Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This paper applies a multi-agent LLM system to XBRL numerical consistency checks, reporting 87.70% audit accuracy against 68.60% for a single agent and 86.70% for a checker-only baseline. The authors attribute most of the gain to deterministic, executable verification rather than agent judgment, and they note that the agent contribution varies by backbone and checker coverage. Readers should weigh these results on a newly collected, single-source 1,000-instance dataset, since the benchmark is not yet independently replicated.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

AUDITFLOW: Executable Symbolic Environments for Structured Financial Reporting Verification

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2606.03031v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Structured financial reporting verification requires connecting reported facts to accounting constraints, reconstructing expected values, and executing numerical checks. We study this problem through XBRL numerical consistency verification and introduce \textsc{AuditFlow}, a graph-grounded multi-agent framework built around an executable symbolic environment. The environment links a reusable US-GAAP taxonomy graph with filing-specific XBRL evidence and provides typed tools for retrieval, traversal, computation, and rule evaluation. Two specialized auditors investigate constraints and filing evidence, while a senior auditor coordinates disagreement-triggered refinement. Deterministic tools produce verification evidence; evidential aggregation combines structured reports, including agent-declared overrides, into final decisions. On a newly collected 1{,}000-instance evaluation set of engine-recorded DQC violations, \textsc{AuditFlow} achieves $87.70\%$ joint audit accuracy with Claude Sonnet 4.6, compared with $68.60\%$ for Single Agent and $86.70\%$ for Checker-only. Component and coverage analyses identify executable verification as the main source of accuracy, while additional gains from agent judgment depend on the backbone and checker coverage.

Abstract:Structured financial reporting verification requires connecting reported facts to accounting constraints, reconstructing expected values, and executing numerical checks. We study this problem through XBRL numerical consistency verification and introduce \textsc{AuditFlow}, a graph-grounded multi-agent framework built around an executable symbolic environment. The environment links a reusable US-GAAP taxonomy graph with filing-specific XBRL evidence and provides typed tools for retrieval, traversal, computation, and rule evaluation. Two specialized auditors investigate constraints and filing evidence, while a senior auditor coordinates disagreement-triggered refinement. Deterministic tools produce verification evidence; evidential aggregation combines structured reports, including agent-declared overrides, into final decisions. On a newly collected 1{,}000-instance evaluation set of engine-recorded DQC violations, \textsc{AuditFlow} achieves $87.70\%$ joint audit accuracy with Claude Sonnet 4.6, compared with $68.60\%$ for Single Agent and $86.70\%$ for Checker-only. Component and coverage analyses identify executable verification as the main source of accuracy, while additional gains from agent judgment depend on the backbone and checker coverage.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA); Symbolic Computation (cs.SC)

arXiv:2606.03031 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2606.03031v2 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.03031 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 249 words

Related coverage