AI Act Evaluation Benchmark: An Open, Transparent, and Reproducible Evaluation Dataset for NLP and RAG Systems

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a framework in which a Generator, such as a Large Language Model (LLM), produces answers by retrieving documents from an external collection using a Retriever. In practice, Generators must integrate evidence from long contexts, perform multi-step reasoning, interpret tables, and abstain when evidence is missing. However, existing benchmarks for Generators provide limited coverage, with none enabling simultaneous evaluation of multiple capabilities under unified conditions. To bridge the gap between existing evaluations and practical use, we introduce LIT-RAGBench (the Logic, Integration, Table, Reasoning, and Abstention RAG Generator Benchmark), which defines five categories: Integration, Reasoning, Logic, Table, and Abstention, each further divided into practical evaluation aspects. LIT-RAGBench systematically covers patterns combining multiple aspects across categories. By using fictional entities and scenarios, LIT-RAGBench evaluates answers grounded in the provided external documents. The dataset consists of 114 human-constructed Japanese questions and an English version generated by machine translation with human curation. We use LLM-as-a-Judge for scoring and report category-wise and overall accuracy. Across API-based and open-weight models, no model exceeds 90% overall accuracy. By making strengths and weaknesses measurable within each category, LIT-RAGBench serves as a valuable metric for model selection in practical RAG deployments and for building RAG-specialized models. We release LIT-RAGBench, including the dataset and evaluation code, at https://github.com/Koki-Itai/LIT-RAGBench.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used in various industries. However, ensuring their compliance with complex laws and regulatory frameworks remains a great challenge. Existing evaluation paradigms mainly rely on static benchmarks that suffer from three severe limitations: First, the compliance rules being used do not comply with the requirements of Artificial Intelligence (AI) laws and regulations; Second, they only handle apparent, explicit compliance risks, leaving implicit and covert compliance risks undetected; Third, they fail to track the systematic propagation of risks along logical dependency chains or evaluate compliance within nuanced, context-based real-world scenarios. To bridge this critical gap, we introduce EADC, a novel advanced evaluation benchmark of LLMs based on an AI compliance knowledge graph and AI compliance legal experts. By mapping abstract legal rules into structured logical multi-relational graphs, our framework enables automated, evolving agents to distill and synthesize highly sophisticated adversarial scenarios. This compliance benchmark is reviewed and corrected by human AI legal experts throughout the whole process. The resulting dataset (4,435+ QA pairs) provides an extensive, multi-dimensional taxonomy covering critical regulatory frontiers, including bias and discrimination, fairness, personal privacy protection, and values. Crucially, our compliance dataset moves beyond shallow string-matching by incorporating contextual long-horizon interactions and logic-driven hazard chains, capturing deeply embedded compliance anomalies that bypass traditional filters. Experiment evaluations demonstrate that our framework exposes critical regulatory blind spots in state-of-the-art LLMs, offering a rigorous, AI laws and regulations-aligned benchmark to safeguard high-level and deep compliance in the application of LLMs.

Generating regulation-compliant test scenarios is essential for validating safety-critical automotive systems, yet Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to ground outputs in long, hierarchical standards. We present RegulaRAG, a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline that couples SmartChunking, reference-aware enrichment of paragraphs and tables via graph traversal, with Smart Retrieve & Rerank over these enriched units. To test our system, we evaluate on a manually curated dataset covering all scenarios in UN Regulation No. 152 (AEBS). Our study comprises: (i) a three-step progressive search that identifies near-optimal retrieval parameters without exhaustive grid search; (ii) head-to-head comparisons against five baseline RAG systems; and (iii) a robustness stress test that scales the source corpus with distractor content. Outputs are evaluated using a customized penalized scoring metric. Across all experiments, RegulaRAG achieves the highest average Meta-Score (82.99), outperforming the next-best system by 43% (NoRAG: 57.94), while operating at 14k-25k tokens per query versus up to 500k for graphcentric baselines. It maintains strong performance, remaining stable even as the number of regulatory sources grows, whereas competing RAG systems degrade sharply in both quality and robustness.