Application of LLMs to Threat Assessment of Foreign Peacekeeping Missions

As LLMs enter conflict monitoring, understanding systematic distortions in their outputs is critical for humanitarian accountability. We evaluate four vanilla open-weight models Gemma 3 4B, Llama 3.2 3B, Mistral 7B, and OLMo 2 7B and two domain-adapted models, AfroConfliBERT and AfroConfliLLAMA, on Nigeria and Cameroon conflict-event classification against ACLED, a gold-standard dataset with multi-stage verification. We find a bifurcated divergence in normative directionality. Open-weight models exhibit statistically significant False Illegitimation bias: Gemma misclassifies to 18.29% of legitimate battles as civilian-targeted violence while making zero False Legitimation errors. By contrast, AfroConfliBERT and AfroConfliLLAMA achieve near-directional neutrality, with Legitimization Bias differences indistinguishable from zero. Yet domain adaptation does not eliminate actor-based selection bias. Both adapted models show statistically significant actor bias comparable to vanilla LLMs; in Nigeria, state actors are legitimized 36.5% more often than non-state actors in identical tactical contexts. Open-weight outputs are also fragile to geography-specific lexical framing: delegitimizing phrases produce flip rates up to 66.7% in Cameroon and 34.2% in Nigeria, while perturbations salient in one context may not matter in another. Error trace profiling shows models mask normative bias through unfaithful rationale confabulations. In contrast, AfroConfliBERT and AfroConfliLLAMA are largely robust, with near-zero flip rates across perturbation categories. Overall, current models are not ready for unsupervised deployment in conflict monitoring. We call for fairness-aware fine-tuning to reduce actor-based selection bias, mandatory adversarial robustness evaluation against lexical manipulation, and context-specific human-in-the-loop oversight calibrated to regional difficulty.

Autonomous systems increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) yet the safety infrastructure surrounding these models introduces latency and compute overhead. This limits utility in resource-constrained, time-critical deployments. Existing external guardrail models remain blind to the model's internal workings, creating a fundamental assurance gap. We ask: does the model already know when the content is harmful? We extract activations from LLaMA-3.1-8B and train lightweight MLP classifier probes (12.6M parameters) to detect harmful prompts. Evaluated on WildJailbreak, Beavertails, and AEGIS 2.0, our probes achieve F1 scores of 99%, 83%, and 84%, respectively competitive with 1000x larger guard models while cutting latency and compute costs.

Large Language Models(LLMs) are increasingly explored for cybersecurity applications such as vulnerability detection. In the domain of threat modelling, prior work has primarily evaluated a number of general-purpose Large Language Models under limited prompting settings. In this study, we extend the research area of structured threat modelling by systematically evaluating domain-adapted language models of different sizes to their general counterparts. We use both LLMs and Small Language Models(SLMs) that were domain adapted to telecommunications and cybersecuirty. For the structured threat modelling, we selected the widely used STRIDE approach and the application area is 5G security. We present a comprehensive empirical evaluation using 52 different configurations (on 8 different language models) to analyze the impact of 1) domain adaptation, 2) model scale, 3) decoding strategies (greedy vs. stochastic sampling), and 4) prompting technique on STRIDE threat classification. Our results show that domain-adapted models do not consistently outperform their general-purpose counterparts, and decoding strategies significantly affect model behavior and output validity. They also show that while larger models generally achieve higher performance, these gains are neither consistent nor sufficient for reliable threat modelling. These findings highlight fundamental limitations of current LLMs for structured threat modelling tasks and suggest that improvements require more than additional training data or model scaling, motivating the need for incorporating more task-specific reasoning and stronger grounding in security concepts. We present insights on invalid outputs encountered and present suggestions for prompting tailored specifically for STRIDE threat modelling.