Regularity and Conformity: Location Prediction Using Heterogeneous Mobility Data

Transcription

1 Regularity and Conformity: Location Prediction Using Heterogeneous Mobility Data Yingzi Wang 12, Nicholas Jing Yuan 2, Defu Lian 3, Linli Xu 1 Xing Xie 2, Enhong Chen 1, Yong Rui 2 1 University of Science and Technology of China 2 Microsoft Research 3 University of Electronic Science and Technology of China

2 Regularity Conformity

3 Regularity 93%: the limit of predictability of human mobility(song et al. [1]) Major hubs: homes, workplaces Minor hubs: shopping malls, gyms, and restaurants [1]C. Song, Z. Qu, N. Blumm, and A.-L. Barabási. Limits of predictability in human mobility. Science, 327(5968): , 2010.

4 Conformity

5 Related work Individual models methods Collaborative models target feature CI GPS Wifi SMP TC IT SR CF NextPlace(Scellato et al.) WhereNext(Monreale et al.) W 4 (Yuan et al.) methods target feature CI GPS Wifi SMP TC IT SR CF PSMM(Cho et al.) SHM(Gao et al.) gscorr(gao et al.) CI: check-in, SMP: spatial mobility pattern, TC: text content, IT: individual temporal patterns, SR: social relationship, CF: collaborative filtering, HT: heterogeneous mobility datasets Limits: 1. Failed to Incorporate both regularity and conformity of human mobility 2. Static, not time-aware 3. Homogeneous data CEPR(Lian et al.)

6 Problem definition A B C A B C

7 Problem definition B A C A C B A C B Regularity Conformity

8 Main idea overview Split days into T time slots T = t 1, t 2,, t T M users and N venues U = u 1, u 2,, u M V = v 1, v 2,, v N Preference matrix of U to V at time t : R(t) R M N R ij t = R ij r (t) + R ij c (t) t v j u i Regularity term conformity term

9 Conformity term (check-in data) Traditional collaborative model: Matrix Factorization R ij = U i V j T v j = u i K: length of latent factor Time-aware Matrix Factorization t R ij c t = U i + U i t V j T v j t = ( u i + ) Unchangeable interests Changeable preferences

10 Regularity term(heterogeneous data) Split the city into I grid cells: C = {d 1, d 2,, d I } v j belongs to a grid d kj u i travels from a grid d k to v j Pr(v j u i ) σi k=1 Pr(d k u i ) Pr(v j d k ) = σi k=1 Pr(d k u i ) Pr(d kj d k ) Pr(v j d kj ) (r) H ik Q jk R ij = T Hi Q j u i d k d k d kj u i v j d kj Pr(v j u i ) Pr(d k u i ) Pr(d kj d k ) Pr(v j d kj )

11 Gravity model O i dis i,j D j T i,j =c (O i ) a (D j ) b exp(r dis i,j ), B, A, C m 1 (O i ) a, O i : number of individuals leaving grid d i in data* m 2 (D j ) b, D j : number of people going toward d j in data* R 2 exp(r dis i,j ), dis i,j : distance between d i and d j B: bus data A: taxi data C: check-in data c,a,b,r: constants

12 Achieve the two-level sparsity Cluster grids into G group (r) R ij = T Hi Q j (r) R ij = g H i (g) Qj (g)t t number of grids t v j Q 1 T u i u i v j = Q 2 T H (1) H (2) H (G) Q G T

13 RCH model Sparse group lasso Objective function: Ρ(U, U t, V, H t, θ B, θ A ) = σ t T R t σ g G H g t σ P θ Q g T (U + U(T))V T F 2 + σ t T ( 1 α σ σ j=1 M σ g G H g j t +γ U 2 F + V 2 F + β σ t T U t F 2, where P = {A, B, C} and θ C = 1. + ασ σ j=1 M H j (t) ) 2 1 Offers groupwise sparsity Offers withingroup sparsity Optimization: alternative minimization

14 Heterogeneous mobility data Data Set Check-in(Sina Weibo) Bus Data Taxi Data City Beijing Beijing Beijing Scale of Data Period Content 12,133,504 checkins Mar to Sep user ID, check-in time, venue Id, venue s geocoordinates 3,000,000 bustrips Aug to May 2013 card Id, alighting time, boarding and alighting stops 19,400,000 taxi transitions Mar to Aug times, geocoordinates of boarding and alighting

15 Experiments Baselines MF(Most Frequent Model) Calculate the frequencies of users check-ins PMM (Periodic Mobility Model) 2-dimentional (home, work) Time-independent spatial Gaussian Mixture W 3 (Who, When, Where) Probabilistic model CEPR Human mobility: regular and novel ones Divide the check-in data into two parts by time order: training part and testing part (7:3) Metrics: Acc@topP: prediction accuracy for prediction list with length P APR(average percentile rank): for the actually visited venues Parameters: Default values of {θ A, θ B, γ, β, α, σ} are {1, 1, 0.005, 0.005, 0.95, 10 5 }

16 Results RCH C shows improvements over all the 4 baselines; RCH BAC has better performance than RCH C ; Acc@topP Workdays have better prediction accuracies than holidays; The time slot 2 of workdays has the highest accuracy; Acc@topP for different type of days and time slots

17 Results of visited and unvisited venues APR of our models in different time slots CEPR and RCH BAC : outperform PMM and W 3 apparently for unvisited venues benefit from collaborative filtering; CEPR and RCH BAC : accuracy of unvisited venues on holidays is higher than workdays; RCH ABC has highest APR in our models in different time slots;

18 Summary Integrate both the regularity and conformity of human mobility Provide a time-aware collaborative model Incorporate heterogeneous mobility data into prediction model Learn spatial influence and group structure based on gravity model and sparse group Lasso RCH model: significantly outperforms existing approaches Yingzi Wang