Algorithmic discovery of dynamic models from infectious disease data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical models are typically developed through a deductive process where a researcher formulates a system of dynamic equations from hypothesized mechanisms. Recent advances in algorithmic methods can discover dynamic models inductively-directly from data. Most previous research has tested these methods by rediscovering models from synthetic data generated by the already known model. Here we apply Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics (SINDy) to discover mechanistic equations for disease dynamics from case notification data for measles, chickenpox, and rubella. The discovered models provide a good qualitative fit to the observed dynamics for all three diseases, However, the SINDy chickenpox model appears to overfit the empirical data, and recovering qualitatively correct rubella dynamics requires using power spectral density in the goodness-of-fit criterion. When SINDy uses a library of second-order functions, the discovered models tend to include mass action incidence and a seasonally varying transmission rate-a common feature of existing epidemiological models for childhood infectious diseases. We also find that the SINDy measles model is capable of out-of-sample prediction of a dynamical regime shift in measles case notification data. These results demonstrate the potential for algorithmic model discovery to enrich scientific understanding by providing a complementary approach to developing theoretical models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".