I am a postdoc in the School of Mathematics at the University of Birmingham working with Daniela Kühn and Deryk Osthus. I recently completed my PhD in the Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics at the University of Cambridge under the supervision of Imre Leader. My email address is b.a.[surname]@bham.ac.uk.
 Distinguishing subgroups of the rationals by their Ramsey properties (with Neil Hindman, Imre Leader and Dona Strauss) PDF

In "Partition regularity in the rationals" we showed that there are systems of equations that are partition regular over Q but not over Z. Here we show that this separation is very strong: there is an uncountable chain of subgroups from Z to Q such that each subgroup has a system that is partition regular over it but over no earlier subgroup. We use our new central sets approach, but this result could also have been proved using the original density method.
Most of the work in this paper is spent proving that the systems we construct are strongly partition regular, in the sense that the variables can be forced to take different values. If you only want to see the application then you can skip part of the argument without losing anything.
 Partition regularity without the columns property (with Neil Hindman, Imre Leader and Dona Strauss) PDF

Rado's theorem states that a finite matrix is partition regular if and only if it has the "columns property". It is easy to write down infinite matrices with the columns property that are not partition regular, but all known examples of partition regular matrices do have the columns property. In this paper we describe a matrix that is partition regular but fails to have the columns property in the strongest possible sense.
The main contribution of this paper is a translation of the key lemma of "Partition regularity in the rationals" to work with central, rather than dense, sets. Central sets have very strong combinatorial properties; for example, they contain solutions to all finite partition regular systems. As a result, our theorems are harder to prove but easier to apply—for the application above we could have proved the partition regularity of the systems using density methods, but the argument would have been more involved.
 Partition regularity of a system of De and Hindman INTEGERS PDF
 De and Hindman proposed that a particular system should be partition regular but not partition regular near zero. With Neil Hindman and Imre Leader I found a different example: in this paper I show that De and Hindman's original system also works.
 Partition regularity with congruence conditions (with Imre Leader) JoC PDF

Does a partition regular system remain partition regular if we ask that each variable x_i is divisible by d_i? Not necessarily. This answers several open questions from Hindman, Leader and Strauss's 2003 survey.
The proof of Proposition 5 in the journal version is not entirely clear; I recommend reading the updated PDF linked above. My thanks to Boaz Tsaban for pointing this out.
 Partition regularity in the rationals (with Neil Hindman and Imre Leader) JCTA PDF
 A system of linear equations is partition regular if, whenever the natural numbers are finitely coloured, the system of equations has a monochromatic solution. Partition regularity can also be defined over the rationals, and if the system of equations is finite then these notions coincide. We construct an example of an infinite system which is partition regular over the rationals but not the naturals. The proof is based on examining what happens when you take iterated sumsets and difference sets of subsets of the integers with positive upper density.
 Random walks on quasirandom graphs (with Eoin Long) ElecJC PDF

Take a long (proportional to n^2) random walk W in a quasirandom graph G. Must the subgraph of edges traversed by W be quasirandom? We'd like to say yes, for the following reason: W visits every vertex about the same number of times, so we pick up the same number of random edges at every vertex. In the case where the minimum degree of G is large, this argument is essentially correct. If G has some vertices of very low degree then it breaks down because the random walk can get stuck in clusters of low degree vertices. However, a more sophisticated argument can recover a result that is almost as strong.
The proofs both fall into two parts: first show that the random walk does not differ too much from a process that has much more independence, then exploit that independence by applying standard concentration results to show that things work with high probability. It turns out that our results can be tweaked to apply to the more general case of random homomorphisms of trees (rather than paths) provided the maximum degree of the tree isn't too large, so we indicate the necessary changes at the end of the paper.
 Maximum hitting for n sufficiently large GCOM PDF

Borg asked what happens to the ErdősKoRado theorem if we only count sets meeting some fixed set X, and answered the question for X ≥ r, the size of the sets in the set family. This paper answers the question for X < r, provided n, the size of the ground set, is sufficiently large.
There is a typo in the proof of Theorem 4 in the published paper. The line beginning "By Lemma 9, F(2, n, G)( X) has size polynomial in n ..." should read "By Lemma 9, F( r, n, G)( X) ... ". (Thanks to Candida Bowtell for spotting this.)
 A note on balanced independent sets in the cube AusJC PDF
 How large can an independent set in the discrete cube be if it contains equal numbers of sets of even and odd size? Take odd sets starting from the bottom of the cube, and even sets starting from the top. Proving that this works uses an isoperimetric inequality: if you know the proof of Harper's theorem that uses codimension 1 compressions then you know how to prove the inequality that's quoted without proof in this paper.