BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Sergiu Nisioi

Sergiu Nisioi appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
Computation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

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

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Fine-Tuning Pre-Trained Code Models for AI-Generated Code Detection

This paper describes the system submitted by team \textbf{Archaeology} to SemEval-2026 Task~13 on AI-generated code detection. The shared task consists of three subtasks; we participate in Subtask-A (binary classification: human-written vs.\ AI-generated code) and Subtask-B (11-class attribution of the generating model). Starting from a TF-IDF and Logistic Regression baseline, we fine-tune four pre-trained code models (CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT, UniXcoder, and CodeT5+) with separate strategies for each subtask. For Subtask-A, we use leave-one-language-out cross-validation, code augmentation, chunked inference with trimmed-mean aggregation, and threshold calibration on a difficult dataset. For Subtask-B, we use sandwich token packing, class-balanced loss, and multi-seed ensembling with test-time augmentation. Our best submissions obtain macro-F1 scores of 0.737 on Subtask-A (6th/81 teams) and 0.422 on Subtask-B (7th/34 teams).

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

SG-UniBuc-NLP at SemEval-2026 Task 6: Multi-Head RoBERTa with Chunking for Long-Context Evasion Detection

We describe our system for SemEval-2026 Task 6 (CLARITY: Unmasking Political Question Evasions), which classifies English political interview responses by coarse-grained clarity (3-way) and fine-grained evasion strategy (9-way). Since responses frequently exceed the 512-token limit of standard Transformer encoders, we apply an overlapping sliding-window chunking strategy with element-wise Max-Pooling aggregation over chunk representations. A shared RoBERTa-large encoder supplies two task-specific heads trained jointly via a multi-task objective, with inference-time ensembling over 7-fold stratified cross-validation. Our system achieves a Macro-F1 of 0.80 on Subtask 1 and 0.51 on Subtask 2, ranking 11th in both subtasks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2016arXiv

On the Similarities Between Native, Non-native and Translated Texts

We present a computational analysis of three language varieties: native, advanced non-native, and translation. Our goal is to investigate the similarities and differences between non-native language productions and translations, contrasting both with native language. Using a collection of computational methods we establish three main results: (1) the three types of texts are easily distinguishable; (2) non-native language and translations are closer to each other than each of them is to native language; and (3) some of these characteristics depend on the source or native language, while others do not, reflecting, perhaps, unified principles that similarly affect translations and non-native language.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access