Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Location-Based Service (LBS) Data Quality Metrics and Effects on Mobility Inference

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that LBS data quality—measured by record count and temporal occupancy—predicts how much stay-point inference is biased, and that affluent areas paradoxically supply more data of lower quality.

desk verdict A useful empirical study of LBS data quality with a genuinely new demographic paradox, but its central bias coefficients are only established for random thinning, not real structured missingness. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16595 v1 pith:QMIMKXEP submitted 2024-11-25 cs.CE

Xinhua Wu , Yanchao Wang , Ekin Ugurel , Cynthia Chen , Shuai Huang , Qi R. Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CE
keywords location-basedservicedataqualitymobilityinferencebiasstaypointdetectionresampling-basedassessmentdemographicdisparitiesclusteredstandarderrorsGPSsparsity
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

Location-based service (LBS) data—the GPS traces your phone app sends—arrives in uneven, gap-filled chunks, and this paper asks how much those gaps distort what researchers can infer about a person's day. Using two months of LBS data from the Boston Metropolitan Area, the authors define five quality metrics (e.g., number of records per day, how many 30-minute windows are covered, and the longest gap between records) and show that better scores on these metrics significantly reduce bias in detecting stay points—places where a person stops. They also report a demographic paradox: census block groups with higher incomes, more college graduates, and mostly white residents contribute more users to the dataset but produce lower-quality traces, possibly because those users manage app permissions more carefully. The payoff is a resampling framework that lets any LBS workflow quantify its own bias instead of assuming the data is representative. If the framework is right, mobility studies using raw LBS data are systematically undercounting stays, and the size of that error is predictable from a handful of data-quality numbers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the resampling-based bias assessment framework. It first isolates 24-hour user-days that meet a strict quality bar (temporal occupancy = 48, maximum record gap ≤ 20 minutes, at least 500 records), treats the stay points detected on those days as ground truth, then repeatedly resamples each day at rates from 1% to 90% to manufacture degraded datasets. For every resampled day it recomputes five quality metrics—number of observations, temporal occupancy, maximum record gap, percentage of high-accuracy observations, and temporal burstiness—and the stay-point count, defining bias as the difference from the ground-truth day. An ordinary least squares regression of bias on the quality metrics, with standard errors clustered by source day to handle the autocorrelation induced by resampling the same day ten times, turns the quality metrics into quantitative predictors of inference error. The framework is modular: selection rules, resampling strategies, stay-point detectors, and regression specifications can each be swapped.

What would settle it

Equip a subsample of the same users with a high-resolution GPS logger or prompted location diary on days that meet the paper's high-quality criterion; if the logger or diary reveals stays that the LBS ground truth misses, the bias coefficients are referenced to a flawed ground truth. Separately, resample using empirically observed missingness patterns (gap clusters from permission blocks or signal loss) rather than uniform random thinning; if the coefficients change materially, the paper's error model underestimates real-world bias.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the bias in LBS-derived mobility estimates is predictable and reducible: increasing the daily record count by 100 lowers stay-point error by 0.2, increasing temporal occupancy (the number of 30-minute slots with at least one observation) by 10 lowers error by 1.2, and adding maximum record gap, high-accuracy share, and temporal burstiness to the model explains still more variance (R2 from 0.541 to 0.571). The same analysis documents a quality paradox: higher-income, more-educated, predominantly white census block groups show higher LBS sampling rates but lower data quality under all three qualification criteria, with the gap largest for Criterion 1 (e.g., qualified rate 0.48% in the most educated quintile B5 versus 1.46% in the least educated B1). The paper interprets this as a privacy-awareness effect rather than a technology-use effect.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's ground truth is defined by the same quality metrics used as predictors—a day counts as unbiased only if it has at least 500 records, a maximum gap of 20 minutes, and all 48 half-hour slots filled—so if such days still miss real stays, or if random downsampling fails to imitate real-world missingness driven by permissions and urban canyons, every computed bias coefficient is measured against the wrong reference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Applications that count stays—trip generation, activity-based models, urban vitality measures—should expect undercounting from raw LBS data and can apply the reported coefficients as a first-order correction.
  • Demographic comparisons of mobility built on LBS data will mix true mobility differences with data-quality differences; the paradox implies affluent areas' mobility is disproportionately undercounted despite their higher participation.
  • Including data-quality metrics as covariates in mobility regressions should absorb a meaningful share of the error, improving coefficient estimates on substantive variables.
  • The framework transfers to other workflows: the same resampling-plus-regression recipe can quantify bias in trip counts, distances, or origin-destination matrices, or compare different stay-point algorithms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Extension: Uniform random downsampling is a benign missingness model; real LBS gaps cluster in urban canyons, transit tunnels, battery-saving modes, and permission blocks, so re-running the framework with empirically fitted gap distributions would likely change the coefficients and reveal which quality metrics matter most under realistic missingness.
  • Extension: The privacy explanation is plausible but untested against direct privacy behavior data; a direct test would link app-permission settings or location-services toggles on individual devices to the measured quality metrics.
  • Extension: Because the ground truth is itself LBS data that meets a strict threshold, the framework measures relative bias (degraded versus dense LBS), not absolute error against actual human activity; absolute validation would need an independent source such as a prompted-location diary or wearable GPS logger.
  • Extension: The same machinery could support targeted data-collection or imputation decisions, for example concentrating extra collection effort on user-days with low temporal occupancy, where predicted bias is largest.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the quality of location-based service (LBS) data in the Boston metropolitan area and its effect on inferring individual stay points. The authors define five data quality metrics (number of observations, temporal occupancy, maximum record gap, percentage of high-accuracy observations, temporal burstiness), analyze how these metrics vary across census block groups with different income, education, and racial composition, and report a demographic paradox: higher-income, more educated, and predominantly white areas have higher LBS sampling rates but lower qualified-data rates. They then propose a resampling-based framework that selects high-quality user-days as a ground truth, randomly downsamples them at rates from 1% to 90%, detects stay points with scikit-mobility, and uses OLS regression with clustered standard errors to quantify how data quality metrics affect the bias in the number of stays. The regression results suggest that more observations and higher temporal occupancy reduce stay-point bias, with an increase of 100 observations reducing bias by 0.2 and a 10-point increase in temporal occupancy reducing bias by 1.2. The paper concludes that data quality is a critical determinant of bias in mobility inference and that its framework can be adapted to different data processing workflows.

Significance. If the reported relationships hold, the paper would provide a practical, quantitative link between data quality metrics and mobility-inference bias, which is valuable for the large community that uses passive LBS data for travel behavior, urban planning, and epidemiological studies. The demographic analysis, if robust, raises important equity concerns about the differential validity of LBS-based inference across income and racial groups. The paper has concrete strengths: it uses a large real-world LBS dataset (25 million user-days), it explicitly addresses resampling-induced autocorrelation by using clustered standard errors, and it proposes a modular framework whose components can be swapped. However, the central quantitative claims rest on two fragile pillars: ground truth is defined by the very quality metrics used as predictors, and the synthetic missingness mechanism is uniform random thinning, which does not reproduce the structured missingness described in the paper's introduction. These issues are load-bearing and currently prevent the results from being interpreted as general statements about LBS data quality and stay-point bias.

major comments (4)
  1. [Data Selection and Resampling; Case study: Experiment setting] The ground-truth selection is circular with respect to the independent variables. High-quality days are defined by temporal occupancy = 48, maximum record gap <= 20 minutes, and number of records >= 500, and the same types of metrics (number of observations, temporal occupancy, maximum record gap) are then used as predictors in Table 3. The dependent variable is therefore the difference between stay detection on a resampled day and stay detection on a day that was selected precisely because it scores at the top of those same quality dimensions. The paper acknowledges in "Data Selection and Resampling" that the framework assumes high-quality data are "nearly unbiased," but this assumption is never validated against independent ground truth, such as GPS logger data, travel diaries, or known itineraries. As written, the regression coefficients in Table 3 quantify deviation from a quality-defined proxy, not error relative to true mobility, and the abstract's claim that better quality "significantly reduce[s] the bias" is not established for real stay inference.
  2. [Case study: Experiment setting; Introduction] The missingness mechanism used in the case study is random uniform downsampling at rates from 1% to 90%, repeated 10 times per day. This is not the missingness described in the Introduction, which includes user-controlled location permissions, urban-canyon GPS interference, and operating-system background restrictions. Those mechanisms remove data in time-correlated or location-selective blocks (for example, all points during a meeting or all points at a sensitive location), not as independent random thinning. Under uniform random thinning, the data quality metrics are monotonically related to the retained fraction, so the regression essentially recovers the effect of thinning intensity; it does not inform how structured missingness affects stay-point detection. The framework's claim that resampling can "simulate LBS data of different qualities as found in real-world scenarios" requires validation using at least one structured missingness model (e.g., contiguous block removal, location-based gaps, or empirically derived missingness from low-quality days in the raw Spectus data), and the current experiment does not provide it.
  3. [Table 3; Results] The regression results are reported without standard errors, confidence intervals, or test statistics. The table's note that "all parameters are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level" cannot be checked, and the paper provides no cluster-robust standard errors despite stating that they were used. This omission is particularly important because Model 3 estimates a negative coefficient for temporal occupancy (-0.0934) while Model 1 estimates a positive coefficient (0.1224), suggesting instability or multicollinearity among the quality metrics; the paper does not discuss this sign flip. Without standard errors and multicollinearity diagnostics (e.g., variance inflation factors), the quantitative claims in the abstract and Results section (100 observations reduce bias by 0.2; 10-point occupancy increase reduces bias by 1.2) are not verifiable. The authors should report the clustered standard errors for all coefficients and comment on the sign instability.
  4. [Inequity in the quality of LBS data; Table 2] The demographic paradox rests on qualification rates based on three arbitrarily chosen thresholds (Criterion 1, 2, and 3), and no sensitivity analysis is provided to show whether the finding of lower data quality in higher-income, more educated, and predominantly white CBGs is stable across reasonable threshold choices. The significance testing is also under-specified: the paper refers to Mann–Whitney U tests without stating the unit of analysis (CBG-level rates or day-level records), and it does not account for the high correlation among income, education, and race. A multivariate regression of data quality metrics on demographics, or at minimum a correlation analysis, is needed to support the claim that the paradox is associated with these demographic axes rather than with some confounded spatial pattern of LBS collection.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "higher sampling rates" is used before the term "sampling rate" is defined; define it in the abstract or in the Dataset section.
  2. [Table 1] Temporal occupancy is defined as the number of 30-minute slots in which a device is observed, but the table does not state that this count is capped at 48; make this explicit for clarity.
  3. [Case study: Experiment setting] The choice of no_data_for_minutes = 30 for stay-point detection is not justified, and it directly interacts with the maximum-record-gap metric; a short sensitivity analysis would clarify the robustness of the results to this parameter.
  4. [Equation (2)] The covariance matrix Omega is referred to as "the covariance matrix of residuals," but the formula is the standard sandwich estimator; please state more precisely that Omega is the cluster-robust covariance matrix of the residuals and specify the clustering variable.
  5. [Figure 1] Figure 1 is mentioned in the text but does not appear in the arXiv version; ensure the figure is included in the final submission.
  6. [Table 3] The table reports R2 rather than adjusted R2; report adjusted R2 when comparing models with different numbers of predictors, and consider reporting the root mean square error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bias variable is an independently computed stay-count difference, not a redefinition of the quality metrics.

full rationale

The paper's central regression relates data-quality metrics (independent variables) to stay-point count bias (dependent variable), where bias is defined as the difference between stay points detected from a resampled trace and stay points detected from the original high-quality trace. This is not a definitional identity: the dependent variable is a stay-detection outcome produced by scikit-mobility, not a quality metric itself. The selection of 'ground truth' using the same quality thresholds is an explicitly stated assumption ('assuming that using these high-quality datasets for inferring human mobility is nearly unbiased'), not a hidden reduction; the fitted regression is not forced through zero, and the model's predicted bias at full quality is not zero, confirming that bias is not algebraically identical to the metrics. The uniform random resampling is a deliberate missingness model; whether it replicates real-world LBS missingness is an external-validity limitation, not circularity. Author self-citations (e.g., Refs. 3, 7, 11, 26, 38) appear only as background or contrast citations and do not carry the derivation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is simply relabeled. Hence no circular step meets the evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on several hand-chosen thresholds and domain assumptions about what LBS data represents. The most consequential are the ground-truth selection criteria and the assumption that random downsampling mimics real missingness. There are no new physical entities or forces introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Ground-truth selection thresholds = temporal occupancy = 48; maximum record gap <= 20 min; number of records >= 500
    These hand-chosen thresholds define what counts as unbiased data. All bias estimates and regression coefficients depend on this choice.
  • Resampling rates and repetitions = 1% to 90% downsampling; 10 repetitions per day
    Chosen to generate quality variations; no sensitivity analysis is reported for the resampling range or repetition count.
  • Stay detection parameter no_data_for_minutes = 30 minutes
    This scikit-mobility parameter determines which gaps break a stay point. Changing it would change stay counts and therefore the measured bias.
  • C1-C3 data quality criteria thresholds = C1: occupancy >= 40, gap <= 40 min, records >= 300; C2: >= 20, <= 120, >= 100; C3: >= 10, <= 480, >= 20
    These criteria define the demographic quality rates in Table 2. The choice of thresholds affects the reported disparities.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Random uniform resampling approximates naturally missing LBS data
    The framework creates missingness by random downsampling, but real missingness is driven by app permissions, urban canyons, battery saving, and privacy choices, which are unlikely to be missing at random.
  • domain assumption High-quality user-days are unbiased ground truth for stay detection
    The paper assumes that traces with occupancy 48, max gap <= 20 minutes, and >= 500 records contain no significant stay-detection errors. This premise is load-bearing for all bias calculations.
  • domain assumption Nighttime most-frequent location identifies the user's home census block group
    Used to assign users to CBGs for demographic analysis. Errors in home inference would misclassify users and bias the demographic comparisons.
  • domain assumption The Spectus LBS panel is representative enough for demographic comparison
    The sampling rate is computed as user count divided by CBG population, implicitly assuming the observed users are a random sample of each CBG's population with respect to data quality.
  • standard math OLS with clustered standard errors is valid after resampling
    The paper correctly identifies cluster dependence from repeated resampling of the same day and applies cluster-robust standard errors, a standard remedy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Location-Based Service (LBS) Data Quality Metrics and Effects on Mobility Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QMIMKXEP

@misc{pith2026241116595,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Location-Based Service (LBS) Data Quality Metrics and Effects on Mobility Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QMIMKXEP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16595}
}
read the original abstract

Today, GPS-equipped mobile devices are ubiquitous, and they generate Location-Based Service (LBS) data, which has become a critical resource for understanding human mobility. However, inherent limitations in LBS datasets, primarily characterized by discontinuity and sparsity, may introduce significant biases in representing individual movement patterns. This study develops data quality metrics for LBS data, examines their disparities among different populations, and quantifies their effects on inferred individual movement, stays in particular, in the Boston Metropolitan Area. We find that data from higher-income, more educated, and predominantly white census block groups (CBGs) show higher sampling rates but paradoxically lower data quality. This contradiction may stem from greater privacy awareness in these communities. Additionally, we propose a new framework to resample LBS data and quantitatively evaluate the inferential biases associated with data of varying quality. This versatile framework can analyze the impacts originating from different data processing workflows with LBS data. Using linear regression models with clustered standard error, we assess the impact of data quality metrics on inferring the number of stay points. The results show that better data quality, characterized by the number of observations and temporal occupancy, can significantly reduce the bias when calculating the stay points of an individual. The introduction of additional data quality metrics into the regression model can further explain the bias. Overall, this study provides insights into how data quality can influence our understanding of human mobility patterns, highlighting the importance of carefully handling LBS data in research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16595 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Resampling-based framework to assess the potential bias in LBS data simulate LBS data of different qualities as found in real-world scenarios. The resampling rates can be driven by the data quality observed in empirical LBS data. Diverse resampling methods can be implemented within the same day to augment the variability and richness of the dataset. Data quality calculation and stay point detection For each resample… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E., Small, M

    Wang, Q., Phillips, N. E., Small, M. L. & Sampson, R. J. Urban mobility and neighborhood isolation in america’s 50 largest cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115, 7735–7740 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    C., Hidalgo, C

    González, M. C., Hidalgo, C. A. & Barabási, A.-L. Understanding individual human mobility patterns. Nature 453, 779–782 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    & Wang, Q

    He, H., Wu, X. & Wang, Q. Forecasting urban mobility using sparse data: A gradient boosted fusion tree approach. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on the Human Mobility Prediction Challenge , 41–46 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    & Ratti, C

    Calabrese, F., Colonna, M., Lovisolo, P., Parata, D. & Ratti, C. Real-Time Urban Monitoring Using Cell Phones: A Case Study in Rome. IEEE Transactions on Intell. Transp. Syst. 12, 141–151 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Paipuri, M., Xu, Y ., González, M. C. & Leclercq, L. Estimating MFDs, trip lengths and path flow distributions in a multi-region setting using mobile phone data. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 118, 102709 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    & Frias-Martinez, E

    Frias-Martinez, V ., Soguero, C. & Frias-Martinez, E. Estimation of urban commuting patterns using cellphone network data. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Workshop on Urban Computing , 9–16 (ACM, Beijing China, 2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    & Wang, Q

    Wang, Y ., Zhong, L., Du, J., Gao, J. & Wang, Q. Identifying the shifting sources to predict the dynamics of covid-19 in the us. Chaos: An Interdiscip. J. Nonlinear Sci. 32 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    & Batty, M

    Sulis, P., Manley, E., Zhong, C. & Batty, M. Using mobility data as proxy for measuring urban vitality. J. Spatial Inf. Sci. 137–162 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    & Yin, L

    Wang, C. & Yin, L. Defining urban big data in urban planning: Literature review. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 149, 04022044 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    & Wang, M

    Chen, C., Ma, J., Susilo, Y ., Liu, Y . & Wang, M. The promises of big data and small data for travel behavior (aka human mobility) analysis. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 68, 285–299 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    & Gao, J

    He, H., Deng, H., Wang, Q. & Gao, J. Percolation of temporal hierarchical mobility networks during covid-19. Philos. Transactions Royal Soc. A 380, 20210116 (2022). 7/9

    2022

  4. [12]

    & Savastano, S

    Kilic, T., Zezza, A., Carletto, C. & Savastano, S. Missing(ness) in Action: Selectivity Bias in GPS-Based Land Area Measurements. World Dev. 92, 143–157 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    & Onnela, J.-P

    Barnett, I. & Onnela, J.-P. Inferring mobility measures from GPS traces with missing data. Biostatistics 21, e98–e112 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    & Ahn, J.-H

    Kim, D., Park, K., Park, Y . & Ahn, J.-H. Willingness to provide personal information: Perspective of privacy calculus in IoT services. Comput. Hum. Behav. 92, 273–281 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Groves, P. D. Shadow Matching: A New GNSS Positioning Technique for Urban Canyons. J. Navig. 64, 417–430 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    & Chen, C

    Wang, F. & Chen, C. On data processing required to derive mobility patterns from passively-generated mobile phone data. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 87, 58–74 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Zhou, H. et al. Demystifying diehard Android apps. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 187–198 (ACM, Virtual Event Australia, 2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    & Schouten, B

    McCool, D., Lugtig, P. & Schouten, B. Maximum interpolable gap length in missing smartphone-based gps mobility data. Transportation 51, 1–31 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    M., Snow, R

    Wesolowski, A., Eagle, N., Noor, A. M., Snow, R. W. & Buckee, C. O. Heterogeneous mobile phone ownership and usage patterns in kenya. PloS one 7, e35319 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Mohorko, A., Leeuw, E. d. & Hox, J. Coverage bias in european telephone surveys: developments of landline and mobile phone coverage across countries and over time. Surv. Methods: Insights from Field 13 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    & Barabási, A.-L

    Goh, K.-I. & Barabási, A.-L. Burstiness and memory in complex systems. Europhys. Lett. 81, 48002 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    & Olivier, P

    Phithakkitnukoon, S., Smoreda, Z. & Olivier, P. Socio-Geography of Human Mobility: A Study Using Longitudinal Mobile Phone Data. PLoS ONE 7, e39253 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Csáji, B. C. et al. Exploring the mobility of mobile phone users. Phys. A: Stat. Mech. its Appl. 392, 1459–1473 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Mann, H. B. & Whitney, D. R. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The annals mathematical statistics 50–60 (1947)

    1947

  17. [25]

    Barbosa, H. et al. Human mobility: Models and applications. Phys. Reports 734, 1–74 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Wang, R., Wang, Q. & Li, N. Percolation transitions in urban mobility networks in america’s 50 largest cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 91, 104435 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    & Kimerling, A

    Sahr, K., White, D. & Kimerling, A. J. Geodesic Discrete Global Grid Systems. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 30, 121–134 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    & Pellungrini, R

    Pappalardo, L., Simini, F., Barlacchi, G. & Pellungrini, R. scikit-mobility: A python library for the analysis, generation and risk assessment of mobility data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.07062 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Guan, X. et al. Mobility analysis workflow (maw): An accessible, interoperable, and reproducible container system for processing raw mobile data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.09125 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    & Zeger, S

    Liang, K.-Y . & Zeger, S. L. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models.Biometrika 73, 13–22 (1986)

    1986

  23. [31]

    & Miller, D

    Colin Cameron, A. & Miller, D. L. A Practitioner’s Guide to Cluster-Robust Inference. J. Hum. Resour. 50, 317–372 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Porter, C. E. & Donthu, N. Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. J. business research 59, 999–1007 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    Park, Y . J. Digital literacy and privacy behavior online.Commun. research 40, 215–236 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    M., Raubal, M

    Huang, H., Gartner, G., Krisp, J. M., Raubal, M. & Van de Weghe, N. Location based services: ongoing evolution and research agenda. J. Locat. Based Serv. 12, 63–93 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    & Onnela, J.-P

    Liu, G. & Onnela, J.-P. Bidirectional imputation of spatial GPS trajectories with missingness using sparse online Gaussian Process. J. Am. Med. Informatics Assoc. 28, 1777–1784 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Ren, H. et al. MTrajRec: Map-Constrained Trajectory Recovery via Seq2Seq Multi-task Learning. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , 1410–1419 (ACM, Virtual Event Singapore, 2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    & Liu, Y

    Gong, X., Huang, Z., Wang, Y ., Wu, L. & Liu, Y . High-performance spatiotemporal trajectory matching across heteroge- neous data sources. Futur . Gener. Comput. Syst.105, 148–161 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    U˘gurel, E. et al. Correcting missingness in passively-generated mobile data with Multi-Task Gaussian Processes. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 161 (2024). 8/9 Acknowledgements The team acknowledges the support from the National Science Foundation (No. 2114197 and 211426...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.