Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:38:09.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modelling Burglary in Chicago using a self-exciting point process with isotropic triggering

Part of: Mathematical sociology Probabilistic methods, simulation and stochastic differential equations Markov processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2021

CRAIG GILMOUR  and
DESMOND J. HIGHAM
CRAIG GILMOUR
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G1 1XH, UK email: [email protected]
DESMOND J. HIGHAM
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3FD, UK email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Self-exciting point processes have been proposed as models for the location of criminal events in space and time. Here we consider the case where the triggering function is isotropic and takes a non-parametric form that is determined from data. We pay special attention to normalisation issues and to the choice of spatial distance measure, thereby extending the current methodology. After validating these ideas on synthetic data, we perform inference and prediction tests on public domain burglary data from Chicago. We show that the algorithmic advances that we propose lead to improved predictive accuracy.

Keywords

Hawkes processcriminologynon-parametrichotspots

MSC classification

Primary: 65C20: Models, numerical methods
Secondary: 60J20: Applications of Markov chains and discrete-time Markov processes on general state spaces (social mobility, learning theory, industrial processes, etc.) 91D99: None of the above, but in this section
Type
Papers
Information
European Journal of Applied Mathematics , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 369 - 391
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Supported by EPSRC Programme Grant EP/P020720/1.

†

Supported by grant EP/M00158X/1 from the EPSRC/RCUK Digital Economy Programme and by EPSRC Programme Grant EP/P020720/1.

References

Street and Site Plan Design Standards, City of Chicago (2007) https://www.cityofchicago.org/dam/city/depts/cdot/StreetandSitePlanDesignStandards407.pdf [Online; accessed 13-November-2018].Google Scholar
Google Maps (2018) https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8787372,-87.6812593,13.5z [Online; accessed 1-November-2018].Google Scholar
City of Chicago Data Portal (2020) https://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Crimes-2001-to-present/ijzp-q8t2/data [Online; accessed 13-January-2020].Google Scholar
Bennett Moses, L. & Chan, J. (2018) Algorithmic prediction in policing: assumptions, evaluation, and accountability. Policing Soc. 28(7), 806822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berestycki, H., Johnson, S., Ockendon, J. & Primicerio, M. (2010) Criminality. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 21(4–5).Google Scholar
Bertozzi, A., Johnson, S. & Ward, M. (2016) Mathematical modelling of crime and security: special issue of EJAM. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 27(3), 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, A. A. (2001) The effects of hot spots policing on crime. ANNALS Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 578(1), 104–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosby, H., Damoulas, T., Caton, A., Davis, P., de Albuquerque, J. P. & Jarvis, S. A. (2018) Road distance and travel time for an improved house price Kriging predictor. Geo-Spatial Inf. Sci. 21, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egesdal, M., Fathauer, C., Louie, K., Neuman, J., Mohler, G. & Lewis, E. (2010) Statistical and stochastic modeling of gang rivalries in Los Angeles. SIAM Undergraduate Res. Online 3, 72–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karppi, T. (May 2018) ‘The computer said so’: On the ethics, effectiveness, and cultural techniques of predictive policing. Social Media+ Society. https://doi.org/10.1177.2056305118768296Google Scholar
Lewis, E. & Mohler, G. (2011) A nonparametric EM algorithm for multiscale Hawkes processes. J. Nonparam. Stat. 1(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Lewis, E., Mohler, G., Brantingham, P. J. & Bertozzi, A. L. (2012) Self-exciting point process models of civilian deaths in Iraq. Secur. J. 25(3), 244–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeffler, C. & Flaxman, S. (2018) Is gun violence contagious? A spatiotemporal test. J. Quant. Criminol. 34, 999–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, G. (2014) Marked point process hotspot maps for homicide and gun crime prediction in Chicago. Int. J. Forecasting 30(3), 491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, G. O., Short, M. B., Brantingham, P. J., Schoenberg, F. P. & Tita, G. E. (2011) Self-exciting point process modeling of crime. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 106(493), 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, G. O., Short, M. B., Malinowski, S., Johnson, M., Tita, G. E., Bertozzi, A. L. and Brantingham, P. J. (2015) Randomized controlled field trials of predictive policing. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 110(512), 1399–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, A. (2018) A review of self-exciting spatio-temporal point processes and their applications. Statist. Sci. 33(3), 299–318.Google Scholar
Rosser, G. & Cheng, T. (2016) Improving the robustness and accuracy of crime prediction with the self-exciting point process through isotropic triggering. Appl. Spat. Anal. Pol., 1–21.Google Scholar
Rosser, G., Davies, T., Bowers, K. J., Johnson, S. D. & Cheng, T. (2017) Predictive crime mapping: Arbitrary grids or street networks? J. Quant. Criminol. 33(3), 569–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R. & Buerger, M. E. (1989) Hot spots of predatory crime: routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27(1), 27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, B. (1986) Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Tench, S., Fry, H. and Gill, P. (2016) Spatio-temporal patterns of IED usage by the provisional Irish republican army. Eur. J. Appl. Math. 27(3), 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veen, A. & Schoenberg, F. P. (2008) Estimation of space–time branching process models in seismology using an EM–type algorithm. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 103(482), 614–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhuang, J., Ogata, Y. & Vere-Jones, D. (2004) Analyzing earthquake clustering features by using stochastic reconstruction. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 109(B5).CrossRefGoogle Scholar