AUDITFLOW: Executable Symbolic Environments for Structured Financial Reporting Verification
arXiv AIArchived Jun 03, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2606.03031v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Structured financial audit verification is difficult for language-model agents because correctness depends on structured evidence rather than text alone. A model must link reported facts to taxonomy concepts, traverse calculation or dimensional relations, and recompute expected values before applying an audit rule. We propose AuditFlow, a graph-grounded multi-agent framework that separates adaptive search from deterministic verification. AuditFlow
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence
[Submitted on 2 Jun 2026]
AUDITFLOW: Executable Symbolic Environments for Structured Financial Reporting Verification
Yan Wang, Xuguang Ai, Jaisal Patel, Xueqing Peng, Fengran Mo, Yupeng Cao, Haohang Li, Mingyu Cao, Lingfei Qian, Víctor Gutiérrez-Basulto
Structured financial audit verification is difficult for language-model agents because correctness depends on structured evidence rather than text alone. A model must link reported facts to taxonomy concepts, traverse calculation or dimensional relations, and recompute expected values before applying an audit rule. We propose AuditFlow, a graph-grounded multi-agent framework that separates adaptive search from deterministic verification. AuditFlow builds a symbolic environment from a static US-GAAP taxonomy graph and a dynamic XBRL filing graph, and exposes it through typed tools for fact retrieval, taxonomy traversal, numerical checking, and rule evaluation. Two junior auditors inspect each case from regulatory and evidentiary views, while a senior auditor resolves disagreements and can request further investigation. The final reports are fused through evidential aggregation to produce an audit verdict, expected value, evidence trail, and trustworthiness score. On a FinAuditing-derived FinMR sample, AuditFlow reaches 82.09% joint audit accuracy under GPT-5.5, outperforming the strongest baseline by 14.93 points. Removing deterministic checks drops accuracy to 17.91%, showing that the symbolic environment performs the verification step that the model cannot reliably replace.
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA); Symbolic Computation (cs.SC)
Cite as: arXiv:2606.03031 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2606.03031v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.03031
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Yan Wang [view email]
[v1] Tue, 2 Jun 2026 02:14:42 UTC (9,452 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-06
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.MA
cs.SC
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)