, H. Werneck, T. Silva, A. C. M. Pereira, and L. Rocha, “Multi-armed bandits in recommendation systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and future directions,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 197, Art. no. 116669, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116669.
[11] Y. Deldjoo, A. Bellogín, and T. Di Noia, “Explaining recommender systems fairness and accuracy through the lens of data characteristics,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 58, no. 5, Art. no. 102662, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102662.
[12] M. Zehlike, K. Yang, and J. Stoyanovich, “Fairness in ranking, Part II: Learning-to-rank and recommender systems,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 6, Art. no. 117, pp. 1–41, 2022, doi: 10.1145/3533380.
