CrimeWalker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have long realized that analysis of co-offending networks, networks of offenders who have committed crimes together, is invaluable for crime investigation, crime reduction and prevention. Investigating crime can be a challenging and difficult task, especially in cases with many potential suspects and inconsistent witness accounts or inconsistencies between witness accounts and physical evidence. We present here a novel approach to crime suspect recommendation based on partial knowledge of offenders involved in a crime incident and a known co-offending network. To solve this problem, we propose a random walk based method for recommending the top-K potential suspects. By evaluating the proposed method on a large crime dataset for the Province of British Columbia, Canada, we show experimentally that this method outperforms baseline random walk and association rule-based methods. Additionally, results obtained for public domain data from experiments for co-author recommendation on a DBLP co-authorship network are consistent with those on the crime dataset. Compared to the crime dataset, the performance of all competitors is much better on the DBLP dataset, confirming that crime suspect recommendation is an inherently harder task.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.130 | 0.099 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".