ARMOR 2025: A Military-Aligned Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Beyond Civilian Contexts
Authors: Sydney Johns, Heng Jin, Chaoyu Zhang, Y. Thomas Hou, Wenjing Lou
Organizations: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia, United States
Abstract
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.
Defense is a knowledge-intensive domain that requires precise understanding of specialized terminology, doctrinal concepts, operational procedures, and evolving military events. Although recent work has explored language technologies for military applications, existing efforts remain fragmented: they are often task-specific, rely on limited adaptation pipelines, or lack comprehensive defense-domain evaluation. In this paper, we present SALUTE, an end-to-end framework for benchmarking and adapting LLMs for the defense domain. SALUTE integrates Salute-Corpus, a curated corpus from open-access U.S. military doctrine and government documents; Salute-Conv, a grounded instruction dataset from doctrinal sources and decade-long defense news; Salute-Pref, a defense-aware preference dataset; and Salute-Bench, a rigorously filtered benchmark for evaluating defense-domain understanding and reasoning over doctrine and defense news. Based on these resources, we train Salute-LLM through multi-stage post-training with continual pretraining, supervised fine-tuning, and preference alignment. Extensive experiments show that Salute-LLM achieves strong defense-domain performance while retaining competitive general capabilities, demonstrating the effectiveness of SALUTE as an end-to-end framework for defense-domain LLM adaptation.
Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values is essential for their safe deployment and widespread adoption. Current LLM safety benchmarks often focus solely on the refusal of individual problematic queries, which overlooks the importance of the context where the query occurs and may cause undesired refusal of queries under safe contexts that diminish user experience. Addressing this gap, we introduce CASE-Bench, a Context-Aware SafEty Benchmark that integrates context into safety assessments of LLMs. CASE-Bench assigns distinct, formally described contexts to categorized queries based on Contextual Integrity theory. Additionally, in contrast to previous studies which mainly rely on majority voting from just a few annotators, we recruited a sufficient number of annotators necessary to ensure the detection of statistically significant differences among the experimental conditions based on power analysis. Our extensive analysis using CASE-Bench on various open-source and commercial LLMs reveals a substantial and significant influence of context on human judgments (p<0.0001 from a z-test), underscoring the necessity of context in safety evaluations. We also identify notable mismatches between human judgments and LLM responses, particularly in commercial models within safe contexts.
Large language model (LLM) benchmarks are often treated as fixed datasets with stable scores, yet their outcomes depend on configurable evaluation pipelines. We audit eight cybersecurity benchmarks across 10 proprietary, open-weight, and cybersecurity-specialized LLMs. By modeling benchmarks as measurement pipelines, we identify 15 systematic failure modes and show that a single pipeline choice can change a model's score by more than 80 percentage points and substantially alter model rankings. At the cross-benchmark level, two semantically similar task pairs rank the same models differently because of incompatible evaluation conventions. Under an evaluation harness that standardizes pipeline choices while preserving task semantics, nine of 10 models shift by at least three ranks on at least one benchmark. These results show that cybersecurity LLM benchmark scores are pipeline-dependent and motivate pipeline-aware auditing as a core requirement for reliable model evaluation.