Decoding Urban Industrial Complexity: Enhancing Knowledge-Driven Insights via IndustryScopeGPT

Chao Liang; Haofen Wang; Jing Li; Siqi Wang; Yang Liu; Yunfan Gao

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Decoding Urban Industrial Complexity: Enhancing Knowledge-Driven Insights via IndustryScopeGPT

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 IndustryScopeGPT claims that coupling an LLM agent to a 51-million-triple industrial park knowledge graph and a Monte Carlo tree search planner sharply improves site recommendation and functional planning over standard prompting baselines.

desk verdict A genuinely useful industrial-park knowledge graph and a competent LLM-agent framework, but the headline accuracy gains are undermined by a benchmark whose labels and the agent's ranking tool share the same attribute-ranking logic, and by the absence of any error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15758 v1 pith:LIR6TNCC submitted 2024-11-24 cs.AI cs.CYcs.SI

Siqi Wang , Chao Liang , Yunfan Gao , Yang Liu , Jing Li , Haofen Wang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.CYcs.SI

keywords urbanknowledgegraphindustrialparkplanningandoperationlargelanguagemodelagentMonteCarlotreesearchsiterecommendationfunctionalmulti-modaldatadatabasereasoning

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

This paper claims that a large language model can do serious urban planning work if it is paired with a purpose-built knowledge graph and a tree-search reasoning loop. The authors build IndustryScopeKG, a graph of Shanghai industrial parks with 51.68 million triples spanning companies, points of interest, grids, and socioeconomic and street-view attributes, and wrap it in IndustryScopeGPT, an agent that plans tool calls with Monte Carlo tree search. On site recommendation tasks, the agent outperforms chain-of-thought, ReAct, and a plain Cypher-querying GPT-4, reaching precision 0.659 and F1 0.590 on conditional park-level recommendations. On functional planning, it produces more functionally diverse grid layouts than LightGBM and a graph convolutional network. The underlying goal is to replace empirical, survey-based park planning with data-grounded, interpretable, query-driven decision support.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing pieces are the knowledge graph and the search-and-tool loop. The graph $G=(E,S,Y)$ stores entities, relational triples, and attributional triples, including spatial containment and adjacency, park similarity, and industry correlation links, served from a graph database with spatial functions. The planner is a Monte Carlo tree search whose selection uses a modified UCT score $UCT(s)=V(s)/N(s)+\omega d^{N(s)}\sqrt{2\ln N(p)/N(s)}$, expansion generates candidate reasoning steps and tool calls, reflection scores each outcome with LLM self-reflection plus external feedback, and back-propagation updates node values by $V'(s)=V(s)+(R-V(s))/N(s)$. The decision tools include a Cypher Searcher, a Similarity Searcher, a Geo-encoder and Geo-decoder, a Rank Master that aggregates metric rankings by Borda count, and a Function Planner that reads targeted and adjacent grids. The MCTS loop is what lets the agent decide when to query, which site attributes matter, and when to stop.

What would settle it

Build a test set in which gold site recommendations come from independent expert planners or from revealed preferences such as the locations of businesses that actually succeeded, with no LLM participation in label generation; if IndustryScopeGPT then does not beat the prompting baselines, the reported advantage is an artifact of shared ranking logic. Separately, ask a panel of urban planners to blindly rate IndustryScopeGPT's functional plans against LightGBM's and GCN's; if their ratings do not favor the more diverse plans, the Hill-number objective is not a valid stand-in for planning quality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that combining an LLM with a graph database and a search over intermediate tool steps unlocks performance on industrial park planning that none of the pieces achieve alone. IndustryScopeKG represents urban knowledge as relational triples like "company located in park" and attributional triples like "park has 500 companies," organized over 264 parks and 128,866 spatial grids. IndustryScopeGPT treats a user query as the root of a Monte Carlo tree; at each node it chooses a reasoning step or a tool call, reflects on the result, scores it, and back-propagates the reward, using a modified UCT rule to balance exploration and exploitation. The paper reports that this framework, using gpt-4-0125-preview as the engine, beats all compared prompting and retrieval baselines across park-level and grid-level siting at four difficulty levels, and that the planning case studies show markedly higher functional diversity than classical models.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluations assume that the gold-standard site and plan answers are meaningfully correct: siting labels come from LLM-chosen attributes and an optimal ranking rule that the agent itself uses, and planning quality is equated with Hill-number diversity, so if those standards are wrong the reported gains do not reflect real planning quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single LLM agent can handle facility siting across spatial scales and facility types without retraining, because the graph and tools supply task-specific knowledge on demand.
Urban knowledge graphs with spatial and semantic relations can ground LLM answers in structured, queryable facts, reducing reliance on static parametric memory.
The reported precision gains at park and grid level imply that search over reasoning trajectories is worth its extra token cost for high-stakes planning decisions.
The Hill-number diversity results imply that an LLM planner can propose mixed-use layouts that traditional classifiers, trained to reproduce current land use, would not generate.
The public dataset and benchmark give the urban AI community a shared testbed for industrial park planning rather than task-specific datasets.

Reading between the lines

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

An editorial inference: because the benchmark labels were generated by LLM-chosen attributes ranked with the same optimal-ranking logic the agent's Rank Master tool uses, part of the reported advantage may measure self-consistency with the label-generation procedure rather than external planning quality; a held-out set labeled by independent experts would separate these.
The functional planning results are evaluated only through Hill-number diversity, which assumes more mixed-use layouts are better; a blinded survey of professional planners comparing IndustryScopeGPT's plans with LightGBM and GCN plans would test whether the diversity gain is actually preferred.
The graph currently covers Shanghai only, so the framework's portability to other cities with different data availability is untested; applying the same pipeline to a second city would reveal which components are transferable.
Because MCTS consumes substantially more tokens than simple prompting, cost may be the practical barrier to deployment; pruning the search with cheaper rewards or caching tool results is a natural extension.

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

Colleague,

You should know two things about this paper. First, the resource is real: IndustryScopeKG, a 51-million-triple multi-modal knowledge graph for 264 Shanghai industrial parks, with code and data promised on GitHub. For anyone working on urban knowledge graphs, that is a concrete, reusable contribution. Second, the headline results — IndustryScopeGPT beating CoT, ReAct, and GPT-4-with-Cypher on site recommendation — are plausible but not independently convincing, because the benchmark labels and the agent's ranking tool are built from the same attribute-ranking logic.

What is good: the graph construction pipeline is careful and documented. They integrate remote sensing, street views, POIs, enterprise registration, patents, census and GDP, and they define clear spatial and semantic relations. The multi-scale gridding (264 parks, 128,866 grids) is a sensible design. The agent itself is a competent assembly of MCTS plus tool-augmented LLM, building on LATS and ReAct; the tools (Cypher searcher, similarity search, geo-encoder/decoder, Rank Master, function planner) are tailored to the domain, and the MCTS reflection with external feedback is a reasonable adaptation. The paper is also honest about its limitations: single city, token cost.

The soft spots are real and load-bearing. The siting benchmark in Section 5.1 constructs gold answers by having an LLM propose 5–8 evaluation attributes, experts pick one set through consensus, and then an “optimal ranking method” selects top areas. The agent's Rank Master tool is a Borda count over LLM-chosen metrics. The paper never specifies the “optimal ranking method” or the expert protocol, so we cannot rule out that the model is essentially reconstructing the label-generation pipeline. If that is the case, the precision/F1 gains in Tables 4–7 measure self-consistency, not planning quality. The stress-test flag is fair. On top of that, there are no error bars, no significance tests, and only 200 test questions — all four tables report single point estimates. Table 8, the functional planning case study, has no ground truth at all; it just assumes that maximizing Hill-number diversity is the objective. One park's “real situation” has 2 or 3 functions, and the model jumps to 8–11; that may be diversity for diversity's sake. The baseline “GPT-4 w Table/SE” is described as near-zero with no supporting detail, which weakens RQ1; the missing detail on tabular retrieval matters because that comparison is what isolates the value of the graph.

Who is this for? Workers in urban KG construction and LLM agents for spatial decision support. The dataset alone justifies a read. The empirical claims, however, should be treated as conditional until an independent benchmark or a held-out human evaluation appears.

My recommendation: this deserves a serious referee, but it needs major revision before acceptance. The authors should disclose the label-generation procedure in full, add variance estimates or significance tests, and either validate the functional-planning objective with domain experts or drop the “significantly outperforms” language for Table 8.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces IndustryScopeKG, a large multi-modal, multi-level knowledge graph of Shanghai's industrial parks (51,684,939 triples, 264 parks, 128,866 grids, 1,058,656 enterprises), and IndustryScopeGPT, an LLM agent that combines Monte Carlo Tree Search with graph-database and geospatial tools. The framework is evaluated on two IPPO tasks: multi-spatial-scale facility siting (IndustryScopeQA benchmark) and industrial park functional planning. The authors report that IndustryScopeGPT outperforms CoT, ReAct, and Cypher-based baselines on site recommendation (e.g., precision 0.659 and F1 0.590 on conditional park-level recommendation, Table 5) and produces more functionally diverse plans than LightGBM and GCN (Table 8). The paper also releases a dataset and code repository.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, this is a valuable contribution: it is the first open-source large-scale industrial park knowledge graph integrating street-view, corporate, socioeconomic, and geospatial data, and it demonstrates a credible agent architecture for combining LLM reasoning with graph-database tools. The dataset release alone is a useful resource for urban computing and planning research. However, the central site-recommendation result depends on the validity of the benchmark labels, and the current evidence does not yet rule out that the reported gains measure self-consistency with the label-generation procedure rather than external planning quality. The functional-planning evaluation likewise rests on an unvalidated assumption that maximizing Hill-number diversity is the correct objective.

major comments (3)

[Section 5.1 (Dataset) and Section 4.2 (Rank Master)] The gold labels for the IndustryScopeQA benchmark are generated by (a) LLM-identified 5–8 evaluation attributes, (b) expert consensus selection of one attribute set, and (c) an 'optimal ranking method' over IndustryScopeKG attribute values. The IndustryScopeGPT framework's Rank Master tool (Section 4.2) ranks candidate sites using a Borda count over LLM-selected metrics. These two procedures share the same fundamental logic: rank sites by aggregating attribute-based scores. If the 'optimal ranking method' used for label generation is itself a Borda or weighted utility aggregation (as the name suggests), then the reported precision/F1 gains in Tables 4–7 may largely reflect the model's ability to reconstruct the label-generation pipeline, not genuine planning quality. Please specify the exact ranking algorithm used to create the gold labels, including how the attribute weights were derived. In addition, provide a validation that the label attributes and weights correspond to domain-valid planning preferences, e.g., through a held-out set of expert-rated site recommendations or revealed-preference data. An ablation that compares IndustryScopeGPT against a non-MCTS baseline that directly invokes Rank Master with the same gold-label attributes would also help isolate whether the MCTS reasoning contributes beyond simple attribute-rank matching.
[Tables 4–7 and Section 5.1 (Experiment Settings/Metrics)] All quantitative claims of superiority rest on single point estimates over only 200 test questions, with no confidence intervals, bootstrap intervals, or significance tests. For example, in Table 5, IndustryScopeGPT achieves precision 0.659 versus ReAct's 0.539 and F1 0.590 versus 0.485; with n=200, these gaps could plausibly be within sampling error. The paper should report variance estimates (e.g., bootstrap CIs) and, if possible, a paired significance test across the same 200 questions. Additionally, the 'GPT-4 w Table/SE' baseline is reported as '/' in all four tables with only the footnote 'represents mostly zero or near-zero metrics.' This is not a usable result: please report the actual scores, the size of the tabular context, the retrieval method, and the search engine configuration, so readers can assess RQ1 fairly.
[Section 5.2 (Industrial Park Functional Planning)] The functional planning evaluation uses Hill-number diversity (Eq. 5) as the sole metric, implicitly assuming that maximizing functional diversity is the right planning objective. This assumption is not validated against human planners, policy documents, or any revealed-preference outcome. Without such validation, the claim that 'IndustryScopeGPT achieved optimal functional diversity' (Section 5.2, case study) is an assertion about a mathematical objective, not about planning quality. Please add a discussion of why diversity is the appropriate objective for these three parks, or provide domain-expert evaluation of the generated plans. Also, the baselines LightGBM and GCN are trained to predict existing grid dominant functions (used as labels), which is a different task from 'planning' a new functional layout; the comparison would benefit from clarifying whether all methods are solving the same optimization problem.

minor comments (4)

[Section 5.2, last paragraph] The word 'promotied' should be 'promoted'.
[Tables 4–7 and footnote] The notation '/' with footnote 'represents mostly zero or near-zero metrics' is ambiguous. Please either show the actual numbers (even if small) or state explicitly that the baseline failed to produce any valid answer in most cases, with a definition of 'valid'.
[Section 4.1] The MCTS hyperparameters (initial exploration weight ω, decay factor d, number of child nodes k, maximum depth 5, recursion limit 50) are given only as calibrated values without sensitivity analysis. A short ablation on one task showing how performance varies with these settings would strengthen the claim that the method is robust rather than tuned to the test set.
[Section 3.1.2] The sentence 'trained models on street view charm value based on expert ratings' mentions a trained model that is never described in the rest of the paper; please provide details (data size, architecture, performance) or remove the claim from the preprocessing description to avoid an unverifiable component in the graph construction.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Benchmark labels and Rank Master share the same attribute-ranking logic, so site-recommendation gains measure self-consistency with the label-generation pipeline.

self definitional [Section 5.1 (Multi-spatial Scale Facility Siting Recommendation, Dataset paragraph) and Section 4.2 (Decision Support Tools, Rank Master)]
"LLM identified 5-8 key evaluation attributes for each question, resulting in three sets. Domain experts selected one set through consensus-building, and top areas were determined using an optimal ranking method, forming question-answer pairs. ... Rank Master: This tool integrates a non-parametric Borda Count rank aggregation method with LLM to rank parks or grids based on selected metrics like accessibility, POI density, and demographics."

The gold answers in the IndustryScopeQA benchmark are constructed by (a) LLM-proposed evaluation attributes, (b) expert selection of one attribute set, and (c) an 'optimal ranking method' over IndustryScopeKG attribute values to produce 'top areas'. IndustryScopeGPT's Rank Master performs the same operation: an LLM selects metrics, and Borda Count aggregates ranks of parks or grids over those metrics. Both the label generator and the evaluated method rank the same candidate entities using attribute-based multi-criteria aggregation over the same knowledge graph. Therefore, high precision/F1 on Tables 4-7 indicates how closely the agent reproduces the label-generation procedure, not agreement with real planning outcomes or externally validated preferences.

full rationale

The site-recommendation benchmark is the main quantitative evidence for IndustryScopeGPT's superiority, and its labels are generated by an attribute-selection plus multi-criteria ranking procedure over IndustryScopeKG attributes. The method's Rank Master tool is exactly an LLM-driven, attribute-based Borda rank aggregation over the same graph entities. This makes the reported gains on Tables 4-7 a measure of how well the model reconstructs the benchmark's internal label-generation pipeline rather than a validation against real planning quality. I therefore score the paper 6: the central site-recommendation claim is partially circular by construction. I did not count the functional-planning study (Section 5.2) as a separate circular step because the paper does not explicitly state that IndustryScopeGPT optimizes the Hill-number diversity metric used for evaluation, although the acknowledged absence of uniform planning standards ('Given the absence of uniform standards for planning evaluation') means Table 8 demonstrates diversity maximization, not externally validated planning quality. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears: the MCTS planner, tool design, and knowledge-graph construction are independent of the benchmark-labeling procedure. The circularity is specific to the evaluation protocol for the paper's headline quantitative claims.

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

No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced. The only new objects are the constructed dataset, benchmark, and labels, which are not independent theoretical postulates but are affected by the assumptions listed above.

free parameters (3)

MCTS search hyperparameters = expansion width 2, max depth 5, recursion limit 50; omega and d unspecified
Chosen by hand in Section 5.1 Experiment Settings with no sensitivity analysis. Search depth and exploration weight directly affect trajectory quality and reported scores.
Industry correlation threshold = 0.9
In Section 3.2.2, an industry correlation link is created when embedding similarity exceeds 0.9. No ablation or justification is given for this cutoff; it determines the number of 'Related to' edges in the graph.
Street-view charm model and visual metric models = not specified
Section 3.1.2 says visual metrics were computed using semantic segmentation, object detection, and a charm value model trained on expert ratings, but no model details or thresholds are provided. These models feed attributes into the KG.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Industrial park planning quality can be measured by Hill-number diversity of grid functions.
Section 5.2 uses Eq. 5 Hill numbers as the sole evaluation for functional planning, without human expert validation or external outcome measures. If diversity is not the right objective, the reported 'optimal functional diversity' does not imply good planning.
ad hoc to paper LLM-generated, expert-selected evaluation attributes plus optimal ranking over KG attributes produce correct site recommendation answers.
Section 5.1 Dataset describes this benchmark construction. The gold answers are not grounded in realized business outcomes or independent human judgments, so the benchmark's validity rests on this assumption.
domain assumption Manual vector boundaries of Shanghai industrial parks and multi-source geospatial data standardization are accurate.
Section 3.1.2 says boundaries were manually outlined and coordinates standardized to the Baidu system. Errors here propagate to all spatial containment and grid computations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoding Urban Industrial Complexity: Enhancing Knowledge-Driven Insights via IndustryScopeGPT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LIR6TNCC

@misc{pith2026241115758,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoding Urban Industrial Complexity: Enhancing Knowledge-Driven Insights via IndustryScopeGPT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LIR6TNCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15758}
}

read the original abstract

Industrial parks are critical to urban economic growth. Yet, their development often encounters challenges stemming from imbalances between industrial requirements and urban services, underscoring the need for strategic planning and operations. This paper introduces IndustryScopeKG, a pioneering large-scale multi-modal, multi-level industrial park knowledge graph, which integrates diverse urban data including street views, corporate, socio-economic, and geospatial information, capturing the complex relationships and semantics within industrial parks. Alongside this, we present the IndustryScopeGPT framework, which leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) with Monte Carlo Tree Search to enhance tool-augmented reasoning and decision-making in Industrial Park Planning and Operation (IPPO). Our work significantly improves site recommendation and functional planning, demonstrating the potential of combining LLMs with structured datasets to advance industrial park management. This approach sets a new benchmark for intelligent IPPO research and lays a robust foundation for advancing urban industrial development. The dataset and related code are available at https://github.com/Tongji-KGLLM/IndustryScope.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15758 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Park vectorization and grid processing. Urban Geospatial Data: Includes (1) building footprints, areas of interest (AOI), and mobility data based on mobile positioning from Baidu Map; (2) POI and transport station data from Amap. Corporate Data: Includes (1) industrial and commercial enterprise registration data from Qichacha; (2) patent and software copyright data from the National Intellectual Property Administr… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** IndustryScopeKG construction pipeline. It follows the process from data collection and preprocessing to triple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Overview of IndustryScopeGPT - illustrating conditional financial facility siting based on user queries. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Designed tools and their typical reasoning chains. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Utilizing IndustryScopeGPT for grid function plan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Shimaa Al-Quradaghi, Qipeng P Zheng, and Ali Elkamel. 2020. Generalized frame- work for the design of eco-industrial parks: Case study of end-of-life vehicles. Sustainability 12, 16 (2020), 6612

work page 2020
[2]

Guillermo Andrés Fuentes Barrera, Xavier Gabarrell i Durany, Joan Rieradevall Pons, and Jhoniers Gilberto Guerrero Erazo. 2021. Trends in global research on industrial parks: A bibliometric analysis from 1996–2019. Heliyon 7, 8 (2021)

work page 2021
[3]

Marianne Boix, Ludovic Montastruc, Catherine Azzaro-Pantel, and Serge Domenech. 2015. Optimization methods applied to the design of eco-industrial parks: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 87 (2015), 303–317

work page 2015
[4]

Cameron B Browne, Edward Powley, Daniel Whitehouse, Simon M Lucas, Peter I Cowling, Philipp Rohlfshagen, Stephen Tavener, Diego Perez, Spyridon Samoth- rakis, and Simon Colton. 2012. A survey of monte carlo tree search methods. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in games 4, 1 (2012), 1–43

2012
[5]

Anne Chao, Nicholas J Gotelli, TC Hsieh, Elizabeth L Sander, KH Ma, Robert K Colwell, and Aaron M Ellison. 2014. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecological monographs 84, 1 (2014), 45–67

work page 2014
[6]

Xi Chen, Yun Xiong, Siqi Wang, Haofen Wang, Tao Sheng, Yao Zhang, and Yu Ye. 2023. ReCo: A Dataset for Residential Community Layout Planning. In ACM Multimedia. ACM, 397–405

work page 2023
[7]

Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Qianyu Guo, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey. CoRR abs/2312.10997 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[8]

Guolin Ke, Qi Meng, Thomas Finley, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chen, Weidong Ma, Qiwei Ye, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2017. LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree. In NIPS. 3146–3154

work page 2017

Show all 42 references

[9]

Levente Kocsis and Csaba Szepesvári. 2006. Bandit based monte-carlo planning. In European conference on machine learning . Springer, 282–293

2006
[10]

Xinhang Li, Xiangyu Zhao, Yejing Wang, Yu Liu, Yong Li, Cheng Long, Yong Zhang, and Chunxiao Xing. 2023. OpenSiteRec: An Open Dataset for Site Rec- ommendation. CoRR abs/2307.00856 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[11]

Zhonghang Li, Lianghao Xia, Jiabin Tang, Yong Xu, Lei Shi, Long Xia, Dawei Yin, and Chao Huang. 2024. UrbanGPT: Spatio-Temporal Large Language Models. CoRR abs/2403.00813 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[12]

Yu Liu, Jingtao Ding, Yanjie Fu, and Yong Li. 2023. UrbanKG: An Urban Knowledge Graph System. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 14, 4 (2023), 60:1–60:25

2023
[13]

Yu Liu, Jingtao Ding, and Yong Li. 2023. KnowSite: Leveraging Urban Knowledge Graph for Site Selection. In SIGSPATIAL/GIS. ACM, 90:1–90:12

2023
[14]

Yan Liu, Bin Guo, Daqing Zhang, Djamal Zeghlache, Jingmin Chen, Ke Hu, Sizhe Zhang, Dan Zhou, and Zhiwen Yu. 2021. Knowledge Transfer with Weighted Adversarial Network for Cold-Start Store Site Recommendation. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 15, 3 (2021), 47:1–47:27

2021
[15]

Varun Mandalapu, Lavanya Elluri, Piyush Vyas, and Nirmalya Roy. 2023. Crime Prediction Using Machine Learning and Deep Learning: A Systematic Review and Future Directions. CoRR abs/2303.16310 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[16]

Manuel Méndez, Mercedes G Merayo, and Manuel Núñez. 2023. Long-term traffic flow forecasting using a hybrid CNN-BiLSTM model. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 121 (2023), 106041

2023
[17]

Yansong Ning and Hao Liu. 2024. UrbanKGent: A Unified Large Language Model Agent Framework for Urban Knowledge Graph Construction. CoRR abs/2402.06861 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[18]

Yansong Ning, Hao Liu, Hao Wang, Zhenyu Zeng, and Hui Xiong. 2023. UUKG: Unified Urban Knowledge Graph Dataset for Urban Spatiotemporal Prediction. In NeurIPS

2023
[19]

Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems 35...

2022
[20]

Jiashuo Sun, Chengjin Xu, Lumingyuan Tang, Saizhuo Wang, Chen Lin, Yeyun Gong, Heung-Yeung Shum, and Jian Guo. 2023. Think-on-Graph: Deep and Responsible Reasoning of Large Language Model with Knowledge Graph. CoRR abs/2307.07697 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[21]

Vesela Veleva, Peter Lowitt, Neil Angus, and Dona Neely. 2016. Benchmarking eco- industrial park development: the case of Devens. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23, 5 (2016), 1147–1170

2016
[22]

Dongjie Wang, Chang-Tien Lu, and Yanjie Fu. 2023. Towards Automated Urban Planning: When Generative and ChatGPT-like AI Meets Urban Planning. CoRR abs/2304.03892 (2023)

2023
[23]

Dongjie Wang, Lingfei Wu, Denghui Zhang, Jingbo Zhou, Leilei Sun, and Yanjie Fu. 2023. Human-instructed deep hierarchical generative learning for automated urban planning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 37. 4660–4667

2023
[24]

Jiawei Wang, Renhe Jiang, Chuang Yang, Zengqing Wu, Makoto Onizuka, Ryosuke Shibasaki, and Chuan Xiao. 2024. Large Language Models as Urban Residents: An LLM Agent Framework for Personal Mobility Generation. CoRR abs/2402.14744 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[25]

Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, Wayne Xin Zhao, Zhewei Wei, and Jirong Wen. 2024. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers Comput. Sci. 18, 6 (2024), 186345

2024
[26]

Siqi Wang, Chao Liang, Yunfan Gao, Yu Ye, Jingyu Qiu, Chuang Tao, and Haofen Wang. 2024. Social media insights into spatio-temporal emotional responses to COVID-19 crisis. Health & Place 85 (2024), 103174

2024
[27]

Chi, Quoc V

Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. In NeurIPS

2022
[28]

Jerry Wei, Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Dustin Tran, Albert Webson, Yifeng Lu, Xinyun Chen, Hanxiao Liu, Da Huang, Denny Zhou, et al. 2023. Larger language models do in-context learning differently. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03846 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[29]

Ross Williams, Niyousha Hosseinichimeh, Aritra Majumdar, and Navid Ghaf- farzadegan. 2023. Epidemic Modeling with Generative Agents. CoRR abs/2307.04986 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[30]

Kiara Winans, Alissa Kendall, and Hui Deng. 2017. The history and current applications of the circular economy concept. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68 (2017), 825–833

2017
[31]

Meng Xiao, Dongjie Wang, Min Wu, Pengfei Wang, Yuanchun Zhou, and Yanjie Fu. 2023. Beyond discrete selection: Continuous embedding space optimization for generative feature selection. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 688–697

2023
[32]

Ronghui Xu, Weiming Huang, Jun Zhao, Meng Chen, and Liqiang Nie. 2023. A Spatial and Adversarial Representation Learning Approach for Land Use Classifi- cation with POIs. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 14, 6 (2023), 114:1–114:25

2023
[33]

Hua Yan, Shuai Wang, Yu Yang, Baoshen Guo, Tian He, and Desheng Zhang
[34]

Chengbiao Yang and Guilin Qi. 2022. An Urban Traffic Knowledge Graph-Driven Spatial-Temporal Graph Convolutional Network for Traffic Flow Prediction. In IJCKG. ACM, 110–114

2022
[35]

Liang Yao, Chengsheng Mao, and Yuan Luo. 2019. Graph convolutional net- works for text classification. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 33. 7370–7377

2019
[36]

Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. In NeurIPS

2023
[37]

Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao

Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. In ICLR. OpenReview.net

2023
[38]

Yao Yao, Jiale Wang, Ye Hong, Chen Qian, Qingfeng Guan, Xun Liang, Liangyang Dai, and Jinbao Zhang. 2021. Discovering the homogeneous geographic domain of human perceptions from street view images. Landscape and Urban Planning 212 (2021), 104125

2021
[39]

Andy Zhou, Kai Yan, Michal Shlapentokh-Rothman, Haohan Wang, and Yu-Xiong Wang. 2023. Language agent tree search unifies reasoning acting and planning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04406 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[40]

Zhilun Zhou, Yuming Lin, Depeng Jin, and Yong Li. 2024. Large Language Model for Participatory Urban Planning. CoRR abs/2402.17161 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[41]

Zihao Zhou, Teng Zhong, Mengyang Liu, and Yu Ye. 2023. Evaluating building color harmoniousness in a historic district intelligently: An algorithm-driven approach using street-view images. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science 50, 7 (2023), 1838–1857

2023
[2022]

$Oˆ{2}$-SiteRec: Store Site Recommendation under the O2O Model via Multi-graph Attention Networks. In ICDE. IEEE, 525–538

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Shimaa Al-Quradaghi, Qipeng P Zheng, and Ali Elkamel. 2020. Generalized frame- work for the design of eco-industrial parks: Case study of end-of-life vehicles. Sustainability 12, 16 (2020), 6612

work page 2020

[2] [2]

Guillermo Andrés Fuentes Barrera, Xavier Gabarrell i Durany, Joan Rieradevall Pons, and Jhoniers Gilberto Guerrero Erazo. 2021. Trends in global research on industrial parks: A bibliometric analysis from 1996–2019. Heliyon 7, 8 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Marianne Boix, Ludovic Montastruc, Catherine Azzaro-Pantel, and Serge Domenech. 2015. Optimization methods applied to the design of eco-industrial parks: a literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production 87 (2015), 303–317

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Cameron B Browne, Edward Powley, Daniel Whitehouse, Simon M Lucas, Peter I Cowling, Philipp Rohlfshagen, Stephen Tavener, Diego Perez, Spyridon Samoth- rakis, and Simon Colton. 2012. A survey of monte carlo tree search methods. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in games 4, 1 (2012), 1–43

2012

[5] [5]

Anne Chao, Nicholas J Gotelli, TC Hsieh, Elizabeth L Sander, KH Ma, Robert K Colwell, and Aaron M Ellison. 2014. Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies. Ecological monographs 84, 1 (2014), 45–67

work page 2014

[6] [6]

Xi Chen, Yun Xiong, Siqi Wang, Haofen Wang, Tao Sheng, Yao Zhang, and Yu Ye. 2023. ReCo: A Dataset for Residential Community Layout Planning. In ACM Multimedia. ACM, 397–405

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Qianyu Guo, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey. CoRR abs/2312.10997 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Guolin Ke, Qi Meng, Thomas Finley, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chen, Weidong Ma, Qiwei Ye, and Tie-Yan Liu. 2017. LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree. In NIPS. 3146–3154

work page 2017