PreprintCited by 1Robotic Process Automation ApplicationsAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceTopic Modeling

Automating Financial Statement Audits with Large Language Models

Open access
Wang, Rushi, Liu, Jiateng, Zhao, Weijie, Li, Shenglan, Zhang, Denghui·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Financial statement auditing is essential for stakeholders to understand a company's financial health, yet current manual processes are inefficient and error-prone. Even with extensive verification procedures, auditors frequently miss errors, leading to inaccurate financial statements that fail to meet stakeholder expectations for transparency and reliability. To this end, we harness large language models (LLMs) to automate financial statement auditing and rigorously assess their capabilities, providing insights on their performance boundaries in the scenario of automated auditing. Our work introduces a comprehensive benchmark using a curated dataset combining real-world financial tables with synthesized transaction data. In the benchmark, we developed a rigorous five-stage evaluation framework to assess LLMs' auditing capabilities. The benchmark also challenges models to map specific financial statement errors to corresponding violations of accounting standards, simulating real-world auditing scenarios through test cases. Our testing reveals that current state-of-the-art LLMs successfully identify financial statement errors when given historical transaction data. However, these models demonstrate significant limitations in explaining detected errors and citing relevant accounting standards. Furthermore, LLMs struggle to execute complete audits and make necessary financial statement revisions. These findings highlight a critical gap in LLMs' domain-specific accounting knowledge. Future research must focus on enhancing LLMs' understanding of auditing principles and procedures. Our benchmark and evaluation framework establish a foundation for developing more effective automated auditing tools that will substantially improve the accuracy and efficiency of real-world financial statement auditing.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.17282

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Few benchmarks assess how AI models perform at real accounting work.

    “Few benchmarks assess how AI models perform at real accounting work.”

    From APEX-Accounting (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2025

    The Automatic Auditing Benchmark section (p. 2) calls this the first benchmark for evaluating LLMs on automatic financial-statement auditing, supporting a scarcity claim for that accounting task. It does not establish that few benchmarks assess AI models across real accounting work more broadly; the Limitations section (p. 5) also says its auditing task uses simplified transaction data. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Berger, A.; Hillebrand, L.; Leonhard, D.; Deußer, T.; De Oliveira, T. B. F.; Dilmaghani, T.; Khaled, M.; Kliem, B.; Loitz, R.; Bauckhage, C.; et al. 2023. Towards automated regulatory compliance verification in financial auditing with large language models. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) , 4626-4635. IEEE.
  2. Byrnes, P. E.; Al-Awadhi, A.; Gullvist, B.; Brown-Liburd, H.; Teeter, R.; Warren Jr, J. D.; and Vasarhelyi, M. 2018. Evolution of auditing: From the traditional approach to the future audit. In Continuous auditing: Theory and application , 285-297. Emerald Publishing Limited.
  3. Cao, M.; Chychyla, R.; and Stewart, T. 2015. Big data analytics in financial statement audits. Accounting horizons , 29(2): 423-429.
  4. Cho, J. 2022. How Do Auditors Respond to Labor Investment Inefficiency? The Journal of the Korea Contents Association , 22(2): 593-604.
  5. Debreceny, R.; Lee, S.-L.; Neo, W.; and Toh, J. S. 2005. Employing generalized audit software in the financial services sector: Challenges and opportunities. Managerial Auditing Journal , 20(6): 605-618.
  6. Deng, J.; Wei, Z.; Pang, L.; Ding, H.; Shen, H.; and Cheng, X. 2024. UnKE: Unstructured Knowledge Editing in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15349 . · arXiv
  7. Elder, R. J.; Akresh, A. D.; Glover, S. M.; Higgs, J. L.; and Liljegren, J. 2013. Audit sampling research: A synthesis and implications for future research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory , 32(Supplement 1): 99-129.
  8. Hillebrand, L.; Berger, A.; Deußer, T.; Dilmaghani, T.; Khaled, M.; Kliem, B.; Loitz, R.; Pielka, M.; Leonhard, D.; Bauckhage, C.; et al. 2023. Improving zero-shot text matching for financial auditing with large language models. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 2023 , 1-4.
  9. Hu, L.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Hou, L.; Nie, L.; and Li, J. 2023. A survey of knowledge enhanced pre-trained language models. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering .
  10. Li, J.; and Sun, Z. 2023. Government audit, employee efficiency and labor cost stickiness. Plos one , 18(9): e0291014. Liu, J.; Ai, L.; Liu, Z.; Karisani, P.; Hui, Z.; Fung, M.; Nakov, P.; Hirschberg, J.; and Ji, H. 2024a. PropaInsight: Toward Deeper Understanding of Propaganda in Terms of Techniques, Appeals, and Intent. arXiv preprint
  11. Liu, J.; Yu, P.; Zhang, Y.; Li, S.; Zhang, Z.; Sarikaya, R.; Small, K.; and Ji, H. 2024b. EVEDIT: Event-based Knowledge Editing for Deterministic Knowledge Propagation. In Al-Onaizan, Y.; Bansal, M.; and Chen, Y.-N., eds., Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 4907-4926. Miami, Florida, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  12. Nigrini, M. J. 2017. Audit sampling using Benford's Law: A review of the literature with some new perspectives. Journal of emerging technologies in accounting , 14(2): 29-46.
  13. Popovi´ c, S.; Toškovi´ c, J.; Majstorovi´ c, A.; Brkanli´ c, S.; and Kati´ c, A. 2015. THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTINUOUS AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY OF COUNTRIES JOINING THE EU. Annals of'Constantin Brancusi'University of Targu-Jiu. Economy Series/Analele Universit˘ a¸ tii'Constantin Brâncu¸ si'din Târgu-Jiu Seria Economie .
  14. Sirikulvadhana, S. 2002. Data mining as a financial auditing tool . Ph.D. thesis, Citeseer.
  15. Sun, Y.; Li, J.; Lu, M.; and Guo, Z. 2024. Study of the Impact of the Big Data Era on Accounting and Auditing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07180 . · arXiv
  16. Toumeh, A. A.; Yahya, S.; and Siam, W. Z. 2018. Expectations gap between auditors and user of financial statements in the audit process: an auditors' perspective. Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Journal (APMAJ) , 13(3): 79-107.
  17. Vinatoru, S.; and Domnisoru, S. 2016. USING DATA MINING IN FINANCIAL AUDIT. In 3rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2016 , 677-684.
  18. Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Liu, J.; Chen, Y.; Yuan, L.; Peng, H.; and Ji, H. 2023. Mint: Evaluating llms in multi-turn interaction with tools and language feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10691 . · arXiv
  19. Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Bosma, M.; Xia, F.; Chi, E.; Le, Q. V.; Zhou, D.; et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35: 24824-24837.
  20. Yang, K.; Liu, J.; Wu, J.; Yang, C.; Fung, Y . R.; Li, S.; Huang, Z.; Cao, X.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y.; et al. 2024. If llm is the wizard, then code is the wand: A survey on how code empowers large language models to serve as intelligent agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00812 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, R., Liu, J., Zhao, W., Li, S., & Zhang, D.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W6911144034
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Robotic Process Automation Applications
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
financial statement audit, large language models, audit automation, benchmark, financial tables, transaction data, evaluation framework, LLM limitations, financial statement revision

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