Skip to content
Review

IntelliAudit: Using Large Language Models to Evaluate Audit Controls

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 27 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The evaluation shows that IntelliAudit can support control interpretation, evidence-grounded reasoning, and audit-preparation workflows, while also revealing the importance of human oversight for calibrating sufficiency judgments and correcting overly permissive recommendations.

Abstract

IT audits require auditors to judge whether heterogeneous organizational evidence satisfies semantic security and compliance controls. This judgment is difficult to automate because relevant evidence is distributed across policies, records, spreadsheets, and operational artifacts, and because audit conclusions depend on evidentiary sufficiency rather than keyword matching. We present IntelliAudit, a retrieval-grounded multi-agent system for IT audit evidence evaluation. Given a control and an evidence corpus, IntelliAudit retrieves relevant artifacts, generates an evidence-grounded assessment, challenges adverse findings, adjudicates disagreements, and produces an auditor-facing recommendation with cited evidence, rationale, missing-evidence analysis, and remediation guidance. We instantiate IntelliAudit on ISO/IEC 27001 and evaluate it across multiple simulated organizations using expert auditor review and audit-readiness user feedback. The evaluation shows that IntelliAudit can support control interpretation, evidence-grounded reasoning, and audit-preparation workflows, while also revealing the importance of human oversight for calibrating sufficiency judgments and correcting overly permissive recommendations. These results suggest that retrieval-grounded multi-agent systems can assist audit evidence review, but should remain decision-support tools rather than autonomous certification systems.

View source

Similar papers

Review Jul 2026

White Box Evidence Packages for Policy Audit Reports

As AI governance moves from benchmark scores toward auditable oversight, a central question is how reviewers can tell whether an LLM-generated audit report is actually supported by evidence. This paper studies that question in passage-anchored policy audits, where a report must interpret a given policy passage and cite...

Seunghyun Yoo · 0 citations
Aug 2026

What is Missing? An HFACS Analysis of the VERIS Community Database

Results suggest that current public reporting can identify the type of error that occurred, but is limited in explaining why it occurred, and suggest that current public reporting can identify the type of error that occurred, but is limited in explaining why it occurred.

Saroja Roy Grandhi, Jeremiah D. Still · 0 citations
Review Open access 2026

Accountable NLP for Evidence-Grounded Decision Briefings: A Critical Review and Evaluation Framework

This review synthesizes 104 sources spanning explainable natural language processing (NLP), faithful explanation, hallucination and factuality evaluation, RAG, citation faithfulness, uncertainty communication, causal language, human–AI interaction, engineering and regulatory decision support, and institutional accounta...

Jihoon Moon · 0 citations
Review Open access Jul 2026

When may LLM outputs influence software requirements? A human-in-the-loop governance framework

Large language models are increasingly used to review, clarify, rewrite, and trace software requirements. These applications create a governance problem that output-quality assessment alone cannot resolve: a fluent proposal may rely on inadmissible evidence, alter stakeholder intent, introduce unsupported specificity,...

Chuanjin Zhu · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.