Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 40 references

Educational programs and crime: a compartmental model approach

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper derives two thresholds, R0 and C, that fully determine whether a prison education program survives, dies out, or coexists with crime in a compartmental epidemic-like model.

desk verdict Solid theoretical extension of compartmental crime models with a clean threshold result; the empirical claims outrun the data and the X compartment mixes two populations, so the policy reading should be treated skeptically. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.17831 v1 pith:BTH4TVMW submitted 2025-05-23 physics.soc-ph math.DSq-bio.PE

Alessandro Ramponi , M. Elisabetta Tessitore This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.soc-phmath.DSq-bio.PE MSC 92D3034D20
keywords compartmentalmodelscrimedynamicsbasicreproductionnumberprisoneducationequilibriumstabilitymass-actiontransmissionrecidivism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper treats crime as a socially transmitted phenomenon, like an epidemic, and asks whether prison education programs can persist in the long run. It builds a three-compartment model of susceptibles, incarcerated offenders, and incarcerated offenders in education, then proves that two numbers decide the outcome: the basic reproduction number R0 and a second threshold C. If R0 < 1, delinquency dies out; if 1 < R0 < C, incarceration persists but education vanishes; if R0 > C, both coexist. The authors also fit the model to Italian prison and vocational-education data, finding the education-free regime at the point estimate, though with wide uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-compartment ordinary differential equation system (X susceptible, I incarcerated non-students, E incarcerated students) with mass-action recruitment αXI and net educational flow ρ = φ − β from I to E. The next-generation matrix yields R0 = αΛ/(µ(γI+µ)), and the coexistence threshold C = 1 + α(γE+µ)/(ρ(γI+µ)) appears when the third eigenvalue at the education-free equilibrium changes sign. Theorem 2 uses the signs of R0 − 1 and R0 − C to decide which of the three equilibria is locally stable.

What would settle it

Track released prisoners and record how many re-offend before re-entering the non-offender pool; if that fraction is high, the model's I-to-X transition is wrong and neither R0 nor C would predict whether education programs survive. Equivalently, re-estimate R0 and C from the 1992–2024 Italian series with a state-space model that filters observation noise; if the inferred regime moves between education-free and coexistence across reasonable noise models, the threshold claim is not identifiable from current data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the asymptotic behavior of the crime-incarceration-education system is completely classified by R0 = αΛ/(µ(γI+µ)) and C = 1 + α(γE+µ)/(ρ(γI+µ)), with ρ = φ − β measuring the net flow into education. The delinquency-free equilibrium is locally stable when R0 < 1; the education-free equilibrium is locally stable when 1 < R0 < C; and the coexistence equilibrium is locally stable when R0 > C. The proof computes the eigenvalues of the Jacobian at each equilibrium, and the thresholds make explicit that educational parameters act only through C, never through R0. If the model is right, a prison education program survives only when the social transmission of crime is strong enough to pass a second, education-dependent threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The model's weakest load-bearing premise is that everyone outside prison is a single susceptible pool and that released inmates return to non-offending status; if most released prisoners re-offend quickly, the thresholds no longer describe reality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Educational parameters do not appear in R0, so expanding prison education cannot by itself push crime below the extinction threshold; education acts only by changing C.
  • Increasing the net enrollment rate ρ = φ − β or shortening the education-stay rate γE lowers C, so a fixed R0 > 1 can move the system from the education-free regime to coexistence.
  • When R0 exceeds C, the approach to coexistence can be oscillatory (Corollary 4), so transient waves in prison and education populations are expected rather than signs of instability.
  • The Italian data point estimate places the system at R0 ≈ 1.03 and C ≈ 1.10, predicting the education-free equilibrium, but the confidence interval for R0 crosses 1, so delinquency extinction cannot be ruled out from these data.
  • Because R0 is independent of education, policy makers who want to eliminate delinquency entirely must act on the contact rate α, the release rate γI, or demographic flows, not on course offerings alone.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension: because the X compartment includes offenders who have not yet been caught, the R0 estimated from prison counts is likely a lower bound on the true recruitment potential; splitting X into never-offenders and not-yet-incarcerated offenders would shift both thresholds.
  • Extension: the model suggests an asymmetric policy lever—prison administrations can move a society from education-free to coexistence by increasing ρ, while lowering R0 requires broader criminal-justice and social changes, so coexistence may be the realistic near-term target.
  • Testable extension: using post-2019 data on formal education levels (primary through university) rather than vocational completions could re-estimate C; if the regime shifts toward coexistence, that would support the model's qualitative prediction that stronger educational engagement lowers C.
  • Extension: the damping rate of oscillations near the coexistence equilibrium is controlled by α(γE+µ)/(2ρ), so monitoring early oscillatory patterns in prison enrollment could provide an early warning of which regime the system is entering.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a three-compartment ODE model (X susceptible, I incarcerated non-educated, E incarcerated educated) for crime as a social contagion. It derives three equilibria and uses the next-generation matrix to define R0 = αΛ/(µ(γI+µ)) and a threshold C = 1 + α(γE+µ)/(ρ(γI+µ)), proving in Theorem 2 that the delinquency-free equilibrium is stable if R0<1, the education-free equilibrium if 1<R0<C, and the coexistence equilibrium if R0>C. The paper also runs illustrative simulations and fits the discretized I-equation to Italian prison data (1992-2024) to estimate α and ρ, concluding that the system resides in the education-free regime.

Significance. The mathematical core is standard but competently executed: the next-generation computation and Jacobian stability analysis are internally consistent, and the simulations align with the theorem. The threshold structure provides a potentially useful policy taxonomy for when prison education can persist. However, the significance is limited by two problems: the X compartment conflates true susceptibles with non-incarcerated offenders, so the thresholds are not cleanly interpretable as crime-spread thresholds; and the empirical application uses an observable for E that does not match the model state, with confidence intervals that straddle the thresholds. These issues affect the central claim, hence major revision is needed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Table 1 and first paragraph] The X compartment is defined both as "non-offenders" and as "offenders not currently in prison". These are different populations: one is susceptible to initiating offending, the other may already be active criminals. In system (1), the incidence term αIX uses X in both roles, so α conflates first-time offending with re-arrest or recidivism. Consequently R0 in Eq. (9) and C in Theorem 2 are not reproduction numbers for delinquent behavior; they quantify flows into prison from a mixed pool. The policy reading in the Introduction and Conclusion (whether a prison education program can survive) therefore does not follow from the mathematics. The authors should either restrict X to non-offenders and model recidivism explicitly, or justify why non-incarcerated offenders and true susceptibles have identical contact and transition rates.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (14) and surrounding text] The empirical section sets X_k = N0 - I_k - E_k, so every non-incarcerated adult is treated as susceptible. Combined with the fitted I-equation, this reproduces the conflation of the previous major comment. Moreover, the observable for E is defined as the cumulative sum of inmates who completed vocational programs, while the model state E(t) is the current number of inmates enrolled in education. These are different quantities (a flow versus a stock), so the discretized equation (14) is not the forward-Euler version of the model's second ODE. The parameter estimates and the resulting R0 and C are therefore unreliable. The authors need to reconcile the observable with the state variable, for example by using enrollment counts or by explicitly modeling completion outflows.
  3. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (15)-(16) and Conclusion] The confidence interval for ρ, (-0.3347·10^-6, 0.4892·10^-6), includes zero and negative values, which violates the model's assumption ρ>0 stated in Section 2.1. The interval for R0, (0.9617, 1.0887), crosses both 1 and the estimated C = 1.0959. Thus the data do not determine which equilibrium regime applies, and the statement in the Conclusion that the system resides in the education-free equilibrium is not supported by the estimation. The authors should either impose ρ>0 in a constrained estimation and report the resulting regime probabilities, or explicitly conclude that the regime is undetermined from these data.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] The paper contains several typos, including "delinquence" (Abstract, Section 3), "interscctions" (Section 2.1), "threcshold" (Remark 3), and "reproductive" instead of "reproduction" in Section 3. These should be corrected.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Figure 6] The text states that the education-free regime is obtained with γI = 0.985, while the caption of Figure 6 reports R0 = 1.01 and γI = 0.98. These values should be reconciled.
  3. [Section 2, I-compartment bullet] The assumption that released prisoners transition back to X and that re-offending is ignored "for a certain period whether minutes, hours, or days" is vague. Given that the time unit in simulations is a year and in the empirical part is a semester, this assumption needs a time-scale justification or a more precise statement of the intended interpretation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Empirical regime conclusion reduces to fitted parameters; theoretical stability derivation is self-contained.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Eqs. (14)-(16) and the paragraph following Eq. (16)]
    "Consequently, the parameters to be estimated are α and ρ. ... When discretized using the forward Euler method, this yields ... Ik+1 = Ik + αIk(N0 − Ik − Ek) − ρIkEk − γI Ik − µIk ... The optimal parameter values obtained using such a procedure are ˆα = 7.4037 · 10−9 ... ˆρ = 7.7230 · 10−8 ... The corresponding estimated value of the basic reproduction number is ˆR0 = 1.0252, while the threshold is estimated to be ˆC = 1.0959. In accordance with Theorem 2, these parameter estimates indicate a regime associated with the education-free equilibrium."

    R0 and C are deterministic functions of the fitted parameters: R0 = αΛ/(µ(γI+µ)) and C = 1 + α(γE+µ)/(ρ(γI+µ)). The paper fits α and ρ by least squares to the I-compartment data using Eq. (14), then plugs those fitted values into R0 and C to conclude 1 < R0 < C, i.e. the education-free equilibrium. The regime statement is therefore a restatement of the fit, not an independent prediction. The comparison in Figure 9 is also in-sample: the trajectory is obtained by recursively applying the fitted equation (14) to the same data, so it provides no out-of-sample validation. The theoretical theorem is non-circular, but the empirical 'prediction' of the regime reduces by construction to the estimated parameters.

full rationale

The core mathematical content — the ODE system, the equilibria, the next-generation calculation of R0, and the Jacobian stability conditions in Theorem 2 — is derived directly from the stated model assumptions and is self-contained. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness import, or ansatz-smuggling via citation is present. The only circularity is in the empirical application: α and ρ are fitted from the I-equation data, and then R0 and C are computed from those same fitted values to classify the system's regime. Since R0 and C are defined as functions of α and ρ, the concluding statement that the system resides in the education-free equilibrium is forced by the fit. The paper does caution about the wide confidence intervals, and it frames the empirical part as an estimation/illustration rather than out-of-sample prediction, which is why the score is 6 rather than higher: the theoretical derivation remains independent, while one empirical conclusion is a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on a small set of parameters, two of which (alpha and rho) are fitted to the same data used to compute R0 and C. The main structural axioms are homogeneous mixing, mass-action contact, constant population, and no recidivism after release. These are strong simplifications but are explicitly stated. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (contact/transmission rate) = 7.4037e-9 (95% CI: 0.0069e-6 to 0.0079e-6)
    Estimated from Italian prison data via least-squares in equation (14), and used directly to compute R0 and classify the regime.
  • rho (phi - beta, net education enrollment excess) = 7.7230e-8 (95% CI includes zero: -0.3347e-6 to 0.4892e-6)
    Estimated from the same regression; determines the threshold C and whether EF or CE is stable; uncertainty spans both regimes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Homogeneous mixing: all individuals have equal contact probability
    Assumed in Section 2 bullet list; required for mass-action incidence terms.
  • domain assumption Mass-action transmission for all transitions
    Section 2; new 'infections' proportional to X*I, and E-I transfers proportional to E*I, following [34, p.24].
  • domain assumption Constant population N = Lambda/mu
    Section 2, equation (2); assumes balanced inflows and outflows so X = N0 - E - I, reducing the system to two dimensions.
  • ad hoc to paper rho > 0 (phi > beta)
    Section 2.1, 'we assume rho > 0 since the treatment in the E compartment is usually better...' This is not derived and is needed for the isocline analysis.
  • domain assumption Released prisoners do not re-offend during the modeled period
    Section 2, I compartment bullet; assumes a period without infractions after release, greatly simplifying the model.
  • domain assumption The only pathway to crime is contact with offenders
    Section 2; excludes other causes of crime initiation, such as economic or cultural factors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Educational programs and crime: a compartmental model approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BTH4TVMW

@misc{pith2026250517831,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Educational programs and crime: a compartmental model approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BTH4TVMW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.17831}
}
abstract

In this paper, we present a mathematical model to describe the temporal evolution of delinquent behavior, treating it as a socially transmitted phenomenon influenced by peer interactions, thus similar to an epidemic. We consider a compartmental framework involving three ordinary differential equations to describe the dynamics among the three population groups: individuals not incarcerated (susceptible), incarcerated offenders, and incarcerated offenders participating in an educational program. Transitions between the groups are governed by interaction-based mechanisms that capture the influence of peer effects in the spread of criminal behavior. The model revealed three equilibrium states: a delinquence free equilibrium, an equilibrium where no criminals attend an educational program, and a coexistence equilibrium. The basic reproduction number, $R_0$, was derived, and a sensitivity analysis revealed the key parameters that influence the system's stability. The model thus provides a quantitative basis for evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation strategies in correctional settings. Numerical simulations and an empirical application illustrate the qualitative properties of the model and show how parameter variations influence system behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.17831 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The model graph.    dX dt (t) = Λ + γEE(t) + γI I(t) − αI(t)X(t) − µX(t) X(0) = x0 dI dt(t) = αI(t)X(t) + βE(t)I(t) − φE(t)I(t) − γI I(t) − µI(t) I(0) = i0 dE dt (t) = φE(t)I(t) − βE(t)I(t) − γEE(t) − µE(t) E(0) = e0, (1) where x0, e0 and i0 are non–negative constants. The first equation describes how individuals in the community X are moving in and out of it. The term Λ quantifies the flow enteri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Case 1 Beside the delinquence free equilibrium P1, we have an education free equilibrium P2 and an coexistence equilibrium P3 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Case 2 Case 3. N0 − γI + µ α < γE + µ ρ . This last case presents an equilibrium with a negative E component, hence it is not an interesting case (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Case 3 R0 < 1, the disease will gradually disappear. Because R0 determines the level of interven￾tion needed to prevent an epidemic, it is a crucial parameter for public health planning. The primary objective is to implement mitigation strategies that reduce below the …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Delinquence free equilibrium. Here R0 = 0.99. In the second set of experiments, we want to analyze more deeply the effect of intro￾ducing an educational compartment. In particular, we would like to assess the impact of the parameters γE and ρ = φ − β, which determine t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Education-free equilibrium. Here R0 = 1.01, γI = 0.98. 4.2 A real data example The application of the model to real-world data necessarily involves a parameter estimation phase, that is a methodology for determining the values of a model’s parameters using em￾pirical d…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Coexistence equilibrium. Here R0 = 1.16, γI = 0.85. lative sum. For the susceptible population X, we considered the adult population in Italy, which was estimated at approximately N0 = 47, 000, 000 in 1992 (source: ISTAT). The model’s time step was set to one semester,…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Values of the parameters γE and ρ which determine the education free equilibrium, EF, and the coexistence equlibrium, CE. In this example, R0 = 1.02. estimate the parameters α and ρ. In fact, by setting ˜Ik+1 ≡ Ik+1 − Ik(1 − γI − µ) and Φk = (Ik(N0 − Ik − Ek), −IkEk), …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Observed versus estimated dynamic of the population in the compartment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Modeling dynamics of the spread of crime in a society

    Srivastav AK, Ghosh M, Chandra P. Modeling dynamics of the spread of crime in a society. Stochastic Anal. Appl., 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Mathematical modeling of crime as a social epidemic

    González-Parra G, Chen-Charpentier B, Kojouharov HV. Mathematical modeling of crime as a social epidemic. J Interdisc Math, doi: 10.1080/09720502.2015.1132574, 2018

    work page arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 8: 124–132, 1971

    Blumstein A, Larson RC Problems in modeling and measuring recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 8: 124–132, 1971

    work page 1971

  4. [4]

    Journal of Criminal Justice 1: 7–26, 1973

    Belkin J, Blumstein A, Glass W Recidivism as a feedback process: An analytical model and empirical validation. Journal of Criminal Justice 1: 7–26, 1973

    work page 1973

  5. [5]

    Blumstein A An OR missionary’s visits to the criminal justice system, Operations Research 55: 14–23, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    National Academy Press, 1986

    Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth J, Visher CA Criminal Careers and Career Criminals. National Academy Press, 1986

    work page 1986

  7. [7]

    Science 238: 985–991, 1982

    Blumstein A, Cohen J,Characterizing criminal careers. Science 238: 985–991, 1982

    work page 1982

  8. [8]

    Rand Report R- 2815-NIJ, 1982

    Greenwood PW, Abrahamse A Selective incarceration. Rand Report R- 2815-NIJ, 1982

    work page 1982

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Criminology 35: 133–175, 1997

    Canela-Cacho JA, Blumstein A, Cohen J Relationship between the offending frequency (λ) of imprisoned and free offenders. Criminology 35: 133–175, 1997

    1997

  2. [10]

    Contributions to the mathematical theory of epi- demics

    Kermack, W.O., McKendrick, A.G. Contributions to the mathematical theory of epi- demics. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology53 (1–2), 33–55, 1991. 24

    1991

  3. [11]

    L., Franco, E., Mohler, G., Short, M

    Bertozzi, A. L., Franco, E., Mohler, G., Short, M. B., Sledge, D. The challenges of modeling and forecasting the spread of COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(29), 16732–16738, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Cerqueti, R., Ramponi, A., Scarlatti, S. A compartmental model for the dynamic simulation of pandemics with a multi-phase vaccination and its application to Italian COVID-19 data, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, Volume 228, 124–146, ISSN 0378-4754, https://doi.org/10....

    doi

  5. [13]

    S., Wong, H

    Chen, K., Pun, C. S., Wong, H. Y. Efficient social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Integrating economic and public health considerations.European Journal of Operational Research, 304 (1), 84–98, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    and Tessitore M.E

    Ramponi A. and Tessitore M.E. (2023), The economic cost of social distancing during a pandemic: an optimal control approach in the SVIR model, Decision in Economics and Finance, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference, Little Brown and Company, Boston, 2000

    M. Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference, Little Brown and Company, Boston, 2000

    2000

  8. [16]

    Gino, Ayal S, Ariely D, Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior, the effect of one bad apple on the barrel, Psychol

    F. Gino, Ayal S, Ariely D, Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior, the effect of one bad apple on the barrel, Psychol. Sci. 20, 393–398, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    Lacey, M.N

    A .A . Lacey, M.N. Tsardakas, A mathematical model of serious and minor criminal activity, Eur. J. Appl. Math. 27, 403–421, 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Sooknanan, D.M.G

    J. Sooknanan, D.M.G. Comissiong, When behaviour turns contagious: the use of de- terministic epidemiological models in modeling social contagion phenomena, Int. J. Dyn. Contr. 5 1046–1050, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    D’Orsogna, M

    M.R. D’Orsogna, M. Perc, Statistical physics of crime: a review, Phys. Life Rev. 1,2 1–21, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Sooknanan, B

    J. Sooknanan, B. Bhatt, D.M.G. Comissiong, A modified predator-prey model for the interaction of police and gangs, R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 2016

    2016

  13. [21]

    Goyal, J

    A. Goyal, J. Shukla, A. Misra, and A. Shukla. Modeling the role of government efforts in controlling extremism in a society. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    McMillon, C

    D. McMillon, C. P. Simon, and J. Morenoff. Modeling the underlying dynamics of the spread of crime. PLoS ONE, 9(4):e88923, 04 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    A. Misra. Modeling the effect of police deterrence on the prevalence of crime in the society. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 237:531–545, 2014. 25

    2014

  16. [24]

    M. B. Short, P. J. Brantingham, and M. R. D’Orsogna. Cooperation and punishment in an adversarial game: How defectors pave the way to a peaceful society. Phys. Rev. E, 82:066114, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    Cantrell, C

    R. Cantrell, C. Cosner, and R. Manasevich. Global bifurcation of solutions for crime modeling equations. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 44(3):1340?1358, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Manasevich, Q

    R. Manasevich, Q. H. Phan, and P. Souplet. Global existence of solutions for a chemotaxis-typesystemarisingincrimemodelling.EuropeanJournalofAppliedMath- ematics, 24:273?296, 4, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Mohler and M

    G. Mohler and M. Short. Geographic profiling from kinetic models of criminal behavior. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 72(1):163–180, 2012

    2012

  20. [28]

    A. B. Pitcher. Adding police to a mathematical model of burglary. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 21(4-5):401–419, 2010

    2010

  21. [29]

    Rodriguez and A

    N. Rodriguez and A. Bertozzi. Local existence and uniqueness of solutions to a pde model for criminal behavior. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 20(supp01):1425–1457, 2010

    2010

  22. [30]

    Short, A

    M. Short, A. Bertozzi, and P. Brantingham. Nonlinear patterns in urban crime: Hotspots, bifurcations, and suppression. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Sys- tems, 9(2):462–483, 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    M. B. Short, M. R. D’Orsogna, V. B. Pasour, G. E. Tita, P. J. Brantingham, A. L. Bertozzi, and L. B. Chayes. A statistical model of criminal behavior. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 18(supp01):1249–1267, 2008

    2008

  24. [32]

    J. B. Shukla, A. Goyal, K. Agrawal, H. Kuswah, and A. Shukla. Role of technology in combatingsocialcrimes: Amodelingstudy.EuropeanJournalofAppliedMathematics, 24:501–514, 8 2013

    2013

  25. [33]

    W. Tao. Computational criminology and evolution mechanisms of social crime dynamic system. In Electronics, Computer and Applications, 2014 IEEE Workshop on, pages 481–484, May 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Yokoyama and T

    T. Yokoyama and T. Takahashi. Mathematical neurolaw of crime and punishment: The q-exponential punishment function. Applied Mathematics, 4, 1371–1375, 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    and Castillo-Chavez, C

    Brauer, F. and Castillo-Chavez, C. Mathematical Models in Population Biology and Epidemiology. Springer Science, Berlin, 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    Kwofie, M

    T. Kwofie, M. Dogbatsey, S.E. Moore Curtailing Crime Dynamics: A Mathematical Approach, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 2023. 26

    2023

  29. [37]

    60–69, 2018

    Sooknanan J., Comissiong D.M.G., A mathematical model for the treatment of delin- quent behaviour, Socio–Economic Planning Sciences, v.63, pp. 60–69, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    A dynamical mathematical model for crime evolution based on a compartmental system with interactions, International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 102(1), 44–59, 2024

    Calatayud, J., Jornet, M., & Mateu, J. A dynamical mathematical model for crime evolution based on a compartmental system with interactions, International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 102(1), 44–59, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Calafiore, G.C., Novara, C., Possieri, C., A time-varying SIRD model for the COVID- 19 contagion in Italy, Annual Reviews in Control, 50, 361–372, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Complexity of the Basic Reproduction Number (R0)

    Delamater PL, Street EJ, Leslie TF, Yang YT, Jacobsen KH. Complexity of the Basic Reproduction Number (R0). Emerg Infect Dis.,25(1):1-4. doi: 10.3201/eid2501.171901. PMID: 30560777; PMCID: PMC6302597, 2019. 27

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.