The Accuracy of Mean-Field Approximation for Susceptible-Infected-Susceptible Epidemic Spreading

TL;DR

This study evaluates the accuracy of the N-intertwined Mean Field Approximation (NIMFA) in predicting epidemic spread in heterogeneous networks, revealing conditions under which it performs well or poorly.

Contribution

It provides a detailed analysis of NIMFA's accuracy under various heterogeneity conditions, including infection rate variance and degree correlation.

Findings

NIMFA is more accurate at higher epidemic prevalence.

Accuracy decreases with higher variance in infection rates.

Positive correlation between infection rate and node degree improves NIMFA performance.

Abstract

The epidemic spreading has been studied for years by applying the mean-field approach in both homogeneous case, where each node may get infected by an infected neighbor with the same rate, and heterogeneous case, where the infection rates between different pairs of nodes are different. Researchers have discussed whether the mean-field approaches could accurately describe the epidemic spreading for the homogeneous cases but not for the heterogeneous cases. In this paper, we explore under what conditions the mean-field approach could perform well when the infection rates are heterogeneous. In particular, we employ the Susceptible-Infected-Susceptible (SIS) model and compare the average fraction of infected nodes in the metastable state obtained by the continuous-time simulation and the mean-field approximation. We concentrate on an individual-based mean-field approximation called the N-intertwined Mean Field Approximation (NIMFA), which is an advanced approach considered the underlying network topology. Moreover, we consider not only the independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) infection rate but also the infection rate correlated with the degree of the two end nodes. We conclude that NIMFA is generally more accurate when the prevalence of the epidemic is higher. Given the same effective infection rate, NIMFA is less accurate when the variance of the i.i.d.\ infection rate or the correlation between the infection rate and the nodal degree leads to a lower prevalence. Moreover, given the same actual prevalence, NIMFA performs better in the cases: 1) when the variance of the i.i.d.\ infection rates is smaller (while the average is unchanged); 2) when the correlation between the infection rate and the nodal degree is positive.