IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i3p1810-d742547.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Hybrid Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Technologies for Sustainability in Going-Concern Prediction

Author

Listed:
  • Der-Jang Chi

    (Department of Accounting, Chinese Culture University, No. 55, Hwa-Kang Road, Yang-Ming-Shan, Taipei City 11114, Taiwan)

  • Zong-De Shen

    (Department of Accounting, Chinese Culture University, No. 55, Hwa-Kang Road, Yang-Ming-Shan, Taipei City 11114, Taiwan)

Abstract

The going-concern opinions of certified public accountants (CPAs) and auditors are very critical, and due to misjudgments, the failure to discover the possibility of bankruptcy can cause great losses to financial statement users and corporate stakeholders. Traditional statistical models have disadvantages in giving going-concern opinions and are likely to cause misjudgments, which can have significant adverse effects on the sustainable survival and development of enterprises and investors’ judgments. In order to embrace the era of big data, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technologies have been used in recent studies to judge going concern doubts and reduce judgment errors. The Big Four accounting firms (Deloitte, KPMG, PwC, and EY) are paying greater attention to auditing via big data and artificial intelligence (AI). Thus, this study integrates AI and machine learning technologies: in the first stage, important variables are selected by two decision tree algorithms, classification and regression trees (CART), and a chi-squared automatic interaction detector (CHAID); in the second stage, classification models are respectively constructed by extreme gradient boosting (XGB), artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), and C5.0 for comparison, and then, financial and non-financial variables are adopted to construct effective going-concern opinion decision models (which are more accurate in prediction). The subjects of this study are listed companies and OTC (over-the-counter) companies in Taiwan with and without going-concern doubts from 2000 to 2019. According to the empirical results, among the eight models constructed in this study, the prediction accuracy of the CHAID–C5.0 model is the highest (95.65%), followed by the CART–C5.0 model (92.77%).

Suggested Citation

  • Der-Jang Chi & Zong-De Shen, 2022. "Using Hybrid Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Technologies for Sustainability in Going-Concern Prediction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1810-:d:742547
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1810/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1810/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marisa Agostini, 2018. "Corporate Financial Distress," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-78500-4, March.
    2. Elizabeth Gutierrez & Miguel Minutti-Meza & Kay W. Tatum & Maria Vulcheva, 2018. "Consequences of adopting an expanded auditor’s report in the United Kingdom," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1543-1587, December.
    3. Suduan Chen, 2019. "An effective going concern prediction model for the sustainability of enterprises and capital market development," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(31), pages 3376-3388, July.
    4. Chyan-Long Jan, 2021. "Detection of Financial Statement Fraud Using Deep Learning for Sustainable Development of Capital Markets under Information Asymmetry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Der-Jang Chi & Chien-Chou Chu, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence in Corporate Sustainability: Using LSTM and GRU for Going Concern Prediction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    6. Chyan-long Jan, 2018. "An Effective Financial Statements Fraud Detection Model for the Sustainable Development of Financial Markets: Evidence from Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-14, February.
    7. Elizabeth Gutierrez & Jake Krupa & Miguel Minutti-Meza & Maria Vulcheva, 2020. "Do going concern opinions provide incremental information to predict corporate defaults?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 1344-1381, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mohammed M. Yassin & Dea’a Al-Deen Al-Sraheen & Khaldoon Ahmad Al Daoud & Mohammad Alhadab & Farouq Altahtamouni, 2024. "Variable Considerations in ASC 606, Earnings Management and Business Continuity during Crisis," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Amélia Ferreira da Silva & José Henrique Brito & Mariline Lourenço & José Manuel Pereira, 2023. "Sustainability of Transport Sector Companies: Bankruptcy Prediction Based on Artificial Intelligence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-13, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Der-Jang Chi & Chien-Chou Chu, 2021. "Artificial Intelligence in Corporate Sustainability: Using LSTM and GRU for Going Concern Prediction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Salman Arif & John D. Kepler & Joseph Schroeder & Daniel Taylor, 2022. "Audit process, private information, and insider trading," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 1125-1156, September.
    3. Camacho-Miñano, María-del-Mar & Muñoz-Izquierdo, Nora & Pincus, Morton & Wellmeyer, Patricia, 2024. "Are key audit matter disclosures useful in assessing the financial distress level of a client firm?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    4. Chyan-Long Jan, 2021. "Detection of Financial Statement Fraud Using Deep Learning for Sustainable Development of Capital Markets under Information Asymmetry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Duan, Mingli, 2025. "The signaling effect of tone: The influence of key audit matters’ tone on bank lending decisions," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    6. Yunsen Wang & Tiffany Chiu & Alexander Kogan, 2025. "The effects of COVID-19 pandemic and auditor-client geographic proximity on auditors' going concern opinions," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(2), pages 341-361, June.
    7. Ma, Jin & Coram, Paul & Troshani, Indrit, 2024. "The effect of key audit matters and management disclosures on auditors’ judgements and decisions: An exploratory study," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    8. Tarek Abdelfattah & Mohamed Elmahgoub & Ahmed A. Elamer, 2021. "Female Audit Partners and Extended Audit Reporting: UK Evidence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 177-197, November.
    9. Cebi, Selcuk & Karakurt, Necip Fazıl & Kurtulus, Erkan & Tokgoz, Bunyamin, 2024. "Development of a decision support system for client acceptance in independent audit process," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    10. Wang, Ruizhe & Chua, Wai Fong & Simnett, Roger & Zhou, Shan, 2024. "Is greater connectivity of financial and non-financial information in annual reports valued by market participants?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(6).
    11. Bosiljka Srebro & Bojan Mavrenski & Vesna Bogojević Arsić & Snežana Knežević & Marko Milašinović & Jovan Travica, 2021. "Bankruptcy Risk Prediction in Ensuring the Sustainable Operation of Agriculture Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-17, July.
    12. Brennan, Niamh M. & Power, Sean Bradley, 2025. "Reprint of: Nineteenth century audit reports: Evolution from free-form to standardised wording," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(1).
    13. Sander Noels & Simon De Ridder & Sébastien Viaene & Tijl De Bie, 2023. "An efficient graph‐based peer selection method for financial statements," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 120-136, July.
    14. Li, Valerie & Luo, Yan, 2023. "Costs and benefits of auditors' disclosure of critical audit matters: Initial evidence from the United States," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    15. Nien-Su Shih, 2024. "Does Using the Extended Audit Report Decrease Information Asymmetry in Family Firms?," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 14(1), pages 1-3.
    16. Nopphamat Promasa & Ekawit Songkoh & Siamrat Phonkaphon & Karun Sirichunchuen & Chaliew Ketkaew & Pramuk Unahalekhaka, 2025. "Optimization of Sizing of Battery Energy Storage System for Residential Households by Load Forecasting with Artificial Intelligence (AI): Case of EV Charging Installation," Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-14, March.
    17. Amiraslani, Hami & Deller, Carolyn & Ittner, Christopher D. & Keusch, Thomas, 2025. "Board risk oversight and environmental and social performance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2).
    18. Correia, Maria, 2025. "Accounting and corporate failure: the evolving role of accounting information in bankruptcy prediction," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 128340, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Ashfaque Banbhan & Xinsheng Cheng & Nizam Ud Din, 2018. "Financially Qualified Members in an Upper Echelon and Their Relationship with Corporate Sustainability: Evidence from an Emerging Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Qian Zhang & Xunting Wang & Jinjin Ding & Haiwei Wang & Fulin Zhao & Xingxing Ju & Meijie Zhang, 2025. "A Framework for Sustainable Power Demand Response: Optimization Scheduling with Dynamic Carbon Emission Factors and Dual DPMM-LSTM," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-24, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1810-:d:742547. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.