Organizations: Southern University of Science and Technology · City University of Hong Kong · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen) · University of York
The generation of realistic and controllable GPS trajectories is a fundamental task for applications in urban planning, mobility simulation, and privacy-preserving data sharing. However, existing methods face a two-fold challenge: they lack the deep semantic understanding to interpret complex user travel intent, and struggle to handle complex constraints while maintaining the realistic diversity inherent in human behavior. To resolve this, we introduce InsTraj, a novel framework that instructs diffusion models to generate high-fidelity trajectories directly from natural language descriptions. Specifically, InsTraj first utilizes a powerful large language model to decipher unstructured travel intentions formed in natural language, thereby creating rich semantic blueprints and bridging the representation gap between intentions and trajectories. Subsequently, we proposed a multimodal trajectory diffusion transformer that can integrate semantic guidance to generate high-fidelity and instruction-faithful trajectories that adhere to fine-grained user intent. Comprehensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that InsTraj significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods in generating trajectories that are realistic, diverse, and semantically faithful to the input instructions.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Comparison of the proposed InsTraj method with existing trajectory generation or navigation methods. The InsTraj can effectively generate trajectories that are faithful to human travel intentions and exhibit diversity.
Figure 2. Overview of the InsTraj framework. It distills travel intentions from trajectory data, encodes them via LLM into semantic blueprints, and employs MT-DiT with Joint Attention to generate instruction-faithful trajectories.
Dataset
Method
Density ↓
Trip ↓
Length ↓
Chengdu
VAE
0.0139
0.0502
0.0368
TrajGAN
0.0137
0.0488
0.0329
DP-TrajGAN
0.0127
0.0438
0.0234
Diffwave
0.0145
0.0253
0.0315
DiffTraj
0.0055
0.0154
0.0169
ControlTraj
0.0039
0.0106
0.0117
Table 1. Quantitative comparison of spatio-temporal fidelity.
Figure 3. Visualization of the geographical distribution and attributes of generated trajectories.
Dataset
Method
FCR(%) ↑
TIS ↑
S
D
Chengdu
DiffTraj
75.14
74.81
0.351
ControlTraj
75.54
74.61
0.350
InsTraj (Bert)
75.40
75.62
0.348
InsTraj (DiT)
82.83
81.37
0.369
InsTraj
83.03
82.54
0.371
Table 2. Analysis of instruction faithfulness and the contribution of key components.
Figure 4. Performance and efficiency analysis.
Figure 5. Visualizing spatio-temporal mobility patterns discovered by InsTraj under various instructions guided.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Functional Category
Example OSM Tags
Residential
building=residential, landuse=residential
Commercial
shop=*, building=retail
Food
amenity=restaurant, amenity=cafe
Transportation
highway=bus stop, railway=station
Education
building=school, amenity=university
Recreational
leisure=stadium, leisure=playground
Appendix
Table 3. Mapping schema from OSM tags to functional categories.
Parameter
Setting value
Refer range
Input Length
200
120 ∼ 256
Patch size
4
1 ∼ 8
Diffusion Steps
500
300 ∼ 500
Sampling steps
100
50 ∼ 500
β (linear schedule)
0.0001 ∼ 0.02
–
Embedding dim
384
≥ 128
Appendix
Table 4. General hyperparameters setting for InsTraj.
Dataset
Trajetory Number
Area Number
Function Type
Chengdu
1095463
50×50
19
Xi’an
1083784
50×50
17
Appendix
Table 5. Statistics of two trajectory datasets.
Figure 6. Origin trajectory and function profile of Chengdu.
Figure 7. Origin trajectory and function profile of Xi’an.
Figure 8. Generated trajectory comparison of Chengdu.
Figure 9. Generated trajectory comparison of Xi’an.
Data Ratio
Density ↓
Trip ↓
Length ↓
5%
0.0268 / 0.0214
0.0395 / 0.0258
0.0358 / 0.0198
10%
0.0201 / 0.0185
0.0283 / 0.0244
0.0337 / 0.0182
50%
0.0115 / 0.0097
0.0145 / 0.0131
0.0209 / 0.0165
100%
0.0093
0.0110
0.0131
Appendix
Table 6. Cross-city transfer performance (scratch/transfer).
Instruction Type
FCR-S ↑
FCR-D ↑
TIS ↑
Template-only
83.35
82.68
0.369
Template (Synonym replaced)
80.18
79.42
0.327
LLM-refined (Ours)
83.03
82.54
0.371
Appendix
Table 7. Impact of instruction quality on faithfulness.
Instruction Type
FCR-S ↑
FCR-D ↑
TIS ↑
Coarse-grained
–
68.76
0.254
Medium-grained
75.32
73.92
0.336
Fine-grained
83.03
82.54
0.371
Appendix
Table 8. Impact of instruction granularity on faithfulness.
Dataset
Origin Accuracy
Destination Accuracy
Chengdu
98.3
96.7
Xi’an
99.2
97.1
Appendix
Table 9. Quantitative accuracy of OD constraint satisfaction.