Looking in the Mirror: Introspecting Side-Effect Misalignments Induced by Fine-Tuning

Fine-tuning enables a source model to acquire desired capabilities and behaviors in a target domain while retaining much of its general-purpose competence. However, this adaptation process can also degrade alignment properties that were present in the source model. Recent work has shown that large language models can be trained using LoRA-based modules known as introspection adapters (IAs) to describe behavioral changes induced by fine-tuning. However, existing studies primarily consider settings in which the model is fine-tuned on datasets explicitly designed to implant a specific behavior and is then asked to explain the implanted behavior. This differs from practical deployment scenarios, where the central concern is often side-effect misalignment: unintended degradation of alignment caused by fine-tuning on tasks that are not obviously related to safety or alignment. To bridge this gap, we formulate a novel problem setting called \emph{side-effect introspection}, in which the target of introspection is not a behavior explicitly implanted through fine-tuning, but rather alignment shifts that emerge as unintended side effects, and we construct a dataset for this setting. Furthermore, to enhance sensitivity to internal model changes, we propose the Delta-Aware Introspection Adapter (DAIA), a novel mechanism designed to explicitly process both base-model activations and activation differences induced by fine-tuning. Our empirical evaluation shows that introspection learning generalizes to unseen fine-tuned models and safety categories, and that DAIA consistently outperforms existing introspection adapters.

LegalRikai: Open Benchmark -- Benchmark for Complex Japanese Corporate Legal Tasks

This paper introduces LegalRikai: Open Benchmark, a new benchmark comprising four complex tasks that emulate Japanese corporate legal practices. The benchmark was created by legal professionals under the supervision of an attorney. This benchmark has 100 samples that require long-form, structured outputs, and we evaluated them against multiple practical criteria. We conducted both human and automated evaluations using leading LLMs, including GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Claude Opus 4.1. Our human evaluation revealed that abstract instructions prompted unnecessary modifications, highlighting model weaknesses in document-level editing that were missed by conventional short-text tasks. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that automated evaluation aligns well with human judgment on criteria with clear linguistic grounding, and assessing structural consistency remains a challenge. The result demonstrates the utility of automated evaluation as a screening tool when expert availability is limited. We propose a dataset evaluation framework to promote more practice-oriented research in the legal domain.

On Fairness of Task Arithmetic: The Role of Task Vectors

Model editing techniques, particularly task arithmetic using task vectors, have shown promise in efficiently modifying pre-trained models through arithmetic operations like task addition and negation. Despite computational advantages, these methods may inadvertently affect model fairness, creating risks in sensitive applications like hate speech detection. However, the fairness implications of task arithmetic remain largely unexplored, presenting a critical gap in the existing literature. We systematically examine how manipulating task vectors affects fairness metrics, including Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds. To rigorously assess these effects, we benchmark task arithmetic against full fine-tuning, a costly but widely used baseline, and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA), a prevalent parameter-efficient fine-tuning method. Additionally, we explore merging task vectors from models fine-tuned on demographic subgroups vulnerable to hate speech, investigating whether fairness outcomes can be controlled by adjusting task vector coefficients, potentially enabling tailored model behavior. Our results offer novel insights into the fairness implications of model editing and establish a foundation for fairness-aware and responsible model editing practices.

Augmenting NER Datasets with LLMs: Towards Automated and Refined Annotation

In the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP), Named Entity Recognition (NER) is recognized as a critical technology, employed across a wide array of applications. Traditional methodologies for annotating datasets for NER models are challenged by high costs and variations in dataset quality. This research introduces a novel hybrid annotation approach that synergizes human effort with the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). This approach not only aims to ameliorate the noise inherent in manual annotations, such as omissions, thereby enhancing the performance of NER models, but also achieves this in a cost-effective manner. Additionally, by employing a label mixing strategy, it addresses the issue of class imbalance encountered in LLM-based annotations. Through an analysis across multiple datasets, this method has been consistently shown to provide superior performance compared to traditional annotation methods, even under constrained budget conditions. This study illuminates the potential of leveraging LLMs to improve dataset quality, introduces a novel technique to mitigate class imbalances, and demonstrates the feasibility of achieving high-performance NER in a cost-effective way.