Using importance flooding to identify interesting networks of criminal activity

In spite of policy concerns and high costs, the law enforcement community is investing heavily in data sharing initiatives. Cross-jurisdictional criminal justice information (e.g., open warrants and convictions) is important, but different data sets are needed for investigational activities where requirements are not as clear and policy concerns abound. The community needs sharing models that employ obtainable data sets and support real-world investigational tasks. This work presents a methodology for sharing and analyzing investigation-relevant data. Our importance flooding application extracts interesting networks of relationships from large law enforcement data sets using user-controlled investigation heuristics and spreading activation. Our technique implements path-based interestingness rules to help identify promising associations to support creation of investigational link charts. In our experiments, the importance flooding approach outperformed relationship-weight-only models in matching expert-selected associations. This methodology is potentially useful for large cross-jurisdictional data sets and investigations.

[1]  P. Klerks The Network Paradigm Applied to Criminal Organisations: Theoretical nitpicking or a relevant doctrine for investigators? Recent developments in the Netherlands , 2001 .

[2]  Byron Marshall,et al.  Using importance flooding to identify interesting networks of criminal activity , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[3]  H. Atabakhsh,et al.  Cross-jurisdictional criminal activity networks to support border and transportation security , 2004, Proceedings. The 7th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (IEEE Cat. No.04TH8749).

[4]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Dynamic Social Network Analysis of a Dark Network: Identifying Significant Facilitators , 2007, 2007 IEEE Intelligence and Security Informatics.

[5]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Overview of the 2003 KDD Cup , 2003, SKDD.

[6]  Balaji Padmanabhan,et al.  Unexpectedness as a Measure of Interestingness in Knowledge Discovery , 1999, Decis. Support Syst..

[7]  Jane Greenberg,et al.  Optimal query expansion (QE) processing methods with semantically encoded structured thesauri terminology , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[8]  Howard D. White,et al.  Pathfinder networks and author cocitation analysis: A remapping of paradigmatic information scientists , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[9]  Emily Gallup Fayen,et al.  Guidelines for the construction, format, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies : A revision of ANSI/NISO Z39.19 for the 21st century , 2007 .

[10]  Jane Greenberg Automatic query expansion via lexical-semantic relationships , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[11]  Abraham Silberschatz,et al.  What Makes Patterns Interesting in Knowledge Discovery Systems , 1996, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[12]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Analyzing and Visualizing Criminal Network Dynamics: A Case Study , 2004, ISI.

[13]  Sigal Sahar Interestingness preprocessing , 2001, Proceedings 2001 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining.

[14]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  COPLINK: managing law enforcement data and knowledge , 2003, CACM.

[15]  Gang Wang,et al.  Automatically detecting deceptive criminal identities , 2004, CACM.

[16]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Addressing the homeland security problem: A collaborative decision-making framework: Research Articles , 2005 .

[17]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  CrimeLink Explorer: Using Domain Knowledge to Facilitate Automated Crime Association Analysis , 2003, ISI.

[18]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  Retrieval evaluation with incomplete information , 2004, SIGIR '04.

[19]  Shou-De Lin,et al.  Using unsupervised link discovery methods to find interesting facts and connections in a bibliography dataset , 2003, SKDD.

[20]  Sherry Marcus,et al.  Graph-based technologies for intelligence analysis , 2004, CACM.

[21]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[22]  Padhraic Smyth,et al.  Algorithms for estimating relative importance in networks , 2003, KDD '03.

[23]  Sigal Sahar On incorporating subjective interestingness into the mining process , 2002, 2002 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, 2002. Proceedings..

[24]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Fighting organized crimes: using shortest-path algorithms to identify associations in criminal networks , 2004, Decis. Support Syst..

[25]  Howard J. Hamilton,et al.  Evaluation of Interestingness Measures for Ranking Discovered Knowledge , 2001, PAKDD.

[26]  Gerard Salton,et al.  Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 1982, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[27]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Topological analysis of criminal activity networks in multiple jurisdictions , 2005, DG.O.

[28]  Valdis E. Krebs,et al.  Mapping Networks of Terrorist Cells , 2001 .

[29]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Untangling Criminal Networks: A Case Study , 2003, ISI.

[30]  Malcolm K. Sparrow,et al.  The application of network analysis to criminal intelligence: An assessment of the prospects , 1991 .

[31]  Donna K. Harman,et al.  Overview of the Fourth Text REtrieval Conference (TREC-4) , 1995, TREC.

[32]  Erhard Rahm,et al.  Similarity flooding: a versatile graph matching algorithm and its application to schema matching , 2002, Proceedings 18th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[33]  Hsinchun Chen,et al.  Criminal network analysis and visualization , 2005, CACM.

[34]  S. Koschade A Social Network Analysis of Jemaah Islamiyah: The Applications to Counterterrorism and Intelligence , 2006 .