Conditional Inverse Learning of Time-Varying Reproduction Numbers Inference
Authors: Lanlan Yu, Quan-Hui Liu, Haoyue Zheng, Xinfu Yang
Organizations: College of Computer Science, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China · Engineering Research Center of Machine Learning and Industry Intelligence, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
Estimating time-varying reproduction numbers from epidemic incidence data is a central task in infectious disease surveillance, yet it poses an inherently ill-posed inverse problem. Existing approaches often rely on strong structural assumptions derived from epidemiological models, which can limit their ability to adapt to non-stationary transmission dynamics induced by interventions or behavioral changes, leading to delayed detection of regime shifts and degraded estimation accuracy. In this work, we propose a Conditional Inverse Reproduction Learning framework (CIRL) that addresses the inverse problem by learning a {conditional mapping} from historical incidence patterns and explicit time information to latent reproduction numbers. Rather than imposing strongly enforced parametric constraints, CIRL softly integrates epidemiological structure with flexible likelihood-based statistical modeling, using the renewal equation as a forward operator to enforce dynamical consistency. The resulting framework combines epidemiologically grounded constraints with data-driven temporal representations, producing reproduction number estimates that are robust to observation noise while remaining responsive to abrupt transmission changes and zero-inflated incidence observations. Experiments on synthetic epidemics with controlled regime changes and real-world SARS and COVID-19 data demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of Conditional Inverse Reproduction Learning (CIRL) framework
Method
Single-step
Double-step
Double-step(masked)
Δdelay
MDR
RMSE
MAE
Δdelay
MDR
RMSE
MAE
Δdelay
MDR
RMSE
MAE
EpiEstim
6.00 [5.00,6.00]
0.00
0.36 [0.31,0.42]
0.22 [0.19,0.26]
6.00[5.00,6.00]
0.00
0.40 [0.37,0.49]
0.27 [0.24,0.31]
6.00 [-9.00,12.00]
0.00
0.83[0.57,1.76]
0.50[0.38,0.74]
EpiNow2
8.00[7.00,11.00]
0.00
0.35 [0.32,0.39]
0.22 [0.20,0.27]
47.00[27.50,49.00]
0.01
0.45 [0.37,0.59]
0.36[0.27,0.47]
52.00[50.00,55.00]
0.03
0.57 [0.52,0.62]
0.49 [0.45,0.52]
UDENet
-39.00[-39.50,7.00]
0.97
0.60[0.47,2.04]
0.52[0.40,1.86]
-29.00[-29.20,-28.00]
0.97
1.53[0.55,2.17]
1.35[0.51,2.03]
∼
1.00
0.61[0.55,1.93]
0.56[0.51,1.75]
CIRL(ours)
1.00 [0.00,1.00]
0.01
0.38[0.32, 0.48]
0.28 [0.23,0.33]
1.00 [0.00,2.00]
0.01
0.48[0.36,0.56]
0.33 [0.26,0.39]
5.00 [2.00,9.00]
0.02
0.51 [0.44,0.58]
0.36 [0.31,0.42]
Table 1: Quantitative comparison of different methods on synthetic benchmarks over 100 simulations. For continuous metrics (RMSE, MAE, and Δdelay ), results are reported as Median [ Q1,Q3 ]. Bold values indicate the best performance in each column, and underlined values indicate the second-best.
Figure 2: Median and interquartile range of the inferred Rt over 100 simulations. Solid lines denote the median estimate across 100 simulations, while shaded regions indicate the interquartile range (25%–75%). (a) Rt estimation across single-step change scenarios, while (b) estimation on double-step change scenarios. .
Figure 3: Estimated reproduction number trajectories under different observation noise conditions. Both panels show estimates obtained from a single synthetic epidemic with smooth oscillation dynamics. (a) corresponds to incidence generated from a Poisson process, while (b) illustrates the same epidemic after introducing proportional zero-inflated mask in the observations. The comparison highlights the robustness of the inferred transmission dynamics to observation sparsity.
Method
Δdelay
MDR
RMSE
MAE
Full CIRL
5.00 [2.00,9.00]
0.02
0.51 [0.44,0.58]
0.36 [0.31,0.42]
w/o TCE
3.00 [1.00,7.75]
0.02
0.72[0.59,0.83]
0.48 [0.40,0.54]
w/o HIE
-9.00[-10.00,-7.00]
0.018
0.67 [0.66,0.68]
0.54[0.53,0.55]
w/ MSE
-7.00[-11.25,-3.00]
0.00
0.75[0.67,0.84]
0.52[0.45,0.61]
w/ Poisson
-10.00[-15.00,-5.00]
0.00
0.78[0.65,0.88]
0.51[0.43,0.58]
Table 2: Quantitative comparison on synthetic double-regime-change epidemics with proportional zero-inflated mask in the obserations. All regression metrics are reported as Median [ Q1,Q3 ] over 100 simulations.
Figure 4: Evaluation during the 2003 SARS in Hong Kong. (a) Retrospective Rt estimation by CIRL and baseline methods, with CIRL additionally generating short-term future Rt trajectories. (b) Incidence fitting and short-horizon projection implied by CIRL. The comparison highlights the robustness of the inferred transmission dynamics to observation sparsity.
Figure 5: Evaluation on the Ontario COVID-19 first wave. (a) Comparison of retrospective Rt estimates. (b) Incidence fitting and implied projection. The results provide a qualitative assessment of the internal consistency of the learned conditional inverse mapping under noisy and non-stationary real-world observations.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Visual analysis of the solitary failure case. (a) shows the synthetic incidence data, characterized by extreme sparsity and low counts ( ymax≤4 ). (b) exhibits the estimated Rt trajectory. Due to the indistinguishability between the weak transmission signal and background noise, the model conservatively maintained a flat trend, resulting in a missed detection of the Rt shift.
Datasets
SARS 2003
COVID-19
RMSE
MAE
RMSE
MAE
Fitting
8.62
5.05
45.34
33.58
Prediction
1.51
1.35
37.41
27.84
Appendix
Table 3: Evaluation of incidence reconstruction and short-term forecasting accuracy. RMSE and MAE are reported for both in-sample fitting and rolling prospective forecasts of incidence ( It ). The fitting error measures how well the inferred transmission dynamics reconstruct the observed data, while the rolling forecast error assesses the temporal consistency and generalization of the learned conditional inverse mapping.
Dataset Scenario
Comparison Target
CIRL(Ours)
EpiNow2
EpiEstim
Scenario-1
λtrue
10.04 [ 6.03,14.10]
8.45 [ 5.21,12.03]
10.26[ 6.31,14.06]
Scenario-2
λtrue
7.13[ 4.66,10.81]
5.93 [ 4.12, 8.45]
7.03 [ 4.88,10.44]
Scenario-3
λtrue
7.04 [ 4.86,10.39]
6.80 [ 4.49,10.66]
7.83[ 5.34,12.08]
Appendix
Table 4: Reconstruction Performance. RMSE of estimated incidence I^t against the true Poisson rate λtrue . Values are reported as the Median [Q1,Q3] .
Method
Fitting to Noisy Observations
Internal Consistency
Reconstruction
(Target: Iobs )
(Target: λrenewal )
(Target: Iraw )
Scenario-1
Scenario-2
Scenario-3
Scenario-1
Scenario-2
Scenario-3
Scenario-3
EpiEstim
0.00 [0.00,0.00]
0.00 [0.00,0.00]
0.00 [0.00,0.00]
4.41[3.37,5.87]
3.90[3.01,5.31]
4.76[3.56,7.50]
3.16 [1.90,5.19]
EpiNow2
3.91[2.87,4.79]
3.40[2.71,4.66]
4.53[3.26,7.17]
3.31 [2.11,4.51]
2.78 [1.99,3.75]
3.59 [2.35,5.77]
4.01[3.05,6.02]
CIRL(Ours)
1.94 [1.55,2.42]
1.89 [1.58,2.47]
3.67 [2.51, 5.86]
3.62 [2.66,5.35]
3.31 [2.35,4.85]
3.03 [2.23,4.32]
2.44 [1.91,3.06]
Appendix
Table 5: Reconstruction Metrics. Values are Median [ Q1,Q3 ]. Left (Fitting to Noisy Observations): Near-zero error on Iobs indicates overfitting to noise. Middle (Internal Consistency): Low error against λrenewal confirms mathematical validity. Right (Reconstruction / Counterfactual Recovery): Evaluated solely on Scenario-3 , measuring the error against the unmasked truth ( Iraw ). Note that while baselines fit Iobs well, they fail to recover the hidden cases.
Compartment models of infectious diseases are often linear in coefficients that are physical parameters or products or ratios of them. We exploit this with closed-form least squares and equip the estimates with distribution-free uncertainty. Physics-informed regression (PIR) fits the parameters to finite-difference derivatives of the data; we introduce physics-informed weak regression (PIWR), which integrates the model in time instead, needs no derivatives of the data, estimates the initial state jointly and is high-order accurate. To quantify uncertainty we wrap both estimators in split conformal prediction, with a calibration population generated by the physics-based model itself, giving simultaneous intervals for all parameters with a finite-sample coverage guarantee. A residual-adaptive factor, computed without ground truth, scales the intervals to each data set (PIWR-RACC). On the eleven benchmark models of disease-informed neural networks (DINNs), PIWR or PIR-FD6 is one to four orders of magnitude more accurate than the reported DINN results wherever the sampling resolves the dynamics, in about a millisecond per fit instead of minutes to hours of training, and the 90% intervals achieve 87-92% coverage in all 88 settings. On the S3I3R model of the original PIR study, PIWR lowers the reported PIR errors by about three orders of magnitude. On real data from the 1978 boarding-school influenza outbreak, a variable-projection variant gives calibrated 95% intervals that overlap those of a Bayesian analysis. On a time-varying transmission benchmark, a B-spline expansion of beta(t) keeps PIR and PIWR linear; they are more accurate than physics-informed neural networks in three of four cases and comparable in the noisiest, with simultaneous bands for beta(t). The complete conformal calibration takes less than two minutes for every benchmark.
Allan Peter Engsig-Karup
Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
Epidemic forecasting faces a fundamental challenge: human behavior dynamically responds to disease spread, creating feedback loops that induce distribution shifts at policy intervention points. This renders data-driven models unreliable under distribution shift. We propose SL-BiLEM (Structured Learnable Behavior-in-the-Loop Epidemic Model), leveraging physical constraints as regularization for robust extrapolation. The framework decomposes effective transmission as βeff(t,g)=β0(g)×mpolicy(t)×mmedia(t)×mcomp(t,g), where monotonicity, smoothness, and bounded-jump constraints on the learned compliance function maintain predictive validity under novel policy regimes. Beyond forecasting, SL-BiLEM enables counterfactual analysis for intervention decision support. We validate forecasting on three real-world datasets (cruise ship, school influenza, and school-district COVID-19 surveillance) and evaluate counterfactual recovery on synthetic benchmarks with known ground truth. SL-BiLEM demonstrates: (1) 76% improvement over neural-mechanistic baselines, with only 53% OOD degradation versus 1142% for neural baselines under policy-induced shift; (2) 100% bootstrap CI coverage across 27 synthetic counterfactual experiments; and (3) Treatment Effect Accuracy exceeding 0.85. These results establish SL-BiLEM as an interpretable tool for public health decision-makers seeking accurate prediction and principled intervention planning.
Haochun Wang, Sendong Zhao, Jingbo Wang +3
Faculty of Computing, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China
Mechanistic epidemiological models are widely used to support infectious disease forecasting and public-health decision making. Bayesian calibration of such models is commonly performed using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), which can become computationally expensive for high-dimensional nonlinear systems and repeated near-real-time analyses. Here, we investigate simulation-based inference (SBI) using neural posterior estimation as a scalable alternative for Bayesian calibration of a mechanistic SECIR epidemiological model using COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) occupancy data from Germany during 2020. We compared SBI and MCMC across multiple epidemic phases using both 31-day inference windows and a substantially more challenging 201-day reconstruction problem involving multiple transmission change points. Posterior agreement was evaluated quantitatively using Wasserstein distances and Kullback-Leibler divergences together with posterior predictive checks. Across the 31-day windows, SBI recovered posterior distributions in strong agreement with MCMC while accurately reproducing observed ICU trajectories. In the 201-day setting, SBI preserved the dominant posterior structure despite increased uncertainty. SBI, by combining CPU and GPU resources, substantially reduced computational runtime compared with MCMC, which was restricted to running on CPUs. Whereas MCMC required approximately 1000 seconds for the 31-day inference problems, SBI achieved comparable posterior and predictive performance in approximately 60-70 seconds on a single GPU. For the 201-day inference problem, SBI required an average of 157 seconds, while the MCMC runs took over 19,000 seconds. Our results demonstrate that SBI provides a rapid and computationally efficient framework for Bayesian calibration of mechanistic epidemiological models, supporting repeated near-real-time inference and rapid outbreak analysis.
Alina Bazarova, Johann Fredrik Jadebeck, Henrik Zunker +5
Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Jülich, Germany · Helmholtz AI, Germany · Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Bio- and Geosciences, Jülich, Germany +3