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.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) establishes different legal principles for different types of AI systems. While prior work has sought to clarify some of these principles, little attention has been paid to robustness and cybersecurity. This paper aims to fill this gap. We identify legal challenges and shortcomings in provisions related to robustness and cybersecurity for high-risk AI systems (Art. 15 AIA) and general-purpose AI models (Art. 55 AIA). We show that robustness and cybersecurity demand resilience against performance disruptions. Furthermore, we assess potential challenges in implementing these provisions in light of recent advancements in the machine learning (ML) literature. Our analysis informs efforts to develop harmonized standards, guidelines by the European Commission, as well as benchmarks and measurement methodologies under Art. 15(2) AIA. With this, we seek to bridge the gap between legal terminology and ML research, fostering a better alignment between research and implementation efforts.

The "right to be forgotten" and the data privacy laws that encode it have motivated machine unlearning since its earliest days. Now, an inbound wave of artificial intelligence regulations - like the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) - potentially offer important new use cases for machine unlearning. However, this position paper argues, this opportunity will only be realized if researchers, aided by policymakers, proactively bridge the (sometimes sizable) gaps between machine unlearning's state of the art and its potential applications to AI regulation. To demonstrate this point, we use the AIA as an example. Specifically, we deliver a "state of the union" as regards machine unlearning's current potential for aiding compliance with the AIA. This starts with a precise cataloging of the potential applications of machine unlearning to AIA compliance. For each, we flag any legal ambiguities clouding the potential application and, moreover, flag the technical gaps that exist between the potential application and the state of the art of machine unlearning. Finally, we end with a call to action: for both machine learning researchers and policymakers, to, respectively, solve the open technical and legal questions that will unlock machine unlearning's potential to assist compliance with the AIA - and other AI regulation like it.

This study proposes a deep learning model based on the combination of convolutional neural network (CNN) and bidirectional long short-term memory network (BiLSTM) for discriminant analysis of financial systemic risk. The model first uses CNN to extract local patterns of multidimensional features of financial markets, and then models the bidirectional dependency of time series through BiLSTM, to comprehensively characterize the changing laws of systemic risk in spatial features and temporal dynamics. The experiment is based on real financial data sets. The results show that the model is significantly superior to traditional single models (such as BiLSTM, CNN, Transformer, and TCN) in terms of accuracy, recall, and F1 score. The F1-score reaches 0.88, showing extremely high discriminant ability. This shows that the joint strategy of combining CNN and BiLSTM can not only fully capture the complex patterns of market data but also effectively deal with the long-term dependency problem in time series data. In addition, this study also explores the robustness of the model in dealing with data noise and processing high-dimensional data, providing strong support for intelligent financial risk management. In the future, the research will further optimize the model structure, introduce methods such as reinforcement learning and multimodal data analysis, and improve the efficiency and generalization ability of the model to cope with a more complex financial environment.

The systemic risks posed by general-purpose AI models are a growing concern, yet the effectiveness of mitigations remains underexplored. Previous research has proposed frameworks for risk mitigation, but has left gaps in our understanding of the perceived effectiveness of measures for mitigating systemic risks. Our study addresses this gap by evaluating how experts perceive different mitigations that aim to reduce the systemic risks of general-purpose AI models. We surveyed 76 experts whose expertise spans AI safety; critical infrastructure; democratic processes; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear risks (CBRN); and discrimination and bias. Among 27 mitigations identified through a literature review, we find that a broad range of risk mitigation measures are perceived as effective in reducing various systemic risks and technically feasible by domain experts. In particular, three mitigation measures stand out: safety incident reports and security information sharing, third-party pre-deployment model audits, and pre-deployment risk assessments. These measures show both the highest expert agreement ratings (>60\%) across all four risk areas and are most frequently selected in experts' preferred combinations of measures (>40\%). The surveyed experts highlighted that external scrutiny, proactive evaluation and transparency are key principles for effective mitigation of systemic risks. We provide policy recommendations for implementing the most promising measures, incorporating the qualitative contributions from experts. These insights should inform regulatory frameworks and industry practices for mitigating the systemic risks associated with general-purpose AI.

The European AI Act is a new, legally binding instrument that will enforce certain requirements on the development and use of AI technology potentially affecting people in Europe. It can be expected that the stipulations of the Act, in turn, are going to affect the work of many software engineers, software testers, data engineers, and other professionals across the IT sector in Europe and beyond. The 113 articles, 180 recitals, and 13 annexes that make up the Act cover 144 pages. This paper aims at providing an aid for navigating the Act from the perspective of some professional in the software domain, termed "the working programmer", who feels the need to know about the stipulations of the Act.

On 21 May 2024, the Council of the European Union formally approved the artificial intelligence (AI) Act. The legislative act will come into force in about three weeks' time, with the new regulations being phased in over the course of the coming months and years. According to the Council, the new law aims to "foster the development and uptake of safe and trustworthy AI systems across the EU's single market by both private and public actors. At the same time, it aims to ensure respect of fundamental rights of EU citizens and stimulate investment and innovation on artificial intelligence in Europe." The legislation is designed to follow a risk-based approach, with the higher the risk a system poses, the stricter the rules relating to its use and/or release.

The European Parliament has approved sweeping legislation to regulate artificial intelligence, nearly three years after the draft rules were first proposed. Officials reached an agreement on AI development in December. On Wednesday, members of the parliament approved the AI Act with 523 votes in favor and 46 against, There were 49 abstentions. The EU says the regulations seek to "protect fundamental rights, democracy, the rule of law and environmental sustainability from high-risk AI, while boosting innovation and establishing Europe as a leader in the field." The act defines obligations for AI applications based on potential risks and impact.

We propose a nonparametric and time-varying directed information graph (TV-DIG) framework to estimate the evolving causal structure in time series networks, thereby addressing the limitations of traditional econometric models in capturing high-dimensional, nonlinear, and time-varying interconnections among series. This framework employs an information-theoretic measure rooted in a generalized version of Granger-causality, which is applicable to both linear and nonlinear dynamics. Our framework offers advancements in measuring systemic risk and establishes meaningful connections with established econometric models, including vector autoregression and switching models. We evaluate the efficacy of our proposed model through simulation experiments and empirical analysis, reporting promising results in recovering simulated time-varying networks with nonlinear and multivariate structures. We apply this framework to identify and monitor the evolution of interconnectedness and systemic risk among major assets and industrial sectors within the financial network. We focus on cryptocurrencies' potential systemic risks to financial stability, including spillover effects on other sectors during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Federal Reserve's 2020 emergency response. Our findings reveals significant, previously underrecognized pre-2020 influences of cryptocurrencies on certain financial sectors, highlighting their potential systemic risks and offering a systematic approach in tracking evolving cross-sector interactions within financial networks.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly useful for central banks. While it may be used only in low-level roles today, technological advances and cost savings will likely embed AI deeper and deeper into core central bank functions. Maybe each central bank will have their own AI engine, maybe a future'BoB' (the Bank of England Bot). What will be the impact of BoB and its counterparts? BoB could today, or soon, help with many central bank tasks, such as information gathering, data analysis, forecasting, risk management, financial supervision, and monetary policy analysis. The technology is mostly here; what prevents adoption are cultural, political, and legal factors.