pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22588 · v1 · pith:NSOVVAD6new · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🧬 q-bio.PE

Changes in behaviour when adherers to an intervention experience a different epidemic than non-adherers

Yuan Liu , Michael Sieber , Bin Wu , Arne Traulsen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 01:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.PE
keywords non-pharmaceutical interventionsbehavioral switchingSIR modeladherenceepidemic dynamicscost-benefittransmission feedback
0
0 comments X

The pith

Coupling individual cost-benefit choices to transmission rates lets modestly effective NPIs sharply cut infections in severe outbreaks.

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

The paper builds a six-compartment model that joins an SIR epidemic process with two strategies: adherence and non-adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions. When strategies stay fixed, stronger measures and larger starting groups of adherers reduce total infections, and adherers face lower risk. Allowing people to switch strategies according to the benefits and costs they experience changes the outcome. Higher transmission then drives more people toward adherence when the measures work at all, which lowers overall spread. In high-severity outbreaks this feedback lets even modest NPIs produce large drops in infections.

Core claim

Adding behavioral switching based on perceived costs and benefits to the SIR framework creates a dynamic feedback in which higher transmission promotes adherence, which in turn reduces transmission; the net result is that modestly effective NPIs produce substantially fewer infections than fixed-strategy models predict, especially during severe outbreaks.

What carries the argument

The six-compartment behavioral-epidemiological extension of the SIR model in which individuals switch between adherence and non-adherence states according to the current benefits and costs that depend on transmission and infection levels.

Load-bearing premise

People switch between adherence and non-adherence by comparing the perceived personal benefits and costs of each choice, and those switches directly change the population-wide transmission rate.

What would settle it

Data from a high-severity outbreak showing that adherence rates stay flat or fall as cases rise, or that total infections remain high despite the presence of modestly effective NPIs, would contradict the predicted feedback effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22588 by Arne Traulsen, Bin Wu, Michael Sieber, Yuan Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematics and dynamics of the model. Individuals can choose one of two strategies: adherence (A), where individuals follow an NPI, or non￾adherence (N), where individuals do not follow this measure. Within each group, individuals are categorized into three health states: susceptible (x S A , x S N ), infected (x I A , x I N ), and recovered (x R A , x R N ). In the epidemic processes of infection, recover… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Infections at equilibrium. (a) Fraction of infected individuals at equi￾librium (x I A + x I N ) as a function of the effectiveness of NPIs e, for differ￾ent initial proportions of adherers xA = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and transmission rates β = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, based on the dynamics given by Eq.1. (b) Fraction of infected individuals at equilibrium (x I A + x I N ) as a function of the effectiveness of NPIs e, for… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Qualitative changes of the infection dynamics with the transmis￾sion rate. The yellow line denotes the adherence invasion boundary, repre￾senting the condition under which adherers can start to establish within the population. The green line shows that for R0 = β γ < 1, there are no in￾fections. (a) Total proportion of adherers and non-adherers at equilibrium based on the dynamics given by Eq.1. (b) Fracti… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Adherence is maximised for intermediate effectiveness. (a) Infected adherers ((x I A ) ∗ ), infected non-adherers ((x I N ) ∗ ), and proportion of infected individuals in both adherent and non-adherent populations at equilibrium, based on the dynamics given by Eq.1. (b) Total proportion of adherers and non-adherers at equilibrium based on the dynamics given by Eq.1. Parameters: β = 10, µ = 1 50·52 , γ = 1,… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative changes of the infection dynamics with the recovery rate. The yellow line denotes the invasion boundary, representing the condi￾tion under which adherers can start to establish within the population. (a) Total proportion of adherers and non-adherers at equilibrium based on the dynamics given by Eq.1. (b) Fraction of infected individuals in two groups (adherers and non-adherers) at equilibrium b… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temporal dynamics of the infection dynamics. (a) Dynamics of the effective reproduction values for adherers, RA c = β γ (1 − e)((1 − e)x S A + x S N ), and for non-adherers, RN c = β γ ((1 − e)x S A + x S N ), for β = 10. (b) Effective reproduction values at equilibrium RA c ∗ and RN c ∗ (Parameters: µ = 1 50·52 , γ = 1, δ = 1 0.25·52 , ξ = 5, τ = 1). 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The fraction of infected individuals decreases with constant frac￾tion of adherers and the effectiveness. Fraction of infected individ￾uals at equilibrium for varying the effectiveness of NPIs (e), the propor￾tion of adherers (xA) and the transmission rate (β), based on the dynam￾ics given by Eq.2. We show the fraction of infected individuals (x I A + x I N ) for each xA(0.1, 0.3, 0.5) across six different… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Increasing the fraction of adherers reduces infections in both non￾adherers and adherers. Fraction of infected individuals in both adherent and non-adherent populations at equilibrium as a function of the fraction of adherers(xA) for various values of the transmission rate (β) and the effec￾tiveness of NPIs (e), based on the dynamics given by Eq.2. The blue curve represents the proportion of infected adher… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Differences between infected adherers and infected non-adherers are most visible when their relative proportion is considered. Frac￾tion of infection at equilibrium in the two groups (adherers and non-adherers) based on the dynamics given by Eq.2. We show the equilibrium proportion of infected individuals in both groups across a range of transmission rate (β) and effectiveness of NPIs (e). For R0 = β γ+µ <… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), including mask-wearing, physical distancing, and hygiene measures, provide the primary means of reducing transmission in the early stages of an epidemic. Individuals adopt one of two strategies-adherence (A) or non-adherence (N) to NPIs. These strategies influence the transmission rate and thus the number of infections, but they also come with inherent costs and benefits. We propose a model coupling behavior and disease dynamics in adherers and non-adherers based on the SIR framework. This gives rise to six behavioral-epidemiological compartments. Using numerical simulations and analytical considerations, we first examine the case where strategies are fixed. Stronger NPIs and more initial adherers lead to fewer infections, and adherers consistently experience lower infection risk than non-adherers. We then introduce behavioral switching based on the benefits and costs of the two strategies. When NPIs are effective, higher transmission rates promote adherence, resulting in fewer infections. Strikingly, in high-severity outbreaks, even modestly effective NPIs can significantly reduce infections. These findings highlight the critical role of the coupling between behavior and disease dynamics, and underscore how individual choices can compromise or compensate public health interventions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper develops a six-compartment extension of the SIR model coupling disease dynamics with adherence (A) or non-adherence (N) to NPIs. For fixed strategies, stronger NPIs and higher initial adherence reduce total infections, with adherers facing lower infection risk. Introducing behavioral switching driven by perceived benefits and costs leads to the finding that higher transmission rates increase adherence when NPIs are effective, and that modestly effective NPIs can substantially curb infections in severe outbreaks.

Significance. If substantiated, the work would be significant for behavioral epidemiology by showing how feedback between individual cost-benefit choices and epidemic severity can amplify NPI effects beyond fixed-compliance models. The differential epidemics experienced by adherers versus non-adherers offers a useful framing. The combination of numerical simulations and analytical considerations is noted as a methodological strength, though details are absent from the provided text.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract asserts that 'numerical simulations and analytical considerations support the claims,' yet no model equations, switching functions, transmission-rate feedback terms, parameter values, or result tables are supplied. This prevents verification of the central claim that modestly effective NPIs significantly reduce infections in high-severity outbreaks via behavioral switching.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and constructive comments on our manuscript. We provide a point-by-point response to the major comment below and outline the revisions we plan to make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The abstract asserts that 'numerical simulations and analytical considerations support the claims,' yet no model equations, switching functions, transmission-rate feedback terms, parameter values, or result tables are supplied. This prevents verification of the central claim that modestly effective NPIs significantly reduce infections in high-severity outbreaks via behavioral switching.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the abstract does not contain the detailed model specifications. Abstracts are limited in length and typically summarize findings without full technical details. The complete manuscript includes the six-compartment behavioral-epidemiological model extending the SIR framework, with explicit equations for the dynamics in adherer and non-adherer groups, the functional form of the behavioral switching rates based on cost-benefit analysis, the transmission rate differences, chosen parameter values for the numerical simulations, and figures/tables presenting the results. These support the claims regarding reduced infections with behavioral switching. To improve clarity and verifiability, we will revise the manuscript by adding a short overview of the model structure and key parameters early in the text, and ensure the abstract is updated if space allows to hint at the methods used. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper proposes a six-compartment behavioral-epidemiological extension of the SIR model and obtains its central claims (including the striking reduction in infections from modestly effective NPIs in high-severity outbreaks) via numerical simulations and analytical considerations applied to the forward dynamics of that model. No equations, fitted parameters, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems are supplied in the abstract, so no load-bearing step can be shown to reduce by construction to its own inputs. The results are therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receive the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

Ledger entries are inferred from the abstract description only; full text would be required to identify all free parameters and background assumptions.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Adherers and non-adherers experience different transmission rates due to NPIs
    Central premise of the six-compartment model stated in the abstract.
  • domain assumption Individuals switch strategies based on benefits and costs of adherence versus non-adherence
    Invoked when the paper introduces behavioral switching after the fixed-strategy analysis.
invented entities (1)
  • Six behavioral-epidemiological compartments no independent evidence
    purpose: To track adherence status jointly with SIR disease states for adherers and non-adherers
    Proposed as the core modeling extension of the standard SIR framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5727 in / 1381 out tokens · 61408 ms · 2026-05-22T01:12:24.159793+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Steiner, A

    S. Steiner, A. Kratzel, G. T. Barut, R. M. Lang, E. Aguiar Moreira, L. Thomann, J. N. Kelly, V. Thiel, Sars-cov-2 biology and host interactions, Nature Reviews Microbiology 22 (4) (2024) 206–225

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    T. K. Yamana, M. Galanti, S. Pei, M. Di Fusco, F. J. Angulo, M. M. Moran, F. Khan, D. L. Swerdlow, J. Shaman, The impact of covid-19 vaccination in the us: averted burden of sars-cov-2-related cases, hospitalizations and deaths, PLoS One 18 (4) (2023) e0275699

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    B. K.-F. Wong, N. A. Mabbott, Systematic review and meta-analysis of covid- 19 mrna vaccine effectiveness against hospitalizations in adults, Immunotherapy Advances 4 (1) (2024) ltae011

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    R. E. Baker, C. M. Saad-Roy, S. W. Park, J. Farrar, C. J. E. Metcalf, B. T. Grenfell, Long-term benefits of nonpharmaceutical interventions for endemic infections are shaped by respiratory pathogen dynamics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (49) (2022) e2208895119

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    C. T. Bauch, D. J. D. Earn, Vaccination and the theory of games, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101 (36) (2004) 13391–13394. 16

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Perisic, C

    A. Perisic, C. T. Bauch, Social contact networks and disease eradicability under voluntary vaccination, PLoS Comput Biol 5 (2) (2009) e1000280

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    Z. Wang, C. T.Bauch, S. Bhattacharyya, A. d’Onofrio, P. Manfredi, M. Perc, N. Perra, M. Salath´ e, D. Zhao, Statistical physics of vaccination, Phys. Rep. 664 (2016) 1–113

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    T. C. Reluga, Game theory of social distancing in response to an epidemic, PLoS Computational Biology 6 (5) (2010) e1000793

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    Flaxman, S

    S. Flaxman, S. Mishra, A. Gandy, H. J. T. Unwin, T. A. Mellan, H. Coupland, C. Whittaker, H. Zhu, T. Berah, J. W. Eaton, et al., Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on covid-19 in europe, Nature 584 (7820) (2020) 257–261

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Mendez-Brito, C

    A. Mendez-Brito, C. El Bcheraoui, F. Pozo-Martin, Systematic review of empiri- cal studies comparing the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions against covid-19, Journal of Infection 83 (3) (2021) 281–293

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    S. Lai, N. W. Ruktanonchai, L. Zhou, O. Prosper, W. Luo, J. R. Floyd, A. Wesolowski, M. Santillana, C. Zhang, X. Du, et al., Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions to contain covid-19 in china, nature 585 (7825) (2020) 410–413

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Z. Wei, J. Zhuang, On the adoption of nonpharmaceutical interventions during the pandemic: An evolutionary game model, Risk Analysis 43 (11) (2023) 2298–2311

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Zamir, Z

    M. Zamir, Z. Shah, F. Nadeem, A. Memood, H. Alrabaiah, P. Kumam, Non phar- maceutical interventions for optimal control of covid-19, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 196 (2020) 105642

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    E. P. Fenichel, C. Castillo-Chavez, M. G. Ceddia, G. Chowell, P. A. G. Parra, G. J. Hickling, G. Holloway, R. Horan, B. Morin, C. Perrings, et al., Adaptive human behavior in epidemiological models, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (15) (2011) 6306–6311

    work page 2011

  15. [15]

    Bansal, B

    S. Bansal, B. T. Grenfell, L. A. Meyers, When individual behaviour matters: homo- geneous and network models in epidemiology, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 4 (16) (2007) 879–891

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    C. T. Bergstrom, W. P. Hanage, Human behavior and disease dynamics, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 121 (1) (2024) e2317211120

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Y. Liu, B. Wu, Coevolution of vaccination behavior and perceived vaccination risk can lead to a stag-hunt-like game, Physical Review E 106 (3) (2022) 034308

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    C. M. Saad-Roy, A. Traulsen, Dynamics in a behavioral–epidemiological model for individual adherence to a nonpharmaceutical intervention, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120 (44) (2023) e2311584120. 17

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    S. Shi, Z. Wang, X. Chen, F. Fu, Determinants of successful disease control through voluntary quarantine dynamics on social networks, Mathematical Biosciences 377 (2024) 109288

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    C. T. Bauch, Imitation dynamics predict vaccinating behaviour, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272 (1573) (2005) 1669–1675

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    C. T. Bauch, A. P. Galvani, Social factors in epidemiology, Science 342 (6154) (2013) 47–49

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    Glaubitz, F

    A. Glaubitz, F. Fu, Population heterogeneity in vaccine coverage impacts epidemic thresholds and bifurcation dynamics, Heliyon 9 (9) (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    S. Hu, Y. Liu, B. Wu, Evolutionary dynamics of voluntary vaccination for imperfect multi-efficacy vaccines, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 480 (2301) (2024) 20230743

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Morsky, F

    B. Morsky, F. Magpantay, T. Day, E. Ak¸ cay, The impact of threshold decision mechanisms of collective behavior on disease spread, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120 (19) (2023) e2221479120

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Karlsson, J

    C.-J. Karlsson, J. Rowlett, Decisions and disease: a mechanism for the evolution of cooperation, Scientific Reports 10 (1) (2020) 13113

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Tanimoto, Sociophysics approach to epidemics, Vol

    J. Tanimoto, Sociophysics approach to epidemics, Vol. 23, Springer, 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Traulsen, S

    A. Traulsen, S. A. Levin, C. M. Saad-Roy, Individual costs and societal benefits of interventions during the covid-19 pandemic, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120 (24) (2023) e2303546120

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    L. S. Flores, A. d. Azevedo-Lopes, C. M. Saad-Roy, A. Traulsen, Seasonal social dilemmas, npj Complexity 2 (1) (2025) 17

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Glaubitz, F

    A. Glaubitz, F. Fu, Social dilemma of nonpharmaceutical interventions: Determi- nants of dynamic compliance and behavioral shifts, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121 (50) (2024) e2407308121

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    F. Chen, M. Jiang, S. Rabidoux, S. Robinson, Public avoidance and epidemics: insights from an economic model, Journal of theoretical biology 278 (1) (2011) 107– 119

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    Espinoza, S

    B. Espinoza, S. Swarup, C. L. Barrett, M. Marathe, Heterogeneous adaptive be- havioral responses may increase epidemic burden, Scientific Reports 12 (1) (2022) 11276

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    S. Funk, E. Gilad, C. Watkins, V. A. Jansen, The spread of awareness and its impact on epidemic outbreaks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (16) (2009) 6872–6877. 18

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    Hofbauer, K

    J. Hofbauer, K. Sigmund, Evolutionary games and population dynamics, Cambridge university press, 1998

    work page 1998

  34. [34]

    Cressman, Y

    R. Cressman, Y. Tao, The replicator equation and other game dynamics, Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (supplement 3) (2014) 10810–10817

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Schuster, K

    P. Schuster, K. Sigmund, Replicator dynamics, Journal of theoretical biology 100 (3) (1983) 533–538

    work page 1983

  36. [36]

    J. M. Heffernan, R. J. Smith, L. M. Wahl, Perspectives on the basic reproductive ratio, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 2 (4) (2005) 281–293

    work page 2005

  37. [37]

    Traulsen, C

    A. Traulsen, C. S. Gokhale, S. Shah, H. Uecker, The Covid-19 pandemic: Basic insights from basic mathematical models, Nova Acta Leopoldina 2022 (3) (2022). 19

    work page 2022