skip to main content
10.1145/3139958.3140054acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

From ITDL to Place2Vec: Reasoning About Place Type Similarity and Relatedness by Learning Embeddings From Augmented Spatial Contexts

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 November 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Understanding, representing, and reasoning about Points Of Interest (POI) types such as Auto Repair, Body Shop, Gas Stations, or Planetarium, is a key aspect of geographic information retrieval, recommender systems, geographic knowledge graphs, as well as studying urban spaces in general, e.g., for extracting functional or vague cognitive regions from user-generated content. One prerequisite to these tasks is the ability to capture the similarity and relatedness between POI types. Intuitively, a spatial search that returns body shops or even gas stations in the absence of auto repair places is still likely to satisfy some user needs while returning planetariums will not. Place hierarchies are frequently used for query expansion, but most of the existing hierarchies are relatively shallow and structured from a single perspective, thereby putting POI types that may be closely related regarding some characteristics far apart from another. This leads to the question of how to learn POI type representations from data. Models such as Word2Vec that produces word embeddings from linguistic contexts are a novel and promising approach as they come with an intuitive notion of similarity. However, the structure of geographic space, e.g., the interactions between POI types, differs substantially from linguistics. In this work, we present a novel method to augment the spatial contexts of POI types using a distance-binned, information-theoretic approach to generate embeddings. We demonstrate that our work outperforms Word2Vec and other models using three different evaluation tasks and strongly correlates with human assessments of POI type similarity. We published the resulting embeddings for 570 place types as well as a collection of human similarity assessments online for others to use.

References

  1. Benjamin Adams and Krzysztof Janowicz. 2015. Thematic signatures for cleansing and enriching place-related linked data. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 29, 4 (2015), 556--579. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Yoshua Bengio, Réjean Ducharme, Pascal Vincent, and Christian Jauvin. 2003. A neural probabilistic language model. Journal of machine learning research 3, Feb (2003), 1137--1155. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Anne Cocos and Chris Callison-Burch. 2017. The Language of Place: Semantic Value from Geospatial Context. EACL 2017 (2017), 99.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Shanshan Feng, Gao Cong, Bo An, and Yeow Meng Chee. 2017. POI2Vec: Geographical Latent Representation for Predicting Future Visitors. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. John R Firth. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930--1955. (1957).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Nelson Goodman. 1972. Problems and projects. (1972).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Sébastien Harispe, Sylvie Ranwez, Stefan Janaqi, and Jacky Montmain. 2015. Semantic similarity from natural language and ontology analysis. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies 8, 1 (2015), 1--254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Stevan Harnad. 2005. To cognize is to categorize: Cognition is categorization. Handbook of categorization in cognitive science (2005), 20--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Krzysztof Janowicz. 2012. Observation-driven geo-ontology engineering. Transactions in GIS 16, 3 (2012), 351--374.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Krzysztof Janowicz, Martin Raubal, and Werner Kuhn. 2011. The semantics of similarity in geographic information retrieval. Journal of Spatial Information Science 2011, 2 (2011), 29--57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Jay J Jiang and David W Conrath. 1997. Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. arXiv preprint cmp-lg/9709008 (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Junchul Kim, Maria Vasardani, and Stephan Winter. 2017. Similarity matching for integrating spatial information extracted from place descriptions. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 31, 1 (2017), 56--80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Claudia Leacock and Martin Chodorow. 1998. Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification. WordNet: An electronic lexical database 49, 2 (1998), 265--283.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Wentian Li. 1992. Random texts exhibit Zipf's-law-like word frequency distribution. IEEE Transactions on information theory 38, 6 (1992), 1842--1845. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Dekang Lin et al. 1998. An information-theoretic definition of similarity.. In Icml, Vol. 98. 296--304. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Laurens van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9, Nov (2008), 2579--2605.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Grant McKenzie and Krzysztof Janowicz. 2015. Where is also about time: A location-distortion model to improve reverse geocoding using behavior-driven temporal semantic signatures. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 54 (2015), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Grant McKenzie, Krzysztof Janowicz, Song Gao, and Li Gong. 2015. How where is when? On the regional variability and resolution of geosocial temporal signatures for points of interest. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 54 (2015), 336-- 346.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv:1301.3781 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 3111--3119. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Andriy Mnih and Koray Kavukcuoglu. 2013. Learning word embeddings efficiently with noise-contrastive estimation. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 2265--2273. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Christoph Mülligann, Krzysztof Janowicz, Mao Ye, and Wang-Chien Lee. 2011. Analyzing the spatial-semantic interaction of points of interest in volunteered geographic information. In International Conference on Spatial Information Theory. Springer, 350--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Gianluca Quercini and Hanan Samet. 2014. Uncovering the spatial relatedness in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. ACM, 153--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. David Sánchez, Montserrat Batet, and David Isern. 2011. Ontology-based information content computation. Knowledge-Based Systems 24, 2 (2011), 297--303. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Nuno Seco, Tony Veale, and Jer Hayes. 2004. An intrinsic information content metric for semantic similarity in WordNet. In Proceedings of the 16th European conference on artificial intelligence. IOS Press, 1089--1090. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Yi-Fu Tuan. 1977. Space and place: The perspective of experience. Uni. of Minnesota.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhibiao Wu and Martha Palmer. 1994. Verbs semantics and lexical selection. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 133--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Yao Yao, Xia Li, Xiaoping Liu, Penghua Liu, Zhaotang Liang, Jinbao Zhang, and Ke Mai. 2017. Sensing spatial distribution of urban land use by integrating points-of-interest and Google Word2Vec model. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 31, 4 (2017), 825--848. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Mao Ye, Krzysztof Janowicz, Christoph Mülligann, and Wang-Chien Lee. 2011. What you are is when you are: the temporal dimension of feature types in location-based social networks. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. ACM, 102--111. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Chao Zhang, Keyang Zhang, Quan Yuan, Haoruo Peng, Yu Zheng, Tim Hanratty, Shaowen Wang, and Jiawei Han. 2017. Regions, periods, activities: Uncovering urban dynamics via cross-modal representation learning. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 361--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Yating Zhang, Adam Jatowt, and Katsumi Tanaka. 2017. Is Tofu the Cheese of Asia?: Searching for Corresponding Objects across Geographical Areas. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 1033--1042. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Shenglin Zhao, Tong Zhao, Irwin King, and Michael R Lyu. 2017. Geo-Teaser: Geo-Temporal Sequential Embedding Rank for Point-of-interest Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 153--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Rui Zhu, Yingjie Hu, Krzysztof Janowicz, and Grant McKenzie. 2016. Spatial signatures for geographic feature types: Examining gazetteer ontologies using spatial statistics. Transactions in GIS 20, 3 (2016), 333--355.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. From ITDL to Place2Vec: Reasoning About Place Type Similarity and Relatedness by Learning Embeddings From Augmented Spatial Contexts

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SIGSPATIAL '17: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems
        November 2017
        677 pages
        ISBN:9781450354905
        DOI:10.1145/3139958

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 7 November 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        SIGSPATIAL '17 Paper Acceptance Rate39of193submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate220of1,116submissions,20%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader