ARMOR 2025: A Military-Aligned Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Beyond Civilian Contexts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are now being explored for defense applications that require reliable and legally compliant decision support. They also hold significant potential to enhance decision making, coordination, and operational efficiency in military contexts. These uses demand evaluation methods that reflect the doctrinal standards that guide real military operations. Existing safety benchmarks focus on general social risks and do not test whether models follow the legal and ethical rules that govern real military operations. To address this gap, we introduce ARMOR 2025, a military aligned safety benchmark grounded in three core military doctrines the Law of War, the Rules of Engagement, and the Joint Ethics Regulation. We extract doctrinal text from these sources and generate multiple choice questions that preserve the intended meaning of each rule. The benchmark is organized through a taxonomy informed by the Observe Orient Decide Act (OODA) decision making framework. This structure enables systematic testing of accuracy and refusal across military relevant decision types. This benchmark features a structured 12-category taxonomy, 519 doctrinally grounded prompts, and rigorous evaluation procedures applied to 21 commercial LLMs. Evaluation results reveal critical gaps in safety alignment for military applications.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Apr 2026.
Builds on
12 of 19 references.
References · 12
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,330
- 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,235
- 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,106
- 2024SALAD-Bench: A Hierarchical and Comprehensive Safety Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 225
- 2024SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusalcited by 224
- 2023MART: Improving LLM Safety with Multi-round Automatic Red-Teamingcited by 161
- 2024Large Language Model (LLM) for Telecommunications: A Comprehensive Survey on Principles, Key Techniques, and Opportunitiescited by 83
- 2024AIR-Bench 2024: A Safety Benchmark Based on Risk Categories from Regulations and Policiescited by 69
- 2024A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teamingcited by 46
- 2025SafeLawBench: Towards Safe Alignment of Large Language Modelscited by 9
- 2024Fine-Tuning and Evaluating Open-Source Large Language Models for the Army Domaincited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024On Large Language Models in National Security Applications
- 2025LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness
- 2025SoSBench: Benchmarking Safety Alignment on Six Scientific Domains
- 2025A Self-Improving Architecture for Dynamic Safety in Large Language Models
- 2025PropensityBench: Evaluating Latent Safety Risks in Large Language Models via an Agentic Approach
- 2026When Context Flips, Safety Breaks: Diagnosing Brittle Safety in Aligned Language Models
- 2025OffTopicEval: When Large Language Models Enter the Wrong Chat, Almost Always!
- 2025Beyond Reactive Safety: Risk-Aware LLM Alignment via Long-Horizon Simulation