MONOPOLY: Learning to Price Public Facilities for Revaluing Private Properties with Large-Scale Urban Data

An Zhuo; HaiFeng Wang; Jizhou Huang; Miao Fan; Ping Li; Ying Li

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

MONOPOLY: Learning to Price Public Facilities for Revaluing Private Properties with Large-Scale Urban Data

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 The paper claims that the hidden 'virtual prices' of public facilities such as schools, parks, and wasteyards can be learned from observed housing prices, and that these learned prices improve house-price prediction and quantify each…

desk verdict Fresh idea, shaky support: the facility-price mechanism is never isolated from the model's use of neighbor ground-truth prices, and the 3.3M unregularized latent prices are overparameterized. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18085 v1 pith:IXXASTCI submitted 2024-11-27 cs.AI cs.SI

Miao Fan , Jizhou Huang , An Zhuo , Ying Li , Ping Li , Haifeng Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.SI

keywords housingpricepredictionpublicfacilityvaluationpointsofinteresturbancomputinglatentvariablemodelgraph-basedregressionrealestate

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

The paper is trying to establish that the value of a private property can be explained as a weighted sum of the values of everything around it, including public facilities that are never bought or sold. It introduces 'Monopoly,' a model that treats the unknown prices of public facilities (schools, hospitals, metro stations, parks, wasteyards, cemeteries) as learnable variables, and fits them together with the model parameters against known housing prices. If the model is right, urban facilities acquire measurable 'virtual prices' that can be used to rank them, to price new or under-construction residential blocks, and to support urban planning and property taxation. Experiments on four Chinese metropolises show that this joint learning improves prediction error over linear regression, gradient boosting, and neural network baselines, while also yielding interpretable per-facility premia and discounts.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is an undirected weighted graph of points of interest in which the vector $u$ of public-facility prices is treated as adaptive variables rather than fixed features. The prediction equation $\hat{h} = S(x;\Theta)\,(w \cdot F(D;\Phi))$ performs a distance-weighted summation over neighboring residential-block prices $v$ and facility prices $u$, with $F$ a softmax weighting over Euclidean and trajectory distances and $S$ a sigmoid constructed from the property's own attributes. Because the inner product is the only place where the facility prices enter, the gradient of the squared-price loss flows directly into $u$. A parallel stochastic-gradient algorithm synchronizes gradients from many residential blocks in each round, so that facility prices shared by many properties receive consistent updates until the loss converges.

What would settle it

Evaluate the trained model on a holdout of residential blocks whose neighboring ground-truth prices have been masked, leaving only property attributes and facility prices as inputs. If prediction error jumps to the level of the attribute-only baselines, then the reported gains come from reading off nearby labels rather than from the learned facility prices. A second check is a shift-symmetry test: add a constant to all learned facility prices and allow the scale and bias parameters to refit; if many parameter settings give essentially the same loss, the absolute 'virtual prices' are not uniquely determined and should not be compared across cities as absolute values.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claimed is that public facilities have estimable virtual prices that emerge as latent variables in a housing price regression. On a graph where each residential block is connected to the blocks and facilities within a radius $l$, the model predicts a block's price as $\hat{h} = S(x;\Theta) (w \cdot F(D;\Phi))$, where $w$ concatenates the known prices of neighboring residential blocks $v$ with the unknown prices of public facilities $u$, $F$ is a softmax weighting over Euclidean and trajectory distances, and $S$ is a sigmoid built from the block's own attributes. The unknowns ($u$, $\Theta$, $\Phi$) are updated by minimizing squared error on observed prices, so the facility prices are produced by the same optimization that fits the property values. The authors report that this scheme outperforms several mainstream baselines on large-scale data from Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen, and that the resulting facility prices align with economic intuition: scenic spots, education, and transport add value, while wasteyards and cemeteries subtract it.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the market prices of all neighboring residential blocks within the chosen radius are already known and supplied as input features for every property being priced; if those neighbor prices are unavailable, as with a newly built or sparsely transacted block, the model as presented has no way to make a prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Housing price prediction improves when the feature set includes the learned virtual prices of public facilities, especially in cities where observed neighboring block prices are sparse.
Public facilities can be ranked by their learned contribution to property values, giving home buyers, planners, and tax authorities a quantitative, data-driven reference.
The learned facility prices can be used to revalue residential blocks that are under construction, using only their attributes and the surrounding facility prices.
The model's fitted parameters offer practical rules of thumb, including the dominance of property type and district among attributes, the near-equivalence of Euclidean and trajectory distance, and an optimal influence radius of roughly 1 to 3 km.

Reading between the lines

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

We infer that the virtual prices are likely identifiable only up to a shift that the sigmoid scale could absorb, so a formal identifiability analysis is needed before the absolute premium of one facility is compared across cities.
We infer that the 'under construction' use case requires an extension that can operate without ground-truth neighbor prices $v$, because the published algorithm takes $v$ as an input feature for every prediction.
We infer that the city-specific premium patterns (government agencies in Beijing, finance in Shanghai and Guangzhou) could be developed into an urban-amenity capitalization index, a step the paper mentions in passing but does not take.
We infer that the inner-product formulation is a special case of graph learning on heterogeneous POI graphs, so the core idea could carry over to graph neural networks with richer information sharing.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Hi,

Quick take: the paper has a fresh idea—treat public-facility prices as learnable latent variables inside a hedonic graph model—but the experiments don't show that those latent prices are what's doing the work. The reported gains over DNN are small, and the model architecture lets it lean on neighboring ground-truth prices (v) which all methods have access to. The evaluation never isolates the contribution of u.

What's genuine: the graph organization of POIs and the joint iterative updating of facility prices is a reasonable new application, and the MapReduce details are practical. The authors also released code, which is good practice. The paper is readable, and the insights in Section 5 are clearly presented.

Where it gets soft. First, the random city-level split means a test block's feature vector can include the labels of other test or validation blocks. That's not necessarily leakage in a real-estate appraisal setting—neighbor prices are legitimate features—but it does mean the model can predict well by copying nearby prices. The baselines also use v, so the comparison is not unfair, but it means the paper's claim that learning u drives the improvement is unsubstantiated. There's no ablation with v removed or with u frozen at zero.

Second, and more seriously, the model fits about 3.3 million facility prices u with only ~30k training blocks, with no regularization described. That is massively overparameterized. The learned virtual prices in Table 4 are almost certainly overfit and can't be trusted as economic valuations. The attribute preferences in Table 3 are the same fitted parameters, so those insights are restatements of the fit.

Third, the stated use case of valuing properties under construction doesn't address missing v. If a new development has no nearby sales, the model has no way to handle that.

Bottom line: the core mechanism is plausible but unproven. The paper is a decent industrial case study, but the empirical claims need stronger support. A referee should ask for an ablation isolating v and u, proper regularization for u, and an evaluation that does not rely on neighbor labels being available at inference.

For peer review, I'd send it to referees—the idea deserves scrutiny and a revision could fix the evaluation. But I wouldn't cite it as evidence for facility-price valuation as it stands. Worth a reading-group discussion on why spatial CV matters.

Cheers.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MONOPOLY, a model that estimates the virtual prices of public facilities while predicting residential property prices. It represents residential blocks and public facilities as nodes in a graph, and predicts a block's price as the product of a sigmoid attribute factor and a distance-weighted average of surrounding block prices and facility prices (Eq. 4). The facility prices are learned as free variables in the same optimization objective. Experiments on data from four Chinese cities report that MONOPOLY outperforms several baselines in MAE, RMSE, and R², and the learned facility prices are presented as insights. The paper claims applications in real estate investment, urban planning, and taxation.

Significance. The paper is clearly written and presents an interesting industrial formulation, with a distributed algorithm and publicly available source code. If the empirical results were valid, the approach would be a notable contribution to urban computing and business intelligence. However, the evaluation has a fundamental flaw: test predictions can use ground-truth neighbor prices as input features, which is label leakage. Additionally, the large number of unregularized facility-price parameters makes the learned insights unreliable. These issues are load-bearing, not presentation details.

major comments (4)

[§4.1 and Eq. (4)] The evaluation protocol leaks test-set labels. The residential blocks are randomly split per city into train/validate/test. For a test block, the feature vector v in Eq. (4) contains the ground-truth prices of neighboring residential blocks, which may belong to the test or validation set. Since housing prices are strongly spatially autocorrelated, a weighted average of these v values alone can yield accurate predictions. The reported gain over DNN is small (R² 0.623 vs 0.616 in Table 2), consistent with leakage. This invalidates the central claim that MONOPOLY improves housing price prediction and that its facility prices drive the improvement.
[§3 and Table 1] Algorithm 1 optimizes a separate unregularized virtual price u for each of the 3,348,777 public facilities, while the training set has only 29,534 instances. This is a severely underdetermined problem; the u's can absorb arbitrary residuals and are non-identifiable. The paper does not describe any regularization, constraints, or stability checks, so the learned facility valuations in Section 5.2 cannot be taken as reliable.
[§5.2 and Eq. (5)] The 'virtual prices' reported in Table 4 are fitted parameters from the same objective that predicts housing prices. They are not independent discoveries but rather values chosen to minimize the training loss. Interpreting them as evidence about the 'collective intelligence' of home buyers (Section 5.2) is circular; no out-of-sample validation is provided.
[§2.1 and Algorithm 1] The paper states the goal of valuing 'residential blocks that are under construction' (Section 2.1). In that scenario, the ground-truth neighbor prices v required by Eq. (4) do not exist. The model has no mechanism for missing v; the paper does not describe how to handle incomplete neighbor information. Thus the proposed method cannot actually perform the key application it claims.

minor comments (6)

[§4.3, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) defines RMSE as the average squared error without a square root. The reported values (e.g., 15,234 in Table 2) are consistent with RMSE, so the equation should include sqrt(·).
[§4.4] The claimed improvements of 1,076 CNY/m² in MAE and 999 CNY/m² in RMSE are averages over the 0.5 km and 1.0 km settings. This should be stated explicitly, as it is not obvious from the text.
[Table 6] In the 5.0 km block, the RMSE row appears misaligned: the values for Shanghai and Guangzhou seem swapped relative to the MAE row.
[§5.3] The conclusion that Euclidean and trajectory distances are equivalent is based on the fitted parameter Φ; this is an in-sample result and should be labeled as such.
[Figure 3] Figure 3 uses two y-axes but the caption does not specify which axis corresponds to MAE/RMSE and which to R²; please add a legend or explicit label.
[§5.1] The 'normalized' parameter θ is shown in Table 3, but the normalization procedure is not described.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Facility-price 'insights' are fitted parameters restating the regression objective, and the test evaluation leaks nearby ground-truth prices through the v features in Eq. (4).

fitted input called prediction [Section 5.2 and Algorithm 1, with Eqs. (1), (4), (5)]
"The shining part of our approach is that we can simultaneously estimate the price of public facilities during the progress of fitting the values of private properties. In this way, the impact of public facilities on housing prices can be quantitatively evaluated."

The virtual prices u are the adaptive variables optimized in Algorithm 1 to minimize the same housing-price loss L = Σ(h - ĥ)² (Eq. 5), with ĥ = S(x;Θ)(w·F(D;Φ)) and w = v ⊕ u (Eqs. 1 and 4). There is no independent validation of u; Table 4 simply reports the fitted u, and Table 3 reports the fitted θ. Presenting these as discovered 'impacts' or 'preferences' therefore restates the fit rather than testing any prediction. The ranking of facility types is a property of the optimized parameters, not an external result.
other [Section 4.1 (random split) and Eqs. (1) and (4)]
"When we decide to conduct experiments on measuring the performance of our approach and other baselines, the residential blocks in each city are randomly split into three subsets by the proportion of 7 : 1 : 2 to train, validate and test our model and other methods. Here we use the vector w∈ R𝑘 to represent the value of𝑘 properties around: w = v⊕ u, (1) where v and u denote the price of the residential blocks and public facilities, respectively."

Under this random split, a test block's feature vector v contains the ground-truth prices of other residential blocks within radius l, and those neighbors may be in the test or validation split. Equation (4) then predicts ĥ as S(x;Θ) times a softmax-weighted inner product with w = v ⊕ u, so the test prediction is partially a function of nearby ground-truth housing prices—the very quantity being predicted. Because housing prices are strongly spatially autocorrelated, this leakage, rather than learned facility prices, can explain the reported R² gain over DNN (0.623 vs 0.616, Table 2). The paper's stated deployment target, residential blocks under construction (Section 2.1), would have no v at all, so the evaluation protocol does not support that claim.

full rationale

The paper's headline empirical comparison is measured on a held-out split, but the held-out evaluation is contaminated: Eq. (4) consumes v, the ground-truth prices of neighboring residential blocks, and Section 4.1's random split does not mask neighbor labels, so test predictions can use test/validation labels. This makes the regression advantage statistically forced rather than an independent test of the facility-price mechanism. The facility-price 'discoveries' (Section 5.2, Table 4) are not predicted quantities at all; they are the optimized variables u of the same objective (Eq. 5), so those insights reduce to the fit by construction. The paper does not rely on a load-bearing self-citation chain, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled via citation; the circularity is internal to the model/evaluation design. Overall, one class of central results (facility valuations) is definitionally tied to the regression objective, and the other (housing-price prediction) is not convincingly out-of-sample because of neighbor-label leakage, warranting a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model introduces millions of latent facility-price parameters, two learned weight vectors, and a tuned radius, all fitted to the same housing prices. The functional form itself is an assumption, and the inferred facility prices have no independent evidence.

free parameters (4)

u (virtual prices of public facilities) = Learned from data; per-facility values not released, Table 4 shows type-level averages
Each public facility gets a scalar price parameter updated by gradient descent to minimize Eq. (5). With roughly 3.3 million facilities and about 30,000 training blocks, the parameter count far exceeds the number of labels.
phi (distance preference weights) = Normalized: Euclidean 0.54, Trajectory 0.46 (Table 5)
Learnable parameter in the softmax aggregation over distance types in Eq. (2).
theta (attribute scale weights) = Normalized: Type 0.46, A.D. 0.30, Developer 0.11, Age 0.09, Others 0.04 (Table 3)
Weights in the sigmoid scale factor of Eq. (3); also includes per-attribute neural layer weights.
Influencing radius l = 1.0 to 3.0 km selected
Hyperparameter swept over 0.5, 1.0, 3.0, and 5.0 km (Section 5.4, Figure 3), chosen based on validation performance.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper Housing price is the product of an attribute scale factor and a distance-weighted average of surrounding property and facility values (Eq. (4)).
This functional form is asserted, not derived.
domain assumption The influence weight of each neighbor is determined by a softmax over Euclidean and trajectory distances (Eq. (2)).
Assumes linear distance-based weighting; alternative distance decay forms are not compared.
ad hoc to paper A sigmoid scale factor S(x;Theta) in (0,1) can capture attribute effects, so predicted prices never exceed the local weighted average.
Sigmoid output is always less than 1, so the model cannot predict a premium above neighboring values.
domain assumption Only properties and facilities within radius l influence a property's price; outside the radius, influence is zero.
Graph edges are cut at radius l (Section 2.2).
domain assumption Public facility prices are identical for all nearby properties and are shared across the city.
u is a single scalar per facility; no heterogeneity by property type or time.

invented entities (1)

Virtual price of a public facility
purpose: A latent scalar per facility to quantify its contribution to nearby housing prices and to rank facilities.
The values are fitted parameters with no external validation, dataset, or falsifiable prediction; they are non-identifiable without regularization and may be arbitrary.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MONOPOLY: Learning to Price Public Facilities for Revaluing Private Properties with Large-Scale Urban Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IXXASTCI

@misc{pith2026241118085,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MONOPOLY: Learning to Price Public Facilities for Revaluing Private Properties with Large-Scale Urban Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IXXASTCI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18085}
}

read the original abstract

The value assessment of private properties is an attractive but challenging task which is widely concerned by a majority of people around the world. A prolonged topic among us is ``\textit{how much is my house worth?}''. To answer this question, most experienced agencies would like to price a property given the factors of its attributes as well as the demographics and the public facilities around it. However, no one knows the exact prices of these factors, especially the values of public facilities which may help assess private properties. In this paper, we introduce our newly launched project ``Monopoly'' (named after a classic board game) in which we propose a distributed approach for revaluing private properties by learning to price public facilities (such as hospitals etc.) with the large-scale urban data we have accumulated via Baidu Maps. To be specific, our method organizes many points of interest (POIs) into an undirected weighted graph and formulates multiple factors including the virtual prices of surrounding public facilities as adaptive variables to parallelly estimate the housing prices we know. Then the prices of both public facilities and private properties can be iteratively updated according to the loss of prediction until convergence. We have conducted extensive experiments with the large-scale urban data of several metropolises in China. Results show that our approach outperforms several mainstream methods with significant margins. Further insights from more in-depth discussions demonstrate that the ``Monopoly'' is an innovative application in the interdisciplinary field of business intelligence and urban computing, and it will be beneficial to tens of millions of our users for investments and to the governments for urban planning as well as taxation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18085 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A screenshot of the housing prices of the Haidian District in Beijing. We can see that there are three kinds of dash [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** An illustration of the organization of urban data employed by the “Monopoly” project. To be specific, our approach [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** An illustration on the average performance (i.e., [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

Martin Aruldoss, Miranda Lakshmi Travis, and V Prasanna Venkatesan. 2014. A survey on recent research in business intelligence. Journal of Enterprise Informa- tion Management 27, 6 (2014), 831–866

work page 2014
[2]

Gerald R Brown and George A Matysiak. 2000. Real estate investment: A capital market approach. Financial Times Prentice Hall Harlow

work page 2000
[3]

Sumit Chopra, Trivikraman Thampy, John Leahy, Andrew Caplin, and Yann LeCun. 2007. Discovering the Hidden Structure of House Prices with a Non- parametric Latent Manifold Model. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ’07) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173–182

work page 2007
[4]

Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat. 2004. MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters. In OSDI’04: Sixth Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation. 137–150

work page 2004
[5]

Katherine Dintenfass. 2018. Property Assessments Using Augmented Reality User Devices. US Patent App. 15/367,435

work page 2018
[6]

Lian Duan and Li Da Xu. 2012. Business intelligence for enterprise systems: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 8, 3 (2012), 679–687

work page 2012
[7]

Daniel P Faith, Peter R Minchin, and Lee Belbin. 1987. Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69, 1-3 (1987), 57–68

work page 1987
[8]

Brian Field. 2018. Forecasting techniques for urban and regional planning . Rout- ledge

work page 2018

Show all 31 references

[9]

Friedman

Jerome H. Friedman. 2001. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. The Annals of Statistics 29, 5 (2001), 1189–1232

2001
[10]

Friedman, Trevor J

Jerome H. Friedman, Trevor J. Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. 2000. Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting. The Annals of Statistics 28, 2 (2000), 337–407

2000
[11]

Stephen Hargitay, S Hargitay, and SM Yu. 2003. Property investment decisions: a quantitative approach. Routledge

2003
[12]

Gongzhu Hu, Jinping Wang, and Wenying Feng. 2013. Multivariate Regression Modeling for Home Value Estimates with Evaluation Using Maximum Informa- tion Coefficient. In Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing. 69–81

2013
[13]

Fiore, Yingxiang Yang, Joseph Ferreira, Jr., Emilio Frazzoli, and Marta C

Shan Jiang, Gaston A. Fiore, Yingxiang Yang, Joseph Ferreira, Jr., Emilio Frazzoli, and Marta C. González. 2013. A Review of Urban Computing for Mobile Phone Traces: Current Methods, Challenges and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGKDD International Workshop on U...

2013
[14]

Jason J Jung. 2017. Computational collective intelligence with big data: Challenges and opportunities

2017
[15]

Gwyneth Kirk. 2018. Urban planning in a capitalist society . Vol. 15. Routledge

2018
[16]

Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2015. Deep learning. nature 521, 7553 (2015), 436

2015
[17]

Ping Li. 2009. ABC-Boost: Adaptive Base Class Boost for Multi-Class Classifi- cation. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). Montreal, Canada, 625–632

2009
[18]

Ping Li. 2010. Robust LogitBoost and Adaptive Base Class (ABC) LogitBoost. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Conference Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-10). Catalina Island, CA, 302–311

2010
[19]

W. T. Lim, L. Wang, Y. Wang, and Q. Chang. 2016. Housing price prediction using neural networks. In 12th International Conference on Natural Computation, Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (ICNC-FSKD) . 518–522

2016
[20]

William McCluskey. 2018. Property tax: An international comparative review . Routledge

2018
[21]

Edson Melanda, Andrew Hunter, and Michael Barry. 2016. Identification of locational influence on real property values using data mining methods.Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography (2016)

2016
[22]

Nguyen Nghiep and Cripps Al. 2001. Predicting housing value: A comparison of multiple regression analysis and artificial neural networks. Journal of real estate research 22, 3 (2001), 313–336

2001
[23]

Wallace E Oates. 1969. The effects of property taxes and local public spending on property values: An empirical study of tax capitalization and the Tiebout hypothesis. Journal of political economy 77, 6 (1969), 957–971

1969
[24]

Siti Norasyikin Abd Rahman, Nurul Hana Adi Maimun, Muhammad Najib Mo- hamed Razali, and Suriatini Ismail. 2019. The Artificial Neural Network Model (ANN) for Malaysian Housing Market Analysis. Planning Malaysia Journal 17, 9 (2019)

2019
[25]

Sebastian Ruder. 2016. An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04747 (2016)

2016 arXiv
[26]

Madhu Sarin. 2019. Urban planning in the Third World: the Chandigarh experience . Routledge

2019
[27]

N Sun, Y Fang, X Zhang, and Y Yuan. 2012. Transportation task-oriented trajectory planning for underactuated overhead cranes using geometric analysis.IET Control Theory & Applications 6, 10 (2012), 1410–1423

2012
[28]

Tadeusz M. Szuba. 2001. Computational Collective Intelligence . John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA

2001
[29]

Andy Thornley. 2018. Urban planning under Thatcherism: the challenge of the market. Vol. 21. Routledge

2018
[30]

Zonghan Wu, Shirui Pan, Fengwen Chen, Guodong Long, Chengqi Zhang, and Philip S Yu. 2019. A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.00596 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[31]

Yu Zheng, Licia Capra, Ouri Wolfson, and Hai Yang. 2014. Urban computing: concepts, methodologies, and applications. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 5, 3 (2014), 38

2014

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Martin Aruldoss, Miranda Lakshmi Travis, and V Prasanna Venkatesan. 2014. A survey on recent research in business intelligence. Journal of Enterprise Informa- tion Management 27, 6 (2014), 831–866

work page 2014

[2] [2]

Gerald R Brown and George A Matysiak. 2000. Real estate investment: A capital market approach. Financial Times Prentice Hall Harlow

work page 2000

[3] [3]

Sumit Chopra, Trivikraman Thampy, John Leahy, Andrew Caplin, and Yann LeCun. 2007. Discovering the Hidden Structure of House Prices with a Non- parametric Latent Manifold Model. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ’07) . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 173–182

work page 2007

[4] [4]

Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat. 2004. MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters. In OSDI’04: Sixth Symposium on Operating System Design and Implementation. 137–150

work page 2004

[5] [5]

Katherine Dintenfass. 2018. Property Assessments Using Augmented Reality User Devices. US Patent App. 15/367,435

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Lian Duan and Li Da Xu. 2012. Business intelligence for enterprise systems: a survey. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 8, 3 (2012), 679–687

work page 2012

[7] [7]

Daniel P Faith, Peter R Minchin, and Lee Belbin. 1987. Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69, 1-3 (1987), 57–68

work page 1987

[8] [8]

Brian Field. 2018. Forecasting techniques for urban and regional planning . Rout- ledge

work page 2018