Using Fine-Tuned LLMs to Identify Indicators of Vulnerability in UK Police Incident Logs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18446v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:58:33 GMT
• Title: Using Fine-Tuned LLMs to Identify Indicators of Vulnerability in UK Police Incident Logs
• Abstract summary: We explore whether an LLM-based classification pipeline can be adapted to estimate the prevalence of four vulnerability indicators in UK police incident narratives.<n>Mental ill health indicators are present in approximately one in five incidents, with lower prevalence for other indicators.<n> Correcting these biases required substantial human input and statistical adjustment, leaving considerable uncertainty.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Purpose: Understanding how much of routine policing involves vulnerable people could inform resourcing, training, and multi-agency response, yet administrative data provide limited insight. We explore whether an LLM-based classification pipeline, developed on open-source US police data, can be adapted to estimate the prevalence of four vulnerability indicators - mental ill health, substance misuse, alcohol dependence, and homelessness - in UK police incident narratives, and when outputs can be treated as defensible measurements. Methods: We analyse nearly 3,000 de-identified incident logs from a UK police force, using a multi-stage pipeline combining repeated model inference, label aggregation, structured human review, and statistical correction. The pipeline runs on a locally hosted open-weight LLM, reflecting the secure environments police must work in. Results: LLMs can produce meaningful, if imperfect, prevalence estimates at scale. Mental ill health indicators are present in approximately one in five incidents, with lower prevalence for other indicators. However, naive LLM deployment is unreliable: single-pass classifications are unstable, and aggregated outputs systematically over-assign indicators relative to human judgement. Correcting these biases required substantial human input and statistical adjustment, leaving considerable uncertainty. Conclusions: While LLMs can extract information from unstructured police data, their outputs cannot be treated as valid measurements without careful methodological support. At the population level, defensible estimates are achievable but resource-intensive; at the individual level, errors remain frequent and unpredictable, limiting suitability for operational decisions. This study highlights both the potential and the constraints of LLM-based measurement in applied settings.

Related papers

• PSEBench: A Controllable and Verifiable Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Patient Safety Event Triage [11.521711012101102]
  Patient safety event triage is a high-stakes task typically performed manually by patient safety experts.<n>We instantiate this method on Minnesota's 29 Reportable Adverse Health Events.<n> PSEBench is a 5,074-case benchmark with an agentic evaluation environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T21:41:39Z)
• Towards Reliable Truth-Aligned Uncertainty Estimation in Large Language Models [54.51264434040939]
  Uncertainty estimation (UE) aims to detect hallucinated outputs of large language models (LLMs)<n>We formalise this phenomenon as proxy failure, since most UE metrics originate from model behaviour.<n>We propose Truth AnChoring (TAC), a post-hoc calibration method to remedy UE metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-01T03:42:16Z)
• When Stability Fails: Hidden Failure Modes Of LLMS in Data-Constrained Scientific Decision-Making [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as decision-support tools in data-constrained scientific work- flows.<n>We introduce a controlled behavioral evaluation framework that explicitly seprates four dimensions of LLM decision-making.<n>We show that LLMs can exhibit near-perfect run-to-run stability while diverging from statistical ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T19:17:09Z)
• LLM Performance Predictors: Learning When to Escalate in Hybrid Human-AI Moderation Systems [5.7001352660257005]
  We propose a framework for supervised uncertainty quantification in content moderation systems.<n>We show that our method enables cost-aware selective classification in real-world human-AI.<n>This work establishes a principled framework for uncertainty-aware, scalable and responsible human-AI moderation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T17:46:49Z)
• Evaluating Metrics for Safety with LLM-as-Judges [1.93892819796757]
  This paper argues that although we cannot get deterministic evaluations from many natural language processing tasks, by adopting a basket of weighted metrics it may be possible to lower the risk of errors within an evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-17T17:24:49Z)
• Visualizing token importance for black-box language models [48.747801442240565]
  We consider the problem of auditing black-box large language models (LLMs) to ensure they behave reliably when deployed in production settings.<n>We propose Distribution-Based Sensitivity Analysis (DBSA) to evaluate the sensitivity of the output of a language model for each input token.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-12T14:01:43Z)
• Metacognitive Myopia in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit potentially harmful biases that reinforce culturally inherent stereotypes, cloud moral judgments, or amplify positive evaluations of majority groups. We propose metacognitive myopia as a cognitive-ecological framework that can account for a conglomerate of established and emerging LLM biases. Our theoretical framework posits that a lack of the two components of metacognition, monitoring and control, causes five symptoms of metacognitive myopia in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-10T14:43:57Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
  Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress. Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief. By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z)
• Fact-Checking the Output of Large Language Models via Token-Level Uncertainty Quantification [116.77055746066375]
  Large language models (LLMs) are notorious for hallucinating, i.e., producing erroneous claims in their output. We propose a novel fact-checking and hallucination detection pipeline based on token-level uncertainty quantification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T17:44:17Z)
• Decomposing Uncertainty for Large Language Models through Input Clarification Ensembling [69.83976050879318]
  In large language models (LLMs), identifying sources of uncertainty is an important step toward improving reliability, trustworthiness, and interpretability. In this paper, we introduce an uncertainty decomposition framework for LLMs, called input clarification ensembling. Our approach generates a set of clarifications for the input, feeds them into an LLM, and ensembles the corresponding predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T05:58:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.