Using Importance Flooding to Identify Interesting Networks of Criminal Activity

  • Byron Marshall
  • Hsinchun Chen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3975)


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.


Criminal Activity Target Node Association Rule Mining Link Weight Crime Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Schmitt, R.B.: New FBI Software May Be Unusable. Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles (20005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marshall, B., et al.: Cross-Jurisdictional Criminal Activity Networks to Support Border and Transportation Security. In: 7th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Washington D.C (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sparrow, M.K.: The Application of Network Analysis to Criminal Intelligence: An Assessment of the Prospects. Social Networks 13(3), 251–274 (1991)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coady, W.F.: Automated Link Analysis - Artificial Intelligence-Based Tool for Investigators. Police Chief. 52(9), 22–23 (1985)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coffman, T., Greenblatt, S., Marcus, S.: Graph-Based Technologies for Intelligence Analysis. Communications of the ACM 47(3), 45–47 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klerks, P.: The Network Paradigm Applied to Criminal Organizations: Theoretical nitpicking or a relevant doctrine for investigators? Recent developments in the Netherlands. Connections 24(3), 53–65 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chabrow, E.: Tracking The Terrorists: Investigative skills and technology are being used to hunt terrorism’s supporters. In: Information Week (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    I2. I2 Investigative Analysis Software (2004), Available from, (cited 2004 November 29)
  9. 9.
    KCC. COPLINK from Knowledge Computing Corp (2004), Available from, (cited 2004 November 29)
  10. 10.
    Xu, J., Chen, H.: Untangling Criminal Networks: A Case Study. In: NSF/NIJ Symp. on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI). Springer, Tucson (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaza, S., et al.: Topological Analysis of Criminal Activity Networks: Enhancing Transportation Security. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems (forthcoming ) (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schroeder, J., Xu, J., Chen, H.: CrimeLink Explorer: Using Domain Knowledge to Facilitate Automated Crime Association Analysis. In: Intelligence and Security Informatics, Proceedings of ISI 2004. LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xu, J., Chen, H.: Fighting Organized Crime: Using Shortest-Path Algorithms to Identify Associations in Criminal Networks. Decision Support Systems 38(3), 473–487 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hilderman, R.J., Hamilton, H.J.: Evaluation of Interestingness Measures for Ranking Discovered Knowledge. In: Cheung, D., Williams, G.J., Li, Q. (eds.) PAKDD 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2035, pp. 247–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Silberschatz, A., Tuzhilin, A.: What Makes Patterns Interesting in Knowledge Discovery Systems. IEEE Transactions on Data and Knowledge Engineering 8, 970–974 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Padmanabhan, B., Tuzhilin, A.: Unexpectedness as a Measure of Interestingness in Knowledge Discovery. Decision Support Systems 27(3), 303–318 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sahar, S.: On Incorporating Subjective Interestingness into the Mining Process. In: ICDM 2002. Proceedings, IEEE International Conference on 2002, Data Mining (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sahar, S.: Interestingness Preprocessing. in Data Mining, 2001. In: Proceedings IEEE International Conference on 2001, ICDM 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    White, S., Smyth, P.: Algorithms for Estimating Relative Importance in Networks. In: ACM SIGKDD internt’l conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM Press, Washington (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lin, S.-d., Chalupsky, H.: Using Unsupervised Link Discovery Methods to Find Interesting Facts and Connections in a Bibliography Dataset. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 5(2), 173–178 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gehrke, J., Ginsparg, P., Ginsparg, P.: Overview of the 2003 KDD Cup. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. 5(2), 149–151 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Byron Marshall
    • 1
  • Hsinchun Chen
    • 2
  1. 1.Accounting, Finance, and Information Management DepartmentOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management Information SystemsThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations