Large Language Models as Urban Residents: An LLM Agent Framework for Personal Mobility Generation
Authors: Jiawei Wang
Renhe Jiang
Chuang Yang
Zengqing Wu
Makoto Onizuka
Ryosuke Shibasaki
Noboru Koshizuka
Chuan Xiao
Venue: NeurIPS 2024 poster (2024)
Keywords: LLM
human mobility
urban computing
trajectory generation
Primary area: machine_learning_for_social_sciences
TL;DR: This paper introduces an LLM agent framework for personal mobility generation.

Abstract: This paper introduces a novel approach using Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated into an agent framework for flexible and effective personal mobility generation. LLMs overcome the limitations of previous models by effectively processing semantic data and offering versatility in modeling various tasks. Our approach addresses three research questions: aligning LLMs with real-world urban mobility data, developing reliable activity generation strategies, and exploring LLM applications in urban mobility. The key technical contribution is a novel LLM agent framework that accounts for individual activity patterns and motivations, including a self-consistency approach to align LLMs with real-world activity data and a retrieval-augmented strategy for interpretable activity generation. We evaluate our LLM agent framework and compare it with state-of-the-art personal mobility generation approaches, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach and its potential applications in urban mobility. Overall, this study marks the pioneering work of designing an LLM agent framework for activity generation based on real-world human activity data, offering a promising tool for urban mobility analysis.

Large Language Models as Urban Residents: An LLM Agent Framework for Personal Mobility Generation
Jiawei Wang'
Renhe Jiang!
Chuang Yang*
Zengqing 2u²
Makoto Onizuka
Ryosuke Shibasaki
Noboru Koshizuka
Chuan Xiao
The University of Tokyo, "Osaka University
[jiaweieg. ecc, koshizuka@111)) (jiangrh, shiba) muzenggingdoutlook. com, (onizuka, oot.paay..........oo............
Abstract
This paper introduces a novel approach using Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated into agent framework for flexible and effective personal mobility generation. LLMs overcome the limitations of previous models by effectively processing semantic data and offering versatility in modeling various tasks. Our approach addresses three research questions: aligning LLMs with real real-world urban mobility data, developing reliable activity generation strategies, and exploring LLM applications in urban mobility. The key technical contribution is novel L.MM agent framework that accounts for individual activity patterns and motivations, including a self-consistency approach to align LLMs with real-worid activity data and a airevval-uugmeneed strategy for interpretable activity generation. We evaluate our LLM agent framework and compare it with state-of-the-ar personal mobility generation approaches, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach and its potential applications in urban mobility. Overall, this study marks the pioneering work of designing LLM agent framework for activity generation based on real- world human activity data, offering a promising tool for urban mobility analysis.
Source codes are available at battps://ght //github.
rruubbu.... www.//ow///i/.... com/Hanggww/LLMMo.
Introduction
The prevalence of large language models (LLMs) has facilitated a variety of applications extend- ing beyond the domain of NLP. Notably, LLMs have gained widespread usage in furthering our understanding of humans and society multitude of disciplines. such economy I and political
science (2), and have been employed as agents in various social science studies [36 35 [0]. In this
paper, we target the utilization of LLM agents for the study of personal mobility data. Modeling personal mobility opens up numerous opportunitics for building a sustainable community, including proactive traffic management and the design of comprehensive urban development strategies 4 In particular, generating reliable activity trajectories has become promising and effective way to On one hand, learning to generate activity trajectory leads to thorough understanding of activity patterns, enabling the flexible simulation of urban mobility. On the other hand, while individual activity trajectory data is abundant thanks to advances telecommu- nications, its practical use is often limited due to privacy concerns. In this sense, generated data can provide a viable alternative that offers a balance between utility and privacy.
exploit individual activity data 13 6.
*Corresooniig author.
38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2024).

---

Trajectory Database
LUM Agent
semantic activily
location coordinates
Shopping
[35.532,
Ramen estaurant
[35,581, 13396233
Railway Station
[35.704, 139.774)
Seaside Park
[35,461, 1339.600
Ttalian R Restaurant
[35.723, 140.
Home
[35.773, 140.0921
(Pensonal activities on 2024-03-011 "plan": [Shopping Mall at 10:30, Ramen Restaurant 12:22, Railway Station
Seaside Park 16:45, Italian
Restaurant 19:00, Home at 21 100)
"reason": My plan today is to go shopping in the morning and then grab something eat. the afteroonn will the seaside park and have
Figure 1: Personal mobility generation with an LLM agent.
While advanced individual trajectories [13] 39 9 6 [6] (38), the generated data only imitates real-world data from the data distribution perspective rather than semantics, rendering them less effective in simulating or interpreting activities in novel or unforeseen scenarios with a significantly different distribution (e.g., pandemie). Thus, in this study, explore more intelligent and effective activity generation, we propose to establish a trajectory generation framework by exploiting the emerging intelligence of LLM agents, as illustrated in Figure [ LLMs present two significant advantages over previous models when applied to activity trajectory generation:
learning- based methods offer various solutions to generate synthetic
Semantic Interpretability. Unlike previous models, which have predominantly depended structured data (e.g., GPS coordinates-based trajectory data) for both calibration and simulation [17] LLMs exhibit proficiency in interpreting semantic data (e.g.. activity trajectory data). This advantage significantly broadens the scope for incorporating a diverse array of data sources into generation processes, thereby enhancing the models' ability to understand and interact with complex. real-world scenarios in a more nuanced and effective manner.
27 47
Model Versatility. Although other data-driven methods manage to learn such dynamic activity patterns for generation, their capacity is limited for generation under unseen scenarios. On the contrary, LLMs have shown remarkable versatility in dealing with unseen tasks, especially the ability to reason and decide based on available information [26.. This competence enables LLMs offer diverse and rational array of choices, making it promising and flexible approach for modeling personal mobility patterns.
Despite these benefits, ensuring that LLMs align effectively with real-world situations continues to be a significant challenge [36). This alignment is particularly crucial in the context of urban mobility, where the precision and dependability of LLM outputs are essential for the efficacy of any urban management derived from them. In this study, our aim is to address this challenge by investigating the following research questions: RQ 1: How can L.MMs be effectively aligned with semantically rich data about daily individual activities? ? RQ 2: What are the effective strategies for achieving reliable and meaningfull activity generation using LLM agents? RQ 3: What are the potential applications of LLM agents in enhancing urban mobility analysis?
To this end, our study employs LLM agents to infer activity patterns and motivation for personal ac- tivity generation tasks. While previous researches advocate habitual activity patterns and motivations as two critical elements for activity generation [7 43), our proposed framework introduces more interpretable and effective solution. By leveraging the capabilities of LLMs to process semantically rich datasets (e.g.. personal check-in data), we enable a nuanced and interpretable simulation of personal mobility. Our methodology revolves around two phases: (1) activity pattern identification and (2) motivation-driver activity generation. In Phase 1, we leverage the semantic awareness of LLM agents to extract and identify self-consistent, personalized habitual activity patterns from historical -uggeeeete strategies that utilize the patterns identified in Phase 1. These strategies guide LLM agents to infer underlying daily motivations, such as evolving interests or situational needs. Finally, we instruct LLM agents to act as urban residents according to the obtained patterns and motivations. In this way, generate their daily activities in specific reasoning logic.
data. In Phase 2, we develop two interpretable
We evaluate the proposed framework using GPT-3.5 APIs over a personal activity trajectory dataset of Tokyo. The results demonstrate the capability of our framework to align L.M agents with semantically rich data for generating individual daily activities. The comparison with baselines,

---

such as attention-based methods g [2 adversarial learning methods 6 42 and diffusion model [46], underscores the advanced generative performance of our framework. The observation also suggests that our framework excels in reproducing temporal and spatio-temporal aspects of personal mobility generation and interpretable activity routines. Moreover, the application of the framework in simulating urban mobility under specific contexts, such as a pandemic scenario, reveals its potential to adapt to external factors and generate realistic activity patterns.
To the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the pioneering works in developing an LLM agent framework for generating activity trajectory based on real-world data. We summarize our contributions as follows: (1) We introduce a novel LLM agent framework for personal mobility generation featuring semantic richness. (2) Our framework introduces a self-consistency evaluation to ensure that the output of LLM agents aligns closely with real-world data on daily activities. (3) To generate daily activity trajectories, our framework integrates activity patterns with summarized motivations, with two interpretable retrieval-augment trajectories. (4) By using real-world personal activity data, we validate the effectiveness of our framework and explore its utility in urban mobility analysis.
strategies aimed at producing reliable activity
2 Related Work
2.1 Personal Mobility Generation
Activity trajectory generation offers valuable perspective for understanding personal mobility. Based on vast call detailed records, [Jiang et au.lb a mechanistic modeling framework to generate individual activities in high spatial-temporal resolutions, |Pappalardo and Simini employed Markov modeling to estimate the probability of individuals visiting specific locations. Besides, deep learning has become a robust tool for modeling the complex dynamics of traffic [IS [ 9 21. The
primary challenge involves overcoming data-related obstacles such as randomness, sparsity, and For example, Feng et proposed attentional recurrent networks to handle personal preference and transition regularities. Yuan et al. leveraged deep learning combined with neural differential equations to address the challenges of randomness and sparsity inherent in irregularly sampled activities for activity trajectory generation. Recently, Zhu al. proposed to utilize a diffusion model to generate GPS trajectories.
irregular patterns g 43 42
2.2 LLM Agents in Social Science
Exploring how to treat I LLMS as autonomous agents in specific scenarios leads to diverse and promising applications in social science [32 36
35 10]. For instance, Park et al. established an LLM agent framework to simulate human behavior in interactive scenario, demonstrating the potential of LLMS to model complex social interactions and decision-making processes. Moreover, the application of LLM agents in economic research has been explored, providing new insights into financial markets and economies [9] Extending beyond the realm of social sciences, [Mo et al. adeptly utilized LLMs to generate driving trajectories in motion planning tasks. In the field of natural sciences, Williams et al. integrated LLMs with epidemic models to simulate the spread of diseases. These varied applications highlight the versatility and potential of L.LMs understand and model various real-world dynamics.
3 Methodology
We consider the generation of individual daily activity trajectories, each representing an individual's activities for the whole day. In addition, we focus the urban context, where the activity trajectory of each individual is represented as a time-ordered sequence of location choices (c.g., POIs) (2.. This sequence is represented by {1o, fo), (4,4)).... (kn) where each (4,,t) denotes the individual's location 1 at time f;.
By modeling individuals within an urban environment as LLM agents, we present LLMob, an LLM Agent Framework for Personal Mobility Generation, as illustrated Figure 2 LLMob based on the assumption that an individual's activities are primarily influenced by two principal factors: habitual activity patterns and current motivations. Habitual activity patterns, representing typical movement behaviors and preferences that indicate regular travel and location choices, are recognized
3

---

Penional Activity Trajectory Database
Personal Activity Trajectory Database
New Query
BB
Condidote
Propracesiing
Plan Formulation: Extracting Pettents Histeviccl Trofectories
Activity Trajectory
Retrieved
Mermory
Identified Patters
my Tryneediin Locallte
the
Plan Seflection Refinement:
Summnrlaing Modivttion
LMM
<Preprocessed informationo, weekend,
neighoorhond <identified Patterno yoou fallnssing <hetrieued Activity Trijettnno
Contect: Act
Condldate
Instrutions: Summorice daily routine
Modivation Retrinaal
Potterr
Inttrutions:: to summantie sentence what garsnnily mativitas for these plaro. High personal internas and needs
Memory
Riglection Ideettfyingg
Motivston
Now you art as preson the moing featurer cCandidate Patterns there paan for your
Momory
Nyslen
part in dacdullnns.
Action: Generating Trojectories Content: Act person in an urban giéor <itentifid Patter,, <Monhotion
Consistuncy Evallation
Self-
Tauger hoadeer
buaders
<lumple Activity Trajectory the scale of 30, rate how lisaly you follow this plan according to your roudine pattorn and coplain reoson.
bencedieer with
the
Think about your dally rourine, Then tell me your plan for today and eaplain it
Bottig:
The fillwwnng ane the incelion you aee lorly to usar: oP dpreproessed Informations Instruction:: (lesponse to the prompt above In json in the followinng format
Gencrated Activity Trajectory
I'slan" |eLocations at cTime,, dLocation> at ctimeo.... "resson'...
Duting wodkand coualy go the teradiilyy
Menoffee Pottenn
Phase 1: Self- Consistent Activity Pattern Iderniiication
Phase 2: Activity Generation Based on Identified Pattern and Motivation
Figure LLMob, the proposed LLM agent framework for personal Mobility generation.
as crucial information for inferring daily activities 731 30). On the other hand, motivations relate to dynamic and situational elements that sway an individual's choices at any particular moment, such as immediate needs external circumstances during a specific period. This consideration is vital for capturing and forecasting short-term shifts in mobility patterns [[] 43 Moreover, by formulating prompts that assume specific events of concern, this framework allows us to observe the LLM agent's responses in a variety of situations.
To construct pipeline for activity trajectory generation, we design an LLM agent with action, memory, and planning [3 [2]. Action specifies how an agent interacts with the environment and makes decisions. In LLMob, the environment contains the information collected from real-world data, and the agent acts by generating trajectories. Memory includes past actions that need to be prompted to the LLM to invoke the next action. In LLMob, memory refers to the patterns and motivations output by the agent. Planning formulates or refines a plan over past actions to handle complex tasks, with additional information optionally incorporated as feedback. In LLMob, we use planning to identify patterns and motivations, thereby handling the complex task of trajectory generation. Plan formulation, selection, reflection, and refinement [14] are employed in succession, and the agent keeps updating the action plan based on its observation 41 The agent first formulates set of activity plans by extracting candidate patterns from historical trajectories in the database. The agent then performs self-reflection through self-consistency evaluation to pick the best pattern from the candidate patterns. With historical trajectories further retrieved from the database, the agent refines the identified pattern to summarized motivation of daily activity, which is then jointly used with the identified pattern for trajectory generation. In addition to the above agentic components, we also suggest the personas of the agent, which can facilitate the LLM to simulate the diversity of real-world individuals (29].
3.1 Activity Pattern Identification
Phase of LLMob focuses on identifying activity patterns from historical data. To effectively leverage the extracted activity patterns as essential prior knowledge for the generation of daily activities, we introduce the following two steps.
3.1.1 Pattern Extraction from Semantics and Historical Data
This step derives activity patterns based on activity trajectory data (e.g., individual check-in data). As illustrated in the left panel of Figure 2 this scheme consists of the following aspects: For each person, we start by specifying a candidate personas to the L.LM agent, providing the inspiring foundation for subsequent activity pattern generation. This approach also encourages the diversity of the generated

---

activity patterns, each candidate persona acts as a unique prior for the generation process (e.g.. the significance of user clustering from activity trajectory data in producing meaningful distinctions has been demonstrated (24). Meanwhile, we perform data preprocessing to extract key information from the extensive historical data. This involves identifying usual commuting distances, pinpointing typical start and end times and locations of daily trips, and concluding the most frequently visited locations of the person. It is important to note that these pieces of information are widely recognized as critical features in mobility analysis [7]. After the preprocessing procedure, both semantic elements with historical data are combined in the prompts, requiring the LLM agent to summarize the activity patterns for this person. By doing this, we set up streamline to effectively bridge the gap between semantic persona characteristics and concrete historical activity trajectory data, which allows for a more personalized and interpretable representation of individual activities in one day. Moreover, we propose adding candidate personas to the prompt during candidate pattern generation to promote the diversity of the results. Without loss of generality, for each person, set of C (C 10) candidate patterns, denoted as CP, are generated according to the historical data and C' candidate personas, respectively. We provide the details of these candidate personas in Appendix C.4
3.1.2 Pattern Evaluation with Cons-sseest
This step involves assessing the consistency of the candidate patterns to identify the most plausible one. We implement scoring mechanism evaluate the alignment of candidate patterns with historical data. To achieve this objective, we define a scoring function to gauge each candidate pattern cp in the set CP. This function evaluates cp against two distinct sets of activity trajectories: the specific activity trajectories Ti of targeted resident i and the sampled activity trajectories from other residents Twi:
--n, r LET
Σ Te. E'ET...
&cOT Cop =
where design evaluation prompt to ask the LLM to generate rating scores T2 and res. Specifically, the LLM agent is prompted to assess the degree of preference for given trajectory based on the candidate pattern. Ideally, the LLM agent should assign a higher for data from the targeted resident and a lower Fy for data from other residents. This scheme essentially identifies the self-consistent pattern: the activity pattern derived from the activity trajectory data of the target user should be consistent with the data from this person during the evaluation. We provide the pseudo-code of the algorithm for Phase of LLMob in Appendix A
3.2 Motivation-Driven Activity Generation
In Phase 2 of LLMob, we focus on the retrieval of motivation and the integration of motivation and activity patterns for individual activity trajectory generation. Since the context length is limited for the LLMs, we can not expect that the LLMs can consume all the available historical information and give plausible output. Retrieval-augmeented generation has been identified boosting the performance of LLM [37] This enhancement provides additional information that aids LLM in more effectively responding to queries. While previous studies on activity generation mainly overlook the critical factors of macro temporal information (e.g.. date) or specific scenarios (e.g., harsh weather) [42) we propose a more sophisticated activity generation which accounts for various conditions by taking advantage of the human- like intelligence of LLM. For instance, the activity trajectory at date d can be inferred given the motivation of this date and the habitual activity pattern as:
crucial factor in
Ta = LLM (Motivationnnn,, Pattern).
(2)
This generation scheme instructs the LLM agent to simulate designated individual according to given activity pattern, and then meticulously generate activity trajectory in accordance with the daily motivation. To obtain insightful and reliable motivations toward different aspects of data availability and sufficiency, two retrieval schemes are proposed. Notably, we considered them two promising directions for designing solutions to real-world applications, rather than claming which superior. The detail of each retrieval scheme is introduced as follows:
3.2.1 Evolving- based Motivation Retrieval
5

---

This scheme is related to the intuitive principle that an individual's motivation on any given day is influenced by her interests and priorities in preceding days [28]. Guided by this understand- ing, our approach harnesses the intelligence of the LLM agent to understand the behavior of daily activities and the underlying motivations. As illustrated in Figure for specific date for which aim to generate the activity tra- jectory, we consider the activities of the past k days (A min(7, 7, 1), where is the maximum value such that the trajectory for date d - can be found in the database), and prompt the I.LM agent to act as an urban resident based on the pattern identified in Section 3.1 and summarize motivations behind these activities. Using these summarized motivations, the LLM agent is further prompted to infer potential motivation for the target date d.
Activiies
LLM
Motivation
in
Activities
LUM
Motivstion
6B0
ind -2
Motivation in the Following
8 Mothvstion
Activtties in 9
LUM
Figure 3: Evolving-based motivation retrieval.
3.2.2 Learning-based Motivation Retrieval
In this scheme, we hypothesize that individuals tend to establish routines in their daily activities, guided by consistent motivations even if the specific locations may vary. For example, if someone frequently visits a burger shop on weekday mornings, this behavior might suggest motivation for a quick breakfast. Based on this, it is plausible to predict that the same individual might choose different fast food restaurant in the future, motivated by similar desire for convenience and speed during their morning meal. We introduce learning-based scheme to retrieve motivation from historical data. For each new date on which to plan activities, the only information available is the date itself. To use this clue for planning, we first formulate a relative temporal feature 2d.,d, between past date dp and the current date de. This feature captures various aspects, such as the gap between these two dates and whether they belong to the same month. Utilizing this setting, we train a score approximator fo (zd,,dd,)) to evaluate the similarity between any dates. Notably, due the lack of supervised signals, employ unsupervised learning to train fe(-). Particularly, a learning scheme based on contrastive learning (5) is established. For each trajectory of a resident, we can scan her other trajectories and identify similar (positive) and dissimilar (negative) dates according to predefined similarity score. This similarity score is calculated between two activity trajectories Ta, and Tá, as:
Na 1 (Ta (1)= Tap (1) if [Ta, > and [Ta, > f,
simd. de
33)
1=1
where Na is the total number of time intervals (e.g.. 10 min) in one day. Ta, (t) indicates the tth visiting location recorded in trajectory Ta.. Intuitively, there should be more shared locations in the similar trajectory pair. Thereafter, the positive pair is characterized by the highest similarity score, indicative of greater degree of resemblance between the trajectories. Conversely, the negative pairs are marked by low similarity scores, reflecting a lesser degree of commonality. After obtaining the training dataset from these positive and negative pairs, train model to approximate the similarity score between any two dates by contrastive learning. This procedure involves the following steps:
1. For each date d, generate one positive pair (d, dd) and k negative pairs (d, d .... (d. di) based on the similarity score and compute 2d,d-, 2 dd,d .... ad.d5
2. Forward the positive and negative pairs to fa(-) to form:
fo.n..ooee logits = [o(, fo(z ... fo fo(z
(4)
3. Adopt InfoNCE
25 as the contrastive loss function:
logits
((0)
Σ log
(5)
E logits,
where N is the batch size of the samples and indicates the index of the positive pair.

---

Upon training a similarity score approximation mode, it can be applied to access the similarity between any given query date and historical dates. This enables us retrieve the most similar historical data, which is prompted to the LLM agent to generate a summary of the motivations prevalent at that time. By doing so, we can extrapolate a motivation relevant the query date, providing basis for the LLM agent to generate new activity trajectory.
4 Experiments
4.1 Experimental Setup
Dataset. We investigate and validate LLMob over a personal activity trajectory dataset from Tokyo. This dataset was obtained through Twitter and Foursquare APIs and covers the data from January 2019 to December 2022. The time frame of this dataset is insightful as it captures typical daily life prior the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., normal period) and subsequent alterations during the pandemic (i.e., abnormal period). To facilitate a cost-efficient and detailed analysis for different periods, randomly choose 100 users to model their individual activity trajectory at 10-minute interval according to the number of available trajectories. Samples are shown in the following Table
Table I: Samples of personal activity data.
UserID
Latitude
Longitude
Location Name
Category
Time
44673
35.008
139.015
Convenience Store
Shop Service
2019-12-17
8:00
44673
35.009
139.018
Ramen Restaurant
Food Service
2019-12-17 8:30
44673
35.004
139.060
Italian Restaurant
Food & Service
2019-12-17 11:20
44673
35,009
139.085
Farmers Market
Shop & Service
2019-12-17 14:20
44673
35,005
139.086
Soba Restaurant
Food Service
2019-12-17 18:00
We utilize the category classification Foursquare to determine the activity category for each location. We use 10 candidate personas (Appendix C.4) as prior for subsequent pattern generation, which captures a diverse range of activity patterns within the data of this study. For the application to other datasets, this style of candidate patterns can be casily initialized using an LLM.
Metries. The following characteristics related personal activity are used examine the generation: (1) Step distance (SD) [42] The travel distance between each consecutive decision step within a trajectory collected. This metric evaluates the spatial pattern of an individual's activities by measuring the distance between two consecutive locations in a trajectory.
(2) Step interval (SD) 42] The time gap between each consecutive decision step within trajectory is recorded. This metric evaluates the temporal pattern of an individual's activities by measuring the time interval between two successive locations on an individual's trajectory. (3) Daily activity routine distribution (DARD): For each decision step, a tuple (t, c) is created, where represents the occurring time interval (e.g.. from 0 to 144 in a day) and c identifies the activity category based on the location visited at that step. A histogram is then constructed to represent the distribution of the collected tuples. This feature presents the patterns of individual activities characterized by activity type and timing (e.g.. activity type, time). It provides insight into how activities distributed over space and time and reflects semantic information such as habitual behavior. (4) Spatial-temppoal visits distribution (STVD): For each decision step, tuple (t,, latitude, longitude) is created, where t represents the occurring time interval (e.g., from 0 to 144 in a day) and latitude, longitude are the geographic coordinates of the location visited at that step. A histogram is subsequently built represent the distribution of the collected tuples. This feature provides granular perspective on the generated activities by assessing the spatial-temporal distribution of visited locations within each trajectory, including geographical coordinates and timestamps. It enables a detailed analysis of where and when activities occur.
After extracting the above characteristics from both the generated and real- worldworld trajectory data, densen-Shamme divergence (JSD) is employed to quantify the discrepancy between them. Lower JSD is preferred.
Methods. LLMob is evaluated against: Markov-based mechanic model (MM) 27 an LSTM-based prediction model (LSTM) 12), two detentoon-bsed prediction models, including DeepMove [ and STAN [22]. Within the domain of deep generative models, we select two adversarial learning frameworks, including TrajGAIL [6] and ActSTD [2), as well diffusion model, DiffTraj [46].
7

---

Table 2: Performance (JSD) of trajectory generation based on historical data, Lower is better. Winners
and runners-up up are marked in boldface and underline, respectively.
Normal Trajectory Normal Data
Abnornal Trajectory, Abnormal Data
Abnormal Trajectory, Normal Normal Data
Models
(# Generated Trajectories: 1497)
(# Generated Trjjectories: 904)
(# Generated Trajectories: 3555)
SD
S1
DARD
STVD
SD
S1
DARD
STVD
SD
SI
DARD
STVD
MM
0.018
0.276
0.644
0.681
0.041
0.300
0.6:29
0.682
0.019
0.307
0.644
0.681
LSTM [P]
0.017
0.271
0.585
0.652
0.016
0.286
0.563
0.655
0.035
0.282
0.585
0.653
Desp
0,008
0.153
0.534
0.623
0.011
0.173
0.548
0.668
0.013
0.173
0.534
0.623
STAN 22
0.152
0.400
0.692
0.692
0.115
0.092
0.693
0.691
0.142
0.094
0.692
0.690
TrajGAII 6
0.128
0.058
0.598
0.489
0.133
0.060
0.604
0.523
0.332
0.058
0.434
0.428
ActSTD +
0.034
0.436
0.693
0.692
0.071
0.469
0.692
0.692
0.022
0.093
0.468
0.692
DiffTra H6
0.052
0.251
0.318
0.692
0.008
0.240
0.339
0.692
0.101
0.142
0.218
0.693
LLMob-E
0.053
0.046
0.125
0,559
0.056
0,043
0.127
0.615
0.062
0.056
0.117
0.536
LLMob-E w/o P
0.055
0.069
0.223
0.530
0.059
0.081
0.252
0.673
0.065
0.079
0.209
0.561
LLMob-E SC
0.058
0.076
0.295
0.589
0.068
0,086
0.225
0.649
0.072
0.096
0.301
0.589
LLMob-L
0.049
0.054
0.136
0.570
0.057
0,051
0,124
0.609
0.064
0.051
0.124
0.531
LL
0.061
0,080
0.600
0.286
0.580
LLMob-L SC
0.057
0.074
0.236
0.602
0.071
0.084
0.236
0.642
0,073
0.094
0.286
0.622
w/o
0.059
0.590
0.066
0.080
0.274
0.633
0.090
0.255
0.563
LLMob w/o P& M
0.061
0.081
0.268
0.606
0.068
0.086
0.287
0.635
0.074
0.095
0.254
0.573
We use the source codes of the baselines provided by their respective authors and adapt them to our setting.
To achieve a balance between capability and cost efficiency, we employ GPT-3.5-turbo-000 3 as the LLM core. We use "LLMob-E" to represent the proposal with the evolving- based motivation retrieval scheme, and "LLMob-L" to denote the framework that incorporates the Icarning- -ased motivation retrieval scheme (parameter settings in Appendix C.3 To validate the necessity of each module proposed, we conduct ablation studies with the following configurations: "LLMob w/o Pd denotes the framework generating trajectories without using the pattern (i.e., directly summarizing motivations from past trajectories). "LLMob w/o MM denotes the framework without the motivation (i.e., directly generating trajectories with the identified pattern). "L.LMob w/o SC" denotes the framework without the self-consistency evaluation (in this case, candidate pattern is randomly picked as the identified pattern). Furthermore, "LLMob w/o P MM represents the framework excluding both patterns and motivations.
4.2 Main Results and Analysis
Generative Performance Validation (RQ 1, RG The performance evaluation involves analyzing
generation results in three distinct settings: (1) Generating normal trajectories based on normal historical trajectories in 2019, a period unaffected by the pandemic. (2) Generating abnormal trajectories based on abnormal historical trajectories in 2020, year marked by the pandemic. (3) Generating abnormal trajectories in 2021 (pandemic) based on normal historical trajectories in 2019.
The results of these evaluations are detailed in the metrics reported in Table 2 Through the comparison, can be observed that although LLMob may not excel in replicating spatial features (SD) precisely, it demonstrates superior performance in handling temporal aspects (DI). When considering opatial-temporal features (DARD and STVD), LLMob's performance also competitive. In particular, LLMob achieves the best performance on DI and DARD for all three settings and is the runner-up on STVD. Baselines like DeepMove and TrajGAIL perform the best on SD and STVD, respectively, but become much less competitive when evaluated in other aspects. We suggest that the pronounced advantage of LLMob in terms of DARD (roughly 1/2 to 1/3 JSD compared to the best of baselines) can be attributed to the LLM agent's 's tendency to accurately replicate the motivation behind individual activity behaviors. For instance, an agent may recognize patterns like a person's 's habits to have breakfast in the morning. without being restricted to specific restaurant. This phenomenon highlights the enhanced semantic understanding capabilities of the LLM agent.
Exploring Utility in World Applications (RQ 3). We are interested in how LLMob can elevate the social benefits, particularly in the context of urban mobility. To this end, we propose an example of leveraging the flexibility and intelligence of LLM agents in understanding semantic information and simulating an unseen scenario. In particular, we enhance the original setup by incorporating an additional prompt to provide a context for the LLM agent, enabling it to plan activities during specific cireumstances. For example, a "pandemic" prompt as follows: Now is the pandemic period. The government has asked residents to postpone travel and events and to telecommute as much as possible.
8

---

TejGAIL LLMob-L
LLMob-L with "Pandemic" Prompl
Nightiife Spot
Shop & Service
Aue e Entertainment
redz 6010
cooo
o Food
Professional Other Places
College University
Outdoors & Recreation
Figure Daily activity frequency.
6:00 11:00
11:00-1600 16:00
16:00-2 21:00
6:00 11:00
11:00 16:00
21
200
50
(0) LLMo8-1
100
(b) L.Msbbt. with "Paddancc" Prampt
(+) Prompe
200
50
60
(c) Groun Touth
(c) Ground Truth
(a) Arts & entertainment.
Professional & other places.
Figure 5: Activity heatmaps for the pandemic scenario.
By integrating the above prompt, can observe the impact of external elements, such as the pandemic and the government's s measures, on urban mobility and related social dynamics. We use the activity trajectory data during the pandemic (2021) as ground truth and plot the daily activity TrajGAIL, despite delivering the best STVD in Table 2
frequency in 7 categories in Figure displays very low frequencies for all categories, and fails reflect the tendency of each category. In contrast, comparison between LLMob-L and the one augmented with the pandemic prompt demonstrates the impact of external factors: there a significant decrease in activity frequency with the pandemic prompt, which semantically discourages activities likely to spread the disease (e.g.. food).
Additionally, from a spatial-temporal perspective, two major activities (e.g.. Arts & entertainment and Professional other places) are selected to observe the behavior, as shown in Figures 5a and 5b
These activities are particularly insightful as they encapsulate the impact of the pandemic on the work-life balance and daily routines of residents. Specifically, with the pandemic prompt, LLMob reproduces a more realistic spatial-temporal activity pattern. This enhanced realism in generation is attributed the integration of prior knowledge about the pandemic's effects and governmental responses, allowing the LLM agent to behave in a manner that aligns with actual behavioral adaptations. For instance, the reduction in Arts & entertainment activities reflects the closure of venues and social distancing guidelines, while changes in Professional & other places

---

activities indicate shifts toward remote work and the transformation of professional environments. Intuitively, prompting the LLM agent to generate activities based on various priors shows great potential in real-world applications. The utility of such a conditioned generative approach, coupled with the reliable generated results, can significantly alleviate the workload of urban managers. We suggest that this kind of workflow can simplify the analysis of urban dynamics and aid in assessing the potential impact of urban policies.
4.3 Ablation Studies
Impact of Patterns. In 2 by comparing LLMob with and without using patterns ("w/o P"), we observe that the identified patterns consistently enhance the trajectory generation performance. The improvement on DARD is the most significant (reducing JSD by around 50%), showcasing the use of patterns a key factor in capturing the semantics of daily activity. We provide example patterns in Appendix D. to show how the habitual behaviors of individuals are recognized by patterns.
Impact of Self-Consistency Evaluation. By comparing LLMob with and without ceff-consistency evaluation ("woo SC") in Table 2 we find that self-consistency is useful in all aspects, and its impact the most significant DARD, especially when generating abnormal trajectories from normal data, showcasing its effectiveness in processing semantics. We also observe that "w/o SC" performs even worse than "w/o Pd in many cases, because in "w/o SC", candidate pattern randomly picked for summarizing motivations, potentially introducing inconsistency to an individual's 's daily activity.
Impact of Motivations. We compare LLMob with and without motivations ("w/o M As been seen in Table the impact of motivations is similar to that of patterns. By comparing to LLMob with both patterns and motivations removed ("w/o P & MM",, we observe that these two factors collectively lead to better performance. To show the motivations and the generated trajectories, we provide examples in Appendix D.2 where consistency between them can be observed.
Impact of Motivation Retrieval Strategy, We compare LLMob equipped with the two motivation retrieval strategies ("-E" and "-L"). Table (howss that no retrieval strategy always outperforms the retrieval
other, though evolving-based retrieval wins in more cases (7 vs 5). Morcover, evolving- is generally less sensitive the removal of patterns self-consistency evaluation, suggesting that resorting to the LLM to process historical trajectories is more robust than using contrastive learning.
5 Conclusion
Contributions. This study is believed to be the first personal mobility simulation empowered by LLM agents on real-world data. Our innovative framework leverages activity patterns and motivations to direct LLM agents in emulating urban residents, facilitating the generation of interpretable and effective individual activity trajectories. Extensive experimental studies based on real-world data are conducted to validate the proposed framework and demonstrate the promising capabilities of LLM agents to improve urban mobility analysis.
Social Impacts. Leveraging artificial intelligence enhance societal benefits is increasingly promis- ing, especially with the advent of high-capacity models such as L.MMs. This study explores one the potential avenues for applications using LLMs as reliable agents to simulate specific scenarios to assess the effects of external factors, such as pandemics and government policies. The introduced framework offers a flexible approach to enhance the reliability of LLMs in simulating urban mobility.
Limitations. In this study, we focused on modeling the activities of individual agents without considering interactions between them. As future work, we aim to extend this to multi- agent scenario to capture interactions (e.g., where individuals may follow the activities of friends or family members). Given the challenges in collecting high-quality personal mobility data-many datasets lack completeness in capturing daily activities- we limited our comprehensive experimental evaluation to single dataset. Furthermore, due cost-efficiency considerations, only GPT-3.5 was fully evaluated. An additional analysis in different city is provided in Appendix D.3 and Appendix D.4 includes supplementary evaluations using other LLMs.
10

---

Acknowledgements
This work is supported by JSPS KAKENHI JP22H03903, JP23H03406, JP3333K474 JP24K02996. and JST CREST JPMICR22M2.
References
[1] Gati Aher, Rosa Arriaga, and Adam Tauman Kalai. Using large language models to simulate multiple humans. arXiv preprint wrXiv:2208.00266 2022.
[2] Lisa Argyle, Ethan C Busby, Naney Fulda, Joshua R Gubler, Christopher Rytting, and David Wingate. Out of one, many: Using language models to simulate human samples. Political Analysis, (33)3337-331, 2023.
[3] Michael Batty. The new science cities. MIT press, 2013.
[4] Michael Batty, Kay Axhausen, Fosca Giannotti, Alexei Pozdnoukhov, Armando Bazzani, Monica Wachowiez, Georgios Ouzounis, and Yuval Portugali. Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214:481-518, 2012.
[5] Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference machine learning, pages 1597-1607. PMLR, 2020.
[6] Seongjin Choi, Jiwon Kim, and Hwasoo Yeo. Trajgail: Generating urban vehicle trajectories using generative adversarial imitation learning. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 128: 103091, 2021.
[7] Mi Diao, Yi Zhu, Joseph Ferreira Jr, and Carlo Ratti. Inferring individual daily activities from mobile phone traces: boston example. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43 (5):920-944) 2016.
[8] Jie Feng, Yong Li. Chao Zhang, Funing Sun, Fanchao Meng. Ang Guo, and Depeng Jin. Deepmove: Predicting human mobility with attentional recurrent networks. In Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference, pages 1459-1468, 2018.
[9] Jie Feng, Zeyu Yang, Fengli Xu, Haisu Yu, Mudan Wang, and Yong Li. Learning simulate hu- man mobility. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, pages 3426-3433, 2020.
[10] Chen Gao, Xiaochong Lan, Nian Li, Yuan Yuan, Jingtao Ding, Zhilun Zhou, Fengli Xu, and Yong Li. Large language models empowered agent- modeling and simulation: A survey and perspectives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11977 2023.
[11] Xu Han, Zengqing Wu, and Chuan Xiao. guinea pig trials" utilizing gpt: novel smart agent-based modeling approach for studying firm competition and collusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308. /0974, 2023.
[12] Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9(8): 1735-1780) 1997.
[13] Dou Huang, Xuan Song. Zipei Fan, Renhe Jiang, Ryosuke Shibasaki, Yu Zhang, Haizhong Wang, and Yugo Kato. variational autoencoder based generative model of urban human mobility. In 20/9 IEEE conference on multimedia information processing and retrieval (MIPR), pages 425-430. IEEE, 2019.
[14] Xu Huang, Weiwen Liu, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, Hao Wang, Defu Lian, Yasheng Wang. Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen. Understanding the planning of I1m agents: A survey, arXiv preprint arXiv: 16 2024.
[15] Renhe Jiang, Xuan Song, Zipei Fan, Tianqi Xia, Quanjun Chen, Satoshi Miyazawa, and Ryosuke Shibasaki. Deepurbanmomentmm: online deep-learnin system for short-term urban mobility prediction. In Proceedings the AAAI conference artificial intelligence, volume 32, 2018.
11

---

[16] Renhe Jiang, Xuan Song, Zipei Fan, Tianqi Xia, Zhaonan Wang, Quanjun Chen, Zekun Cai, and Ryosuke Shibasaki. Transfer urban human mobility via poi embedding over multiple cities. ACM Transactions on Data Science, 1-1): 2021.
[17] Shan Jiang, Yingxiang Yang, Siddharth Gupta, Daniele Veneziano, Shounak Athavale, and Marta C González. The timegeo modeling framework for urban mobility without travel surveys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1 13(37):55330-E5377 2016.
[18] Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint 1412. 2014.
[19] Nian Li, Chen Gao, Yong Li, and Qingmin Liao. Large language model-empowered agents for simulating macroeconomic activities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310. 10436, 2023.
[20] Qingyue Long, Huandong Wang. Tong Li, Lisi Huang, Kun Wang. Qiong Wu, Guangyu Li, Yanping Liang, Li Yu, and Yong Li. Practical synthetic human trajectories generation based on variational point processes. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 4561 44711, 2023.
[21] Massimiliano Luca, Gianni Barlacchi, Bruno Lepri, and Luca Pappalardo. A survey on deep learning for human mobility. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55(1):1 2021.
[22] Yingtao Luo, Qiang Liu, and Zhaocheng Liu. Stan: Spatio-temporal attention network for next location recommendation. In Proceedings of the web conference 2021, pages 2177-2185, 2021.
[23] Jiageng Mao, Yuxi Qian, Hang Zhao, and Yue Wang. Gpt-driver: Learning to drive with gpt. arXiv preprint ar 10.0014,,, 2023.
[24] Anastasios Noulas, Salvatore Scellato, Cecilia Mascolo, and Massimiliano Pontil. Exploiting semantic annotations for clustering geographic areas and users Docation-based social networks. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, volume 5, pages 32-35, 2011.
[25] Aaron van den Oord, Yazhe Li, and Oriol Vinyals. Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding, arXiv preprint arXiv: (00.:0887777744 2018
[26] OpenAl. Introducing chatgpt.
2022.
[27] Luca Pappalardo and Filippo Simini. Data-driven generation of spatio-temporal routines in human mobility. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 32(3):787-829, 2018
[28] Joon Sung Park, Joseph C 2''Brien, Carrie J Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03444 2023.
[29] Leonard Salewski, Stephan Alaniz, Isabel Rio-Tone Torto, Eric Schulz, and Zeynep Akata. In- context impersonation reveals large language models' strengths and biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305. 14930, 2023.
[30] Chaoming Song, Tal Koren, Pu Wang, and Albert- László Barabási. Modelling the scaling properties of human mobility. Nature physics, 6(10):815 818 8 823, 2010.
[31] Lijun Sun, Kay W Axhausen, Der-Homg Lee, and Xianfeng Huang. Understanding metropolitan patterns of daily encounters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 13774 13779, 2013.
[32] Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. arXiv preprini arXiv:2308. /1432, 2023.
[33] Lilian Weng. Llm powered autonomous agents. https://1ilianneet 2023-00 06- 23- /3gattnt// 2023.
[34] Ross Williams, Niyousha Hosseinichimeh, Aritra Majumdar, and Navid Ghaffarzadegan. Epi- demic modeling with generative agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04998 2023.
12

---

[35] Zengqing Wu, Run Peng, Xu Han, Shuyuan Zheng, Yixin Zhang, and Chuan Xiao. Smart agent-based modeling: On the use of large language models in computer simulations. arXiv preprini urXiv:2311.06331 2023.
[36] Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, et al. The rise and potential of large language model 2023.
based agents: A survey. arXiv preprint
[37] Peng Xu, Wei Ping, Xianchao Wu, Lawrence McAfee, Chen Zhu, Zihan Liu, Sandeep Subrama- nian, Evelina Bakhturina, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catanzaro. Retrieval meets long context large language models. arXiv preprini arXiv:2310.03025, 2023.
[38] Xiaohang Xu, Toyotaro Suzumura, Jiawei Yong, Masatoshi Hanai, Chuang Yang. Hiroki Kanezashi, Renhe Jiang, and Shintaro Fukushima. Revisiting mobility modeling with graph: A graph transformer model for next point-of-interest recommendation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems, pages 1-10, 2023.
[39] Xiaohang Xu, Renhe Jiang, Chuang Yang, Zipei Fan, and Kaoru Sezaki. Taming the long tail in human mobility prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14970 2024.
[40] Dingqi Yang. Daqing Zhang, and Bingqing Qu. Participatory cultural mapping based on collective behavior data in bocation-based social networks. ACM Transactions on Intelligens Systems and Technology (TIST), 7(3):1 2016.
[41] Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022.
[42] Yuan Yuan, Jingtao Ding, Huandong Wang, Depeng Jin, and Yong Li. Activity trajectory generation via modeling spatiotemporal dynamics. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 4752-478 4762, 2022.
[43] Yuan Yuan, Huandong Wang, Jingtao Ding, Depeng Jin, and Yong Li. Learning to simulate daily activities via modeling dynamic human needs. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pages 906-916, 2023.
[44] Xin Zhang, Yanhua Li, Xun Zhou, Ziming Zhang, and Jun Luo. Trajgail: Trajectory generative adversarial imitation learning for long-term decision analysis. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), pages 801-810, IEEE, 2020.
[45] Yu Zheng. Trajectory data mining: an overview. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 6(3): 11111144,22 2015.
[46] Yuanshao Zhu, Yongchao Ye, Shiyao Zhang, Xiangyu Zhao, and James Yu. Difftrajj: Generating gps trajectory with diffusion probabilistic model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
[47] Yuanshao Zhu, James Jianqiao Yu, Xiangyu Zhao, Qidong Liu, Yongchao Ye, Wei Chen, Zijian Zhang, Xuetao Wei, and Yuxuan Liang. Controltraj: Controllable trajectory generation with poolooy-cconstrinne diffusion model. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 4676-4687, 2024.
13

---

Appendix
A Algorithm Pseudo-Codes
The pseudo-code of the algorithm for activity pattern identification is given in Algorithm
Algorithm 1: Activity Pattern Identification
Input :Number personas C,, activity trajectories T.
Output :Best activity pattern heat pattern.
Initialize: Empty candidate pattern set CP;
Formulate initial pattern summarization prompt pi using prior information extracted from T;
for to C do
Formulate prompt pi with prior information and persona
cp - LLM(p );
C k
Initialize a score dictionary S to store pattern scores;
foreach candidate pattern ep in CP
Initialize scOTEep = 0;
10
foreach activity trajectory t in T do
Formulate evaluation prompt p2 for op and
12
scorCep + score LLM(p2):
13
Slep] <- scortepi
14 best_ stt_pattern__eee mrgmax.pEcCP S(cp]:
15 return best pattern
B Prompts
Pattern generation
Context: Act as a <INPUT 0> in an urban neighborhood, < <INPUT>>, There also locations you sometimes visit: <INPUT
Instructions: Reflecting on the context given, I' like you to summarize your daily activity patterns. Your description should be coherent, utilizing conclusive language to form well- structured paragraph.
Text Continue: am <INPUT 0>> an urban neighborhood, <INPUT 1?...
where <INPUT 0> and <INPUT >> are replaced by the candidate personas, and <INPUT 2> and <INPUT 3> will be replaced by the activity habits extracted from historical data. Specifically, formulate the <INPUT 2> in the following format:
<INPUT 2> format
During <weekend weekday>, you usually travel over <distance>> kilometers day, you usualty begin your daily trip at <time of first daily activity>> and end your daily trip at <time of last daily activity>. you usually visit <location of first daily activity> the beginning of the day and go to <location of last daily activity> before returning home.
Pattern evaluation
Now you act person with the follwing feature: <INPUTO> Here is plan <INPUT 1> On the scale of 1 to 10, where is the least possibility and 10 is the highest possibility, rate how likely you will follow this plan according to your routine pattern and explain the reason. Rating: <fill in> Reason:
where <INPUT (>>> is the candidate pattern, and <INPUT 1> is the daily activitics plan for evaluation.
14

---

Evolving-bar based motivation reterieval
Act a person an urban neighborhood and describe the motivation for your activities. <INPUTO> In the last <INPUT days you have the following activities: <INPUT 2>
Context:
Instructions: Describe in one sentence your future motivation today after these activities. Highlight any personal interests and needs.
where <INPUT 0t> is replaced by the selected pattern, <INPUT 1> is replaced by the number of days from the date to plan activities, and <INPUT 2> is the historical activities corresponding to the chosen date.
Learning-basee motivation reterieval
Context: Act as person in an urban neighborhood. <INPUTO> If you have the following plans: <INPUT 1>
Instructions: Try to summarize in one sentence what generally motivates you for these plans.
Highlight any personal interests and needs.
where <INPUT 0> is replaced by the selected pattern, and <INPUT 1> Is replaced by the retrieved historical activities.
Daily activities generation
Context: Act as a person in an urban neighborhood. <INPUTO> Following the motivation you want achieve: <INPUT 1>
Instructions: Think about your daily routine. Then tell me your plan for today and exlpain it. The following are the locations you are likely visit: <INPUT 2> Response to the {"plan": : [<Location>> at <Time>> <Location'> at
prompl above in the <Time>>,.. "reason":.. :....
Example: ['plan": [Elementary School #125 at 9:10, Town Hall
#489 at 12:50, Rest Area
#585 at 13:40, Seafood Restaurant
#105 at 14:20] "reason": "My plan today is to finish my teaching duty in the morning and find
something delicious to taste.")
where <INPUT 0>> is replaced by the selected pattern, <INPUT >> is replaced by the retrieved motivation, and <INPUT 2> is replaced by the most frequently visited locations.
Pandemic
Now it is the pandemic period. The government has asked residents to postpone travel and events and to telecommute as much as possible.
C Experimental Setup
C.1 Data processing
All the data obtained through the Twitter and Foursquare APIs and is already anonymized to remove any personally identifiable information before analysis. The detailed process is follows:
Filtering Incomplete Data
Users with missing check-ins for specific year were filtered out.
Excluding Non-Japan Check-ins
Check-ins that occurred outside of Japan were removed.
Inferring Prefecture from GPS Coordinates
Prefectures were inferred based the latitude and longitude data of check-ins.
15

---

4. Assigning Prefecture
Users were assigned to prefecture based on their primary check-in location; for example, users whose top check-in location is Tokyo were categorized as belonging to Tokyo. Removing Sudden-Move Check-ins
Check-ins showing abrupt, unrealistic location changes, such as from Tokyo to the United States within a short time frame, were deleted to remove data drift, following the criteria proposed by [40]
Anonymizing Data
Real user IDs and geographic location names were anonymized. Only category information of geographic locations was kept, and latitude and longitude coordinates were converted into IDs before being imput into the model.
C.2 Environment
We leverage the GPT API to conduct our generation studies. Specifically, we use the gpt-3.5-turbo 0613 version of the API, which is snapshot of GPT-3.5-turbo from June 13th, 2023, The experiments were carried out on server with the following specifications:
CPU: AMD EPYC 7702P 64-Core Processor
Architecture: x86_64
Cores/Threads: 64 cores, 128 threads
Base Frequency: 2000.098 MHz
Memory: 503 GB
GPUs: xx NVIDIA RTX A6000
Memory: 48GB each
C.3
Learning-Basd Based Motivation Retrieval
For the learning- based motivation retrieval, the score approximator is parameterized using fully connected neural network with the following architecture:
Table Architecture of the score approximator.
Layer
Input Size
Output Size
Notes
Input Layer
64
Linear
Activation Output Layer
ReLU
64
Linear
We include the day of the year for the query date, whether it shares the same weekday as the reference date, and whether both the query and reference dates fall within the same month as input features. Settings for the learning process are as follows: Adam [18) is used as the optimizer, batch size 64, learning rate is 0.002, and the number of negative samples is 2.
C.4 Personas
We use 10 candidate personas as a prior infromation for subsequent pattern generation, shown in Table 4
D Additional Experimental Results
D.1 Examples of Identified Patterns
The patterns are extracted and identified during the first phase in our framework. We report some examples the identified patterns our experiments as follows, which correspond to the 10 personas in Table
16

---

Table 4: Suggested personas and corresponding descriptions.
Student: typically travel to and from educational institutions similar times.
Teacher: typically travel to and from educational institutions at similar times.
Office worker: have fixed morning and evening commute, often heading to office districts commercial centers.
Visitor: tend to travel throughout the day, often visit attractions, dining areas, and shopping districts.
Night shift worker: might travel outside of standard business hours, often later in the evening at night.
Remote worker: may have non-standard travel patterns, often visit coworking spaces cafes at various times.
Service industry worker: tend to travel throughout the day, often visit attractions, dining areas, and shopping districts.
Public service official: often work in shifts, Icading to varied travel times throughout the day and night.
Fitness enthusiast: often travel early morning, evening, or on weekends to fitness centers or parks.
Retail employee: travel patterns might include shifts that start late in the morning and end in the evening.
Pattern of student
You student in this urban neighborhood. You typically travel and from educational institutions at similar times. Your daily routine as a student in an urban neighborhood revolves around traveling and from educational institutions. On weekdays, you cover a distance of over 10 kilometers, starting your daily trip at 12:00 and concluding it at 20:20. At the beginning of the day, you usually visit Park#2457 and then head Grocery Store#648 before returning home. Weekends follow similar pattern, with you traveling over 10 kilometers day, but starting your daily trip 13:40 and ending at 19:20. Like on weekdays, you begin by visiting Park#2457 and then proceed to Grocery Store#648 before heading back home. Throughout the week, you have specific places You visit fixed times, such as Grocery Store#648 at 20:00, Coffee Shop#571 1 at 09:30,, Park#2457 at 08:30, Irish Pub#21 at 20:00, and Bookstore#313 at 16:00. Additionally, there are other locations You occasionally visit, including Chinese Restaurantti 68, Supermarkett802, Park#4719, Tea Room#530, Bookstore#336. Pastry Shop#240, Park#2898, Discount Store#807,, and Electronics Store#530. By visiting educational institutions at similar times, you ensure punctuality and consistency in your studies. Additionally, your visits to the park and various stores serve as way to relax, replenish supplies, and indulge in leisure activities. Overall, your daily routine is structured to fulfill both your educational and personal requirements efficiently.
17

---

Pattern of teacher
You are a teacher in this urban neighborhood. You typically travel to and from educational institutions similar times. Your daily routine teacher in urban neighborhood revolves around your regular travel to and from educational institutions. On weekdays, you cover distance of over 60 kilometers day, starting your journey 11:50 in the morning and concluding it at 17:50 in the evening. At the beginning of the day, you usually visit Rest Area#1533 before heading the Housing Developmenti100 where you spend significant amount of time before returning home. During weekends, your travel distance reduces to 50 kilometers day, with your daily trip commencing 11:20 and ending 18:00. On weekends, you follow a different routine, starting your day by visiting Shopping Mall#1262 and then proceeding to Motorcycle 1hop#149 before heading back home. Additionally, there are certain locations You occasionally visit, such as Convention Center# 101. Food Court#559, Motorcycle Shop#354, and Sports Bar#56, among others. Your daily routine motivated by the need to fulfill your teaching responsibilities and ensure that you are present at the educational institutions You serve. The specific locations You visit, whether it's the Rest Areatt 1reat1533 1533 or Shopping Malli 1 1262, play role in providing you with necessary resources, relaxation, or opportunities to engage in personal interests. Overall, your routine is structured to maintain a balance between professional commitments and personal needs. relevant places, you can effectively serve the needs of the urban neighborhood and contribute to its smooth functioning.
Pattern of a office worker
You are office worker in this urban neighborhood. You have a fixed morning and evening commute, often heading to office districts or commercial centers. Your daily routine as an office worker in urban neighborhood is quite structured. On weekdays. you travel over 30 kilometers a day, starting your daily trip at 06:50 and ending it at 20:20. Your routine usually begins with visit to Platform#212. followed by heading to Soba Restaurant4955 before returning home. You also have certain places You visit at specific times, such as Hospital#1255 1255 at 10:30, Platform#212 at 06:30, Soba Restaurant#955 at 22:30, Public Bathroom#76 76 at 08:30, and Platform# 1068 at 05:00. During weekends, your daily travel distance increases over 40 kilometers, and you start your trip 07:00, ending it 20: 10. However, the pattern remains the same, starting with a visit to Platform#211 12 and then going to Soba Restaurant#955 before returning home.
Pattern of visitor
You visitor in this urban neighborhood. You tend to travel throughout the day, often visit attractions, dining areas, and shopping districts. Your daily routine as a visitor in this urban neighborhood involves traveling extensively and exploring various attractions, dining areas, and shopping districts. On weekdays, you cover a distance of over 40 kilometers, starting your day 11:00 and concluding it at 17:10. You have consistent pattern of visiting Ramen Restaurant#4444 at the beginming of the day and then heading to Town#373 before returning home. Weekends are slightly different, with shorter distance of around 30 kilometers covered. You begin your day at 14:00 and end it at 16:50. During weekends, you start by visiting Ramen Restaurant#3773 and then proceed Town#373 before heading back. There are certain locations that you frequently visit, such as Arcade#929 at 13:30, Bowling Alley#306 1 11:00, Arcade#4008 at 12:00, and Grocery Store#2094 at 12:30. Additionally, you sometimes visit other places like Electronics Storc#562. Comic Shop#5, Video Game Store#8, and many others. Your routine is motivated by your desire to explore and experience the various attractions, cuisines, and shopping opportunities available in this urban neighborhood. You find joy in discovering new places, trying different foods, and immersing yourself the vibrant atmosphere of this bustling area.
18

---

Pattern of night shift worker
You a night shift worker in this urban neighborhood. You travel work in the evening and return home in the early morning. Your daily routine as night shift worker in an urban neighborhood revolves around traveling considerable distance. On weekdays, you cover over 70 kilometers a day, starting your daily trip at 09:20 and concluding it at 22:30. The routine begins with visit to Toll Booth# followed by a stop Supermarket#3833 before heading home. During weekends, the pattern remains the same, with the only difference being that you commence your journey at 10:30 and finish at 22:20. On these days, you visit Toll Booth#812 12 first and then head to Cafe#962 before returning home. In addition to these regular stops, there are occasional visits to various locations such as Record Shop#8 I Lake#600, and Factory#495, among others. The motivation behind this routine is to ensure that you are well well-prepared for your night shift, starting the day by taking care of essential tasks like stopping at toll booths and getting groceries. These routines help you maintain sense order and efficiency in your daily life, ensuring that you are ready for work and able to relax and enjoy your free time.
Pattern of a remote worker
You remote worker in this urban neighborhood. You may have non-standard travel patterns, often visit coworking spaces or cafes at various times. Your daily routine as a remote worker in urban neighborhood involves traveling considerable distance, both during weekdays and weekends. On weekdays, you typically travel over 40 kilometers day, starting your daily trip 14:00 and ending it 19:20. Your routine usually begins with visit to Convention Center#100 101, followed by a stop at Supermarket# 1559 before returning home. During weekends, your travel distance is slightly less, around 20 kilometers day, and you begin your daily trip at 11:50, concluding it at 16:30. On weekends. you usually start by visiting Discount Store#884 and then head to Supermarket# 1689 before returning home. Additionally, you have specific places You visit at certain times, including Supermarkett11 1 1593 17:00, Hobby Shop#516 16 13:30, Shopping Mall# 1262 at 15:00, Hobby Shop# 1 68 at 14:00, and Exhibit#461 at 11:30. Occasionally, you also visit other locations such as Shopping Mall# 1073, Bookstore## 14, Shrine#2783, and many more. Your motivation for this routine is to have a flexible work environment, utilizing coworking spaces and cafes, while also fulfilling your daily needs and exploring different places within the urban neighborhood.
Pattern of service industry worker
You a service industry worker in this urban neighborhood. You might travel outside of standard business hours, often later in the evening or at night. Your daily routine as a service industry worker in an urban neighborhood quite busy and revolves around your work schedule. On weekdays, you travel over 10 kilometers a day, starting your daily trip at 07:20 and ending it 20:40. The day usually begins with a visit Historic Site#2176 followed by stop at Convenience Store#3385 before returning home. During weekends, your travel distance decreases kilometers day, starting your daily trip 09:20 and ending at 20:10. Similar to weekdays, you start your day by visiting Historic $ite#2176 and then to Public Art#99 before returning home. Additionally, there are certain locations You sometimes visit, including various convenience stores, restaurants, shopping malls, and other establishments. Your motivation for this routine is primarily driven by your work commitments and the need to fulfill your responsibilities visit specific places, such as convenience stores and historic sites, to ensure You have the necessary supplies and maintain a well-rounded understanding of the neighborhood. Overall, this routine enables you to efficiently navigate your urban neighborhood and fulfill your professional obligations.
service industry worker. It is essential for you to
19

---

Pattern of public service official
You are public service official in this urban neighhorhood. You often work in shifts, leading to varied travel times throughout the day and night. Your daily routine as a public service official in an urban neighborhood revolves around your shifts, which result different travel times. On weekdays, you typically cover over 60 kilometers a day, starting your daily trip at 12:50 and concluding it 19:00. At the beginning of the day, you make a point visit Convenience Store#3042, and before heading home, you stop by Convenience Store#3702. During the weekends, you travel around 50 kilometers daily. commencing your journey at 10:00 and wrapping it at 18:30. On weekends, your routine involves visiting Platform#51 11 in the morning and then heading to Platform#670 before returning home. Additionally, there are a few locations You occasionally visit, such as Platform# 135, Home Service#244, and Convenience Store#6014, among others. The motivation behind your daily routine to ensure that you cover the necessary ground, making essential stops at various locations to fulfiil your duties as public service official. By visiting convenience stores, platforms, home services, and other relevant places, you can effectively serve the needs of the urban neighborhood and contribute to its smooth functioning.
Pattern of fitness enthusiast
You are fitness enthusiast this urban neighborhood. You often travel early the morning, in the evening, or on weekends to fitness centers or parks. Every weekday, you travel over 70 kilometers day, starting your daily trip 10:30 and ending at 19:50. Your routine begins with visit to Toll Booth#34, where you kickstart your day. After that, you head to Recreation Center# to engage in your fitness activities before returning home. On weekends, your daily travel distance is slightly less, around 60 kilometers. You start your trips 12:40 and end them at 21:00. The weekend routine starts with a visit to Convenience Store#5940,, where you grab some essentials for the day. Then, you head to Convenience Store#8965 before finally returning home. Throughout the week, you also occasionally visit other locations such as Tunnel#1 307, Event Space#10s Shopping Mall#217 and #399, and various toll booths. Your motivation for this daily routine is your passion for fitness and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. You prioritize visiting fitness centers parks during your trips ensure that you have dedicated time for exercise. Additionally, you make sure to visit convenience stores for any necessary supplies and toll booths for smooth travel. Overall, your routine revolves around staying active, exploring different locations, and ensuring a well-rounded fitness experience.
Pattern of retail employee
You are retail employee in this urban neighborhood. Your travel patterns might include shifts that start late in the morning and end the evening. Every weekday, you embark on daily journey that spans over 50 kilometers. Your routine begins at 09:30, and you conclude your travels 17:00. To kickstart your day, you always make point to visit Soba Restaurant#2105, relishing in their delicious offerings. Before heading home, you make a stop at Indian Restaurant#885, savoring their delectable cuisine. weekends, your daily travel distance decreases slightly to 40 kilometers. You commence your excursions at 09:10 and wrap them up at 17:20. Your first stop on weekends Hot S25ing#205, where you indulge in relaxation and rejuvenation. Before returning home, you make detour to Department Store#399, exploring the vast array of products they offer. Additionally, there are several other locations You occasionally visit, such pharmacies, history museums, shrines, shopping malls, and more. Your motivation for this routine stems from your desire for variety and exploration. By visiting different establishments and places, you are able to experience diverse cuisines, immerse yourself in local culture, and find moments of serenity amidst the bustling city life.
20

---

D.2 Examples of Retrieved Motivations and Corresponding Generated Trajectories
The retrieved motivations inspire the agent to plan daily activities that closely align with its specific needs. Here some examples of retrieved motivations and the corresponding daily activities generated in our experiments.
Example
Motivation: Your motivations are primarily driven by your desire for entertainment and relaxation, as you enjoy going to the bowling alley and donburi restaurant during late hours, visiting the supermarket and rest area fulfill your daily needs and take breaks.
Daily Activity Trajectory Generated: Activities at 2019-12-27: Print Shop (35.697, 139.404) at 09:10:00, Entertainment Place (35.733, 139.434) at 10:10:00, Donburi Restaurant
(35.730, 139.435) 10:30:00, Platform (35.733, 139,435) 10:50:00, Convenience Store
(35.721, 139.397) at 11:20:00, Platform (35.729, 139.392) at 21 21:30:00, Donburi Restaurant
(35.699, 139.412) 22:10:00, Convenience Store (35.697, 139.416) 22:40:00.
Example
Motivation: Your motivations revolve around fulfilling basic needs such as food, convenience, relaxation, and personal interests, including fondness for Japanese cuisine, maintaining healthy lifestyle, and enjoying social gatherings in the evening.
Daily Activity Trajectory Generated: Activities at 2019-12-25: Pet Store (35.699, 139.404) at 08: 10:00, Convenience Store (35.697, 139.416) at 13:10:00, Gym (35.697, 139.412) at 13:20:00, Massage Studio (35.698, 139.413) 14:50:00, Electronics Store (35.699, 139.414)
at 15:50:00, Fast Food Restaurant (35.697, 139.413) at 17:10:00, Platform (35.698, 139.415)
at 18: 10:00, Convenience Store (35.701, 139.393) at 19:10:00.
Example
Your motivations in the urban neighborhood are primarily driven by the need for sustenance and convenience, ensuring personal safety and security, fulfilling work respon- sibilities, and satisfying personal preferences for food.
Motivation:
Daily Activity Trajectory Generated: Activities at 2019-12-38 12-90: Park (35.779, 139.491)
06:40:00, Convenience Store (35.831, 139.519) 07:10:00, Discount Store (36.356,
139.064) at 10:40:00, Assisted Living (36.338, 139.048) at 12:00:00, Bank (36.361, 139.059) 10:10:0, Home Service (36.352, 39,055) 15:30:00, Sushi Restaurant (36.373, 139.061)
at 19:40:00, Hot Spring (36.340, 139.052) at 20:30:00.
Example
Motivation: Your motivations revolve around fulfilling basic needs such food, convenience, relaxation, and personal interests, including a fondness for Japanese cuisine, maintaining healthy lifestyle, and enjoying social gatherings in the evening.
Daily Activity Trajectory Generated: Activities 2019-12-29: Park (35.779, 139.491) at
08:20:00, Event Space (35.630, 139.790) at 10:40:00, Convention Center (35.629, (39.795) at 12:20:00, Convenience Store (35.647, 139.817) at 13:00:00, Soba Restaurant (35.643, 139.80 .20) at 13:10:00, Sporting Goods Shop (35.695, 139.762) at 14:50:00, Kushikatsu
Restaurant (35.778, 139.495) 16:40:00.
21

---

Example
Your motivations revolve around your love for exploring different cuisines, seeking convenience and relaxation through internet cafes, and fulfilling your personal needs by visiting the grocery store.
Motivation:
Daily Activity Trajectory Generated: Activities at 2019-12-31: Internet Cafe (35.723, 140.091) at 07:10:00, Donburi Restaurant (35.581, 140.132) at 12:40:00, Japanese Restaurant (35.369, 140.306) 17:50:00, Rest Area (35.556, 140.208) at 18:30:00, Supermarket (35.88 (35.865, 140.024) at 19:40:00.
D.3 Experiment on Osaka Data
We conducted an experiment based on the data collected in Osaka, Japan. We generated 537 trajectories based on the 2102 daily activity trajectories from 30 persons. The results are reported as follows. where LLMob-L/E are ours and DiffTraj and TrajGAIL are the best- rest-performing baseline methods.
Table 5: Comparison of models based on various metrics on Osaka data
Model
SD
SI
DARD
STVD
LLMob-L
0.035
0.021
0.141
0.391
LLMob-E
0.030
0.018
0.121
0.380
DiffTraj
0.080
0.177
0,406
0.691
TrajGAIL 0.281
0.063
0.525
0.483
D.4 Experiment on different LLMs
We conducted experiments for setting (1) using different LLMs (GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3-8B).
The results are reported as follows:
Table 6: Results of experiments using different LLMs
Model
SD
SI
DARD
STVD
LLMob-L (GPT-3.5-turbo)
0.049
0.054
0.136
0.570
LLMob-L (GPT-40-mini)
0.049
0.055
0.141
0.577
LLMob-L (Llama 3-8B)
0.054
0.063
0.119
0.566
LLMob-E (GPT-3.5-turbo)
0.053
0.046
0.125
0.559
LLMob-F (GPT-4o-mini)
0.041
0.053
0.211
0.531
LLMob-F (Llaama 3-8B)
0.054
0.059
0.122
0.561
We observe competitive performance of our framework when other LLMs used. In particular, GPT-4o-mini is the best in terms of the spatial metric (SD); GPT-3.5-turbo is the best in terms of the temporal metric (SI). Llama 3-8B is overall the best when spatial and temporal factors evaluated together (DARD and STVD). Such results demonstrate the robustness of our framework across different LLMs.
22

---

NeurIPS Paper Checklist
1. Claims
Question:
Do the main claims made the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's
contributions and scope?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: Our contributions clarified in the abstract and introduction. Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper.
The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers.
The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings.
is fine to include aspirational goals motivation long it is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.
Limitations
Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The limitations are discussed in the conclusion section.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper has limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper.
The authors are encouraged to create separate "Limitations" section in their paper.
The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (c.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification, asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.
The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on a few datasets or with a few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.
The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution is low or images are taken in low lighting. Or a speech-to-text system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because fails to handle technical jargon.
The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.
applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and fairness.
While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers grounds for rejection, worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't I acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play important role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.
3. Theory Assumptions and Proofs Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and a complete (and correct) proof?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: There are theory assumptions in this paper.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.
All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross-referenced.
All assumptions should clearly stated or referenced in the statement of any theorems.
The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide a short proof sketch to provide intuition.
23

---

Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in the appendix or supplemental material.
Theorems and I Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.
4. Experimental Result Reproducibility
Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main experi- mental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided not)?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We provide the source codes of this study. The trajectory dataset is provided in an anonymous setting. Researchers can reproduce the results by running our source codes on this opensource anonymous dataset.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
If the paper includes experiments, No answer this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided not.
If the contribution is dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible verifiable.
Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way to accomplish this, but reproducibility can also provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g.. in the case of a large language model), releasing of model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed.
example, if the contribution
While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submissions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example
(a) If the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make it clear how to reproduce that algorithm.
(b) If the contribution is primarily a new model architecture, the paper should describe the architecture clearly and fully.
(c) If the contribution is new model (e.g., large language model), then there should either be a way to access this model for reproducing the results or a way to reproduce the model (c.g.. with open-source dataset instructions for how construct the dataset).
(d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, which case authors are welcome describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility. In the case of source models, it may be that access to the model limited in some way (e.g.. to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers to have some path to reproducing or verifying the results.
5. Open access to data and code
Question: Does the paper provide open access the data and code, with sufficient instructions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material? Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We provide the source codes of this study. The trajectory dataset is not provided to its intellectual property. Please refer to the supplementary material for our source codes.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.
Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines ptttpp::/nipss.c/ppbbll
Stl.dees/CodeSubmiseee www.iisssooppiooooooo for more details.
While we encourage the release code and data, we understand that this might not be possible, so "No" is an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central the contribution (e.g., for new open-source benchmark).
The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurlPS code and data submission guidelines (https: cttp//iipps.cccpllccc//cc public/ Saaedees/ooeeSubiisccee www.isssiocoociiiicc for more details.
The authors should provide instructions on data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.
24

---

The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. only subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why. submission time, to preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).
Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended to the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.
6. Experimental Setting/Details
Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We clarify the experimental settings at the beginning of the experiment section and the experimental setup section of the appendix.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The experimental setting should be presented in the core of the paper to level of detail that is
necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them.
The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix,
supplemental material.
7. Experiment Statistical Significance
Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?
Answer: [No]
Justification: Our results are not accompanied with error bars. Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests, least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.
The factors of variability that the enror bars capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions).
The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to library function, bootstrap, etc.)
The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors). It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation the standard error of the mean.
It is OK to report I-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report 2-sigma eтror bar than state that they have a 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors not verified.
For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out of range (e.g. negative error rates).
If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text.
8. Experiments Compute Resources
Question: For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the computer resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed reproduce the experi- ments?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We report the experimental environment in the experimental setup section of the
appendix.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU or GPU, internal cluster, or cloud
provider, including relevant memory and storage.
The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute.
The paper should disclose whether the full research project required compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't 't make into the paper).
25

---

9. Code Ethics
Question:
Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS
Code of Ethics
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We oblige to the NeurlPS Code of Ethics. The authors are responsible for all the materials presented this paper.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics. If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require a deviation from the Code of Ethics.
The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., if there a special consideration due to laws regulations in their jurisdiction).
10. Broader Impacts
Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: The societal impacts are discussed in the conclusion section. Guidelines:
The answer NA means that there is societal impact of the work performed.
the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact or why the paper does not address societal impact.
Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g.. deploy- ment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.
The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to par- ticular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there a direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster. The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional unintentional) misuse of the technology.
If there negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms monitor how system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML).
11. Safeguards
Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, scraped datasets)?
Question:
Answer: [NA]
Justification: We use the GPT-3.5 API but not release any models. Due to the intellectual property, the dataset is not released.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.
Released models that have high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.
Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.
We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make a best faith effort.
12. Licenses for existing assets
Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
26

---

Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We clarify how the dataset was obtained the beginning of the experiment section.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.
The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package dataset.
The authors should state which version the asset used and, possible, include a URL..
The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset. For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.
If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, pwwprswi thcode. com/ datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of a dataset.
For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license asset (if it has changed) should be provided.
derived
this information not available online, the authors are encouraged reach out the asset's creators.
13. New Assets
Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: We do not release new assets. Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not release assets. Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/model as part of their sub- missions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.
The paper should discuss whether and how consent obtained from people whose asset is used.
At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.
14. Crowdsourcing and Research with Human Subjects
Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: Neither crowdsourcing nor human subjects are involved in this research. Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribution of the paper involves human subjects, then much detail possible should be included in the main paper.
According the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, other labor should paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.
15. Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approvals or Equivalent for Research with Human Subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: Neither crowdsourcing nor human subjects are involved in this research.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Depending the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.
27

---

We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors adhere to the NeurIPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.
For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applica- ble), such as the institution conducting the review.
28


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "xYyJ7asYyP", "reviewer": "Reviewer_abCw", "summary": "This paper presents a prompt engineering framework for generating synthetic human trajectories using LLMs. The framework is guided, in an overall manner, by the observation that human movement is affected by habitual activity patterns and motivations.  In this way, the framework has two phases for considering these aspects. In phase 2, two varying strategies are proposed and compared. All in all, this is an interesting piece of application work of LLMs, in prompt engineering.", "questions": "1)\tIs this method zero-shot?\n2)\tHow is the Td in 3.2 (habitual activity pattern) used subsequently?\n3)\tWhat’s the relation between 3.2.1 evolving based motivation retrieval and 3.2.2 learning-based motivation retrieval? \n4)\tLearning-based motivation retrieval appears to be dependent on embeddings obtained through a contrastive learning process. In what way the embeddings are actually used?\n5)\tWhat’s the rationale behind the two retrieval strategies? If one is superior, why the other is being discussed?", "limitations": "See weaknesses", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "1)\tA general solid prompt engineering framework for an interesting application in cities.\n2)\tThe method is non-trivial and has a certain level of novelty.\n3)\tThe evaluation has been comprehensive.", "weaknesses": "1)\tThere are some parts in the text that are difficult to decipher – I wouldn’t say the paper is easy to follow.\n2)\tIt is unclear which method actually yields the best performance across different metrics\n3)\tThe generalizability is unclear. Can this method be used in other cities around the globe?", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your insightful review and valuable feedback on our work. We would like to address the concerns as follows.\n\n> **Weakness 2**: *It is unclear which method actually yields the best performance across different metrics.*\n\n**Answer**: In our evaluation, we employ four metrics to comprehensively assess mobility generation: SD is a spatial metric, SI is a temporal metric, and DARD and STVD evaluate both spatial and temporal factors. \n\nAlthough there is no method that outperforms all the others in these metrics, the proposed framework delivers an overall best performance across these metrics. In particular, it achieves the best in DARD and SI, and the runner-up in STVD. That is, our framework excels in reproducing temporal and spatio-temporal aspects of personal mobility. Such result has also been shown effective in a real-world application as event-driven generation (Section 4.2).\n\n> **Weakness 3**: *The generalizability is unclear. Can this method be used in other cities around the globe?*\n\n**Answer**: The proposed framework is inherently area-agnostic. The core idea of our framework is based on personal pattern identification and motivation retrieval, both of which are data-driven. This ensures that the method can be applied universally given sufficient data, as it leverages locally available check-in data to derive activity patterns.\n\nTo further validate our claim, we conducted an experiment based on the data collected in Osaka, Japan. We generated 537 trajectories based on the 2102 daily activity trajectories from 30 persons. The results are reported as follows, where LLMob-L/E are ours and DiffTraj and TrajGAIL are the best-performing baseline methods. \n\n| Model          | SD        | SI        | DARD      | STVD      |\n|----------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|\n| LLMob-L        | 0.035     | 0.021     | 0.141     | 0.391     | \n| LLMob-E        | 0.030     | 0.018     | 0.121     | 0.380     | \n| DiffTraj       | 0.080     | 0.177     | 0.406     | 0.691     |\n| TrajGAIL       | 0.281     | 0.063     | 0.525     | 0.483     |\n\nThe above results demonstrate that our framework can maintain superior performance in another city. In Section 5 - Limitations, we acknowledged that it is challenging to collect sufficient data from different areas, which limits our ability to conduct more extensive experiments. Additionally, we note that the model's generalization ability can be also demonstrated by its performance across different scenarios in our original experiments, such as under normal periods and under pandemic periods.\n\n> **Question 1**: *Is this method zero-shot?*\n\n**Answer**: Yes, our method is zero-shot. While we use historical data to extract general activity patterns and create a pool of potential locations, the actual trajectory generation process is zero-shot. The LLM agent does not rely on seeing complete trajectory examples for the specific day or scenario it is generating for. Instead, it uses the extracted patterns and motivation retrieval to reason about and create entirely new, unseen trajectories. This zero-shot capability allows our method to generate plausible activities even for novel scenarios, such as the COVID-19 pandemic example in our experiments, without requiring any direct examples of trajectories in those conditions.\n\n> **Question 2**: *How is the Td in 3.2 (habitual activity pattern) used subsequently?*\n\n**Answer**: The habitual activity pattern derived from equation (2) in 3.2 is used as part of the prompt to retrieve the motivation, i.e., the planning of the daily activity (Please see Appendix B: Page 14, Line 509 <INPUT 0> and Line 513 <INPUT 0>). In this way, we expect the LLM to behave as a citizen following the specified habitual activity pattern.\n\n> **Question 3-5**: *(1) What's the relation between 3.2.1 evolving based motivation retrieval and 3.2.2 learning-based motivation retrieval? (2) Learning-based motivation retrieval appears to be dependent on embeddings obtained through a contrastive learning process. In what way are the embeddings actually used? (3) What's the rationale behind the two retrieval strategies? If one is superior, why is the other being discussed?*\n\n**Answer**: Regarding evolving-based and learning-based motivation, these two components were designed to explore in two directions to identifying the current motivation for daily activity generation, each dealing with different aspects of data availability and sufficiency. We considered them as two promising directions for designing solutions to real-world applications, rather than determining which is superior. The experimental results also show that neither approach always outperforms the other.\n\n- **Evolving-Based Motivation Retrieval**: This method infers the motivation for daily activities based on the activity data from the past few days. It focuses on **short-term temporal patterns and trends**, adapting to recent changes in behavior or context. This method can be a good candidate when **short-term data is available but long-term data is limited**.\n\n- **Learning-Based Motivation Retrieval**: This method leverages a learning-based model to infer motivations by comparing activities from similar dates. The similarity is evaluated through a model trained on historical data. The trained model is then used to evaluate the similarity of the targeted date and the historical dates. This scheme is designed to identify motivations from a broader temporal context, providing robust insights even when **short-term data is limited but long-term data is abundant**.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "4WWaRhL4bQ", "reviewer": "Reviewer_xLxx", "summary": "This paper introduces LLMob, a framework for personal mobility generation using a large language model. The framework aims to leverage urban activity patterns for emulating urban residents, facilitating the human mobility trajectory generation. Using the Tokyo personal activity dataset, the effectiveness of the proposed framework are validated.", "questions": "- In Line 250 - Line 253, 100 users are chosen and 10 candidate personas are used for subsequent pattern generation. Why did the author select such a setting, I don't see a clear illustration of these settings in the paper.\n- In Line 46 and Line 45, the author mentioned \"unseen tasks\" and \"unseen scenarios\". In my perspective, the personal mobility generation task is well-formulated in this paper, what does \"unseen\" mean here for those data-driven methods?", "limitations": "In this paper, all experiments are conducted on a single collected dataset (perhaps thousands of trajectories) from Tokyo, which makes this paper not comprehensive enough. Extending the proposed method to more cities helps improve paper quality.", "rating": 4, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 2, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 2, "strengths": "- The authors proposed LLMob, an interesting human mobility generation framework with Large Language Models.\n- The authors provide an illustrative analysis of how LLM can generate reliable activity strategies.", "weaknesses": "- The proposed framework has only been validated in GPT-3.5. It remains unclear whether the performance would vary with different backbone models, such as Llama-2.\n- The constructed Tokyo dataset statistic is not very clear in this paper, which makes it difficult for the reader to evaluate the true contribution of this paper.\n- The difference between this work and existing work (such as [1]) is not well-discussed in the related work section, although the author claims why these methods cannot be easily adopted as the baselines.\n\n[1] Shao, Chenyang, et al. \"Beyond Imitation: Generating Human Mobility from Context-aware Reasoning with Large Language Models.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09836 (2024).", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your insightful comments and time. We would like to address your concerns as follows.\n\n> **Weakness 1** *The proposed framework has only been validated in GPT-3.5. It remains unclear whether the performance would vary with different backbone models, such as Llama-2.*\n\n**Answer**: We conducted experiments using other LLMs (GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3-8B). The results are reported as follows:\n\n| Model          | SD | SI | DARD | STVD |\n|----------------|----------|-----------|--------|--|\n| LLMob-L (GPT-3.5-turbo)      |   0.049   |  0.054    |   0.126  |   0.570 | \n| LLMob-L (GPT-4o-mini)      |   0.049   |  0.055    |   0.141  |   0.577 | \n|LLMob-L (Llama 3-8B)      |   0.054   |    0.063  |  0.119   |  0.566  | \n| LLMob-E (GPT-3.5-turbo)      |   0.053   |  0.046    |   0.125  |   0.559 | \n| LLMob-E (GPT-4o-mini)      |   0.041   |   0.053    |   0.211   |   0.531 | \n| LLMob-E (Llama 3-8B)      |  0.054   |   0.059   |  0.122    |   0.561  | \n\nWe observe competitive performance of our framework when other LLMs are used. In particular, GPT-4o-mini is the best in terms of the spatial metric (SD); GPT-3.5-turbo is the best in terms of the temporal metric (DI). Llama 3-8B is overall the best when spatial and temporal factors are evaluated together (DARD and STVD). Such results demonstrate the robustness of our framework across different LLMs.\n\n> **Weakness 2** *The constructed Tokyo dataset statistic is not very clear in this paper, which makes it difficult for the reader to evaluate the true contribution of this paper.*\n\n**Answer**: We agree that detailed data information is important. We have attached a file (please see the pdf file in the above \"more detailed information about the experimental data\") for more statistics about the data (also including another dataset of Osaka, as requested by the reviewer). We will include the above statistics into Appendix C.2 in the next version of the paper.\n\n> **Weakness 3** *The difference between this work and existing work (such as [1]) is not well-discussed in the related work section, although the author claims why these methods cannot be easily adopted as the baselines.* \n\n*[1] Shao, Chenyang, et al. \"Beyond Imitation: Generating Human Mobility from Context-aware Reasoning with Large Language Models.\" arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09836 (2024).*\n\n**Answer**: We acknowledge that the related work section could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the differences between our approach and existing methods. For the related work mentioned by the reviewer, there are two major differences from our work: \n\n1. Our framework is a data-driven framework to exploit the intelligence of LLM. All the components in our framework employs the LLM, except the learning-based motivation retrieval, which employs contrastive learning. In contrast, in [1], an analytical model is adopted to derive personal activities. \n\n2. Our framework features a consistency evaluation scheme (Section 3.1.2) to align LLMs with the personal activity trajectory data. We did not find such consistency alignment component in [1].\n\n> **Question 1** *In Line 250 - Line 253, 100 users are chosen and 10 candidate personas are used for subsequent pattern generation. Why did the author select such a setting, I don't see a clear illustration of these settings in the paper.*\n\n**Answer**: We sample 100 users to balance between diversity and token consumption. The candidate personas are drafted by first asking the LLM to give us a pool of candidate personas and then we manually select a subset for representativeness. The candidate personas can be regarded as prior knowledge during the generation. They are reported in Table 4 (Appendix D.1). \n\n> **Question 2** *In Line 46 and Line 45, the author mentioned \"unseen tasks\" and \"unseen scenarios\". In my perspective, the personal mobility generation task is well-formulated in this paper, what does \"unseen\" mean here for those data-driven methods?*\n\n**Answer**: By \"unseen tasks\" and \"unseen scenarios\", we meant that LLMs generalize to the tasks and scenarios which are not in its training data [1].\n\n[1] Sanh et al. Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization. ICLR 2022.\n\nBy prompting the LLM to behave like a citizen, we expect that the model can generate activities in certain scenarios that may not have appeared in the data. For example, given the data during pre-pandemic period, the \"unseen scenarios\" are referred to the situations during the pandemic.\n\n> **Limitations** *In this paper, all experiments are conducted on a single collected dataset (perhaps thousands of trajectories) from Tokyo, which makes this paper not comprehensive enough. Extending the proposed method to more cities helps improve paper quality.*\n\n**Answer**: We conducted an experiment based on the data collected in Osaka, Japan. We generated 537 trajectories based on the 2102 daily activity trajectories from 30 persons. The results are reported as follows, where LLMob-L/E are ours and DiffTraj and TrajGAIL are the best-performing baseline methods. \n\n| Model          | SD | SI | DARD | STVD |\n|----------------|----------|-----------|--------|--|\n| LLMob-L       | 0.035    | 0.021      | 0.141   | 0.391     | \n| LLMob-E        |    0.030  |   0.018    |  0.121   |   0.380    | \n| DiffTraj        |   0.080    |   0.177   |    0.406 |    0.691   |\n| TrajGAIL        |    0.281   |  0.063    |  0.525   |    0.483 |\n\nThe above results demonstrate that our framework can maintain superior performance in another city. In Section 5 - Limitations, we acknowledged that it is challenging to collect sufficient data from different areas, which limits our ability to conduct more extensive experiments. Additionally, we note that the model's generalization ability can be also demonstrated by its performance across different scenarios in our original experiments, such as under normal periods and under pandemic periods.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "erxmF2nf33", "reviewer": "Reviewer_7xtG", "summary": "This paper proposes an LLM-based agent framework for generating personal mobility. It tries to address several problems in the domain of personal mobility generation, including aligning LLMs with the urban data in the real world, developing strategies with reliable activities, and exploring further applications in this field. For generating activities of personal mobility (i.e., trajectories), it proposes a framework of LLM-based agent with an action module, memory module, and planning module, which of all these modules can improve the alignment of the results of generation and real-world data. The paper provides several experiments to verify the effectiveness and alignment of the proposed methods and explores further enhancement.", "questions": "Please see the above \"Weakness\". I'm willing to improve my rating if the authors can address my concerns.", "limitations": "The authors have discussed the limitations in the last section.", "rating": 5, "confidence": 3, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 2, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "1. This paper is the first simulation with LLM-based agents to generate personal mobility, which can contribute to many fields, such as recommender systems and human behavior studies.\n2. The proposed pipeline is intuitive, where the action, memory, and planning modules are important for improving the simulation alignment.\n3. The motivation is practical, and the experiments are abundant as well.", "weaknesses": "1. What about other LLMs performing as the core, besides GPT-3.5-turbo? I think GPT-4/GPT-4o can be utilized to generate data of higher quality.\n2. For the method of Learning-based Motivation Retrieval, I'm a bit concerned about the calculation of similarity among dates. Although the locations are greatly important to identify, there seems to be too much information lost from their initial motivations. Could you try just using cosine similarities on the semantic embeddings of contents with language models? Or maybe using LLMs with prompting to get the score of similarity?\n3. I think the presentation can be improved. A preliminary can be added, and the overview of LLMob can be more clear at the start of section 3.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your insightful comments. We would like to address your concerns as follows.\n\n> **Weakness 1** *What about other LLMs performing as the core, besides GPT-3.5-turbo? I think GPT-4/GPT-4o can be utilized to generate data of higher quality.*\n\n**Answer**: We conducted experiments using GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3-8B. The results are reported as follows:\n\n| Model          | SD | SI | DARD | STVD |\n|----------------|----------|-----------|--------|--|\n| LLMob-L (GPT-3.5-turbo)      |   0.049   |  0.054    |   0.126  |   0.570 | \n| LLMob-L (GPT-4o-mini)      |   0.049   |  0.055    |   0.141  |   0.577 | \n|LLMob-L (Llama 3-8B)      |   0.054   |    0.063  |  0.119   |  0.566  | \n| LLMob-E (GPT-3.5-turbo)      |   0.053   |  0.046    |   0.125  |   0.559 | \n| LLMob-E (GPT-4o-mini)      |   0.041   |   0.053    |   0.211   |   0.531 | \n| LLMob-E (Llama 3-8B)      |  0.054   |   0.059   |  0.122    |   0.561  | \n\nWe observe competitive performance of our framework when other LLMs are used. In particular, GPT-4o-mini is the best in terms of the spatial metric (SD); GPT-3.5-turbo is the best in terms of the temporal metric (DI). Llama 3-8B is overall the best when spatial and temporal factors are evaluated together (DARD and STVD). Such results demonstrate the robustness of our framework across different LLMs.\n\n> **Weakness 2** *For the method of Learning-based Motivation Retrieval, I'm a bit concerned about the calculation of similarity among dates. Although the locations are greatly important to identify, there seems to be too much information lost from their initial motivations. Could you try just using cosine similarities on the semantic embeddings of contents with language models? Or maybe using LLMs with prompting to get the score of similarity?*\n\n**Answer**: We agree with your comment and we indeed considered such scheme when doing this work.\n\nWe used the open-source sentence embedding model (sentence-transformers/paraphrase-distilroberta-base-v1) to embed the daily activities into a 768-dimensional vector, and used cosine similarity to measure the similarity. We evaluated this setting in the same Tokyo dataset as in the paper. The results are reported as follows:\n\n| Situation          | SD | SI | DARD | STVD |\n|----------------|----------|-----------|--------|--|\n| Normal Trajectory, Normal Data |    0.047  |    0.046   |    0.132 |  0.560   | \n| Abormal Trajectory, Abormal Data |  0.058  |     0.052  | 0.148      | 0.581  | \n| Abormal Trajectory, Normal Data |    0.061   |   0.050   |   0.133   |   0.551  | \n\nWe find that when we conduct learning-based motivation retrieval based on sentence embedding similarity, the performance is competitive with the original one. This result demonstrates that the learning-based motivation retrieval scheme is effective in personal mobility generation and that our framework is robust against varying similarity metrics. Considering there are various sentence embedding models and metrics,  the learning-based motivation retrieval scheme based on the similarity of temporal information (i.e., date) is one of the key contributions of our framework. \n\n> **Weakness 3** *I think the presentation can be improved. A preliminary can be added, and the overview of LLMob can be more clear at the start of section 3.*\n\n**Answer**: We appreciate your feedback on improving the paper's presentation. We agree that adding a preliminary section would be beneficial to establish key concepts and definitions before delving into our method. We will also enhance the overview of LLMob at the start of Section 3.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}, {"review_id": "vtkIa3Fqtq", "reviewer": "Reviewer_c5UM", "summary": "The paper proposes an LLM-based personal activity generation by utilizing existing OpenAI LLM through API, named as LLMob. The problem that authors are time and important research topic in the area of human mobility simulation. While existing generative solely trained on the given dataset, LLM agent has already trained internet-wide dataset that allows it to have possibility of generating human-like trajectories. The LLMob generates activity trajectories in two stages: the first stage identifies (learns) activity patterns with respect to different personas introduced by the authors, and in the second stage a synthetic version of the activity sequences generated by LLM agent. The experiments are performed on an activity dataset, and performance is benchmarked by multiple generative models.", "questions": "While Phase 1 and Phase 2 make sense. I have concerns about how much information was carried from Phase 1 to Phase 2. The following are the questions that can help me to understand the details:\n \n1-) Did you utilize the whole dataset in Phase 1? \n2-) How are the trajectories and personas sampled in Phase 2?\n3-) How do the generated activities match with the input trajectories? Does LLM memorize exact activity sequences?\n4-) LLMs are known for hallucination. Within generated activities, the LLM agent generates an activity name and location. How accurate is the LLM agent for the generated activities? For instance, when an activity says Japanese Restaurant (35.369, 140.306), does the GPS location have a Japanese Restaurant? I expect the generated trajectories to require extensive post-processing. \n5-) Have you tried your model on a different dataset? Experiments are limited to one dataset, which limits generalizability.", "limitations": "I found two limitations in this paper and would love to hear authors responses on these:\n\n1-) While LLMs are generally powerful, they often struggle to generalize in domain-specific applications. For a robust human mobility simulation, LLM agents might require a fine-tuning strategy to achieve more generalizable performance. \n\n2-) The generated locations in the study are limited to those specified in the prompt (If they do not hallucinate). Since the model also takes into account the locations a person is likely to visit, as illustrated in Figure 2, the degree of synthetic realism in the generated trajectories raises questions. \n\n3-) This approach also does not fully address privacy concerns associated with mobility trajectories as mentioned in the introduction, the underlying patterns and personal data might still be exposed.", "rating": 6, "confidence": 4, "soundness": 3, "presentation": 4, "contribution": 3, "strengths": "The paper is a good example of an agentic-LLM, showcasing the powerful capabilities of LLMs in human mobility modeling. This application is significant as it uses LLMs' data processing and predictive abilities to improve our understanding of human movement patterns, impacting urban planning, transportation, and public health. The paper is well-structured, with a clear and coherent flow, and features a promising presentation that enhances comprehension.", "weaknesses": "These are the set of  weaknesses of the paper from my perspective:\n1-) The authors performed experiments on one dataset. It might be interesting to examine the performance with dataset from a different region. \n2-) The model solely relies on the pre-trained LLM models. While the LLM capabilities and power are increasing, which is good for this work, separate fine-tuning might be required for concrete human mobility modeling. \n3-) The motivation retrieval part is not clear, especially the learning-based motivation retrieval.", "quality": null, "clarity": null, "significance": null, "originality": null, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "was_revised": false, "final_justification": "", "rebuttal": "Thank you for your insightful review and acknowledgment of our work. We would like to address the concerns as follows.\n\n> **Question 1** *Did you utilize the whole dataset in Phase 1?*\n\n**Answer**: Phase 1 is targeted at identifying the persona of each person. For the sake of fair comparison, for each targeted person, we used 80% of the available data of this person in this phase. \n\n> **Question 2** *How are the trajectories and personas sampled in Phase 2?*\n\n**Answer**: In Phase 1, we start with 10 predefined personas (Table 4) representing diverse urban lifestyles. For each individual, we prompt the LLM to refine these personas based on information extracted from their historical data, resulting in 10 candidate personas. The final persona is then determined through our self-consistency evaluation process, which assesses how well each candidate aligns with the individual's actual behavior patterns.\n\nIn Phase 2, the identified persona from Phase 1 is incorporated into the prompt as an element. For trajectory generation, we employ two schemes:\n\n1. Evolving-based scheme: We sample the individual's **latest one-week historical trajectories** to inform the LLM about recent activity patterns and motivations.\n\n2. Learning-based scheme: We use a learning model (using 80% of available data) to identify **similar dates**, allowing the LLM to draw insights from historically similar contexts.\n\nThis approach allows us to generate personalized, context-aware trajectories that strike a balance between consistent behavior patterns and daily variations in motivation and circumstances.\n\n> **Question 3** *How do the generated activities match with the input trajectories? Does LLM memorize exact activity sequences?*\n\n**Answer**: During generation, the prompt consists of the identified pattern of the targeted person and the retrieved motivation (Please see Appendix B: Page 14, Line 515). We are not providing specific trajectories to the LLM but the retrieved motivations, thus the LLM will **not** need to memorize exact activity sequences. \n\n> **Question 4** *LLMs are known for hallucination. Within generated activities, the LLM agent generates an activity name and location. How accurate is the LLM agent for the generated activities? For instance, when an activity says Japanese Restaurant (35.369, 140.306), does the GPS location have a Japanese Restaurant? I expect the generated trajectories to require extensive post-processing.*\n\n**Answer**: We evaluated the generated activities by checking whether the generated one has appeared in the Tokyo area. We found that all the locations generated from the model exist in the area.\n\nIn addition, (35.369, 140.306) is the real location of a Japanese restaurant (\"やきとり 福仙\", an authentic Japanese yakitori restaurant).\n\n> **Question 5** *Have you tried your model on a different dataset? Experiments are limited to one dataset, which limits generalizability.*\n\n**Answer**: We conducted an experiment based on the data collected in Osaka, Japan. We generated 537 trajectories based on the 2102 daily activity trajectories from 30 persons. The results are reported as follows, where LLMob-L/E are ours and DiffTraj and TrajGAIL are the best-performing baseline methods. \n\n| Model          | SD        | SI        | DARD      | STVD      |\n|----------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|\n| LLMob-L        | 0.035     | 0.021     | 0.141     | 0.391     | \n| LLMob-E        | 0.030     | 0.018     | 0.121     | 0.380     | \n| DiffTraj       | 0.080     | 0.177     | 0.406     | 0.691     |\n| TrajGAIL       | 0.281     | 0.063     | 0.525     | 0.483     |\n\nThe above results demonstrate that our framework can maintain superior performance in another city. In Section 5 - Limitations, we acknowledged that it is challenging to collect sufficient data from different areas, which limits our ability to conduct more extensive experiments. Additionally, we note that the model's generalization ability can be also demonstrated by its performance across different scenarios in our original experiments, such as under normal periods and under pandemic periods.", "claims_and_evidence": "", "methods_and_evaluation_criteria": "", "theoretical_claims": "", "experimental_designs_or_analyses": "", "relation_to_broader_scientific_literature": "", "essential_references_not_discussed": "", "other_strengths_and_weaknesses": "", "other_comments_or_suggestions": "", "questions_for_authors": "", "summary_of_paper": "", "summary_of_recommendation": "", "technical_quality": "", "clarity_of_presentation": "", "potential_impact": "", "robotics_focus": "", "quality_of_limitations": "", "questions_for_rebuttal": "", "reasons_to_accept": "", "reasons_to_reject": "", "questions_to_authors": "", "extra_scores": {}}]

Author rebuttal:
Thank you to all the reviewers for your comments. We have addressed each reviewer's feedback in the individual response page. Additionally, we have attached a file that provides **more detailed information about the experimental data** we used.

Meta-review: This paper introduces LLMob, a novel approach using Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated into an agent framework for flexible and effective personal mobility generation
The method requires insightful generation of structured prompts. It is brining the idea of agents systems to personal mobility and looks at multiple problems: including aligning LLMs with the urban data in the real world, developing strategies with reliable activities.
The empirical performance is limited, since it is on a biased and limited dataset. However the reviewer acknowledges that availability of such data is not easy, and hence showcasing this new problem may need creation and curation of the data itself. There are a number of concerns, mainly centered on clarity of writing and clarity in terms of empirical superiority of the method. The metrics used are nonintuitive and since there is no single methods that dominates, it is not clear what the value of the presented method is.  However the rebuttal does a decent job of clarifications and additional experiments such as evaluation with Llama. 

Furthermore there are ethical concerns on the privacy of the data. The authors confirmed that the data is obtained through publicly available APIs from Foursquare and Twitter, and hence follow their guidelines. The authors should follow through with the plan of additional steps to anonymize the output location depending on the specific requirements of the application.  Given the over all contributions, the meta-reviewers finds that the paper has value of the subcommunity of ML studying mobility with LLMs. The authors are however requested to make major changes improvements to the manuscript based on the discussion feedback to improve writing, include new experiments, acknowledge limitations and suggest solutions for the data anonymity.
Decision: Accept (poster)