# ARMOR 2025: A Military-Aligned Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Beyond Civilian Contexts

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.00245 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.00245/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 12 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [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)
- [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)
- [MART: Improving LLM Safety with Multi-round Automatic Red-Teaming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07689/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model (LLM) for Telecommunications: A Comprehensive Survey on Principles, Key Techniques, and Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.10825/) (2024)
- [AIR-Bench 2024: A Safety Benchmark Based on Risk Categories from Regulations and Policies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.17436/) (2024)
- [A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04893/) (2024)
- [SafeLawBench: Towards Safe Alignment of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06636/) (2025)
- [Fine-Tuning and Evaluating Open-Source Large Language Models for the Army Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.20297/) (2024)

## 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.