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

Ben Green

Ben Green contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
math.COcs.CYmath.NTArtificial Intelligencemath.GRHuman-Computer InteractionMachine Learningmath.MG

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
9works
0followers
8topics
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

9 published item(s)

preprint2024arXiv

New bounds for Szemeredi's theorem, II: A new bound for $r_4(N)$

Define $r_4(N)$ to be the largest cardinality of a set $A$ in $\{1,\dots,N\}$ which does not contain four elements in arithmetic progression. In 1998 Gowers proved that $r_4(N) \ll N(\log \log N)^{-c}$ for some absolute constant $c> 0$. In this paper (part II of a series) we improve this to $r_4(N) \ll N e^{-c\sqrt{\log \log N}}$. In part III of the series we will use a more elaborate argument to improve this to $r_4(N) \ll N(\log N)^{-c}$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

"If it didn't happen, why would I change my decision?": How Judges Respond to Counterfactual Explanations for the Public Safety Assessment

Many researchers and policymakers have expressed excitement about algorithmic explanations enabling more fair and responsible decision-making. However, recent experimental studies have found that explanations do not always improve human use of algorithmic advice. In this study, we shed light on how people interpret and respond to counterfactual explanations (CFEs) -- explanations that show how a model's output would change with marginal changes to its input(s) -- in the context of pretrial risk assessment instruments (PRAIs). We ran think-aloud trials with eight sitting U.S. state court judges, providing them with recommendations from a PRAI that includes CFEs. We found that the CFEs did not alter the judges' decisions. At first, judges misinterpreted the counterfactuals as real -- rather than hypothetical -- changes to defendants. Once judges understood what the counterfactuals meant, they ignored them, stating their role is only to make decisions regarding the actual defendant in question. The judges also expressed a mix of reasons for ignoring or following the advice of the PRAI without CFEs. These results add to the literature detailing the unexpected ways in which people respond to algorithms and explanations. They also highlight new challenges associated with improving human-algorithm collaborations through explanations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Data Science as Political Action: Grounding Data Science in a Politics of Justice

In response to public scrutiny of data-driven algorithms, the field of data science has adopted ethics training and principles. Although ethics can help data scientists reflect on certain normative aspects of their work, such efforts are ill-equipped to generate a data science that avoids social harms and promotes social justice. In this article, I argue that data science must embrace a political orientation. Data scientists must recognize themselves as political actors engaged in normative constructions of society and evaluate their work according to its downstream impacts on people's lives. I first articulate why data scientists must recognize themselves as political actors. In this section, I respond to three arguments that data scientists commonly invoke when challenged to take political positions regarding their work. In confronting these arguments, I describe why attempting to remain apolitical is itself a political stance--a fundamentally conservative one--and why data science's attempts to promote "social good" dangerously rely on unarticulated and incrementalist political assumptions. I then propose a framework for how data science can evolve toward a deliberative and rigorous politics of social justice. I conceptualize the process of developing a politically engaged data science as a sequence of four stages. Pursuing these new approaches will empower data scientists with new methods for thoughtfully and rigorously contributing to social justice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

New lower bounds for van der Waerden numbers

We show that there is a red-blue colouring of $[N]$ with no blue 3-term arithmetic progression and no red arithmetic progression of length $e^{C(\log N)^{3/4}(\log \log N)^{1/4}}$. Consequently, the two-colour van der Waerden number $w(3,k)$ is bounded below by $k^{b(k)}$, where $b(k) = c \big( \frac{\log k}{\log\log k} \big)^{1/3}$. Previously it had been speculated, supported by data, that $w(3,k) = O(k^2)$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Technology Ethics in Action: Critical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives

This special issue interrogates the meaning and impacts of "tech ethics": the embedding of ethics into digital technology research, development, use, and governance. In response to concerns about the social harms associated with digital technologies, many individuals and institutions have articulated the need for a greater emphasis on ethics in digital technology. Yet as more groups embrace the concept of ethics, critical discourses have emerged questioning whose ethics are being centered, whether "ethics" is the appropriate frame for improving technology, and what it means to develop "ethical" technology in practice. This interdisciplinary issue takes up these questions, interrogating the relationships among ethics, technology, and society in action. This special issue engages with the normative and contested notions of ethics itself, how ethics has been integrated with technology across domains, and potential paths forward to support more just and egalitarian technology. Rather than starting from philosophical theories, the authors in this issue orient their articles around the real-world discourses and impacts of tech ethics--i.e., tech ethics in action.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The Contestation of Tech Ethics: A Sociotechnical Approach to Technology Ethics in Practice

This article introduces the special issue "Technology Ethics in Action: Critical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives". In response to recent controversies about the harms of digital technology, discourses and practices of "tech ethics" have proliferated across the tech industry, academia, civil society, and government. Yet despite the seeming promise of ethics, tech ethics in practice suffers from several significant limitations: tech ethics is vague and toothless, has a myopic focus on individual engineers and technology design, and is subsumed into corporate logics and incentives. These limitations suggest that tech ethics enables corporate "ethics-washing": embracing the language of ethics to defuse criticism and resist government regulation, without committing to ethical behavior. Given these dynamics, I describe tech ethics as a terrain of contestation where the central debate is not whether ethics is desirable, but what "ethics" entails and who gets to define it. Current approaches to tech ethics are poised to enable technologists and technology companies to label themselves as "ethical" without substantively altering their practices. Thus, those striving for structural improvements in digital technologies must be mindful of the gap between ethics as a mode of normative inquiry and ethics as a practical endeavor. In order to better evaluate the opportunities and limits of tech ethics, I propose a sociotechnical approach that analyzes tech ethics in light of who defines it and what impacts it generates in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

On the width of transitive sets: bounds on matrix coefficients of finite groups

We say that a finite subset of the unit sphere in $\mathbf{R}^d$ is transitive if there is a group of isometries which acts transitively on it. We show that the width of any transitive set is bounded above by a constant times $(\log d)^{-1/2}$. This is a consequence of the following result: If $G$ is a finite group and $ρ: G \rightarrow \mbox{U}_d(\mathbf{C})$ a unitary representation, and if $v \in \mathbf{C}^d$ is a unit vector, there is another unit vector $w \in \mathbf{C}^d$ such that \[ \sup_{g \in G} |\langle ρ(g) v, w \rangle| \leq (1 + c \log d)^{-1/2}.\] These results answer a question of Yufei Zhao. An immediate consequence of our result is that the diameter of any quotient $S(\mathbf{R}^d)/G$ of the unit sphere by a finite group $G$ of isometries is at least $π/2 - o_{d \rightarrow \infty}(1)$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Weighted Prékopa-Leindler inequality and sumsets with quasicubes

We give a short, self-contained proof of two key results from a paper of four of the authors. The first is a kind of weighted discrete Prékopa-Leindler inequality. This is then applied to show that if $A, B \subseteq \mathbb{Z}^d$ are finite sets and $U$ is a subset of a "quasicube" then $|A + B + U| \geq |A|^{1/2} |B|^{1/2} |U|$. This result is a key ingredient in forthcoming work of the fifth author and Pälvölgyi on the sum-product phenomenon.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access