Comparative validation study demonstrates that simple spatial rules match machine-learning anomaly detection in urban visitor tracking, suggesting statistical outliers require human verification.
Urban destinations increasingly monitor visitor movement, yet it remains unclear whether complex anomaly-detection models add value on small tourism datasets, or how statistical anomalies should be interpreted for destination governance. Five one-class models – Isolation Forest, One-Class Support Vector Machine, K-Means, a standard autoencoder, and a deep autoencoder – were evaluated against a training-free zone rule on 1,000 synthetic records from 284 tourist identifiers, using five-fold GroupKFold that held out complete tourist identifiers and an inner tourist-disjoint validation set for thresholds. Robustness was assessed through a tourist-clustered paired randomisation test, cyclic-hour ablation, threshold analysis, prevalence bootstrapping and standardised sensor-noise tests. Anomaly labels proved largely determined by zone designation: flagging every Restricted- or Sensitive-zone record recovered 107 of 109 anomalies (recall 0.981 ± 0.026; F1 0.545 ± 0.047), and no learned model surpassed this rule on recall or F1. Isolation Forest led on accuracy (0.890 ± 0.027) and ROC-AUC (0.920 ± 0.025). The findings show how an apparently demanding benchmark can chiefly reward recovery of a synthetic labelling rule, and support a relational account of anomaly significance that separates statistical rarity from managerial relevance. Destination managers should therefore treat anomaly scores as prompts for human verification rather than evidence of threat.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gosul et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: