2015
DOI: 10.1145/2782759.2782767
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Trajectory similarity measures

Abstract: Storing, querying, and analyzing trajectories is becoming increasingly important, as the availability and volumes of trajectory data increases. One important class of trajectory analysis is computing trajectory similarity. This paper introduces and compares four of the most common measures of trajectory similarity: longest common subsequence (LCSS), Fréchet distance, dynamic time warping (DTW), and edit distance. These four measures have been implemented in a new open source R package, freely available on CRAN… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
80
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 160 publications
(82 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
80
0
Order By: Relevance
“…SimilarityMeasures (2015, CRAN, inactive) (Toohey, 2015) assesses similarity between trajectories using metrics such as the longest common subsequence (LCSS), Fréchet distance, edit distance and dynamic time warping (DTW). Magdy et al (2015) provides a brief review on trajectory similarity measures.…”
Section: Movement Similaritymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…SimilarityMeasures (2015, CRAN, inactive) (Toohey, 2015) assesses similarity between trajectories using metrics such as the longest common subsequence (LCSS), Fréchet distance, edit distance and dynamic time warping (DTW). Magdy et al (2015) provides a brief review on trajectory similarity measures.…”
Section: Movement Similaritymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Six R packages focus on the analysis of human accelerometry data, mainly to describe periodicity and levels of activity. accelerometry (Van Domelen, 2018), GGIR (van Hees et al, 2014, 2015, 2019 and PhysicalActivity computes descriptive statistics such as interdaily stability, intradaily variability and relative amplitude of activity (Blume, Santhi & Schabus, 2016). acc (Song & Cox, 2016), GGIR and pawacc (Geraci et al, 2012;Geraci, 2017) classify wear data into different levels of activity (e.g.…”
Section: Analysis Of Biologging But Not Tracking Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different methods for measuring similarity between time‐dependent data exist. In Toohey and Duckham (), the authors compare four of the most common measures of trajectory similarity—longest common subsequence, Fréchet distance, dynamic time warping, and edit distance. The authors highlight some differences between these four similarity measures using real trajectory data.…”
Section: The Visual Analytics Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Toohey and Duckham (2015), the authors compare four of the most common measures of trajectory similarity-longest common subsequence, Fréchet distance, dynamic time warping, and edit distance.…”
Section: Trajectory Similarity Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are several possibilities for measuring the similarity between two trajectories [84]. However those metrics normally require time-stamped positions, or they involve complex computation and do not compile with the requirements.…”
Section: Comparing Two Trajectoriesmentioning
confidence: 99%