VERA-8B: Evidence-Grounded Audit Risk Reasoning from SEC Filings

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28402v1
• Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 14:55:49 GMT
• Title: VERA-8B: Evidence-Grounded Audit Risk Reasoning from SEC Filings
• Abstract summary: We develop VERA-8B, a new end-to-end audit reasoning system.<n> VERA-8B identifies audit risks before enforcement actions occur.<n>We are the first to unify SFT and GRPO for evidence-grounded audit reasoning.
• Score: 0.6445605125467574
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Across audit applications, judgments must be supported by reasonable evidence. However, standard financial language models prioritize fluency over evidence. They are built for general financial reasoning and may produce plausible but ambiguous answers, creating a grounding gap that makes them unsuitable for audit work. We address this gap with VERA-8B, a new end-to-end audit reasoning system that identifies audit risks before enforcement actions occur. Constructing such a model raises several challenges, as no prior machine learning work targets pre-enforcement audit prediction. To our knowledge, we are the first to unify SFT and GRPO for evidence-grounded audit reasoning under one evidence standard, achieving performance that surpasses all evaluated baselines. Because auditing cannot tolerate unsupported claims, we introduce abstention and uncertainty qualification to defer uncertain or evidence-incomplete cases. Finally, we design an AuditBridge to ground model reasoning for practical audit work. It transforms raw filings into verified records and then into reviewer-ready reports, bridging finance and computation with broad generality. Together, these components produce auditable, review-ready outputs suitable for practical audit work.

Related papers

• IntelliAudit: Using Large Language Models to Evaluate Audit Controls [0.1759008116536278]
  We present IntelliAudit, a retrieval-grounded multi-agent system for IT audit evidence evaluation.<n>Given a control and an evidence corpus, IntelliAudit retrieves relevant artifacts, generates an evidence-grounded assessment.<n>We evaluate it across multiple simulated organizations using expert review and audit-readiness user feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T18:21:06Z)
• From Trajectories to Evidence: Auditable Experimental Records for Industrial Research Agents [47.678562263387214]
  Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings.<n>Yet a completed trajectory is not automatically evidence: generated artifacts may be unsupported or incomplete, executed rounds may be invalid or confounded, and later modifications may obscure earlier findings.<n>We introduce an evidence-grounded framework that couples bounded verification of consequential artifacts with post-execution claim qualification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T13:37:38Z)
• Fairness Auditing: Lower Bounds on Company Manipulation [4.867679624126028]
  Fairness audits are increasingly mandated in high-stakes applications such as hiring, lending, and automated decision-making.<n>Recent work has established fundamental impossibility results for black-box fairness auditing.<n>We quantify the extent of unavoidable post-audit manipulation under finite audit resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-01T10:11:20Z)
• Auditing the Audit: Five Failure Modes in Benchmark-Validity Audits [0.30586855806896046]
  We name five classes of pipeline failure and demonstrate each in a self-audit over safety benchmarks and open-weight instruction-tuned models.<n>We position the gate as a withholding and disclosure protocol for assurance-grade evidence, supplementary to (not a replacement for) classical construct-validity evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-01T05:30:07Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• IMMACULATE: A Practical LLM Auditing Framework via Verifiable Computation [49.796717294455796]
  We present IMMACULATE, a practical auditing framework that detects economically motivated deviations.<n>IMMACULATE selectively audits a small fraction of requests using verifiable computation, achieving strong detection guarantees while amortizing cryptographic overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T07:21:02Z)
• Evaluating LLMs in Finance Requires Explicit Bias Consideration [88.38155218924999]
  Finance-specific biases can inflate performance, contaminate backtests, and make reported results useless for deployment claims.<n>No single bias is discussed in more than 28 percent of studies.<n>We propose a Structural Validity Framework and an evaluation checklist with minimal requirements for bias diagnosis and future system design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T17:02:01Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• Robust ML Auditing using Prior Knowledge [3.513282443657269]
  Audit manipulation occurs when a platform deliberately alters its answers to a regulator to pass an audit without modifying its answers to other users.<n>This paper introduces a novel approach to manipulation-proof auditing by taking into account the auditor's prior knowledge of the task solved by the platform.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-07T20:46:48Z)
• From Transparency to Accountability and Back: A Discussion of Access and Evidence in AI Auditing [1.196505602609637]
  Audits can take many forms, including pre-deployment risk assessments, ongoing monitoring, and compliance testing. There are many operational challenges to AI auditing that complicate its implementation. We argue that auditing can be cast as a natural hypothesis test, draw parallels hypothesis testing and legal procedure, and argue that this framing provides clear and interpretable guidance on audit implementation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T06:15:46Z)
• The Decisive Power of Indecision: Low-Variance Risk-Limiting Audits and Election Contestation via Marginal Mark Recording [51.82772358241505]
  Risk-limiting audits (RLAs) are techniques for verifying the outcomes of large elections. We define new families of audits that improve efficiency and offer advances in statistical power. New audits are enabled by revisiting the standard notion of a cast-vote record so that it can declare multiple possible mark interpretations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T16:23:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.