We review research studies which use game theory to model the decision-making of individuals during an epidemic, attempting to classify the literature and identify the emerging trends in this field. The literature is classified based on (i) type of population modelling (classical or network-based), (ii) frequency of the game (non-repeated or repeated), and (iii) type of strategy adoption (self-learning or imitation). The choice of model is shown to depend on many factors such as the immunity to the disease, the strength of immunity conferred by the vaccine, the size of population and the level of mixing therein. We highlight that while early studies used classical compartmental modelling with self-learning games, in recent years, there is a substantial growth of network-based modelling with imitation games. The review indicates that game theory continues to be an effective tool to model decision-making by individuals with respect to intervention (vaccination or social distancing).

A number of centrality measures are available to determine the relative importance of a node in a complex network, and betweenness is prominent among them. However, the existing centrality measures are not adequate in network percolation scenarios (such as during infection transmission in a social network of individuals, spreading of computer viruses on computer networks, or transmission of disease over a network of towns) because they do not account for the changing percolation states of individual nodes. We propose a new measure, percolation centrality, that quantifies relative impact of nodes based on their topological connectivity, as well as their percolation states. The measure can be extended to include random walk based definitions, and its computational complexity is shown to be of the same order as that of betweenness centrality. We demonstrate the usage of percolation centrality by applying it to a canonical network as well as simulated and real world scale-free and random networks.

This paper presents a succinct review of attempts in the literature to use game theory to model decision-making scenarios relevant to defence applications. Game theory has been proven as a very effective tool in modelling the decision-making processes of intelligent agents, entities, and players. It has been used to model scenarios from diverse fields such as economics, evolutionary biology, and computer science. In defence applications, there is often a need to model and predict the actions of hostile actors, and players who try to evade or out-smart each other. Modelling how the actions of competitive players shape the decision making of each other is the forte of game theory. In past decades, there have been several studies that applied different branches of game theory to model a range of defence-related scenarios. This paper provides a structured review of such attempts, and classifies existing literature in terms of the kind of warfare modelled, the types of games used, and the players involved. After careful selection, a total of 29 directly relevant papers are discussed and classified. In terms of the warfares modelled, we recognise that most papers that apply game theory in defence settings are concerned with Command and Control Warfare, and can be further classified into papers dealing with (i) Resource Allocation Warfare (ii) Information Warfare (iii) Weapons Control Warfare, and (iv) Adversary Monitoring Warfare. We also observe that most of the reviewed papers are concerned with sensing, tracking, and large sensor networks, and the studied problems have parallels in sensor network analysis in the civilian domain. In terms of the games used, we classify the reviewed papers into papers that use non-cooperative or cooperative games, simultaneous or sequential games, discrete or continuous games, and non-zero-sum or zero-sum games. Similarly, papers are also classified into two-player, three-player or multi-player game based papers. We also explore the nature of players and the construction of payoff functions in each scenario. Finally, we also identify gaps in literature where game theory could be fruitfully applied in scenarios hitherto unexplored using game theory. The presented analysis provides a concise summary of the state-of-the-art with regards to the use of game theory in defence applications and highlights the benefits and limitations of game theory in the considered scenarios.

Simulations associate urbanization with earlier peaks, higher peak prevalence, and shifting bimodality of pandemics in Australia.

Quantifying and comparing the scientific output of researchers has become critical for governments, funding agencies and universities. Comparison by reputation and direct assessment of contributions to the field is no longer possible, as the number of scientists increases and traditional definitions about scientific fields become blurred. The h-index is often used for comparing scientists, but has several well-documented shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce a new index for measuring and comparing the publication records of scientists: the pagerank-index (symbolised as π). The index uses a version of pagerank algorithm and the citation networks of papers in its computation, and is fundamentally different from the existing variants of h-index because it considers not only the number of citations but also the actual impact of each citation. We adapt two approaches to demonstrate the utility of the new index. Firstly, we use a simulation model of a community of authors, whereby we create various ‘groups’ of authors which are different from each other in inherent publication habits, to show that the pagerank-index is fairer than the existing indices in three distinct scenarios: (i) when authors try to ‘massage’ their index by publishing papers in low-quality outlets primarily to self-cite other papers (ii) when authors collaborate in large groups in order to obtain more authorships (iii) when authors spend most of their time in producing genuine but low quality publications that would massage their index. Secondly, we undertake two real world case studies: (i) the evolving author community of quantum game theory, as defined by Google Scholar (ii) a snapshot of the high energy physics (HEP) theory research community in arXiv. In both case studies, we find that the list of top authors vary very significantly when h-index and pagerank-index are used for comparison. We show that in both cases, authors who have collaborated in large groups and/or published less impactful papers tend to be comparatively favoured by the h-index, whereas the pagerank-index highlights authors who have made a relatively small number of definitive contributions, or written papers which served to highlight the link between diverse disciplines, or typically worked in smaller groups. Thus, we argue that the pagerank-index is an inherently fairer and more nuanced metric to quantify the publication records of scientists compared to existing measures.

Understanding epidemic dynamics has always been a challenge. As witnessed from the ongoing Zika or the seasonal Influenza epidemics, we still need to improve our analytical methods to better understand and control epidemics. While the emergence of complex sciences in the turn of the millennium have resulted in their implementation in modelling epidemics, there is still a need for improving our understanding of critical dynamics in epidemics. In this study, using agent-based modelling, we simulate a Susceptible-Infected-Susceptible (SIS) epidemic on a homogeneous network. We use transfer entropy and active information storage from information dynamics framework to characterise the critical transition in epidemiological models. Our study shows that both (bias-corrected) transfer entropy and active information storage maximise after the critical threshold ( $R_0$ = 1). This is the first step toward an information dynamics approach to epidemics. Understanding the dynamics around the criticality in epidemiological models can provide us insights about emergent diseases and disease control.