Adversarial Data Modeling in Epidemiology
Organizations: Virginia Tech Alexandria, VA, USA · Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA, USA · New York University New York, NY, USA
Abstract
Epidemiological models increasingly rely on crowdsourced, self-reported behavioral data such as vaccination status, mask usage, and social distancing adherence. This data, however, is not passively sampled but instead strategically reported, making it a canonical case of adversarial input to a data mining pipeline. Individuals misreport for various reasons, e.g., to avoid penalties, to access benefits, or to express distrust in public health authorities. We introduce a data-modeling framework that casts the interaction between the population and a public health authority as a signaling game. This approach provides both a generative model of strategically-corrupted behavioral data and a mechanism for the receiver to recover reliable signal from it. Individuals (senders) choose how to report their behaviors, while the public health authority (receiver) updates their epidemiological model(s) based on potentially distorted signals, and modifies its trust in incoming reports accordingly. Focusing on deception around masking and vaccination, we characterize analytically game equilibrium outcomes as distinct regimes of data corruption, and evaluate the degree to which deception can be tolerated while maintaining epidemic control through policy interventions. In large scale simulations, our results show that even under pervasive dishonesty in pooling equilibria, well-designed sender and receiver strategies can still maintain effective epidemic control. Real-world validation further shows that behavioral distortions often exhibit structured patterns rather than arbitrary noise. This work advances the understanding of adversarial data in epidemiology and offers tools for designing more robust public health models in the presence of strategic user behavior.
Figures & tables
| Disease Control Score ( ) | Peak Hospitalization (ratio) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | Sep. | Partial | Pooling | Sep. | Partial | Pooling |
| IHR | 0.065 | 0.046 | 0.028 | 1.993 | 1.985 | 1.975 |
| Incentives | -0.085 | -0.065 | -0.042 | 1.021 | 1.029 | 1.035 |
| NRS | -0.263 | -0.188 | -0.117 | 1.120 | 1.144 | 1.163 |
| Vaccine efficacy | 0.325 | 0.320 | 0.243 | 0.989 | 0.981 | 0.972 |
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Type | True status | Vaccine report | Mask report |
|---|---|---|---|
| 00 | 0 (Honest) | 0 (Honest) | |
| 01 | 0 (Honest) | 0 (Deceptive) | |
| 01 | 0 (Honest) | 1 (Honest) | |
| 10 | 0 (Deceptive) | 0 (Honest) | |
| 10 | 1 (Honest) | 0 (Honest) | |
| 11 | 0 (Deceptive) | 0 (Deceptive) |
| Parameter | Description | Value | References |
| Epidemiological model parameters | |||
| Natural death rate | ( Longini et al., 2004 ) | ||
| Baseline transmission rate | ( Jing et al., 2021 ) | ||
| Vaccine efficacy | ( Dawood et al., 2020 ) | ||
| Infectious period (days) | ( Walsh et al., 2020 ) | ||
| Infectiousness of asymptomatic | ( Longini et al., 2004 ) | ||
Corruption Robustness
Corruption robustness studies how to keep learning systems reliable when data, inputs, labels, or feedback are noisy, missing, or adversarially altered.
See all 50 papers