Auditing at the Algorithmic Frontier: A Critical Narrative Review of Machine Learning and Audit Quality

The rapid integration of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) into audit practice has generated growing scholarly interest in their implications for audit quality. This narrative review synthesizes 49 peer-reviewed articles sourced from the Web of Science (WoS) database, spanning 2010 to 2026, to critically examine how ML adoption shapes audit quality across diverse institutional and organizational contexts. Drawing on institutional theory and the socio-technical systems framework, this study proposes an integrative conceptual framework that positions five independent variables: institutional pressures, technological capabilities, strategic orientation, ethical frameworks, and AI autonomy level, as antecedents of audit quality, mediated by trust, legitimacy, and decision rights, and moderated by governance mechanisms, organizational culture, and institutional environment. The review reveals that whilst ML meaningfully enhances misstatement detection, risk stratification, and processing efficiency, persistent concerns remain regarding auditor over-reliance, algorithmic opacity, accountability displacement, and professional de-skilling. These findings carry significant implications for standard-setters, audit practitioners, and researchers seeking to govern AI responsibly within the auditing profession.

Machine learning, audit quality, artificial intelligence, digital auditing, professional skepticism

1. Abdi, M., Moslemi, A., & Rashidi, M. (2025). A machine learning approach to assessing audit quality (AQ) in company with non-switching auditors: Extra trees classifier (ETC) model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Management Studies, 19(1), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijms.2025.384690.677133 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abu Huson, Y., Sierra-García, L., & Garcia-Benau, M. A. (2024). A bibliometric review of information technology, artificial intelligence, and blockchain on auditing. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 35(1–2), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2023.2256260 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Albitar, K., Gerged, A. M., Kikhia, H., & Hussainey, K. (2020). Auditing in times of social distancing: the effect of COVID-19 on auditing quality. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 29(1), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijaim-08-2020-0128 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alkhatib, E., Alkhatib, A., & Jarvis, R. (2026). Auditing using artificial intelligence: A systematic literature review with scientometric and topic modeling insights through a socio-technical systems (STS) perspective. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfra-07-2025-0518 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Aslan, L. (2021). The evolving competencies of the public auditor and the future of public sector auditing. In Contemporary Issues in Public Sector Accounting and Auditing (pp. 113–129). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1569-375920200000105008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Benhayoun, I., Bougrine, S., & Sassioui, A. (2025). Readiness for artificial intelligence adoption by auditors in emerging countries – a PLS-SEM analysis of Moroccan firms. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 23(4), 1486–1508. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfra-07-2024-0448 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Blue, G., Chahrdahcheriki, M., Rezaee, Z., & Khotanlou, M. (2025). A model for predicting creative accounting in emerging economies. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 33(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijaim-09-2023-0240 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Chen, S., & Yang, J. (2025). Intelligent manufacturing, auditor selection and audit quality. Management Decision, 63(3), 964–997. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-09-2023-1518 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Commerford, B. P., Dennis, S. A., Joe, J. R., & Ulla, J. W. (2022). Man versus machine: Complex estimates and auditor reliance on artificial intelligence. Journal of Accounting Research, 60(1), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679x.12407 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Dos Santos, D. L. D. S., & Dos Santos, G. C. (2025). Technological convergence in financial auditing: A systematic literature review. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 5(4), 440–465. https://doi.org/10.3934/dsfe.2025018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fedyk, A., Hodson, J., Khimich, N., & Fedyk, T. (2022). Is artificial intelligence improving the audit process? Review of Accounting Studies, 27(3), 938–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-022-09697-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fotoh, L. E., & Lorentzon, J. I. (2023). Audit digitalization and its consequences on the audit expectation gap: A critical perspective. Accounting Horizons, 37(1), 43–69. https://doi.org/10.2308/horizons-2021-027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Grassa, R., Obaidalla, I., & Hamza, M. (2022). Auditors’ perspective of audit quality during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the United Arab Emirates. Indonesian Journal of Sustainability Accounting and Management, 6(2), 302–313. https://doi.org/10.28992/ijsam.v6i2.623 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gu, Y., Parker, C. A. Z., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2026). Synergizing machine and human judgment: evidence from going concern assessment. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 57(107435). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2026.107435 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hallman, N. J., Kartapanis, A., & Schmidt, J. J. (2022). How do auditors respond to competition? Evidence from the bidding process. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 73(2–3), 101475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2021.101475 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hayes, L., & Boritz, J. E. (2021). Classifying restatements: An application of machine learning and textual analytics. Journal of Information Systems, 35(3), 107–131. https://doi.org/10.2308/isys-19-003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hope, O. K., Wang, C., Wu, Y., & Zhang, M. (2025). Does convergence with International Standards on auditing improve audit quality? The Accounting Review, 100(2), 189–218. https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2022-0610 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hu, K. H., Chen, F. H., Hsu, M. F., & Tzeng, G. H. (2020). Identifying key factors for adopting artificial intelligence-enabled auditing techniques by joint utilization of fuzzy-rough set theory and mrdm technique. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 27(2), 459–492. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2020.13181 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hunt, E., Hunt, J., Richardson, V. J., & Rosser, D. (2022). Auditor response to estimated misstatement risk: A machine learning approach. Accounting Horizons, 36(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.2308/horizons-19-139 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Hunt, J. O. S., Rosser, D. M., & Rowe, S. P. (2021). Using machine learning to predict auditor switches: How the likelihood of switching affects audit quality among non-switching clients. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 40(5), 106785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2020.106785 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Jiang, Y., & Jones, S. (2018). Corporate distress prediction in China: a machine learning approach. Accounting and Finance, 58(4), 1063–1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12432 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Jones, S., & Free, C. (2026). What accountants need to know about artificial intelligence and machine learning: a review and call for future research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 48(5), 133–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/jal-12-2025-0693 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Khan, F., Ullah Jan, S., & Zia-ul-haq, H. M. (2025). Artificial intelligence adoption, audit quality and integrated financial reporting in GCC markets. Asian Review of Accounting, 33(3), 464–495. https://doi.org/10.1108/ara-03-2024-0085 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Knopf, J. W. (2006). Doing a literature review. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(1), 127–132. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Law, K. K. F., & Shen, M. (2024). How does artificial intelligence shape audit firms? Management Science, 71(5), 3641–3666. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.04040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lu, Y., Hao, J., & Tang, X. (2025). Dual-model synergy for audit opinion prediction: A collaborative LLM agent framework approach. International Review of Economics & Finance, 104(104642). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2025.104642 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Lugli, E., & Bertacchini, F. (2023). Audit quality and digitalization: some insights from the Italian context. Meditari Accountancy Research, 31(4), 841–860. https://doi.org/10.1108/medar-08-2021-1399 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. MacTavish, C., Fiolleau, K., Osecki, E., & Thorne, L. (2026). Technology and its implications for Staff Auditors. Accounting Horizons, 40(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.2308/horizons-2023-057 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Manita, R., Elommal, N., Baudier, P., & Hikkerova, L. (2020). The digital transformation of external audit and its impact on corporate governance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150(119751). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119751 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mugwira, T. (2022). Internet-related technologies in the auditing profession: A WOS bibliometric review of the past three decades and conceptual structure mapping. Revista de Contabilidad, 25(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.6018/rcsar.428041 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Noordin, N. A., Hussainey, K., & Hayek, A. F. (2022). The use of artificial intelligence and audit quality: An analysis from the perspectives of external auditors in the UAE. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15(8), 339. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15080339 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Parker, C. Z., Jiang, L., Cho, S., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2025). Predicting material misstatements using machine learning. The Accounting Review, 100(6), 225–262. https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-2024-0035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Rahman, M. J., Zhu, H., & Yue, L. (2024). Does the adoption of artificial intelligence by audit firms and their clients affect audit quality and efficiency? Evidence from China. Managerial Auditing Journal, 39(6), 668–699. https://doi.org/10.1108/maj-03-2023-3846 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Raza, M., Sori, Z. M., & Shamsher, M. (2026). Reimagining the effectiveness of internal Shariah audit through artificial intelligence: the Malaysian context. Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/jiabr-05-2025-0307 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Sánchez-Medina, A. J., Blázquez-Santana, F., & Alonso, J. B. (2019). Do auditors reflect the true image of the company contrary to the clients’ interests? An artificial intelligence approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(2), 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3496-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Sawaya, C., Khalil, F. C., Jabbour Al Maalouf, N., & Kaspard, J. (2026). Revolutionizing audit practice in emerging economies: the role of Artificial Intelligence in enhancing the audit of consolidated financial statements. Cogent Business & Management, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2026.2625974 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Seethamraju, R., & Hecimovic, A. (2023). Adoption of artificial intelligence in auditing: An exploratory study. Australian Journal of Management, 48(4), 780–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962221108440 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Tan, J., Chang, S., Zheng, Y., & Chan, K. C. (2025). Effects of artificial intelligence in the modern business: Client artificial intelligence application and audit quality. International Review of Financial Analysis, 104(104271). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2025.104271 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Tapis, G. P., Ravenscraft, J., Naegle, J. C., Jr, Keller, C. E., Jr, & Church, K. S. (2026). ChatGPT and the financial statement audit: Can staff level employees at audit clients use ChatGPT to answer auditor inquiries? Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-2024-040 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Tieu, T. T. H., & Tran, N. H. (2026). Integrating the fraud triangle with machine learning for financial misstatement detection: Evidence from an emerging market. Cogent Business & Management, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2026.2614367 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting: An examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system. Human Relations; Studies Towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 4(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675100400101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Yang, J. C., Chuang, H. C., & Kuan, C. M. (2020). Double machine learning with gradient boosting and its application to the Big N audit quality effect. Journal of Econometrics, 216(1), 268–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.01.018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet