Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Optimization of Infectious Disease Intervention Measures Based on Reinforcement Learning -- Empirical analysis based on UK COVID-19 epidemic data

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that reinforcement learning trained on a UK-calibrated individual-based epidemic simulator can produce intervention policies that dominate a fixed cyclic lockdown on both infections and economic losses.

desk verdict A reasonable RL-on-Covasim engineering proof-of-concept whose headline results are not yet evaluable because the reward weights are missing and the economic-loss metric is defined by that same reward. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04161 v1 pith:ZSM7BJYX submitted 2025-05-07 cs.LG cs.CYcs.MAphysics.comp-ph

Baida Zhang , Yakai Chen , Huichun Li , Zhenghu Zu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CYcs.MAphysics.comp-ph MSC 68T0592D3090C40
keywords reinforcementlearningagent-basedmodelCovasimPPOCOVID-19interventioneconomiclosstimecoverageUKepidemicdata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to establish that reinforcement learning can optimize infectious-disease interventions when trained directly on an individual-based, agent-level simulator rather than on simplified compartment equations. It wraps the Covasim simulator, calibrated to UK COVID-19 data from early 2020, into a reinforcement-learning environment in which an agent every seven days sets lockdown strength, testing probability, and contact-tracing probability. The headline experimental claim is that a PPO-trained policy in continuous action space keeps cumulative infections near 300,000 and economic losses at 10.25%, whereas a 7-work-7-lockdown cycle produces about 1,000,000 infections and 38.01% loss, and the strategy reconstructed from real data produces about 2,900,000 infections and 36.61% loss. A reader would care because this suggests that learned, time-varying policies can dominate fixed schedules on both health and economic criteria in a realistic transmission model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a standard reinforcement-learning interface around the agent-based simulator Covasim, whose intervention parameters can be changed during a run. The state includes counts of susceptible, exposed, infectious, recovered, dead, cumulative tested, and cumulative quarantined individuals, and the action is a triple: lockdown strength $C_\beta$ (a multiplier on the transmission rate $\beta$, bounded below at 0.5), testing probability, and contact-tracing probability. The mechanism that determines what counts as a good policy is the dense reward function $r = \lambda_1 r_H + \lambda_2 r_E + \lambda_3 r_P$, with health reward favoring recoveries and penalizing new infections, severe cases, and deaths, economic reward crediting the working population and penalizing testing, quarantine, and lockdown costs, and a penalty on action jumps larger than 0.2 that keeps continuous policies smooth.

What would settle it

Re-run the same PPO training while sweeping the unreported reward coefficients $\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3$ and $\mu_1,\dots,\mu_4$ over a plausible range and check whether cumulative infections stay near 300,000 and economic losses near 10.25%. If the optimal policy changes materially across the range, the headline result is an artifact of one arbitrary objective; alternatively, simulating a 50% lockdown version of the 7/7 schedule that also uses the learned testing and tracing profile would show whether the advantage comes from reinforcement learning or simply from adding test-trace measures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that a reinforcement-learning agent can discover a continuously varying three-lever intervention policy that outperforms both actual UK measures and a simple cyclic lockdown in the Covasim simulator. With PPO in continuous action space, the learned policy responds to the epidemic's phase: impose a high-intensity lockdown together with intensive testing and contact tracing as soon as transmission is detected, relax the lockdown while test-trace effort gradually declines, reintroduce a strong lockdown and renewed testing when the reproduction number threatens to rise, and finally alternate testing and tracing at low intensity. The reported simulated outcomes are about 300,000 cumulative infections and 10.25% economic loss for the learned policy, versus about 1,000,000 infections and 38.01% loss for 7-work-7-lockdown and about 2,900,000 infections and 36.61% loss for the real-data-fitting strategy. The paper also claims that the framework is validated across algorithms (DQN with prioritized experience replay in a discrete action space; PPO in discrete and continuous spaces) and introduces a preliminary 'time coverage' analysis in which each intervention decision is held for a seven-day period.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-designed reward function, whose coefficients are never reported, is the correct or sufficient measure of what makes an intervention policy good; if the weights on health versus economic terms were changed, the learned strategy and all the reported comparisons could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In simulation, a reinforcement-learning policy can dominate both the real-world UK trajectory and a 7-work-7-lockdown cycle on cumulative infections and economic losses simultaneously.
  • The learned policy is not a constant rule but a phase-dependent schedule: strict early lockdown with testing and tracing, relaxation, re-intensification when the reproduction number turns upward, then low-level testing and tracing.
  • PPO with a continuous action space is the configuration that converges stably and gives sensible actions; DQN in the discrete setting converges less smoothly and its learned strategy depends on the discrete action set chosen.
  • Making decisions every seven days rather than every day is sufficient for good control in this environment and makes learned strategies closer to implementable policy.
  • The reproduction number $R_t$ falls below 1 roughly a month earlier under the learned policy than under the real-world-fitting strategy, which the paper connects to the large reduction in cumulative cases.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper compares the learned policy against a single fixed cyclic lockdown; a full Pareto frontier over lockdown intensities and test-trace levels would show whether the reported point (300,000 infections, 10.25% loss) is on the efficient trade-off curve or merely better than one hand-picked alternative.
  • The seven-day decision interval, called 'time coverage' in the paper, is presented as a practical choice; a formal extension would compare daily, weekly, and monthly action holds on the same objective to quantify how much timing granularity is worth.
  • Because the reward coefficients are not reported, transferring the framework to another country or pathogen would require re-specifying the objective; a robustness test using domain randomization over transmission rates and contact patterns is a natural next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reinforcement learning (RL) framework for optimizing non-pharmaceutical interventions (lockdown, testing, contact tracing) in an agent-based epidemic model (Covasim) calibrated to UK COVID-19 data from January to May 2020. The authors modify Covasim to allow dynamic intervention changes, define a dense reward combining health and economic terms, and compare DQN and PPO in discrete and continuous action spaces. The main reported result is that a PPO policy with continuous actions achieves about 300,000 cumulative infections and 10.25% economic loss, versus about 1,000,000 infections and 38.01% loss for a 7-work-7-lockdown baseline, supporting claims that the learned strategies are 'highly efficacious' and 'safeguard economic stability.' The paper also claims a novel theoretical analysis of 'time coverage' via a 7-day intervention interval.

Significance. If the results are reproducible, the framework is a useful proof-of-concept for combining a detailed individual-based epidemiological simulator with RL for policy search. Its strengths include using Covasim with a realistic contact structure, providing code and data on GitHub, introducing a continuous action space for intervention intensity, and reporting a multi-dimensional comparison (infections, deaths, Rt, economic loss) against a conventional lockdown schedule. However, the current evaluation has important gaps: the reward coefficients are never reported, the economic-loss metric is derived from the reward function that PPO optimizes, calibration is in-sample with only two fitted parameters, and all results appear to be single-run point estimates. These issues currently prevent the headline efficiency claims from being falsifiable or generalizable.

major comments (5)
  1. [Methods, 'Definition of reward function in reinforcement learning', Eqs. (1)-(6)] The coefficients λ1, λ2, λ3, ω1, ω2, ω3, μ1, μ2, μ3, μ4 in the reward function are never reported anywhere in the manuscript, including Tables 1-4. Because LE is defined as (μ1P - rE)/(μ1P) and rE is one of the terms maximized by PPO, the headline comparison (10.25% vs. 38.01% in Table 1) is not an independent economic metric but a monotone transformation of a component of the training objective. The authors must report all reward coefficients and provide a sensitivity analysis (e.g., varying the relative weight λ2/λ1 or μ4/μ1) to show that the qualitative ordering of policies is robust; otherwise the claims of economic superiority are not scientifically testable.
  2. [Results, 'Parameter calibration with real-world data', Table 4 and Figure 1] The two calibrated parameters (beta_initial=0.005997, pop_infected=5856) are fitted with Optuna to the exact UK time series (Jan 21-May 20, 2020) that is later used for evaluating the learned policies. No fit statistics are reported, and there is no out-of-sample validation. Since the RL agent is trained and evaluated in this same fitted simulator, the reported infection counts and Rt curves may be overfitted to that window. The authors should report quantitative goodness-of-fit measures and test the learned policies on a holdout period (e.g., the autumn 2020 wave) or under parameter perturbations to demonstrate external validity.
  3. [Results, Figure 7 and surrounding text] The 7-work-7-lockdown baseline locks down 80% of the population, while the continuous action space restricts Ch-β to [0.5,1], i.e., at most a 50% lockdown. This asymmetry means the comparison may reflect the baseline's more extreme lockdown rather than the superiority of the learned policy. The authors should either allow the baseline to use the same maximum intensity, add baselines at 50% and other intensities, or at minimum report the total person-days of lockdown for each policy so that the comparison is interpretable.
  4. [Abstract and Discussion] The paper claims validity is verified 'through both experimental and theoretical approaches' and that it 'pioneer[s] a temporal optimization analysis of interventions' (the 'time coverage' issue), but no theorem, proof, or formal theoretical analysis appears anywhere in the manuscript. The only related content is the heuristic choice of a 7-day simulation time step in the Discussion and Methods. Either provide a rigorous treatment of the effect of intervention duration on the learned policy, or revise the claims to reflect that the analysis is purely empirical.
  5. [Figures 3-8 and Table 1] The results are presented as single trajectories and point estimates without error bars or multiple seeds. Reinforcement learning is stochastic; the cumulative infections 'amounting to only 300,000' and economic losses of 10.25% can vary across seeds. The authors should run multiple independent seeds and report mean ± standard deviation (or equivalent) for the key metrics and for the evaluation episodes.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Methods, 'Definition of reward function in reinforcement learning', after Eq. (2)] The text says 'negative rewards will be given to the new daily numbers of infected (NR),' but the symbol in Eq. (2) is NI; correct the symbol/notation.
  2. [Figure 6 caption] Both panels a and b are described as 'overall effect diagram,' but the panels show different content (infection trends vs. action sequence); clarify the captions.
  3. [Figure 8 caption] The caption lists panels 'a', 'b', and then 'b' again; the third panel should be labeled 'c'.
  4. [Methods, 'Definitions of state space'] The state space is described as eight-dimensional but only seven components are listed (S, E, I, R, D, CT, CQ); either add the missing state variable or correct the number.
  5. [Table 1] The 'reflecting real-world strategy' baseline is not defined; the authors should specify the exact intervention schedule (timing and intensity) used to simulate this baseline.
  6. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and grammatical errors (e.g., 'esearch efforts', 'continous', 'discrete' used as a noun, duplicate phrases) that should be corrected in a full revision.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Economic-loss headline is defined by the optimized reward: Eq. 6 defines L_E from r_E, the very term PPO is trained to maximize, so Table 1 is not an independent benchmark.

  1. self definitional [Methods, 'Definition of reward function in reinforcement learning', Eqs. (1)-(6); Supplementary Table 1]
    "rE is also used to calculate economic losses. The original economy refers to the economic level in the situation without the epidemic, calculated by μ1P. Daily economic losses are given by: LE = (μ1P − rE)/(μ1P) (6)"

    Eq. (6) defines the reported 'economic loss' as a monotone transform of rE, and rE (Eq. 3) is the economic term inside the reward that PPO maximizes (Eq. 1: λ1rH + λ2rE + λ3rP). Table 1 then reports that the PPO strategy has 10.25% economic loss versus 38.01% for 7-work-7-lockdown. This is not an external, independent measure of economic benefit: it is, by construction, the cost-side expression of the very objective term the policy was trained to optimize. With coefficients μ1-μ4 and λ1-λ2 unreported, the ranking in Table 1 could be reversed under other plausible weightings; the headline claim is therefore unfalsifiable from the paper's own equations.

full rationale

The central circular step is the evaluation metric for economic performance. The paper defines daily economic loss L_E as a normalized shortfall from r_E (Eqs. 3 and 6), and r_E is part of the dense reward in Eq. 1 that PPO is explicitly trained to maximize. Hence reporting '10.25% economic loss' as evidence that the learned policy 'safeguards the economy' restates the optimization objective rather than testing it against an independent outcome measure. The health-side metrics (cumulative infections, deaths) are also negatively weighted in r_H (Eq. 2), so they are aligned with the reward, though they are not identical to it. I found no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz-smuggling; Covasim and the RL algorithms are external tools with established implementations. The calibration to UK data is in-sample and single-run, but that is a validity/fairness concern (as is the asymmetric baseline: agent capped at 50% lockdown versus 80% in 7-work-7-lockdown), not circularity. The Discussion's own caveat that future work will study the reward function acknowledges that the reward design is not settled. Because the paper's headline economic-loss comparison reduces by construction to the optimized reward definition, the partial circularity score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated; the invented machinery is a reward function and Gym wrapper, which are captured as free parameters and axioms above.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial transmission rate beta_initial = 0.005997
    Fitted by Optuna to match the UK cumulative case and death curves used for evaluation (Table 4); all later experiments inherit this fit.
  • Initial infected population pop_infected = 5856
    Fitted by Optuna in the same calibration; the simulation's epidemic trajectory depends on this starting condition (Table 4).
  • Reward coefficients omega1-3, lambda1-3, mu1-4
    Introduced in Eqs. (1)-(5) to weight health and economic rewards; no numeric values appear in the paper, so the learned policy and the economic loss numbers cannot be reproduced or independently audited.
  • Action penalty threshold in rP = 0.2
    Hand-chosen threshold in Eq. (7) that penalizes large action changes; affects the smoothness of the continuous-action policy.
  • Intervention activation threshold
    Methods state actions activate only when infections reach 'a certain scale', but the threshold value is not specified; this delay affects all strategy comparisons.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Covasim's calibrated transmission and intervention mechanics faithfully represent UK COVID-19 dynamics.
    Calibration fits only two parameters to the target curve and is not validated out-of-sample, yet the simulator is the ground truth for all RL training and comparisons.
  • domain assumption The listed discrete state vector is Markov-sufficient for choosing optimal interventions.
    The state is described as eight-dimensional but only seven components are enumerated; no evidence shows these counts capture all relevant epidemic and economic information.
  • ad hoc to paper The dense reward in Eqs. (1)-(5), with its hidden coefficients, is the correct public-health objective.
    Every quality judgment about policies flows from this reward, and the coefficients are not reported.
  • ad hoc to paper A 7-day action interval adequately represents real policy-making without distorting the optimal strategy.
    The Discussion asserts one-week steps are realistic but provides no sensitivity analysis; this is the entire content of the claimed 'time coverage' contribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimization of Infectious Disease Intervention Measures Based on Reinforcement Learning -- Empirical analysis based on UK COVID-19 epidemic data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZSM7BJYX

@misc{pith2026250504161,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimization of Infectious Disease Intervention Measures Based on Reinforcement Learning -- Empirical analysis based on UK COVID-19 epidemic data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZSM7BJYX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04161}
}
read the original abstract

Globally, the outbreaks of infectious diseases have exerted an extremely profound and severe influence on health security and the economy. During the critical phases of epidemics, devising effective intervention measures poses a significant challenge to both the academic and practical arenas. There is numerous research based on reinforcement learning to optimize intervention measures of infectious diseases. Nevertheless, most of these efforts have been confined within the differential equation based on infectious disease models. Although a limited number of studies have incorporated reinforcement learning methodologies into individual-based infectious disease models, the models employed therein have entailed simplifications and limitations, rendering it incapable of modeling the complexity and dynamics inherent in infectious disease transmission. We establish a decision-making framework based on an individual agent-based transmission model, utilizing reinforcement learning to continuously explore and develop a strategy function. The framework's validity is verified through both experimental and theoretical approaches. Covasim, a detailed and widely used agent-based disease transmission model, was modified to support reinforcement learning research. We conduct an exhaustive exploration of the application efficacy of multiple algorithms across diverse action spaces. Furthermore, we conduct an innovative preliminary theoretical analysis concerning the issue of "time coverage". The results of the experiment robustly validate the effectiveness and feasibility of the methodological framework of this study. The coping strategies gleaned therefrom prove highly efficacious in suppressing the expansion of the epidemic scale and safeguarding the stability of the economic system, thereby providing crucial reference perspectives for the formulation of global public health security strategies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04161 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. UK Data Calibration Chart. a The degree of matching between the cumulative number of diagnosed cases and the real data. b The degree of matching between the cumulative number of deaths cases and the real data. The dotted lines in the figure represent the time when various intervention measures were implemented or the intensity of intervention measures were changed, and reflect actual measures implemented by the UK a… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Coronavirus (COVID - 19) Dashboard

    WHO. Coronavirus (COVID - 19) Dashboard. https://covid19.who.int (2025). 19

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    COVID Data Tracker

    US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID Data Tracker. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Haug, N. et al. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID - 19 government interventions. Nat Hum Behav 4, 1303 - 1312 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Djidjou – Demasse, R., Michalakis, Y., Choisy, M., Sofonea, M. T. & Alizon, S. Optimal COVID - 19 epidemic control until vaccine deployment. MedRxiv, 2020:2020.04.02.20049189 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Yang, B. et al. Effect of specific non-pharmaceutical intervention policies on SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the counties of the United States. Nat Commun 12, 3560 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Hellewell, J. et al. Feasibility of controlling COVID -19 outbreaks by isolation of cases and contacts. Lancet Glob Health 8, e488-e496 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Kermack, W. O. & McKendrick, A. G. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Proc R Soc Lond A 115, 700-721 (1927)

    work page 1927

  8. [8]

    Grefenstette, J. J. et al. FRED (A Framework for Reconstructing Epidemic Dynamics): an open-source software system for modeling infectious diseases and control strategies using census-based populations. BMC Public Health 13, 1-14 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Kerr, C. C. et al. Covasim: an agent-based model of COVID -19 dynamics and interventions. PLoS Comput Biol 17, e1009149 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    & Grolinger, K

    AlMahamid, F. & Grolinger, K. Reinforcement learning algorithms: An overview and classification. 2021 IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), 1-7 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Connectionist Q-learning in robot control task

    Kuzmin, V. Connectionist Q-learning in robot control task. Proc Riga Tech Univ 112, 112- 121 (2002). 20

    2002

  4. [12]

    & Meger, D

    Fujimoto, S., Hoof, H. & Meger, D. Addressing function approximation error in actor-critic methods. Proc Int Conf Mach Learn, PMLR 1587-1596 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    & Raychowdhury, A

    Anwar, A. & Raychowdhury, A. Autonomous navigation via deep reinforcement learning for resource constraint edge nodes using transfer learning. IEEE Access 8, 26549-26560 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Mnih, V. et al. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 518, 529- 533 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Lillicrap, T. P. et al. Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.02971 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  8. [16]

    & Klimov, O

    Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford , A. & Klimov, O. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06347 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Pathak, D., Agrawal, P., Efros, A. A. & Darrell, T. Curiosity-driven exploration by self- supervised prediction. Proc Int Conf Mach Learn, PMLR 2778-2787 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    D., Narasimhan, K., Saeedi, A

    Kulkarni, T. D., Narasimhan, K., Saeedi, A. & Tenenbaum, J. Hierarchical deep reinforcement learning: Integrating temporal abstraction and intrinsic motivation. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 29 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    & Levine, S

    Haarnoja, T., Zhou, A., Abbeel, P. & Levine, S. Soft actor-critic: Off-policy maximum entropy deep reinforcement learning with a stochastic actor. Proc Int Conf Mach Learn, PMLR 1861-1870 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Karin, O. et al. Adaptive cyclic exit strategies from lockdown to suppress COVID -19 and allow economic activity. medRxiv 2020, 2020.04 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Huberts, N. F. D. & Thijssen, J. J. J. Optimal timing of non-pharmaceutical interventions during an epidemic. Eur J Oper Res 305, 1366-1389 (2023). 21

    2023

  14. [22]

    Aleta, A. et al. Modelling the impact of testing, contact tracing and household quarantine on second waves of COVID -19. Nat Hum Behav 4, 964-971 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    M., Kaffine, D., Rao, A

    Ash, A., Bento, A. M., Kaffine, D., Rao, A. & Bento, A. I. Disease-economy trade-offs under alternative epidemic control strategies. Nat Commun 13, 3319 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Kaleta, M. et al. Long-term spatial and population-structured planning of non- pharmaceutical interventions to epidemic outbreaks. Comput Oper Res 146, 105919 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    & Al-Hitmi, M

    Padmanabhan, R., Meskin, N., Khattab, T., Shraim, M. & Al-Hitmi, M. Reinforcement learning-based decision support system for COVID -19. Biomed Signal Process Control 68, 102676 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    H., Ling, L

    Kwak, G. H., Ling, L. & Hui, P. Deep reinforcement learning approaches for global public health strategies for COVID -19 pandemic. PLoS One 16, e0251550 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Song, S., Zong, Z., Li,Y., Liu, X. & Yu, Y. Reinforced epidemic control: Saving both lives and economy. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.01257 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Libin, P. J. et al. Deep reinforcement learning for large-scale epidemic control. Lect Notes Comput Sci, Springer 155-170 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    & Shasha, D

    Ma,i A., Gupta, N., Abouzied, A. & Shasha, D. Planning multiple epidemic interventions with reinforcement learning. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.12802 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    & Papapetrou, P

    Bampa, M., Fasth, T., Magnusson, S. & Papapetrou, P. EpidRLearn: Learning Intervention Strategies for Epidemics with Reinforcement Learning. Int Conf Artif Intell Med, Springer 189-199 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Feng, T., Song, S., Xia, T. & Li, Y. Contact tracing and epidemic intervention via deep reinforcement learning. ACM Trans Knowl Discov Data 17, 1-24 (2023). 22

    2023

  24. [32]

    Feng, T. et al. Precise mobility intervention for epidemic control using unobservable information via deep reinforcement learning. Proc ACM SIGKDD Int Conf Knowl Discov Data Min 2882-2892 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Q., Mridha, M

    Ohi, A. Q., Mridha, M. F., Monowar, M. M. & Abdul Hamid, M. d. Exploring optimal control of epidemic spread using reinforcement learning. Sci Rep 10, 22106 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Double Q-learning

    Hasselt, H. Double Q-learning. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 23 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Kompella, V. et al. Reinforcement learning for optimization of COVID -19 mitigation policies. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.10560 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Kerr, C. C. et al. Controlling COVID -19 via test-trace-quarantine. Nat Commun 12, 2993 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Panovska-Griffiths, J. et al. Determining the optimal strategy for reopening schools, the impact of test and trace interventions, and the risk of occurrence of a second COVID -19 epidemic wave in the UK: a modelling study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 4, 817-827 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Pham, Q. D. et al. Estimating and mitigating the risk of COVID -19 epidemic rebound associated with reopening of international borders in Vietnam: a modelling study. Lancet Glob Health 9, e916-e924 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    & Büyüktahtakın, IE

    Bushaj, S., Yin, X., Beqiri, A., Andrew, D. & Büyüktahtakın, IE. A simulation-deep reinforcement learning (SiRL) approach for epidemic control optimization. Ann Oper Res 328, 245-277 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    & Koyama, M

    Akiba, T., Sano, S., Yanase, T., Ohta, T. & Koyama, M. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. Proc ACM SIGKDD Int Conf Knowl Discov Data Min 2623-2631 (2021). 23

    2021

  33. [41]

    n_steps" determines the number of steps in which the agent interacts with the environment each time data is collected. After collecting data for

    Brockman, G. et al. OpenAI Gym. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01540 (2016). Acknowledgements This project has received support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and thanks for the suggestions provided by professor Chengli Zhao. Ethics declarations ...

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.