The Limits to Learning a Diffusion Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides the first sample complexity lower bounds for the estimation of simple diffusion models, including the Bass model (used in modeling consumer adoption) and the Susceptible-Infected-Recovered (SIR) model (used in modeling epidemics). We show that one cannot hope to learn such models until quite late in the diffusion. Specifically, we show that the time required to collect a number of observations that exceeds our sample complexity lower bounds is large. For the Bass model, our results imply that when new adopters are predominantly driven by imitation, one cannot hope to predict the eventual number of adopting customers until one is at least two-thirds of the way to the time at which the rate of new adopters is at its peak. In a similar vein, our results imply that in the case of an SIR model, one cannot hope to predict the eventual number of infections until one is approximately two-thirds of the way to the time at which the infection rate has peaked. This lower bound in estimation further translates into a lower bound in regret for decision making in epidemic interventions. Our results formalize the challenge of accurate forecasting and highlight the importance of incorporating additional data sources. To this end, we analyze the benefit of a seroprevalence study in an epidemic, where we characterize the size of the study needed to improve SIR model estimation. Extensive empirical analyses on product adoption and epidemic data support our theoretical findings. This paper was accepted by David Simchi-Levi, data science. Funding: This work was supported by the Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation [Grant 1727239]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data files are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.02953 .
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 | 0.026 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".