1 / 33

Smart Itinerary Recommendation based on User-Generated GPS Trajectories

Smart Itinerary Recommendation based on User-Generated GPS Trajectories. Hyoseok Yoon 1 , Y. Zheng 2 , X. Xie 2 and W. Woo 1. 1 GIST U-VR Lab. 2 Microsoft Research Asia. 1. Traveling. Popular leisure activity. How to use time wisely?. Trial-and-error is COSTLY!!!.

vance-giles
Download Presentation

Smart Itinerary Recommendation based on User-Generated GPS Trajectories

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Smart Itinerary Recommendation based on User-Generated GPS Trajectories Hyoseok Yoon1, Y. Zheng2, X. Xie2 and W. Woo1 1GIST U-VR Lab. 2Microsoft Research Asia 1

  2. Traveling • Popular leisure activity How to use time wisely? Trial-and-error is COSTLY!!! <Source: Flickr, Photo By Wolfgang Staudt>

  3. Commercial Solution • Handful itineraries • Major location • Fixed time • Not flexible <Source: Flickr, Photo By Andrew. O>

  4. Social Solution • Ask residents of the region • Refer to travel experts • Learn from the experienced <Source: Flickr, Photo By Supermariolxpt>

  5. Introduction • Data mining of GPS trajectories • User-generated • Travel routes • Travel experiences • Itinerary recommendation

  6. Related Work • Itinerary Recommendation • Interactive system for manually generate itinerary • INTRIGUE, TripTip • Travel recommendation system based on online travel info. (Huang and Bian) • Advanced Traveler Information System based on the shortest distance • GPS Data Mining Applications • Finding patterns in GPS trajectory • Find locations of interest • GeoLife: mine user similarity, interest locations, and travel sequences

  7. Contributions • BuildLocation-Interest Graph • From multiple user-generated GPS trajectories • For modeling travel routes • Definea good itinerary • How to define and model itinerary • How it can be evaluated • Smart itinerary recommendation framework • Recommend highly efficient and balanced itinerary • Evaluation • Using a large GPS dataset • Simulated/real user queries

  8. Preliminaries • Trajectory: a sequence of time-stamped points • Stay Point: a geographical region s • Where a user stayed over a time threshold within a distance threshold

  9. Preliminaries • Location History: A sequence of stay points user visited • Locations: Clustersof stay points detected from multiple users’ trajectories • Substitute a stay point in with the Location ID the stay point pertains to Location s s s s s s s s s s

  10. Preliminaries • Typical Stay Time: Defined as median of stay time of stay points in li • Typical Time Interval (∆Ti,j): Traveling time between location li to lj Location Location Location s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s

  11. Preliminaries • Location Interest • The interest of a location is represented by authority scores (HITS-based inference model)* • User Experience as Hub • Locations as Authority *Zheng, Y., Zhang, L., Xie, X., Ma, W.Y.: Mining Correlation Between Locations Using Human Location History, In: GIS 2009, pp. 472-475 (2009)

  12. Preliminaries • Trip: A sequence of locations with corresponding typical time intervals • Itinerary: A recommended trip based on user query Q • User Query: A user-specified input (start point, end point and duration)

  13. Modeling Itinerary • Duration as the constraint • Duration that exceeds user’s requirement • No use to users • Simplifies algorithmic complexity • Provides a stopping condition

  14. Modeling Itinerary • First three factors to find candidate trips • (1) Elapsed Time Ratio • (2) Stay Time Ratio • (3) Interest Density Ratio • Classical travel sequence to differentiate candidates further • (4) Classical Travel Sequence Ratio

  15. Architecture • Offline • Analyze collected GPS trajectories • Build a Location-Interest Graph (Gr) • Online • Use Gr to recommend an itinerary based on user query

  16. Location-Interest Graph • Location-Interest Graph • (1) Detect stay points • (2) Cluster them into locations • (3) Calculate location interest • (4) Compute classical travel sequence* • We build Gr offline which contains info. on • Location itself • interest, typical staying time • Relationship between locations • Typical traveling time, classical travel sequence *Zheng, Y., Zhang, L., Xie, X., Ma, W.Y.: Mining Interesting Locations and Travel Sequences from GPS Trajectories. In: WWW 2009, pp. 791-800 (2009)

  17. Query Verification • In the online process, user query Q needs to be verified by calculating Dist(qs,qd) • (1) Using GPS coordinates • Harversine formula or the spherical law of cosines • (2) Use Web service such as Bing Map • If the query is reasonable • Substitute start point and the end point with the nearest locations in Gr • Send an updated query Q` = {ls,ld,qt} to recommender

  18. Trip Candidate Selection • Select trip candidates from the starting location ls to the end location ld. • Candidate trips do not exceed the given duration qt. • (1) start by adding ls to the trip • (2) Add next feasible location not in the trip • (3) Update time parameter • (4) Repeat until the end location is reached or no more location can be added

  19. Trip Candidate Ranking • Top-k trips in the order of the Euclidean Distance of (Elapsed Time Ratio, Stay Time Ratio, Interest Density Ratio)

  20. Re-ranking by Travel Sequence • Differentiate candidates further with classical travel sequence to consider • Authority score of going in and out and the hub scores • Re-rank with CTSR

  21. Illustrative Example 2H 40M 1H 30M 1.5H 1H 1H 30M 1H

  22. Experiments • Settings • GPS trajectories collected from 125 users • 17,745GPS trajectories (May. 2007 ~ Aug. 2009 in Beijing) • Time threshold Tr (20 min), distance threshold Dr (200 meters) • 35,319 stay points are detected excluding work/home spots • Density-based clustering algorithm OPTICS to result in 119 location

  23. Experiments • Two evaluation approach • (1) Simulated user queries • Algorithmic level comparison • Compare quality with baselines • (2) User study with local residents • How user’s perceived quality of itineraries compare by different methods

  24. Experiments • Simulation • Four different levels for duration (5, 10,15, 20 hours) • For each level, 1,000 queries are generated • User Study • 10 active residents of Beijing (avg: 3.8 years) • Submitted 3 queries and score 3 itineraries generated by our method and two baselines (3x3).

  25. Evaluation (Baselines) • Ranking-by-Time (RbT) • Recommend an itinerary with the highest elapsed time usage • Ranking-by-Interest (RbI) • Ranks the candidates in the order of total interest of locations included in the itinerary

  26. Results • In 5hr level, • All three produce similar quality results • There are not many candidates and they would overlap anyway

  27. Results • In 10hr-20hr level • Baseline algorithms only perform well in one aspect • Our algorithm produces well-balanced and classical sequence is considered

  28. Results • In 10hr-20hr level • Baseline algorithms only perform well in one aspect • Our algorithm produces well-balanced and classical sequence is considered

  29. Results • In 10hr-20hr level • Baseline algorithms only perform well in one aspect • Our algorithm produces well-balanced and classical sequence is considered

  30. Results • In 5hr level, • All three produce similar quality results • There are not many candidates and they would overlap anyway • In 10hr-20hr level • Baseline algorithms only perform well in one aspect • Our algorithm produces well-balanced and classical sequence is considered

  31. Results • How does our method compare to RbT in terms of perceived time use? • How does our method compare to RbI in terms of perceived interest? • No significant advantage from RbT in perceived time or RbI in perceived interest  Our method is well balanced and competitive

  32. Conclusion • Based on user-generated GPS trajectories • Build Location-Interest Graph • Model and define good itinerary • Recommend itinerary based on user query • Find candidates and rank considering three factors (Elapsed time, stay time and interest density) • Re-rank with classical travel sequence • Evaluated with real and simulated user query • Future Work • Personalized recommendation using user preference

  33. 15th CTI Workshop, July 26, 2008 Context-Aware Mobile Augmented Reality Discussions and More information • GIST U-VR Lab, Gwangju 500-712, Korea • E-Mail: hyoon@gist.ac.kr • Web: http://wiki.uvr.gist.ac.kr/Main/HyoseokYoon

More Related