| Literature DB >> 35125625 |
Kai Zong1, Cuicui Luo2.
Abstract
In this paper, a reinforcement learning based framework is developed for COVID-19 resource allocation. We first construct an agent-based epidemic environment to model the transmission dynamics in multiple states. Then, a multi-agent reinforcement-learning algorithm is proposed based on the time-varying properties of the environment, and the performance of the algorithm is compared with other algorithms. According to the age distribution of populations and their economic conditions, the optimal lockdown resource allocation strategies of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah in the United States are determined using the proposed reinforcement-learning algorithm. Experimental results show that the framework can adopt more flexible resource allocation strategies and help decision makers to determine the optimal deployment of limited resources in infection prevention.Entities:
Keywords: Agent-based Model; COVID-19; Reinforcement Learning; Resource Allocation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35125625 PMCID: PMC8800507 DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2022.107960
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Ind Eng ISSN: 0360-8352 Impact factor: 5.431
Fig. 1MARAAC structure.
Fig. 2Number of infections with and without intercity travel (The total population of the city is 1,000).
Fig. 3SEAIRD model.
Parameters used in SEAIRD model
| Parameter | Description | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| exposed rate | |||
| symptomatic proportion | 57% | ||
| pre-asymptomatic rate | |||
| pre-symptomatic rate | |||
| recovery rate in asymptomatic compartment | |||
| recovery rate in symptomatic non-treated compartment | |||
| rate from symptom onset to hospitalized | 0.1695 | ||
| symptomatic case hospitalization rate | [0.07018, 0.07018,4.735, 16.33, 25.54] | ||
| rate of symptomatic individuals go to hospital | |||
| recovery rate in hospitalized compartment | fit to Austin admissions and discharge data | ||
| rate from hospitalized to death | fit to Austin admissions and discharge data | ||
| hospitalized fatality ratio | [4, 12.365, 3.122, 10.745, 23.158] | ||
| death rate on hospitalized individuals | |||
| death rate on individuals that need hospitalization | [0.208, 0.206, 0.228, 0.284, 0.367] | Adjust from | |
| rate from hospitalization needed to death | 0.3 | self defined | |
| infection spread rate | 0.023 | Calibrate according to real-world data | |
| scaling factor | 0.765 | Calibrate according to real-world data |
Fig. 4contact network.
Fig. 5Agent rewards after 10,000 episodes in 8-agent environment.
Fig. 6Agent rewards after 10,000 episodes in 4-agent environment.
Fig. 7Agent rewards after 10,000 episodes in 2-agent environment.
Environment Parameters
| State | Age distribution | Parameter | locations weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | [12%, 13.3%, 14%, 12.8%, 12%, 11.9%, 11.5%, 8.4%, 4.1%] | Population: 1400; Home: 514, -, -; Office: 8, 150,0; School: 2, 30, 200; Hospital: 1, 30, 10; Grocery Store: 6, 5, 30;Retail Store: 6, 5, 30; Restaurant: 2,6,30; Bar: 3, 5, 30; Park: 3, 10, 300 | [0.780, 0.018, 0.110, 0.050, 0.010, 0.017, 0.015] |
| California | [12%, 13.1%, 14.5%, 14.5%, 12.8%, 12.5%, 10.6%, 6.4%, 3.6%] | Population: 7400; Homes: 2552, -, -;Office: 37, 150, 0; School: 8, 30, 200; Hospital: 7, 30, 10; Grocery Store: 30, 5, 30; Retail Store: 30, 5, 30; Restaurant: 14, 6, 30; Bar: 15, 5, 30; Park: 5, 10, 300 | [0.840, 0.017, 0.080, 0.035, 0.010, 0.006, 0.012] |
| Nevada | [12%, 12.7%, 13.2%, 14.3%, 12.8%, 12.8%, 11.4%, 7.6%, 3.1%] | Population: 600; Home: 222, -, -;Office: 2, 150, 0; School: 1, 50, 360; Hospital: 1, 18, 6; Grocery Store: 2, 5, 30; Retail Store: 2, 5, 30; Restaurant: 1, 8, 40; Bar: 15, 3, 30; Park: 10, 10, 300 | [0.670, 0.006, 0.085, 0.130, 0.045, 0.016, 0.048] |
| Utah | [15.7%, 16.3%, 16.2%, 14.1%, 12.1%, 9.4%, 8.6%, 5.1%, 2.5%] | Population: 600; Home: 193, -, -;Office: 2, 150, 0; School: 1, 50, 360; Hospital: 1, 18, 6; Grocery Store: 2, 5, 30; Retail Store: 2, 5, 30; Restaurant: 1, 6, 30; Bar: 5, 3, 30; Park: 10, 10, 300 | [0.800, 0.022, 0.110, 0.030, 0.010, 0.014, 0.014] |
Values given as nine-element vectors correspond to 0–9, 10–19, 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–79, and 80 + year age groups, respectively. Data source:https://censusreporter.org/
Values given as three-element vectors correspond to number of locations, employee capacity, and visitor capacity, respectively.
Adjusted according to gross domestic product (GDP) data of each state in 2019 released by Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Sensitivity analysis of the environment
| States | Infection Spread Rate | Scaling Factor | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| value | infection peak | time to peak | deaths | value | infection peak | time to peak | deaths | |
| Arizona | 0.01 | 0.363 | 27 | 0.034 | 0 | 0.457 | 23 | 0.037 |
| 0.02 | 0.457 | 23 | 0.037 | 0.4 | 0.415 | 24 | 0.030 | |
| 0.03 | 0.511 | 18 | 0.043 | 0.7 | 0.324 | 26 | 0.041 | |
| California | 0.01 | 0.419 | 24 | 0.032 | 0 | 0.471 | 20 | 0.033 |
| 0.02 | 0.471 | 20 | 0.033 | 0.4 | 0.442 | 24 | 0.031 | |
| 0.03 | 0.514 | 18 | 0.034 | 0.7 | 0.342 | 29 | 0.028 | |
| Nevada | 0.01 | 0.295 | 30 | 0.022 | 0 | 0.337 | 22 | 0.047 |
| 0.02 | 0.337 | 22 | 0.047 | 0.4 | 0.333 | 31 | 0.035 | |
| 0.03 | 0.402 | 22 | 0.048 | 0.7 | 0.195 | 39 | 0.022 | |
| Utah | 0.01 | 0.330 | 27 | 0.022 | 0 | 0.393 | 23 | 0.047 |
| 0.02 | 0.393 | 23 | 0.047 | 0.4 | 0.388 | 29 | 0.035 | |
| 0.03 | 0.442 | 18 | 0.048 | 0.7 | 0.297 | 30 | 0.022 | |
Five-level allocation strategies
| Levels | Stay home if sick, Practice good hygiene | Wear facial coverings | Locked locations | Travel restrictions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level 0 | False | False | None | False |
| Level 1 | True | True | None | True |
| Level 2 | True | True | School | True |
| Level 3 | True | True | School, Retail Store, Bar, Restaurant, Park | True |
| Level 4 | True | Ture | Office, School, Retail Store, Restaurant, Bar, Park | True |
Fig. 8Results of first experiment.
Fig. 9Results of the first experiment in the environment with a total population of 100 000.
Fig. 10Results of the second experiment.