Individual Mobility Prediction via Attentive Marked Temporal Point Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual mobility prediction is an essential task for transportation demand management and traffic system operation. There exist a large body of works on modeling location sequence and predicting the next location of users; however, little attention is paid to the prediction of the next trip, which is governed by the strong spatiotemporal dependencies between diverse attributes, including trip start time $t$, origin $o$, and destination $d$. To fill this gap, in this paper we propose a novel point process-based model -- Attentive Marked temporal point processes (AMTPP) -- to model human mobility and predict the whole trip $(t,o,d)$ in a joint manner. To encode the influence of history trips, AMTPP employs the self-attention mechanism with a carefully designed positional embedding to capture the daily/weekly periodicity and regularity in individual travel behavior. Given the unique peaked nature of inter-event time in human behavior, we use an asymmetric log-Laplace mixture distribution to precisely model the distribution of trip start time $t$. Furthermore, an origin-destination (OD) matrix learning block is developed to model the relationship between every origin and destination pair. Experimental results on two large metro trip datasets demonstrate the superior performance of AMTPP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".