Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 65 references

Where to Go Next Day: Multi-scale Spatial-Temporal Decoupled Model for Mid-term Human Mobility Prediction

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By rewriting each day as a location chain plus a duration chain, MSTDP claims better next-day and next-week trajectory forecasts than nine baselines on five city-scale datasets.

desk verdict Solid architecture paper with a genuinely new decoupled location-duration formulation; the margins are credible for the task as defined, but the CDR-inferred ground truth caps external validity. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06561 v2 pith:BPOSQ2WH submitted 2025-01-11 cs.AI

Zongyuan Huang , Weipeng Wang , Shaoyu Huang , Marta C. Gonzalez , Yaohui Jin , Yanyan Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords humanmobilitypredictionmid-termspatial-temporaldecouplinghierarchicaltransformerheterogeneousgraphcalldetailrecordsepidemicsimulation
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

Mid-term mobility prediction asks where a person will be hour by hour over the next day or week, the timescale needed for traffic management and epidemic control. The paper proposes MSTDP, which decouples each daily trajectory into a location chain and a stay-duration chain, learns daily and weekly periodicities through a hierarchical encoder, and enriches location embeddings with a heterogeneous graph built from flows, adjacency, and administrative inclusion. Evaluated on call detail records from five cities, MSTDP reports consistent gains over nine baselines on next-day and next-week forecasting, with the largest single-metric improvement being 20.3% on the travel-distance distribution. The paper also shows that feeding MSTDP predictions into an SEIR epidemic simulation reduces epidemic MAE by 87.6% and 62.8% compared with the best baseline, which matters because trajectory forecasts are only useful if they preserve the statistical structure of real movement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the spatial-temporal decoupler: it converts a day of hourly locations into a location chain and a duration chain whose durations sum to 24, removing consecutive repeats and shortening sequences. This drives everything else: the decoupled chains feed a two-level daily-and-weekly hierarchical transformer encoder that captures recurrence and periodicity, a transformer decoder that predicts the location chain step by step, and a temporal decoder that predicts durations conditioned on predicted locations. A heterogeneous graph embedder, using GraphSAGE on adjacency and inclusion edges and graph attention on hourly flow edges at both grid and administrative levels, supplies semantically rich location vectors. The decoupling is what makes mid-term prediction tractable and is the paper's main architectural innovation.

What would settle it

Re-run the next-day and next-week evaluation against ground truth from high-resolution GPS or app-level logs for the same cities, or use the raw phone-record sequence without the longest-stay interpolation as the target. If MSTDP's advantage over HTAED shrinks below the reported 3.6% accuracy and 9.0% deviation-distance gaps, the central claim would be weakened; separately, testing on users with fewer than five records per day would test the paper's stated limitation on sparse and irregular movement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the hard part of mid-term mobility prediction is not the next location but the joint distribution of where a person is and for how long. By rewriting a day as an ordered list of locations with a parallel list of dwell times, the model sidesteps consecutive-location repetition and long-sequence memory problems, then predicts the location chain autoregressively with a transformer decoder and conditions duration prediction on the predicted locations. A hierarchical encoder over the past week supplies daily recurrence and weekly periodicity, and a heterogeneous graph fuses grid-level and administrative-level flow, adjacency, and inclusion edges so location representations carry spatial semantics. The empirical claim is that MSTDP outperforms all compared baselines on five city datasets on accuracy, deviation distance, travel-distance JSD, and departure-time JSD, and that the gains survive transfer to an epidemic simulation.

Load-bearing premise

The reported scores treat each person's gridded, longest-stay-per-window phone-record trajectory as ground truth for where they actually were; if call records are sparse or noisy, the inferred dwell locations may be wrong, making the accuracy gains partially artifacts of preprocessing rather than genuine mobility prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If MSTDP's claim holds, next-day and next-week individual trajectory forecasting can be framed as decoupled sequence prediction rather than iterative next-location prediction, which reduces compounding errors.
  • The reported gains in travel-distance and departure-time distributions imply that predicted trajectories reproduce aggregate travel behavior well enough to support planning applications such as traffic management.
  • The Boston SEIR experiment suggests that mobility prediction quality translates directly into epidemic simulation accuracy, with large MAE reductions relative to the strongest baseline.
  • The explicit modeling of daily and weekly periodicity through a hierarchical encoder improves longer-horizon forecasts, as shown by the ablation that removes the hierarchical structure.
  • The reported training and inference time reductions relative to heavy graph baselines indicate that the method is practical at city scale.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not tested in the paper, is to apply the same decoupling idea to other dense trajectory sources such as GPS or app-level logs, since the method targets structural repetition rather than a phone-record-specific artifact.
  • One could probe the bottleneck of duration prediction by feeding the true location chain into the temporal decoder; the resulting error would upper-bound the contribution of location-conditioning to duration accuracy.
  • The paper's stated limitation on irregular movement and sparse data suggests a concrete stress test: evaluate MSTDP on users with very few daily records or on non-routine travel days and compare the accuracy gap with routine days.
  • Because the epidemic analysis aggregates trajectories to census tracts, an implicit assumption is that grid-level errors wash out at coarser scales; testing how prediction error propagates across administrative aggregation levels would clarify which downstream applications can safely use MSTDP outputs.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MSTDP, a multi-scale spatial-temporal decoupled model for mid-term human mobility prediction, defined as forecasting an individual's full daily trajectory for the next day or the next week. The method decouples each daily trajectory into a location chain and a duration chain to avoid consecutive-location repetition, applies a hierarchical encoder to capture daily recurrence and weekly periodicity, uses a heterogeneous graph with grid- and admin-level flow/adjacency/inclusion edges for spatial representation, and employs transformer-based decoders for location and duration prediction. The model is evaluated on five city datasets (Boston, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, Shanghai, and Tokyo, with Tokyo being public and synthetic) against nine baselines, reporting improvements in Acc, DevDist, TravelDist, and DepartTime. The paper also presents statistical-physics analyses on Boston (travel distance, motifs, OD flows) and applies the predicted trajectories to an SEIR epidemic simulation, claiming large MAE reductions over the HTAED baseline.

Significance. If the reported results hold, MSTDP is a useful contribution to an under-studied task: mid-term trajectory forecasting at the individual level, as opposed to the prevailing next-location paradigm. The decoupling of location and duration chains is a simple and sensible response to the repetition and sequence-length problems, and the hierarchical temporal encoding plus heterogeneous spatial graph is a coherent design. The paper includes several strengths that are explicitly recognized: it evaluates on multiple cities with different time-window resolutions, performs ablations of each proposed component, reports hyperparameter sensitivity, compares training/inference time, and provides public code at GitHub. The statistical-physics analyses (motifs, OD flows, distance distributions) go beyond point metrics and help interpret model behavior. However, the evaluation lacks uncertainty quantification, and the ground-truth trajectories are inferred from sparse CDR by a longest-stay-per-window rule without validation against denser observations; these issues temper the strength of the headline claims and need to be addressed before the results can be fully credited.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-A and Section V-A-1] The ground truth for all evaluation metrics is the trajectory obtained by partitioning each day into fixed time windows and retaining only the record with the longest stay duration per window. No statistics are reported about the raw CDR sampling density (per-user call frequency, fraction of windows with no record, distribution of inferred stay durations), and no validation of these inferred dwell locations against GPS, surveys, or an independent trace is provided. Because the Acc, DevDist, TravelDist, DepartTime, and the epidemic application all inherit this preprocessing, the reported margins (e.g., 3.6% Acc in Section V-B) may partly reflect how well a model reproduces the preprocessing heuristic rather than how well it predicts actual mobility. The authors' own conclusion in Section VI concedes limited generalization to sparse and irregular data. Please provide per-user call-density statistics, the fraction of time windows that contain no record, and at least one validation of the inferred daily trajectories against an independent source, or an explicit demonstration on the public Tokyo dataset that the same relative ranking holds when trajectories are not generated by this heuristic.
  2. [Tables II and III] All headline comparisons are reported as single numbers without error bars or significance tests. Deep learning models of this kind are known to exhibit run-to-run variance of several percent in Acc and meaningful variance in JSD-based metrics, so the claimed improvements (e.g., 3.6% in Acc in Section V-B) may be within noise. Please report the mean and standard deviation over at least five random seeds and, where appropriate, paired significance tests on the held-out test periods. Without this, the central claim that MSTDP 'demonstrates superior performance' is not statistically established.
  3. [Section V-F and Introduction/Conclusion] The epidemic application reports inconsistent improvement numbers across sections. Section V-F gives MAE(I)=17.1 vs 138.5 and MAE(P∆)=96.2 vs 258.8, which yields an 87.6% reduction for active cases (I) and a 62.8% reduction for cumulative new cases (P∆). The abstract's '62.8% reduction in MAE for cumulative new cases' matches this calculation, but the Introduction and Section VI both state 'reductions in MAE by 87.6% for the cumulative new cases and 62.8% for the current active cases,' which is the reverse. Please correct the Introduction and Conclusion to match the numbers in Section V-F.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section V-A-2] The text says 'We compared 11 baseline models,' but the subsequent list and Table II contain only nine baselines. Please correct the count to 'nine.'
  2. [Section V-B] The claim that 'MSTDP exhibits improvements of 3.6% in Acc, 9.0% in DevDist, 20.3% in TravelDist and 19.4% in DepartTime' does not specify the dataset or task for which these relative improvements are computed. As written, these numbers cannot be reproduced from Tables II and III. Please state the aggregation (e.g., average relative improvement across all five cities and both horizons) and provide the corresponding per-dataset breakdown.
  3. [Section V-E and Section V-A-4] Section V-A-4 states that the number of training epochs is 60, but Section V-E says 'training epochs at 40' for the hyperparameter analysis. Please reconcile these settings and clarify whether Table V uses a different training budget than Table II.
  4. [Table IV] The ablation table uses the column header 'TravelTime' while all other tables and the metric definitions use 'DepartTime.' Please use consistent metric naming.
  5. [Section IV-D] Equation (9) and the surrounding text refer to 'SpatialDec' in the equation but 'SpatialEnc' in the sentence 'SpatialEnc is the abbreviation of the spatial decoder.' Please correct the symbol.
  6. [Section V-A-3] The definitions of TravelDist and DepartTime use 'meanNl' over locations, but the JSD is computed per individual and then averaged across users; the notation should be 'mean_U' (over users) to match the described procedure.
  7. [Abstract and Section V-A-1] The abstract says 'large-scale mobile phone records in five cities,' but the Tokyo dataset is synthetic, not mobile phone records. Please clarify that four datasets are private CDR and one is public synthetic mobility data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MSTDP is tested on held-out future days against nine external baselines, and no prediction metric reduces to a fitted input or self-citation by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against the reported evaluation targets. MSTDP is trained on historical trajectories and evaluated on future days under a temporal 6:1:3 train/validation/test split; the location and duration chains, hierarchical encoders, and heterogeneous graph are fitted to training data, not to the test targets. Flow and adjacency graphs are explicitly restricted to the training set (Section III-B: 'In this study, we only count Ef in the training set'), and baselines are implemented from open-source code with hyperparameters tuned on validation. The four metrics (Acc, DevDist, TravelDist, DepartTime) are computed against held-out trajectories, so the headline improvements are not forced by construction. The statistical physics and epidemic analyses are downstream evaluations of the same held-out predictions, not inputs to the model. The paper does rely on the authors' earlier work for CDR preprocessing [28] and motif terminology [57], but these are published external methodologies and do not define the outcome; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in by self-citation. The strongest caveat is construct validity rather than circularity: Section III-A defines daily trajectories by retaining only the longest-stay record per time window from CDR, and Section V-A-1 applies this rule to all datasets, so if CDR sampling is sparse the 'ground truth' may partly reflect the preprocessing heuristic. The paper's own conclusion (Section VI) acknowledges limited generalization to irregular movement and sparse data. This is a data-quality and generalization limitation that affects all compared methods equally, not a circular reduction of MSTDP's predictions to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard deep learning machinery plus several domain choices: the CDR preprocessing defines ground truth, periodicity is assumed to be the main signal, chain recombination is assumed lossless, and the heterogeneous graph structure is assumed beneficial. The model's hyperparameters are tuned on validation data, so they are legitimate design choices but still free parameters that affect the reported results.

free parameters (11)
  • Temporal loss weight lambda = 1 (default; swept 0.01-100)
    Balances location cross-entropy and duration Huber loss; hyperparameter analysis in Section V-E finds larger lambda improves Acc.
  • Transformer attention heads = 8 (default; tested 2,4,8)
    Default achieves lowest DevDist and TravelDist in Section V-E.
  • Embedding dimension = 512 (default; tested 256,512,768)
    Default achieves best balance in Section V-E.
  • Transformer layer count = 2 (default; tested 1,2,3)
    Default achieves best overall performance in Section V-E.
  • Learning rate and training epochs = 1e-4, 60 epochs
    Stated in Section V-A-4; not swept.
  • Grid size = 1km x 1km
    Spatial discretization of all cities; Section III-A.
  • Time window size = half-hour (Boston, LA, SFBay); hour (Shanghai, Tokyo)
    Chosen based on level of data sparsity; Section V-A-1.
  • Adjacency threshold d_bar = 2 km
    Defines adjacency graph edges for 1km grids; Section III-B.
  • GNN layers = 2
    Stated in Section V-A-4; not swept.
  • SEIR alpha and beta = alpha=0.4, beta=0.1
    Contact and infection rates from prior literature; Section V-F Table VI.
  • SEIR incubation and infection periods = 3 days incubation, 7 days infection
    Set in Table VI; affect epidemic application results.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Transformer attention and GNN message passing compute useful representations for sequences and graphs.
    Invoked throughout Section IV; no proof needed, standard deep learning machinery.
  • domain assumption The gridded, longest-stay-per-window CDR trajectory represents the true daily mobility of each individual.
    Section III-A and V-A-1; if raw CDR is sparse, the ground truth is noisy and all metrics inherit this error.
  • domain assumption Daily recurrence and weekly periodicity are the dominant temporal regularities for mid-term prediction.
    Introduction Section I and hierarchical encoder Section IV-C; external factors such as weather and holidays are ignored.
  • ad hoc to paper Recombining a predicted location chain with a predicted duration chain yields a valid daily trajectory.
    Section IV-A and IV-D; the model never directly predicts the full time-slot sequence, so reconstruction is assumed to be faithful.
  • domain assumption Administrative inclusion, flow, and adjacency relationships at grid and admin scales capture location semantics useful for prediction.
    Section IV-B; ablation MSTDP-G supports this, but the graph structure itself is a modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Where to Go Next Day: Multi-scale Spatial-Temporal Decoupled Model for Mid-term Human Mobility Prediction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BPOSQ2WH

@misc{pith2026250106561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Where to Go Next Day: Multi-scale Spatial-Temporal Decoupled Model for Mid-term Human Mobility Prediction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BPOSQ2WH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06561}
}
read the original abstract

Predicting individual mobility patterns is crucial across various applications. While current methods mainly focus on predicting the next location for personalized services like recommendations, they often fall short in supporting broader applications such as traffic management and epidemic control, which require longer period forecasts of human mobility. This study addresses mid-term mobility prediction, aiming to capture daily travel patterns and forecast trajectories for the upcoming day or week. We propose a novel Multi-scale Spatial-Temporal Decoupled Predictor (MSTDP) designed to efficiently extract spatial and temporal information by decoupling daily trajectories into distinct location-duration chains. Our approach employs a hierarchical encoder to model multi-scale temporal patterns, including daily recurrence and weekly periodicity, and utilizes a transformer-based decoder to globally attend to predicted information in the location or duration chain. Additionally, we introduce a spatial heterogeneous graph learner to capture multi-scale spatial relationships, enhancing semantic-rich representations. Extensive experiments, including statistical physics analysis, are conducted on large-scale mobile phone records in five cities (Boston, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, Shanghai, and Tokyo), to demonstrate MSTDP's advantages. Applied to epidemic modeling in Boston, MSTDP significantly outperforms the best-performing baseline, achieving a remarkable 62.8% reduction in MAE for cumulative new cases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06561 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Task illustrations of next location prediction and mid-term mobility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Characteristics of mid-term mobility prediction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The framework of the proposed Multi-scale Spatial-Temporal Decoupled Predictor (MSTDP). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The illustration of the heterogeneous graph. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Daily travel distances [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top 10 daily motifs. Human mobility motif. Motif describes people’s mobility pattern during one day with abstract network [57] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Origin-Destination flow pairs between actual and predicted flows. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Origin-Destination flows in tract level. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Origin-Destination flows in zip code level. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of loss reduction across epochs on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: MAE over time. (a) The current active cases ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Location prediction on trajectory data: A review,

    R. Wu, G. Luo, J. Shao, L. Tian, and C. Peng, “Location prediction on trajectory data: A review,” Big data mining and analytics , 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Planning for electric vehicle needs by coupling charging profiles with urban mobility,

    Y . Xu, S. C ¸ olak, E. C. Kara, S. J. Moura, and M. C. Gonz´alez, “Planning for electric vehicle needs by coupling charging profiles with urban mobility,” Nature Energy, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 484–493, 2018

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Predicting collective human mobility via countering spatiotemporal heterogeneity,

    Z. Zhou, K. Yang, Y . Liang, B. Wang, H. Chen, and Y . Wang, “Predicting collective human mobility via countering spatiotemporal heterogeneity,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing , 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Human mobility prediction based on trend iteration of spectral clustering,

    W. Jia, S. Zhao, and K. Zhao, “Human mobility prediction based on trend iteration of spectral clustering,” IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 4196–4211, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Survey on user location prediction based on geo-social networking data,

    S. Xu, X. Fu, J. Cao, B. Liu, and Z. Wang, “Survey on user location prediction based on geo-social networking data,” WWW, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Population flow drives spatio-temporal distribution of covid-19 in china,

    J. S. Jia, X. Lu, Y . Yuan, G. Xu, J. Jia, and N. A. Christakis, “Population flow drives spatio-temporal distribution of covid-19 in china,” Nature, vol. 582, no. 7812, pp. 389–394, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Modeling in- ternational mobility using roaming cell phone traces during covid-19 pandemic,

    M. Luca, B. Lepri, E. Frias-Martinez, and A. Lutu, “Modeling in- ternational mobility using roaming cell phone traces during covid-19 pandemic,” EPJ Data Science , vol. 11, no. 1, p. 22, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Urban dynamics through the lens of human mobility,

    Y . Xu, L. E. Olmos, D. Mateo, A. Hernando, X. Yang, and M. C. Gonz´alez, “Urban dynamics through the lens of human mobility,” Nature Computational Science , vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 611–620, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-023-00484-5

    doi:10.1038/s43588-023-00484-5 2023

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    B-planner: Planning bidirectional night bus routes using large-scale taxi gps traces,

    C. Chen, D. Zhang, N. Li, and Z.-H. Zhou, “B-planner: Planning bidirectional night bus routes using large-scale taxi gps traces,” IEEE TITS, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Understanding vehicular routing behavior with location-based service data,

    Y . Xu, R. D. Clemente, and M. C. Gonz ´alez, “Understanding vehicular routing behavior with location-based service data,” EPJ Data Science , vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–17, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Spatio-temporal self-supervised learning for traffic flow prediction,

    J. Ji, J. Wang, C. Huang, J. Wu, B. Xu, Z. Wu, J. Zhang, and Y . Zheng, “Spatio-temporal self-supervised learning for traffic flow prediction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.04475 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A survey on deep learning for human mobility,

    M. Luca, G. Barlacchi, B. Lepri, and L. Pappalardo, “A survey on deep learning for human mobility,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Personalized ranking metric embedding for next new poi recommendation,

    S. Feng, X. Li, Y . Zeng, G. Cong, and Y . M. Chee, “Personalized ranking metric embedding for next new poi recommendation,” in IJCAI, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    An attentional recurrent neural network for personalized next location recommendation,

    Q. Guo, Z. Sun, J. Zhang, and Y .-L. Theng, “An attentional recurrent neural network for personalized next location recommendation,” in AAAI, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Next point- of-interest recommendation with inferring multi-step future preferences,

    L. Zhang, Z. Sun, Z. Wu, J. Zhang, Y . S. Ong, and X. Qu, “Next point- of-interest recommendation with inferring multi-step future preferences,” in IJCAI, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Getnext: trajectory flow map enhanced transformer for next poi recommendation,

    S. Yang, J. Liu, and K. Zhao, “Getnext: trajectory flow map enhanced transformer for next poi recommendation,” in SIGIR, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Learning graph-based disen- tangled representations for next poi recommendation,

    Z. Wang, Y . Zhu, H. Liu, and C. Wang, “Learning graph-based disen- tangled representations for next poi recommendation,” in SIGIR, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Hierarchi- cal multi-task graph recurrent network for next poi recommendation,

    N. Lim, B. Hooi, S.-K. Ng, Y . L. Goh, R. Weng, and R. Tan, “Hierarchi- cal multi-task graph recurrent network for next poi recommendation,” in SIGIR, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Disenpoi: Disentangling sequential and geographical influence for point-of-interest recommendation,

    Y . Qin, Y . Wang, F. Sun, W. Ju, X. Hou, Z. Wang, J. Cheng, J. Lei, and M. Zhang, “Disenpoi: Disentangling sequential and geographical influence for point-of-interest recommendation,” in WDSM, 2023

    2023

  12. [20]

    Spatio-temporal hypergraph learning for next poi recommendation,

    X. Yan, T. Song, Y . Jiao, J. He, J. Wang, R. Li, and W. Chu, “Spatio-temporal hypergraph learning for next poi recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2023, pp. 403– 412

    2023

  13. [21]

    Spatio-temporal graph neural networks for predictive learning in urban computing: A survey,

    G. Jin, Y . Liang, Y . Fang, Z. Shao, J. Huang, J. Zhang, and Y . Zheng, “Spatio-temporal graph neural networks for predictive learning in urban computing: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Disentangled graph debiasing for next poi recommendation,

    H. Zhou, J. Xu, Q. Zhu, and C. Liu, “Disentangled graph debiasing for next poi recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2025, pp. 1779–1788

    2025

  15. [23]

    Integrating personalized spatio-temporal clustering for next poi recommendation,

    C. Song, Z. Ren, and L. Lu, “Integrating personalized spatio-temporal clustering for next poi recommendation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 39, no. 12, 2025, pp. 12 550– 12 558

    2025

  16. [24]

    Comapoi: A collaborative multi-agent framework for next poi prediction bridging the gap between trajectory and language,

    L. Zhong, L. Wang, X. Yang, and Q. Liao, “Comapoi: A collaborative multi-agent framework for next poi prediction bridging the gap between trajectory and language,” in Proceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieva...

    2025

  17. [25]

    Next-POI recommendation via spatial-temporal knowledge graph contrastive learning and trajectory prompt,

    W. Chen, H. Huang, Z. Zhang, T. Wang, Y . Lin, L. Chang, and H. Wan, “Next-POI recommendation via spatial-temporal knowledge graph contrastive learning and trajectory prompt,” vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 3570–3582

  18. [26]

    Mobility network models of covid-19 explain inequities and inform reopening,

    S. Chang, E. Pierson, P. W. Koh, J. Gerardin, B. Redbird, D. Grusky, and J. Leskovec, “Mobility network models of covid-19 explain inequities and inform reopening,” Nature, vol. 589, no. 7840, pp. 82–87, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Where you like to go next: Successive point-of-interest recommendation,

    C. Cheng, H. Yang, M. R. Lyu, and I. King, “Where you like to go next: Successive point-of-interest recommendation,” in IJCAI, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    The timegeo modeling framework for urban mobility without travel surveys,

    S. Jiang, Y . Yang, S. Gupta, D. Veneziano, S. Athavale, and M. C. Gonz´alez, “The timegeo modeling framework for urban mobility without travel surveys,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 113, no. 37, pp. E5370–E5378, 2016

    2016

  21. [29]

    Deep- move: Predicting human mobility with attentional recurrent networks,

    J. Feng, Y . Li, C. Zhang, F. Sun, F. Meng, A. Guo, and D. Jin, “Deep- move: Predicting human mobility with attentional recurrent networks,” in WWW, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Metaptp: An adaptive meta-optimized model for personalized spatial trajectory prediction,

    Y . Xu, J. Xu, J. Zhao, K. Zheng, A. Liu, L. Zhao, and X. Zhou, “Metaptp: An adaptive meta-optimized model for personalized spatial trajectory prediction,” in KDD, 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Where to go next: Modeling long-and short-term user preferences for point-of-interest recommendation,

    K. Sun, T. Qian, T. Chen, Y . Liang, Q. V . H. Nguyen, and H. Yin, “Where to go next: Modeling long-and short-term user preferences for point-of-interest recommendation,” in AAAI, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Stan: Spatio-temporal attention network for next location recommendation,

    Y . Luo, Q. Liu, and Z. Liu, “Stan: Spatio-temporal attention network for next location recommendation,” in WWW, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Geography-aware sequential location recommendation,

    D. Lian, Y . Wu, Y . Ge, X. Xie, and E. Chen, “Geography-aware sequential location recommendation,” in KDD, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Pre-training context and time aware location embeddings from spatial-temporal trajectories for user next location prediction,

    Y . Lin, H. Wan, S. Guo, and Y . Lin, “Pre-training context and time aware location embeddings from spatial-temporal trajectories for user next location prediction,” in AAAI, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Modeling spatio- temporal neighbourhood for personalized point-of-interest recommenda- tion,

    X. Wang, G. Sun, X. Fang, J. Yang, and S. Wang, “Modeling spatio- temporal neighbourhood for personalized point-of-interest recommenda- tion,” in IJCAI, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Dis- entangling geographical effect for point-of-interest recommendation,

    Y . Qin, C. Gao, Y . Wang, S. Wei, D. Jin, J. Yuan, and L. Zhang, “Dis- entangling geographical effect for point-of-interest recommendation,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2022

    2022

  29. [37]

    Learning time slot preferences via mobility tree for next poi recommendation,

    T. Huang, X. Pan, X. Cai, Y . Zhang, and X. Yuan, “Learning time slot preferences via mobility tree for next poi recommendation,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 38, no. 8, 2024, pp. 8535–8543

    2024

  30. [38]

    Towards effective next poi prediction: Spatial and semantic augmentation with remote sensing data,

    N. Jiang, H. Yuan, J. Si, M. Chen, and S. Wang, “Towards effective next poi prediction: Spatial and semantic augmentation with remote sensing data,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04271 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Taming the long tail in human mobility prediction,

    X. Xu, R. Jiang, C. Yang, K. Sezaki et al. , “Taming the long tail in human mobility prediction,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 54 748–54 771, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    A category-aware deep model for successive poi recommendation on sparse check-in data,

    F. Yu, L. Cui, W. Guo, X. Lu, Q. Li, and H. Lu, “A category-aware deep model for successive poi recommendation on sparse check-in data,” in WWW, 2020. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 14

    2020

  33. [41]

    Exploiting category-level multiple characteristics for poi recommendation,

    Z. Dong, X. Meng, and Y . Zhang, “Exploiting category-level multiple characteristics for poi recommendation,” IEEE Transactions on Knowl- edge and Data Engineering , 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Human mobility prediction with causal and spatial-constrained multi-task network,

    Z. Huang, S. Xu, M. Wang, H. Wu, Y . Xu, and Y . Jin, “Human mobility prediction with causal and spatial-constrained multi-task network,” EPJ Data Science, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 22, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Adamove: Efficient test-time adaptation for human mobility prediction,

    H. Han, S. Wang, S. Ruan, Q. Yang, Y . Liang, Z. Yuan, C. Long, H. Yuan, and Y . Zheng, “Adamove: Efficient test-time adaptation for human mobility prediction,” in 2025 IEEE 41st International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE Computer Society, 2025, pp. 3655– 3667

    2025

  36. [44]

    Hyperbolic multi-semantic transition for next POI recommendation,

    H. Qiao, S. Feng, M. Zhou, W. Li, and F. Li, “Hyperbolic multi-semantic transition for next POI recommendation,” in Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 . ACM, pp. 1830–1837

    2025

  37. [45]

    Mixing individual and collective behaviors to predict out- of-routine mobility,

    S. Bontorin, S. Centellegher, R. Gallotti, L. Pappalardo, B. Lepri, and M. Luca, “Mixing individual and collective behaviors to predict out- of-routine mobility,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 122, no. 17, p. e2414848122, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    A universal model for human mobility prediction,

    Q. Long, Y . Yuan, and Y . Li, “A universal model for human mobility prediction,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V . 1 , 2025, pp. 894–905

    2025

  39. [47]

    Stgcn: a spatial-temporal aware graph learning method for poi recommendation,

    H. Han, M. Zhang, M. Hou, F. Zhang, Z. Wang, E. Chen, H. Wang, J. Ma, and Q. Liu, “Stgcn: a spatial-temporal aware graph learning method for poi recommendation,” in ICDM, 2020

    2020

  40. [48]

    Next poi recommendation with dynamic graph and explicit dependency,

    F. Yin, Y . Liu, Z. Shen, L. Chen, S. Shang, and P. Han, “Next poi recommendation with dynamic graph and explicit dependency,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 37, no. 4, 2023, pp. 4827–4834

    2023

  41. [49]

    Adaptive graph representation learning for next poi recommendation,

    Z. Wang, Y . Zhu, C. Wang, W. Ma, B. Li, and J. Yu, “Adaptive graph representation learning for next poi recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 2023, pp. 393–402

    2023

  42. [50]

    Eedn: Enhanced encoder-decoder network with local and global context learn- ing for poi recommendation,

    X. Wang, F. Fukumoto, J. Cui, Y . Suzuki, J. Li, and D. Yu, “Eedn: Enhanced encoder-decoder network with local and global context learn- ing for poi recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrie...

    2023

  43. [51]

    Revisiting mobility modeling with graph: A graph transformer model for next point-of-interest recommendation,

    X. Xu, T. Suzumura, J. Yong, M. Hanai, C. Yang, H. Kanezashi, R. Jiang, and S. Fukushima, “Revisiting mobility modeling with graph: A graph transformer model for next point-of-interest recommendation,” in Proceedings of the 31st ACM international conference on advances in geog...

    2023

  44. [52]

    Graph- enhanced spatial-temporal network for next poi recommendation,

    Z. Wang, Y . Zhu, Q. Zhang, H. Liu, C. Wang, and T. Liu, “Graph- enhanced spatial-temporal network for next poi recommendation,” TKDD, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Rlmob: Deep reinforcement learning for suc- cessive mobility prediction,

    Z. Luo and C. Miao, “Rlmob: Deep reinforcement learning for suc- cessive mobility prediction,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining , 2022, pp. 648–656

    2022

  46. [54]

    Multi-perspective spatiotemporal context-aware neural networks for human mobility prediction,

    C. Wang and Z. Deng, “Multi-perspective spatiotemporal context-aware neural networks for human mobility prediction,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on the Human Mobility Prediction Challenge, 2023, pp. 32–36

    2023

  47. [55]

    Cell-level trajectory prediction us- ing time-embedded encoder-decoder network,

    T. Kim, K.-S. Kim, and A. Matono, “Cell-level trajectory prediction us- ing time-embedded encoder-decoder network,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on the Human Mobility Prediction Challenge , 2023, pp. 37–40

    2023

  48. [56]

    A hierarchical temporal attention-based lstm encoder-decoder model for individual mobility prediction,

    F. Li, Z. Gui, Z. Zhang, D. Peng, S. Tian, K. Yuan, Y . Sun, H. Wu, J. Gong, and Y . Lei, “A hierarchical temporal attention-based lstm encoder-decoder model for individual mobility prediction,” Neurocom- puting, vol. 403, pp. 153–166, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Unravelling daily human mobility motifs,

    C. M. Schneider, V . Belik, T. Couronn ´e, Z. Smoreda, and M. C. Gonz´alez, “Unravelling daily human mobility motifs,” Journal of The Royal Society Interface , 2013

    2013

  50. [58]

    Inductive representation learning on large graphs,

    W. Hamilton, Z. Ying, and J. Leskovec, “Inductive representation learning on large graphs,” NeurIPS, 2017

    2017

  51. [59]

    Graph attention networks,

    P. Velickovic, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Lio, Y . Bengio et al., “Graph attention networks,” ICLR, 2017

    2017

  52. [60]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” NeurIPS, 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    Metropolitan scale and longitudinal dataset of anonymized human mobility trajectories,

    T. Yabe, K. Tsubouchi, T. Shimizu, Y . Sekimoto, K. Sezaki, E. Moro, and A. Pentland, “Metropolitan scale and longitudinal dataset of anonymized human mobility trajectories,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03401, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Graph-flashback network for next location recommendation,

    X. Rao, L. Chen, Y . Liu, S. Shang, B. Yao, and P. Han, “Graph-flashback network for next location recommendation,” in KDD, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    Hgarn: Hierarchical graph atten- tion recurrent network for human mobility prediction,

    Y . Tang, J. He, and Z. Zhao, “Hgarn: Hierarchical graph atten- tion recurrent network for human mobility prediction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07765, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Systematic comparison of trip distribution laws and models,

    M. Lenormand, A. Bassolas, and J. J. Ramasco, “Systematic comparison of trip distribution laws and models,” Journal of Transport Geography , vol. 51, pp. 158–169, 2016

    2016

  57. [65]

    Effect of non- pharmaceutical interventions to contain covid-19 in china,

    S. Lai, N. W. Ruktanonchai, L. Zhou, O. Prosper, W. Luo, J. R. Floyd, A. Wesolowski, M. Santillana, C. Zhang, X. Du et al., “Effect of non- pharmaceutical interventions to contain covid-19 in china,” nature, vol. 585, no. 7825, pp. 410–413, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.