Measuring and Eliminating Refusals in Military Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Military Large Language Models (LLMs) must provide accurate information to the warfighter in time-critical and dangerous situations. However, today's LLMs are imbued with safety behaviors that cause the LLM to refuse many legitimate queries in the military domain, particularly those related to violence, terrorism, or military technology. Our gold benchmark for assessing refusal rates, which was developed by veterans of the US Army and special forces, is to our knowledge the first dataset of its kind. We present results for refusal and deflection rates on 31 public models and 3 military models. We observe hard rejection rates as high as 98.2% and soft deflection rates ranging from 0% to 21.3%. We also present results on two additional synthetic datasets and show their correlations with the gold dataset. Finally, we perform abliteration using the Heretic library on a military-tuned gpt-oss-20b model, showing an absolute increase in answer rate of 66.5 points but an average relative decrease of 2% on other military tasks. In our concluding remarks, we argue for deeper specialization, including with mid-training and end-to-end post-training, to achieve zero refusals and maximum military task accuracy for closed military models.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Feb 2026.
Builds on
30 of 48 references.
References · 30
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
- 2019Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frameworkcited by 2,455
- 2024MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmarkcited by 1,758
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
- 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,565
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
- 2023Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 1,143
18 more
- 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,124
- 2023Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Additioncited by 1,009
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
- 2023XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Modelscited by 477
- 2024WildGuard: Open One-Stop Moderation Tools for Safety Risks, Jailbreaks, and Refusals of LLMscited by 460
- 2022A Holistic Approach to Undesired Content Detection in the Real Worldcited by 337
- 2023Are aligned neural networks adversarially aligned?cited by 305
- 2022The Alignment Problem from a Deep Learning Perspectivecited by 246
- 2023An Overview of Catastrophic AI Riskscited by 214
- 2024Foundational Challenges in Assuring Alignment and Safety of Large Language Modelscited by 193
- 2023Knowledge Editing for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 189
- 2023Removing RLHF Protections in GPT-4 via Fine-Tuningcited by 165
- 2024JailbreakRadar: Comprehensive Assessment of Jailbreak Attacks Against LLMscited by 87
- 2023A Survey on Knowledge Editing of Neural Networkscited by 34
- 2020AI Research Considerations for Human Existential Safety (ARCHES)cited by 33
- 2024Should We Really Edit Language Models? On the Evaluation of Edited Language Modelscited by 18
- 2025Hermes 4 Technical Reportcited by 5
- 2025EdgeRunner 20B: Military Task Parity with GPT-5 while Running on the Edgecited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.