You are on page 1of 7

Neurocomputing 140 (2014) 121127

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Neurocomputing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/neucom

Solution to gang crime based on Graph Theory and


Analytical Hierarchy Process
Yulong Gao, Yuanqing Xia n, Suichao Wu, Jianan Qiao
School of Automation, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, PR China

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 12 June 2013
Received in revised form
20 October 2013
Accepted 16 February 2014
Communicated by Lixian Zhang
Available online 28 April 2014

This paper considers the solution to gang crime combined Analytical Hierarchy Process with Graph
Theory. The main purpose is to identify the conspirators and make a priority list based on the given
message trafc in a certain crime case. To identify one person, we rstly quantify the topics through
Analytic Hierarchy Process, then establish the network model based on Graph Theory and nally
conclude the relative relevance from this person to the known conspirators and non-conspirators. The
exibility of the model is illustrated and the results show that the method is effective.
& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Gang crime
Network
Graph Theory
AHP
Semantic analysis

1. Introduction
The knowledge explosion of science encourages the invention
of new technologies and contributes to the increase of economy
and enhancement of human lives. However, along with these
improvements, the crime also presents the high-tech and gang
characteristics [12]. For example, there are always some lawless
persons capturing loopholes and thus causing some troublesome
problems like internet intrusion and internet fraud [1,22], which
are detrimental to citizen's life and possessions. Compared to the
original types of criminal, the high-tech and gang characteristics
exaggerate both the detriments of these crimes and the complicity
to solve them. Although it is easy to capture some shadow conspiracy messages, it is a complex and time-consuming job to detect
most conspirators from the large message trafc.
In recent years, many algorithms and methodologies have been
developed in allusion to this kind of crime problem. Mohammad A.
Tayebi and Uwe Glsser applied mathematical models of crime data
and criminal activity as underlying semantic foundation to identify
organized crime structures in Co-offending Networks in [18]. In the
work of [10], N. Lchevin, C.A. Rabbath and P. Maupin proposed a
stability monitoring system of an Asset-Communications Network

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: dfgaoyulong@sina.com (Y. Gao),
xia_yuanqing@bit.edu.cn (Y. Xia), wu_suichao@126.com (S. Wu),
qjn83@163.com (J. Qiao).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2014.02.041
0925-2312/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

exposed to malicious attacks. Christopher C. Yang and Tobun D. Ng


established a crawler to extract specic topics for the Weblog to
analyze and visualize terrorism and crime related Weblog Social
Network in [24]. Furthermore, Network has been studied in
different areas. Many scholars pay more attention to Networked
Control Systems (NCSs) and [30] has concluded the methodologies
for NCSs with network-induced constraints. Zhang and Shi [31]
have constructed a parameterized reduced-model for a class of
discrete-time switched linear parameter varying systems and
model predictive control of networked control systems (NCSs) with
uncertain time delay and data packets disorder has been proposed
to deal with the bounded and arbitrary delays in [27]. In addition,
among the researches related to the criminal topic, semantic analysis
is commonly applied. V. Loia and the fellow authors integrate
Computational Intelligence techniques and Semantic Web methodologies to investigate a computer crime in [14]. Semantic methodology has also been applied in extracting crime information from
text in [21] and website in [25]. Besides, Semantic analysis has also
been combined with other theories to process crime problems, see
for example [23]. Semantic analysis has been widely used in many
other elds like linguistic [5,8,15], Image Processing [11,17] and
website service [9]. Also, Semantic analysis has been combined with
other methodologies like Genetic Algorithm [16,32], Statistical Relations [13] and Graph Theory [4,20] to tackle problems in other elds
besides criminology. However, the combination of semantic analysis,
Graph Theory and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [2,3,6,26] is

122

Y. Gao et al. / Neurocomputing 140 (2014) 121127

initially adopted in this paper for solving the gang crime problem of
2012 The Interdisciplinary Contest in Modeling (ICM).
The Analytic Hierarchy Process is a structured technique for
organizing and analyzing complex decisions. Based on mathematics and psychology, it was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the
1970s and has been extensively studied and rened since then. It
has been widely applied to decision making in various areas such
as economics, nance, politics, games and sports [28]. For example, Robert L. Nydick and Ronald Paul Hill used the AHP method to
structure the supplier selection process in [29]. Compared with
other methods like cosine transformation and circuit equivalence,
AHP is both exible and more smart, it can decrease the subjectivity of human judgment by classifying the hierarchy structure
in detail and normalization process, and the human judgment
can also gure out some latent useful messages to increase the
accuracy of the results. Graph Theory is the study of graphs, which
are mathematical structures used to model pairwise relations
between objects. In our model, the application of Graph Theory
can help decrease the subjectivity caused by human judgment
through meticulous mathematical calculation.
In order to nd out the conspirators and make a prior list, we
rstly quantify the topics through AHP and obtain their weights to
measure their suspicious degree. Then, based on Graph Theory, we
establish the network model and calculate the relevance between
any two persons using Dijkstra Algorithm [7,19,25]. Finally, we
take the sensitivity analysis and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of our model. Furthermore, we introduce keyword index
and semantic analysis to establish an Articial Intelligence System.
It can give the priority list of conspirators automatically and
diminish the subjectivity to enhance our model.

2. Problem formulation
The crime busting problem describes a gang crime. The conspirators and the possible suspected conspirators all work for the same
company in a large ofce complex. As shown in Fig. 1, ICM offers a
small set of messages from a group of 82 workers in the company that
they believe will help them nd the most likely candidates for the
unidentied co-conspirators and unknown leaders. Since the message

trafc is for all the ofce workers in the company, it is very likely that
some (maybe many) of the identied communicators in the message
trafc are not involved in the conspiracy. In fact, they are certain that
they know some people who are not in the conspiracy. Specic
information about the problem can be found in [1]. In this paper,
we focus on two requirements.
Requirement 1: It is known that the crime busting case has 83
nodes, 400 links (some involving more than 1 topic), over 21,000
words of message trafc, 15 topics (3 have been deemed to be
suspicious), 7 known conspirators, and 8 known non-conspirators.
Build a model and algorithm to prioritize the 83 nodes by
likelihood of being part of the conspiracy and explain the model
and metrics. Jerome, Delores, and Gretchen are the senior managers of the company. It would be very helpful to know if any of
them are involved in the conspiracy.
Requirement 2: How would the priority list change if new
information comes to light that Topic 1 is also connected to the
conspiracy and that Chris is one of the conspirators?
We specically focus on the topics given in the attachment and
model the crime busting using network analysis. Our goals are to

 identify people in the ofce complex who are the most likely
conspirators;

 make a priority list;


 draw a discriminate line separating conspirators from nonconspirators;

 nominate the conspiracy leaders;


Before we start, some basic assumptions are needed in order to
simplify the model.

 As Managers, they have more opportunities to communicate


with employers;

 the conspirators' identications remain unchanged;


 we discriminate the ofce personnel only by serial number
instead of their names, namely, the condition that two or more
people possess the same name exists.
3. Our approach
3.1. Variables

 Tk refers to the weight of the kth topic;


 D is a matrix where dij is an element of D and indicates the
relevance between person i and j;

 ci refers to the average of the sum of the shortest paths from


person i to all the conspirators;

 gi refers to the average of the sum of the shortest paths from


person i to all the non-conspirators;

 ri refers to the suspicious degree of person i.


3.2. Our model
To establish our model, we rstly quantify the topics through
Analytic Hierarchy Process and obtain their weights to measure their
suspicious degree. Then, based on the weights of topics and Graph
Theory, we establish the network model and calculate the relevance
between any two persons using Dijkstra Algorithm. To identify Person
i, we conclude ri which indicates the relative relevance from this
person to the known conspirators and non-conspirators.

Fig. 1. The network graph.

3.2.1. Quantify the topics


The Analytic Hierarchy Process is a structured technique for
organizing and analyzing complex decisions. Based on mathematics
and psychology, it was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s and

Y. Gao et al. / Neurocomputing 140 (2014) 121127

123

Fig. 2. The hierarchy structure.

has been extensively studied and rened since then [28]. The
procedure for using the AHP can be summarized as follows.
First of all, we decompose the complex problem into a hierarchy
of several more easily comprehended sub-problems, namely the
elements, each of which can be analyzed independently. Elements
of a hierarchy dominate those in the lower hierarchy and are
dominated by the upper hierarchy. The relationship of domination
from top to bottom forms the hierarchy structure.
As is shown in Fig. 2, we specically focus on the topics and establish the hierarchy structure of them. The hierarchy structure consists
of three layersTarget Layer, Criterion Layer and Program Layer.
In criterion layer, we classify the topics into 5 groups according to
their contents and context. Dene C1 : The Company Operation; C2 :
Spanish; C3 : The Lives of Employees and the Company's Environment;
C4 : Company's Safety Condition; C5 : Suspicious topics;
The program layer contains the 15 topics among which some
topics are subjected to more than 1 group. We dene Tk: Topic k
(k 1; 215).
After establishing the hierarchy structure, afliation between
the upper and the lower layer is also determined. We obtain the
judge matrices by comparing any two elements in a same level
based on 19 scale method.
For the criterion layers elements C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, which are
dominated by the target layersuspicious degree, based on pairwise comparisons of the elements, we obtain matrix U (the Judge
Matrix between the target layer and the criterion layer):
U ui;j 55
where uij represents the priority degree of criterion i to criterion j
under the target layer. We use the number 19 to represent the
priority degree, the larger the number is, the bigger the priority
degree is. Here the properties of U are (1) ui;j 4 0; (2) ui;j 1=uj;i ;
(3) ui;i 1. we obtain the judge matrices between the criterion
layer and the program layer in the similar way for obtaining the
judge matrix U. Note that the criterion layer has ve elements, we
should determine the judge matrix between each element, say C1,
and the topics it dominates in the program layer. For instance, we
dene Matrix U as the judge matrix between the criterion and
topics 1, 2, 10 and 14 in the program layer. We can also obtain U,
B2, B3, B4 and B5.
0
1
0
1
1 12 1 13 15
1 3 2 3
B
C
B2 1 2 1 1 C
B 1 1 1 1C
2
3C
B
B3
C
2
B
C
C
U B 1 12 1 13 15 CB1 B
B 1 2 1 2C
B
C
2
@
A
B3 2 3 1 1 C
1
@
2A
1 12 1
3
5 3 5 2 1

Table 1
Data of R.I.
Order
R.I.
Order
R.I.

1
0
9
1.46

2
0
10
1.49

3
0.52
11
1.52

B
B2 @ 1
1

1
B5
B
B4 B
B4
@
1
2

1
1
1

1
B
B
1
B2
1
B4
B
C
1 AB 3 B
B1
B
1
B
B1
@
1

1
5

1
4

1
2
1
6

1
1
5

4
0.89
12
1.54

1
2

5
1.12
13
1.56

1
4
1
2

1
2
1
2
1
2

1
4
1
4
1
4

0
1
6C
C
CB 5 B
1
@
5C
A
1
1

6
1.26
14
1.58

7
1.36
15
1.59

8
1.41

C
2C
C
4C
C
C
1C
C
C
1C
A
1

C
1A

By pairwise comparisons, we obtain the judge matrices; next,


we obtain the eigenvectors of the judge matrices corresponding to
maximal eigenvalues.
Uw max w

According to AHP theory, we have to test the consistence of the


judge matrices to ensure that the weights are feasible. In order to
test the consistence, we rstly calculate the consistence index C:I:
through
C:I:

max  n
n1

Then, we can determine the average random consistence index R:I:


according to the order of the judge matrix in Table 1. Finally, we
calculate consistence ratio
C:R:

C:I:
R:I:

Generally, when C:R: o 0:1, we consider the consistence of the


judge matrix is acceptable. For example, the test for U is shown in
Table 2.
Since C:R: o 0:1, the judge matrix U passes the test.
We obtain C:R: for B1 ; B2 ; B3 ; B4 ; B5 as is shown in Table 3. We
conclude that matrices B1 ; B2 ; B3 ; B4 ; B5 all pass the tests.
Overall, all of the judge matrices pass the test, and the weights
obtained by the last steps are feasible and acceptable.

124

Y. Gao et al. / Neurocomputing 140 (2014) 121127

Then we normalize w which we achieve from Eq. (1). Vector


w2 0:0814; 0:1486; 0:0814; 0:2502; 0:4384T , where w2 is the
eigenvectors of matrix U. And the elements of w2 are the relative
weights of C 1 ; C 2 ; C 3 ; C 4 ; C 5 on the target layer correspondingly.
Similarly, vector w3
is the eigenvectors of matrix Bk, and the
k
elements of w3
are
the
relative
weights of corresponding elements
k
in program layer on Ck(k 1; 2; 3; 4; 5). Hence, w3
1 0:4554;
0:1409; 0:2628; 0:1409T where the elements of w3
are
the weights
1
of T1, T2, T10, T14 on C1. Similarly, we can also obtain w23 ; w3
3 ;
3
w3
4 ; w5 .
In order to evaluate the suspicious degree of the topics, we
need to calculate the combining weight of the topics in the
program layer relative to the target layer via
W 3 t 3 W 2

where W
is the weight of the corresponding element on level 2
relative to the target layer and t 3 is the weight of the element on
level 3 relative to that on level 2.
As is shown in Table 4, we obtain the weights of the 15 topics in
the program layer relative to the target layer through calculation.
3.2.2. Establish the network model
With the weights of the topics known, we establish the singledirected weighted network model in order to determine the
relevance between any two persons.
As is shown in Fig. 1, the network graph contains 83 nodes and
400 links. The graph is represented by GV; E, where V is the set of
ofce personnel, E is the set of edges. From the basic denition of
adjacency matrix introduced in the general model, we obtain this
models adjacency matrix A8383 . And aij is an element of matrix A,
and indicates the adjacent relationship between node i and j.
If there is an edge from node i to node j, aij 1; on the contrary,
aij 0.
In the crime busting problem, we conclude a persons relevance
with the conspiracy by using the similar algorithm for calculating
the shortest path. And the larger the relevance is, the more
suspicious the person is.
We rstly determine the Input Matrix M 8383 . mij is one element
of M, and indicates the relationship between node i and j. If they are
adjacent, mij is the sum of the weights of all the topics between

We dene
8
1 if pi;j 0
>
<
if pi;j 1
di;j 0
>
:p
if pi;j a 1&pi;j a 0
i;j

max

5.0153

Normalized eigenvector

w2 0:0814; 0:1486; 0:0814; 0:2502; 0:4384T


5
0:003415 o 0:1

where di;j is an element of D8383 and indicates the relevance from


node i to j.
3.2.3. Solution
Based on the foregoing calculations, we can conclude the
relevance between any two nodes. From Matrix D8383 , we dene
ci as the average of the sum of the relevance between and every
known conspirator. Thus, we have the column vector C c0 ;
c1 ; ; c82 T .
Similarly, we dene gi as the average of the sum of the
relevance from i to all of the known non-conspirators. Thus, we
have the column vector G g 0 ; g 1 ; ; g 82 T . Then, taking the ratio
of C to G, we can determine the suspicious degree for any one
person i.
We dene
ri

ci
gi

and form the column vector R r 0 ; r 1 ; ; r 82 T . Considering the


difference that the manager might communicate with more
people about various kinds of topics, we expand the upper limit
of the relevance for non-conspirator. The specic classication is
shown below in Table 5.
3.3. The main results

Table 5
The specic classication.
Classication

Relevance

Character

Manager

0 o r i o 1:05
1:05 o r i o 1:15
1:15 o r i

Non-conspirator
Uncertain
Conspirator

Employer

0 o r i o 1:00
1:00 o r i o 1:15
1:15 o r i

Non-conspirator
Uncertain
Conspirator

Table 3
Test result for B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 .

C:R:

3.3.1. Results for requirement 1


We obtain the results based on the foregoing Solution. And the
results are shown in Table 6.

Table 2
Test result for U.

n
C.R.

these two adjacent nodes. If they are not adjacent, mij is innite.
Otherwise, the diagonal elements of M are 0. Dene a matrix D8383
whose elements indicate the relevance between nodes. In order to
obtain D8383 , we rstly determine the transition matrix P. pij is an
element of matrix.
(
mi;k mk;j if mi;k mk;j o mi;j
pi;j
5
mi;j
if mi;k mk;j Z mi;j

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

0.0039

0.0173

0.0227

Table 4
The Topics' weight for Requirement 1.
Topic
Weight

1
0.0371

2
0.0610

3
0.0073

4
0.0154

5
0.0256

6
0.0357

7
0.1956

Topic
Weight

9
0.0077

10
0.0214

11
0.2732

12
0.0572

13
0.2272

14
0.0115

15
0.0164

8
0.0077

Y. Gao et al. / Neurocomputing 140 (2014) 121127

125

Table 6
The specic results with priority rank for Requirement 1.
Classication

Name(Number)

Conspirators

Elsie(7), Jean(18), Alex(21), Paul(43), Harvey(49), Ulf(54), Yao(67), Le(61), Lao(58), Hark(70), Cory(71), Bariol(75), Mai(62), Gerry(77), Cole(76),
Quan(63), Andra(72), Vind(52), Gretchen(4), Gretchen(32), Dayi(51), Phille(79), Beth(38), Olina(55), Hazel(8), Carina(73), Franklin(24), Douglas(40),
Elsie(37), Sandy(12), Marion(13), Karen(5)

Non-conspirators Chris(0), Paige(2), Darlene(48), Gard(74), Tran(64), Jia(65), Ellin(68), Este(78), Darol(59), Cha(56), Sheng(57), Seeni(81), Beth(14), Crystal(20),
Kristina(1), Stephanie(30), Dwight(28), Marcia(27), Chara(53), Han(69), Lois(45), Shelley(35), Delores(10), Erica(39), Kim(33), Julia(15), Claire(25),
Louis(46), Patricia(44), Jerome(34), Priscilla(36), Jerome(16)
Uncertain

Wesley(23), Sherri(3), Kristine(19), Marian(26), William(50), Patrick(6), Katherine(42), Eric(22), Wayne(29), Malcolm(9), Reni(82), Melia(66),
Neal(31), Fanti(80), Francis(11), Lars(60), Christina(47), Donald(41), Neal(17)

Note: The bold ones are known conspirators and non-conspirators. Grethen(4), Delores(10) and Jerome(16) are considered to be managers. The order of names of
conspirators is determined by the relevance ri from the largest to the smallest.

Table 7
The topics' weight for Requirement 1.
Topic
Weight

1
0.1467

2
0.0610

3
0.0073

4
0.0154

5
0.0256

6
0.0357

7
0.1591

Topic
Weight

9
0.0077

10
0.0214

11
0.2367

12
0.0572

13
0.1907

14
0.0115

15
0.0164

8
0.0077

Table 8
The specic results with priority rank for Requirement 1.
Classication

Name(Number)

Conspirators

Chris(0), Elsie(7), Jean(18), Alex(21), Paul(43),Harvey(49), Ulf(54), Yao(67), Le(61), Lao(58), Hark(70), Cory(71), Bariol(75), Gerry(77), Mai(62),
Andra(72), Cole(76), Vind(52), Quan(63), Dayi(51), Phille(79), Gretchen(4), Olina(55), Carina(73), Gretchen(32), Marion(13), Karen(5), Franklin(24),
Elsie(37), Hazel(8), William(50), Wesley(23), Sherri(3), Beth(38), Sandy(12), Kristine(19), Melia(66)

Non-conspirators Paige(2), Darlene(48), Tran(64), Jia(65), Ellin(68), Este(78), Gard(74), Darol(59), Cha(56), Sheng(57), Seeni(81), Crystal(20), Kristina(1), Dwight(28),
Chara(53), Beth(14), Stephanie(30), Han(69), Lois(45), Shelley(35), Marcia(27), Erica(39), Kim(33), Julia(15), Claire(25), Delores(10), Jerome(16)
Uncertain

Eric(22), Katherine(42), Lars(60), Patrick(6), Douglas(40), Malcolm(9), Marian(26), Wayne(29), Donald(41), Reni(82), Patricia(44), Jerome(34),
Christina(47), Fanti(80), Neal(31), Priscilla(36), Francis(11), Neal(17), Louis(46)

Note: The bold ones are known conspirators and non-conspirators. Grethen(4), Delores(10) and Jerome(16) are considered to be managers. The order of names of
conspirators is determined by the relevance ri from the largest to the smallest.

3.3.2. Results for requirement 2


Parallel to Results for requirement1, this part contains similar
quantication, model and solution with the added information
that Topic 1 is also connected to the conspiracy and that Chris is
one of the conspirators.
We rstly take Analytic Hierarchy Process, which is similar to
that of Results for requirement1, to quantify the topics with the
added information.
Compared with Results for requirement1, the differences are the
judge matrix and corresponding relative weight vector, which are
shown below:
0

1
B1
B
B5 B
@1

1C
C
C
1A

and
T
w3
5 0:25; 0:25; 0:25; 0:25

Since the added elements form consistent matrix, the consistence


remains. Overall, all of the judge matrices pass the test, and the
weights obtained are feasible and acceptable.
The specic results for weights of the topics are shown in
Table 7.

The model as well as the solution for Requirement 2 is almost


the same with that for Requirement 1 except some changes
on data processing. Based on the foregoing results of weights for
topics in requirement 2, we conclude the nal results which are
shown in Table 8.

3.3.3. Comparison and analysis


As is shown in Fig. 3, for Requirement 1, there are 32
conspirators, 32 non-conspirators and 19 for uncertain. While for
Requirement 2, there are 37 conspirators, 27 non-conspirators
and 19 for uncertain. Because of the added suspicious topic and
conspirator, more people are considered to be involved in the
conspiracy.

3.3.4. Sensitivity analysis


In this section, we take sensitivity analysis for the uncertain
groups in Requirements 1 and 2.
We rstly diminish the ducial interval for the uncertain group
by decreasing the upper limit from 1.15 to 1.10, that is to say
we can adjust the investigation range by changing the ducial
interval.
The results and comparisons are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, from
which we conclude that about 40% of the uncertain people are
located in the interval from 1.10 to 1.15.

126

Y. Gao et al. / Neurocomputing 140 (2014) 121127

Then we establish the network model and achieve the solutions


for Requirements 1 and 2. We classify the ofce personnel into
three groupsconspirators, non-conspirators and uncertain ones
according to the ducial interval. Next, we introduce semantic
analysis to enhance our model for Requirement 3. Finally, we take
sensitivity analysis to prove the exibility of our model and
conclude that about 40% of the uncertain people are located in
the interval from 1.10 to 1.15.

Acknowledgments

Fig. 3. Comparison between the results for Requirements 1 and 2.

This work was supported by the National Basic Research


Program of China (973 Program) (2012CB720000), the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (61225015, 60974011), the
Ph. D. Programs Foundation of Ministry of Education of China
(20091101110023, 20111101110012), and Beijing Municipal Natural
Science Foundation (4102053, 4101001, 4132042), Beijing higher
education young elite teacher project under Grant YETP1212.

References

Fig. 4. Comparison for Requirement 1.

Fig. 5. Comparison for Requirement 2.

4. Conclusions
We develop a network model to solve the crime busting
problem through several steps. We rstly apply AHP (Analytic
Hierarchy Process) to quantify the topics and obtain their weights.

[1] /http://www.comap.com/undergraduate/contests/mcm/contests/2012/pro
blems/S.
[2] W.J. Bao, Z.Y. Wu, The analytic hierarchy process method for integrate
distribution issue of agricultural products logistics, in: 2011 International
Conference of Information Technology, Computer Engineering and Management Sciences, 2011, pp. 342344.
[3] G. Cheng, Y. Li, J.Q. Chang, X.F. Sun, The research and application of vehicle
comfortableness based on analytic hierarchy process method, in: 2010 IEEE
17Th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management, 2010, pp. 11241128.
[4] J.A. Danowski, Semantic network analysis of Islamist sources using time slices
as Nodes and semantic similarity as link strengths: some Implications for
propaganda analysis about Jihad, in: 2012 European Intelligence and Security
Informatics Conference, 2012, pp. 164171.
[5] M. Dasclu, C. Dobre, . Truan-Matu, V. CristeaBeyond, Traditional NLP: a
distributed solution for optimizing chat processing automatic chat assessment
using tagged latent semantic analysis. in: 2011 10th International Symposium
on Parallel and Distributed Computing, 2011, pp. 133138.
[6] J. Fei, H. Xu, Assessing computer network security with fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process, in: 2010 2nd International Conference on Advanced
Computer Control, vol. 5, 2010, pp. 204208.
[7] N. Jasika, N. Alispahic, A. Elma, K. Ilvana, L. Elma, N. Nosovic, Dijkstra's shortest
path algorithm serial and parallel execution performance analysis, in: 2012
Proceedings of the 35th International Convention, 2012, pp. 18111815.
[8] Y.J. Jin, A hybrid-strategy method combining semantic analysis with rulebased MT for patent machine translation, in: 2010 International Conference on
Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering, 2010, pp. 14.
[9] M. Kudelka, V. Snasel, O. Lehecka, E. El-Qawasmeh, Semantic analysis of web
pages using web patterns, in: IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web
Intelligence, 2006, pp. 329333.
[10] N. Lchevin, C.A. Rabbath, P. Maupin, Toward a stability monitoring system of
an asset-communications network exposed to malicious attacks, in: 2011
American Control Conference, 2011, pp. 22102215.
[11] X.K. Li, Z.G. Zhu, Automatic object classication through semantic analysis, in:
2008 20th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Articial Intelligence,
2008, pp. 497504.
[12] J.Q. Liang, K. Zhang, F. Gao, Finding conspirators in criminal network, 2012
International Conference on Systems and Informatics, 2012, pp. 161166.
[13] Y.L. Liu, Y.X. Ouyang, Z. Xiong, IDR-SQE: combining semantic and statistical
relations to rene documents, in: 2009 International Conference on Information and Multimedia Technology, 2009, pp. 139143.
[14] V. Loia, M. Mattiucci, S. Senatore, M. Veniero, Computer crime investigation by
means of fuzzy semantic maps, in: 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint
Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technologies, vol. 3,
2009, pp. 183186.
[15] V. Pinheiro, T. Pequeno, V. Furtado, D. Nogueira, Semantic inferentialist
analyser: a semantic analyser for natural language sentences, in: 2009 Seventh
Brazilian Symposium in Information and Human Language Technology, 2009,
pp. 8997.
[16] W. Song, S.C. Park, Analysis of web clustering based on genetic algorithm with
latent semantic indexing technology, in: 2007 Sixth International Conference
on Advanced Language Processing and Web Information Technology, 2007,
pp. 2126.
[17] E. Spyrou, G. Tolias, P. Mylonas, Y. Avrithis, A semantic multimedia analysis
approach utilizing a region thesaurus and LSA, in: 2008 Ninth International
Workshop on Image Analysis for Multimedia Interactive Services, 2008, pp. 811.

Y. Gao et al. / Neurocomputing 140 (2014) 121127

[18] M.A. Tayebi, U. Glasser, Organized crime structures in co-offending networks,


in: 2011 IEEE Ninth International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and
Secure Computing, 2011, pp. 846858.
[19] A. Ullrich, C.V. Forst, k-PathA: k-shortest path algorithm, in: 2009 International Workshop on High Performance Computational Systems Biology, 2009,
pp. 2330.
[20] R. Vandenberghe, Y. Wang, N. Nelissen, M. Vandenbulcke, T. Dhollander, S.
Sunaert, P. Dupont, The associative-semantic network for words and pictures:
effective connectivity and graph analysis, in: Brain and Language. Available
online 18th October 2012.
[21] P. Vladia, F. Vasco, P. Tarcisio, N. Douglas, Natural language processing based
on semantic inferentialism for extracting crime information from text, in:
2010 IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics,
2010, pp. 1924.
[22] W. Yan, F. Liu, Semantic scheme to extract attack strategies for web service
network security, in: 2004 Proceedings IEEE Workshop on IP Operations and
Management, 2004, pp. 104111.
[23] C.C. Yang, C.P. Wei, K.W. Li, Using associate constraint network with forward
evaluation to overcome cross-lingual semantic interoperability challenge for
crime information extraction, in: 2006 IEEE International Conference on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2006, pp. 11251130.
[24] C.C. Yang, T.D. Ng, Terrorism and crime related weblog social network: link,
content analysis and information visualization, in: 2007 IEEE Intelligence and
Security Informatics, 2007, pp. 5558.
[25] F.H. Zhang, J.P. Liu, An algorithm of shortest path based on Dijkstra for huge
data, in: 2009 Sixth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 4, 2009, pp. 244247.
[26] K. Zhang, Application of analytic hierarchy process for intellectual property
rights in high-tech public corporation, in: 2011 Seventh International Conference on Natural Computation, 2011, pp. 19851988.
[27] X.M. Tang, B.C. Ding, Design of networked control systems with bounded
arbitrary time delays, Int. J. Autom. Comput. 9 (2012) 182190.
[28] T.L. Satty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource
Allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
[29] R.L. Nydick, R.P. Hill, Using the analytic hierarchy process to structure the
supplier selection procedure, Int. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. (1992) 3338.
[30] L.X. Zhang, H.j. Gao, O. Kaynak, Network-induced constraints in networked
control systems survey, IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat. 9 (2013) 403416.
[31] L.X. Zhang, P. Shi, l2  l1 Model reduction for switched LPV systems with
average dwell time, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 53 (2008) 24432448.
[32] K. Jebari, A. Bouroumi, A. Ettouhami, Fuzzy genetic sharing for dynamic
optimization, Int. J. Autom. Comput. 9 (2012) 616626.

Yulong Gao was born in Henan Province, China, in


1990. He received the B.S. degree in Automation in
2013 from Beijing Institute of Technology. He is now
pursuing the M.S. degree in Control Science and Engineer in Beijing Institute of Technology. His research
interests include mathematical modeling, multi-agent
control and nonlinear system.

Yuanqing Xia was born in Anhui Province, China, in


1971 and graduated from the Department of Mathematics, Chuzhou University, Chuzhou, China, in 1991.
He received his M.S. degree in Fundamental Mathematics from Anhui University, China, in 1998 and his
Ph.D. degree in Control Theory and Control Engineering
from Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing, China, in 2001. From 1991 to 1995, he was
with Tongcheng Middle-School, Anhui, China, where he
worked as a teacher. During January 2002November
2003, he was a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the
Institute of Systems Science, Academy of Mathematics
and System Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences,

127

Beijing, China, where he worked on navigation, guidance and control. From


November 2003 to February 2004, he was with the National University of
Singapore as a Research Fellow, where he worked on variable structure control.
From February 2004 to February 2006, he was with the University of Glamorgan,
Pontypridd, U.K., as a Research Fellow, where he worked on networked control
systems. From February 2007 to June 2008, he was a Guest Professor with
Innsbruck Medical University, Innsbruck, Austria, where he worked on biomedical
signal processing. Since July 2004, he has been with the Department of Automatic
Control, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, rst as an Associate Professor, then,
since 2008, as a Professor and in 2012, he was appointed as Xu Teli Distinguished
Professor at the Beijing Institute of Technology and obtained the National Science
Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of China.
His current research interests are in the elds of networked control systems,
robust control and signal processing, active disturbance rejection control and ight
control. He has published six monographs in Springer and John Wiley, and more
than 100 papers in journals. He is an Editor in deputy of the Journal of the Beijing
Institute of Technology, Associate Editor of Acta Automatica Sinica, Control Theory
and Applications, International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and
Control, International Journal of Automation and Computing. He obtained the
Second Award of the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology (No. 1) in 2010, the
Second National Award for Science and Technology (No. 2) in 2011, and the Second
Natural Science Award of The Ministry of Education (No. 1) in 2012.

Suichao Wu was born in Henan Province, China, in


1989. He received the B.S. degree in Automation in
2013 from Beijing Institute of Technology. He is now
pursuing the M.S. degree in Electrical Engineering in
Washington University in St. Louis. His research interests include system control and real time systems.

Jianan Qiao was born in Liaoning Province, China, in


1990. He received the B.S. degree in Automation in
2013 from Beijing Institute of Technology. He is now
pursuing the M.S. degree in Control Science and Engineer in Beijing Institute of Technology. His research
interests include mathematical modeling, image analysis and processing.