Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 58 references

In a one-million-agent epidemic simulation, changing only how agents move changes outbreak curves.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 00:26 UTC pith:TSLUBNOJ

load-bearing objection Worth a referee's time, but the network mechanism claim has an internal inconsistency that needs resolution before the causal story holds. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.26217 v1 pith:TSLUBNOJ submitted 2026-07-28 physics.soc-ph

Mobility and Contact Networks Shape Epidemic Outcomes: A Large-Scale Agent-Based Modeling Study

Kuldip Singh Atwal , Emma Von Hoene , Hossein Amiri , Dieter Pfoser , Andreas Zufle , Taylor Anderson This is my paper
classification physics.soc-ph
keywords agent-based modelinghuman mobilitycontact networksepidemic dynamicsmobility assumptionsnetwork modularitydisease transmissionsensitivity analysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks whether the simplifying assumptions modelers make about human mobility—daily schedules and destination choice—are harmless background choices or load-bearing parts of an epidemic simulation. Simulating one million people in an urban county with a fixed disease model, the authors varied only mobility: empirical travel-survey schedules versus random schedules, and destinations chosen by real foot-traffic popularity, distance decay, or at random. They found that these mobility choices alone changed the contact network structure and shifted peak incidence, time to peak, growth rate, and the basic reproduction number. Because total visits and dwell times were similar across models, the differences are attributed not to how much people moved but to who met whom, where, and how often. The conclusion: simulated epidemics and intervention evaluations may be driven as much by unvalidated mobility assumptions as by disease biology.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that mobility assumptions alone—independent of disease parameters—shape emergent contact networks and epidemic trajectories in an agent-based model. Holding population, disease probabilities, and initial infections fixed, five mobility models (empirical daily schedules paired with popularity-, distance-, or random-destination selection; and randomized schedules paired with popularity- or random-destination selection) generated contact networks with different modularity, average degree, and path length. These network differences produced a wide spread of outcomes: empirical-schedule models gave modular networks and delayed, flattened peaks; randomized schedules wi

What carries the argument

The central object is the pairing of activity-pattern and destination-choice assumptions inside a single agent-based model, with disease parameters locked. Activity patterns come from empirical trip chains (structured schedules) or uniform random schedules; destination choice is weighted by empirical origin-destination foot traffic, a power-law distance-decay from home, or uniform random. Contacts emerge from co-location at hundreds of thousands of points of interest, with each agent interacting with at most log2(n) co-located others—a saturating contact rule meant to reflect that people in crowded places do not contact everyone present. Network metrics—Newman modularity, average path length

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that epidemics differ because of who-meets-whom rather than how much people move rests on measuring 'movement' only as total visits and dwell time; if the models differ in distance traveled or travel-time budget, the movements may not actually be comparable.

What would settle it

Track total distance traveled and time spent traveling in each of the five models; if the empirical-schedule models travel far shorter distances than the random-schedule models, the claim that movement volumes are comparable fails and the attribution to contact structure is undercut. Alternatively, rerun the comparison with the contact cap changed from log2(n) to a linear or different saturating function; if the ranking of models reverses, the epidemic differences are partly an artifact of the contact rule rather than mobility alone.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Mobility assumptions should be reported and sensitivity-tested in agent-based epidemic models, since they can change conclusions as much as disease parameters.
  • Structured daily schedules produce sparser, more modular contact networks that delay and flatten epidemic peaks, while removing schedule structure with popularity-weighted destinations generates dense networks and rapid spread.
  • Aggregate movement-volume metrics such as total visits and dwell time are not enough to judge whether a mobility model is adequate; structurally different models can have similar volumes but different epidemic outcomes.
  • Destination popularity amplifies transmission most strongly when movement is not constrained by structured daily schedules.
  • Standard model evaluation that focuses on disease parameters alone may miss a hidden source of uncertainty in many existing agent-based models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If real urban mobility resembles structured schedules with recurring routines, models that assume random schedules plus popularity-weighted destinations may overestimate outbreak speed; conversely, fully random destination choice may overestimate the breadth of the peak.
  • A direct next step would be to compare each model's emergent contact network—degree distribution, mixing patterns, and repeated contacts—against empirical contact data from surveys or wearable sensors to see which mobility representation best reproduces real interaction patterns.
  • The saturating log2(n) contact rule is an arbitrary functional form; changing it to a linear contact rule or a different saturation rate could reorder the models, so the ranking's robustness to the contact function deserves testing.
  • Tracking distance traveled and time spent traveling, rather than only visits and dwell time, would sharpen the claim that movement volumes are truly comparable across models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a controlled agent-based modeling experiment with one million synthetic agents in a Fairfax County urban environment. Five mobility models vary two dimensions—activity patterns (empirical NHTS trip chains vs. randomized schedules) and destination choice (Advan popularity weights, distance decay, or random)—while disease parameters are held fixed. The authors find that mobility assumptions alone produce substantially different epidemic curves: NHTS-based models yield lower, later peaks; Random Advan yields the highest R0 and fastest growth; Random Places yields a high peak despite the lowest estimated R0. They interpret these differences as caused by contact network structure—modularity, path length, and degree—rather than by aggregate movement volume, which they argue is broadly comparable across models. The paper concludes that mobility assumptions deserve calibration and sensitivity testing in policy-facing ABMs.

Significance. If the causal attribution holds, the study makes a useful methodological contribution by isolating mobility as a first-class source of uncertainty in ABMs and by demonstrating that network structure, not just contact volume, drives epidemic outcomes. The experiment is large-scale, uses 30 stochastic runs with confidence intervals for the main epidemic metrics, and the code is publicly available. The systematic variation across five models and the discussion of limitations—including the explicit statement that the study does not validate against real outbreak data—are commendable. However, the central mechanism claim relies on contact-network metrics that must be generated by the same contacts used for transmission; the current manuscript contains an apparent inconsistency between the stated log2(n) contact cap and the reported mean degree for Random Advan, and this must be resolved before the mechanism can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Table 3] The reported mean degree for Random Advan (9037.76) appears arithmetically impossible under the stated contact cap. Random Advan generates ~160 visits per agent over 50 days (Table 2: 159,988,454 visits / 1,000,000 agents). With the cap of at most log2(n) contacts per co-located group, the absolute upper bound is 160 × 20 = 3,200 unique contacts per agent if every visit were to a maximally crowded location (n=1M) and contacts did not overlap. The reported degree is nearly three times this bound. Either the contact cap was not applied as described to the network construction, or Table 3 is built from full co-location pairs rather than from the capped contacts that drive transmission. In the latter case, the network metrics do not describe the actual transmission process, and the causal narrative linking modularity/degree to epidemic outcomes is unsupported. Please clarify precisely which
  2. [Table 1, §3.2] The R0 estimation method is not described. The text defines R0 as the average number of secondary cases generated in a fully susceptible population by initially infectious individuals, but the algorithm used to compute it from the simulation is absent. This matters because the paper draws a notable conclusion from the Random Places model having the lowest R0 (14.69) but the highest peak incidence. Without knowing whether R0 is measured from the first generation, from an exponential fit, or by contact tracing, readers cannot assess whether this counterintuitive result is an artifact of the estimator. Please provide the exact estimation procedure and, ideally, a supplementary figure showing the per-run distribution.
  3. [Table 2] The claim that aggregate movement volumes are 'broadly comparable' across models is load-bearing for the central conclusion that epidemic differences are not due to agents moving more or less overall. Table 2 reports only point estimates for total visits and dwell time, with no confidence intervals or per-run variation, despite 30 independent runs. The 12% difference in total visits between NHTS models (~180M) and Random models (~160M), and the 0.84-hour difference in mean dwell time, might be statistically significant. Please report confidence intervals or distributions for these mobility metrics, and if the differences are statistically significant, explain why they are still too small to explain the much larger epidemic contrasts.
  4. [§3.2] The log2(n) contact saturation is an arbitrary functional form with no sensitivity analysis. The paper does test sensitivity to the distance-decay exponent (Figure 3), but not to the contact-rate function. Because Random Advan concentrates agents at high-traffic locations, the sublinear cap disproportionately suppresses contacts in that model. A different saturation form (e.g., sqrt(n) or a linear cap) could alter the ranking of epidemic outcomes across models, which would weaken the specific attribution to 'who meets whom.' Please either justify the log2 form with empirical evidence or add a sensitivity test across plausible contact-rate functions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.2] The wording 'every infectious agent interacts with the subset of co-located agents' is ambiguous: does the cap apply to all agents or only infectious ones? If only infectious agents initiate contacts, how are edges between two susceptible agents ever formed in the contact network? Please clarify the contact-formation rule and how it maps to the undirected graphs analyzed in Table 3.
  2. [Figure 1] Figure 1 shows single epidemic curves per model without confidence bands, even though 30 runs were performed. Adding shaded intervals would help readers judge whether the qualitative differences in peak height and timing are consistent across runs.
  3. [Table 2] The column header 'Unique PoIs Visited' contains a capitalization inconsistency; also, confidence intervals should be added as noted in the major comments.
  4. [§3.3] The text says the synthetic population includes 480,000 workers, 210,000 students, and 310,000 homemakers, which sums to 1,000,000. Please clarify whether these categories are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, since agents could in principle be both worker and student.
  5. [References] Reference 51 has a spelling inconsistency in the URL ('codebook v1.2.pdf' may be a placeholder) and the reference list entry would benefit from a stable DOI or URL.
  6. [§3.3] In the paragraph on environment, 'places 6)' appears to be a truncated reference or typo; please complete it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the simulation comparison is self-contained; the only minor self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a controlled simulation experiment, not a derivation, so the central result (mobility assumptions change epidemic outcomes) is an emergent finding rather than an input-output tautology. Five mobility models share identical disease parameters, and quantities such as R0, growth rate, doubling time, modularity, path length, and degree are all measured from simulated incidence and contact graphs; none is fit to force the observed ranking of epidemic outcomes. The random models' dwell-time bounds were calibrated to roughly match NHTS trip counts, which supports the paper's claim that aggregate movement volumes are broadly comparable, but this is an experimental design choice made before the epidemic runs, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation is Ref. [59] (co-author Von Hoene) in the Discussion, used to support the peripheral statement that many COVID-19 ABMs were uncalibrated/unvalidated; it is not load-bearing for the simulation results, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from it. The paper's explicit limitations—especially that it cannot determine which mobility model best approximates real-world behavior—confirm that the study is a sensitivity analysis rather than a ground-truth prediction. Separately, the consistency issue raised by the log2(n) contact cap (Section 3.2) versus the reported Random Advan average degree of 9,037 (Table 3) is a correctness/implementation concern, not a circularity: it concerns whether the analyzed contact graphs match the transmission-relevant contacts, not whether the results reduce to their inputs. For these reasons, no circular step is identified; the score of 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new theoretical entities, but its central claim rests on several domain assumptions and two fitted parameters. The most important free parameter is the distance-decay exponent, which directly controls the NHTS Distance model's destination distribution. The dwell-time calibration in random models is a control step that is not reported with uncertainty.

free parameters (2)
  • distance-decay exponent β = β in [2,5]; base value not stated; sensitivity scan in Fig. 3
    The NHTS Distance model selects destinations with P(d) ∝ d^-β. The exponent is chosen by hand, and Fig. 3 shows epidemic curves change substantially with β (2-5), so the NHTS Distance result is conditional on this arbitrary choice.
  • Random-model dwell-time bounds (4-10 h) = ~4-10 hours; calibrated to match average trips in NHTS-based models
    Section 3.3: 'The bounds were calibrated using the average number of trips an agent makes during the simulation period in the NHTS-based models.' This fitted parameter helps produce the 'broadly comparable movement volume' claim and shapes the random-model contact dynamics.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Contact occurs when two agents are co-located at the same POI during the same hourly tick, and each agent interacts with at most log2(n) co-located others, chosen by a fixed ordering at initialization
    Section 3.2. This defines the contact network and strongly shapes transmission; a different saturation rule would likely change the ranking of models.
  • domain assumption Disease dynamics follow a stochastic SEIR-SIRS process with fixed parameters (contact probability 0.10, exposed 1-2 d, infectious 1-5 d, immunity 10-20 d)
    Section 3.2 and Table 5. Since the goal is to isolate mobility, disease parameters are fixed constants; results are conditional on this generalized respiratory disease assumption.
  • domain assumption The synthetic population of 1M agents generated by IPF from NHTS respondents faithfully represents Fairfax County demographics and trip behavior
    Section 3.3. The population synthesis carries NHTS trip chains into agents; if IPF does not preserve joint distributions, the 'empirical' mobility patterns may be inaccurate.
  • domain assumption Empirical destination weights from Advan (2019) and LODES (2015) are representative of pre-pandemic mobility
    Section 3.1 and Table 4. The Advan data are from a single week in October 2019 and LODES from 2015; the paper does not validate temporal transferability.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13817 in / 10076 out tokens · 95649 ms · 2026-08-01T00:26:41.173759+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Human mobility plays a central role in shaping contact patterns that drive infectious disease transmission, yet mobility is often simplified in agent-based models (ABMs) due to data and computational constraints. The effects of these simplifications on model outputs are poorly understood. In this study, we systematically examined how alternative mobility assumptions influence emergent contact networks and epidemic dynamics within a large-scale ABM. Using a synthetic population of one million agents representing an urban environment, we implemented five mobility models varying along two dimensions: activity patterns (empirically derived vs. randomized) and destination choice mechanisms (empirical popularity, distance-based, or random). Holding disease parameters constant, we found that mobility assumptions alone produced substantially different contact network structures and epidemic trajectories, including differences in peak incidence and shifts in outbreak timing. Importantly, these differences could not be attributed to agents simply moving more or less overall since aggregate movement volumes were broadly comparable across models. Instead, the contrasting dynamics arose from how mobility generates contact opportunities: specifically, who meets whom, where, and how often. These results suggest that in models where mobility has not been carefully calibrated, simulated epidemic outcomes and evaluations of interventions may reflect mobility assumptions as much as underlying disease parameters. Our findings underscore the importance of mobility model calibration and validation, particularly in policy-facing applications.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kermack, W. O. & McKendrick, A. G. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character115, 700–721 (1927). URL 16 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.1927.0118. Publisher: Royal Society

    arXiv 1927

  2. [2]

    URL https:// royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.210506

    Aylett-Bullock, J.et al.June: open-source individual-based epidemiology simulation.Royal Society Open Science8, 210506 (2021). URL https:// royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsos.210506. Publisher: Royal Soci- ety

    doi:10.1098/rsos.210506 2021

  3. [3]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-540-78911-6 2

    Brauer, F.Compartmental Models in Epidemiology, 19–79 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-540-78911-6 2

    2008

  4. [4]

    C.et al.Covasim: an agent-based model of covid-19 dynamics and interventions.PLOS Computational Biology17, e1009149 (2021)

    Kerr, C. C.et al.Covasim: an agent-based model of covid-19 dynamics and interventions.PLOS Computational Biology17, e1009149 (2021). URL https: //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009149

    doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009149 2021

  5. [5]

    & P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, S

    Iranzo, V. & P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, S. Epidemiological models and covid-19: a com- parative view.History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences43, 104 (2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-021-00457-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s40656-021-00457-9 2021

  6. [6]

    R.et al.Agent-based models of malaria transmission: a system- atic review.Malaria journal17, 299 (2018)

    Smith, N. R.et al.Agent-based models of malaria transmission: a system- atic review.Malaria journal17, 299 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12936-018-2442-y

    2018

  7. [7]

    & Vespignani, A

    Pastor-Satorras, R., Castellano, C., Van Mieghem, P. & Vespignani, A. Epidemic processes in complex networks.Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 925–979 (2015). URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.87.925

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.87.925 2015

  8. [8]

    & Brockmann, D

    Belik, V., Geisel, T. & Brockmann, D. Natural human mobility patterns and spatial spread of infectious diseases.Phys. Rev. X1, 011001 (2011). URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.1.011001

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.1.011001 2011

  9. [9]

    E., Hill, A

    Leventhal, G. E., Hill, A. L., Nowak, M. A. & Bonhoeffer, S. Evolution and emergence of infectious diseases in theoretical and real-world networks.Nature communications6, 6101 (2015). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7101

    doi:10.1038/ncomms7101 2015

  10. [10]

    An agent-based model to evaluate the covid-19 transmission risks in facilities.Computers in biology and medicine121, 103827 (2020)

    Cuevas, E. An agent-based model to evaluate the covid-19 transmission risks in facilities.Computers in biology and medicine121, 103827 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    & Sattenspiel, L

    Carpenter, C. & Sattenspiel, L. The design and use of an agent-based model to simulate the 1918 influenza epidemic at norway house, manitoba.American Journal of Human Biology21, 290–300 (2009). URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajhb.20857

    work page doi:10.1002/ajhb.20857 1918

  12. [12]

    & Opatowski, L

    Arduin, H., Domenech de Cell` es, M., Guillemot, D., Watier, L. & Opatowski, L. An agent-based model simulation of influenza interactions at the host level: insight into the influenza-related burden of pneumococcal infections.BMC infectious 17 diseases17, 382 (2017). URL https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-017-2464-z

    work page doi:10.1186/s12879-017-2464-z 2017

  13. [13]

    & Kelleher, J

    Hunter, E., Mac Namee, B. & Kelleher, J. An open-data-driven agent-based model to simulate infectious disease outbreaks.PloS one13, e0208775 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208775

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208775 2018

  14. [14]

    & Kuhl, E

    Peirlinck, M., Linka, K., Sahli Costabal, F. & Kuhl, E. Outbreak dynamics of COVID-19 in China and the United States.Biomechanics and Model- ing in Mechanobiology19, 2179–2193 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10237-020-01332-5

    2020

  15. [15]

    URL https://journals.plos

    Mossong, J.et al.Social Contacts and Mixing Patterns Relevant to the Spread of Infectious Diseases.PLOS Medicine5, e74 (2008). URL https://journals.plos. org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050074. Publisher: Public Library of Science

    doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050074 2008

  16. [16]

    COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2

    Estrada, E. COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2. Modeling the present, looking at the future.Physics Reports869, 1–51 (2020). URL https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ articles/PMC7386394/

    2020

  17. [17]

    Temporal network structures controlling disease spreading.arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.00915(2016)

    Holme, P. Temporal network structures controlling disease spreading.arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.00915(2016)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Box, G. E. P. Science and statistics.Journal of the American Statistical Associ- ation71, 791–799 (1976). URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 01621459.1976.10480949

    arXiv 1976

  19. [19]

    C., Hidalgo, C

    Gonzalez, M. C., Hidalgo, C. A. & Barabasi, A.-L. Understanding individual human mobility patterns.nature453, 779–782 (2008)

    2008

  20. [20]

    & Lehmann, S

    Alessandretti, L., Aslak, U. & Lehmann, S. The scales of human mobility.Nature 587, 402–407 (2020). [21]20 Years of Mobility Modeling & Prediction: Trends, Shortcomings & Perspec- tives, SIGSPATIAL ’19 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3347146.3359110

    arXiv 2020

  21. [22]

    Mokbel, M.et al.Mobility data science: Perspectives and challenges.ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems10, 1–35 (2024)

    2024

  22. [23]

    C., Kadau, K., Longini, I

    Germann, T. C., Kadau, K., Longini, I. M. & Macken, C. A. Mitigation strate- gies for pandemic influenza in the United States.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences103, 5935–5940 (2006). URL https://pnas.org/doi/full/10. 1073/pnas.0601266103

    2006

  23. [24]

    L., Harding, N., Zachreson, C., Cliff, O

    Chang, S. L., Harding, N., Zachreson, C., Cliff, O. M. & Prokopenko, M. Mod- elling transmission and control of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia.Nature 18 Communications11, 5710 (2020). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41467-020-19393-6. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2020

  24. [25]

    PLOS Computational Biology17, e1009146 (2021)

    Hinch, R.et al.OpenABM-Covid19—An agent-based model for non- pharmaceutical interventions against COVID-19 including contact tracing. PLOS Computational Biology17, e1009146 (2021). URL https://journals.plos. org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009146. Publisher: Public Library of Science

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009146 2021

  25. [26]

    M., Del Valle, S

    Mniszewski, S. M., Del Valle, S. Y., Priedhorsky, R., Hyman, J. M. & Hickman, K. S. inUnderstanding the impact of face mask usage through epidemic simula- tion of large social networks(eds Dabbaghian, V. & Mago, V. K.)Theories and simulations of complex social systems97–115 (Springer, 2013)

    2013

  26. [27]

    & Zhou, R

    Chen, K., Jiang, X., Li, Y. & Zhou, R. A stochastic agent-based model to evaluate covid-19 transmission influenced by human mobility.Nonlinear Dynamics111, 12639–12655 (2023)

    2023

  27. [28]

    Ajelli, M.et al.Comparing large-scale computational approaches to epidemic modeling: agent-based versus structured metapopulation models.BMC infectious diseases10, 190 (2010)

    2010

  28. [29]

    Borkowski, M., Podaima, B. W. & McLeod, R. D. Epidemic modeling with discrete-space scheduled walkers: extensions and research opportunities.BMC Public Health9, S14 (2009)

    2009

  29. [30]

    & Yllanes, D

    Chu, A., Huber, G., McGeever, A., Veytsman, B. & Yllanes, D. A random-walk- based epidemiological model.Scientific reports11, 19308 (2021)

    2021

  30. [31]

    & Pak, S.-I

    Lim, J.-S., Cho, S.-I., Ryu, S. & Pak, S.-I. Interpretation of the basic and effective reproduction number.Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health53, 405 (2020)

    2020

  31. [32]

    Ma, J., Dushoff, J., Bolker, B. M. & Earn, D. J. Estimating initial epidemic growth rates.Bulletin of mathematical biology76, 245–260 (2014)

    2014

  32. [33]

    & Nishiura, H

    Anzai, A. & Nishiura, H. Doubling time of infectious diseases.Journal of Theoretical Biology554, 111278 (2022)

    2022

  33. [34]

    Pellis, L.et al.Challenges in control of covid-19: short doubling time and long delay to effect of interventions.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences376(2021)

    2021

  34. [35]

    Newman, M. E. Modularity and community structure in networks.Proceedings of the national academy of sciences103, 8577–8582 (2006). 19

    2006

  35. [36]

    & Vespignani, A

    Pastor-Satorras, R., Castellano, C., Van Mieghem, P. & Vespignani, A. Epidemic processes in complex networks.Reviews of modern physics87, 925–979 (2015)

    2015

  36. [37]

    Danon, L.et al.Networks and the epidemiology of infectious disease.Interdisci- plinary perspectives on infectious diseases2011, 284909 (2011)

    2011

  37. [38]

    & Jones, J

    Salath´ e, M. & Jones, J. H. Dynamics and control of diseases in networks with community structure.PLoS computational biology6, e1000736 (2010)

    2010

  38. [39]

    W., Lee, D.-H

    Sun, L., Axhausen, K. W., Lee, D.-H. & Huang, X. Understanding metropolitan patterns of daily encounters.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 13774–13779 (2013)

    2013

  39. [40]

    & Arifuzzaman, S

    Pathania, N., Labus, B. & Arifuzzaman, S. Leveraging social network analysis and mobility data for modeling epidemic spread in urban tourist destinations. Social Network Analysis and Mining15, 89 (2025)

    2025

  40. [41]

    R., Chen, J., Feng, X., Kumar, V

    Bisset, K. R., Chen, J., Feng, X., Kumar, V. A. & Marathe, M. V. Epifast: a fast algorithm for large scale realistic epidemic simulations on distributed memory systems.Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Supercomputing 430–439 (2009)

    2009

  41. [42]

    2017 national household travel survey

    Federal Highway Administration. 2017 national household travel survey. U.S. Department of Transportation (2017). URL http://nhts.ornl.gov

    2017

  42. [43]

    Advan patterns plus: High-resolution mobile location foot traffic data

    Research, A. Advan patterns plus: High-resolution mobile location foot traffic data. https://www.deweydata.io (2019). Online; Accessed 10-March-2026

    2019

  43. [44]

    Lodes data

    Census Bureau, U. Lodes data. https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/ (2015). Online; Accessed 10-March-2026

    2015

  44. [45]

    Hoertel, N.et al.A stochastic agent-based model of the sars-cov-2 epidemic in france.Nature medicine26, 1417–1421 (2020)

    2020

  45. [46]

    Chang, S.et al.Mobility network models of covid-19 explain inequities and inform reopening.Nature589, 82–87 (2021)

    2021

  46. [47]

    Zhang, J. & Ma, Z. Global dynamics of an seir epidemic model with saturating contact rate.Mathematical Biosciences185, 15–32 (2003)

    2003

  47. [48]

    & Fang, H

    Zhang, Z., Wang, H., Wang, C. & Fang, H. Modeling epidemics spreading on social contact networks.IEEE transactions on emerging topics in computing3, 410–419 (2015)

    2015

  48. [49]

    Saadi, I., Cˆ ome, E., Nguyen, L. B. L. & Zargayouna, M. An agent-based model for estimating daily face-to-face contact networks in large urban systems.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems121, 102321 (2025). 20

    2025

  49. [50]

    Government, F. C. Fairfax county open geospatial data. URL https://www. fairfaxcounty.gov/maps/open-geospatial-data

  50. [51]

    2017 national household travel survey code- book

    Federal Highway Administration. 2017 national household travel survey code- book. U.S. Department of Transportation (2017). URL https://nhts.ornl.gov/ media/2017/doc/codebook v1.2.pdf

    2017

  51. [52]

    & Ozik, J

    Collier, N. & Ozik, J. Distributed agent-based simulation with repast4py.2022 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC)192–206 (2022)

    2022

  52. [53]

    & Nepusz, T

    Csardi, G. & Nepusz, T. The igraph software.Complex syst1695, 1–9 (2006)

    2006

  53. [54]

    URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0898-6

    Block, P.et al.Social network-based distancing strategies to flatten the COVID- 19 curve in a post-lockdown world.Nature Human Behaviour4, 588–596 (2020). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0898-6. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2020

  54. [55]

    A.et al.A realistic agent-based simulation model for COVID-19 based on a traffic simulation and mobile phone data (2020)

    M¨ uller, S. A.et al.A realistic agent-based simulation model for COVID-19 based on a traffic simulation and mobile phone data (2020). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2011.11453. ArXiv:2011.11453 [physics]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [56]

    & Cavanagh, D

    Small, M. & Cavanagh, D. Modelling Strong Control Measures for Epidemic Propagation With Networks—A COVID-19 Case Study.IEEE Access8, 109719– 109731 (2020). URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9113296

    arXiv 2020

  56. [57]

    URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0931-9

    Aleta, A.et al.Modelling the impact of testing, contact tracing and household quarantine on second waves of COVID-19.Nature Human Behaviour4, 964–971 (2020). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0931-9. Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2020

  57. [58]

    Salem, F. A. & Moreno, U. F. A Multi-Agent-Based Simulation Model for the Spreading of Diseases Through Social Interactions During Pandemics.Journal of Control, Automation and Electrical Systems33, 1161–1176 (2022). URL https: //doi.org/10.1007/s40313-022-00920-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s40313-022-00920-3 2022

  58. [59]

    Von Hoene, E.et al.All models are wrong, but can they be useful? lessons from covid-19 agent-based models: A systematic review.Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation29(2026). 21

    2026