# Bench-2-CoP: Can We Trust Benchmarking for EU AI Compliance?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05464 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.05464/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 28 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 7 Aug 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 28 of 28)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.07682/) (2022)
- [CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1811.00937/) (2018)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04249/) (2024)
- [RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.11462/) (2020)
- [Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03693/) (2023)
- [Model Cards for Model Reporting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03993/) (2018)
- [BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08193/) (2021)
- [JailbreakBench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01318/) (2024)
- [AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.15366/) (2021)
- [SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.14598/) (2024)
- [SALAD-Bench: A Hierarchical and Comprehensive Safety Benchmark for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05044/) (2024)
- [Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.09479/) (2023)
- [BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practices](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.12990/) (2024)
- [Benchmarking Benchmark Leakage in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18824/) (2024)
- [Superintelligent Agents Pose Catastrophic Risks: Can Scientist AI Offer a Safer Path?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15657/) (2025)
- [AIR-Bench 2024: A Safety Benchmark Based on Risk Categories from Regulations and Policies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.17436/) (2024)
- [OlympicArena: Benchmarking Multi-discipline Cognitive Reasoning for Superintelligent AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12753/) (2024)
- [Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.09880/) (2024)
- [Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21792/) (2024)
- [AI Risk Categorization Decoded (AIR 2024): From Government Regulations to Corporate Policies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.17864/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [AIReg-Bench: Benchmarking Language Models That Assess AI Regulation Compliance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.01474/) (2025)
- [Boiling the Frog: A Multi-Turn Benchmark for Agentic Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22643/) (2026)
- [Pressure Reveals Character: Behavioural Alignment Evaluation at Depth](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.20813/) (2026)
- [Measurement Without Validity: The Compounding Reliability Problem in Agentic AI Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.00794/) (2026)
- [Reverse Engineering Compliance: A Dual-Graph Verification Framework for Auditing Legacy IT Security Concepts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.08292/) (2026)
- [An Open Pipeline and Dashboard for Systemic-Risk Evidence under the EU AI Act's Code of Practice](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.28335/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid advancement of General Purpose AI (GPAI) models necessitates robust evaluation frameworks, especially with emerging regulations like the EU AI Act and its associated Code of Practice (CoP). Current AI evaluation practices depend heavily on established benchmarks, but these tools were not designed to measure the systemic risks that are the focus of the new regulatory landscape. This research addresses the urgent need to quantify this "benchmark-regulation gap." We introduce Bench-2-CoP, a novel, systematic framework that uses validated LLM-as-judge analysis to map the coverage of 194,955 questions from widely-used benchmarks against the EU AI Act's taxonomy of model capabilities and propensities. Our findings reveal a profound misalignment: the evaluation ecosystem dedicates the vast majority of its focus to a narrow set of behavioral propensities. On average, benchmarks devote 61.6% of their regulatory-relevant questions to "Tendency to hallucinate" and 31.2% to "Lack of performance reliability", while critical functional capabilities are dangerously neglected. Crucially, capabilities central to loss-of-control scenarios, including evading human oversight, self-replication, and autonomous AI development, receive zero coverage in the entire benchmark corpus. This study provides the first comprehensive, quantitative analysis of this gap, demonstrating that current public benchmarks are insufficient, on their own, for providing the evidence of comprehensive risk assessment required for regulatory compliance and offering critical insights for the development of next-generation evaluation tools.