From classical models to artificial intelligence models: Prospects for crime prediction in the era of big data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate crime prediction is crucial for effective law enforcement and security, enabling proactive resource allocation and risk reduction. Criminal behavior is influenced by complex, diverse socio-economic factors, necessitating advanced models capable of extracting intricate patterns from large datasets. This research presents a methodological and applied comparison of four primary categories of time series forecasting models: Statistical Models (AutoARIMA), Machine Learning models (AutoLightGBM), Deep Learning models (N-HiTS), and Foundation Models (TimeGPT). The study’s innovation lies in (1) integrating these diverse categories in a single comparative framework tailored for security decision-makers, (2) explicitly applying cutting-edge AI, particularly Foundation Models (TimeGPT) with pre-training on vast, multi-domain time series, for crime prediction for the first time, and (3) demonstrating a comprehensive application using daily crime data from Chicago (2017–2019), with the final month serving as a challenging test set for assessing robustness against sudden fluctuations. Results indicate that Foundation (TimeGPT) and Deep Learning (N-HiTS) models outperform in accuracy, effectively capturing nonlinear relationships and complex seasonality. Statistical (ARIMA) and traditional ML (LightGBM) models offer greater interpretability and faster training but are less adept at handling unexpected surges. This comparative, automated approach offers a practical solution for security agencies seeking AI adoption without significant programming complexity. The research underscores time series modeling’s role in enhancing security operations and explores new avenues for AI-driven proactive crime prevention using big data.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".