Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Comparative data between the federal criminal intelligence network and other social networks: number of nodes (N), number of edges (E), edge density (δ=2E/N(N-1)), graph efficiency (η as defined in Eq. 1), and fraction of driver nodes nD for the following social (communication, business, friendship and criminal) networks (Kunegis 2013): an e-mail communication network at the University Rovira i Virgili (U. Rovira i Virgili); a person-company leadership network (Corporate leadership); a Jazz musicians collaboration network (Jazz musicians); a gift-givings network between households in a Papuan village (Taro exchange); the well-known Zachary karate club network (Zachary karate club); a friendship network between boys in a highschool in Illinois (Highschool); a friendship network from hamsterster.com (Hamsterster); the network of suspected terrorists involved in the train bombing of Madrid on March 11, 2004 (Train bombing); a criminal dataset recorded by St. Louis Police in the 1990s (Crime); and the BFP2013 network

From: Topology, robustness, and structural controllability of the Brazilian Federal Police criminal intelligence network

Type Networks Reference N E δ η n D
Communication U. Rovira i Virgili (Guimerà et al. 2003) 1133 5451 0.0085 30.0% 0.04
Business Corporate leadership (Barnes and Burkett 2010) 24 99 0.3587 63.5% 0.08
  Jazz musicians (Gleiser and Danon 2003) 198 2741 0.1406 51.3% 0.03
Friendship Taro exchange (Hage and Haray 1983) 22 78 0.1688 48.8% 0.04
  Zachary karate club (Zachary 1977) 34 78 0.1391 29.4% 0.29
  Highschool (Coleman 1964) 70 366 0.0758 44.7% 0.09
  Hamsterster (Hamsterster full network dataset – KONECT 2017) 2426 16,631 0.0056 20.8% 0.30
Criminal Train bombing (Hayes 2006) 64 243 0.1205 44.8% 0.19
  Crime (Crime network dataset – KONECT 2017) 829 1473 0.0043 21.5% 0.17
  BFP2013 (Fig. 1) Dataset section 9887 19,744 0.0004 08.4% 0.21