Proposes a novel AI framework that detects financial statement manipulation by integrating behavioral signals and traditional metrics, enhancing audit effectiveness.
Financial statement manipulation continues to undermine the reliability of corporate reporting, while conventional ratio-based detection tools remain largely backward-looking and often insensitive to behaviour-driven precursors. This study proposes a behaviourally enriched, explainable machine learning framework that integrates traditional accounting indicators with managerial and disclosure-based proxies to improve manipulation risk screening. Using a multi-year firm-year panel (2016–2023) of listed non-financial companies, the study constructs a binary manipulation label and develops two benchmark models (Beneish-style screening and logistic regression) alongside ensemble learning models (random forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM). Model evaluation emphasises imbalanced-class robustness using ROC–AUC, precision, recall, F1-score, and confusion-matrix diagnostics. Empirically, behavioural enrichment improves discrimination by approximately 4–7 percentage points in ROC–AUC across models, and the best-performing LightGBM specification achieves Accuracy = 0.95, Precision = 0.92, Recall = 0.90, F1 = 0.91, and ROC–AUC = 0.98. Relative to the logistic baseline, false negatives decline from 56 to 18 (≈68% reduction), strengthening audit-relevant sensitivity. To ensure audit usability, the framework embeds SHAP-based explainability, revealing Earnings Pressure Index and Management Tone Score as dominant predictors alongside DSRI and AQI, thereby demonstrating that manipulation risk is strongly behaviour-linked rather than purely numerical. Overall, the study contributes an interpretable, early-warning analytics tool that improves both predictive performance and decision transparency for auditors, regulators, and governance stakeholders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
S Malarvizhi (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: