From Points to Places: Towards Human Mobility-Driven Spatiotemporal Foundation Models via Understanding Places

Andreas Zufle; Mohammad Hashemi

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 40 references

From Points to Places: Towards Human Mobility-Driven Spatiotemporal Foundation Models via Understanding Places

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spatiotemporal foundation models should learn 'places' shaped by human mobility, not static points of interest.

desk verdict A solid, clearly written vision paper that usefully maps a place-based agenda for mobility foundation models; the formal definition is thin and the learnability premise is genuine, but neither disqualifies it as a position piece. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14570 v1 pith:QKXNKJQH submitted 2025-06-17 cs.AI

Mohammad Hashemi , Andreas Zufle This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords humanmobilityspatiotemporalfoundationmodelsspatialrepresentationlearningplacesversuspointsgeolocationembeddingsmulti-granularitytrajectorypredictionofinterest

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 argues that human mobility cannot be understood from static points of interest or administrative boundaries, because the units people actually navigate are places: dynamic, context-rich regions defined by who goes there, when, and why. It proposes a new class of spatiotemporal foundation models, large pretrained models that transfer across tasks, that fuse geolocation semantics with mobility signals and represent places as recursively composed sets of spatial entities. The payoff would be models that reason at any granularity, from a single café to a whole neighborhood, and that support personalized place discovery, logistics, and urban planning. Current trajectory models capture movement but lose location meaning, while current location encoders capture geography but ignore movement; the paper argues these two lines must be merged into one place-aware model.

What carries the argument

Central to the proposal is the formal notion of a place (Definition 4.1): a non-empty set $P=\{e_1,\dots,e_n\}$ of spatial entities drawn from $E=\mathcal{G}\cup\mathcal{P}$, where $\mathcal{G}$ contains primitive geographic entities such as POIs, postcodes, and cities, and $\mathcal{P}$ contains previously defined places. This recursive composition is the load-bearing device: it lets one place be a single cat café while another is a pet-friendly neighborhood built from many cafés, parks, and shops, so a single model can reason at any granularity. The paper pairs this formalism with heterogeneous graph representations of spatial structure and connectivity, and with mobility signals such as inflow, outflow, visit frequency, and visit-time distributions. Graph condensation and continual or online pretraining are identified as the mechanisms for scalability and temporal adaptation.

What would settle it

Ask people in several cities to outline the places that matter to them; then train a place-inference model on mobility traces alone and measure overlap between inferred and human-defined places. If overlap is no better than using fixed POI or administrative polygons, the central learnability premise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that current spatial foundation models fall into two camps, each missing half of what makes a place meaningful. Trajectory-prediction models encode how people move but strip away location semantics; geolocation-representation models encode static features of POIs, ZIP codes, or counties but ignore who visits, when, and how often. The paper proposes a mobility-driven spatiotemporal foundation model whose basic unit is the place, defined as a behaviorally meaningful region that may span and combine many geographic entities and even other places. It further claims such models must support multi-granular inference and continual pretraining, because places are hierarchical and because mobility patterns shift with infrastructure, policy, and events.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that places, which the paper itself calls inherently subjective and dynamic, can be learned reliably from mobility data at scale and will transfer across cities and downstream tasks despite sparse and incomplete geospatial data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Trajectory-prediction models would be pretrained with location semantics, so next-place prediction is grounded in what places mean rather than raw coordinates alone.
Geolocation encoders would incorporate mobility signals such as inflow, outflow, visit frequency, and visit-time distributions, so embeddings reflect how places are actually used.
A single model could support inference at any granularity, from a single POI to a postcode, neighborhood, or city, because places are built recursively from other places.
Pretraining would need to be continual or online, since mobility patterns change with infrastructure updates, policy changes, and shocks such as pandemics.
Applications including personalized place discovery, logistics optimization, real estate analysis, and urban planning would inherit place awareness directly from the foundation model rather than requiring task-specific spatial features.

Reading between the lines

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

The recursive place definition points to a pretraining objective the paper does not spell out: predict a place's constituent entities and mobility signature from its context, which would force the model to learn hierarchical spatial structure.
If place semantics are inferred from movement rather than labels, the same approach could automatically delineate functional neighborhoods and catch short-lived places such as pop-up markets or pandemic-era zones, which static POI datasets miss by construction.
Because the paper acknowledges places are subjective, a natural extension is to learn personal place models alongside shared ones; aggregate mobility alone may represent the majority but miss the idiosyncratic places that motivate the paper's opening cat-café example.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear Colleague,

Quick read on arXiv:2506.14570. It's a 5-page vision paper for SIGSPATIAL arguing that spatiotemporal foundation models should model places, not just points, and should be driven by human mobility. The genuine value is the synthesis: they take a distinction from human geography (Agnew, Goodchild) and apply it to current foundation model research, giving a clear critique of existing models — most geolocation models are static, single-granularity, and ignore mobility, while trajectory models ignore place semantics. That gap is real and the paper names it well. The research directions (multi-scale place representations, heterogeneous graphs, continual pretraining for dynamic mobility data) are sensible, and the paper is honest about the obstacles.

What's actually new is limited. Definition 4.1 is a recursive set formalism, but as the stress-test note says, it's near-vacuous: any non-empty set of entities counts as a place. The paper doesn't offer an objective, a learning signal, or an evaluation protocol that would pin down what "meaningful" means. That is not fatal for a vision paper — you can set an agenda without solving it — but the agenda's feasibility rests on the assumption that place semantics can be inferred from mobility data and transferred across cities, users, and time. Section 4.1 acknowledges places are subjective and dynamic; the paper doesn't address whether that makes the learning problem ill-posed or merely hard. A serious reader will want at least a proof-of-concept or a concrete operationalization.

Soft spots in proportion: the citation errors are real and sloppy (CLIP and GPT-4 both [1] in the text; SpaBERT appears as both [18] and [4] in Table 1). These are easy fixes but should be caught. The Table's comparison is also a bit rough — marking "Understand Places" as × for all existing models is a strong claim given the fuzziness of the term. The self-citations on graph condensation are fine; they're relevant tools, not padding.

Overall: this is a legitimate position paper, clearly written, with a plausible central claim that the community could benefit from debating. It doesn't overclaim to have built anything. The main weaknesses are the thin formal definition and the untested transferability premise — both acknowledged by the authors. I'd send it to peer review if the venue publishes vision papers; for a journal, I'd want more concrete next steps.

Best.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This vision paper argues that spatiotemporal foundation models should shift from modeling fixed points of interest (POIs) to modeling 'places'—dynamic, context-rich regions shaped by human mobility and behavior. It reviews existing trajectory-prediction and geolocation-representation foundation models, identifies four limitations (lack of mutual awareness between mobility and location models, weak temporal dynamics, scalability, and single-granularity inference), and outlines research directions centered on a formal definition of place, spatiotemporal representations, scalable multi-granular learning, and continual pretraining. The paper also lists downstream applications in personalized discovery, logistics, and urban planning. It reports no empirical results, which is appropriate for a position paper.

Significance. If its agenda is realized, the paper identifies a genuine gap: current models either encode static geographic units without mobility semantics or model trajectories without rich location semantics, and the place-based framing could usefully redirect geospatial foundation-model design. The qualitative comparison in Table 1 and the application scenarios are readable and motivating. The main weakness is that the central construct—Definition 4.1—is underspecified to the point of imposing no structure, and the paper does not yet connect the acknowledged subjectivity/dynamism of places to its transferability claims. These issues are addressable within the scope of a vision paper.

major comments (2)

[§4.1, Definition 4.1] Definition 4.1 defines a place as any non-empty set of geographic entities from E=G∪P. Because every singleton entity and every arbitrary union of entities satisfies the definition, the formalism imposes no structure and does not constrain what a 'semantically meaningful' place is. This is load-bearing because the paper presents the definition as the basis for moving from points to places, and Section 4.1 explicitly promises 'a structured notion of places.' I recommend adding a coherence criterion (e.g., functional, mobility-flow, or temporal coherence) and an explicit procedure for generating candidate places, together with an evaluation protocol such as downstream-task performance or agreement with human place annotations.
[§4.1 Challenges; abstract] The paper's core premise is that place semantics can be learned from mobility data and transferred across geographies, as stated in the abstract ('scalable and transferable analysis'). However, Section 4.1 concedes that place-related data are sparse or incomplete and that places are 'inherently subjective and dynamic.' The manuscript never addresses how learned place representations can remain stable enough to transfer across cities, users, and time, nor what benchmark tasks would measure such transfer. For a vision paper a complete solution is not expected, but the research directions should include at least candidate mechanisms (e.g., shared functional place types or cross-city mobility-flow priors) and concrete evaluation tasks.

minor comments (5)

[§2] The sentence 'models like CLIP [1] and GPT-4 [1]' cites the same reference for both, but reference [1] is the GPT-4 technical report; a separate CLIP citation should be added or the wording changed.
[Table 1] The row 'SpaBERT [4], G2PTL [31]' attributes SpaBERT to reference [4], but the text in Section 2.2 cites SpaBERT as reference [18]. The table should use [18] to avoid inconsistency.
[§4.1, Definition 4.1] The notation is overloaded: P denotes both a particular place and the universe of existing places in E=G∪P. A script or calligraphic symbol for the universe would remove ambiguity.
[Figure 1 caption] The caption reads 'pointsand places' without spaces; it should read 'points and places.'
[§1] The geography discussion would benefit from citing foundational space/place literature such as Tuan's 'Space and Place' in addition to Agnew [3] and Goodchild [12].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a vision/position statement with no derivation chain, fitted parameters, or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper is a vision paper; it contains no empirical derivation, no fitted parameters, and no quantity is 'predicted' from data. The only formal object, Definition 4.1, defines a place as a non-empty set of spatial entities; this is a definition that sets up a research agenda, not a derived result, and it does not reduce to any input or to itself in a circular way. The central claim that mobility understanding requires modeling places rather than static points is an argumentative position supported by examples and prior geographic theory, not by a formal derivation whose conclusion is equivalent to its premise. Self-citations appear in Section 4.3, where the authors cite their own graph condensation survey and paper as promising directions for scalability, and in Section 5.3 for earthquake prediction; these are illustrative references to related tools, not load-bearing evidence for the central claim, and no uniqueness theorem or forced choice is invoked. Therefore there is no circular step that meets the evidentiary standard of exhibiting a specific reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper rests on two domain assumptions (places are learnable from mobility data, and point-based representations are the key bottleneck) and one ad hoc formalization choice (the recursive-set definition of a place). No free parameters are fit, and the only invented entity is the formal concept of a place, which is a definition rather than an empirical claim.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Meaningful places can be inferred from human mobility data at scale without explicit place labels.
Sections 4.1 and 4.2 assume that movement patterns reveal place semantics, despite the paper noting that places are 'inherently subjective and dynamic' (Section 4.1, Challenges). The learnability of places is never tested.
domain assumption Current point-based or fixed-unit representations are the key bottleneck for spatiotemporal foundation models.
Section 3 frames the limitations of existing models qualitatively, but no comparative experiments show that place-based models would improve performance.
ad hoc to paper Definition 4.1's formalization of a place as a non-empty set of geographic entities adequately captures the geographic notion of place.
The recursive set definition is proposed without empirical validation or a link to established place theory beyond a general citation. It is a conceptual choice, not a derived fact.

invented entities (1)

Place as a recursively composed set of geographic entities (Definition 4.1)
purpose: To provide a formal unit for spatiotemporal foundation models that can span multiple POIs or administrative boundaries.
This is a proposed conceptual definition, not an empirically verified entity. It has no falsifiable handle outside the paper itself.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Points to Places: Towards Human Mobility-Driven Spatiotemporal Foundation Models via Understanding Places." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QKXNKJQH

@misc{pith2026250614570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Points to Places: Towards Human Mobility-Driven Spatiotemporal Foundation Models via Understanding Places},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QKXNKJQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14570}
}

read the original abstract

Capturing human mobility is essential for modeling how people interact with and move through physical spaces, reflecting social behavior, access to resources, and dynamic spatial patterns. To support scalable and transferable analysis across diverse geographies and contexts, there is a need for a generalizable foundation model for spatiotemporal data. While foundation models have transformed language and vision, they remain limited in handling the unique challenges posed by the spatial, temporal, and semantic complexity of mobility data. This vision paper advocates for a new class of spatial foundation models that integrate geolocation semantics with human mobility across multiple scales. Central to our vision is a shift from modeling discrete points of interest to understanding places: dynamic, context-rich regions shaped by human behavior and mobility that may comprise many places of interest. We identify key gaps in adaptability, scalability, and multi-granular reasoning, and propose research directions focused on modeling places and enabling efficient learning. Our goal is to guide the development of scalable, context-aware models for next-generation geospatial intelligence. These models unlock powerful applications ranging from personalized place discovery and logistics optimization to urban planning, ultimately enabling smarter and more responsive spatial decision-making.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14570 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Floren- cia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[18]

Zekun Li, Jina Kim, Yao-Yi Chiang, and Muhao Chen. 2022. Spabert: a pre- trained language model from geographic data for geo-entity representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12213(2022)

arXiv 2022
[4]

Pasquale Balsebre, Weiming Huang, Gao Cong, and Yi Li. 2024. City foundation models for learning general purpose representations from openstreetmap. InPro- ceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 87–97

work page 2024
[2]

Mohit Agarwal, Mimi Sun, Chaitanya Kamath, Arbaaz Muslim, Prithul Sarker, Joydeep Paul, Hector Yee, Marcin Sieniek, Kim Jablonski, Yael Mayer, et al. 2024. General Geospatial Inference with a Population Dynamics Foundation Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07207(2024)

arXiv 2024
[3]

John Agnew. 2011. Space and place.Handbook of geographical knowledge2011 (2011), 316–331

work page 2011
[5]

Hyunyoung Choi and Hal Varian. 2012. Predicting the present with Google Trends.Economic record88 (2012), 2–9

work page 2012
[6]

Shushman Choudhury, Abdul Rahman Kreidieh, Ivan Kuznetsov, and Neha Arora

work page
[7]

Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. Ieee, 248–255

2009

Show all 40 references

[8]

Peijun Du, Xuyu Bai, Kun Tan, Zhaohui Xue, Alim Samat, Junshi Xia, Erzhu Li, Hongjun Su, and Wei Liu. 2020. Advances of four machine learning methods for spatial data handling: A review.Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis 4 (2020), 1–25

2020
[9]

Quan Fang, Changsheng Xu, M Shamim Hossain, and Ghulam Muhammad. 2016. Stcaplrs: A spatial-temporal context-aware personalized location recommenda- tion system.ACM Transactions on Intelligent systems and technology (TIST)7, 4 (2016), 1–30

2016
[10]

Jeremy Ginsberg, Matthew H Mohebbi, Rajan S Patel, Lynnette Brammer, Mark S Smolinski, and Larry Brilliant. 2009. Detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data.Nature457, 7232 (2009), 1012–1014

2009
[11]

Shengbo Gong, Mohammad Hashemi, Juntong Ni, Carl Yang, and Wei Jin
[12]

Michael F Goodchild. 2010. Formalizing place in geographic information systems. InCommunities, neighborhoods, and health: Expanding the boundaries of place. Springer, 21–33

2010
[13]

Garth N Graham. 2016. Why your ZIP code matters more than your genetic code: promoting healthy outcomes from mother to child.Breastfeeding Medicine11, 8 (2016), 396–397

2016
[14]

Mohammad Hashemi, Shengbo Gong, Juntong Ni, Wenqi Fan, B Aditya Prakash, and Wei Jin. 2024. A comprehensive survey on graph reduction: Sparsification, coarsening, and condensation.IJCAI(2024)

2024
[15]

Wei Jin, Lingxiao Zhao, Shichang Zhang, Yozen Liu, Jiliang Tang, and Neil Shah. 2021. Graph condensation for graph neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.07580(2021)

2021 arXiv
[16]

Anirudh Ameya Kashyap, Shravan Raviraj, Ananya Devarakonda, Shamanth R Nayak K, Santhosh KV, and Soumya J Bhat. 2022. Traffic flow prediction models–A review of deep learning techniques.Cogent Engineering9, 1 (2022), 2010510

2022
[17]

Konstantin Klemmer, Esther Rolf, Caleb Robinson, Lester Mackey, and Marc Rußwurm. 2025. Satclip: Global, general-purpose location embeddings with satellite imagery. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 39. 4347–4355

2025
[19]

Yuxuan Liang, Haomin Wen, Yutong Xia, Ming Jin, Bin Yang, Flora Salim, Qing- song Wen, Shirui Pan, and Gao Cong. 2025. Foundation Models for Spatio- Temporal Data Science: A Tutorial and Survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13502 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[20]

Yan Lin, Tonglong Wei, Zeyu Zhou, Haomin Wen, Jilin Hu, Shengnan Guo, Youfang Lin, and Huaiyu Wan. 2024. TrajFM: A vehicle trajectory foundation model for region and task transferability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15251(2024)

2024 arXiv
[21]

Boris Medina-Salgado, Eddy Sánchez-DelaCruz, Pilar Pozos-Parra, and Javier E Sierra. 2022. Urban traffic flow prediction techniques: A review.Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems35 (2022), 100739

2022
[22]

Mohamed Mokbel, Mahmoud Sakr, Li Xiong, Andreas Züfle, Jussara Almeida, Taylor Anderson, Walid Aref, Gennady Andrienko, Natalia Andrienko, Yang Cao, et al. 2024. Mobility data science: Perspectives and challenges.ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems10, 2 (2024), 1–35

2024
[23]

Mohamed F Mokbel, Mahmoud Attia Sakr, Li Xiong, Andreas Züfle, Jussara M Almeida, Taylor Anderson, Walid G Aref, Gennady L Andrienko, Natalia V Andrienko, Yang Cao, et al. 2022. Mobility Data Science: Dagstuhl Seminar 22021. Dagstuhl reports12, 1 (2022)

2022
[24]

Haifeng Niu and Elisabete A Silva. 2021. Delineating urban functional use from points of interest data with neural network embedding: A case study in Greater London.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems88 (2021), 101651

2021
[25]

Salma Ommi and Mohammad Hashemi. 2024. Machine learning technique in the north zagros earthquake prediction.Applied Computing and Geosciences22 (2024), 100163

2024
[26]

A Psyllidis, S Gao, Y Hu, EK Kim, G McKenzie, R Purves, M Yuan, and C Andris
[27]

Esther Rolf, Jonathan Proctor, Tamma Carleton, Ian Bolliger, Vaishaal Shankar, Miyabi Ishihara, Benjamin Recht, and Solomon Hsiang. 2021. A generalizable and accessible approach to machine learning with global satellite imagery.Nature communications12, 1 (2021), 4392

2021
[28]

Hanlin Sheng, Xinming Wu, Xu Si, Jintao Li, Sibo Zhang, and Xudong Duan. 2025. Seismic foundation model: A next generation deep-learning model in geophysics. Geophysics90, 2 (2025), IM59–IM79

2025
[29]

Nicolas Tempelmeier, Simon Gottschalk, and Elena Demidova. 2021. GeoVec- tors: a linked open corpus of OpenStreetMap Embeddings on world scale. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 4604–4612

2021
[30]

Vicente Vivanco Cepeda, Gaurav Kumar Nayak, and Mubarak Shah. 2023. Geoclip: Clip-inspired alignment between locations and images for effective worldwide geo-localization.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2023), 8690–8701

2023
[31]

Lixia Wu, Jianlin Liu, Junhong Lou, Haoyuan Hu, Jianbin Zheng, Haomin Wen, Chao Song, and Shu He. 2023. G2ptl: A pre-trained model for delivery address and its applications in logistics system.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01559(2023)

2023 arXiv
[32]

Xinhua Wu, Haoyu He, Yanchao Wang, and Qi Wang. 2024. Pretrained mo- bility transformer: A foundation model for human mobility.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02578(2024)

2024 arXiv
[33]

Congxi Xiao, Jingbo Zhou, Yixiong Xiao, Jizhou Huang, and Hui Xiong. 2024. ReFound: Crafting a Foundation Model for Urban Region Understanding upon Language and Visual Foundations. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Con- ference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 3527–3538

2024
[34]

Yibo Yan, Haomin Wen, Siru Zhong, Wei Chen, Haodong Chen, Qingsong Wen, Roger Zimmermann, and Yuxuan Liang. 2024. Urbanclip: Learning text-enhanced urban region profiling with contrastive language-image pretraining from the web. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024. 4006–4017

2024
[35]

Wei Zeng, Chi-Wing Fu, Stefan Müller Arisona, Simon Schubiger, Remo Burkhard, and Kwan-Liu Ma. 2017. Visualizing the relationship between human mobility and points of interest.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems18, 8 (2017), 2271–2284

2017
[36]

Yuanshao Zhu, James Jianqiao Yu, Xiangyu Zhao, Xuetao Wei, and Yuxuan Liang
[40]

UniTraj: Learning a Universal Trajectory Foundation Model from Billion- Scale Worldwide Traces.CoRR(2024)

2024
[2022]

Computational Urban Science, 2 (1), 20

Points of Interest (POI): A commentary on the state of the art, challenges, and prospects for the future. Computational Urban Science, 2 (1), 20
[2024]

InProceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Spatial Big Data and AI for Industrial Applications

Towards a Trajectory-powered Foundation Model of Mobility. InProceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Spatial Big Data and AI for Industrial Applications. 1–4
[2025]

Scalable Graph Condensation with Evolving Capabilities.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.17614(2025)

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Floren- cia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[2] [18]

Zekun Li, Jina Kim, Yao-Yi Chiang, and Muhao Chen. 2022. Spabert: a pre- trained language model from geographic data for geo-entity representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12213(2022)

arXiv 2022

[3] [4]

Pasquale Balsebre, Weiming Huang, Gao Cong, and Yi Li. 2024. City foundation models for learning general purpose representations from openstreetmap. InPro- ceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 87–97

work page 2024

[4] [2]

Mohit Agarwal, Mimi Sun, Chaitanya Kamath, Arbaaz Muslim, Prithul Sarker, Joydeep Paul, Hector Yee, Marcin Sieniek, Kim Jablonski, Yael Mayer, et al. 2024. General Geospatial Inference with a Population Dynamics Foundation Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07207(2024)

arXiv 2024

[5] [3]

John Agnew. 2011. Space and place.Handbook of geographical knowledge2011 (2011), 316–331

work page 2011

[6] [5]

Hyunyoung Choi and Hal Varian. 2012. Predicting the present with Google Trends.Economic record88 (2012), 2–9

work page 2012

[7] [6]

Shushman Choudhury, Abdul Rahman Kreidieh, Ivan Kuznetsov, and Neha Arora

work page

[8] [7]

Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. 2009. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. Ieee, 248–255

2009