A Decision Tree Approach to Predicting Recidivism in Domestic Violence

Domestic violence (DV) is a global social and public health issue that is highly gendered. Being able to accurately predict DV recidivism, i.e., re-offending of a previously convicted offender, can speed up and improve risk assessment procedures for police and front-line agencies, better protect victims of DV, and potentially prevent future re-occurrences of DV. Previous work in DV recidivism has employed different classification techniques, including decision tree (DT) induction and logistic regression, where the main focus was on achieving high prediction accuracy. As a result, even the diagrams of trained DTs were often too difficult to interpret due to their size and complexity, making decision-making challenging. Given there is often a trade-off between model accuracy and interpretability, in this work our aim is to employ DT induction to obtain both interpretable trees as well as high prediction accuracy. Specifically, we implement and evaluate different approaches to deal with class imbalance as well as feature selection. Compared to previous work in DV recidivism prediction that employed logistic regression, our approach can achieve comparable area under the ROC curve results by using only 3 of 11 available features and generating understandable decision trees that contain only 4 leaf nodes.

READ FULL TEXT VIEW PDF
POST COMMENT

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Authors

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

11/17/2016

GENESIM: genetic extraction of a single, interpretable model

Models obtained by decision tree induction techniques excel in being int...
06/19/2018

Employee Attrition Prediction

We aim to predict whether an employee of a company will leave or not, us...
04/14/2015

HHCART: An Oblique Decision Tree

Decision trees are a popular technique in statistical data classificatio...
02/27/2013

Induction of Selective Bayesian Classifiers

In this paper, we examine previous work on the naive Bayesian classifier...
07/16/2020

An approach for auxiliary diagnosing and screening coronary disease based on machine learning

How to accurately classify and predict whether an individual has coronar...
11/07/2018

YASENN: Explaining Neural Networks via Partitioning Activation Sequences

We introduce a novel approach to feed-forward neural network interpretat...
05/26/2020

Using Machine Learning to Forecast Future Earnings

In this essay, we have comprehensively evaluated the feasibility and sui...
This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

1 Introduction

Domestic violence (DV), defined as violence, intimidation or abuse between individuals in a current or former intimate relationship, is a major social and public health issue. A World Health Organisation (WHO) literature review across 35 countries revealed that between 10% and 52% of women reported at least one instance of physical abuse by an intimate partner, and between 10% and 30% reported having experienced sexual violence by an intimate partner [15].

In Australia, evidence shows that one in six women (17%) and one in twenty men (6%) have experienced at least one incidence of DV since the age of 15 [2, 7], while a recent report found that one woman a week and one man a month have been killed by their current or former partner between 2012-13 and 2013-14, and that the costs of DV are at least $22 billion per year [3]. Whilst DV can affect both partners in a relationship, these statistics emphasise the highly gendered nature of this problem. More broadly, gender inequality has been identified as an explaining factor of violence against women [27].

Worryingly, there has been a recent trend of increasing DV in Australia, particularly in Western Australia (WA) where family related offences (assault and threatening behaviour) have risen by 32% between 2014-15 and 2015-16 [28]. Furthermore, police in New South Wales (NSW) responded to over 58,000 call-outs for DV related incidents in 2014 [6], and DV related assault accounted for about 43% of crimes against persons in NSW in 2014–15 [20].

Given this context, besides harm to individuals, DV results in an enormous cost to public health and the state. Indeed, it is one of the top ten risk factors contributing to disease burden among adult women, correlated with a range of physical and mental health problems [4, 3].

Despite the importance of this issue, there has been relatively little research on the risk of family violence and DV offending in Australia [5, 10]. Recent calls have been made to develop and evaluate risk assessment tools and decision support systems (DSS) to manage and understand the risk of DV within populations and to improve targeted interventions that aim to prevent DV and family violence before it occurs. Whilst risk assessment tools have attracted criticism in areas such as child protection [11], recent studies suggest that DV-related risk assessment tools can be highly effective in helping police and front-line agencies to make rapid decisions about detention, bail and victim assistance [17, 18].

Contributions:

As discussed in the next section, there are a number of challenges and opportunities for using data science techniques to improve the accuracy and interpretability of predictive models in DV risk assessment. In this paper, we make a contribution to current research by advancing the use of a DT approach in the context of DV recidivism to provide predictions about the risk of re-offending that can be easily interpreted and used for decision-making by front-line agencies and practitioners. We develop and experimentally evaluate a technique to reduce the size and complexity of trained DTs whilst aiming to maintain a high degree of predictive accuracy. Our approach is not limited to specialised data collection or single use cases, but generalises to predicting any DV-related recidivism using administrative data.

2 Related Work

A key factor when evaluating risk assessment tools and DSS is determining whether they are able to accurately predict future DV offending amongst a cohort of individuals under examination. A standard practice is to measure the accuracy of risk assessment tools using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis [9], which we discuss in more detail later in this paper. Whilst some tools have been shown to provide reasonably high levels of predictive accuracy with ROC scores in the high 0.6 to low 0.7 range [24], there are a number of limitations to current approaches.

In summarising the main limitations with current approaches to predicting DV offences using risk assessment tools, Fitzgerald and Graham [10] argue that such tools “often rely on detailed offender and victim information that must form part of specialised data collection, either through in-take or self-report instruments, clinical assessment, or police or practitioner observation” (p. 2). In this way, the cost in terms of time and money for developing these tools is prohibitively high and moreover they do not generalise easily across multiple agencies, social and geographical contexts.

Although there are presumptions in the literature that the accuracy and generalisability of such tools may be increased by combining both official and clinical data sets, studies suggest that the benefits may be negligible, particularly given the high associated costs [25]. Fitzgerald and Graham [10] posit that readily available administrative data may be preferable as opposed to data sets that are more difficult and costly to generate. They evaluated the potential of existing administrative data drawn from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) Re-offending Database (ROD) to accurately predict violent DV-related recidivism [21]. Recidivism is a criminological term that refers to the rate at which individuals who, after release from prison, are subsequently re-arrested, re-convicted, or returned to prison (with or without a new sentence) during a specific time range following their release [26]. In this way, a recidivist can be regarded as someone who is a ‘repeat’ or ‘chronic’ offender.

Fitzgerald and Graham [10] used logistic regression to examine the future risk of violent DV offending among a cohort of individuals convicted of any DV offence (regardless of whether it is violent or not) over a specific time period. Using ten-fold cross validation they found the average AUC-ROC (described in Sect. 2) of the models to be , indicating a reasonable level of predictive accuracy on par with other risk assessment tools described previously. A question that arises from the study is whether more sophisticated statistical models might be able to: (1) improve the accuracy for predicting DV recidivism using administrative data; (2) help to determine and highlight risk factors associated with DV recidivism using administrative data; and (3) provide easily interpretable results that can be readily deployed within risk assessment frameworks.

A particular approach that has received recent attention is decision tree (DT) induction [23], as we describe in more detail in the following section. In the context of predicting violent crime recidivism and in particular DV-related recidivism, Neuilly et al. [19] undertook a comparative study of DT induction and logistic regression and found two main advantages of DTs. First, it provides outputs that more accurately mimic clinical decisions, including graphics (i.e., tree drawings) that can be adapted as questionnaires in decision-making processes. Secondly, the authors found that DTs had slightly lower error rates of classification compared to logistic regression [19]

, suggesting that DT induction might provide higher predictive accuracy compared to logistic regression. Notably, the related random forest algorithm has recently been used in DV risk prediction and management, with reasonably good predictive performance 

[13] (however, not considering interpretability which is difficult with random forests).

While existing work on predicting DV recidivism using logistic regression and DT induction is able to obtain results of reasonably high accuracy, the important aspect of interpretability, i.e., being able to easily understand and explain the prediction results, has so far not been fully addressed (this is not just the case in predicting DV recidivism, but also in other areas where data science techniques are used to predict negative social outcomes (e.g., disadvantage) [29]). In our study, described next, we employ DT induction which will provide both accurate as well as interpretable results, as we show in our evaluation in Sect. 4.

3 Decision Tree Based Recidivism Prediction

In this study we aim to develop an approach to DV recidivism prediction that is both accurate and interpretable. We believe interpretability is as important as high predictive accuracy in a domain such as crime prediction, because otherwise any prediction results would not be informative and actionable for users who are not experts in prediction algorithms (such as criminologists, law makers, and police forces). We now describe the three major aspects of our work, DT induction, class balancing, and feature selection, in more detail.

Decision tree induction: Decision tree (DT) induction [16] is a supervised classification and prediction technique with a long history going back over three decades [23]. As with any supervised classification method, a training data set, , is required that contains ground-truth data, where each record consists of a set of input features, (with and the number of input features), and a class label . Without loss of generality we assume (i.e. a binary, two-class, classification problem). The aim of DT induction is, based on the records in , to build a model in the form of a tree that is able to accurately represent the characteristics of the records in . An example DT trained on our DV data set is shown in Fig. 2.

A DT is a data structure which starts with a root node that contains all records in

. Using a heuristic measure such as information gain or the Gini index 

[16], the basic idea of DT induction algorithms is to identify the best input feature in that splits into two (or more, depending upon the actual algorithm used) partitions of highest purity, where one partition contains those records in where most (ideally all) of their class label is while the other partition contains those records in where most (ideally all) of their class label is . This process of splitting is continued recursively until either all records in a partition are in one class only (i.e., the partition is pure), or a partition reaches a minimum partition size (in order to prevent over-fitting [16]).

At the end of this process, each internal node of a DT corresponds to a test on a certain input feature, each branch refers to the outcomes of such a test, and each leaf node is assigned a class label from based on the majority of records that are assigned to this leaf node. For example, in Fig. 2

, the upper-most branch classifies records to be in class

based on tests on only two input features (PP and PC, as described in Table 1).

A trained DT can then be applied on a testing data set, , where the class labels of records in are unknown or withheld for testing. Based on the feature values of a test record , a certain path in the tree is followed until a leaf node is reached. The class label of the leaf node is then used to classify the test record into either class or . For detailed algorithms the interested reader is referred to [16, 23]. As we describe in more detail in Sect. 4, we will explore some parameters for DT induction in order to identify small trees that are interpretable but achieve high predictive accuracy.

Class balancing: Many prediction problems in areas such as criminology suffer from a class imbalance problem, where there is a much smaller number of training records with class label (e.g., re-offenders) versus a much larger number of training records with (e.g., individuals who do not re-offend). In our DV data set, as described in detail in Sect. 4, we have a class imbalance of around 1:11, i.e., there are 11 times less re-offenders than those who did not re-offend. Such a high class imbalance can pose a challenge for many classification algorithms, including DTs [14], because high prediction accuracy can be achieved by simply classifying all test records as being in the majority class. From a DV risk prediction perspective, this is highly problematic because it means that the classifier would predict every offender as not re-offending [13]. The accuracy would be high, but such a risk prediction tool would not be useful in practice.

Two approaches can be employed to overcome this class imbalance challenge: under-sampling of the majority class and over-sampling of the minority class [8]:

  • Under-sampling of majority class: Assuming there are training records in class and training records in class , with . If , we can generate a balanced training data set by using all training records in where , but we sample training records from where . As a result we obtain a training data set of size that contains the same number of records in each of the two classes and .

  • Over-sampling of minority class: One potential challenge with under-sampling is that the resulting size of the training set can become small if the number of minority class training records () is small. Under-sampling can also lead to a significant loss of detailed characteristics of the majority class as only a small fraction of its training records is used for training. As a result such an under-sampled training data set might not contain enough information to achieve high prediction accuracy. An alternative is to over-sample the training records from the minority class [8, 14]. The basic idea is to replicate (duplicate) records from the minority class until the size of the minority class () equals the size of the majority class (), i.e., .

We describe in Sect. 4 how we applied these two class balancing methods to our DV data set in order to achieve accurate prediction results.

Feature selection: Another challenge to interpretable prediction results is the often increasing number of features in data sets used in many domains. While having more detailed information about DV offenders, for example, will likely be useful to improve predictive accuracy, it potentially can also lead to more complex models such as larger DTs that are more difficult to employ in practice.

Identifying which available input features are most useful for a given prediction or classification problem is therefore an important aspect to obtain interpretable prediction outcomes. As Hand [12] has shown, the first few most important features are also those that are often able to achieve almost as high prediction accuracy as the full set of available features. Any additional, less predictive feature, included in a model can only increase prediction accuracy incrementally. There is thus a trade-off between model complexity, interpretability, and predictive accuracy. Furthermore, using less features will likely also result in less time-consuming training times.

Besides interpretability, a second advantage of DTs over other classification techniques is that the recursive generation of a DT using the input features available in a training data set is actually based on a ranking of the importance of the available features according to a heuristic measure such as information gain or the Gini index [16]. The feature with the best value according to the used measure is the one that is best suited to split the training data sets into smaller sub-sets of highest purity, as described above.

Therefore, to identify a ranking of all available input features we can train a first DT using all available features, and then remove the least important feature (which has the smallest information gain or the highest Gini index value [16]) before training the next DT, and repeat this process until only one (the most important) features is left. Assuming a data set contains input features, we can generate a sequence of DTs that use from to only feature. For each of these trees we calculate its predictive accuracy and assess its complexity as the size of the generated tree. Depending upon the requirements of an application with regard to model complexity (tree size, which affects the tree’s interpretability), and predictive accuracy, a suitable tree can then be selected.

We illustrate in Algo. 1 our overall approach which incorporates both class balancing and iterative feature selection. The output of the algorithm is a list of tuples, each containing a trained DT, the set of used input features, the size of the tree, and the DT’s predictive quality (calculated as the AUC-ROC and the F-measure [9] as described below). As we discuss in the following section, from the eleven features available in our data set, not all will be important to predict DV recidivism. We apply the approach described in Algo. 1 and investigate both the sizes of the resulting DTs as well as their predictive accuracy.

4 Experimental Evaluation

We now describe in more detail the data set we used to evaluate our DT based prediction approach for recidivism in DV, explain the experimental setup, and then present and discuss the obtained results.

Algorithm 1: Decision tree learning with class balancing and feature selection
Input:
- : Training data set
- : Testing data set
- : Set of all input features in and
- : Class-balancing (sampling) method ( or )
Output:
- : List of classification result tuples
1:       // All training records in class
2:       // All training records in class
3: ,                    // Number of training records in the two classes
4: if then:
5:           // Sample training records from the majority class
6: else:
7:         // Replicate training records from minority class
8:                                         // Initialise classification results list
9:                                     // Initialise the set of features to use as all features
10: while do:
11:     // Train tree and get the least important feature
12:    
13:    
14:          // Append results to results list
15:                        // Remove least important feature from current features
16: return
Variable Description
Offender demographic characteristics
Gender  (G) Whether the offender was recorded in ROD as male or female.
Age  (A) The age category of the offender at the index court
   finalisation was derived from the date of birth of the offender
   and the date of finalisation for the index court appearance.
Indigenous status  (IS) Recorded in ROD as ‘Indigenous’ if the offender had ever
   identified as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
   descent, otherwise ‘non-Indigenous’.
Disadvantage areas index Measures disadvantage of an offender’s residential postcode at

   (quartiles)  (

DA)
   the index offence. Based on the Socio-Economic Index for
   Areas (SEIFA) score (Australian Bureau of Statistics).
Index conviction characteristics
Concurrent offences  (CO) Number of concurrent proven offences, including the principal
   offence, at the offender’s index court appearance.
AVO breaches  (AB) Number of proven breach of Appended Violence Order (AVO)
   offences at the index court appearance.
Criminal history characteristics
Prior juvenile or adult Number of Youth Justice Conferences or finalised court
   convictions  (PC)    appearances with any proven offence(s) as a juvenile or
   adult prior to the index court appearance.
Prior serious violent Number of Youth Justice Conferences or finalised court
   offence conviction    appearances in the 5 years prior to the reference court
   past 5 years  (P5)    appearance with any proven homicide or serious assault.
Prior DV-related property Number of Youth Justice Conferences or finalised court
   damage offence conviction    appearances in the 2 years prior to the reference court
   past 2 years  (P2)    appearance with any proven DV property damage offence.
Prior bonds past 5 years Number of finalised court appearances within 5 years of the
     (PO)    reference court appearance at which given a bond.
Prior prison or custodial order Number of previous finalised court appearances at which given
     (PP)    a full-time prison sentence / custodial order.
Table 1: Independent variables (features) in the ROD data set used in the experiments as described in Sect. 1. Variable name abbreviations (in bold) are used in the text.

Data set: The data set of administrative data extracted from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) Re-offending Database (ROD) [21] consists of records, each containing the eleven independent variables (features) shown in Table 1 as well as the dependent class variable. The considered features are grouped to represent the offender, index offence, and criminal history related characteristics of the offenders.

This study aims to predict whether an offender would re-commit a DV related offence within a duration of 24 months since the first court appearance finalisation date (class ) or not (class ). DV related offences in class include any physical, verbal, emotional, and/or psychological violence or intimidation between domestic partners.

The Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification (ANZSOC) [1] has recognised murder, attempted murder and manslaughter (ANZSOC 111-131), serious assault resulting in injury, serious assault not resulting in injury and common assault (ANZSOC 211-213), aggravated sexual assault and non-aggravated sexual assault (ANZSOC 311-312), abduction and kidnapping and deprivation of liberty/ false imprisonment (ANZSOC 511-521), stalking (ANZSOC 291), and harassment and private nuisance and threatening behaviour (ANZSOC 531-532) as different forms of violent DV related offences.

Experimental Setup: As the aim of the study was to provide a more interpretable prediction to officers involved, a DT classifier along with a graphical representation of the final decision tree was implemented using Python version 3.4, where the scikit-learn (http://scikit-learn.org

) machine learning library 

[22] was used for the DT induction (with the Gini index as feature selection measure [16]), and tree visualisations were generated using scikit-learn and the pydotplus (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pydotplus) package.

In a preliminary analysis we identified that only () of the offenders recommitted a DV offence within the first 24 months of the finalisation of their index offence. The data set was thus regarded as imbalanced and we applied the two class balancing approaches discussed in Sect. 3:

  • Under-sampling of majority class: The re-offender and non-re-offender records were separated into two groups, with re-offenders and non-re-offenders respectively. Next, we randomly sampled non-re-offender records, resulting in a balanced data set containing records.

  • Over-sampling minority class: In this approach we duplicated re-offender records such that their number ended up to be the same as the number of non-re-offender records. The resulting balanced data set containing records was then shuffled so that the records were randomly distributed.

Each of the two balanced data sets were randomly split into a training and testing set with of all records used to train a DT and the remaining for testing. We applied the iterative feature elimination approach described in Algo. 1, resulting in a sequence of DTs trained using from 11 and 1 features.

To further explore the ability of DTs of different sizes to obtain high predictive accuracy, we also varied the scikit-learn DT parameter max_leaf_nodes, which explicitly stops a DT from growing once it has reached a certain size. As shown in Fig. 1, we set the value for this parameter from (i.e., a single decision on one input feature) to (which basically means no limitation in tree size). While a DT of limited size might result in reduced predictive accuracy, our aim was to investigate this accuracy versus interpretability trade-off which is an important aspect of employing data science techniques in practical applications such as DV recidivism prediction.

We evaluated the predictive accuracy of the trained DTs using the commonly used measures of Area Under the Receiver Operator Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC), which is calculated as the area under the curve generated when plotting the true positive rate (TPR) versus the false positive rate (FPR) at a varying threshold of the probability that a test record is classified as being in class

 [9]. Because the TPR and FPR are always between and , the resulting AUC-ROC will also be between and . An AUC-ROC of corresponds to a random classifier while and AUC-ROC of corresponds to perfect classification.

As a second measure of predictive accuracy we also calculated the F-measure [9]

, the harmonic mean of precision and recall, which is commonly used in classification applications. The F-measure considers and averages both types of errors, namely false positives (true non-re-offenders wrongly classified as re-offenders) and false negatives (true re-offenders wrongly classified as non-re-offenders).

Experimental approach ROC AUC

95% Confidence interval

Internal validation (on full data set) 0.701 0.694 – 0.717
Ten-fold cross validation 0.694 0.643 – 0.742
Table 2: Baseline AUC-ROC results as presented in Fitzgerald and Graham [10] using logistic regression on the same data set used in our study.

Results and Discussion: In Table 2 we show the baseline results obtained by a state-of-the-art logistic regression based approach using the same data set as the one we used. As can be seen, an AUC-ROC of was obtained, however this approach does not allow easy interpretation of results due to the logistic regression method being used.

The detailed results of our DT based approach are shown in Fig. 1, where tree sizes, AUC-ROC and F-measure results can be seen for different number of input features used. As can be seen, with large trees (i.e., no tree growing limits) and using all input features, exceptionally high prediction results (with AUC-ROC and F-measure of up to ) can be achieved. However, the corresponding DTs, which contain over nodes, will not be interpretable. Additionally, such large trees would likely overfit the given testing data set.

As can be seen, almost independent of the number of input features (at least until only around two features were used), a DT can be trained with an AUC-ROC of around , which is less than below the logistic regression based state-of-the-art baseline approach shown in Table 2.

As is also clearly visible, the under-sampling approach (resulting in a much smaller data set than over-sampling) led to worse prediction accuracy results when using all input features, but also to much smaller trees. When using only the few most important features the prediction accuracy of both class balancing methods are very similar. As can be seen in Table 3, the overall ranking of features according to their importance is quite similar, with criminal history features being prominent in the most important set of features.

We show one small example DT learned using the over-sampling method based on only three features in Fig. 2. Such a small tree will clearly be quite easy to interpret by DV experts in criminology or by police forces.

Figure 1: Results for different number of features used to train a DT: Left with under- and right with over-sampling. The top row shows the sizes of the generated DTs, the middle row shows AUC-ROC and the bottom row shows F-measure results. The parameter varied from to was the maximum number of leaf nodes as described in Sect. 2.

5 Conclusion and Future Work

Domestic Violence (DV) is displaying a rising trend worldwide with a significant negative impact on the mental and physical health of individuals and society at large. Having decision support systems that can assist police and other front-line officers in the assessment of possible re-offenders is therefore vital.

With regard to predictive tools that can be used by non-technical users, interpretability of results is as important as high accuracy. Our study has shown that even small decision trees (DTs), that are easily interpretable, trained on balanced training data sets and using only a few input features can achieve predictive accuracy almost as good as previous state-of-the-art approaches.

As future work, we aim to investigate the problem of producing interpretable DT models when DV data sets are linked with external administrative data. This could provide access to additional features to gain improved insights to the decision making process, resulting in higher accuracy. While here we have used eleven features only, future studies could deploy hundreds or even thousands of features derived from administrative data sources. The experiments conducted in this study provide a basis to develop methods for maximising both the accuracy and interpretability of DV risk assessment tools using Big Data collections.

Sampling Feature ranking
approach   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11
Over-sampling PP PC A DA PO CO IS P2 G AV P5
Under-sampling  PC  PO  PP  CO  A  AV  DA  P2  IS  G  P5
Table 3: Feature importance rankings for over- and under-sampling as discussed in Sect. 3 averaged over all parameter settings used in the experiments. The first ranked feature is the most important one. Feature codes are from Table 1
Figure 2: A small example decision tree (rotated to the left) learned using only three input features (PP, PC, PO, see Table 1 for descriptions) and achieving an AUC-ROC of 0.64. This is almost the same as achieved by much larger trees as shown in Fig. 1, and less than 5% below a previous logistic regression based state-of-the-art approach [10].

References

  • [1] Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology: http://www.anzsoc.org
  • [2] Australian Bureau of Statistics: Personal safety survey 2016 (2017)
  • [3] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia (2018)
  • [4] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Limited (ANROWS): Examination of the health outcomes of intimate partner violence against women: State of knowledge paper (2016)
  • [5] Boxall, H., Rosevear, L., Payne, J.: Identifying first time family violence perpetrators: The usefulness and utility of categorisations based on police offence records. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice (487) (2015)
  • [6] Bulmer, C.: Australian police deal with a domestic violence matter every two minutes. ABC NEWS (2015)
  • [7] Cox, P.: Violence against women in Australia: Additional analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ personal safety survey. Horizons Research Report, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) (2012)
  • [8] Drummond, C., Holte, R.C.: C4. 5, class imbalance, and cost sensitivity: why under-sampling beats over-sampling. In: ICML Workshop (2003)
  • [9] Fawcett T: ROC Graphs: Notes and practical considerations for researchers. Tech. Rep. HPL-2003-4, HP Laboratories, Palo Alto (2004)
  • [10] Fitzgerald, R., Graham, T.: Assessing the risk of domestic violence recidivism. Crime and Justice Bulletin, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (2016)
  • [11] Gillingham, P.: Risk assessment in child protection: Problem rather than solution? Australian Social Work 59(1), 86–98 (2006)
  • [12] Hand, D.: Classifier technology and the illusion of progress. Statistical Science 21(1), 1–14 (2006)
  • [13] Hsieh, T., Wang, Y.H., Hsieh, Y.S., Ke, Jing-Tai, L.C.K., Chen, S.C.: Measuring the unmeasurable: A study of domestic violence risk prediction and management. Journal of Technology in Human Services (2018)
  • [14] Japkowicz, N., Stephen, S.: The class imbalance problem: A systematic study. Intelligent data analysis 6(5), 429–449 (2002)
  • [15] Krug, E., Mercy, J., Dahlberg, L., Zwi, A.: The world report on violence and health (2002)
  • [16] Lior, R., Maimon, O.: Data mining with decision trees: theory and applications, vol. 81. World Scientific, 2 edn. (2014)
  • [17] Mason, R., Julian, R.: Analysis of the Tasmania Police Risk Assessment Screening Tool (RAST), final report; Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies, University of Tasmania (2009)
  • [18] Messing, J.T., Campbell, J., Sullivan Wilson, J., Brown, S., Patchell, B.: The lethality screen: the predictive validity of an intimate partner violence risk assessment for use by first responders. Journal of interpersonal violence 32(2) (2017)
  • [19] Neuilly, M.A., Zgoba, K.M., Tita, G.E., Lee, S.S.: Predicting recidivism in homicide offenders using classification tree analysis. Homicide studies 15(2), 154–176 (2011)
  • [20] New South Wales Police Force: NSW Police Force Annual Report, 2014-15 (2015)
  • [21] NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research: Re-offending statistics for NSW (2018)
  • [22] Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., et al.: Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12(Oct.) (2011)
  • [23] Quinlan, J.R.: Induction of decision trees. Machine learning 1(1), 81–106 (1986)
  • [24] Rice, M.E., Harris, G.T., Hilton, N.: Handbook of violence risk assessment, chap. The violence risk appraisal guide and sex offender risk appraisal guide for violence risk assessment, pp. 99–119. Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group (2010)
  • [25] Ringland, C., et al.: Measuring recidivism: Police versus court data. BOCSAR NSW Crime and Justice Bulletins (175),  12 (2013)
  • [26] Ronda, M.: Recividism. In: Encyclopedia of Social Problems, pp. 756–757. Sage Publications, Inc (2008)
  • [27] Wall, L.: Gender equality and violence against women: What’s the connection? Australian Institute of Family Studies, ACSSA Research Summary, no. 7 (2014)
  • [28] Western Australia Police Force: Crime in Western Australia (2018)
  • [29]

    Wu, L., Haynes, M., Smith, A., Chen, T., Li, X.: Generating life course trajectory sequences with recurrent neural networks and application to early detection of social disadvantage. In: ADMA. pp. 225–242. Springer (2017)