1: \documentclass[aps,pre,showpacs,preprint]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,amsmath,bm}
3: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Pair Approximation of the stochastic susceptible-infected-recovered-susceptible epidemic model
8: on the hypercubic lattice}
9:
10: \author{Jaewook Joo}
11: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New
12: Jersey 08854, USA}
13: \author{Joel L. Lebowitz}
14: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics and Physics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New
15: Jersey 08854, USA}
16: \date{\today}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: We investigate the time-evolution and steady states of the stochastic
20: susceptible-infected-recovered-susceptible~(SIRS) epidemic model
21: on one- and two- dimensional lattices.
22: We compare the behavior of this system, obtained from computer simulations,
23: with those obtained from the mean-field approximation~(MFA)
24: and pair-approximation~(PA). The former~(latter) approximates higher order moments
25: in terms of first~(second) order ones.
26: We find that the PA gives consistently better results than the MFA.
27: In one dimension the improvement is even qualitative.
28: \end{abstract}
29: \pacs{87.23.Ge,05.70.Ln}
30: \maketitle
31:
32: \section{\label{sec:intro}Introduction}
33:
34: The mathematical modeling of the spread of epidemics is a subject of continuing theoretical
35: and practical interest~\cite{anderson:1992,diekmann:2000}.
36: This is enhanced by the fact that the same or similar models are used for
37: describing other phenomena such as plant and animal dispersal, and successional dynamics
38: in ecology~\cite{neuhauser:2000,Jeger:1990}.
39:
40: The level of description provided by a model
41: can be purely macroscopic and deterministic or individual and stochastic~\cite{durrett:1994a}.
42: In the first case one uses (partial-) differential equations
43: to describe the time evolution of different subpopulations; e.g., susceptible,
44: infectious and recovered. In the second case one typically uses stochastic dynamics
45: on a lattice (or more general graphs) where the variables at each node represent the state
46: of an individual or a small spatial region.
47: The time evolution of these variables is stochastic, e.g., an infected individual
48: at site $i$ has a certain probability per unit time (rate)
49: $\lambda$ to infect a susceptible individual at a neighboring site $j$.
50: These systems fall into the category of what mathematicians call interacting particle
51: systems~\cite{liggett:1985,durrett:1988b} and physicists call stochastic
52: lattice gases~\cite{marro:1999} - systems of great interest also
53: in the study of equilibrium phase transitions, phase segregation kinetics, etc.,
54: fields very different from epidemiology and ecology.
55:
56:
57: The connection between these modes of description and various intermediate ones
58: has been investigated extensively in recent years, e.g., see ~\cite{lebowitz:1985-86a,
59: lebowitz:1986b,lebowitz:1988,durrett:1994,durrett:1994a,bramson:1997}.
60: Mathematically this involves the use of the so called hydro-dynamical scaling limit.
61: This uses a rigorous separation of space and time scales
62: to derive deterministic macroscopic equations
63: from the microscopic dynamics of stochastic lattice systems.
64: Other approaches are based on more heuristic methods
65: such as the mean field approximation (MFA) and improvement thereof~\cite{dickman:1986,
66: matsuda:1992,benavraham:1992,petermann:2004,levin:1995,levin:1996,levin:1997,durrett:1998,keeling:1999,
67: levin:2000,schnaiz:2002,geometry:2002}
68:
69:
70: The present work falls in the latter category. We apply a pair approximation (PA)
71: scheme to a microscopic stochastic epidemic model in which individuals recovered
72: from an infection
73: enjoy a period of immunity before again becoming susceptible at a rate $\gamma$:
74: the SIRS model.
75: The PA approximation was used by Durrett and Levin~\cite{levin:1996} for the simpler
76: susceptible-infected-susceptible~(SIS) model where
77: recovered individuals immediately become susceptible again.
78: They compared the results of the PA and MFA with those of the stochastic
79: SIS model and found that the
80: PA gave a quantitative improvement over the MFA.
81: Here we consider the general SIRS model.
82: We obtain the behavior of the stochastic model from extensive computer simulations.
83: We then solve the PA and MFA models analytically for the stationary state and numerically
84: for the time dependent case. We find that
85: the PA gives considerably better agreement with the simulations than the MFA both for the
86: time evolution and for the
87: steady state. For the latter the PA reproduces the qualitative difference between
88: the one and higher dimensional phase diagram of this model found in
89: Ref.~\cite{kuulasmaa:1982, durrett:1991,andjel:1996,berg:1998}. This is reminiscent of
90: the relation between the MFA and the Bethe-Peierls approximation
91: ~(which the PA closely resembles) for equilibrium lattice systems~\cite{huang}.
92:
93:
94: %[similar models]
95: %For stochastic lattice models which are closely related to the SIRS case, one could
96: %naturally expect that these models have a similar phase diagram with that of the SIRS
97: %case and that the PA will reproduce it qualitatively.
98: %These models include forest fire models~\cite{bak:1990,drossel:1993}, Prey-predator
99: %models~\cite{antal:2001} and Immunization models~\cite{dammer:2003}.
100:
101: \section{\label{sec:model}The stochastic SIRS model}
102:
103: We first recall the stochastic lattice model of the SIRS epidemic process~\cite{murray:1980}.
104: A site $x$ of a $d$-dimensional lattice can be occupied by an individual in a state of
105: $S$~(healthy and susceptible), $I$~(infected), or $R$~(recovered, i.e., healthy and immune).
106: The system evolves according to the following transition rates,
107: \begin{eqnarray}
108: S \rightarrow I &\text{ at rate }& \lambda n(x), \label{transition}
109: \\ \nonumber
110: I \rightarrow R &\text{ at rate }& \delta,
111: \\ \nonumber
112: R \rightarrow S &\text{ at rate }& \gamma,
113: \end{eqnarray}
114: where $n(x)$ is the number of infected (nearest) neighbors of $x$,
115: $\lambda$ is the infection rate, $\delta$ is the recovery rate
116: and $\gamma$ is the rate at which immunization ceases.
117: The limit $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$ corresponds to the case where
118: a recovered site passes instantaneously through the state $R$;
119: this is the SIS model, also known as the contact process.
120: We shall choose time units in which $\delta$=1.
121:
122:
123: %[Summary of Previous work, sketch of phase diagram]
124: One can obtain some rigorous qualitative information about this and
125: related models via probabilistic approaches such as those used in
126: interacting particle systems~\cite{kuulasmaa:1982, durrett:1991, andjel:1996,berg:1998}.
127: Of particular interest is the behavior of the
128: stationary state on an infinite lattice which is a good approximation for
129: the quasi-steady state behavior of large systems: see Appendix~\ref{MCsimulation}.
130: . This information is encoded in the phase
131: diagram of the stationary state which depends on the infection rate $\lambda$,
132: the recovery rate $\gamma$ and the topology of the lattice. For small $\lambda$,
133: the only stationary
134: state is one in which all sites are in the susceptible (disease-free) state
135: while for large $\lambda$ there is (for the infinite system)
136: also a stationary state containing non zero fraction of $I$ and $R$ individuals.
137:
138:
139: The critical infection rate $\lambda_{c}(\gamma)$ is defined as the smallest value
140: of $\lambda$, for a given $\gamma$, above which the infection can persist forever.
141: For the SIS or contact process~($\gamma=\infty$), the critical infection value is
142: known with high accuracy,
143: $\lambda_{c}(\infty) \simeq 1.6489$ in $d=1$ and
144: $\lambda_{c}(\infty)\simeq 0.4122$ in $d=2$~\cite{liggett:1985,marro:1999}.
145: Considerably less is known about the phase diagram of the SIRS model.
146: Interestingly there is a qualitative difference in the behavior of
147: $\lambda_{c}(\gamma)$ in one and in higher dimension when
148: $\gamma \rightarrow 0$.
149: It has been shown that $lim_{\gamma \rightarrow 0} \lambda_{c}(\gamma)=\lambda_{c}(0)$
150: is finite when $d \geq 2$ while $\lambda_{c}(0)=\infty$ when $d=1$
151: ~\cite{kuulasmaa:1982, durrett:1991,andjel:1996,berg:1998}.
152:
153:
154: To go beyond qualitative results we need to carry out simulation or
155: make some approximations. This is the subject of the rest of the paper.
156:
157:
158: \section{\label{sec:PA}The pair approximation}
159:
160: %[master equation]
161: The time evolution of the single site probabilities in the stochastic SIRS
162: epidemic process can be written in the following form.
163: \begin{subequations}
164: \label{allmaster}
165: \begin{eqnarray}
166: \frac{dP_{t}(S_{x})}{dt}&=&-\lambda \sum_{y \in {\cal N}(x)} P_{t}(S_{x},I_{y})+\gamma
167: P_{t}(R_{x}),
168: \label{mastera}
169: \\
170: \frac{dP_{t}(I_{x})}{dt}&=&\lambda \sum_{y \in {\cal N}(x)} P_{t}(S_{x},I_{y})-P_{t}(I_{x}),
171: \label{masterb}
172: \\
173: \frac{dP_{t}(R_{x})}{dt}&=&P_{t}(I_{x})-\gamma P_{t}(R_{x}),
174: \label{masterc}
175: \end{eqnarray}
176: \end{subequations}
177: Here ${\cal N}(x)$ is the neighborhood~(nearest neighbor sites) of a site $x$,
178: $P_{t}(\alpha_{x})$ is the probability of having a state
179: $\alpha$ at site $x$ at time $t$ and $P_{t}(\alpha_{x},\beta_{y})$ is
180: the joint probability to have state $\alpha$ at site $x$ and state
181: $\beta$ at site $y$, at time $t$. We always have
182: $P_{t}(S_{x})+P_{t}(I_{x})+P_{t}(R_{x})=1$.
183:
184:
185: %[Intro to PA]
186: Eqs.~(\ref{mastera})-~(\ref{masterc}) are, as is usual for moment equations,
187: not a closed system. One can extend them by including
188: equations for the time evolution of $P_{t}(S_{x},I_{y})$ which
189: in turn involve higher moments of
190: the spatial correlations. This leads to an infinite hierarchy.
191: To solve such a hierarchy one
192: usually resorts to some approximation scheme which expresses
193: the higher order moments in terms of
194: the lower order ones and truncates the equations at some point
195: ; this is referred to as the moment closure
196: method~\cite{dickman:1986,matsuda:1992,benavraham:1992,petermann:2004,
197: levin:1995,levin:1996,levin:1997,levin:2000,
198: keeling:1999,geometry:2002,durrett:1998,schnaiz:2002}.
199: Both the MFA and PA are such schemes. In the MFA Eqs.~(\ref{mastera})-(\ref{masterc})
200: are closed by assuming that $P_{t}(S_{x},I_{y})=P_{t}(S_{x})P_{t}(I_{y})$,
201: i.e., it neglects correlations between different sites.
202: This leads to a pair of coupled equations which have been studied in \cite{murray:1980}.
203: In the PA scheme
204: $P_{t}(\alpha_{x})$ and $P_{t}(\alpha_{x}, \beta_{y})$ are kept as unknowns while the
205: higher-order moments are expressed, via some appropriate approximation, in terms of
206: these quantities.
207:
208:
209: To carry out the PA we complement Eq.~(\ref{allmaster}) by equations
210: for the second moments $P_{t}(\alpha_{x},\beta_{y})$
211: for nearest neighbor sites $x$ and $y$ based on the transition rule that we have
212: described in Eq.~(\ref{transition}). These are
213: \begin{subequations}
214: \label{alltwomoment}
215: \begin{eqnarray}
216: \frac{dP_{t}(S_{x},I_{y})}{dt} &=& \gamma P_{t}(R_{x},I_{y})- ( \lambda+1
217: )P_{t}(S_{x},I_{y})+
218: \sum_{w \in {\cal N}^{x}(y)} \lambda P_{t}(S_{x},S_{y},I_{w})
219: \label{twomomenta}
220: \\
221: &-& \sum_{w \in {\cal N}^{y}(x)} \lambda P_{t}(I_{w},S_{x},I_{y}),
222: \nonumber
223: \\
224: \frac{dP_{t}(S_{x},R_{y})}{dt} &=& P_{t}(S_{x},I_{y})+\gamma
225: P_{t}(R_{x},R_{y})-\gamma
226: P_{t}(S_{x},R_{y})-
227: \sum_{w \in {\cal N}^{y}(x)} \lambda P_{t}(I_{w},S_{x},R_{y}),
228: \label{twomomentb}
229: \\
230: \frac{dP_{t}(R_{x},I_{y})}{dt} &=&
231: -(\gamma+1)P_{t}(R_{x},I_{y})+P_{t}(I_{x},I_{y})+
232: \sum_{w \in {\cal N}^{x}(y)} \lambda P_{t}(R_{x},S_{y},I_{w})
233: \label{twomomentc}
234: \end{eqnarray}
235: \end{subequations}
236: where ${\cal N}^{x}(y)$ is the set of nearest neighbor sites of $y$ excluding the site $x$.
237: $P_{t}(\alpha_{x},\beta_{y},\chi_{w})$ is the joint probability to have state $\alpha$
238: at site $x$, state $\beta$ at site $y$ and state $\chi$ at site $w$ at time $t$.
239: For a derivation of Eq.~(\ref{alltwomoment})
240: see Appendix~\ref{derivation_twomoment}.
241:
242:
243: To close the system~(\ref{allmaster}) and~(\ref{alltwomoment}) and derive a set of autonomous
244: equations for $P_{t}(\alpha_{x})$ and
245: $P_{t}(\alpha_{x},\beta_{y})$ we approximate the triad joint probability
246: $P_{t}(\alpha_{x},\beta_{y},\chi_{w})$ for $x$ and $w$ nearest neighbors
247: of $y$, by the product of two pair probabilities
248: $P_{t}(\alpha_{x},\beta_{y})$ and $P_{t}(\beta_{y},\chi_{w})$ divided
249: by the probability $P_{t}(\beta_{y})$
250: ~\cite{dickman:1986,matsuda:1992,levin:1996,benavraham:1992,petermann:2004}, i.e., we set
251: \begin{equation}
252: P_{t}(\alpha_{x}, \beta_{y}, \chi_{w}) = \frac{ P_{t}(\alpha_{x}, \beta_{y})
253: P_{t}(\beta_{y}, \chi_{w})} {P_{t}(\beta_{y})}
254: \label{myPA}
255: \end{equation}
256: Note that we have made use here of the structure of the hypercubic
257: lattice. In such lattices, three adjacent sites, $x,y,w$ can not form a triangle
258: but form only linear chains. This is not so in other lattices,
259: e.g., the triangular lattice, where other configurations need also be considered.
260:
261:
262:
263: While there are other choices for a PA, the approximation in Eq.~(\ref{myPA})
264: allows one to get the steady state solutions analytically. With other
265: pair approximations~\cite{geometry:2002},
266: one has to solve the resulting differential equations numerically, making it
267: impossible to obtain analytic expressions for the critical curve.
268:
269:
270: To actually carry out computations with the PA
271: we will assume from now on that our system is spatially uniform.
272: The site $x$, in Eqs.~(\ref{allmaster})
273: and~(\ref{alltwomoment}), can now be chosen to be the origin.
274: We also define: $P_{t}(S,I)=\frac{1}{z}\sum_{y \in {\cal N}(x)} P_{t}(S_{x},I_{y})$,
275: $P_{t}(\alpha,\beta,\chi)=\frac{1}{z-1}\sum_{w \in {\cal N}^{x}(y)}
276: P_{t}(\alpha_{x},\beta_{y},\chi_{w})$ where $z=2d$ is the number
277: of nearest neighbors of a site in the $d$-dimensional cubic lattice.
278: The truncated equations for the PA-SIRS can now be written, by using the exact
279: Eqs.~(\ref{allmaster})-~(\ref{alltwomoment}) and the approximate Eq.~(\ref{myPA}),
280: as a closed set of five coupled equations,
281: \begin{subequations}
282: \label{allPASIRS}
283: \begin{eqnarray}
284: \frac{d P_{t}(I)}{dt}&=& z \lambda P_{t}(S,I) -P_{t}(I)
285: \label{PASIRSa}
286: \\
287: \frac{d P_{t}(R)}{dt}&=& P_{t}(I)-\gamma P_{t}(R)
288: \label{PASIRSb}
289: \\
290: \frac{d P_{t}(S,R)}{dt}&=& P_{t}(S,I)+\gamma (P_{t}(R)-P_{t}(R,I)-2P_{t}(S,R))
291: -\frac{(z-1) \lambda P_{t}(S,I)P_{t}(S,R)}{1-P_{t}(R)-P_{t}(I)}
292: \label{PASIRSc}
293: \\
294: \frac{d P_{t}(R,I)}{dt}&=& -(2+\gamma )P_{t}(R,I)+P_{t}(I)-P_{t}(S,I)
295: +\frac{(z-1) \lambda P_{t}(S,I) P_{t}(S,R)}{1-P_{t}(R)-P_{t}(I)}
296: \label{PASIRSd}
297: \\
298: \frac{d P_{t}(S,I)}{dt}&=& \gamma P_{t}(R,I) -(\lambda+1) P_{t}(S,I)
299: \label{PASIRSe}
300: \\
301: &+&\frac{(z-1) \lambda P_{t}(S,I)}
302: {1-P_{t}(I)-P_{t}(R)}(1-P_{t}(R)-P_{t}(I)-P_{t}(S,R)-2P_{t}(S,I)). \nonumber
303: \end{eqnarray}
304: \end{subequations}
305: Note that we always have $P_{t}(\alpha)=P_{t}(\alpha,S)+P_{t}(\alpha,I)+P_{t}(\alpha,R)$
306: which determines
307: $P_{t}(I,I)$ and $P_{t}(S,S)$.
308:
309:
310: %[Check with PA-SIS]
311: In the limit $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$,
312: $P_{t}(R)$ and $P_{t}(R,\alpha)$ as well as their time derivatives
313: will go to zero. This yields $\gamma P_{t}(R)=P_{t}(I)$ and $\gamma P_{t}(R,I)=P_{t}(I)-P_{t}(S,I)$
314: ~\cite{murray:1980}.
315: In this limit Eq.~(\ref{allPASIRS}) reduces to the PA
316: equations of the SIS~considered in~\cite{levin:1996},
317: \begin{subequations}
318: \label{PASIS}
319: \begin{eqnarray}
320: \frac{d P_{t}(I)}{dt}&=& z \lambda P_{t}(S,I) -P_{t}(I),
321: \label{PASISa}
322: \\
323: \frac{d P_{t}(S,I)}{dt}&=& P_{t}(I)-(\lambda+2)P_{t}(S,I)
324: +\frac{(z-1)\lambda P_{t}(S,I)}{1-P_{t}(I)}(1-P_{t}(I)-2P_{t}(S,I)).
325: \label{PASISb}
326: \end{eqnarray}
327: \end{subequations}
328:
329: As already noted the MFA approximates the joint probability
330: $P_{t}(S,I)$ in Eq.~(\ref{PASIRSa}) by the product, $P_{t}(S,I)=P_{t}(S)P_{t}(I)$.
331: This leads to the closed set of MFA of equations
332: for the SIRS~\cite{murray:1980},
333: \begin{subequations}
334: \label{MFPASIRS}
335: \begin{eqnarray}
336: \frac{dP_{t}(S)}{dt}&=&-z \lambda P_{t}(S)P_{t}(I)+\gamma
337: P_{t}(R)
338: \label{MFPASIRSa}
339: \\
340: \frac{dP_{t}(I)}{dt}&=&z \lambda P_{t}(S)P_{t}(I)-P_{t}(I)
341: \label{MFPASIRSb}
342: \\
343: \frac{dP_{t}(R)}{dt}&=&P_{t}(I)-\gamma P_{t}(R)
344: \label{MFPASIRSc}
345: \end{eqnarray}
346: \end{subequations}
347: For $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$, $\gamma P_{t}(R) \rightarrow P_{t}(I)$ and
348: $P_{t}(S) \rightarrow 1-P_{t}(I)$. Eq.~(\ref{MFPASIRS}) then reduces to the MFA
349: for the SIS.
350:
351: \section{\label{stationary}Stationary solutions of the PA-SIRS model}
352:
353: Let us first consider the steady state solutions of
354: the PA-SIS obtained by setting the l.h.s of Eq.~(\ref{PASIS})
355: equal to zero~\cite{levin:1996}. This gives for the critical value of the PA-SIS
356: epidemic process $\lambda_{c}(\infty)=1/(z-1)$.
357: For $\lambda \leq \lambda_{c}(\infty)$,
358: both $P_{t}(I)$ and $P_{t}(S,I)$ $\rightarrow 0$ as $t \rightarrow \infty$
359: for all initial states.
360: When $\lambda > \lambda_{c}(\infty)$ there is, in addition to the disease-free
361: state corresponding
362: to $P(I)=0$, also a stationary state consisting of a finite fraction of infected
363: individuals:
364: \begin{subequations}
365: \label{stationarySIS}
366: \begin{eqnarray}
367: \bar{P}(S,I)&=&\bar{P}(I)/(z\lambda)
368: \label{StationarySISa}
369: \\
370: \bar{P}(I)&=&\frac{z[(z-1)\lambda-1]}{z(z-1)\lambda-1}.
371: \label{stationarySISb}
372: \end{eqnarray}
373: \end{subequations}
374: It is these non-zero steady states which are approached as $t \rightarrow \infty$
375: when starting from any initial state with $P_{0}(I)>0$.
376:
377:
378: The steady state solutions of the PA-SIRS system
379: is obtained by setting the l.h.s. of Eq.~(\ref{allPASIRS}) equal to zero.
380: Setting $x=\bar{P}(I)$ this yields,
381: \begin{subequations}
382: \label{steadyPASIRS}
383: \begin{eqnarray}
384: \bar{P}(R) &=& x/\gamma
385: \label{steadyPASIRSa}
386: \\
387: \bar{P}(S,I) &=& x/(z \lambda)
388: \label{steadyPASIRSb}
389: \\
390: \bar{P}(S,R) &=& \frac{x(\frac{1}{z
391: \lambda}+\frac{1}{\gamma+1})}
392: {\gamma(1+\frac{1}{\gamma+1}+\frac{(z-1)x}{z(\gamma-(1+\gamma)x)})}
393: \label{steadyPASIRSc}
394: \\
395: \bar{P}(R,I) &=& \frac{x-\gamma
396: \bar{P}(S,R)}{\gamma+1} \\ \nonumber
397: &=& \frac{x}{\gamma+1}
398: \Bigl (
399: 1-\frac
400: {
401: \frac{1}{z \lambda}+\frac{1}{\gamma+1}
402: }
403: {
404: 1+\frac{1}{\gamma+1}+\frac{(z-1)x}{z(\gamma-(\gamma+1)x)}
405: }
406: \Bigr )
407: \label{steadyPASIRSd}
408: \end{eqnarray}
409: \end{subequations}
410: where $\bar{P}(\alpha,\beta)$ are the approximate probabilities for having states
411: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ on neighboring sites. After further simplifications,
412: we find that $x$ has to satisfy the cubic equation,
413: \begin{equation}
414: x(a_{1} x^{2}+a_{2} x+a_{3} )=0
415: \label{Pequation}
416: \end{equation}
417: Both the derivation of Eq.~(\ref{Pequation}) and the explicit expressions for
418: $a_{1}$, $a_{2}$ and $a_{3}$ as functions of $\lambda$ and $\gamma$ are given in
419: Appendix~\ref{Pcoefficients}.
420:
421:
422: The root $x=0$ corresponds to the all healthy steady state, which is always
423: a solution. The critical curve $\lambda_{c}(\gamma)$ is determined by
424: the existence of a root of Eq.~(\ref{Pequation}) such that $x$ and all other
425: stationary probabilities, are strictly positive.
426: It turns out that this strictly positive root is unique.
427: Thus when $\lambda \leq \lambda_{c}(\gamma)$,
428: $x=0$ is the only steady state solution. For $\lambda> \lambda_{c}(\gamma)$,
429: there is also a steady state in which the infection is endemic:
430: $\bar{P}(I)=\gamma \bar{P}(R)=x$ and $\bar{P}(S)=1-(1+1/\gamma)x$, see Appendix
431: ~\ref{Pcoefficients}.
432:
433:
434: The critical curve $\lambda_{c}(\gamma)$ is obtained in Appendix~\ref{Pcoefficients}.
435: It is given by the equation,
436: \begin{equation}
437: \lambda_{c}(\gamma)=\frac{\gamma+1}{2d-2+(2d-1)\gamma}, \textrm{ d=1,2,3,...}
438: \end{equation}
439: As $\gamma \rightarrow \infty$, $\lambda_{c}(\infty)=(2d-1)^{-1}$, the critical
440: point of the PA-SIS epidemic
441: process. On the other hand, as $\gamma$ approaches zero,
442: the critical curve shows different behavior depending on the
443: dimension of the lattice: $\lambda_{c}(0)$ diverges to infinity for $d=1$,
444: while $\lambda_{c}(0)$ is finite for $d\geq2$.
445: The PA thus reproduces the qualitative difference between the one and higher
446: dimensional phase diagram of the SIRS model found in Ref.
447: ~\cite{kuulasmaa:1982, durrett:1991,andjel:1996,berg:1998}.
448:
449:
450: The MFA, Eq.~(\ref{MFPASIRS}), yields the mean field critical value, $\lambda^{MF}_{c}=1/z$
451: independent of $\gamma$.
452: In the coexistence region $\lambda>\lambda^{MF}_{c}$ the mean field stationary states are
453: $\bar{P}(I)=\gamma \bar{P}(R)=\frac{\gamma (\lambda z-1)}{\lambda z(\gamma+1)}$ and
454: $\bar{P}(S)=\frac{1}{z \lambda}$.
455:
456: Both the steady state and critical value of the MFA and PA fail to correctly represent
457: the results of the stochastic SIRS process for small $\gamma$:
458: see Figs.~\ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2}.
459: Note in particular that $\bar{P}(S)$ of the stochastic SIRS process is
460: considerably larger than that of the MFA or PA for large $\lambda$ and small $\gamma$.
461: This is due to the fact that the susceptible sites can be surrounded by recovered ones
462: and thus protected from contacting infected ones in the stochastic case.
463:
464: \section{Comparison of the stochastic, the PA and MFA steady states.}
465:
466: %[Steady state of second moments]
467: We compare in Figs.~\ref{fig3}~-~\ref{fig6} the steady state values of
468: $\bar{P}(\alpha)$ and $\bar{P}(\alpha,\beta)$ obtained from the MFA and PA
469: with the results from the stochastic SIRS process
470: as a function of $\lambda$ at fixed values of $\gamma$.
471: Clearly the PA gives results closer to those obtained from the stochastic model.
472: For the methods used to obtain the steady state results from the numerical simulation,
473: see appendix.~\ref{MCsimulation}.
474:
475:
476: Figs.~\ref{fig3} and~\ref{fig5} show that both the MFA and PA overestimate
477: $\bar{P}(I)$ as well as $\bar{P}(\alpha,I)$, $\alpha=S,R$.
478: This is due to the strong tendency of infected sites in the stochastic model
479: to cluster into localized islands, reducing the contacts between $S$ and $I$.
480: This is partially taken into account by the PA as seen by the behavior of $\bar{P}(S,I)$ and
481: $\bar{P}(I,I)$
482: in Figs.~\ref{fig3} and~\ref{fig5}. This clustering effect is also observed in the stochastic
483: SIS process~\cite{levin:1996}. It is more pronounced in one dimension.
484:
485:
486: Note that $\bar{P}(S,I)$ becomes zero both at
487: $\lambda<\lambda_{c}(\gamma)$, when $\bar{P}(I)=0$, and
488: at $\lambda=\infty$ when $\bar{P}(S)=0$, reaching
489: a peak at a positive value of $\lambda$ which depends on $\gamma$.
490: For large values of $\gamma$, the steady state values of $\bar{P}(\alpha)$ and
491: $\bar{P}(\alpha,\beta)$ obtained from the PA, or the MFA agree well with the
492: numerical simulation, away from the critical $\lambda_{c}(\gamma)$.
493: Moreover the PA yields steady state curves remarkably similar to those from
494: the numerical simulation, see Figs.~\ref{fig4} and~\ref{fig6}.
495:
496:
497: \section{Linear stability analysis of the Pair approximation}
498:
499: To study the stability of the stationary PA state,
500: Eq.~(\ref{allPASIRS}) is linearized about the steady state values
501: ~\cite{murray:1980}, see Appendix~\ref{PAjacobian}.
502: This leads to the study of the roots of the characteristic fifth order polynomial $P_{5}(\xi)$,
503: obtained from $|A-\xi I |=0$ where $A$ is the Jacobian of the linearized PA-SIRS system.
504: If $Re \xi <0$, the solution of the linearized equation is stable, i.e.,
505: a small perturbation around the steady state will decay back
506: to the steady state.
507: We used the Routh-Hurwitz conditions~\cite{murray:1980} to obtain the sign of
508: the real part of eigenvalues of the Jacobian.
509: As expected, the positive steady state solution is stable for $\lambda>\lambda_{c}(\gamma)$.
510: The zero steady state solution is stable for $\lambda \leq \lambda_{c}(\gamma)$
511: and unstable for $\lambda > \lambda_{c}(\gamma)$.
512:
513:
514: The eigenvalues of $P_{5}(\xi)$ have non-zero
515: imaginary parts in some regions of the parameter space.
516: In such regions the PA-SIRS system in
517: Eq.~(\ref{allPASIRS}) will converge to the steady state in a damped
518: oscillatory manner. Such oscillations are seen in
519: Fig.~\ref{fig7} and \ref{fig8}.
520:
521:
522: \section{Time dependent behavior}
523:
524: To study the time evolution of an epidemic following an initial infection of
525: a healthy population we performed dynamical
526: Monte Carlo simulations~\cite{grassberger:1979} as well as solutions of
527: Eqs.~(\ref{allPASIRS}) and (\ref{MFPASIRS}). For the stochastic evolution we started
528: with infected sites placed either randomly or in a cluster and followed
529: the time evolution averaged over $10^{3}$ realizations of the SIRS process.
530: To obtain the time evolution of the MFA and PA we solved Eq.~(\ref{MFPASIRS})
531: and Eq.~(\ref{allPASIRS}) numerically by using a 4th-order
532: Runge-Kutta method. We plot the results in Figs.~\ref{fig7} and~\ref{fig8}.
533:
534:
535: To set the unit of time of the simulation
536: we started with a fully infected state, $P_{0}(I)=1$ and $\lambda=0$ and obtained
537: the exponentially decaying pattern of $P_{t}(I)$. We then set the slope (death rate)
538: of the graph,
539: $log P_{t}(I)$ vs $t$, from the numerical simulation equal to those from the MFA and PA.
540:
541:
542: Starting with a small value of $P_{0}(I)$, $P_{t}(I)$ displays
543: an initial "exponential" growth in both the MFA and PA.
544: Similar growth patterns are observed in all $P_{t}(\alpha,I)$, $\alpha=S,I,R$.
545: This is explained by the initially abundantly available susceptible population.
546: Once the susceptible
547: population is reduced, the infected population reaches a maximum and then
548: decreases to the steady state
549: endemic level. Note the damped oscillatory pattern in Figs.~\ref{fig7} and \ref{fig8}
550: for this choice of the parameters ($\lambda$,$\gamma$).
551:
552:
553: The numerical simulation of the stochastic time evolution does not show the pronounced
554: growth patterns of the PA and MFA when the initial fraction of infected sites is small,
555: as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig8}. The formation of clusters of infected sites makes the
556: infected population grow more slowly in the stochastic model.
557: When the initial fraction of infected population
558: increases to more than one percent the stochastic model shows significant change
559: in its growth pattern, becoming similar to the PA and MFA.
560: If however the same fraction of infected sites are initially placed in a single cluster
561: the stochastic epidemic process exhibits slower growth patterns, similar to those starting with
562: a small fraction of initially infected sites. These studies confirm that the clustering
563: of infected sites in the stochastic model reduces both the speed of growth
564: and the maximum fraction of infected sites. In realistic situations the population
565: is not well mixed so we would expect
566: growth patterns more similar to that of the stochastic epidemic model, starting with
567: a fraction of infected sites initially placed in a single cluster.
568:
569:
570: \section{Summary}
571:
572:
573: We investigated the stochastic SIRS epidemic process and compared the results with those
574: obtained from the deterministic MFA and PA. These approximations close the hierarchy of
575: dynamical equations by expressing the higher order moments in terms of the lower order ones.
576: The PA is found to improve over the MFA both for the stationary and
577: for the time dependent states. The time evolution
578: of the system shows damped oscillatory
579: behavior in some parameter ranges.
580:
581:
582: \begin{acknowledgments}
583: Work supported by NSF DMR-01-279-26 and by AFOSR AF 49620-01-1-0154 and
584: by DIMACS grants NSF DBI 99-82983 and NSF EIA 02-05116.
585: \end{acknowledgments}
586:
587:
588: \appendix
589:
590: \section{\label{derivation_twomoment}Derivation of differential
591: equation for $P_{t}(S_{x},I_{y})$}
592:
593: Eq.~(\ref{twomomenta}) is derived by considering all transitions leaving or entering the pair
594: configuration $(S_{x},I_{y})$. We list them as follows: A pair $(R_{x},I_{y})$
595: changes to a pair $(S_{x},I_{y})$ with a rate $\gamma$. A pair $(S_{x},I_{y})$ changes to
596: a pair $(I_{x},I_{y})$ with a rate $\lambda$ and also changes to a pair $(S_{x},R_{y})$
597: with a rate 1.
598: A triad configuration $(S_{x},S_{y},I_{w})$
599: transits to a triad $(S_{x},I_{y},I_{w})$ with
600: a rate $\lambda$ such that a pair configuration $(S_{x},S_{y})$ is changed to $(S_{x},I_{y})$.
601: A triad $(I_{w},S_{x},I_{y})$
602: changes to a triad $(I_{w},I_{x},I_{y})$ with a rate $\lambda$.
603: The equations for $P_{t}(S_{x},R_{y})$ and $P_{t}(R_{x},I_{y})$
604: in Eq.~(\ref{alltwomoment}) can be obtained in a similar way.
605: The relation $P_{t}(\alpha_{x})=P_{t}(\alpha_{x},\alpha_{y})
606: +P_{t}(\alpha_{x},\beta_{y})+P_{t}(\alpha_{x},\chi_{y})$ can be used to obtain the
607: other joint probabilities $P_{t}(\alpha_{x}, \beta_{y})$
608: which are not shown in Eq.~(\ref{alltwomoment}).
609:
610:
611: \section{\label{Pcoefficients}Derivation of Eq.~(\ref{Pequation})}
612: The steady states in Eq.~(\ref{steadyPASIRS}) are obtained by setting the l.h.s. of
613: Eq.~(\ref{PASIRSa})-(\ref{PASIRSd}) equal to zero. In addition we set Eq.~(\ref{PASIRSe})
614: equal to zero
615: and replace a single site and joint probabilities with the steady states in
616: Eq.~(\ref{steadyPASIRS}). After simplifications, we obtain Eq.~(\ref{Pequation})
617: with the coefficients,
618: \begin{eqnarray}
619: a_{1}&=&
620: \gamma^{3} \{ z^{2}(z-1)\lambda-z \}
621: +\gamma^{2} \{ z(2z^{2}-2z-1)\lambda -2z-1\} \label{Pcoefficient}
622: \\ \nonumber
623: &+&\gamma \{ 2z(z^{2}-z-1) \lambda -2z-1 \}
624: +z \{(z^{2}-z-1)\lambda-1\}\\ \nonumber
625: a_{2}&=&
626: z\gamma \Bigl \{
627: \gamma^{2} \{ z+1-2z(z-1)\lambda \}
628: +\gamma \{z+3-(3z^{2}-4z-1)\lambda \}
629: +z+1-(2z^{2}-3z-1)\lambda
630: \Bigr \}\\ \nonumber
631: a_{3}&=&
632: z^{2}\gamma^{2} \Bigl \{
633: \gamma\{-1+\lambda(z-1)\}-1+\lambda(z-2)
634: \Bigl \}.
635: \end{eqnarray}
636:
637: The critical curve $\lambda_{c}(\gamma)$ is given by setting
638: $a_{3}=0$. Only for $\lambda>\lambda_{c}(\gamma)$ does the quadratic factor of
639: Eq.~(\ref{Pequation}) have a positive root.
640:
641: \section{\label{PAjacobian} The Jacobian of the linearized PA-SIRS}
642: The Jacobian of the linearized PA-SIRS is written,
643: \[
644: \mathbf{A}=
645: \left(
646: \begin{array}{ccccc}
647: -\gamma & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
648: 0 & -1 & z\lambda & 0 & 0 \\
649: -K_{2}K_{0}
650: & -K_{2}K_{0}
651: & K_{3}
652: & -\frac{K_{1}}{\bar{P}(SR)} & \gamma \\
653: \gamma-K_{2} & -K_{2} & 1-\frac{K_{1}}{\bar{P}(IS)}
654: & -2\gamma-\frac{K_{1}}{\bar{P}(SR)} & -\gamma \\
655: K_{2} & 1+K_{2} & -1+\frac{K_{1}}{\bar{P}(IS)}
656: & \frac{K_{1}}{\bar{P}(SR)} & -\gamma-2
657: \end{array} \right)
658: \]
659: where
660: $K_{0}=1+2\frac{\bar{P}(IS)}{\bar{P}(SR)}$,
661: $K_{1}=\frac{(z-1)\lambda
662: \bar{P}(IS)\bar{P}(SR)}{1-\bar{P}(R)-\bar{P}(I)}$,
663: $K_{2}=\frac{(z-1)\lambda
664: \bar{P}(IS)\bar{P}(SR)}{(1-\bar{P}(R)-\bar{P}(I))^{2}}$, and
665: $K_{3}=(z-2)\lambda-1-K_{1}(\frac{1}{\bar{P}(IS)}+\frac{4}{\bar{P}(SR)})
666: $.
667:
668:
669: \section{\label{sec:stabilityMFSIRS}Linear Stability Analysis of the MF-SIRS}
670: The Jacobian matrix B of linearized MF-SIRS is given by~\cite{murray:1980}
671: \[
672: \mathbf{B}=
673: \left( \begin{array}{cc}
674: -\lambda z \bar{P}(I)-\gamma & -\lambda z \bar{P}(S)-\gamma \\
675: \lambda z \bar{P}(I) & \lambda z \bar{P}(S)-1
676: \end{array}
677: \right)
678: \]
679: The characteristic polynomial of the second order, $P_{2}(\xi)=\xi^{2}+a_{1}\xi+a_{2}=0$,
680: is obtained from $|B-\xi I|=0$.
681:
682:
683: The necessary and sufficient (Routh-Hurwitz) conditions~\cite{murray:1980}
684: for $Re\xi<0$ is $a_{2}>0$ and $a_{1}>0$.
685: In the coexistence region where $z\lambda> 1$,
686: $a_{2}=\gamma (z \lambda -1)>0$ and
687: $a_{1}=\frac{\gamma}{\gamma+1}(\gamma+z\lambda)
688: >0$ for all $\gamma>0$.
689: In the no-coexistence region where
690: $z\lambda<1$,
691: $a_{2}=\gamma(1-z\lambda)>0$ and $a_{1}=\gamma +(1-z \lambda)>0$
692: for all $\gamma>0$. Both in the coexistence and
693: no-coexistence region, the real part of the eigenvalues is negative
694: and thus the mean field steady states are stable.
695:
696:
697: Now we turn our attention to the oscillatory behavior.
698: The eigenvalues of the characteristic polynomial $P_{2}(\xi)$ is given by,
699: \begin{equation}
700: \xi_{\pm}=\frac{-\gamma^{2}-z \gamma \lambda \pm
701: \sqrt{ (2\gamma z^{2}\lambda^{2}-2z\lambda (\gamma^{2}+2z\gamma \lambda
702: +2)+\gamma^{3}+4\gamma^{2}+8\gamma+4) \gamma }}
703: {2(\gamma+1)}
704: \end{equation}
705: In the range of $\lambda_{-}(\gamma)<\lambda(\gamma)<\lambda_{+}(\gamma)$
706: the imaginary part of the eigenvalues is non-zero:
707: $\lambda_{\pm}(\gamma)=\frac{2+4\gamma+\gamma^{2}\pm
708: 2(1+\gamma)^{3/2}}{z\gamma}$. In this range of $\lambda$, the steady states
709: correspond to the stable spiral and the system converges to the steady state in
710: damped oscillatory pattern. Even in the damped oscillatory region, any
711: oscillation is hardly visible in the large $\gamma$ limit and becomes noticeable
712: only in small $\gamma$ limit.
713:
714:
715: \section{\label{MCsimulation}Monte Carlo simulation}
716:
717: The numerical simulations described here used lattices with
718: periodic boundary conditions. In one dimension, rings of
719: $5000 \leq N \leq 15000$ sites were used.
720: In two dimensions, torii of $50^{2} \leq N \leq 200^{2}$ sites were employed.
721:
722:
723: To obtain the steady state of the SIRS process a random initial
724: configuration of susceptible and infected sites is evolved according to
725: the transition rates in Eq.~(\ref{transition}).
726: In practice a site is randomly chosen and a random number~($\in [0,1]$) is
727: also chosen: if it is greater than the given transition probability
728: for that site, which is equal
729: to the rate$\times \Delta t$, its state is updated:
730: $\Delta t$ is chosen to be so small that transition
731: probability is not greater than 1 for a range of ($\lambda, \gamma$)
732: ~\cite{marro:1999, durrett:1994b}. Otherwise its state remains the same.
733:
734:
735: For a finite system the only true stationary state of the SIRS process is
736: the absorbing state corresponding to $P(S)=1$, $P(I)=P(R)=0$. To learn about
737: the active state from simulations of
738: a finite system we study the quasi-stationary state. These are determined
739: from averages over the surviving representatives of $10^{3}$-$10^{4}$
740: independent realizations of the SIRS process with the same parameter $(\lambda,\gamma)$,
741: beginning with random initial distribution of the $I$'s.
742: Surviving sample averages converge to stationary values as $N \rightarrow \infty$.
743: To obtain the steady states and critical curve
744: we extrapolated quasi-stationary values of finite systems to
745: those of the infinite system.
746:
747:
748: The finite size scaling theory~\cite{marro:1999} can be used to
749: obtain the critical curve $\lambda^{z}_{c}(\gamma)$. We can
750: assume a scaling function of the surviving probability:
751: $P_{t}(I)\sim t^{-\beta/\nu_{\|}}
752: f((\lambda-\lambda_{c})t^{1/\nu_{\|}})$.
753: At criticality, $\lambda=\lambda_{c}(\gamma)$,
754: the survival probability of the infection, starting from a single infected
755: site, has a power law behavior in time. In the subcritical region,
756: it decays exponentially while in the supercritical region it
757: reaches non-zero steady state in a short time. The power law behavior
758: of the survival probability at criticality enables one to extract
759: the critical curve $\lambda^{z}_{c}(\gamma)$ from the time evolution data
760: of the SIRS process. This dynamical Monte Carlo simulation
761: is reliable when the system size is sufficiently large so that
762: the evolution of the system is approximately confined, for the duration of the
763: simulation to a region smaller than the size of the system~\cite{grassberger:1979}.
764: However we found that this surviving probability oscillates
765: wildly when $\gamma$ is small. Because of this
766: the dynamical Monte Carlo method is not used to determine the critical curve near $\gamma=0$.
767:
768:
769: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
770:
771: \bibitem{anderson:1992} R. M. Anderson and R. M. May,
772: {\sl Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control},
773: Oxford university Press, Oxford, 1992.
774:
775: \bibitem{diekmann:2000} O. Diekmann and J. A. P. Heesterbeek,
776: {\sl Mathematical Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases: model building,
777: analysis and interpretation}, Willey, New York, 2000
778:
779: \bibitem{neuhauser:2000} S. M. Krone and C. Neuhauser, {\sl J. Appl. Prob.}
780: {\bf 37}, 1044(2000).
781:
782: \bibitem{Jeger:1990} J. Kranz, ed., {\sl Comparative Epidemiology of Plant Diseases},
783: New York, 2002.
784:
785: \bibitem{durrett:1994a} R. Durrett and S. Levin,
786: {\sl Theor. Popul. Biol.}, {\bf 28}, 263(1994)
787:
788: \bibitem{liggett:1985} T. M. Liggett,
789: {\sl Interacting Particle Systems}, Springer-Verlag, New York(1985).
790:
791: \bibitem{durrett:1988b} R. Durrett, {\sl Lecture Notes on Particle Systems and
792: Percolation}, Wadsworth Publishing, 1988.
793:
794: \bibitem{marro:1999} J. Marro and R. Dickman,
795: {\sl Nonequilibrium Phase Tranistions in Lattice Models}, Cambridge
796: University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
797:
798: \bibitem{lebowitz:1985-86a} A. De Masi, P. A. Ferrari and J. L. Lebowitz,
799: {\sl Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 55}, 1947(1985).
800: {\sl J. Stat. Phys.} {\bf 44}, 589(1986).
801:
802: \bibitem{lebowitz:1986b} J. L. Lebowitz, Physica, {\bf 140A}, 232(1986).
803:
804: \bibitem{lebowitz:1988} J. L. Lebowitz, E. Presutti and H. Spohn,
805: {\sl J. Stat. Phys.} {\bf 51}, 841(1988).
806:
807: \bibitem{durrett:1994} R. Durrett and C. Neuhauser, {\sl Ann. Prob.}, {\bf 22}, 289(1994).
808:
809: \bibitem{bramson:1997} M. Bramson, {\sl Ann. Appl. Prob.} {\bf 7}, 565(1997).
810:
811: \bibitem{dickman:1986} R. Dickman,
812: {\sl Phys. Rev. A} {\bf 34} 4246(1986) and {\sl Phys. Rev.A} {\bf 38}, 2588(1988).
813:
814: \bibitem{matsuda:1992} H. Matsuda, N. Ogata, A. Sasaki, and K. Sato,
815: {\sl Prog. theor. Phys} {\bf 88}, 1035(1992).
816:
817: \bibitem{levin:1996} S. Levin and R. Durrett,
818: {\sl Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.}, {\bf 351}, 1615(1996).
819:
820: \bibitem{benavraham:1992} D. ben-Avraham and J. Kohler, {Phys. Rev. A} {\bf 45},
821: 8358(1992).
822:
823: \bibitem{petermann:2004} T. Petermann and Paolo De Los Rios, Los Alamos archive,
824: q-bio.PE/0401028.
825:
826: \bibitem{levin:1995} D. Mollison and S. Levin, in
827: {\sl Ecology of Infectious Diseases in Natural Populations}, 384, B. T. Grenfell
828: and A. P. Dobson, eds., Cambridge University, Cambridge, 1995.
829:
830: \bibitem{levin:1997} D. Tilman and P. Kareiva, eds.,
831: {\sl Spatial Ecology: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and
832: Interspecific Interactions}, Princeton university, Princeton, 1997.
833:
834: \bibitem{durrett:1998} R. Durrett and S. Levin, {\sl Theor. Popul. Biol.} {\bf 53}, 30(1998).
835:
836: \bibitem{keeling:1999} M. J. Keeling, {\sl Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B} {\bf 266}, 859(1999),
837: {\sl Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B} {\bf 266}, 953(1999) and {\sl Ecol. Lett.} {\bf 5}, 20(2002).
838:
839: \bibitem{levin:2000} A. Gandhi, S. Levin and S. Orszag, {\sl Bulletin of
840: Mathematical Biology} {\bf 62}, 595(2000).
841:
842: \bibitem{schnaiz:2002} R. B. Schnazi, {\sl Theor. Popul. Biol.} {\bf 61}, 163(2002).
843:
844: \bibitem{geometry:2002} U. Diekmann, R. Law and J. A. Metz, eds., {\sl The Geometry
845: of Ecological Interactions: Simplifying Spatial Complexity}, Cambridge University Press,
846: Cambridge, 2000.
847:
848: \bibitem{berg:1998} J. Van Den Berg, G. Grimmett and R. Schinazi,
849: {\sl Ann. Appl. Prob.}, {\bf 8}, 317(1998).
850:
851: \bibitem{andjel:1996} E. Andjel and R. Schinazi,
852: {\sl J. Appl. Prob.}, {\bf 33}, 741(1996).
853:
854: \bibitem{durrett:1991} R. Durrett and C. Neuhauser,
855: {\sl Ann. Appl. Prob.}, {\bf 1}, 189(1991).
856:
857: \bibitem{kuulasmaa:1982} K. Kuulasmaa,
858: {\sl J. Appl. Prob.}, {\bf 25}, 745(1982).
859:
860: \bibitem{huang} K. Huang, {\sl Statistical Mechanics}, Wiley, New York(1987).
861:
862: \bibitem{murray:1980} J. D. Murray,
863: {\sl Mathematical Biology}, Springer-Verlag, New York(1980).
864:
865: \bibitem{durrett:1994b} R. Durrett and S. Levin,
866: {\sl Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B} {\bf 343}, 329(1994).
867:
868: \bibitem{grassberger:1979} P. Grassberger and A. de la Torre, {\sl Ann. Phys.}
869: {\bf 122}, 373(1979).
870:
871: \end{thebibliography}{99}
872:
873: \begin{figure}
874: \begin{center}
875: \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=10cm,angle=0]{Fig1.eps}
876: %{Fig.091703-1.eps}
877: \caption{\label{fig1}Phase diagram of the SIRS process in two dimensions.
878: The coexistence phase of $S$-$I$-$R$ and the no-coexistence phase are
879: separated by the critical curve from the simulation~(open circles with dotted line for
880: eye-guidance), the PA (thick solid line) and the MFA (long dashed line).
881: The critical curve is obtained on periodic square lattice of different sizes $N$
882: from simulations extrapolated to infinite system : $N=50^{2},70^{2},100^{2},150^{2},200^{2}$.
883: }
884: \end{center}
885: \end{figure}
886:
887: \newpage
888:
889: \begin{figure}
890: \begin{center}
891: \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=10cm,angle=0]{Fig2.eps}
892: %{Fig.091903-1.eps}
893: \caption{\label{fig2}Phase diagram of the SIRS process in one dimension.
894: The critical curve from numerical simulations of ring lattice of different sizes $N$
895: is extrapolated to infinite system: $N=5000,7000,10000,15000$. The same symbols are used as
896: in the Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
897: }
898: \end{center}
899: \end{figure}
900:
901: \newpage
902:
903: \begin{figure}
904: \begin{center}
905: \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=10cm,angle=0]{Fig3.eps}
906: %{Fig.100903-1.eps}
907: \caption{\label{fig3}First and second order moments of the steady state SIRS
908: in two dimensions at $\gamma=0.2$.
909: The steady-state values of the density of infection in Fig.~\ref{fig3}(a)
910: and the second moments in Fig.~\ref{fig3}(b)-(f)
911: are drawn from the numerical simulation~(open circle with dotted line
912: for eye-guidance), the PA~(thick solid line), and the MFA~(long-dashed line).
913: For the numerical simulation we used a system of size $N=100^{2}$.}
914: \end{center}
915: \end{figure}
916:
917: \newpage
918:
919: \begin{figure}
920: \begin{center}
921: \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=10cm,angle=0]{Fig4.eps}
922: %{Fig.101503-3.eps}
923: \caption{\label{fig4}First and second order moments of the steady state SIRS
924: in two dimension at $\gamma=2$. The same symbols are
925: used as in the Fig.~\ref{fig3}.}
926: \end{center}
927: \end{figure}
928:
929: \newpage
930:
931: \begin{figure}
932: \begin{center}
933: \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=10cm,angle=0]{Fig5.eps}
934: %{Fig.101503-1.eps}
935: \caption{\label{fig5}First and second order moments of the steady state SIRS
936: process in one dimension at $\gamma=1$.
937: The same symbols are used as in the Fig.~\ref{fig3}.}
938: \end{center}
939: \end{figure}
940:
941: \newpage
942:
943: \begin{figure}
944: \begin{center}
945: \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=10cm,angle=0]{Fig6.eps}
946: %{Fig.101503-2.eps}
947: \caption{\label{fig6}First and second order moments of the steady state SIRS
948: process in one dimension at $\gamma=4$. The same
949: symbols are used as in the Fig.~\ref{fig3}.}
950: \end{center}
951: \end{figure}
952:
953:
954: \newpage
955:
956: \begin{figure}
957: \begin{center}
958: \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=10cm,angle=0]{Fig7.eps}
959: %{Fig.031204-4.eps}
960: \caption{\label{fig7}Time-evolution of the first and the second order moments of
961: the SIRS process in two dimensions. All sub-graphs are from numerical
962: simulations (open circles), the PA~(solid line), and the MFA~(dashed line)
963: at $\gamma=0.2$ and $\lambda=2$. A periodic square lattice of $N=10^{4}$ sites is used
964: in the numerical simulations averaged over $10^{3}-10^{4}$ realizations starting with
965: random initial distribution with 1 percent of infected sites. }
966: \end{center}
967: \end{figure}
968:
969:
970: \newpage
971:
972: \begin{figure}
973: \begin{center}
974: \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=10cm,angle=0]{Fig8.eps}
975: %{Fig.031204-1.eps}
976: \caption{\label{fig8}Time-evolution of fraction of infected sites of the
977: SIRS process in two dimensions at $\gamma=0.2$ and $\lambda=2$.
978: A periodic square lattice of $N=100^{2}$ is used in numerical
979: simulation averaged over $10^{3}-10^{4}$ realizations.
980: Main: Simulation starts with 1$\%$ of infected sites placed either randomly
981: ~(filled circles) or in a single cluster~(open circles) on a lattice.
982: Both the PA and MFA takes an initial value 0.01 for
983: $P_{0}(I)$.
984: Inset: Simulation starts with different fractions of infected sites
985: randomly placed in a lattice: 0.1, 1 and 5 percents of the system.}
986: \end{center}
987: \end{figure}
988:
989: \end{document}
990:
991:
992:
993:
994:
995:
996:
997:
998:
999:
1000:
1001:
1002:
1003:
1004: