Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2609.00345

Do LLMs Know Your Neighborhood? Auditing LLM Priors for Neighborhood-Level Mobility Prediction and Structural Alignment

Abstract

Human mobility is central to urban planning, transportation, public health, and emergency response, yet fine-grained trajectory data are often proprietary, restricted, and privacy-sensitive. Large language models (LLMs) offer a potential alternative by generating plausible mobility traces and predicting individual movement, but their ability to infer aggregate neighborhood-level mobility remains unclear. We evaluate zero-shot LLMs on Census Block Group-level mobility prediction across four U.S. metropolitan areas using anonymized Cuebiq data to construct point-level, trajectory-level, and temporal mobility outcomes, paired with sociodemographic and built-environment predictors. We compare LLM predictions with supervised baselines and introduce a directional alignment analysis to test whether LLM-implied predictor effects agree with empirical OLS and Jonckheere-Terpstra trends. Supervised models achieve 0.580 average accuracy, compared with 0.435 for the best LLM, with spatial extent outcomes showing the strongest predictability but also the largest LLM-baseline gaps. Directional analysis shows that LLMs often rely on coarse, stable predictor-level priors that remain similar across outcomes and cities, including asymmetric treatment of protected-group predictors. Overall, LLMs can partially recover aggregate mobility patterns from urban context, but their predictions should not be treated as structurally grounded without auditing empirical alignment and potential bias.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Saad Mohammad Abrar, Eesha Kurella, Arnav Dadarya, Naman Awasthi, Kazi Tasnim Zinat, Vanessa Frias-Martinez. 2026-08-31. Do LLMs Know Your Neighborhood? Auditing LLM Priors for Neighborhood-Level Mobility Prediction and Structural Alignment. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00345

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Can machines think efficiently?

The Turing Test is no longer adequate for distinguishing human and machine intelligence. With advanced artificial intelligence systems already passing the original Turing Test and contributing to serious ethical and environmental concerns, we urgently need to update the test. This work expands upon the original imitation game by accounting for an additional factor: the energy spent answering the questions. By adding the constraint of energy, the new test forces us to evaluate intelligence through the lens of efficiency, connecting the abstract problem of thinking to the concrete reality of finite resources. Further, this proposed new test ensures the evaluation of intelligence has a measurable, practical finish line that the original test lacks. This additional constraint compels society to weigh the time savings of using artificial intelligence against its total resource cost.

cs.LG

From Street Form to Spatial Justice: Explaining Urban Exercise Inequality via a Triadic SHAP-Informed Framework

Urban streets are essential everyday health infrastructure, yet their capacity to support physical activity is unevenly distributed. This study develops a theory-informed and explainable framework to diagnose street-level exercise deprivation by integrating Lefebvre's spatial triad with multi-source urban data and SHAP-based analysis. Using Shenzhen as a case study, we show that while conceived spatial attributes have the strongest overall influence on exercise intensity, local deprivation mechanisms vary substantially across contexts. We identify a seven-mode typology of deprivation and locate high-demand but low-support street segments as priority areas for intervention. The study offers both a theory-grounded analytical framework and a practical diagnostic tool for promoting spatial justice in everyday physical activity.

cs.CY

Governance of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Companies

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) like ChatGPT has swiftly entered organizations without adequate governance, posing both opportunities and risks. Limited research addresses organizational governance from both technical and business perspectives. This gap is particularly relevant for international businesses, where differences in regulation, language, and business environments complicate governance. While multiple frameworks for AI governance exist, this needed diversity is lacking for GenAI. This review paper fills this gap by surveying recent literature to better understand the fundamental characteristics of GenAI and to adapt existing governance frameworks specifically to GenAI. The resulting framework delineates scope, objectives, and governance mechanisms designed to both harness business opportunities and mitigate risks associated with GenAI integration. We theorize a distinctive property of GenAI governance: its scope is endogenous to use. Unlike conventional organizational AI, for which governance is organized around a fixed artifact (e.g., model, intended use), GenAI allows users to reconfigure the artifact (e.g., its behavior and risk). Consequently, the object of governance is not fixed ex ante but is partly constituted through use.

cs.AI