American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

June  2022, 17(3): 401-425. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2022013

Bi-fidelity stochastic collocation methods for epidemic transport models with uncertainties

 1 Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica "Francesco Severi" (INdAM), 00185 Roma, Italy 2 Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy 3 Department of Mathematics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong 4 Department of Mathematics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA

*Corresponding author: Lorenzo Pareschi

Received  October 2021 Revised  January 2022 Published  June 2022 Early access  March 2022

Uncertainty in data is certainly one of the main problems in epidemiology, as shown by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The need for efficient methods capable of quantifying uncertainty in the mathematical model is essential in order to produce realistic scenarios of the spread of infection. In this paper, we introduce a bi-fidelity approach to quantify uncertainty in spatially dependent epidemic models. The approach is based on evaluating a high-fidelity model on a small number of samples properly selected from a large number of evaluations of a low-fidelity model. In particular, we will consider the class of multiscale transport models recently introduced in [13,7] as the high-fidelity reference and use simple two-velocity discrete models for low-fidelity evaluations. Both models share the same diffusive behavior and are solved with ad-hoc asymptotic-preserving numerical discretizations. A series of numerical experiments confirm the validity of the approach.

Citation: Giulia Bertaglia, Liu Liu, Lorenzo Pareschi, Xueyu Zhu. Bi-fidelity stochastic collocation methods for epidemic transport models with uncertainties. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2022, 17 (3) : 401-425. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2022013
References:

show all references

References:
Test 1 (a): SIR model in diffusive regime. First row: expectation (left) and standard deviation (right) obtained at $t = 5$ for the variable $I$ with the three methodologies, by using $n = 8$ points for the bi-fidelity approximation. Second row: relative $L^2$ errors of the bi-fidelity approximation for the mean (left) and standard deviation (right) of density $I$ with respect to the number of "important" points $n$ used in the bi-fidelity algorithm, compared with low-fidelity errors
Test 1 (b): SIR model in hyperbolic regime. First row: expectation (left) and standard deviation (right) obtained at $t = 5$ for the variable $I$ with the three methodologies, by using $n = 14$ points for the bi-fidelity approximation. Second row: relative $L^2$ errors of the bi-fidelity approximation for the mean (left) and standard deviation (right) of density $I$ with respect to the number of "important" points $n$ used in the bi-fidelity algorithm, compared with low-fidelity errors
Test 2 (a): SEIAR model in intermediate regime. The baseline temporal and spatial evolution of compartments $S$ (first row, left), $E$ (first row, right), $I$ (second row, left) and $A$ (second row, right) in the high-fidelity model
Test 2 (a): SEIAR model in intermediate regime. Expectation (left) and standard deviation (right) of densities $E$ (first row), $I$ (second row) and $A$ (third row) at time $t = 5$, obtained with the three methodologies, using $n = 6$ for the bi-fidelity solution
Test 2 (a): SEIAR model in intermediate regime. Relative $L^2$ error decay of the bi-fidelity approximation of expectation (left) and standard deviation (right) for the density $A$ with respect to the number of selected "important" points $n$, compared with low-fidelity errors
Test 2 (b): SEIAR model in hyperbolic regime. Baseline temporal and spatial evolution of compartments $S$ (first row, left), $E$ (first row, right), $I$ (second row, left) and $A$ (second row, right) in the high-fidelity model
Test 2 (b): SEIAR model in hyperbolic regime. Expectation (left) and standard deviation (right) of densities $E$ (first row), $I$ (second row) and $A$ (third row) at time $t = 5$, obtained with the three methodologies, using $n = 7$ for the bi-fidelity solution
Test 2 (b): SEIAR model in hyperbolic regime. Relative $L^2$ error decay of the bi-fidelity approximation of expectation (left) and standard deviation (right) for the density $A$ with respect to the number of selected "important" points $n$, compared with low-fidelity errors
 [1] Alina Chertock, Changhui Tan, Bokai Yan. An asymptotic preserving scheme for kinetic models with singular limit. Kinetic and Related Models, 2018, 11 (4) : 735-756. doi: 10.3934/krm.2018030 [2] Casimir Emako, Farah Kanbar, Christian Klingenberg, Min Tang. A criterion for asymptotic preserving schemes of kinetic equations to be uniformly stationary preserving. Kinetic and Related Models, 2021, 14 (5) : 847-866. doi: 10.3934/krm.2021026 [3] Stéphane Brull, Pierre Degond, Fabrice Deluzet, Alexandre Mouton. Asymptotic-preserving scheme for a bi-fluid Euler-Lorentz model. Kinetic and Related Models, 2011, 4 (4) : 991-1023. doi: 10.3934/krm.2011.4.991 [4] Jeffrey R. Haack, Cory D. Hauck. Oscillatory behavior of Asymptotic-Preserving splitting methods for a linear model of diffusive relaxation. Kinetic and Related Models, 2008, 1 (4) : 573-590. doi: 10.3934/krm.2008.1.573 [5] Alex Capaldi, Samuel Behrend, Benjamin Berman, Jason Smith, Justin Wright, Alun L. Lloyd. Parameter estimation and uncertainty quantification for an epidemic model. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2012, 9 (3) : 553-576. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.553 [6] Jing Li, Panos Stinis. Mori-Zwanzig reduced models for uncertainty quantification. Journal of Computational Dynamics, 2019, 6 (1) : 39-68. doi: 10.3934/jcd.2019002 [7] Michael Herty, Elisa Iacomini. Uncertainty quantification in hierarchical vehicular flow models. Kinetic and Related Models, 2022, 15 (2) : 239-256. doi: 10.3934/krm.2022006 [8] Alina Chertock, Alexander Kurganov, Mária Lukáčová-Medvi${\rm{\check{d}}}$ová, Șeyma Nur Özcan. An asymptotic preserving scheme for kinetic chemotaxis models in two space dimensions. Kinetic and Related Models, 2019, 12 (1) : 195-216. doi: 10.3934/krm.2019009 [9] Hélène Hivert. Numerical schemes for kinetic equation with diffusion limit and anomalous time scale. Kinetic and Related Models, 2018, 11 (2) : 409-439. doi: 10.3934/krm.2018019 [10] Jingwei Hu, Shi Jin, Li Wang. An asymptotic-preserving scheme for the semiconductor Boltzmann equation with two-scale collisions: A splitting approach. Kinetic and Related Models, 2015, 8 (4) : 707-723. doi: 10.3934/krm.2015.8.707 [11] Naoufel Ben Abdallah, Antoine Mellet, Marjolaine Puel. Fractional diffusion limit for collisional kinetic equations: A Hilbert expansion approach. Kinetic and Related Models, 2011, 4 (4) : 873-900. doi: 10.3934/krm.2011.4.873 [12] Arnaud Debussche, Julien Vovelle. Diffusion limit for a stochastic kinetic problem. Communications on Pure and Applied Analysis, 2012, 11 (6) : 2305-2326. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2012.11.2305 [13] Emeric Bouin, Jean Dolbeault, Christian Schmeiser. Diffusion and kinetic transport with very weak confinement. Kinetic and Related Models, 2020, 13 (2) : 345-371. doi: 10.3934/krm.2020012 [14] Nicolas Crouseilles, Giacomo Dimarco, Mohammed Lemou. Asymptotic preserving and time diminishing schemes for rarefied gas dynamic. Kinetic and Related Models, 2017, 10 (3) : 643-668. doi: 10.3934/krm.2017026 [15] Andrea Tosin, Mattia Zanella. Uncertainty damping in kinetic traffic models by driver-assist controls. Mathematical Control and Related Fields, 2021, 11 (3) : 681-713. doi: 10.3934/mcrf.2021018 [16] Nicolas Crouseilles, Mohammed Lemou, SV Raghurama Rao, Ankit Ruhi, Muddu Sekhar. Asymptotic preserving scheme for a kinetic model describing incompressible fluids. Kinetic and Related Models, 2016, 9 (1) : 51-74. doi: 10.3934/krm.2016.9.51 [17] Giada Basile, Tomasz Komorowski, Stefano Olla. Diffusion limit for a kinetic equation with a thermostatted interface. Kinetic and Related Models, 2019, 12 (5) : 1185-1196. doi: 10.3934/krm.2019045 [18] Ho-Youn Kim, Yong-Jung Kim, Hyun-Jin Lim. Heterogeneous discrete kinetic model and its diffusion limit. Kinetic and Related Models, 2021, 14 (5) : 749-765. doi: 10.3934/krm.2021023 [19] Andrew J. Majda, Michal Branicki. Lessons in uncertainty quantification for turbulent dynamical systems. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 2012, 32 (9) : 3133-3221. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2012.32.3133 [20] H. T. Banks, Robert Baraldi, Karissa Cross, Kevin Flores, Christina McChesney, Laura Poag, Emma Thorpe. Uncertainty quantification in modeling HIV viral mechanics. Mathematical Biosciences & Engineering, 2015, 12 (5) : 937-964. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015.12.937

2021 Impact Factor: 1.41

Tools

Article outline

Figures and Tables