path: root/supplements/main.tex

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{algorithm}% http://ctan.org/pkg/algorithms
\usepackage{algpseudocode}% http://ctan.org/pkg/algorithmicx
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{microtype}
\usepackage{verbatim}

\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{argmax}
\providecommand{\e}[1]{\ensuremath{\times 10^{#1}}}
\newcommand{\given}{\,|\,}

\title{Hawkes contagion model}
\author{Ben Green \and Thibaut Horel \and Andrew Papachristos}
\date{September 2015}

\begin{document}

\maketitle

\section{Contagion Model}

We model the contagion of violence using a multi-dimensional Hawkes process
over the co-offending network. Section~\ref{sec:background} briefly presents
the general definition of Hawkes Processes which is then instantiated and
adapted to the contagion of gun violence in Section~\ref{sec:model}.

\subsection{Hawkes Processes}
\label{sec:background}

Hawkes processes are a class of multivariate self-exciting temporal point
processes originally introduced by Alan G. Hawkes in the early 1970s (CITE) and
have since been used to model a wide range of phenomena ranging from seismic
events to information spread in social networks to stock market trading
dynamics.

In a Hawkes process, the conditional intensity function at any given time $t$
(\emph{i.e} the instantaneous probability of occurrence of an event) can be
written as the sum of a constant exogenous intensity and endogenous
time-varying intensities for the events preceding time $t$.

Formally, for a $D$ dimensional Hawkes process, let us introduce the set of
events $\{(t_i, k_i)\}_{1\leq i \leq N}$ where $t_i$ denotes the time of event
$i$ and $k_i$ the dimension (or coordinate) on which it occurs. The conditional
intensity function is defined as follows:
\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:hawkes}
    \lambda_k(t) = \mu_k + \sum_{i=1}^N \phi_{k_i, k}(t-t_i),
    \quad 1\leq k\leq D
\end{equation}
where $M = (\mu_k)_{1\leq k\leq D}$ is the vector of exogenous intensities and
the functions $\Phi = (\phi_{i,j})_{1\leq i, j\leq D}$ is the matrix of kernel
functions (also known as exciting functions). For a pair of coordinates $(i,
j)$, $\phi_{i,j}$ models the temporal variations of the influence of coordinate
$i$ over coordinate $j$. The kernel functions are \emph{(i)} positive:
$\phi_{i,j}(t)\geq 0$ and \emph{(ii)} causal: $\phi_{i,j}(t) = 0$ whenever
$t<0$. In particular, this implies that the summation in \eqref{eq:hawkes}
is only over the indices $i$ such that $t_i< t$.

We refer the reader to (CITE) for a formal definition of the conditional
intensity function. We will simply use the following formula for the
log-likelihood of events $\mathcal{E} = \{(t_i, k_i)\}_{1\leq i\leq N}$ given
$M$ and $\Phi$ and observation period $[0, T]$:
\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:likelihood}
    \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{E}\given M, \Phi) = \sum_{i=1}^N \log\lambda_{k_i}(t_i)
    - \sum_{k=1}^D\int_{0}^T \lambda_k(t) dt
\end{equation}

\subsection{Contagion of Gun Violence as a Hawkes Process}
\label{sec:model}

We model the contagion of gun violence as a Hawkes Process by making the
following identifications: each network vertex in (\emph{i.e} each
individual) is a coordinate of the Hawkes Process and each gunshot injury is an
event of the process occurring on a coordinate of the process, the victim of
the injury.

\paragraph{Exogenous intensity.}

We assume that the exogenous intensity is the same for all the individuals in
the network. However, we attribute the regular fluctuations of the rate of
violence observed to a seasonal effect independent of peer contagion. For this
reason, we fit a time-varying function $\mu(t)$ to the data and use it for the
common exogenous intensity (see Section~\ref{sec:background}).

\paragraph{Exciting functions.} The exciting function $\phi_{u, v}(t)$ models
the effect of person $u$ on person $v$ at time $t$ and captures two common
assumptions regarding the spread of contagions.
\begin{itemize}
    \item \emph{time:} consistent with previous models used to infer the spread
        of contagions over social networks (4, 5), we assume that the impact of
        earlier infections on future events decays as the time passed since the
        original infection increases. Additionally, influence can only travel
        forward in time: an infection has no impact on those that came before
        it. As commonly done with Hawkes processes, we assume an exponential
        decay, obtaining the following formula for the temporal component of
        the exciting functions:
        \begin{displaymath}
            f_\beta(t) = \begin{cases}
                \beta e^{-\beta t} & \text{if $t\geq 0$}\\
                0 & \text{otherwise}
            \end{cases}
        \end{displaymath}
    \item \emph{network structure:} epidemiologists commonly assume that
        contagious events are localized and that the transmission probability
        increases closer to the source (CITE). In our case, we assume that
        violence is more likely to spread between people who are more closely
        linked in the network and measure the distance between individuals
        based on network topology. Based on previous studies of violence in
        social networks, we assume that infections are able to occur across
        a distance of up to three degrees of separation (6); people who are
        further away in the network have no effect on one another. For two
        vertices $u$ and $v$ whose network distance $d(u, v)$ is less than or
        equal to 3, we assume a decay of the form $\frac{\alpha}{d(u,v)^2}$.
        Hence, we obtain the following formula for the structural component:
        \begin{displaymath}
            g_\alpha(u,v) = \begin{cases}
                \frac{\alpha}{d(u,v)^2} & \text{if $d(u,v)\leq 3$}\\
                0 & \text{otherwise}
            \end{cases}
        \end{displaymath}
\end{itemize}
Finally, we combine the above two components by multiplying them to obtain the
exciting function: $\phi_{u,v}(t) = f_\beta(t)g_\alpha(u,v)$.

\subsection{Likelihood}

Using Equation~\eqref{eq:likelihood} and the model presented in
Section~\ref{sec:model}, we can now write the log-likelihood of observed
infection events $\mathcal{E} = \{(t_i, u_i)\}_{1\leq i\leq N}$ where $t_i$ is
the time of infection $i$ and $u_i$ is the vertex infected at time $t_i$. We
denote by $V$ the set of vertices in the network, and by $[0, T]$ the study
period.

Furthermore, since some individuals died during the study period, the
conditional intensity function only needs to be integrated until their time of
death in the second summand of Equation~\eqref{eq:likelihood}. Denoting by
$T_u$ the time of death of vertex $u$ ($T_u = T$ if the individual didn't die
during the study period), we obtain:
\begin{displaymath}
    \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{E}\given \mu, \alpha, \beta) = \sum_{i=1}^N \log\lambda_{u_i}(t_i)
    - \sum_{v\in V}\int_{0}^{T_v} \lambda_v(t) dt
\end{displaymath}

Using \eqref{eq:hawkes} and the explicit formula for $\phi_{u,v}(t)$, this can
be expanded to:
\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:final-likelihood}
    \begin{split}
        \mathcal{L}(\mathcal{E}\given \mu, \alpha, \beta) =&
        \sum_{i=1}^N \log\left(\mu(t_i)
    + \sum_{j:t_j< t_i} g_\alpha(u_i, u_j)\beta e^{-\beta (t_i - t_j)}\right)
    \\
    &- \sum_{v\in V}\int_{0}^{T_v} \mu(t)dt
             - \sum_{v\in V}\sum_{i: t_i < T_v} g_\alpha(u_i, v)
            \left(1-e^{-\beta(T_v-t_u)}\right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{hawkes-diagram}
\caption{Diagram of a Hawkes process. STILL NEED TO MAKE A FIGURE.}
\label{fig:hawkes-diagram}
\end{figure}

\section{Model Inference}

\subsection{Exogenous Intensity}
\label{sec:background}

Because the seasonal variations in gunshot rates (Figure~\ref{fig:background})
remain consistent throughout the study period, we assume these are inherent to
the infection process and not purely driven by noise or social contagion. We
model these seasonal variations by a periodic sinusoidal function.

Let $M(t)$ denote the number of infections occurring on day $t$ across all
individuals. We assume the following form:
\begin{displaymath}
    M(t) = A\big[1 + \rho \sin(\omega t + \phi)\big]
\end{displaymath}
Because we are modeling annual fluctuations, we know that the period is one
year, \emph{i.e.} $\omega=\frac{2\pi}{365.24}$. The remaining three parameters
($A$, $\rho$ and $\phi$) are learnt using non-linear least squares estimates
with the Gauss-Newton algorithm. This yields:
\begin{displaymath}
    M(t) = 3.78\left[1 + 0.43 \sin\left(\frac{2\pi}{365.24}
    t + 4.36\right)\right]
\end{displaymath}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{background.pdf}
\caption{Aggregated number of infections. Each blue dot represents the number
    of infections (fatal and nonfatal) that occurred on a given day. The green
curve is the sinusoidal function fit to the data.}
\label{fig:background}
\end{figure}

Because we do not know \emph{a priori} the relative importance of the exogenous
intensity and peer contagion, we only keep $\rho$, $\omega$ and $\phi$ from the
fitted parameters. In other words, we only keep the parameters characterizing
the seasonal fluctuations; the base amplitude $A$ of the exogenous intensity
will be inferred together with the exciting functions parameters.

Finally, we relate the aggregate number of infections to the node-level
exogenous intensity. By definition:
\begin{displaymath}
    M(t) = \sum_{v\in V}\int_{t-1}^t \mu(s)ds = |V|\int_{t-1}^t\mu(s)ds
\end{displaymath}
where we used that the exogenous intensity is shared across the nodes. Assuming
that that $\mu$ is approximately constant over the course of one
day\footnote{The time resolution in our dataset is the day, so we only need to
approximate $\mu$ at the day level.}, we get $M(t) = |V|\mu(t)$. Hence we
obtain the following form for the exogenous intensity:
\begin{equation}
    \mu(t) = \mu_0\left[1 + 0.43 \sin\left(\frac{2\pi}{365.24}
    t + 4.36\right)\right]
\end{equation}
where $\mu_0 = \frac{A}{|V|}$.

\subsection{Kernel Function Parameters}

We learn parameters using

$\mu_0 = 1.1845e-05$, $\alpha = 0.00317$, and $\beta = 0.0039$.

\begin{equation}
\lambda_v(t) = 1.1845\e{-5} \left[1 + 0.43 \sin\left(\frac{2\pi}{365.24} t + 4.36\right) \right] + \sum_{u \in V} \frac{0.00317}{\text{dist}(u,v)} 0.0039 e^{-0.0039(t-t_u)}
\end{equation}

\section{Inferring infections}
[how we determine background vs peer infection]

We can estimate if a person was primarily infected via peer contagion by comparing the contributions from the background rate and from his or her peers.

We take this approach one step further to determine the person most responsible for infecting each of these 7,016 individuals infected by social contagion.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.8\textwidth]{cascade-distribution}
\caption{The distribution of cascade sizes follows a power-law distribution.}
\label{fig:cascade-sizes}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Experiments with synthetic data}

\subsubsection{Generating networks}
Given that we do not know the true pattern of infection propagation in criminal networks, we first verify that our methods can accurately infer cascades in cases where we do have ground truth data. To test our methods, we generated a series of cascades on social networks. We then had our model determine optimal parameters and use these to guess how each infection spread. We show that our model is able to accurately determine the contagion’s parameters and to identify the path that infections took through social networks.

We first generated network structures using the forest fire model (CITE), which is known to capture the degree distribution and community structure observed in empirical social networks. We generated networks with 10,000 nodes and burning probabilities $p=r=0.3$.

We also simulated contagions on the co-offending network. Since we are most interested in ultimately understanding the diffusion process of violence on the co-offending network, it is important to first test our cascade inference algorithm here and ensure that we are able to accurately recover cascades. We removed all victim and demographic information, leaving just the network structure, and generated contagions. As shown below, we are able to accurately infer the process by which cascades spread on this network.

\subsubsection{Simulating contagions}

\subsubsection{Results}

\section{Regarding causality [THIBAUT WRITE THIS SECTION]}

\end{document}