# Abstract

Urban population scaling of resource use, creativity metrics, and human behaviors has been widely studied. These studies have not looked in detail at the full range of human environments which represent a continuum from the most rural to heavily urban. We examined monthly police crime reports and property transaction values across all 573 Parliamentary Constituencies in England and Wales, finding that scaling models based on population density provided a far superior framework to traditional population scaling. We found four types of scaling: $i)$ non-urban scaling in which a single power law explained the relationship between the metrics and population density from the most rural to heavily urban environments, $ii)$ accelerated scaling in which high population density was associated with an increase in the power-law exponent, $iii)$ inhibited scaling where the urban environment resulted in a reduction in the power-law exponent but remained positive, and $iv)$ collapsed scaling where transition to the high density environment resulted in a negative scaling exponent. Urban scaling transitions, when observed, took place universally between 10 and 70 people per hectare. This study significantly refines our understanding of urban scaling, making clear that some of what has been previously ascribed to urban environments may simply be the high density portion of non-urban scaling. It also makes clear that some metrics undergo specific transitions in urban environments and these transitions can include negative scaling exponents indicative of collapse. This study gives promise of far more sophisticated scale adjusted metrics and indicates that studies of urban scaling represent a high density subsection of overall scaling relationships which continue into rural environments.

# Introduction

Scaling in the evolution and development of cities has been widely studied  with scaling behavior providing indicators of resource needs and productivity . Cities promote innovation evidenced by super-linear scaling, while providing economies of scale in areas such as petrol stations and road surface . While super-linear scaling is beneficial in the production of new inventions, GDP and R & D employment, cities also exhibit super-linear scaling of undesirable behaviors like homicide and violence . Extensive study of human environments has led to the urban scaling hypothesis  which considers that some properties of cities change with size in scale invariant ways. Although scaling behaviour follows similar mathematical forms, urban scaling parameters are not universal with coefficients varying between countries. For example, population scaling of homicide in cities in Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, and the United States vary widely  as well as vary over time for several urban metrics in Brazil .

Region boundary definitions useful for understanding urban scaling remain challenging. Bettencourt proposed a combination of population and infrastructure leading to social co-ordination and efficiencies as the most important properties of cities . However, these key features do not correspond to traditional definitions of cities which have more provincial origins. For example, formal City status in the UK is given by the Monarch as an honorary designation . Urban administrative units consist of a mix of Unitary Authorities, Metropolitan Regions, Boroughs, and other units like the Greater London Authority. Within these designations, there may be several "cities" in a contiguous urban area. As a result, a robust definition of cities and urban regions is needed in order to fully test the urban scaling hypothesis. In the UK context, a model of cities was recently proposed based on population density thresholds and commuter flow rather than total population . This challenges the concept of population as the key predictor of urban scaling . Elsewhere, related studies  indicate scaling exponents are sensitive to whether urban areas are defined by built up areas or built up areas together with a surrounding commuter zone. Even with such definitions of cities and urban areas, the resulting regions vary in their characteristics. The Tokyo-Yokohama region of Japan with a population in excess of 30 million has a density of 44 people per hectare (p/ha) while Dhaka in Bangladesh has fewer people but a population density of 435 p/ha . Similarly, urban areas are not uniform across their footprint. They include regions with very low resident populations such as parks and industrial areas.

Cities are important human environments and the proportion of the world's population living in urban areas has been consistently increasing. As of 2014, the urban population reached 54% of the total; however, the number of people residing outside of cities is large and countries range from 100% (Singapore) to 8.6% (Trinidad and Tobago) urban . Many studies of urban environments exist, however, nearly universally, these implicitly assume a fundamental difference between cities and surrounding regions while not examining more rural environments in detail. In England and Wales, urban areas are connected built-up areas containing at least 10,000 people . All other areas are considered to be rural. Notably, England in 2011 had 82.4% of people living in urban areas. However, rural areas made up 85% of the land . This leaves an open question related to the more general applicability of scaling laws obtained from cities to understand the full range of human environments.

Crime is known to follow scaling laws in urban areas. The self-similarity of cities underlying the urban scaling hypothesis is unlikely to change fundamentally based on the outcome of current debates about the definition of cities. The acceleration of crime described by power-law scaling will probably remain; however, a broader understanding of crime scaling over a greater range of human environments can provide great insight into scaling phenomena of all types.

The UK government has published extensive data on property transactions and police reported crime. These data are notable for their high spatial accuracy and good coverage within England and Wales. Although police reported crime has been the subject of considerable controversy in the UK , the data set is extensive and can be mapped into a range of shapes. This provides a unique opportunity to interrogate the scaling of crime reports and property transactions over the full surface area of England and Wales.

Here we investigate scaling relationships for a range of crime types and property transactions values in England and Wales broken down by Parliamentary Constituencies. Parliamentary Constituencies cover a wide range of communities from the most rural to heavily urban and are well defined. This allows scaling to be studied using a wide range of crime and property metrics. Using a continuum of rural and urban environments, the extent to which cities extracted from their surroundings are sufficient to understand the scaling of human economic and criminal behaviors can be assessed.

# Methods

## Data Sets

We have accessed data at the Parliamentary Constituencies level of all 573 constituencies in England and Wales (see next section). These data are composed of population $N$, daytime population $N_d$, constituency area $A$, 15 crime types and transaction value of 9 property types (Table ). The population data were obtained from the Ordnance Survey mid-2013 estimates, and daytime population estimates from the Office of National Statistics (www.ons.gov.uk). The constituency boundary areas were calculated from geographic shape files of the Ordnance Survey Boundary Line dataset. Crime data were obtained from the Home Office via their open data portal (<https://data.police.uk/>). Property data were obtained from the Land Registry. These data were collated on the UKCrimeStats (<http://www.ukcrimestats.com/>) data platform and provided as monthly reports. The crime data from 2014 were captured on 10/6/2015 and property transaction value data on 17/7/2015. Prior to analysis the monthly values from each constituency were summed over the 12 months of study. If a constituency did not have any crime or property transaction of a particular type over the 12 month period it was removed from the analysis. Only the Cities of London and Westminster (Semi-detached) and Bethnal Green and Bow (Detached) in England reported no property transactions of a particular type in the period and were dropped from the respective property analyses. The entire data set is maintained and made freely available by the Office of National Statistics and the UK Home Office. As these data are subject to updates, the snapshot has been provided as .

```latex
\begin{adjustwidth}{1.5cm}{0in}
\begin{tabular}{l|l}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{c}{Constituency metrics, $Y$}\\
\hline
{Crime type} & {Property Type}\\
\hline
Anti-Social Behavior (ASB) & Detached\\
Bike Theft & Flats\\
Burglary & Freehold\\
Criminal Damage and Arson (CD \& A)  & Leasehold \\
Drugs & New \\
Order & Old\\
Other Crime & Semi-detached\\
Other Theft & Terraced \\
Robbery & Total Property \\
Shoplifting & \\
Theft from the Person & \\
Total Crime and ASB & \\
Vehicle Crime & \\
Violence & \\
Weapons & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:0}
\end{adjustwidth}
```

## Overview of Parliamentary Regions

Parliamentary Constituencies were selected as regions with clearly defined shapes and similar populations while not being exclusively urban. Parliamentary constituency data were obtained for all 573 constituencies in England and Wales. The regions ranged in area from 331,440 ha (Penrith and The Border) down to 738 ha (Islington North). Constituency populations were from 56,651 (Aberconwy, Wales) to 163,398 (West Ham, England) while population density ranged from 0.22 people per hectare (Brecon and Radnorshire, Wales) up to 150 p/ha (Westminster North, England). Similar values for daytime population were from 55,453 (Aberconwy, Wales) to 946,397 (Cities of London and Westminster, England) and daytime population densities from 0.22 p/ha (Brecon and Radnorshire, Wales) to 550.3 p/ha (Cities of London and Westminster, England). This range of population densities includes regions that exceed the density of many of the world's largest cities when considered as a whole. It is notable that constituency populations for England and Wales fall within a factor of 3; however, total reported crime and anti-social behavior varied by a factor of 17 and total property transactions by a factor of 65.

# Results and Discussion

Urban power-law scaling has been observed in many parts of the world . Aspects remain controversial in part due to uncertainty about how best to define cities and concern about the use of population as a definitive metric . Bettencourt *et al.*  defined the urban scaling of a particular metric at a particular time as $$\label{eq_usualscaling}
Y= Y_0\, N^\beta~~{\text{or its linearized version}~~} \log Y = \log Y_0 + \beta \log N\,.$$ In this, $Y$ is a metric (*e.g.* energy, patents, serious crime), $Y_0$ is a constant, $N$ is the population, and $\beta$ the power-law (or allometric) exponent. When $\beta < 1$ the metric decreases proportionally with scale (such as road surface or petrol stations) and when $\beta > 1$ the metric accelerates (examples include GDP and new AIDS cases).

The form of Eq.  can be adapted to consider other metrics. For our data, the scaling behavior of property transaction values and police reported crime were tested by comparing 8 models considering population, daytime population, population density, and daytime population density as predictors of crime and property metrics expressed directly (*e.g.* number of crimes) or as a density (crimes per hectare). For instance, when considering both population and indicator density, Eq.  can be rewritten as $$\label{eq_usualscaling_d}
\log y = \log y_0 + \beta \log d\,,$$ where $y=Y/A$ is the indicator density (*e.g.* a particular crime per hectare) and $d=N/A$ is the population density. Figure  illustrates some of these models by showing scatter plots of $\log Y \times \log N$, $\log Y \times \log d$, $\log y \times \log N$ and $\log y \times \log d$ for the metrics total crime and total property value. By including all categories of crime and property together in a single analysis, we found that the density metrics were superior with daytime population density slightly better for prediction of crime and resident population density better for predicting property transaction values. For this set of metrics, both $R^2$ and predicted residual sum of squares (PRESS) statistics from general prediction models confirmed the density metrics were superior (Table ).

```latex
\begin{adjustwidth}{-2.25in}{0in}
%\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.8}
\caption{\textbf{Comparison of metrics for prediction of crime and property transaction values.} All models included categorical variables describing the type of crime or property as: Predictor, Type, Predictor*Type. The model with the best $R^2$ and PRESS statistics have been highlighted in bold. }
\centering
\begin{tabular}{llrr}
\hline
{Dependent } & {Predictor} & $R^2$ (\%)  & PRESS \\
\hline
Log(Crime) & Log(Population) & 84.97 & 541\\
Log(Crime) & Log(Daytime Population) & 85.70 & 519 \\
Log(Crime Density) & Log(Population Density) & 95.36 & 380 \\
\textbf{Log(Crime Density)} & \textbf{Log(Daytime Population Density)} & \textbf{95.92} & \textbf{333} \\
Log(Transaction Value) & Log(Population) & 59.63 & 703 \\
Log(Transaction Value) & Log(Daytime Population) & 55.44 & 774 \\
\textbf{Log(Transaction Value Density)} & \textbf{Log(Population Density)} & \textbf{80.31} & \textbf{689} \\
Log(Transaction Value Density) & Log(Daytime Population Density) & 79.90 & 703 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:1}
\end{adjustwidth}
```

To appreciate the superiority of the density metrics, it is helpful to view the correlations in isolation (Fig  and [S1 Fig](#S1_Fig)). A large improvement in correlation is seen when moving to density metrics and in some cases this changed the sign of the correlation. This was also apparent in the general models where a qualitative change from models dominated by categorical variables to ones dominated by continuous variables was observed when density was used. The improvement obtained from population density metrics was not surprising given the data set used. Parliamentary Constituencies were chosen due to having relatively small variations in total population while varying greatly in area.

The shift from population density to daytime population density gave a comparatively marginal change in outcome (Fig ). Across all property and crime categories, 13/24 were more highly correlated with daytime property density than resident population density, roughly the expectation if the two predictors were equal. However, property and crime had distinct profiles. For property, resident population density was always more highly correlated than daytime population density giving $p = 0.0078$ for a binomial test; however, it is not significantly better when considered in isolation (Fig ). For crime, 12 out of 15 categories ($p = 0.0352$ for a binomial test) were more highly correlated with daytime population density with only 2 cases (Other Theft and Shoplifting) significant when considered in isolation. Other theft includes a range of non-violent theft offenses where large daytime crowds may facilitate commission of the crime. Also, we find no significant difference between population density and daytime population density for all property and crime categories when considering the maximal information coefficient (MIC, [S1 Fig](#S3_Fig)) . As the improvement overall going to daytime population data was marginal and the availability of similar data across the world is limited, we focused on resident population density metrics in our subsequent presentation.

As in the case shown for total property (Fig ), we found that several density metrics displayed a more complex scaling behavior and a single power law (Eq. ) was insufficient to describe the observed data. Complex scaling has been observed in other types of scaling. For example, it has been noted in fluctuation scaling of crime , disease , and a variety of physical processes  and scientists have been encouraged to test alternative models to power laws when appropriate . Here, visually inspired by the behavior of our data, we tested whether a double power-law provided a significantly better fit between a density metric ($y$) and the population density ($d$) than a single power law, that is, $$\label{eq_doublescaling}
\log y =
\begin{cases}

\log y_0 + \beta_{\text{L}}\log d & (\text{for}~\log d\leq \log d^*)\\
\log y_0 + (\beta_{\text{L}}-\beta_{\text{H}})\log d & (\text{for}~\log d> \log d^*)\\
\end{cases}\,,$$ where $d^*$ is a population density threshold, $\beta_{\text{L}}$ ($\beta_{\text{H}}$) is the power-law exponent for low (high) population density, $y_0$ and $y_1$ are constants. In particular, we have chosen $\log y_1 = \log y_0 + (\beta_{\text{L}}+\beta_{\text{H}})\log d^*$, holding the continuity of $y(d)$. Thus, the model of Eq.  has two additional parameters when compared with the single power-law model of Eq. . This approach provides a picture of the data based on the prevailing view of population scaling (a single power law) against a simple alternative of a double power law. In all cases, the parameters reported were highly significant, which does not rule out that another function or set of functions may fit the data better.

We compared the models provided by Eqs.  and  and tested whether the double power-law model gave statistically significant improvement. For the single power-law (Eq. ), we employed ordinary least squares regression in the log transformed data for obtaining the parameters $y_0$ and $\beta$ as well as the adjusted $R^2$. We then used bootstrapping to determine the confidence intervals for the adjusted $R^2$. Simulated annealing  was used for fitting the double power-law model (Eq. ) to the log transformed data by considering the residual sum of squares as the cost function, yielding the parameters $y_0$, $y_1$, $\beta_{\text{L}}$ and $\beta_{\text{H}}$, and also the adjusted $R^2$. Again, the confidence intervals for the adjusted $R^2$ were calculated via bootstrapping. We further considered two-sample bootstrap tests for testing the null hypothesis that the adjusted $R^2$ from Eqs.  and  are equal . Figure  compares the values of the adjusted $R^2$ for both models, where we noticed that double power-law model is superior in 19 out 24 metrics. Similar conclusions regarding the model selection were obtained by considering the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) or Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC)  ([S2](#S2_Fig) and [S3 Figs](#S3_Fig)).

The improvement in the scaling laws using the density metrics thus revealed segmented scaling in several but not all metrics (Fig ) indicating the onset of complex scaling (Eq. ). The scaling parameters are shown in Table , where we observe that 5 crime metrics followed a single scaling law over all densities with no evidence for a specifically "urban" scaling law, only a continuation of low density behavior. The remaining metrics all exhibited complex scaling and all thresholds fell between 10 and 70 p/ha.

```latex
\begin{adjustwidth}{-2.25in}{0in}
%\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.9}
\caption{\textbf{Scaling parameters for police crime report density and property transaction value density with population density.}}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{lrrrrr}
\hline
{Crime Type} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\log(y_0)$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\beta_{\text{L}}$ or $\beta$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\log(y_1)$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\log(d^*)$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\beta_{\text{H}}$}\\
\hline
ASB & $-1.62\pm0.02$ & $1.13\pm0.02$ & $-1.30\pm0.13$ & $1.47\pm0.13$ & $0.91\pm0.08$\\
Bike Theft & $-3.26\pm0.02$ & $1.27\pm0.02$ & $-4.62\pm0.77$ & $1.80\pm0.12$ & $2.03\pm0.43$\\
Burglary & $-2.35\pm0.01$ & $1.18\pm0.01$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-}\\
CD and A & $-2.21\pm0.01$ & $1.14\pm0.01$ & $-1.55\pm0.11$ & $1.52\pm0.05$ & $0.71\pm0.07$\\
Drugs & $-2.77\pm0.02$ & $1.08\pm0.03$ & $-3.13\pm0.08$ & $1.13\pm0.10$ & $1.40\pm0.05$\\
Order & $-2.91\pm0.02$ & $1.16\pm0.03$ & $-3.20\pm0.07$ & $1.06\pm0.12$ & $1.43\pm0.05$\\
Other Crime & $-3.29\pm0.01$ & $1.15\pm0.01$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-}\\
Other Theft & $-2.26\pm0.01$ & $1.11\pm0.01$ & $-2.57\pm0.08$ & $1.40\pm0.09$ & $1.33\pm0.05$\\
Robbery & $-3.98\pm0.02$ & $1.55\pm0.03$ & $-4.73\pm0.14$ & $1.32\pm0.08$ & $2.12\pm0.10$\\
Shoplifting & $-2.56\pm0.02$ & $1.26\pm0.02$ & $-1.61\pm0.16$ & $1.50\pm0.06$ & $0.63\pm0.10$\\
Theft from the Person & $-3.68\pm0.03$ & $1.36\pm0.03$ & $-4.84\pm0.18$ & $1.39\pm0.06$ & $2.20\pm0.12$\\
Total Crime and ASB & $-1.22\pm0.01$ & $1.16\pm0.01$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-}\\
Vehicle Crime & $-2.54\pm0.01$ & $1.27\pm0.01$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-}\\
Violence & $-2.06\pm0.01$ & $1.12\pm0.02$ & $-2.28\pm0.06$ & $1.17\pm0.13$ & $1.30\pm0.04$\\
Weapons & $-3.78\pm0.02$ & $1.23\pm0.02$ & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{-} \\
\hline
Property Type & & & & &\\
\hline
Detached & $3.30\pm0.03$ & $0.77\pm0.04$ & $4.47\pm0.14$ & $1.21\pm0.06$ & $-0.20\pm0.10$\\
Flats & $2.13\pm0.05$ & $1.13\pm0.05$ & $-1.65\pm0.48$ & $1.55\pm0.04$ & $3.57\pm0.30$\\
Freehold & $3.55\pm0.02$ & $0.83\pm0.02$ & $2.48\pm0.42$ & $1.70\pm0.10$ & $1.46\pm0.25$\\
Leasehold & $2.24\pm0.04$ & $1.26\pm0.04$ & $-1.83\pm0.69$ & $1.68\pm0.04$ & $3.68\pm0.40$\\
New & $2.30\pm0.03$ & $0.86\pm0.03$ & $-1.88\pm1.06$ & $1.80\pm0.05$ & $3.19\pm0.58$\\
Old & $3.55\pm0.02$ & $0.89\pm0.02$ & $0.92\pm0.42$ & $1.71\pm0.04$ & $2.43\pm0.24$\\
Semi Detached & $2.90\pm0.02$ & $1.05\pm0.03$ & $3.84\pm0.14$ & $1.41\pm0.06$ & $0.38\pm0.09$\\
Terraced & $2.83\pm0.02$ & $1.00\pm0.02$ & $1.23\pm0.22$ & $1.55\pm0.04$ & $2.04\pm0.14$\\
Total Property & $3.57\pm0.02$ & $0.90\pm0.02$ & $0.69\pm0.46$ & $1.73\pm0.04$ & $2.56\pm0.26$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:2}
\end{adjustwidth}
```

Comparison of exponents (Figs  and ) revealed four types of density scaling including three specifically related to "urban effects" . The "non-urban scaling" was found for burglary, other crime, total crime and antisocial behavior, vehicle crime, and weapons. This designation was applied to metrics where no threshold value could be discerned in the data. Of the three types of urban scaling, the first is "accelerated urban scaling" where $\beta_{\text{L}} < \beta_{\text{H}}$. This was observed in the majority of metrics and applied to: bike theft, drugs, order, other theft, robbery, theft from the person, violence, flats, freehold, leasehold, new, old, terraced, and total property. Metrics following accelerated urban scaling are specifically enhanced in an urban environment. The second urban category is "inhibited urban scaling" ($\beta_{\text{L}}>\beta_{\text{H}} > 0$). Inhibited urban scaling was observed for anti-social behavior, criminal damage and arson (CD and A), shoplifting, and semi-detached properties. Metrics following inhibited urban scaling undergo specifically urban economies of scale. The last urban category is "collapsed urban scaling" ($\beta_{\text{L}}>\beta_{\text{H}}$, with $\beta_{\text{H}}<0$). Only a single category (detached housing) followed this type of scaling and to our knowledge this is the first time a negative exponent has been reported in the context of urban scaling.

Scaling studies of many of the crime metrics used here have not been reported nor have their transitions in urban environments. The variable effects of high population density are noteworthy. For example, criminal damage which undergoes inhibited urban scaling has been associated with binge drinking in the UK  while property crimes including criminal damage have been linked to foreclosures in the US . Finding general scaling laws for such behaviour suggests many of these have a wider context. In the case of criminal damage and arson, opportunities appear to be reduced at high population density and high amounts of property crime associated with foreclosures may be a symptom of loss of an inhibitory population density rather than foreclosures directly. A detailed review aligning the scaling laws reported here with the extensive criminological literature should provide considerable insight.

Specifically urban scaling phenomena were associated with transitions between 10 and 70 p/ha. The high end of the density thresholds (63 p/ha) exceeds the highest density threshold considered by Arcuate et al. (40 p/ha) . It also exceeds the average population density of London (59 p/ha) and all the large cities in Europe and North America outside of Mexico (*e.g.* Moscow (35 p/ha), Paris (38 p/ha), and Zurich (32 p/ha)) . It is noteworthy that the highest population density found in a US or Canadian city (Los Angeles) is 24 p/ha when considered as a whole . This suggests that most of the transitions seen here may be unobservable in much of Europe and North America unless cities are subdivided into high density regions as was done here.

# Conclusion

This study significantly refines the urban scaling hypothesis. It set out to investigate regions that are reasonably well matched in population to accentuate scaling behaviours that might arise from inhomogeneity within cities and other density related features. Despite relatively small population variation, there is support for the existing view of population scaling, however in this data set density metrics were universally better. For some metrics, a single power law is sufficient to explain scaling at all population densities over a continuum from rural to urban. These metrics are subject to a single rural-urban scaling law and, in such cases, the scaling behavior of human environments is simpler than previously thought. As there is no clear distinction to be made between urban and rural environments for these metrics, there is less need to define city boundaries precisely. For other metrics, there is indisputable evidence for specifically rural and specifically urban scaling.

The results indicate that many metrics are not scale invariant in what are currently understood as urban settings. Observed transitions from rural to urban behaviour were in the range of 10-60 p/ha which is roughly in the midrange of the top 1000 cities with $>$`<!-- -->`{=html}500,000 of population when sorted by population density . These scaling transitions are associated with acceleration, inhibition, or collapse of the scaling law within the high population density environments of cities. Such behavior is intuitive for some metrics. For example, detached housing is clearly an unsustainable property type at high population density and a collapse in transactions of this type is unsurprising in a high density urban environment. Finding a transition at urban population densities clearly supports the notion of uniquely urban behavior underlying the urban scaling hypothesis. However, most currently published studies have not examined the low side of these density thresholds in detail and will miss the transition from rural to urban scaling. It is also of interest to do more extensive studies on the great cities of Asia, Africa, and the Americas south of the Mexico-USA border. Cities in these parts of the world have particularly high population densities not found in Europe and other parts of North America and may yield more interesting behavior.

Implicit in the design of this study is the notion that both rural and urban environments are non-uniform. A city the size of London is heterogeneous in its distribution of population, property and crime. Greater London includes 73 constituencies allowing the non-uniformity of this region to be considered in the scaling models rather than as a single monolithic conurbation or metropolitan region.

Finally, this study adds evidence to the long-standing challenge to crime rates and per capita comparisons . It is clear that high or low per capita crime rates are uninterpretable outside of the context of the scaling law to which they belong and, based on the current study, similar considerations are appropriate for the study of property transactions.

# Supporting Information

## S1 Dataset

**Data employed in this study.** Snapshot of police reported crime captured 10/6/2015 and property transaction values captured 17/7/2015 for the 12 months of 2014. (XLSX)

## S1 Fig.

![image](figs0.pdf)

**Comparison of maximal information coefficient (MIC) for different property and crime types.** Similarly to adjusted $R^2$, markedly improved correlations are observed using density metrics which were superior in all cases. Here the error bars stand for 99% confidence interval obtained via bootstrap. Unlike adjusted $R^2$, MIC indicates no significant difference between population density and day population density (via bootstrap two-sample mean test with 99% confidence) for other theft and shoplifting.

## S2 Fig.

![image](figs1.pdf)

**Comparison of the single power-law model (Eq. ) and the double power-law model (Eq. ) using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).** Error bars stand for 99% bootstrap confidence intervals and the asterisk marks indicate a significant difference (via bootstrap two-sample mean test with 99% confidence). Notice that the AIC criteria differs from the adjusted $R^2$ only for bike theft.

## S3 Fig.

![image](figs2.pdf)

**Comparison of the single power-law model (Eq. ) and the double power-law model (Eq. ) using the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC).** Error bars stand for 99% bootstrap confidence intervals and the asterisk marks indicate a significant difference (via bootstrap two-sample mean test with 99% confidence). Notice that the BIC criteria differs from the adjusted $R^2$ only for ASB, bike theft and freehold.

## S4 Fig.

![image](figs3.pdf)

**Comparison of the double power-law model statistics for adjusted $R^2$, AIC and BIC for ASB, Bike Theft and Freehold Property (Eq. )** These three metrics were the only cases where the criteria diverged. These can be considered marginal cases of urban scaling transitions.

# Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Office of National Statistics and the UK Home Office for making these data publicly available. HVR thanks the financial support of CNPq (grant 440650/2014-3)

# Authors Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: QH and HVR. Performed the experiments: QH, HVR, and DL. Analyzed the data: QH and HVR . Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: QH, HVR, and DL . Wrote the paper: QH, HVR, and DL.


abstract: I draw attention to statistical and probabilistic and computer science aspects of the very, very close by topic of quantum internet.
bibliography: references.bib
title: Quantum Computation, Data Science, and Bell games

|                                            |     |
|:------------------------------------------:|:---:|
|              Richard D. Gill               |     |
|  Mathematical Institute, Leiden University |     |

***Keywords:*** Bell game, loophole-free Bell experiments, Bell inequality, quantum non-locality, classical versus quantum distributed computing

# Media Summary

Quantum computing seems to be on the way, but still there are many hurdles to overcome and still there are some who have fundamental doubts that it will ever deliver the goods. In the meantime, a parallel research effort is being made in designing and implementing quantum internet. How about the prospect of uploading a quantum state to a quantum computer over a quantum communication channel? In fact, that is exactly what quantum teleportation is about. Quantum internet could also have application in generating shared classical cryptographic keys in a way which ensures that two distant parties can each be sure of having a copy of the key, and simultaneously be sure that nobody else can know it. I make a connection between quantum internet and one of Yazhen Wang's topics, namely the topic of Bell games. Already, collaboration between statisticians and probabilists on the one hand, and quantum physicists both experimental and theoretical on the other hand, has led to important developments, connected to the challenging problem of performing successful loophole-free Bell experiments. This story is by no means finished though 2015 saw major breakthroughs. The author contributed to that through his earlier work 20 years ago on whether or not it is possible to fake quantum correlations on distributed classical computers. The answer is, of course, that it cannot be done. Martingale methods have been used to found "evidence based physics". Randomisation can be used to neutralise important confounding factors such as time, and to lead to statistical tests of quantum-ness based on the probabilistic properties of the experimenters' randomisers, rather than on dubious statistical assumptions about the physics.

# Discussion

As a mathematical statistician who has throughout his career both contributed to mathematical statistics and worked again and again in various applied fields, I have always considered myself a data-scientist, combining (I hope!) skills in pure mathematics (probability theory and mathematical statistics), data analysis (always taking advantage of advances in computational possibilities), and understanding of the applied field scientific or societal issues of my collaborators. They have been medical doctors (survival analysis and cancer research), lawyers (miscarriages of justice), and last but not least, quantum physicists, both theoretical and experimental. The best research groups in quantum computation and quantum information have excellent theoreticians as well as experimentalists on their teams. I first got involved in the field of quantum information more than 20 years ago, see Yazhen Wang's references \[8\] and \[11\]. It seemed that the statistical community was not ready to get involved, and I fear that they really missed the boat. Somehow, people with a classical statistical background, at least 20 years ago, were so in awe of theoretical physics, and so influenced by the folk-lore that quantum probability is not "our" probability, that almost nobody in my circles dared to get involved. Of course, when we started, there were no accessible introductions to quantum information theory. The bible of quantum information (see reference \[44\]) first came out in the year 2000.

I hope that things are changing at last and I believe that Yazhen Wang's paper will help provide the needed impetus. I would like to comment on what is perhaps a side topic in his paper, but one where again there is enormous scope for data scientists to get involved. And that is because not only is quantum computing a burgeoning field, but also quantum internet is on its way; indeed, possibly it will be with us sooner.

The connection with Yazhen's paper lies in his Section 3.4: tests and nonlocal games. The archetypical situation here is of two distant laboratories, in each of which is some measurement apparatus. Alice and Bob are two friends in those two labs, and they built the apparatus just how they liked. Well coordinated by prior arrangement, they each insert a binary input into their apparatus. Think of those inputs as being supplied from the outside world, by an opponent who wants to thwart Alice and Bob's plans to coordinate the outputs they will see in relation to the inputs which they will be supplied by their opponent. The machines whir or hum and very fast, each delivers a binary output. The spatio-temporal arrangements are such that, even if transferred by a signal propagating at the speed of light, Alice's input would not be available at Bob's lab till after Bob's output has been generated, and vice-versa.

Naturally, thanks to prior coordination, and having complete control of the apparatus in their labs, Alice and Bob can arrange that their results (on many repetitions of the same "game") are strongly correlated. However, if the inputs are completely unpredictable and completely uncorrelated with the stuff in the machines, it is not difficult to derive the Bell-CHSH inequality displayed in Yazhen's Section 3.4. Here I will derive what is actually an equivalent form, starting from a trivial deterministic result. And from that, I will derive a stronger probabilistic inequality.

Under a classical picture of the world, any mathematical physical model of the situation at hand would allow one to define so-called counterfactual variables, standing for the outcomes which Alice or Bob would have seen, if given either of the two possible inputs. Because of the space-time constraints, those potential outputs (one for each potential input and in each wing of the experiment) could not possibly also depend on the actual input given to their friend. I'll denote the two possible values of each input by '1', '2'. The outputs will take the numerical values $+/-1$. (Many computer scientists prefer to rewrite all this using bits "0" and "1" for the possible values of both inputs and outputs.) I'll use the symbols $a$ and $b$ to denote inputs, and use the symbols $x$ and $y$ to denote outputs. (Some physicists use the opposite convention). The counterfactual outputs are denoted by $x_1, x_2, y_1, y_2$. Their relation with the actual inputs and outputs are the consistency relations $x = x_a$, $y = y_b$. In words: Alice determines whether the output she actually will observe will be $x_1$ or $x_2$ by whether she is supplied with $a=1$ or $a= 2$ by her opponent; Bob determines whether the output he actually observes will be $y_1$ or $y_2$ by whether he is supplied with $b=1$ or $b= 2$. The reader will see from m y terminology that I am thinking in terms of the modern statistical theory of causality pioneered and promoted by Judea Pearl and many others.

Notice that whatever values $\pm1$ the four counterfactual outcomes take, $(x_1y_1)(x_2 y_1)(x_2 y_2)(x_1y_2)= +1$. It follows that the number of equalities $x_1= y_1$, $x_2 = y_1$, $x_2 = y_2$, $x_1 = y_2$ which are true must be even, and the number of inequalities which are true must be even, too. Three inequalities and one equality is impossible. Thus, given a list of one inequality and three equalities, at least one of the four statements must be true. Using the notation $I\{\dots\}$ to stand for an indicator variable equal to 1 or 0 depending on whether the statement in curly brackets is true or not, this means that $$I\{ x_1 \ne y_1 \} + I\{x_2 = y_1\} + I\{x_2 = y_2\} + I\{x_1 = y_2\}~ \ge ~1.$$ At least one of the four indicator variables must take the value $1$. Now let $A$ and $B$ be independent fair coin tosses taking values in $\{\textrm{`1'}, \textrm{`2'}\}$. By $AB$ I will denote the random two character string formed by concatenating $A$ and $B$. It takes the values '11', '12', '21', '22', with equal probabilities $1/4$. Multiply the previous equation throughout by $1/4$. This gives us, $$I\{x_1 \ne y_1\}P(AB = 11)$$ $$\hskip2em+ I\{x_2 = y_1\} P(AB = 21)$$ $$\hskip2em+ I\{x_2 = y_2\} P(AB = 22)$$ $$\hskip2em+ I\{x_1 = y_2\} P(AB = 12)$$ $$\ge ~ \frac14.$$ The game which Alice and Bob (who previously built and set up their machines) play against an opponent (who supplies the inputs) actually consists of many rounds, and in each round, Alice and Bob win if their outcomes are different and neither setting equals "1", or their outcomes are the same and both settings are "1". We have just proven that the chance that Alice and Bob *lose* any particular round is *at least* 1/4. The chance they win a round therefore cannot exceed 3/4 = 0.75.

Everything I just said is also true for each separate round, conditional on all preceding rounds. The conditional probability of winning a given round conditional on the entire past history of any number of rounds and given the current state of their machines is bounded by 3/4. It easily follows that if they play $N$ rounds, their number of wins is stochastically bounded by a binomial random variable with number of trials equal to $N$ and with success probability 3/4.

Note that it is allowed that the states of their apparatus in the $n$th round can depend on all past inputs and outputs in any way whatsoever. All kinds of physical parameters might be changing as time goes by, and this might happen in a way which is correlated in the two labs. Past results in Alice's lab might also influence what goes on in Bob's a short time later, and vice versa. As long as they just keep on fixing settings by tossing fair coins, it does not matter. In statistical terms, strict randomization of treatments of our $2N$ subjects means that we do not have to worry about the possible hidden confounder *time*.

According to quantum mechanics however, they could have a success probability of a little bit more than 0.85 if only they were able using quantum internet to set up, in each round, before the settings of that round are delivered to them, a maximally entangled pair of qubits in the appropriate state. The 2015 loophole free Bell experiments played this game using quantum entanglement (and indeed, sophisticated entanglement swapping techniques and other innovations). They showed, modulo some statistical imperfections, that the Bell game can be won with a success probability larger than 0.75 by exploiting quantum non-locality. Even better experiments should be ready any day now. (The teams in Delft and Munich only just achieved statistical significance at the 5% level, their value of $N$ was rather small; their success rates were very nice, namely about $0.8$; the Vienna and NIST teams got an astronomically high statistical significance but a success rate of only about 0.750001)

This whole story goes back to papers I wrote in 2001 in which I studied distributed computer simulations of the Bell game. I needed to take account of the fact that a small network of computers simulating the different locations of the Bell game might reasonably be allowed to communicate between rounds and to change strategy as time goes on. A lot of statistical analysis goes into these experiments. Quantum informed data scientists need to be involved!

The techniques used in the 2015 Delft and Munich experiments used an elegant "entanglement swapping" technique, essentially a form of quantum teleportation. This technique is now being refined and extended to give us quantum repeater networks by which one will be able to teleport a qubit from one quantum computer to another. For some recent results, see