On the calibration of compartmental epidemiological models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiological compartmental models are useful for understanding infectious disease propagation and directing public health policy decisions. Calibration of these models is an important step in offering accurate forecasts of disease dynamics and the effectiveness of interventions. In this study, we present an overview of calibrating strategies that can be employed, including several optimization methods and reinforcement learning (RL). We discuss the benefits and drawbacks of these methods and highlight relevant practical conclusions from our experiments. Optimization methods iteratively adjust the parameters of the model until the model output matches the available data, whereas RL uses trial and error to learn the optimal set of parameters by maximizing a reward signal. Finally, we discuss how the calibration of parameters of epidemiological compartmental models is an emerging field that has the potential to improve the accuracy of disease modeling and public health decision-making. Further research is needed to validate the effectiveness and scalability of these approaches in different epidemiological contexts. All codes and resources are available on \url{https://github.com/Nikunj-Gupta/On-the-Calibration-of-Compartmental-Epidemiological-Models}. We hope this work can facilitate related research.
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 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".