Skip to main content

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