Recent mobility scaling research, using new data sources, often relies on aggregated data alone. Hence, these studies face difficulties characterizing the influence of factors such as transportation mode on mobility patterns. This paper attempts to complement this research by looking at a category-rich mobility data set. In order to shed light on the impact of categories, as a case study, we use conventionally collected German mobility data. In contrast to check-in'-based data, our results are not biased by Euclidean distance approximations. In our analysis, we show that aggregation can hide crucial differences between trip length distributions, when subdivided by categories. For example, we see that on an urban scale (0 to 15 km), walking, versus driving, exhibits a highly different scaling exponent, thus universality class. Moreover, mode share and trip length are responsive to day-of-week and time-of-day. For example, in Germany, although driving is relatively less frequent on Sundays than on Wednesdays, trips seem to be longer. In addition, our work may shed new light on the debate between distance-based and intervening-opportunity mechanisms affecting mobility patterns, since mode may be chosen both according to trip length and urban form.
First, these check-in sources do not usually contain very much ancillary categorical information about a trip such as mode, weather, purpose, number of passengers, etc. Thus, if one wants to know the effect of external factors, one may be limited by resources to determine all of them accurately @cite_13 .
@cite_13
1850984366
The discovery of causal relationships from purely observational data is a fundamental problem in science. The most elementary form of such a causal discovery problem is to decide whether X causes Y or, alternatively, Y causes X, given joint observations of two variables X,Y. An example is to decide whether altitude causes temperature, or vice versa, given only joint measurements of both variables. Even under the simplifying assumptions of no confounding, no feedback loops, and no selection bias, such bivariate causal discovery problems are challenging. Nevertheless, several approaches for addressing those problems have been proposed in recent years. We review two families of such methods: methods based on Additive Noise Models (ANMs) and Information Geometric Causal Inference (IGCI). We present the benchmark CAUSEEFFECTPAIRS that consists of data for 100 different causee ffect pairs selected from 37 data sets from various domains (e.g., meteorology, biology, medicine, engineering, economy, etc.) and motivate our decisions regarding the "ground truth" causal directions of all pairs. We evaluate the performance of several bivariate causal discovery methods on these real-world benchmark data and in addition on artificially simulated data. Our empirical results on real-world data indicate that certain methods are indeed able to distinguish cause from effect using only purely observational data, although more benchmark data would be needed to obtain statistically significant conclusions. One of the best performing methods overall is the method based on Additive Noise Models that has originally been proposed by (2009), which obtains an accuracy of 63 ± 10 and an AUC of 0.74 ± 0.05 on the real-world benchmark. As the main theoretical contribution of this work we prove the consistency of that method.