interactions among individuals in a population can be described by networks of who - contacts - whom . studies of contact networks in sexually transmitted diseases have long revealed a high variability in the number of contacts per individual and highlighted the importance of those individuals described as `` super - spreaders '' for the onset of an epidemic @xcite .
similar conclusions about the importance of super - spread events were drawn from contact tracing data collected from recent epidemic outbreaks of airbone - transmitted diseases like those of the severe acute respiratory syndrome ( sars ) in 2002 and 2003 @xcite .
on the other hand , the risk perception among people during an epidemic outbreak triggers behavioural responses to lower the risk of contagion @xcite , the avoidance of contacts with infected individuals being an example of such responses @xcite .
this sort of social distancing led to the idea of disease - avoiding link rewiring and is one of the basis of the so - called adaptive or dynamic networks .
such a preventive rewiring assumes transmission of information which allows people to gather knowledge about the disease status of their neighbours .
therefore , in such networks the contact pattern is no longer static but evolves with the spread of an infectious disease according to the rules defining the rewiring process @xcite .
pairwise models have been the main approach adopted for the analysis of epidemic dynamics on adaptive networks @xcite .
this class of models was initially developed to deal with processes defined on regular ( random ) networks and offers a good description of their dynamics . in their classic formulation and over heterogeneous networks
, however , their accuracy is far from being satisfactory , especially for its prediction of the epidemic threshold .
the so - called effective degree models are extensions of them with a higher accuracy in their predictions ( but also with a higher complexity ) . in these models , in addition to the disease status of nodes , the number of neighbours for each status is also considered @xcite . at the individual level ,
pair - based epidemic models have been developed in terms of master equations for the probabilities of the individual pairs @xcite .
as with effective degree models , they show a higher accuracy than pairwise models formulated at the population level , but at the price of a higher computational complexity @xcite .    to analyze epidemic outbreaks on dynamic networks , stochastic models have also been used .
if the contact network has a large size and no cycles , it can be locally described as a tree and the initial phase of an epidemic can be approximated by a branching process @xcite .
an example of a stochastic model defined on a dynamic network is the one developed in @xcite .
the model assumes that , at a given rate , the identities of neighbours change stochastically by means of an instantaneous edge swap between a randomly selected pair of links .
so , this neighbour - exchange mechanism is independent of the epidemic dynamics because it does not depend on the disease status of the involved nodes . in other words ,
it is not an example of behavioural response against the presence of the disease .
other models defined on dynamic networks whose architecture evolves by random edge swapping can be found in @xcite .
this paper aims mainly at comparing the predictions from both modelling methodologies ( pairwise / stochastic ) for the initial phase of susceptible - infectious - recovered ( sir ) and susceptible - exposed - infectious - recovered ( seir ) epidemics with preventive rewiring among individuals ( so , with an interplay between the spread of the disease and the rewiring process , that is , between disease s dynamics and network dynamics ) .
in particular , in the sir model we will assume that susceptible individuals break off connections with infectious neighbors at a given rate @xmath0 and , in place of them , new connections to susceptible and recovered individuals are created with probability @xmath1 . as for the seir model , we consider two alternative scenarios for the dynamics of exposeds ( i.e. , infected but not infectious individuals ) . in the first one , exposed individuals break off with their infectious neighbors at a rate @xmath6 and , with probability @xmath1 , they reconnect to any non - infectious individual in the population .
in turn , susceptibles can also reconnect , with the same probability @xmath1 , to exposeds ( in addition to other susceptibles and removed individuals ) when breaking off with infectious neighbors . in the second scenario ,
exposed individuals do not rewire at all ( @xmath7 ) , and susceptibles rewire away from both exposeds and infectives , and create new connections with probability @xmath1 . from a modeling viewpoint ,
the rewiring scenario can depend on whether exposed individuals realize they have been infected ( for instance , because they show symptoms ) or not ( they are asymptomatic ) . in both scenarios ,
the degree distribution changes over time and its mean degree is preserved only when @xmath8 .
the introduction of a reconnection probability @xmath1 allows us to consider different degrees of rewiring , ranging from a situation where each deleted link is replaced by a newly created one ( @xmath8 ) to the limit case where no new connection is made and edges are simply deleted ( @xmath2 ) . in other words , @xmath1 can be though of a measure of the intensity of social distancing of rewiring individuals .
as it is claimed in @xcite , people value person - to - person contacts and are willing to accept some disease risk to gain contact - related benefits .
so , different values of @xmath1 could be considered according to the type of social relationship modeled by the network .    the basic reproduction number @xmath3 , namely , the average number of infections produced by a _
typical _ infectious individual when the _ fraction _ infected is still negligible , is one of the compared quantities .
its predicted value will be checked against stochastic simulations carried out on contact networks with degree distributions that follow a poisson distribution and a power law , respectively .
it is worth noting that , while the meaning of @xmath3 in randomly mixing homogeneous populations is straightforward because any infectious individual is as likely as any other to infect a susceptible one , in heterogeneous networks it requires that one specifies the meaning of typical individual @xcite . in most network models ( in particular , for those without multiple levels of mixing ) , this definition implies that one has to compute @xmath3 from the average number of infections per infective once the early correlations of disease status around infectious individuals have been formed , which takes a couple of generations after the occurrence of the primary cases .
interestingly , this computation / redefinition of @xmath3 has been obtained under both previous modelling approaches @xcite .
in fact , it is well known that both pairwise models and branching process approximations lead to the same epidemic ( or invasion ) threshold in networks without rewiring @xcite .    in section  [ sec - model ] we present the sir and seir epidemic models with rewiring , here denoted by sir-@xmath0 and seir-@xmath0 respectively . in section  [ sir - branching ]
we use the branching process approximation to analyse the early phase of an sir-@xmath0 epidemic .
in particular , we compute @xmath3 and the expected degree of infectives during this initial phase as a function of the rewiring rate @xmath0 . in section  [ seir - branching ] the same approximation is applied to the study of the early stage of an seir-@xmath0 epidemic under different types of rewiring processes .
section  [ pairwise ] contains the results of the initial phase obtained for both epidemic models using the pair approximation with the triple closure introduced in @xcite for heterogeneous networks .
in particular , the seir-@xmath0 pairwise model extends the one considered in @xcite to account for the rewiring of exposed individuals and the possibility that susceptibles reconnect to exposed ones after breaking off an infectious link . in section  [ simus ] numerical estimates of @xmath3 and the mean degree of infectives during the initial phase
are obtained from continuous - time stochastic simulations on heterogeneous networks . finally , in section
[ discuss ] we discuss the analytical results obtained from both approximations and compare them to the output of the stochastic simulations .
moreover , we comment about the new insight into the role of the rewiring process in the seir-@xmath0 epidemic model .
let us define our stochastic network epidemic model .
the population consists of a fixed number @xmath9 of individuals and the stochastic network model is given by the configuration model with degree distribution @xmath10 having finite mean @xmath11 and finite variance @xmath12 ( e.g.  @xcite ) .
this model is defined by all individuals having i.i.d .
degrees @xmath13 and edge - stubs being pairwise connected completely at random with any loop or multiple edge being removed making the graph simple .
we are primarily interested in the situation where @xmath9 is large , and the approximations will rely on this .    on this network
we now define an epidemic model where susceptible individuals may rewire if they are neighbors of infectious individuals .
we start by defining an sir epidemic where infected people immediately become infectious and later recover , and then extend the model to an seir model in which infected people are at first exposed ( latent ) , then they become infectious , and eventually they recover . the latter model is a bit more complicated in that now the rate of rewiring could differ depending on whether the person rewiring is susceptible or exposed , and depending on whether the person he / she rewires away from is exposed or infectious .
note that such a rewiring process causes the degree distribution to change over time .
however , since we will focus our analysis on the early stage of an epidemic outbreak where only a tiny fraction of individuals is initially infected , we will assume that the degree distribution @xmath14 does not change significantly during the initial phase of the epidemic .      in this
model individuals are at first susceptible .
if an individual gets infected he / she immediately becomes infectious , and after some random time he / she recovers and becomes immune for the rest of the outbreak .
sir hence stands for susceptible - infectious - recovered ( e.g.  @xcite for more on sir and seir epidemic models ) .
the sir-@xmath0 model is defined on the network ( described above ) as follows .
initially one randomly selected individual is infectious and the rest are susceptible .
an infectious individual transmits the disease to each of its susceptible neighbors at a rate @xmath15 , and the infectious periods are i.i.d .  following an exponential distribution with rate parameter @xmath16 ( so infectious individuals recover at a rate @xmath16 )
further , susceptible individuals that are neighbors with infectious ones break off with such neighbors independently at rate @xmath0 and , with probability @xmath1 , replace each lost connection by reconnecting to a randomly selected non - infectious ( i.e. , susceptible or recovered ) individual in the community .
therefore @xmath17 is the effective rewiring rate , i.e. , the rate at which new links are created by susceptibles in substitution for those previously deleted .
the sir-@xmath0 network epidemic has the following parameters : @xmath15 ( infection rate ) , @xmath16 ( recovery rate ) , @xmath0 ( rewiring rate ) , @xmath1 ( reconnection probability ) , and the degree distribution @xmath14 with mean @xmath11 and variance @xmath12 .
we will focus on what happens early on in the epidemic , before a substantial fraction of the community has been infected .      in the seir-@xmath0 model
an infectious individual transmits the disease to each of its susceptible neighbors at a rate @xmath15 , but , when this happens , the neighbor first becomes exposed ( or latent ) and can transmit the disease only after a time delay . in other words , such an exposed individual becomes infectious at a rate @xmath18 , and at this moment can start infecting each of its susceptible neighbors at a rate @xmath15 . as before ,
infectious individuals recover at a rate @xmath16 .
as regards to rewiring , it can be modelled differently depending on when an individual starts and stops having a rewiring rate and also depending on which individuals it rewires away from .
our model considers three different rewiring rates : a susceptible individual rewires away from each exposed neighbor at a rate @xmath19 , a susceptible individual rewires away from each infectious neighbor at a rate @xmath20 , and an exposed individual rewires away from each infectious neighbor at a rate @xmath6 .
it is of course possible to also allow for rewiring from other states , e.g.  that susceptible individuals rewire from recovered individuals , but since we are primarily focusing on the initial phase such rewiring would have negligible effects .
if infected people are detected only when they become infectious ( e.g.  if the latent period is the same as the incubation period ) , and hence individuals rewire away from infected neighbors only when those become infectious and not while they are exposed , this would correspond to @xmath21 and @xmath22 : susceptible individuals are not aware of exposed ( latent ) neighbors being infected and hence do not rewire , and susceptible but also exposed ( latent but unaware ) individuals rewire away from the infectious ones .
we could obtain a second scenario if also exposed ( latent ) individuals are known to have been infected ( e.g.  by contact tracing or because they show some symptoms ) .
we would then have @xmath23 and @xmath7 : susceptible individuals rewire away both from exposed and infectious neighbors but exposed individuals do not rewire away since they know they have already been infected . in all cases , the reconnection probability @xmath1 modulates the fraction of rewirings that are effectively done , and it is assumed to be the same both for susceptibles and for exposeds . therefore , @xmath24 is the effective rewiring rate of individuals in state @xmath25 away from individuals in state @xmath25 .
the seir-@xmath0 network epidemic has all the parameters of the sir-@xmath0 epidemic except that the rewiring rate @xmath0 now becomes three different rates : @xmath19 , @xmath20 and @xmath6 , and there is a rate @xmath18 at which latent individuals become infectious .
most stochastic epidemic models allow for a branching process approximation of the early stages of an outbreak , an approximation which can be made rigorous as the population size @xmath9 tends to infinity ( e.g.  @xcite ) .
this applies also to network epidemics  we now describe the approximation of the current model .
we derive expressions for the basic reproduction number @xmath3 , here denoted by @xmath26 to distinguish its expression from the one obtained using pair approximation .
we also derive the exponential growth rate @xmath27 ( the malthusian parameter ) for the situation that @xmath28 , and the average degree of infected individuals .
since rewiring is a focus of this paper , we look at both the degree of newly infected individuals as well as on the average of all infectious individuals , the latter expected to be smaller than the former since individuals rewire away from infectious neighbors .
recall that @xmath3 is defined as the mean number of new infections caused by a typical infected individual during the early stage of the epidemic .
individuals that get infected during the early stage will , at the time of infection , have the size biased degree distribution of neighbors , @xmath29 , where @xmath30 ( e.g.  @xcite ) .
one of the neighbors is its infector whereas the remaining neighbors , with large probability during the early stage of an outbreak , will be susceptible . when considering the disease progress it is only the @xmath31 susceptibles that are of interest since it is not possible to reinfect the infector .    from the derivation above
, the mean number of susceptible neighbours a typical new infectee has during the early stages equals @xmath32 ( e.g.  @xcite ) . the probability to infect a given such neighbor
is obtained by considering the competing events that may happen : there could be an infection ( rate @xmath15 ) , the neighbor could rewire away from the infectee ( rate @xmath0 ) , or the infectee can recover ( rate @xmath16 ) .
the probability of infection hence equals @xmath33 .
the basic reproduction number equals the mean degree multiplied by the transmission probability , i.e. @xmath34 if there is no rewiring ( @xmath35 ) , the basic reproduction number equals @xmath36 as is well known .
therefore , the rewiring reduces @xmath3 , as expected .
we note that @xmath37 is independent of @xmath1 , so it has no effect on the beginning of an outbreak if rewired edges are dropped , always attached to new susceptible individuals or a mixture of two .      during the early stage and assuming a large population , the number of infectives in the epidemic will asymptotically ( as @xmath38 ) evolve like a branching process .
@xmath3 is the corresponding mean offspring distribution .
another important quantity associated to this branching process is @xmath39 , the expected birth rate ( rate of new infections ) of an infectee having  age
@xmath40 , where age corresponds to time since infection
. we now derive @xmath39 which in turn will help us derive the exponential growth rate of the epidemic .    as derived earlier , the average number of susceptible neighbors upon infection is @xmath41 , and the infectee will infect each neighbor independently .
the average rate of infection ( =  birth  ) for each neighbor is obtained by considering what must be fulfilled for infection to happen . in order to infect a neighbor @xmath40 time units after infection
, the infectee must still be infectious , the neighbor should not have rewired , and the infectee should not yet have infected the neighbor . given this ,
the infection rate equals @xmath15 . since all events are assumed to follow an exponential distribution this gives us the following expression for @xmath42 : @xmath43 the average total number of births ( infections ) is hence @xmath44 as it should be .
the mean birth rate @xmath42 also determines the exponential growth rate of the epidemic , i.e.  for which @xmath27 , @xmath45 ( cf .
this @xmath27 , the malthusian parameter , is given by the solution of the euler - lotka equation @xmath46 for our model this gives us , after a bit of algebra , @xmath47 also the exponential growth rate is independent of @xmath1 .
we now turn to the mean degree of infectives during the early stages of the epidemic .
we consider two different means .
the first one is for newly infected , which in fact has already been shown : during the early stages newly infected individuals will have degree distribution @xmath48 ( when considering the degree distribution we also count the non - susceptible infector ) , so the mean degree of newly infected individuals equals @xmath49 .
the second mean , @xmath4 , denotes the average number of neighbors of _ all _ infectives during the early stages , not only that of the newly infected ones .
as described above , during the early stage of an outbreak the degree distribution of newly infected equals @xmath48 .
however , while still infectious , an individual loses susceptible neighbors by rewiring : each susceptible neighbor is lost at a rate @xmath0 .
the probability that a susceptible neighbor @xmath50 is still a neighbor ( i.e.  has not rewired ) @xmath40 time units after our individual @xmath51 was infected and given that @xmath51 is still infectious , is obtained by conditioning on the potential infection time of the neighbor ( @xmath50 only rewires if not yet infected ) .
so , we have @xmath52 note that we condition on that @xmath51 remains infectious at @xmath40 .    when deriving the degree distribution of all infectives during the early stage , we have to take into account both this decrease of degree with age , but also the fact that , in the exponential phase of the epidemic ( recall that @xmath45 ) ,  young  infectives will be over - represented .
the ratio of individuals infected @xmath53 time units ago over the number of individuals infected at present equals @xmath54 due to the exponential growth rate . and only a fraction @xmath55 of them are still infectious at present .
consequently , the fraction of infectives that were infected @xmath53 time units ago or longer equals @xmath56 , so the age distribution of infectives is exponential with parameter @xmath57 ( this is the so - called _ stable age distribution _ of this branching process , @xcite ) .
the mean degree of all infectives during the early stage is obtained by conditioning on their age : @xmath58 where , as before , @xmath59 , and @xmath60 was defined in equation ( [ r - sir ] ) .
this mean degree should be valid after a couple of generations and will then change as the depletion of susceptibles will start affecting things .    as seen in ( [ e(d_i ) branching ] ) also the mean degree of infectives is independent of @xmath1 . at first
this might seem surprising since the degree of infectious individuals are affected by rewiring .
however , an infectious individual can loose edges ( which reduces the degree ) due to susceptible neighbours rewiring away from the infective , but it does not affect the degree of the infective whether these links are simply dropped or the rewiring susceptible connects to new individuals .
we now study the extended seir model recalling that individuals who get infected are now first latent for an exponentially distributed time with rate parameter @xmath18 , after which they become and remain infectious according to earlier rules .
individuals rewire away from infected neighbors .
more precisely , a susceptible individual rewires from each exposed ( latent ) neighbor at a rate @xmath19 and from each infectious neighbor at a rate @xmath20 .
moreover , exposed individuals rewire away from infectious neighbors at a rate @xmath6 . of course , some of these rewiring intensities may be zero ( cf . sec 2.2 ) .
as before , upon each rewiring event the individual reconnects to a randomly chosen susceptible or recovered individual with probability @xmath1 and with the remaining probability the edge is simply dropped .      during the early stage of an outbreak , at the time of infection
an exposed individual @xmath61 has degree distribution @xmath48 as before , one neighbor @xmath25 being the infector and the remaining neighbors being susceptible .
so , @xmath61 has @xmath62 expected susceptible neighbors . however , in the seir model this number can eventually increase by one , provided that @xmath61 can rewire away from its infector @xmath25 ( if not yet recovered ) and reconnect to a susceptible individual that will become a new neighbor . the probability for this to happen
is @xmath63 . in consequence ,
the expected number of susceptible neighbors for @xmath61 is @xmath64 .
any such neighbor , say @xmath53 , will get infected if @xmath61 first becomes infectious ( before @xmath53 rewires away from @xmath61 ) and , then , an infection occurs ( before @xmath61 recovers or @xmath53 rewires from @xmath61 ) .
hence , the probability for this to happen is the product of the probabilities of these two events , namely , @xmath65 . to conclude , the expected number of neighbors infected by @xmath61 equals : @xmath66    by studying eq .
( [ r0-seir ] ) we make the following observations . if there is no rewiring from any state , @xmath26 reduces to @xmath67 , i.e.  the same as for the sir case .
further , @xmath26 is decreasing in both @xmath19 and @xmath20 as expected .
however , @xmath26 _ increases _ with @xmath1 and @xmath6 . if @xmath21 and @xmath68 , the perhaps most realistic example discussed in sec .
2.2 , then @xmath26 can be increasing in @xmath0 for some parameter set - ups , implying that the quicker individuals rewire the larger epidemic outbreak ! the explanation to this is that , when @xmath69 , the exposed ( latent ) individuals can rewire away from their infector to a susceptible neighbor , with the effect that they may later ( once they become infectious ) infect the new susceptible neighbor .      as with the sir-@xmath0 model , in order to compute the malthusian parameter @xmath27 we first derive an expression for @xmath42 , the average rate at which an individual , who was infected during the initial phase of the epidemic , infects new individuals @xmath40 time units after his / her time of infection .    at the time when an individual gets infected he has on average @xmath70 neighbors , one being infectious ( its infector ) and the remaining @xmath71 will , with large probability since we are in the beginning of the epidemic , be susceptible . at a rate @xmath15 ,
the infected individual infects each of the @xmath71 initially susceptible neighbors @xmath40 time units after infection if the following conditions are fulfilled : the infected individual must have terminated the latent period without the neighbor having rewired , and after that the infectious period should still be active , an infection should not yet have taken place , and the neighbor should not have rewired . as mentioned in the previous subsection ,
it is also possible that the infected individual infects through the link to the infector .
this happens with a rate @xmath15 at @xmath40 time units after infection if the following holds : the infected individual rewired from its infector ( and connects to a susceptible neighbor ) while still latent , and after this the infected individual has become infectious , has not yet infected the neighbor nor has the new neighbor rewired .
the above reasoning leads to the following expression for @xmath42 : @xmath72 by conditioning on the end of the latency period , the first probability equals @xmath73 the second probability , now conditioning both on the time of first rewiring and the end of the latent period , equals @xmath74 using these expressions in equation ( [ lambda_seir ] ) and solving the integrals results in the following expression for @xmath39 : @xmath75 we now use @xmath42 to derive the exponential growth rate @xmath27 of the epidemic in case it takes off , and also to confirm our expression for @xmath3 .
the latter is easy .
if we compute @xmath76 using the expression above we get exactly @xmath3 as defined in eq .
( [ r0-seir ] ) , as it should be . as for the malthusian parameter @xmath27
this is given as the solution to the equation @xmath77 .
for the expression of @xmath39 above , this can be shown to be equivalent to @xmath78 for @xmath69 , this is a third order equation , but for positive values of @xmath27 ( the relevant values as we assume @xmath28 ) the left hand side is decreasing in @xmath27 , starting from a value larger than 1 when @xmath79 and decreasing to 0 as @xmath80 implying that there is a unique solution to the equation .
equation  ( [ r - seir ] ) is not explicit but it is still possible to see how various parameters affect the growth rate .
for example , @xmath27 is increasing in the infection rate @xmath15 and the mean degree @xmath70 .
as regards to the rewiring rates , @xmath27 decreases in @xmath20 and @xmath19 but increases with the `` harmful '' rewiring rate @xmath81 . finally , as we increase the rate to leave the latent state ( i.e.  making the latent state shorter ) , the effect depends on other parameter values , but if we increase @xmath18 towards infinity it can be shown that we obtain the expression for @xmath27 of the sir-@xmath0 model ( cf .
( [ r - sir ] ) ) as expected .      for the seir-@xmath0 model it is also possible to derive specific features of infected individuals during the initial phase of an epidemic . for example , as we did for the sir-@xmath0 case , we can compute @xmath4 , the average degree of infectives during the early stage of the outbreak .
however , other mean quantities might be equally relevant as , for instance , the mean degree @xmath82 of infected but still latent individuals , or the mean degree @xmath83 of either latent or infectives , or for that matter the expected number of susceptible neighbors while in one of these states . for brevity and
because some of these quantities have even more complicated expressions , we compute @xmath4 without solving the integrals appearing in the derivation , and indicate how to modify the derivations if we want to compute another mean .    to compute @xmath4 , let us pick at random an infectious individual @xmath25 during the early stage of an outbreak and let @xmath84 denote how long ago this individual was infected .
we first compute the expected degree of @xmath25 conditional upon @xmath85 , denoted by @xmath86 .
this is done by conditioning on the duration of the latent period @xmath87 , which must lie between 0 and @xmath40 since @xmath25 is infectious @xmath40 time units after infection : @xmath88 the second factor is given by @xmath89 . as for the first factor ,
the individual has @xmath70 expected neighbours at the time of infection , one being infectious and the rest being susceptible . for the susceptible neighbors we compute the probability that they are still neighbors . for the infector
, it could have lost a neighbor from this edge only if @xmath25 rewired away from the infector to a susceptible neighbor _ and _ the new neighbor later rewired away from @xmath25 .
we hence get @xmath90 the first probability in ( [ cond - mean ] ) is obtained by conditioning on whether the susceptible neighbor was infected or not , and , in the former case , whether the latent period ended before @xmath40 or not : @xmath91 here there should be no @xmath1 in front of @xmath6 because the event concerns an exposed neighbor and it is irrelevant for the degree of the infective whether this neighbor reconnects or not upon rewiring .
the second probability in ( [ cond - mean ] ) consists of two events .
either @xmath25 rewired away from its infector and dropped the edge while exposed , or else @xmath25 rewired away from infector and reconnected while exposed , and the new neighbor rewired away from @xmath25 .
the first event has probability @xmath92 the second event is obtained by conditioning on the time when @xmath25 rewires away from the infector and reconnects to a susceptible neighbor , whether the second rewiring happens during the latency or infectious period of @xmath25 , and in the latter case whether infection takes place or not : @xmath93 note that @xmath1 appears in front of @xmath6 only when it concerns the infective , because then it has to reconnect to make spreading to a new individual possible , whereas there is no @xmath1 when the rewiring refers to exposed neighbors rewiring away from the infective . in the latter case
it is irrelevant for the degree of the infective whether or not the exposed individual reconnects upon rewiring .
it remains to derive the distribution for @xmath84 , the time since infection .
for this we know that due to the exponential growth rate @xmath27 of infectives , there is a fraction @xmath94 to choose from @xmath40 units earlier as compared to present time .
however , we also require that the individual is infectious at present , an event which happens with probability @xmath95 .
the probability density of @xmath84 is hence proportional to @xmath96 , which after a bit of algebra gives the following density @xmath97 finally , the expected degree of a randomly chosen infective during the early stages is obtained by integrating with respect to this density : @xmath98 in order to compare this predicted @xmath4 with the one obtained from pair approximation ( see next section ) , for each set of values of the parameters we obtain the value of @xmath27 given by the positive solution of and evaluate the resulting expression of the previous integral .    if we were to compute e.g.  the average degree of a latent individual @xmath82 , we would similarly condition on the time @xmath84 since infection of the randomly chosen latent individual .
this individual would have @xmath70 neighbours at the time of infection , one infectious and the rest susceptible , and we need to compute the probability that these neighbours would not have been lost similarly to what we did before .
we would then integrate this expected value with respect to the probability density of @xmath84 , which is proportional to @xmath99 .
we now derive expressions for @xmath3 and @xmath4 using an alternative deterministic approximation based on the closed - form equations for the dynamics of pairs of disease status , the so - called pairwise models .
while the sir-@xmath0 pairwise model was already introduced in @xcite , the seir-@xmath0 pairwise model is a generalization of the one also introduced in @xcite that includes rewiring of exposeds and reconnection rules introduced in accordance with it .
this extended model will allow for a better understanding of the impact of rewiring on @xmath3 derived under this approach , here denoted by @xmath100 .
let @xmath101 $ ] , @xmath102 $ ] and @xmath103 $ ] be the expected number of susceptible , infectious , and recovered individuals , respectively .
moreover , let @xmath104 $ ] be the expected number of non - ordered connected _ @xmath25-@xmath105 pairs _ , i.e. pairs whose individuals are in states @xmath25 and @xmath105 , and let @xmath106 $ ] the expected number of connected non - oriented @xmath25-@xmath105-@xmath107 triples ( @xmath108 ) .
so , if @xmath9 is the network size and @xmath109 is the total number of links in the network , then @xmath101+[i]+[r]=n$ ] and @xmath110+[si]+[sr]+[ii]+[ir]+[rr]=l$ ] .
the sir-@xmath0 model formulated in terms of triplets can be closed by assuming the statistical independence at the level of pairs which leads to the following approximations for the expected number of the involved triples : @xmath111 \approx ( e(\tilde{d } ) -1 ) 2[ss][si]/(\mu [ s ] ) $ ] , @xmath112 \approx 1/2 \cdot ( e(\tilde{d})-1 ) [ si]^2/(\mu [ s])$ ] , and @xmath113 \approx ( e(\tilde{d})-1 ) [ si][sr]/(\mu [ s])$ ] with @xmath114 being the average degree ( see @xcite for details ) .
note that , since we focus our analysis on the early epidemic stage with a very small number of initially infectious nodes , we approximate the expected degree of the susceptible central node of a triple by @xmath115 , the mean degree of a node reached by following a randomly chosen link in a wholly susceptible population at @xmath116 , i.e. , when the degree distribution is the initial one .
upon introducing the triple closure into the original model , the initial dynamics of the sir-@xmath0 model is determined by @xmath117 & = & - \beta [ si ] , \nonumber \\
\frac{d}{dt}\,[i ] & = & \beta [ si ] - \gamma [ i ] , \nonumber \\
\frac{d}{dt}\,[si ] & = & \left ( \beta z \left ( \frac{2[ss]}{[s ] } - \frac{[si]}{[s ] } \right ) - \beta - \gamma - \omega \right ) [ si ] ,   \nonumber \\ \frac{d}{dt}\,[ii ] & = & \beta \left ( 1 + z \frac{[si]}{[s ] } \right ) [ si ] - 2 \gamma [ ii ] , \label{sir - pa}\\ \frac{d}{dt}\,[ss ] & = & \alpha \
, \omega \frac{[s]}{n-[i ] } [ si ] -   \beta z \frac{2[ss]}{[s ] } [ si ] ,   \nonumber \\
\frac{d}{dt}\,[sr ] & = & \left ( \gamma + \alpha \ , \omega \frac{[r]}{n-[i ] }
\right ) [ si ] - \beta z \frac{[is]}{[s]}[sr ] , \nonumber
\\ \frac{d}{dt}\,[ir ] & = & 2 \gamma [ ii ] - \gamma [ ir ] + \beta z \frac{[is]}{[s]}[sr ] , \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath118 .
note that susceptible individuals break off ( at a rate @xmath0 ) with infectious neighbours and reconnect ( at a rate @xmath119 ) to other susceptibles or to recovered individuals with probability @xmath101/(n-[i])$ ] and @xmath103/(n-[i])$ ] , respectively , in place of the deleted links .
the average number of susceptible individuals around an infective is @xmath120/[i]$ ] .
if this quantity stabilizes to a value @xmath121/[i])^*$ ] during the initial exponential growth of an epidemic , then we can use it to compute @xmath3 as ( @xcite ) @xmath122}{[i ] } \right)^ * . \label{r0_pa}\
] ] moreover , if @xmath123/[i]$ ] and @xmath124/[i]$ ] also stabilize during this initial phase , then the mean degree of the infectives at this stage is given by @xmath125}{[i ] } \right)^ * + \left ( \frac{2[ii]}{[i ] } \right)^ * + \left ( \frac{[ir]}{[i ] } \right)^*. \label{ed_i_pa}\ ] ]    the equations for the dynamics of the local densities @xmath120/[i]$ ] , @xmath126/[i]$ ] , and @xmath124/[i]$ ] are obtained from the sir-@xmath0 model by using the standard rules of differentiation and are given by @xmath127}{[i ] } \right ) & = & - \left(\beta + \omega + \beta z \left ( \frac{[si]}{[s ] } - \frac{2[ss]}{[s ] } \right ) + \beta   \frac{[si]}{[i ] } \right ) \frac{[si]}{[i ] } \ , ,   \nonumber \\
\frac{d}{dt } \left(\frac{2[ii]}{[i ] } \right ) & = & 2\beta \left ( 1 + z \frac{[si]}{[s ] } \right ) \frac{[si]}{[i ] } - \left ( \gamma + \beta \frac{[si]}{[i ] } \right ) \frac{2[ii]}{[i ] } \ , , \label{loc - densities}\\ \frac{d}{dt } \left(\frac{[ir]}{[i ] } \right ) & = & \gamma \frac{2[ii]}{[i ] } + \beta z \frac{[si]}{[s ] } \frac{[sr]}{[i ] } - \beta \frac{[si]}{[i ] } \frac{[ir]}{[i]}. \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] now , taking the limit when @xmath128/[s ] \to \mu=2l / n$ ] , and @xmath120/[s ] \to 0 $ ] , i.e. , after the introduction of the first infectious individuals , we obtain the following limit system : @xmath127}{[i ] } \right ) & = & \left(\beta ( e(\tilde{d } ) - 2 ) -   \beta   \frac{[si]}{[i ] } - \omega \right ) \frac{[si]}{[i ] } \ , , \nonumber \\
\frac{d}{dt } \left(\frac{2[ii]}{[i ] } \right ) & = & 2\beta \ ,
\frac{[si]}{[i ] } - \left(\gamma + \beta \frac{[si]}{[i ] } \right ) \frac{2[ii]}{[i ] } \ , , \label{limit - loc - densities } \\
\frac{d}{dt } \left(\frac{[ir]}{[i ] } \right ) & = & \gamma \frac{2[ii]}{[i ] } - \beta \frac{[si]}{[i ] } \frac{[ir]}{[i ] } \ , .
\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] it is interesting to observe that the reconnection probability @xmath1 does not appear in the system .
this means that disconnections from infectious individuals play a role in the early epidemic dynamics , but the way the new connections are created , or even if they occur at all ( @xmath2 ) , does not play any role at this stage .
the first equation of is decoupled from the other two and has a unique positive equilibrium @xmath121/[i])^ * = e(\tilde{d } ) - 2 - \omega/\beta$ ] , which is globally asymptotically stable . from this equilibrium and
, it immediately follows that @xmath129 which defines the same epidemic threshold @xmath130 as @xmath26 ( cf .
eq .  ) , but overestimates @xmath3 when it is larger than one .
a graphical comparison of the expressions of @xmath3 obtained from each modelling approach is shown in fig .
[ r0s ] using @xmath15 as a tuning parameter .
the other components of the positive equilibrium of follow upon substituting @xmath121/[i])^*$ ] for @xmath120/[i]$ ] into the last two equations .
then , from , we have @xmath131 which is the same expression as the one obtained for @xmath132 ( cf .
eq .  ) .      according to the rewiring processes described in section 2.2 , and using the same notation and the triple closure as before , the equations of the seir model at the initial phase of the epidemic and with the three types of rewiring are @xmath133 & = & -\beta [ si ] , \qquad   % \nonumber \\ \frac{d}{dt}[e ] = \beta [ si]-\phi[e ] , \qquad % \nonumber \\ \frac{d}{dt}[i ] = \phi [ e]-\gamma [ i ] , \nonumber \\ \frac{d}{dt}[si ] & = & \left(- \beta z \frac{[si]}{[s]}-\beta -\gamma - \omega_{si}\right)[si ] + \phi [ se ] ,   \nonumber \\
\frac{d}{dt}[se ] & = & \beta z \left ( \frac{2[ss]}{[s]}-\frac{[se]}{[s ] } \right ) [ si ] - \left(\phi+\omega_{se}\right ) [ se ] + \alpha \ , \omega_{ei } \frac{[s]}{n-[i ] } [ ei ] + \alpha \ ,
\omega_{si } \frac { \delta [ e]}{n-[i ] } [ si ] , \nonumber \\ \frac{d}{dt}[ss ] & = & \left(-\beta z   \frac{2[ss]}{[s ] } + \alpha \ , \omega_{si } \frac{[s]}{f([s],[e],[r])}\right)[si ] + \alpha \ , \omega_{se } \frac{[s]}{[s]+[r ] } [ se ] ,      \nonumber   \\ \frac{d}{dt}[sr ] &
= & \left(-\beta z \frac{[sr]}{[s]}+ \gamma + \alpha \ , \omega_{si } \frac{[r]}{f([s],[e],[r])}\right)[si ] + \alpha \
, \omega_{se } \frac{[r]}{[s]+[r ] } [ se ] , \label{seir - pa } \\
\frac{d}{dt}[ei ] & = & \beta \left(z
\frac{[si]}{[s]}+1\right)[si]-\left(\phi + \gamma + \omega_{ei}\right)[ei]+2 \phi [ ee ] , \nonumber \\
\frac{d}{dt}[ee ] & = & \beta z \frac{[se]}{[s]}[si]-2 \phi [ ee ] + \alpha \ , \omega_{ei } \frac{[e]}{n-[i ] } [ ei ] , \nonumber \\
\frac{d}{dt}[er ] & = & \beta z \frac{[sr]}{[s]}[si ] + \left ( \gamma + \alpha \ , \omega_{ei } \frac{[r]}{n-[i ] } \right ) [ ei ] - \phi [ er ] , \nonumber \\
\frac{d}{dt}[ii]&=&\phi [ ei]-2\gamma[ii ] , \nonumber \\ \frac{d}{dt}[ir]&= & \phi [ er ] + \gamma\left(2 [ ii]- [ ir]\right ) , \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath101+[e]+[i]+[r]=n$ ] , @xmath110+[se]+[si]+[sr]+[ee]+[ei]+[er]+[ii]+[ir]+[rr]=l$ ] , @xmath134 , and @xmath135 the mean degree of the initial degree distribution @xmath14 .
moreover , @xmath136,[e],[r])=[s]+[e]+[r]=n-[i]$ ] and @xmath137 if @xmath138 , whereas @xmath136,[e],[r])=[s]+[r]$ ] and @xmath139 otherwise .
in the first case , susceptible individuals do not disconnect from exposed individuals and can reconnect to the latter when they rewire away from an infectious neighbor . in the second case ( @xmath140 ) ,
susceptible individuals recognize exposed ones , rewire away from them , and only reconnect ( with probability @xmath1 ) to other susceptibles or to recovereds ( so , @xmath139 ) .
note that , in both cases , @xmath136,[e],[r ] ) \to n$ ] at the early stage of an epidemic .
if @xmath141 , exposed individuals who break off a link with an infectious neighbor randomly reconnect to any susceptible , recovered , or exposed individual with a probability @xmath142/(n-[i])$ ] , @xmath143/(n-[i])$ ] , and @xmath144/(n-[i])$ ] , respectively . this corresponds to the situation where latent individuals are asymptomatic and , so , they do not know they have already got the infection .
therefore , one can also assume that susceptible individuals do not know the disease status of the exposed neighbours and take @xmath21 .
hence , susceptibles who break off a link with an infected neighbor reconnect to any susceptible , exposed or recovered individual with the same probabilities as the exposed ones , namely , @xmath145/(n-[i])$ ] with @xmath146,[e],[r]\}$ ] . in fig .
[ r0s2 ] , we show the predicted and observed @xmath3 as a function of the infection rate @xmath15 .
the values of the parameters are the same in both panels except for @xmath19 and @xmath6 which are 1 and 0 in the left panel , and 0 and 1 in the right one , respectively .
it is illustrative to check that the limit system for the dynamics of the local densities of disease status around an infectious individual ( see appendix ) only contains one term with the reconnection probability @xmath1 , namely , the one with @xmath147 as a prefactor .
therefore , the other contributions from the remaining rewiring rates in do not appear when we restrict ourselves at the early stage of an epidemic .
in other words , the precise rules for reconnecting susceptibles who have rewired away from an infectious neighbor , even if there is no reconnection at all of those individuals ( @xmath2 ) , does not affect the epidemic dynamics during the initial phase .
this claim , however , is not true for exposed individuals .
the last term of the equation for @xmath148/[i]$ ] tells us that , when @xmath149 , exposeds enhance the spread of the disease by rewiring away from infectious neighbors ( because they will replace the latter with susceptible individuals ) and , hence , @xmath100 must increase under this rewiring .
[ cols="^,^ " , ]     finally , it is important to note that , for dynamic heterogeneous networks whose degree distribution evolves in time , the value of @xmath3 does not determine the final epidemic size .
while the computation of @xmath3 is based on the initial degree distribution , the final epidemic size depends on the whole evolution of the degree distribution .
in particular , since reconnection is assumed to be uniform with respect to the degree of nodes , the variance of the degree distribution decreases over time whenever the initial network is highly heterogeneous ( see @xcite ) .
determining an expression for the final epidemic size , using any approximation method , and studying how it depends on model parameters , remains a highly interesting open problem .
t.b . is grateful to riksbankens jubileumsfond ( grant p12 - 0705:1 ) for financial support .
the research of d.j . and
j.s . have been partially supported by the research grants mtm2011 - 27739-c04 - 03 and mtm2014 - 52402-c3 - 3-p of the spanish government ( mineco ) .
j.s . and d.j .
are members of the research groups 2014sgr-1083 and 2014sgr-555 of the generalitat de catalunya , respectively .
the limit system for the local densities involved in the computation of @xmath4 for the seir pairwise model when @xmath128/[s ] \to 2l / n$ ] ( the mean degree ) , @xmath148/[s ] \to 0 $ ] , @xmath120/[s ] \to 0 $ ] , and @xmath150/[s ] \to 0 $ ] , i.e. , at the beginning of an epidemic , is    @xmath151}{[i ] } \right ) & = - \left ( \beta + \omega_{si } + \phi \frac{[e]}{[i ] } \right ) \frac{[si]}{[i ] } + \phi \frac{[se]}{[i ] } \\ \frac{d}{dt } \left ( \frac{[se]}{[i ] } \right ) & = \beta ( \bar{q } - 1 ) \frac{[si]}{[i ] } - \left ( \phi \left ( 1 +   \frac{[e]}{[i ] } \right ) + \omega_{se } - \gamma   \right ) \frac{[se]}{[i ] } + \alpha \ , \omega_{ei } \frac{[ei]}{[i ] } \\ \frac{d}{dt } \left ( \frac{[e]}{[i ] } \right ) & = \beta \frac{[si]}{[i ] }   - \left ( \phi \left ( 1 + \frac{[e]}{[i ] } \right ) -
\gamma \right ) \frac{[e]}{[i ] } \\ \frac{d}{dt } \left ( \frac{[ei]}{[i ] } \right ) & = \beta \frac{[si]}{[i ] } - \left ( \phi \left ( 1 + \frac{[e]}{[i ] } \right ) + \omega_{ei } \right )   \frac{[ei]}{[i ] } + \phi \frac{2[ee]}{[i ] } \\ \frac{d}{dt } \left ( \frac{2[ii]}{[i ] } \right ) & = 2 \phi \frac{[ei]}{[i ] }   - \left ( \phi \frac{[e]}{[i ] } + \gamma \right )   \frac{2[ii]}{[i ] } \\ \frac{d}{dt } \left ( \frac{[ir]}{[i ] } \right ) & = \phi \frac{[er]}{[i ] } + \gamma \frac{2[ii]}{[i ] } - \phi \frac{[e]}{[i ] } \frac{[ir]}{[i ] } \\ \frac{d}{dt } \left ( \frac{2[ee]}{[i ] } \right ) & = - \left ( \phi \left ( 2 + \frac{[e]}{[i ] } \right ) -
\gamma \right )   \frac{2[ee]}{[i ] } \\ \frac{d}{dt } \left ( \frac{[er]}{[i ] } \right ) & = - \left ( \phi   \left ( 1 + \frac{[e]}{[i ] } \right ) -
\gamma \right ) \frac{[er]}{[i ] } + \gamma \frac{[ei]}{[i]}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath152 .
note that only one positive term contains a rewiring rate , namely , the last one in the second equation which has @xmath147 as a prefactor .
since @xmath148/[i]$ ] increases with @xmath147 and , in turn , the first equation tells us that @xmath120/[i]$ ] increases with @xmath148/[i]$ ] , the presence of such a positive term means that also @xmath3 increases with @xmath147 . on the other hand ,
since the first three equations of the limit system are decoupled from the other five when @xmath2 , the same three equations will also govern the dynamics of @xmath120/[i]$ ] when individuals simply drop connections to infectious neighbours ( @xmath2 ) .
in particular , this reflects the ( expected ) fact that whether exposed individuals break off with infectious neighbors ( @xmath153 ) or not ( @xmath7 ) does not affect the early dynamics of @xmath120/[i]$ ] as long as they do not replace these links with new connections .    for a given value @xmath154 of @xmath155/[i])^*$ ] , the equilibrium equations ( i.e.
, the equations obtained by making the right - hand side ( rhs ) of the previous system equal to 0 ) define a linear system for the remaining variables and , hence , the equilibrium can be easily expressed in terms of @xmath154 .
a simple inspection of the equations shows that there are two equilibria , @xmath156 and @xmath157 , where the local densities around infectious nodes , @xmath121/[i])^*$ ] , @xmath158/[i])^*$ ] , @xmath159/[i])^*$ ] , and @xmath160/[i])^*$ ] , are zero .
moreover , from the third equation we see that there exists an equilibrium with @xmath121/[i])^ * > 0 $ ] if and only if @xmath155/[i])^ * > \gamma/\phi - 1 $ ] , which in turn implies that @xmath161/[i])^*=0 $ ] . consequently , the first four equations at equilibrium do not depend on the last four .    expressing @xmath121/[i])^*$ ] ,
@xmath162/[i])^*$ ] , and @xmath159/[i])^*$ ] in terms of @xmath154 , and replacing them into the second equation , it follows that there will be an equilibrium with positive local densities around infectious nodes if there exists a solution @xmath163 of the equation @xmath164 such that @xmath165 if @xmath166 .
note that , for @xmath167 , eq .   becomes a quadratic equation in @xmath154 with a positive solution @xmath168 given by ( see @xcite ) @xmath169 with the proviso that @xmath170 .
moreover , in this case ( @xmath7 ) , when @xmath166 it follows that @xmath165 if @xmath171 .
if @xmath172 and @xmath153 , a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a unique solution @xmath168 of such that @xmath165 is that the straight line defined by the left - hand side ( lhs ) of intersects the vertical line @xmath173 above the intersection with this vertical line of the cubic polynomial defined by the rhs of .
this polynomial has two negative roots , @xmath174 and @xmath175 , and the third root @xmath176 can be positive or negative depending on the sign of @xmath177 .
the resulting condition on the parameters is @xmath178 note that this condition is fulfilled when @xmath21 which was , indeed , what we assumed in the model if @xmath153 .
if @xmath179 , then @xmath180 and a sufficient condition for the existence of a @xmath163 is that the intersection of the lhs of with the @xmath181-axis is above the intersection with this axis of the rhs of .
this condition leads to @xmath182 since we are assuming @xmath153 , then @xmath21 , and from this inequality it follows a simpler sufficient condition for the existence of @xmath183 , namely , @xmath184 .      from
, it follows that the only positive value of @xmath168 for which @xmath186 is @xmath187 . after replacing @xmath168 by this value
, expression can be rewritten as @xmath188 comparing this expression and that of @xmath3 given by , it follows that @xmath189 if @xmath190 , and that @xmath191 ( and @xmath192 ) if @xmath193 .
so , for @xmath194 , both approximations lead to the same epidemic threshold when @xmath7 .
10            diekmann , o. , heesterbeek , j. a. p. , metz , j.a.j . ,
1990 . on the definition and the computation of the basic reproduction ratio @xmath3 in models for infectious diseases in heterogeneous populations .
28 , 365382 .
lau , j.t.f . , griffiths , s. , choi , k.c .
, tsui , h.y . ,  2010 .
avoidance behaviors and negative psychological responses in the general population in the initial stage of the h1n1 pandemic in hong kong .
_ bmc infectious diseases _ 10 , 139 .
doi:10.1186/1471 - 2334 - 10 - 139                              springborn , m. , chowell , g. , maclachlan , m. , fenichel , e.p . ,  2015 .
accounting for behavioral responses during a flu epidemic using home television viewing .
bmc infectious diseases 15:21 .
doi 10.1186/s12879 - 014 - 0691 - 0