Organizations: Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau, China · Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology, Shenzhen, China · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China · Beijing Normal-Hong Kong Baptist University, Zhuhai, China
Generating daily activity schedules from individual attributes (e.g., age and income) is valuable for activity-based travel modeling and human behavior simulation. The task is challenging because exact activity structures follow a highly imbalanced, long-tailed distribution, while the same structure can admit multiple duration allocations under a fixed full-day budget. Direct generation must therefore learn many exact activity structures from highly uneven observations while modeling their possible temporal realizations. However, many exact structures share recurring activity organization. Based on this observation, we propose Act-HiMotif, a hierarchical motif-based generative model that introduces learned, reusable activity-structure motifs as an intermediate representation between individual profiles and specific activity structures. Act-HiMotif first distinguishes home-only days from active days, then samples a motif from a profile-conditioned prior to guide activity-structure generation, and finally applies a budget-constrained duration allocator to generate activity durations that sum exactly to the full-day horizon. This hierarchy models home-only routing, activity-structure generation, and duration allocation at their corresponding levels, while motifs allow related structures to share statistical support without losing their distinct sequences. Experiments on large-scale travel survey data show that Act-HiMotif outperforms strong baselines in both in-distribution and spatial generalization settings, demonstrating the effectiveness of hierarchical generation and reusable activity-structure motifs for producing realistic profile-conditioned daily activity schedules.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Motivating properties of daily activity schedules: A. long-tailed activity structures with recurring patterns and B. multiple duration allocations for the same structure under the full-day time constraint.
Figure 2: Overview of Act-HiMotif: (a) hierarchical profile-conditioned schedule generation, (b) training-only learning of reusable activity-structure motifs, and (c) autoregressive budget-constrained duration allocation.
Method
In-distribution
Spatial generalization
Epi. ↓
Dur. ↓
Start ↓
Slot ↓
CPC ↑
Epi. ↓
Dur. ↓
Start ↓
Slot ↓
CPC ↑
ConditionalRNN
0.3092
0.3646
0.4642
0.0311
0.4919
0.3468
0.3571
0.4496
0.0366
0.4479
GenerativeRNN
0.0100
0.0257
0.0334
0.0047
0.8900
0.0233
0.0385
0.0512
0.0063
0.8497
ActVAE
0.0314
0.0419
0.0325
0.0088
0.8591
0.0459
0.0571
0.0429
0.0071
0.8770
DeepActivity-ZS
0.2310
0.2817
0.3593
0.0269
0.5136
0.2200
0.2623
0.3722
0.0282
0.5092
ControlTraj
0.1492
0.1164
0.1016
0.0075
0.7184
0.1810
0.1220
0.1144
0.0078
0.7278
Table 1: Five-seed mean performance under in-distribution and spatial-generalization evaluation. Best and second-best results are bolded and underlined .
In-distribution
Variant
Epi. ↓
Dur. ↓
Start ↓
Slot ↓
CPC ↑
w/o Active-Day Gate ( A )
0.0029
0.0016
0.0047
0.0002
0.9706
w/o Act.-Stru. Motifs ( z )
0.0223
0.0051
0.0089
0.0021
0.8910
w/o Hie. Gen. ( x→Y )
0.0029
0.0017
0.0069
0.0007
0.9067
Act-HiMotif
0.0014
0.0013
0.0045
0.0001
0.9749
Table 2: Five-seed mean ablation results for the hierarchical components of Act-HiMotif.
Figure 3: Duration and transition fidelity by ground-truth structure support. Groups are defined by training frequency: Head ( ftrain≥100 ), Medium ( 10 – 99 ), Rare ( 2 – 9 ), Singleton ( 1 ), and Unseen ( 0 ).
Figure 4: Profile–activity-chain alignment under CBSA-disjoint spatial generalization. The top four active-day chains by training-set prevalence difference for the corresponding group.
Figure 5: Observed and generated joint start-time–duration distributions for four representative activities under CBSA-disjoint spatial generalization.
Dataset statistics
Statistic
Value
Person-day schedules
264,234
Activity categories
9
Temporal resolution
48 slots (30 min)
Profile fields
7
Distinct exact activity structures
20,425
Table 3: Processed dataset statistics and evaluation splits.
Figure 6: One-at-a-time sensitivity of Duration JSD and Transition CPC to the codebook size M , commitment weight β , and loss weights λA , λM , λS , and λD . Lines report five-seed means, and shaded regions indicate ±1 standard deviation separately under each evaluation protocol.
Method
Target data
In-distribution
Spatial generalization
Epi. ↓
Dur. ↓
Start ↓
Slot ↓
CPC ↑
Epi. ↓
Dur. ↓
Start ↓
Slot ↓
CPC ↑
No target-CBSA schedules
ConditionalRNN
0%
0.3092 ± 0.0074
0.3646 ± 0.0199
0.4642 ± 0.0179
0.0311 ± 0.0035
0.4919 ± 0.0256
0.3468 ± 0.0076
0.3571 ± 0.0314
0.4496 ± 0.0321
0.0366 ± 0.0046
0.4479 ± 0.0270
GenerativeRNN
0%
0.0100 ± 0.0021
0.0257 ± 0.0057
0.0334 ± 0.0053
0.0047 ± 0.0019
0.8900 ± 0.0207
0.0233 ± 0.0100
0.0385 ± 0.0094
0.0512 ± 0.0129
0.0063 ± 0.0033
0.8497 ± 0.0263
ActVAE
0%
0.0314 ± 0.0075
0.0419 ± 0.0097
0.0325 ± 0.0027
0.0088 ± 0.0022
0.8591 ± 0.0125
0.0459 ± 0.0059
0.0571 ± 0.0058
0.0429 ± 0.0046
0.0071 ± 0.0032
0.8770 ± 0.0288
DeepActivity-ZS
0%
0.2310 ± 0.0427
0.2817 ± 0.0436
0.3593 ± 0.0205
0.0269 ± 0.0045
0.5136 ± 0.0396
0.2200 ± 0.0440
0.2623 ± 0.0392
0.3722 ± 0.0104
0.0282 ± 0.0045
0.5092 ± 0.0692
Table 4: Complete five-seed results under in-distribution and spatial-generalization evaluation. Values are mean ± standard deviation. Best and second-best results among methods using no target-CBSA schedules are shown in bold and underline , respectively.
In-distribution
Variant
Epi. ↓
Dur. ↓
Start ↓
Slot ↓
CPC ↑
w/o Active-Day Gate ( A )
0.0029 ± 0.0006
0.0016 ± 0.0004
0.0047 ± 0.0004
0.00017 ± 0.00005
0.9706 ± 0.0038
w/o Act.-Stru. Motifs ( z )
0.0223 ± 0.0048
0.0051 ± 0.0006
0.0089 ± 0.0008
0.00213 ± 0.00052
0.8910 ± 0.0098
w/o Hie. Gen. ( x→Y )
0.0029 ± 0.0006
0.0017 ± 0.0003
0.0069 ± 0.0010
0.00070 ± 0.00011
0.9067 ± 0.0057
Act-HiMotif
0.0014 ± 0.0007
0.0013 ± 0.0001
0.0045 ± 0.0003
0.00011 ± 0.00006
0.9749 ± 0.0027
Table 5: Full five-seed ablation results reported as mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 7: Frequency and cumulative coverage of the learned motifs. Bars report the mean individual coverage of the 20 most frequent motifs across five seeds, with error bars denoting one standard deviation. Curves and shaded regions show the corresponding mean cumulative coverage and across-seed variation. The in-distribution and spatial-generalization training sets contain 15,915 and 8,667 distinct exact activity structures, respectively, organized using a 256-entry motif codebook under each protocol.
Figure 8: Dominant activity structures of the four most frequent motifs for the fixed canonical seed 2026. Each row reports the motif-frequency rank, run-specific code index, individual and cumulative training coverage, and dominant exact activity structure.
Figure 9: Profile composition of the 16 most frequent motifs (frequency ranks 1–16) for the fixed canonical seed 2026 under each evaluation protocol. Rows are ordered by active-day training frequency and labeled with the motif index and dominant exact structure. For each motif, percentages sum to 100% separately across employment categories, day types, and age bands.
Figure 10: Profile–activity-chain alignment for student-status and age-band contrasts under CBSA-disjoint spatial generalization. Displayed active-day chains are selected using training-set prevalence differences.
Figure 11: Profile–activity-chain alignment for all analyzed profile contrasts under in-distribution evaluation. Displayed active-day chains are selected using training-set prevalence differences.
Figure 12: Profile-stratified Duration JSD and Transition CPC under CBSA-disjoint spatial generalization.
Figure 13: Profile-stratified Duration JSD and Transition CPC under in-distribution evaluation.
Figure 14: Observed and generated joint start-time–duration distributions for Home, Work, Shopping, and Recreation under in-distribution evaluation.
Figure 15: Observed and generated joint start-time–duration distributions for School, Medical, Escort, Meal, and Other under CBSA-disjoint spatial generalization.
Figure 16: Observed and generated joint start-time–duration distributions for School, Medical, Escort, Meal, and Other under in-distribution evaluation.
Figure 17: Row-normalized activity-transition distributions under CBSA-disjoint spatial generalization (top) and in-distribution evaluation (bottom). Rows denote current activities and columns denote next activities.
Individual level daily activity schedules are essential for a wide range of applications, including infectious disease control, urban transportation planning, and policy design. In practice, such schedules are typically generated by combining population data with travel survey data. These data sources are used because they are often publicly available, whereas observed individual activity schedules are difficult to obtain due to privacy concerns. However, because of the complexity of mobility modelling, it is difficult to generate realistic activity schedules that also preserve travel times consistent with those reported in travel surveys. To address this issue, we propose a framework for generating activity schedules that iteratively applies a dynamic programming method to allocate activity locations based on simulated travel times. Numerical experiments with dummy data show that the proposed method reduces the discrepancy between simulated travel times and those reported in travel surveys by 52.2% relative to the first iteration through iterative refinement.
Tatsuya Mitomi, Yahya Gamal, Esra Suel +3
AI for Collective Intelligence Hub, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK · Fujitsu Limited, Kawasaki, Japan · Urban Analytics, Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland +1
Human mobility appears highly diverse, yet much of a person's daily mobility can be explained by a small set of recurring behavioral templates, such as commuting, school-centered activities, caregiving, nightlife, or errand patterns. We present IBAD (Interpretable Behavioral Anomaly Detection), a framework that learns interpretable daily mobility templates and represents each individual as a distribution over mixtures of these templates. Rather than focusing on specific locations, IBAD characterizes activities that individuals perform across locations. This approach first discovers global behavioral templates using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), then employs a hierarchical self-supervised model to learn normal behavior of individuals from their soft behavioral templates. We also introduce a splicing benchmark that creates controlled behavioral mismatches between an individual's historical profile and injected mobility patterns. Experiments on real-world and synthetic datasets show that daily behavior can be effectively decomposed into a small number of interpretable templates. Crucially, we show that the learned behavioral archetypes transfer across distinct geographic and demographic contexts. Furthermore, IBAD maintains a robust competitive performance across all settings. For reproducibility purposes, the code is accessible at ~https://github.com/USC-InfoLab/IBAD.
Bita Azarijoo, John Krumm, Cyrus Shahabi
University of Southern California Los Angeles, California, USA
Human mobility generation, an important task in urban research, synthesizes trajectory data for urban planning and transportation management. Human mobility can be characterized as a "why-where-when" decision process: people form an intention to move and then determine where and when the corresponding activity will take place. Trajectory generation under user-level and temporal distribution shifts may benefit from explicitly modeling this decision structure. However, many existing human mobility generation methods either represent behavioral intent at a coarse granularity, such as a daily plan or a trajectory-level description, or directly predict future locations without explicitly reasoning about a possible motivation for each movement step. We introduce MotiveMob, a motivation-driven autoregressive framework for human mobility generation that first forms a hypothesis about why the next movement may occur and then jointly generates where and when it may occur. At each step, a motivation predictor conditions on the current mobility state, a long-term behavioral report, and the mobility history to infer a plausible motivation or determine whether the trajectory should terminate. Given the hypothesized motivation, a state predictor grounds it in a candidate next location and arrival time. The candidate then undergoes speed-feasibility and repetition checks before being fed back for the next decision. We evaluate MotiveMob under distribution shifts involving unseen users and unseen temporal periods, including seasonal changes and the substantial behavioral disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Experiments show that MotiveMob consistently achieves better distributional fidelity than competitive pretraining-based and prompting-based methods under user-level and temporal distribution shifts, demonstrating robust generalization to out-of-distribution mobility patterns.
Mengkun Gao, Zengqing Wu, Renhe Jiang +6
The University of Osaka · The University of Tokyo · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology +1