Characterizing Driving Context from Driver Behavior
Sobhan Moosavi† , Behrooz Omidvar-Tehrani† , R. Bruce Craig§ , Arnab Nandi† , Rajiv Ramnath†
† The

Ohio State University, § Nationwide Insurance
{moosavinejaddaryakenari.1,omidvar-tehrani.1,nandi.9,ramnath.6}@osu.edu,craigr2@nationwide.com

arXiv:1710.05733v2 [cs.AI] 17 Nov 2017

ABSTRACT
Because of the increasing availability of spatiotemporal data, a variety of data-analytic applications have become possible. Characterizing driving context, where context may be thought of as a combination of location and time, is a new challenging application. An
example of such a characterization is finding the correlation between
driving behavior and traffic conditions. This contextual information
enables analysts to validate observation-based hypotheses about the
driving of an individual. In this paper, we present DriveContext,
a novel framework to find the characteristics of a context, by extracting significant driving patterns (e.g., a slow-down), and then
identifying the set of potential causes behind patterns (e.g., traffic
congestion). Our experimental results confirm the feasibility of the
framework in identifying meaningful driving patterns, with improvements in comparison with the state-of-the-art. We also demonstrate
how the framework derives interesting characteristics for different
contexts, through real-world examples.

CCS CONCEPTS
• Information systems → Data mining; Spatial-temporal systems;

KEYWORDS
Driver Behavior, Segmentation, Driving Pattern, Driving Context
ACM Reference format:
Sobhan Moosavi† , Behrooz Omidvar-Tehrani† , R. Bruce Craig§ , Arnab Nandi† ,
Rajiv Ramnath† . 2017. Characterizing Driving Context from Driver Behavior.
In Proceedings of SIGSPATIAL’17, Los Angeles Area, CA, USA, November 7–10,
2017, 4 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3139958.3139992

1

INTRODUCTION

The amount and availability of spatiotemporal data has drastically
increased thanks to the ubiquity of sensors in various applications
and high-capacity data centers that can store and serve up this
data. Transportation data, like New York Taxicab [3] data, is an
example of such spatiotemporal data. Given the availability of these
large transportation data, various analysis applications have been
developed to gain insights from this data. Characterizing driving
context is a new application area which we introduce in this paper. A
context can be described as a combination of location (e.g., Interstate90) and time (e.g., weekdays between 3pm to 7pm). A characteristic
for a context can be identified as a correlation between driving
behavior and an environmental effect (e.g., traffic congestion). By
having information about different driving contexts, one can validate
hypotheses about behavior of an individual within a context, and
also provide feedback to drivers in order to help them to improve
their skills. The former is related to usage-based insurance [11] and
the latter to driver coaching [14].
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
SIGSPATIAL’17, November 7–10, 2017, Los Angeles Area, CA, USA
© 2017 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5490-5/17/11.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3139958.3139992

In this paper, we address the problem of Characterizing driving
context. Our characterization is based on the observed behavior
of drivers and exploiting complementary sources of spatiotemporal data to analyze this behavior. We define “driver behavior” in
terms of meaningful driving patterns (e.g., turn, speed-up, slow-down,
etc.). In addition, we try to explore the causes which underlie a specific pattern within a context by conducting analyses across several
spatiotemporal data sources (traffic data, road features, etc.). The
cause behind a transition between patterns, hence introducing a
new pattern, can be extrinsic (e.g., an accident, a traffic signal, a
traffic congestion) or intrinsic (e.g., driver-generated distraction, or
the personality of the driver).
Characterizing driving context is a challenging problem, due to
the lack of supervision on drivers and/or environment. Unlike previous studies in fully monitored environment (that use, for examples,
cameras placed inside the car) [6, 13], we focus on a dataset with
only externally visible phenomena (e.g., vehicle’s speed) with no
monitoring on drivers and environment. Given these limitations,
the goal is to learn driving context based simply on the behavior of
drivers. In this paper, we introduce DriveContext, a framework to
efficiently characterize driving contexts. This framework consists of
two components, dSegment and dDescribe. The former applies a
behavior-based trajectory segmentation approach to find meaningful
driving patterns within a trajectory. The latter reveals the extrinsic
causes for each driving pattern. We apply DriveContext on a realworld dataset of car trajectories to derive interesting characteristics
for different contexts.

2

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Assume we are given a set T = {T1 ,T2 , . . . ,Tn } of trajectories. For
1 ≤ i ≤ n, we define trajectory Ti = ⟨pi1 , pi2 , . . . , pim ⟩, where
pi j ∈ Ti is a data point of the form {t, lat, lnд, s, a, h} which captures
a vehicle’s status at time t as its latitude and longitude are ⟨lat, lnд⟩,
with speed s (km/h), acceleration a (m/s 2 ), and heading h (degrees).
We study the “discovery of driving context” in terms of two subproblems: Segmentation and Causality Analysis.
A segmentation of a trajectory T into k segments, denoted as
seдTk , is to find a set of cutting indexes seдTk = ⟨I 1 , I 2 . . . , Ik ⟩ to mark
the end points of the segments. Thus, we can define a set of cutting
data points for the segmented trajectory T as ⟨p I1 , p I2 . . . , p Ik ⟩. Note
that p Ik = T |T | . Each segment represents a driving pattern and each
cutting point p Ii , Ii ∈ seдTk , represents a transition between patterns.
We assume the existence of a segment is potentially relevant to
extrinsic or intrinsic causes. In this work, the focus is on extrinsic
causes that we refer to as events. We keep track of events in an
event database E of the form e = ⟨t, lat, lnд, type⟩, where each
event e ∈ E occurs in time t, in a geographical area whose center is
⟨lat, lnд⟩ of type type. Given a set of cutting points ⟨p I1 , p I2 . . . , p Ik ⟩
by segmenting trajectory T , and the database E of events, the second
sub-problem (i.e., causality analysis) is one of finding if, and to what
extent, each cutting point p Ii , 1 ≤ i ≤ k, is related to (or caused by)
an event e ∈ E.

3

THE DRIVECONTEXT FRAMEWORK

Figure 1 depicts the overall process of DriveContext where it
consists of two major components, dSegment and dDescribe.

S2

S3

(58, 1.0, 1)

(62, 0.5, 5)
Prob: 0.36
Prob: 0.16

S1

(55, 1.5, 5)
Prob: 0.28
Prob: 0.20

S4

(52, -0.2, 8)

S5

(50, -0.5, 3)

Figure 1: The overall process of DriveContext framework
Figure 2: A portion of the Markov Model. Each state is a triple of

3.1

dSegment Component

dSegment is an adaptation of our previously proposed approach [10]
to wisely partition a trajectory based on behavior of driver, such
that each resulting segment corresponds to a meaningful driving
pattern (e.g., turn, speed-up, etc.). A summary of fundamental parts
of dSegment is provided as follows.
Dataset Preprocessing: This step includes several data scrubbing
tasks such as removing records with noisy GPS data, rounding values
of acceleration and heading to simplify the model, and using change
of heading instead of absolute heading to reflect changes clearly.
Markov Model Creation: We model behavior of a population of
drivers in terms of a Markov Model, a finite state machine whose
edges are labelled with the probability of transition from one driving
state to another. In order to deal with sparsity of the model and
avoid overfitting, we adapt a regularization technique known as the
Wedding Cake technique [5]. A portion of the model graph is shown
in Figure 2.
Trajectory Transformation: The next step is to transform an input
trajectory into a signal in a new space called Probabilistic Movement
Dissimilarity (PMD) space. The generated signal for a trajectory
shows how unlikely the behavior of a driver is during different moments of a trip. Algorithm 1 summarizes the transformation process.
Trajectory Segmentation: Finally, we apply a dynamic programming approach [4] to segment the generated signal.

3.2

dDescribe Component

dDescribe analyzes the extracted segments (which are essentially
driving patterns) to explore the underlying causes behind these patterns. This step identifies the characteristics for a given context. The
existence of a driving pattern is potentially related to extrinsic or
intrinsic causes. Recall that segments of a trajectory T are represented in form of cutting points ⟨p I1 , p I2 . . . , p Ik ⟩. Having a database
of events E and a cutting point p Ii , 1 ≤ i ≤ k, the goal is to find
whether p Ii is related to an event e ∈ E or not. If we find that p Ii
is related to e, then the segment which starts at the cutting index
(Ii + 1) is potentially caused by event e. We define the relevancy
relationship between a cutting point p and an event e based on the
type of the event. In this study, we consider two types of events:
physical fact and temporal-physical event. We measure the relevancy
for each type of event as described below.
Physical Fact. An example is the presence of a traffic signal. In such
a case, the relevancy can be measured as the distance between the
locations of cutting point p and event e. We then say p and e are
correlated if their locations are within a specified distance threshold.
Temporal-Physical Event. An example is the existence of a traffic
congestion in a specific location during a time interval. In this case,
we say p and e are correlated if the two following conditions are
satisfied: (i) the time of the trajectory T , where p ∈ T , overlaps
with the time interval of the event e, and (ii) the distance between
locations of p and e are lower than a threshold.

4

EVALUATION

We first describe the datasets we used in our study. Then, we evaluate
dSegment with respect to a ground-truth dataset. Next, we apply
dSegment on a real-word dataset of car trajectories and conduct
causality analysis using dDescribe.

Speed (km/h), Acceleration (m 2 /s), and Change of Heading. Probability of transition is shown on each edge.

Algorithm 1: Trajectory Transformation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Input: Trajectory T , Markov Model M
SiдnalT ← ⟨⟩
▷ This is PMD signal for T
for i = 1 to |T | − 1 do
ϕ ← State in M correspond to pi
ϕ ′ ← State in M correspond to pi +1
pr obϕ→ϕ ′ ← Probability of transition from ϕ to ϕ ′ in M
R ← Set of transitions from state ϕ in M
v =0
for r ∈ R do
pr obϕ→r ← Probability of transition from ϕ to r in M
v += EuclideanDist ance(ϕ ′, r ) × pr obϕ→r
end
v
v = |R
|
SiдnalT ← SiдnalT ˆv
▷ Append SiдnalT by value v
end
Output: SiдnalT for trajectory T

4.1

Datasets

We used four different sets of spatiotemporal data sources to build
and evaluate components of DriveContext.
Dataset of Annotated Car Trajectories (DACT): We have constructed a dataset of annotated car trajectories to evaluate dSegment [9]. DACT consists of two sets of annotations for each trajectory, one that assumes “flexible” constraints to identify segment
borders (Easy-Aggregation), and the other that uses “strict” constraints (Strict-Aggregation). DACT includes 50 trajectories covering
about 13.3 hours of driving data.
Nationwide Trajectories: We use a rich dataset of trajectories provided by an insurance company in the state of Ohio, in the United
States. To our knowledge, this dataset, which have named Nationwide Trajectories, is one of the few large scale datasets with driving
data for personal vehicles (as opposed to commercial transportation
vehicles). The dataset contains 83,406 trajectories and covers about
20,689 hours of driving data. We divided the Nationwide Trajectories
into two sets, train and test, with 81,895 and 1,421 trajectories respectively. The former is used to build the dSegment model, and the
latter is used to evaluate dDescribe. The test set contains sampled
data for 5 popular routes in the city of Columbus Ohio (Table 1).
Physical Facts: Physical facts consist of annotations for routes in
the test set of Nationwide dataset and are drawn from two different
sources of data, i.e., Open Street Map (OSM)1 (with annotations like
exit, merge, and bridge) and Hand-Curated Annotations (HCA) usig
Google Street View to complement the former. The set of physical
facts contains 1,825 annotations from OSM and 95 from HCA.
Temporal-Physical Events: We employ Bing Traffic API2 and Map
Quest Traffic API3 to collect temporal-physical events such as realtime traffic reports. The dataset contains 1,688 records from Bing
and 4495 records from MapQuest for routes in the test set.
1 www.openstreetmap.org
2 https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh441725.aspx
3 https://developer.mapquest.com/products/traffic

Table 1: Summary of evaluation set and segmentation outcome
Route
Interstate-70
Interstate-71
Interstate-270
Interstate-670
315 Freeway

4.2

Route
Length
6.7 km
13.8 km
12.3 km
7.0 km
14.6 km

Number of
Trajectories
535
438
195
131
120

Avg. Trajectory
Length (secs)
333
546
444
359
703

Avg. Number
of Segments
4
5
3.3
4.2
8.9

i =M
Í

dSegment Evaluation

We use the training set of Nationwide trajectories to create the
Markov model. The regularized Markov model consists of 47,495
states and 5.8 million transitions between states. In order to evaluate
our segmentation approach, we use the DACT annotation sets [9].
For comparison purposes, we use following four baselines: (i) Stable
Criteria, where a set of spatiotemporal heuristics (criteria) are used
for segmentation [1, 2]; (ii) Point of Change Detection, where we
employ the change point detection approach in [7] for comparison;
(iii) Equal Length, where we first assume all trajectories have the
same number of segments (η) and then divide a trajectory to η equal
size segments; and (iv) Random, where we find η segment borders
at random to form η segments.
In order to find the upper bound on the number of existing segments, i.e., K (see [10]), we set K = N5 , where N is the length of
the trajectory. The minimum length of a segment is assumed to be
5 (see [9]). Since we have two sets of annotations for trajectories
in DACT, we evaluate and compare our approach based on both
sets. Also, we use Precision and Recall as evaluation metrics. Given a
trajectory t with n annotations Antt = ⟨a 1 , a 2 , . . . , an ⟩, if algorithm
Alд finds m cutting points CPAlд = ⟨p1 , p2 , . . . , pm ⟩ for t, then we
define precision and recall as follows:
Precision =

Ant t ∩ C P Al д
m

Recall =

Ant t ∩ C P Al д
n

The intersection between Antt and CPAlд is calculated as follows:
to find a match for pi ∈ CPAlд , we calculate its Haversine distance to
all available annotations in Antt . If we find a pair (pi , a j ), a j ∈ Antt
for 1 ≤ j ≤ n, such that their distance is lower than a pre-specified
threshold, then we say there is a match for pi . Once we find such an
a j , we no longer use it to match other cutting points in CPAlд . We use
values in set {0, 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250} as distance thresholds
(in meters). Figures 3a and 3b show the comparison between different
segmentation approaches using gold sets in DACT. For Equal Length
and Random baselines, we use values 30 and 50 for η based on Easy
and Strict aggregation annotation sets. These numbers are set based
on average number of segments in a trajectory, as reported in [9].
The results show that dSegment outperforms the other baselines
by reasonable margins, based on both ground truth datasets. The
maximum distance threshold (250 m) is obtained by dividing the
average length of routes in the evaluation set (i.e., 10 km, see Table 1)
by the average number of segments for a trajectory (i.e., 404 ). Note
that a solution which maximizes the precision is preferred, because
we need valid segments to conduct a precise causality analysis to
confidently derive the characteristics for a context.

4.3

can then be applied on this set to discover properties for each context. For that, we build an event database E from physical facts
and temporal-physical events. We conduct the causality analysis by
introducing a new correlation measure: suppose that for a set of
trajectories T = {T1 ,T2 , . . . ,TM } in context C, a sequence of cutting
points CPi = ⟨pi 1 , pi 2 , . . . ⟩ for each Ti ∈ T is reported. Given an
event database E, we use Equation 1 to obtain the correlation for
context C.

dDescribe Evaluation

We define “context” as the combination of location (listed in Table 1)
and time (e.g., weekdays between 3pm to 7pm). We use two granularity levels for time: Type of Day (Weekday (WD) versus Weekend
(WE)), and Time of the Day with five time intervals, i.e., P1: from
6am to 9:59am, P2: from 10am to 2:59pm, P3: from 3pm to 6:59pm,
P4: from 7pm to 9:59pm, and P5: from 10pm to 5:59am. We used
the one-year traffic congestion reports by Map Quest for the city of
Columbus Ohio (see Figure 4) to derive aforementioned intervals.
Table 1 provides statistics on applying dSegment on the test set,
where the total number of extracted segments is 6,674. dDescribe
4 We have the average number of trajectories for easy and strict sets as 30 and 50, respectively [9].

Correlation(C, E) =

Í

i =1 p ∈C Pi

CheckRelevancy(p, E)
i =M
Í
i =1

(1)
|C Pi |

In Equation 1, CheckRelevancy is a Boolean function depending
on the type of event, as discussed below.
Event Data as Physical Facts: First, we use physical facts to build
the event database E. For this case, we define the CheckRelevancy
function by calculating the Haversine distance between a cutting
point p and a physical event e ∈ E, and then checking if their distance
is lower than a pre-specified threshold th (empirically set to 200m).
Figure 5a shows the correlation between the extracted segments
of different contexts and physical facts. Note that the correlation
analysis is only done for those contexts for which enough data exists.
We observe that on average, about 76.5% of the driving patterns
(segments) are correlated with the physical properties of routes.
Event Data as Temporal-Physical Events: We also employ temporalphysical events to build E. To define CheckRelevancy in this case,
we use the following two-step method:
Step 1: Find potential congestion evidences. Given a trajectory T , we
find sub-trajectories of minimum length 5 (based on [9]), where
the speed of all points in such sub-trajectories is less than 55km/h
(i.e., the average congestion speed in the traffic congestion dataset).
We consider such sub-trajectories as showing potential evidence of
congestion.
Step 2: Finalization. After finding potential evidence C of congestion,
we scan through our traffic congestion dataset to see if there are at
least 12 instances (i.e., one report per month) in the neighborhood
(i.e., 200m) of C’s location, within the same day of the week and
hour of the day (e.g., Tuesday 4pm).
We identify 465 traffic congestion sub-trajectories within 1,421
trajectories of the test set. The function CheckRelevancy returns 1 if
a cutting point p is in the neighborhood (i.e., th = 200m) of at least
one of traffic congestion evidences of a the trajectory T . Otherwise,
it returns 0. Figure 5b illustrates the correlation analysis results
between driving patterns and temporal-physical events. On average,
~10.5% of driving patterns were correlated with traffic congestion.
Event Data as Union of Fact and Events: Finally, we consider
both physical facts and temporal-physical events to build E. In this
case, CheckRelevancy will function with respect to the type of the
event. Figure 5c demonstrates the correlation of driving patterns
with the set of all existing events. We observe that ~78.1% of segments
are correlated with at least one of the event types. Moreover, sideby-side comparison of the results in Figures 5b and 5c, reveals that
both analyses lead to almost the same correlation patterns. This
confirms that a significant number of segments are correlated with
both sources of events.
Results from causality analysis are strong signals that capture the
characteristics of a driving context. These insights can be employed
in various applications. One example is usage-based insurance to
study the behavior of an individual driver in order to evaluate how
risky or safe he/she is, regarding the characteristics of context. Insights from our framework may also be used for driver coaching,
by recommending further training to those drivers whose driving
behavior in a context is not compatible with the properties of that
context.

Random

dSegment
Stable Criteria

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

Point of Change
Eq. Length

Random

4500

0.3

2500
2000

0.1

0.1

500

0.5

0.6

0.1

0.2

0.3 0.4
Recall

0.5

1780
1429

1500
1000

0.3 0.4
Recall

3290

3000

0.2

0.2

3656

3500

0.2

0.1

4265

4000

Frequency

Point of Change
Eq. Length

Precision

Precision

dSegment
Stable Criteria

0

0.6

486

421

72 59 46 39 44 36

224 276

736

569 451 635

305 213

118 53 55

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Hour of the Day

Figure 4: One year (from Feb 2016 to Feb 2017) conges(a) Comparison based on Easy-Aggregation set

(b) Comparison based on Strict-Aggregation set

tion frequency distribution for Columbus Ohio based
on Map Quest traffic reports.

Figure 3: Comparing different segmentation approaches based on DACT.
315 Fwy

90

50

Correlation (%)

Correlation (%)

Interstate 270
Interstate 670

80
70
60

20

40

0

WD-P3

Day-Time

(a) Physical

WD-P4

WE-P2

315 Fwy

30

10
WD-P2

Interstate 270
Interstate 670

40

50
WD-P1

Interstate 70
Interstate 71

Interstate 70
Interstate 71

100

Correlation (%)

Interstate 70
Interstate 71

100

Interstate 270
Interstate 670

315 Fwy

90
80
70
60
50

WD-P2

Day-Time

WD-P3

(b) Temporal-Physical

40

WD-P1

WD-P2

WD-P3

Day-Time

WD-P4

WE-P2

(c) All

Figure 5: Correlation of extracted driving patterns (segments) with (a) Physical Facts, (b) Temporal-Physical Events, and (c) All Facts and Events.

5

RELATED WORK

Our study relates to research in trajectory segmentation (as in dSegment) and making sense of trajectories (as in dDescribe).
Trajectory Segmentation: The task of segmentation has been addressed in the literature in several studies. In [2], a greedy segmentation algorithm exploits a set of monotonic spatiotemporal criteria
(e.g., defining relative thresholds for some feature values) on features
like speed, heading, etc. Alewijnse et al. extended this work to both
monotonic and non-monotonic criteria [1]. However, criteria-based
methods need human input for tuning parameters. Transforming
trajectory prior to segmentation has also been previously discussed
in [12]; however, their transformation is a local approach, based on
comparing line segments of an input trajectory. On the other hand,
we perform a global, likelihood-based transformation to provide a
segmentation where the extracted segments represent meaningful
driving patterns.
Making Sense of Trajectories. Akin to dDescribe, there are some
other approaches which make sense of driving data and explore
insights encapsulated in trajectories [8, 15, 16]. Wu et al. [17] predict
traffic based on analysis of external data sources including Point
Of Interest (POI) data, collision data, weather data, and geo-tagged
tweet data. This work is similar to dDescribe, where we discover
correlations between driving patterns and traffic congestion and
physical properties of routes. However, we pursue a different goal
which is the identification of characteristics of a context.

6

CONCLUSION

We present DriveContext, a framework to derive characteristics
of a context by extracting meaningful driving patterns (dSegment),
and then analyzing the extracted patterns (dDescribe) to derive
characteristics. Our analysis shows how the dSegment compares
with the state-of-the-art in finding meaningful driving patterns. In
addition, the results of dDescribe show the ability of framework to
interpret driving patterns which lead to new insights. Our future
course of action is to incorporate more sources of event data, such
as Twitter feeds, in to dDescribe.

REFERENCES
[1] Sander Alewijnse, Kevin Buchin, Maike Buchin, Andrea Kölzsch, Helmut Kruckenberg, and Michel A Westenberg. 2014. A framework for trajectory segmentation
by stable criteria. In 22nd SIGSPATIAL. ACM, 351–360.
[2] Maike Buchin, Anne Driemel, Marc van Kreveld, and Vera Sacristán. 2010. An
algorithmic framework for segmenting trajectories based on spatio-temporal
criteria. In 18th SIGSPATIAL. ACM, 202–211.
[3] New York Taxi Dataset. 2009-2016. http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/about/trip_
record_data.shtml. (2009-2016). Accessed: 2017-05-08.
[4] Tony X Han, Steven Kay, and Thomas S Huang. 2004. Optimal segmentation of
signals and its application to image denoising and boundary feature extraction. In
ICIP’04, Vol. 4. IEEE, 2693–2696.
[5] John Krumm and Eric Horvitz. 2006. Predestination: Inferring destinations from
partial trajectories. In 8th UbiComp. Springer, 243–260.
[6] Andrew Liu and Dario Salvucci. 2001. Modeling and prediction of human driver
behavior. In HCI. ”, 1479–1483.
[7] Song Liu, Makoto Yamada, Nigel Collier, and Masashi Sugiyama. 2013. Changepoint detection in time-series data by relative density-ratio estimation. Neural
Networks 43 (2013), 72–83.
[8] Yin Lou, Chengyang Zhang, Yu Zheng, Xing Xie, Wei Wang, and Yan Huang. 2009.
Map-matching for low-sampling-rate GPS trajectories. In 17th SIGSPATIAL. ACM,
352–361.
[9] Sobhan Moosavi, Behrooz Omidvar-Tehrani, R Bruce Craig, and Rajiv Ramnath. 2017. Annotation of Car Trajectories based on Driving Patterns. CoRR
abs/1705.05219 (2017), 1–10.
[10] Sobhan Moosavi, Rajiv Ramnath, and Arnab Nandi. 2016. Discovery of driving
patterns by trajectory segmentation. In 3rd SIGSPATIAL PhD Symposium. ACM, 4.
[11] NAIC. 2017. Usage-Based Insurance and Telematics. http://www.naic.org/cipr_
topics/topic_usage_based_insurance.htm. (2017). [Online; accessed 05-September2017].
[12] Costas Panagiotakis, Nikos Pelekis, Ioannis Kopanakis, Emmanuel Ramasso, and
Yannis Theodoridis. 2012. Segmentation and sampling of moving object trajectories
based on representativeness. TKDE 24, 7 (2012), 1328–1343.
[13] Amardeep Sathyanarayana, Pinar Boyraz, and John HL Hansen. 2008. Driver
behavior analysis and route recognition by hidden Markov models. In ICVES. IEEE,
276–281.
[14] Neville A Stanton, Guy H Walker, Mark S Young, Tara Kazi, and Paul M Salmon.
2007. Changing drivers’ minds: the evaluation of an advanced driver coaching
system. Ergonomics 50, 8 (2007), 1209–1234.
[15] Leon Stenneth, Ouri Wolfson, Philip S Yu, and Bo Xu. 2011. Transportation mode
detection using mobile phones and GIS information. In 19th SIGSPATIAL. ACM,
54–63.
[16] Han Su, Kai Zheng, Kai Zeng, Jiamin Huang, Shazia Sadiq, Nicholas Jing Yuan,
and Xiaofang Zhou. 2015. Making sense of trajectory data: A partition-andsummarization approach. In 31st ICDE. IEEE, 963–974.
[17] Fei Wu, Hongjian Wang, and Zhenhui Li. 2016. Interpreting traffic dynamics using
ubiquitous urban data. In 24th SIGSPATIAL. ACM, Burlingame, CA, 69.

