WARBENCH: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Military Decision-Making

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.

We introduce Age of LLM, a turn-based 1v1 benchmark in which two LLMs face off on a 13x7 grid to destroy the enemy base. Three stressors are deliberate: fog of war, full diplomacy (messages, ceasefires, ultimatums; uranium kept secret), and a reliability dimension where every turn must follow a strict JSON schema and an illegal action is silently discarded. The engine is private and each match uses a fresh random map seed and opponent, mitigating the data contamination that affects public benchmarks. Models receive a (near) rule-only prompt with no build-order advice (two tactical seed phrases were present during data collection; see Section 2.7). We benchmark 15 reasoning models across 54 matches and 5,258 actions. Findings: (1) the nuclear rush dominates (78% on the rules-coherent v0.11+ sub-corpus; 85% corpus-wide) with a sole-launcher signature that is largely mechanical under secret-simultaneous launch rules, not a cognitive deterrence failure; (2) military conquest is rare but faster (12.3 vs 18.9 turns); (3) diplomacy is prolific yet almost never consummated; (4) ~58% of illegal actions are fog/state errors, making the illegal-action rate a measure of belief-tracking; (5) -- the least established, and the only one we label exploratory -- a weak link associates reliability with winning. The corpus is small, unbalanced and not side-swapped, so the ranking is a preliminary descriptive view, not a contribution. Beyond ranking, the turn-by-turn traces of actions and messages make the corpus a lens on how LLMs reason under adversarial uncertainty -- their belief-tracking, spontaneous deception, and per-model cognitive "personas" -- which we frame as a future research direction. We release the replay format, an isometric viewer and all replays; engine source on request.

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.