Trip Recommendation Meets Real-World Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As location-based social network (LBSN) services become increasingly popular, trip recommendation that recommends a sequence of points of interest (POIs) to visit for a user emerges as one of many important applications of LBSNs. Personalized trip recommendation tailors to users’ specific tastes by learning from past check-in behaviors of users and their peers. Finding the optimal trip that maximizes user’s experiences for a given time budget constraint is an NP-hard problem and previous solutions do not consider three practical and important constraints. One constraint is POI availability , where a POI may be only available during a certain time window. Another constraint is uncertain traveling time , where the traveling time between two POIs is uncertain. In addition, the diversity of the POIs included in the trip plays an important role in user’s final adoptions. This work presents efficient solutions to personalized trip recommendation by incorporating these constraints and leveraging them to prune the search space. We evaluated the efficiency and effectiveness of our solutions on real-life LBSN datasets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".