Next point-of-interest (POI) recommendation aims to predict a user's next destination from spatio-temporal check-in data, and serves as the foundation for many location-based services. Recent advances incorporate large language models (LLMs) into this task by textualizing user trajectories to exploit their semantic reasoning ability. However, directly generating POI identifiers with such models is unreliable: POIs are sparse, localized, and long-tailed entities with weak natural-language semantics, which creates a semantic-to-entity gap between high-level mobility intent and concrete POI prediction. To bridge this gap, we propose ANCHOR, a category-anchored framework for semantic-to-entity grounding in next POI recommendation. Specifically, ANCHOR first estimates category-level mobility intent in a compact and stable semantic space, rather than predicting concrete POI entities directly. The inferred intent is then grounded into a candidate set by integrating three complementary sources of mobility evidence: category anchors, historical visit memory, and user preferences. Finally, a history-aware reranker selects the target POI by matching each candidate with the user's historical mobility patterns and current context. Experiments on three real-world check-in datasets show that ANCHOR consistently outperforms representative traditional, structure-enhanced, and LLM-based baselines on the reported metrics. Further analyses validate the effectiveness of semantic-to-entity grounding and show favorable trade-offs among candidate coverage, ranking quality, and inference efficiency.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Comparison between existing LLM-based POI recommendation models and ANCHOR. Existing models directly ask the LLM to generate a concrete POI ID from user history, which is unreliable in sparse local POI ID spaces. ANCHOR first predicts category-level intent and then grounds it into concrete candidate POIs using category, history, and preference evidence.
Fig. 2: Overview of the proposed ANCHOR framework, which consists of three modules: semantic intent pre-estimation for predicting category-level intent, multi-source candidate grounding for constructing the candidate POI pool, and history-aware reranking for producing the final recommendation.
Block
Template
Instruction
You will be given earlier check-ins of user [user_id] . Your task is to predict the POI category of the target check-in.
TABLE I: Trajectory prompt template for semantic intent pre-estimation.
Source
Evidence
Role
LLM-category POIs
POIs under top- Kc categories
Semantic grounding
History POI memory
Repeated and recent POIs
Revisit behavior
User-preferred category expansion
Long-term, recent, and target-time preferences
Personalized expansion
TABLE II: Multi-source evidence used for candidate grounding.
Fig. 3: Illustration of candidate-specific attention over user history in the history-aware reranking stage.
Dataset
#user
#poi
#cat
#checkin
#trajectory
NYC
1,075
5,099
318
104,074
14,160
TKY
2,281
7,844
291
361,430
44,692
CA
4,318
9,923
301
250,780
32,920
TABLE III: Statistics of the datasets
Model
NYC
TKY
CA
Acc@1
Acc@5
Acc@10
MRR
Acc@1
Acc@5
Acc@10
MRR
Acc@1
Acc@5
Acc@10
MRR
PRME
0.1159
0.2236
0.3105
0.1712
0.1052
0.2278
0.2944
0.1786
0.0521
0.1034
0.1425
0.1002
LSTM
0.1305
0.2719
0.3283
0.1857
0.1335
0.2728
0.3277
0.1834
0.0665
0.1306
0.1784
0.1201
PLSPL
0.1917
0.3678
0.4523
0.2806
0.1889
0.3523
0.4150
0.2542
0.1072
0.2278
0.2995
0.1847
STAN
0.2231
0.4582
0.5734
0.3253
0.1963
0.3798
0.4464
0.2852
0.1104
0.2348
0.3018
0.1869
GETNext
0.2406
0.4815
0.5811
0.3528
0.1829
0.4045
0.4961
0.2853
0.1526
0.3278
0.3946
0.2364
TABLE IV: Main results on three public next POI recommendation datasets.
Ablations
NYC
TKY
CA
ANCHOR
0.4137
0.3602
0.2633
w/o LightGCN
0.3875 ( ↓ 6.33%)
0.3341 ( ↓ 7.25%)
0.2581 ( ↓ 1.97%)
w/o LLM Anchor
0.3860 ( ↓ 6.70%)
0.3462 ( ↓ 3.89%)
0.2569 ( ↓ 2.43%)
w/o Multi-source
0.3995 ( ↓ 3.43%)
0.3593 ( ↓ 0.25%)
0.2540 ( ↓ 3.53%)
w/o Reranker
0.4002 ( ↓ 3.26%)
0.3169 ( ↓ 12.02%)
0.2465 ( ↓ 6.38%)
TABLE V: Results of ablation models on NYC, TKY, and CA datasets with Acc@1 metric.
Fig. 4: Effectiveness of semantic intent pre-estimation.
User group
Model
NYC
TKY
CA
Inactive
GA-LLM
0.3365
0.3276
0.2655
Normal
GA-LLM
0.4416
0.3513
0.2498
Very active
GA-LLM
0.4129
0.3483
0.2437
Inactive
ANCHOR
0.3270
0.2879
0.2872
Normal
ANCHOR
0.4750
0.3607
0.2573
Very active
ANCHOR
0.4263
0.4089
0.2592
TABLE VI: User cold-start analysis on NYC, TKY, and CA datasets with Acc@1.
Fig. 5: Model efficiency comparison on the NYC dataset. Lines denote min-max prompt token ranges, circles denote average token counts, and diamonds denote median token counts. The y-axis reports Acc@1.
Fig. 6: Impact of the Number of LLM-Predicted Categories Kc .
Fig. 7: Impact of the number of candidate POIs N .
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) China · Shanghai Jiao Tong University China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Hong Kong +2