BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Ninareh Mehrabi

Ninareh Mehrabi contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial IntelligenceComputation and LanguageMachine LearningCryptography and Securitycs.CY

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
5topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Asking Back: Interaction-Layer Antidistillation Watermarks

Detecting unauthorized knowledge distillation from a deployed LLM API is hard because the defender controls neither the attacker's training pipeline nor the next-token logits. Existing defenses operate on the teacher's output tokens -- biasing the next-token distribution (green-list watermarks, cryptographic schemes, antidistillation sampling) or rewriting outputs after generation. Recent work shows a paraphrasing attacker can strip these signals without losing the underlying knowledge. We propose interaction-layer antidistillation watermarks, which move the trace one layer higher, into the teacher's interaction behavior: the defender wraps the teacher with a system prompt that intermittently induces a behavioral marker -- an explicit follow-up question, a low-frequency variant, or a declarative restatement. An oblivious distiller inherits the behavior, and the defender audits via black-box queries with a human-validated LLM-as-judge (Cohen's kappa = 0.84/0.78 on strong/style rubrics). Across 63 LoRA-distilled students under a Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct teacher (35,343 judged samples), behavioral watermarks transfer at 88.9% (Gemma) / 80.9% (OLMo) / 45.2% (Qwen) relative fidelity (H1, H2). Under non-adaptive DIPPER paraphrasing, robustness decomposes into a teacher-self ceiling (about 66.4%) and student-relative retention of 21-112%, with OLMo preserving the watermark above the teacher itself (H3, F-Amp). Low-density (about 20%) explicit and implicit declarative variants transfer above per-family baseline (H4, F-Style). An N=20 in-lab study (pre-registered Latin-square) shows all marker variants within 0.22 Likert step of baseline; TOST, Friedman, and Bonferroni-Wilcoxon support H5. The interaction layer is a viable design locus for antidistillation watermarking, complementary to token-, model-, and reasoning-trace-layer defenses.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

Robust Persona-Aware Toxicity Detection with Prompt Optimization and Learned Ensembling

Toxicity detection is inherently subjective, shaped by the diverse perspectives and social priors of different demographic groups. While ``pluralistic'' modeling as used in economics and the social sciences aims to capture perspective differences across contexts, current Large Language Model (LLM) prompting techniques have different results across different personas and base models. In this work, we conduct a systematic evaluation of persona-aware toxicity detection, showing that no single prompting method, including our proposed automated prompt optimization strategy, uniformly dominates across all model-persona pairs. To exploit complementary errors, we explore ensembling four prompting variants and propose a lightweight meta-ensemble: an SVM over the 4-bit vector of prompt predictions. Our results demonstrate that the proposed SVM ensemble consistently outperforms individual prompting methods and traditional majority-voting techniques, achieving the strongest overall performance across diverse personas. This work provides one of the first systematic comparisons of persona-conditioned prompting for toxicity detection and offers a robust method for pluralistic evaluation in subjective NLP tasks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

SWAN: Semantic Watermarking with Abstract Meaning Representation

We introduce SWAN (Semantic Watermarking with Abstract Meaning Representation), a novel framework that embeds watermark signatures into the semantic structure of a sentence using Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR). In contrast to existing watermarking methods, which typically encode signatures by adjusting token selection preferences during text generation, SWAN embeds the signature directly in the sentence's semantic representation. As the signature is encoded at the semantic structure level, any paraphrase that preserves meaning automatically preserves the signature. SWAN is training-free: watermark injection is achieved by prompting an LLM to generate sentences guided by a selected AMR template while maintaining contextual coherence, and detection uses an off-the-shelf AMR parser followed by a simple one-proportion z-test. Empirical evaluation on the RealNews benchmark shows SWAN matches state-of-the-art detection performance on unaltered watermarked text, while significantly improving robustness against paraphrasing, increasing detection AUC by up to 13.9 percentage points compared to prior methods. These results demonstrate that SWAN's approach of anchoring watermarks in AMR semantic structures provides a simple, effective, and prompt-based method for robust text provenance verification under paraphrasing, opening new avenues for semantic-level watermarking research.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning

With the widespread use of AI systems and applications in our everyday lives, it is important to take fairness issues into consideration while designing and engineering these types of systems. Such systems can be used in many sensitive environments to make important and life-changing decisions; thus, it is crucial to ensure that the decisions do not reflect discriminatory behavior toward certain groups or populations. We have recently seen work in machine learning, natural language processing, and deep learning that addresses such challenges in different subdomains. With the commercialization of these systems, researchers are becoming aware of the biases that these applications can contain and have attempted to address them. In this survey we investigated different real-world applications that have shown biases in various ways, and we listed different sources of biases that can affect AI applications. We then created a taxonomy for fairness definitions that machine learning researchers have defined in order to avoid the existing bias in AI systems. In addition to that, we examined different domains and subdomains in AI showing what researchers have observed with regard to unfair outcomes in the state-of-the-art methods and how they have tried to address them. There are still many future directions and solutions that can be taken to mitigate the problem of bias in AI systems. We are hoping that this survey will motivate researchers to tackle these issues in the near future by observing existing work in their respective fields.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Robust Conversational Agents against Imperceptible Toxicity Triggers

Warning: this paper contains content that maybe offensive or upsetting. Recent research in Natural Language Processing (NLP) has advanced the development of various toxicity detection models with the intention of identifying and mitigating toxic language from existing systems. Despite the abundance of research in this area, less attention has been given to adversarial attacks that force the system to generate toxic language and the defense against them. Existing work to generate such attacks is either based on human-generated attacks which is costly and not scalable or, in case of automatic attacks, the attack vector does not conform to human-like language, which can be detected using a language model loss. In this work, we propose attacks against conversational agents that are imperceptible, i.e., they fit the conversation in terms of coherency, relevancy, and fluency, while they are effective and scalable, i.e., they can automatically trigger the system into generating toxic language. We then propose a defense mechanism against such attacks which not only mitigates the attack but also attempts to maintain the conversational flow. Through automatic and human evaluations, we show that our defense is effective at avoiding toxic language generation even against imperceptible toxicity triggers while the generated language fits the conversation in terms of coherency and relevancy. Lastly, we establish the generalizability of such a defense mechanism on language generation models beyond conversational agents.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Towards Multi-Objective Statistically Fair Federated Learning

Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a result of data ownership and privacy concerns to prevent data from being shared between multiple parties included in a training procedure. Although issues, such as privacy, have gained significant attention in this domain, not much attention has been given to satisfying statistical fairness measures in the FL setting. With this goal in mind, we conduct studies to show that FL is able to satisfy different fairness metrics under different data regimes consisting of different types of clients. More specifically, uncooperative or adversarial clients might contaminate the global FL model by injecting biased or poisoned models due to existing biases in their training datasets. Those biases might be a result of imbalanced training set (Zhang and Zhou 2019), historical biases (Mehrabi et al. 2021a), or poisoned data-points from data poisoning attacks against fairness (Mehrabi et al. 2021b; Solans, Biggio, and Castillo 2020). Thus, we propose a new FL framework that is able to satisfy multiple objectives including various statistical fairness metrics. Through experimentation, we then show the effectiveness of this method comparing it with various baselines, its ability in satisfying different objectives collectively and individually, and its ability in identifying uncooperative or adversarial clients and down-weighing their effect

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Statistical Equity: A Fairness Classification Objective

Machine learning systems have been shown to propagate the societal errors of the past. In light of this, a wealth of research focuses on designing solutions that are "fair." Even with this abundance of work, there is no singular definition of fairness, mainly because fairness is subjective and context dependent. We propose a new fairness definition, motivated by the principle of equity, that considers existing biases in the data and attempts to make equitable decisions that account for these previous historical biases. We formalize our definition of fairness, and motivate it with its appropriate contexts. Next, we operationalize it for equitable classification. We perform multiple automatic and human evaluations to show the effectiveness of our definition and demonstrate its utility for aspects of fairness, such as the feedback loop.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access