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

Liren Shan

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

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
cs.CYData Structures and AlgorithmsMachine Learning

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
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

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Algorithmic Learning Foundations for Common Law

This paper looks at a common law legal system as a learning algorithm, models specific features of legal proceedings, and asks whether this system learns efficiently. A particular feature of our model is explicitly viewing various aspects of court proceedings as learning algorithms. This viewpoint enables directly pointing out that when the costs of going to court are not commensurate with the benefits of going to court, there is a failure of learning and inaccurate outcomes will persist in cases that settle. Specifically, cases are brought to court at an insufficient rate. On the other hand, when individuals can be compelled or incentivized to bring their cases to court, the system can learn and inaccuracy vanishes over time.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Explainable k-means. Don't be greedy, plant bigger trees!

We provide a new bi-criteria $\tilde{O}(\log^2 k)$ competitive algorithm for explainable $k$-means clustering. Explainable $k$-means was recently introduced by Dasgupta, Frost, Moshkovitz, and Rashtchian (ICML 2020). It is described by an easy to interpret and understand (threshold) decision tree or diagram. The cost of the explainable $k$-means clustering equals to the sum of costs of its clusters; and the cost of each cluster equals the sum of squared distances from the points in the cluster to the center of that cluster. The best non bi-criteria algorithm for explainable clustering $\tilde{O}(k)$ competitive, and this bound is tight. Our randomized bi-criteria algorithm constructs a threshold decision tree that partitions the data set into $(1+δ)k$ clusters (where $δ\in (0,1)$ is a parameter of the algorithm). The cost of this clustering is at most $\tilde{O}(1/ δ\cdot \log^2 k)$ times the cost of the optimal unconstrained $k$-means clustering. We show that this bound is almost optimal.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access