Control of Overpopulated Tails in Kinetic Epidemic Models

Andrea Medaglia; Mattia Zanella

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Control of Overpopulated Tails in Kinetic Epidemic Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in kinetic SIR contact models, a control acting on interaction strength turns fat-tailed contact distributions into slim-tailed ones, while an additive control does not; the consequence is a larger reduction of the…

desk verdict Solid kinetic-epidemic control paper with a genuinely new L=2 closure, but the headline claim about fat-to-slim tail conversion is proven only in the FP limit; the finite-ε tail is not verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05365 v2 pith:XRUFQCIM submitted 2025-01-09 math.OC nlin.AOphysics.soc-phq-bio.PE

Mattia Zanella , Andrea Medaglia This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OCnlin.AOphysics.soc-phq-bio.PE MSC 92D3035Q8449N9082C40

keywords kineticepidemicmodelscontactdistributionfattailsFokker-PlanckequationoptimalcontrolSIRcompartmentalmodelsuper-spreadinginverseGamma

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether an epidemic control that changes how agents interact can reshape the contact distribution itself, not just push the average contact count toward a target. In the fat-tailed regime $\delta=-1$, where the uncontrolled contact equilibrium is an inverse Gamma distribution with power-law decay, it compares two protocols: an additive control that appears as a force in the agent dynamics, and an interaction-strength control that multiplies the growth term. The paper's central claim is that the interaction-strength control produces a controlled equilibrium with Gaussian decay and a finite second moment, while the additive control leaves a power-law tail. At the level of an SIR compartment model with second-moment-dependent incidence, this translates into a larger reduction of the infected peak for the interaction control. The point matters because overpopulated tails encode super-spreading: agents with very high contact numbers disproportionately drive transmission.

What carries the argument

The central object is the quasi-invariant Fokker-Planck limit of the controlled Boltzmann-type contact dynamics, reached by sending $\epsilon\to 0^+$ with the control penalty rescaled as $\nu\to\epsilon\nu$. In that limit, control A inserts the drift term $(x-x_T)/\nu$ into the Fokker-Planck operator, while control B contributes $\frac{x^2}{\nu}\left[-\frac{\alpha}{2}\left(\frac{m_J}{x}-1\right)\right]^2(x-x_T)$, and it is this extra $x^2$ factor that forces a Gaussian factor into the steady state (32). The argument starts from the uncontrolled inverse Gamma equilibrium $f^{\infty}_J(x)=(\lambda m_J)^{\lambda+1}/\Gamma(\lambda+1)\,x^{-2-\lambda}\exp(-\lambda m_J/x)$ for $\delta=-1$, and closes the SIR equations at the level of first and second moments through an equilibrium closure.

What would settle it

Simulate the controlled Boltzmann dynamics with rules (25) and (27) at finite $\epsilon$ (for example $\alpha=1$, $\sigma^2=0.2$, $m_J=10$, $x_T=3$, $\nu=1$), evolve to $T=20$, and measure the empirical tail of the long-time distribution on a large $x$-domain; if the control-B histogram still shows power-law decay, or the control-A histogram shows Gaussian decay, the central claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper derives the Fokker-Planck equations for the two controlled contact dynamics in the quasi-invariant limit and computes their steady states. For control A, the equilibrium $f^{(A),\infty}_J(x)=C x^{\lambda/\delta-2-2/(\sigma^2\nu)}\exp(-\lambda m_J/x-2x_T/(\sigma^2\nu x))$ retains the power-law factor, so the tail is still fat and the second moment need not exist. For control B, the equilibrium $f^{(B),\infty}_J(x)=C x^{-2-\ell}\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha^2}{2\sigma^2\nu}\left[-(2m_J+x_T)x+\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{m_J^2 x_T}{x}\right]\right)$ carries a Gaussian factor $\mathcal N(2m_J+x_T, 2\sigma^2\kappa/\alpha^2)$ and therefore decays faster than exponentially, with a finite second moment. The paper concludes that controlling the interaction strength, rather than adding a uniform force, shapes the contact structure itself, and the numerical tests show this protocol steering the SIR dynamics to a lower infected peak than control A.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on the assumption that the controlled Fokker-Planck equations derived in the small-interaction limit faithfully describe the original agent-based dynamics, and on the choice $\delta=-1$ that creates the power-law tail; if either fails, the conclusion that control B turns fat tails into slim tails does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $\delta=-1$, the controlled equilibrium under strategy B has Gaussian decay, so its second moment is finite; under strategy A the equilibrium retains a power-law tail and may fail to have a second moment.
At the SIR level with $L=2$, this translates into a larger reduction of the infected peak for control B than for control A in the numerical simulations.
The macroscopic controlled model is closed with finite second moments under B, which makes the derived incidence rates well defined in the fat-tailed regime.
For small penalization $\nu$, both controls steer the mean contact number toward the target $x_T$, but only B also reduces the energy and the tail of the contact distribution.
Selective, contact-proportional interventions are predicted to outperform uniform additive restrictions in suppressing super-spreading events.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: if the quasi-invariant Fokker-Planck limit remains faithful at finite $\epsilon$, the same A-vs-B tail comparison should be visible in the agent-based Boltzmann dynamics; a direct finite-$\epsilon$ tail-exponent measurement would settle this.
Editorial inference: the paper leaves the sign of $\delta$ unknown; if $\delta\ge 0$ there is no fat tail to convert, so the practical message is that estimating $\delta$ from contact surveys determines whether multiplicative control is necessary.
Editorial inference: extending the analysis to $\delta\in(-1,0)$ or to other growth functions should preserve the qualitative split—multiplicative control reweights the tail, additive control does not—because the distinguishing $x^2$ factor in the B-drift does not depend on the specific $\delta$ value.
Editorial inference: the same control comparison may transfer to other fat-tailed multi-agent systems with inverse Gamma equilibria, such as kinetic models of wealth or tumor growth, where interaction-strength controls could similarly convert power-law tails into Gaussian ones.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a solid extension of the kinetic control line, and the L=2 macroscopic closure with the A-vs-B equilibrium comparison is genuinely new. But the central selling point—that interaction-strength control converts fat tails to slim tails at the agent-based level—is only established in the Fokker-Planck limit, and the quasi-invariant scaling that justifies that limit is not uniform in x. The authors never test the region where the limit breaks down.

What's good: The algebra for both controlled equilibria checks out, and Tests 1 and 3 do what they claim. The L=2 closure (eqs. 20-21) is a real addition over the L=1 literature, and the observation that control A leaves a power-law tail while control B gives Gaussian decay in the FP limit is a useful mechanism-level distinction. The paper is readable and the numerical schemes are standard and apparently well-executed.

Where it's soft: First, the controlled FP equations are imported from [44] with derivation deferred; that reduces self-containment but is not fatal. Second, eq. (32) has a sloppy constant and a likely typo in the Gaussian variance: completing the square gives variance 2σ²ν/α², not 2σ²κ/α² with their κ. Fixable. Third—the one that matters—the derivation of the FP limit assumes ν ~ ε, and the control term in (27) saturates for x ≳ √ν/(αε). For larger x the interaction is essentially x' ≈ x_T + xη, and the stationary tail there depends on the noise law; it need not be Gaussian. The FP equilibrium's Gaussian tail is therefore not established as the finite-ε tail. Test 1 only compares on x∈[0,10] (with ε=0.01, so εx ≤ 0.1, while the saturation threshold is ~100), so the far tail is never checked.

That said, the FP-level mathematics is correct, and the macroscopic advantage of B over A in the SIR simulations is consistent with the FP equilibria. If the authors reframed the claim as a property of the Fokker-Planck limit, or added a direct DSMC verification of the far tail, the paper would be in good shape.

Who should read it: people working on kinetic models for epidemic spread, especially those interested in moment closures and control of contact networks. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should push on the finite-ε tail question.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies a Boltzmann-type kinetic model for contact distributions in an SIR epidemic, with a growth interaction that produces Gamma (δ=1) or inverse-Gamma (δ=-1) equilibria. It introduces two feedback controls derived from a quadratic cost: an additive control (A) and an interaction-strength control (B). In the quasi-invariant limit the authors derive controlled Fokker-Planck equations and compute their stationary states, finding that A retains a power-law tail while B has Gaussian decay. They close the macroscopic moment equations by substituting these equilibria, obtaining controlled SIR-type systems, and support the reductions with DSMC, structure-preserving, and time-splitting simulations.

Significance. The FP-level analysis is clean: the stationary densities (30) and (32) are explicit, the moment-closure systems in Section 3.2 are consistently derived, and the numerical tests cover the uncontrolled closure (Test 3) as well as controlled trajectories (Test 4). The paper does not fit parameters to obtain the tail conversion; the Gaussian tail of f^(B),∞ follows from the stated control law. If the agent-based interpretation is accepted, the comparison of additive versus interaction controls is a useful contribution to kinetic epidemic control. The main weakness is that the tail-level claim rests on the FP reduction, whose validity in the far tail is not established.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.1, Eqs. (27) and (31)] The quasi-invariant limit used to derive the controlled Fokker-Planck equation is not uniform in x. For x ≫ √ν/(αε), the denominator ν + ε²(xΨ)² in (27) is dominated by ε²(xΨ)², so the actual Boltzmann interaction reduces to x′ ≈ x_T + xη rather than to the cubic drift displayed in (31). The Gaussian tail of the equilibrium (32) is therefore an asymptotic statement about the FP equation, not a proven property of the finite-ε agent-based dynamics, because the ε→0 and x→∞ limits have been exchanged without an estimate. Test 1 (Figure 3) does not resolve this: the controlled DSMC/FP comparison is shown only on x ∈ [0,10] for ε = 0.01, while the saturation scale √ν/(αε) = 100 lies far beyond the displayed range.
[Section 3.1, derivation of (29)-(31)] The derivation of the controlled FP equations is deferred to [44], and the limiting argument there is not reproduced. Since the whole A-versus-B comparison is made on the FP equilibria (30) and (32), the paper should either include the tail-uniform version of the quasi-invariant limit or explicitly restrict the conclusion to the FP level. As written, the abstract and conclusion claim the stronger statement that controlling interaction strengths converts the contact distribution to a slim-tailed one, which is not supported for the original Boltzmann dynamics.
[Section 3.2 and Test 4, Figure 8] The claimed epidemiological advantage of control B over A at the SIR level is obtained by solving system (33) with the FP operators (29) and (31), so it inherits the unvalidated FP reduction. A direct DSMC simulation of the controlled Boltzmann equation (28) with (27), probing the tail region, or a convergence study in ε, is needed before the macroscopic comparison can be attributed to the agent-based model.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (15) and Eq. (21)] Λ is written as ((λ+δ)/λ)δ > 1; the exponent should be displayed as ^δ, and the same convention appears in (21), where Λ2 should be Λ².
[Eq. (32)] The variance of the Gaussian factor is written as 2σ²κ/α², but κ is not defined in the controlled section; it should be ν or the notation should be introduced.
[Figure captions, Test 2] Several figure captions contain garbled characters (e.g., '8=1;10' and '6=2;4' in Test 2 captions, and missing spaces in Figure 4 captions); these should be cleaned.
[Section 3, fixed δ = -1] The paper states that the sign of δ is generally unknown but then fixes δ=-1 for the controlled scenario; this is a reasonable modeling choice for fat tails, but the conclusion should consistently say 'for δ=-1' rather than presenting the tail conversion as unconditional.
[Eqs. (25) and (27)] The admissible-control constraint x′ ≥ 0 is not discussed; the noise η is only specified by mean and variance, so the interaction rules (25) and (27) may produce negative post-interaction contacts for some realizations of η. A brief comment on the support of the noise or on projection to R+ would clarify the model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the slim-tail result is derived from the stated control laws and is numerically re-validated, so no step reduces to its own input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is explicit and self-contained at the level of its modeling assumptions: the microscopic controlled transitions (25) and (27) are inserted into the Boltzmann-type equation (28), the quasi-invariant limit with ν → εν yields the Fokker-Planck equations (29) and (31), and the equilibria (30) and (32) are obtained by solving those FP equations. The central claim that control B produces a slim-tailed equilibrium while control A does not is a mathematical consequence of the cubic drift in (31), not an assumption smuggled into the control design. No parameter is fitted to the tail outcome, and the comparison between A and B is not calibrated to data. The FP reduction is deferred to self-cited works ([28], [44], [48]), but the paper partially independently validates this reduction in Test 1 by comparing DSMC simulations of the Boltzmann dynamics with the limiting FP equations and their analytical equilibria, and Test 3 validates the macroscopic closure independently. Thus the self-citations are not load-bearing in the circularity sense: they are standard asymptotic derivations supported by the paper's own numerics. The modeling choice δ = −1 and the two control protocols are stated assumptions, not outputs of the derivation. The potential non-uniformity of the quasi-invariant limit in the far tail is a correctness or validity concern about the FP approximation, not a circularity, and no passage in the paper asserts a circular step or an unproved premise as its central conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the kinetic-SIR framework inherited from [28], the inverse Gamma equilibrium for delta = -1, the quasi-invariant Fokker-Planck limit including the nu -> epsilon nu scaling, and the equilibrium closure for macroscopic moments. No new microscopic entity is introduced; the controls are feedback laws on existing variables. The main underlying assumptions are the delta = -1 tail regime and the validity of the FP reduction, both stated or referenced rather than derived from data.

free parameters (6)

tail exponent parameter delta = -1 (fat-tailed regime); +1 for slim-tail comparisons
The paper fixes delta = -1 for the controlled scenario and states the sign of delta is generally unknown (Sections 2.2.1 and 3.1). The whole overpopulated-tail scenario and the A-vs-B comparison depend on this choice.
lambda = alpha/sigma^2 (shape-to-noise ratio) = 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 10 in tests
Controls the tail thickness of the Gamma and inverse Gamma equilibria and the condition lambda > 2 for finite third moment (eq. 19). Chosen by hand per test, not estimated from data.
control penalty nu = 1 and 10 in tests
Determines the strength of the optimal control in (23); the tail-conversion result for protocol B is evaluated at these values. No estimation is performed.
target contact number x_T = 3
Prescribed target mean in the control cost (23); chosen, not estimated.
transmission weights beta1, beta2 and recovery rate gamma_I = beta1 = 2e-2, beta2 = 2e-6, gamma_I = 1/14 (Tests 3-4)
Epidemiological parameters of the illustrative SIR scenario; chosen to make the epidemic visible in the simulation time window.
contact relaxation time tau = tau -> 0 in closures; tau = 1 and 1e-5 in tests
The macroscopic closure assumes instantaneous relaxation to equilibrium; numerical tests use finite tau to check consistency.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption SIR compartmentalization with contact-dependent local incidence rate (3) whose weights beta_l are nonnegative and finite for l = 1, ..., L.
The entire model is built on this compartment structure and on the polynomial incidence kernel; Section 2.1.
domain assumption Contact formation follows the binary interaction rule (4)-(5) with growth function Psi and random fluctuations of variance epsilon sigma^2.
Inherited from [28]; determines the form of the equilibrium (9) and hence the existence of power-law tails for delta < 0.
domain assumption Collision kernel B(x) = x^{-(1+delta)/2} from eq. (7).
Taken from [35]; with delta = -1 the kernel is unitary (Maxwellian molecules), which makes the Fokker-Planck limit and equilibria tractable.
domain assumption Quasi-invariant limit: epsilon -> 0 with scaled diffusion leads to Fokker-Planck operator (8); for controls, nu is simultaneously scaled nu -> epsilon nu.
The Fokker-Planck equations (29),(31) and their equilibria (30),(32) are consequences of this scaling; derivation deferred to [28,44]. Test 1 checks one parameter set.
ad hoc to paper Equilibrium closure: in the limit tau -> 0, second and third moments are computed from the equilibrium density f_infinity_J with the current mean m_J (eqs. 14, 19, 36).
This is the standard kinetic closure, but it is an approximation whose validity is assumed; it is tested numerically in Test 3 for L = 2, delta = -1.
standard math For delta = -1, the third moment exists only if lambda > 2 (eq. 19), a condition enforced in all simulations.
Mathematical integrability condition for the inverse Gamma closure; stated in Section 2.3.
domain assumption Control laws (A) and (B) arise from the quadratic cost (23) solved by Lagrange multipliers; the admissible set U restricts x' >= 0.
The controls are the model's proposed NPIs, not derived from epidemiological data; the boundedness of the control u is not discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Control of Overpopulated Tails in Kinetic Epidemic Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XRUFQCIM

@misc{pith2026250105365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Control of Overpopulated Tails in Kinetic Epidemic Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XRUFQCIM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05365}
}

read the original abstract

We introduce model-based transition rates for controlled compartmental models in mathematical epidemiology, with a focus on the effects of control strategies applied to interacting multi-agent systems describing contact formation dynamics. In the framework of kinetic control problems, we compare two prototypical control protocols: one additive control directly influencing the dynamics and another targeting the interaction strength between agents. The emerging controlled macroscopic models are derived for an SIR compartmentalization to illustrate their impact on epidemic progression and contact interaction dynamics. Numerical results show the effectiveness of this approach in steering the dynamics and controlling epidemic trends, even in scenarios where contact distributions exhibit an overpopulated tail.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05365 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Case L = 1: Epidemic trajectories of the system (12)-(13) with closure (14). The continuous line corresponds to the evolution of the system obtained with a Gamma closure (G) and the dashdotted line the evolution of the system with inverse Gamma closure (iG). As initial condition we considered as initial condition mJ (0) = 10, J ∈ C, and ρI (0) = ρR(0) = 10−5 , ρS(0) = 1 − ρI (0) − ρR(0) and β1 = 10−3 , γI = 1/14. Fr… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Case L = 2: Epidemic trajectories of the system (20)-(21) with closure discussed in (19). The continuous line corresponds to the evolution of the system obtained with a Gamma closure (G) and the dashdotted line the evolution of the system with inverse Gamma closure (iG). As initial condition we considered as initial condition mJ (0) = 10, J ∈ C, and ρI (0) = ρR(0) = 10−3 , ρS(0) = 1 − ρI (0) − ρR(0) and β1 = 0, β2 =… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of the long-time behaviour of the numerical solution to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: First (left) and second (right) order moment at the equilibrium versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Contact distribution at the equilibrium for different penalization co [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Contact distribution at the equilibrium for different coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Time evolution of the mass fraction (left) and mean (right) of system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Time evolution of the mass fractions ρJ (t) in every compartment J = {S, I, R}. Left column: τ = 1 and ν = 1; right column: τ = 10−5 and ν = 1. The black lines represent the uncontrolled scenario obtained by solving the system (20)-(18). The red circled lines is the co…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[44]

Preziosi, G

L. Preziosi, G. Toscani, M. Zanella. Control of tumor growth distributions through kinetic methods. J. Theor. Biol. , 514: 110579, 2021

work page 2021
[1]

Albi, Y.-P

G. Albi, Y.-P. Choi, M. Fornasier, D. Kalise. Mean Field Control Hierarchy. Appl. Math. Optim. , 76: 93–135, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

G. Albi, M. Herty, L. Pareschi. Kinetic description of optimal control prob- lems and applications to opinion consensus. Commun. Math. Sci. , 13(6): 1407–1429, 2015

work page 2015
[3]

G. Albi, L. Pareschi. Selective model-predictive control for flocking systems. Commun. Appl. Ind. Math. , 9(2): 4–21, 2018

work page 2018
[4]

G. Albi, L. Pareschi, G. Toscani, M. Zanella. Recent advances in opinion modeling: control and social influence. In Active Particles Volume 1, Ad- vances in Theory, Models, and Applications , Eds. N. Bellomo, P. Degond, and E. Tadmor, Birkh¨ auser-Springer, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

G. Albi, L. Pareschi, M. Zanella. Control with uncertain data of socially structured compartmental epidemic models. J. Math. Biol. , 82, 63, 2021

work page 2021
[6]

G. Albi, L. Pareschi, M. Zanella. Modelling lockdown measures in epi- demic outbreaks using selective socio-economic containment with uncer- tainty. Math. Biosci. Eng. , 18(6): 7161-7190, 2021. 25

work page 2021
[7]

R. M. Anderson, R. M. May. Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1991

work page 1991

Show all 50 references

[8]

Bailo, M

R. Bailo, M. Bongini, J. A. Carrillo, D. Kalise. Optimal consensus control of the Cucker-Smale model. IF AC-PapersOnLine, 51(13):1–6, 2018

2018
[9]

Bardos, F

C. Bardos, F. Golse, D. Levermore. Fluid dynamic limits of kinetic equa- tions. I. Formal derivations. J. Stat. Phys. , 63:323–344, 1991

1991
[10]

H. Behncke. Optimal control of deterministic epidemics. Optim. Control Appl. Meth. , 21: 269-285, 2000

2000
[11]

B´ eraud , S

G. B´ eraud , S. Kazmercziak, P. Beutels, D. Levy-Bruhl, X. Lenne, N. Mielcarek, Y. Yazdanpanah, P.-Y. Bo¨ elle, N. Hens, B. Dervaux. The French Connection: The First Large Population-Based Contact Survey in France Relevant for the Spread of Infectious Diseases. PLoS One, 10(7...

2015
[12]

M. Bisi, S. Lorenzani. Mathematical models for the large spread of a contact-based infection: A statistical mechanics approach. J. Nonlin. Sci. , 34: 84, 2024

2024
[13]

Bolzoni, E

L. Bolzoni, E. Bonacini, C. Soresina, M. Groppi. Time-optimal control strategies in SIR epidemic models. Math. Biosci. , 292: 86-96, 2017

2017
[14]

Bonandin, M

S. Bonandin, M. Zanella. Effects of heterogeneous opinion interactions in many-agent systems for epidemic dynamics. Netw. Heter. Media , 19(1): 235-261, 2024

2024
[15]

F. Brauer. Mathematical epidemiology: Past, present, and future. Infect. Dis. Model., 2(2):113-127, 2017

2017
[16]

Caponigro, M

M. Caponigro, M. Fornasier, B. Piccoli, E. Tr´ elat. Sparse stabilization and optimal control of the Cucker-Smale Model. Math. Control Relat. Fields , 3(4):447–466, 2013

2013
[17]

J. A. Carrillo, D. Kalise, F. Rossi, E. Tr´ elat. Controlling Swarms toward Flocks and Mills. SIAM J. Contr. Optim. , 60(3):1863-1891, 2022

2022
[18]

Cercignani

C. Cercignani. The Boltzmann Equation and its Applications , Springer Se- ries in Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 67. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY
[19]

Ciallella, M

A. Ciallella, M. Pulvirenti, S. Simonella. Kinetic SIR equations and particle limits. Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Natur. , 32(2): 295–315, 2021

2021
[20]

Chiarello, B

F. Chiarello, B. Piccoli, A. Tosin. Multiscale control of generic second order traffic models by driver-assist vehicles. Multiscale Model. Simul., 19(2):589- 611, 2021. 26

2021
[21]

Y.-P. Choi, D. Kalise, J. Peszek, A. A. Peters. A collisionless singular Cucker-Smale model with decentralized formation control. SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst. , 18(4):1954-1981, 2019

1954
[22]

Chowell, P

G. Chowell, P. W. Fenimore, M. A. Castillo-Garsow, C. Castillo-Chavez. SARS outbreaks in Ontario, Hong Kong and Singapore: the role of di- agnosis and isolation as a control mechanism. J. Theor. Biol. , 224(1):1-8, 2003

2003
[23]

R. M. Colombo, M. Garavello. Optimizing vaccination strategies in an age structured SIR model. Math. Bios. Eng. , 17(2):1074–1089, 2019

2019
[24]

R. M. Colombo, M. Garavello. A feedback strategy in hyperbolic control problems. In Hyperbolic problems: theory, numerics, applications , AIMS Ser. Appl. Math. Vol. 10: 377–384, 2020

2020
[25]

R. M. Colombo, F. Marcellini, E. Rossi. Vaccination strategies through intra-compartmental dynamics. Netw. Heterog. Media, 17(3):385-400, 2022

2022
[26]

Della Marca, N

R. Della Marca, N. Loy, A. Tosin. An SIR model with viral load-dependent transmission. J. Math. Biol. , 86(4):61, 2023

2023
[27]

Dimarco, L

G. Dimarco, L. Pareschi, G. Toscani, M. Zanella. Wealth distribution under the spread of infectious diseases. Phys. Rev. E , 102: 022303, 2020

2020
[28]

Dimarco, B

G. Dimarco, B. Perthame, G. Toscani, M. Zanella. Kinetic models for epi- demic dynamics with social heterogeneity. J. Math. Biol. , 83, 4, 2021

2021
[29]

Dimarco, G

G. Dimarco, G. Toscani, M. Zanella. Optimal control of epidemic spread- ing in the presence of social heterogeneity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A , 380:20210160, 2022

2022
[30]

W. Dong, K. Heller, A. Pentland. Modeling infection with multi-agent dy- namics. In Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction: 5th International Conference, SBP 2012, College Park, MD, USA, April 3- 5, 2012. Proceedings 5 (pp. 172-179). Springer Berlin Heidelberg

2012
[31]

Eubank, H

S. Eubank, H. Guclu, V. Anil Kumar et al. Modelling disease outbreaks in realistic urban social networks. Nature 429, 180–184, 2004

2004
[32]

Ferguson, D

N. Ferguson, D. Cummings, S. Cauchemez, et al. Strategies for containing an emerging influenza pandemic in Southeast Asia. Nat., 437: 209–214, 2005

2005
[33]

Fornasier, B

M. Fornasier, B. Piccoli, F. Rossi. Mean-field sparse optimal control.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. , 372(2028): 20130400, 2014

2014
[34]

Fornasier, F

M. Fornasier, F. Solombrino, F. Mean-field optimal control.ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. , 20(4), 1123–1152, 2014. 27

2014
[35]

Franceschi, A

J. Franceschi, A. Medaglia, M. Zanella. On the optimal control of kinetic epidemic models with uncertain social features. Optim. Contr. Appl. Meth. , 45(2): 494-522, 2024

2024
[36]

Fumanelli, M

L. Fumanelli, M. Ajelli, P. Manfredi, A. Vespignani, S. Merler. Inferring the structure of social contacts from demographic data in the analysis of infectious diseases spread. PLoS Comput. Biol. , 8(9): e1002673, 2012

2012
[37]

Guglielmi, E

N. Guglielmi, E. Iacomini, A. Viguerie. Identification of time delays in COVID-19 data. Epidemiologic Meth., 12(1):20220117, 2023

2023
[38]

Le Bris, P.-L

C. Le Bris, P.-L. Lions. Existence and uniqueness of solutions to Fokker- Planck type equations with irregular coefficients. Commun. Partial Differ. Equ., 33(7):1272-1317, 2008

2008
[39]

S. Lee, G. Chowell, C. Castillo-Chavez. Optimal control for pandemic in- fluenza: The role of limited antiviral treatment and isolation. J. Theor. Biol., 265(2): 136-150, 2010

2010
[40]

N. Loy, A. Tosin. A viral load-based model for epidemic spread on spatial networks Math. Biosci. Eng. , 18(5):5635–5663, 2021

2021
[41]

Merler, M

S. Merler, M. Ajelli. The role of population heterogeneity and human mo- bility in the spread of pandemic influenza. Proc. R. Soc. B : 277:557–565, 2010

2010
[42]

Pareschi, G

L. Pareschi, G. Toscani. Interacting Multiagent Systems: Kinetic Equations and Monte Carlo Methods . Oxford University Press, 2013

2013
[43]

Pareschi, M

L. Pareschi, M. Zanella. Structure preserving schemes for nonlinear Fokker- Planck equations and applications.J. Sci. Comput., 74(3): 1575-1600, 2018

2018
[45]

Tosin, M

A. Tosin, M. Zanella. Kinetic-controlled hydrodynamics for traffic models with driver-assist vehicles. Multiscale Model. Simul. , 17(2):716-749, 2018

2018
[46]

Salath´ e, M

M. Salath´ e, M. Kazandjieva, J.W. Lee, P. Levis, M.W. Feldman, J.H. Jones. A high-resolution human contact network for infectious disease transmis- sion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A , 107(51):22020-5, 2010

2010
[47]

Weightman, T

R. Weightman, T. Akinode, B. Piccoli. Optimal control of pandemics via a sociodemographic model of non-pharmaceutical interventions. Netw. Heter. Media, 19(2):500–525, 2024

2024
[48]

M. Zanella. Derivation of macroscopic epidemic models from multi-agent systems. Preprint arXiv:2410.08610, 2024. 28

2024 arXiv
[49]

Zanella, C

M. Zanella, C. Bardelli, G. Dimarco, S. Deandrea, P. Perotti, M. Azzi, S. Figini, G. Toscani. A data-driven epidemic model with social structure for understanding the COVID-19 infection on a heavily affected Italian Province. Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci. , 31(12):2533-2570, 2021

2021
[50]

Zhang et al

J. Zhang et al. Changes in contact patterns shape the dynamics of the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Science, 368:1481–1486, 2020. 29

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [44]

Preziosi, G

L. Preziosi, G. Toscani, M. Zanella. Control of tumor growth distributions through kinetic methods. J. Theor. Biol. , 514: 110579, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [1]

Albi, Y.-P

G. Albi, Y.-P. Choi, M. Fornasier, D. Kalise. Mean Field Control Hierarchy. Appl. Math. Optim. , 76: 93–135, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [2]

G. Albi, M. Herty, L. Pareschi. Kinetic description of optimal control prob- lems and applications to opinion consensus. Commun. Math. Sci. , 13(6): 1407–1429, 2015

work page 2015

[4] [3]

G. Albi, L. Pareschi. Selective model-predictive control for flocking systems. Commun. Appl. Ind. Math. , 9(2): 4–21, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [4]

G. Albi, L. Pareschi, G. Toscani, M. Zanella. Recent advances in opinion modeling: control and social influence. In Active Particles Volume 1, Ad- vances in Theory, Models, and Applications , Eds. N. Bellomo, P. Degond, and E. Tadmor, Birkh¨ auser-Springer, 2017

work page 2017

[6] [5]

G. Albi, L. Pareschi, M. Zanella. Control with uncertain data of socially structured compartmental epidemic models. J. Math. Biol. , 82, 63, 2021

work page 2021

[7] [6]

G. Albi, L. Pareschi, M. Zanella. Modelling lockdown measures in epi- demic outbreaks using selective socio-economic containment with uncer- tainty. Math. Biosci. Eng. , 18(6): 7161-7190, 2021. 25

work page 2021

[8] [7]

R. M. Anderson, R. M. May. Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1991

work page 1991