Social behavior is fundamental to the survival of many species. It allows the formation of social groups providing fitness advantages from greater access to resources and better protection from predators (Krause and Ruxton, 2002). Structure within these groups can be found in the way individuals communicate across space, cooperate in sexual or parental behavior, or clash in territorial or mating conflicts (Hinde, 1976). While animal societies are usually studied independently of each other, studying how they differ in these regards has potential to reveal new insights into the nature of social living (Sah et al., 2018; Dunbar and Shultz, 2010).

When social interaction requires shared physical space it can also be a conduit for the transmission of infectious disease (Altizer et al., 2003). In a typical infectious disease model, if the disease spreads through the environment then the transmission rate is assumed to scale proportionally to the local population density (de Jong et al., 1995; Hopkins et al., 2020). Alternatively, if transmission requires close proximity encounters that only occur between bonded individuals then we expect social connectivity to determine the outcome. These two paradigms are known in the literature as density-dependence and frequency-dependence (Silk et al., 2017).

The problem, however, is that real diseases are not so easy to categorize (Patterson and Ruckstuhl, 2013). For example, as social groups grow in size, new bonds must be created to maintain cohesiveness (Lehmann et al., 2007). To manage the time and cognitive effort required to create these bonds, individuals tend to interact mostly with a small number of close companions while maintaining cohesion with the wider group through less frequent contact (Silk, 2007; Sueur et al., 2011; Dakin and Ryder, 2020). For an infectious disease, this creates fewer transmission opportunities than we would expect to see in a group with highly fluid social dynamics. The extent to which group size amplifies the transmission rate therefore depends on how individuals choose to distribute their social effort between strong and weak ties (Karsai et al., 2014).

While transmission rate has been observed to scale non-linearly with group size for a number of disease systems (Cross et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2009; Silk et al., 2017), it remains unclear how much this dependency is related to the internal social structure of the group; few studies observe social dynamics at sufficient detail while simultaneously monitoring the disease status of each individual. In the absence of direct observations, our contribution to this discussion centers around modeling; incorporating empirical social data with computational simulations. We address two specific questions. Firstly, can we quantify the variability in how individuals choose to distribute their social effort within a group, and secondly, what will this tell us about the effect that population density has on disease transmission?

In the first part of this paper, we introduce a mathematical model founded on the concept of social fluidity which we define as variability in the amount of social effort the individual invests in each member of their social group. Using openly available data, we estimate the social fluidity of 57 human and animal social systems. In the second part, we derive an expression for the basic reproductive number of an infectious disease in the social fluidity model and demonstrate its accuracy in predicting simulated outcomes. Furthermore, social fluidity emerges as a coherent mathematical framework providing the smooth connection between density-dependent and frequency-dependent disease systems.

Social behavior model

Consider a closed system of $N$ individuals and a set of interactions between pairs of individuals that were recorded during some observation period. These observations can be represented as a network: each individual, $i$, is a node; an edge exists between two nodes $i$ and $j$ if at least one interaction was observed between them; the edge weight, $w_{i,j}$, denotes the number of times this interaction was observed. The total number of interactions of $i$ is denoted strength, $s_i={\sum }_j{w}_{i,j}$, and the number of nodes with whom $i$ is observed interacting is its degree, k_i (Barrat et al., 2004).

We define $x_{j|i}$ to be the probability that an interaction involving $i$ will also involve node $j$. Therefore, the probability that at least one of these interactions is with $j$ is $1-{(1-x_{j|i})}^{s_i}$. The main assumption of the model is that the values of $x_{j|i}$ over all $i,j$ pairs are distributed according to a probability distribution, $\rho (x)$. Thus, if a node interacts $s$ times, the marginal probability that an edge exists between that node and any other given node in the network is

(1) $\mathrm{\Psi }(s)=1-\int \rho (x){(1-x)}^s𝑑x.$

Technically, $\rho (x)$ is the distribution of marginal ${\displaystyle x_{i|j}}$ values of the joint probability distribution $\rho (x)$ where $\mathrm{X}$ is a matrix whose $\mathrm{i}\mathrm{,}\mathrm{j}$ entry is -1 if ${\displaystyle i=j}$ and $x_{j|i}$ otherwise. While the values of $x_{j|i}$ are subject to network interdependencies, specifically $\mathrm{A}\mathsf{}\mathrm{X}\mathrm{=}{\mathrm{X}}^{\mathrm{T}}\mathsf{}\mathrm{A}$ and ${\displaystyle \mathbf{1}=\mathbf{0}}$, where $\mathrm{A}$ is any diagonal matrix with positive entries, and ${\displaystyle \mathbf{1}}$ and ${\displaystyle \mathbf{0}}$ are column vectors of length $\mathrm{N}$ containing only 0 and 1, we do not take these constraints into account when estimating ${\displaystyle \rho }$. 

Our goal is to find a form of ρ that accurately reproduces network structure observed in real social systems. Motivated by our exploration of empirical interaction patterns from a variety of species, we propose that ρ has a power-law form:

(2) ${\displaystyle \rho (x)=\frac{\varphi {ϵ}^{\varphi }}{1-{ϵ}^{\varphi }}{x}^{-(1+\varphi )}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}ϵ<x<1,}$

where $\varphi$ controls the variability in the values of $x$, and $ϵ$ simply truncates the distribution to avoid divergence. The form of $\rho (x)$ was chosen for its analytical tractability but other heavy-tailed distributions produce a similar result (Figure 1—figure supplement 1 ). Combining (1) and (2) we find

(3) $\mathrm{\Psi }(s,\varphi ,ϵ)=1-\frac{\varphi {ϵ}^{\varphi }{(1-ϵ)}^{s+1}}{(1-{ϵ}^{\varphi })(s+1)}{}_{2}F_1(s+1,1+\varphi ,s+2,1-ϵ)$

where the notation ${}_{2}F_1$ refers to the Gauss hypergeometric function (Abramowitz and Stegun, 1975). It follows from ${\sum }_j{x}_{j|i}=1$ that

(4) $N=1+\frac{(1-\varphi )(1-{ϵ}^{\varphi })}{\varphi {ϵ}^{\varphi }(1-{ϵ}^{1-\varphi })},$

which can be solved numerically to find $ϵ$ for given values of $N$ and $\varphi$. The expectation of the degree is $\kappa (s,\varphi ,N)=(N-1)\mathrm{\Psi }(s,\varphi ,ϵ)$.

Figure 1 illustrates how the value of $\varphi$ can produce different types of social behavior. As $\varphi$ is the main determinant of social behavior in our model, we use the term social fluidity to refer to this quantity. Low social fluidity ($\varphi \ll 1$) produces what we might describe as ‘allegiant’ behavior: interactions with the same partner are frequently repeated at the expense of interactions with unfamiliar individuals. As $\varphi$ increases, the model produces more ‘gregarious’ behavior: interactions are repeated less frequently and the number of partners grows faster. While names like ‘social strategy’ and ‘loyalty’ have been applied to similar concepts (Valdano et al., 2015; Miritello et al., 2013), fluidity, as a property of matter, is a useful metaphor for communicating the main idea behind this model.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Estimating social fluidity in empirical networks

To understand the results of the model in the context of real systems, we estimate $\varphi$ in 57 networks from 20 studies of human and animal social behavior (further details in the supplement) (Isella et al., 2011; Stehlé et al., 2011a; Mastrandrea et al., 2015; Vanhems et al., 2013; Modlmeier et al., 2019; Blonder and Dornhaus, 2011; Génois et al., 2015; Carter and Wilkinson, 2013; Grant, 1973; Levin et al., 2016; Sailer and Gaulin, 1984; Mourier et al., 2017; Massen and Sterck, 2013; Sade, 1972; Butovskaya et al., 1994; Takahata, 1991; Hass, 1991; Lott, 1979; Schein and Fohrman, 1955; Hobson and DeDeo, 2015; Gernat et al., 2018), focusing our attention to those interactions which are capable of disease transmission (i.e. those that, at the least, require close spatial proximity). The advantage of using this model over more detailed network descriptions is that we obtain a single parameter estimate, $\varphi$ that is easily compared across animal species and environments.

Each dataset provides the number of interactions that were observed between pairs of individuals. We assume that the system is closed, and that the total network size ($N$) is equal to the number of individuals observed in at least one interaction. To estimate social fluidity, we find the value of $\varphi$ that minimizes ${\sum }_i{[k_i-\kappa (s_i,\varphi ,N)]}^2$; the total squared squared error between the observed degrees and their expectation given by the model. Uncertainty is displayed using the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile of the distribution of $\varphi$ computed on a set of 1000 ‘bootstrap’ samples, created by sampling $N$ data points, $\{k_i,s_i\}$, with replacement, from the observed data. Being estimated from the relationship between strength and degree, and not their absolute values, social fluidity is a good candidate for comparing social behavior across different systems as it is independent of the distributions of s_i or k_i, and of the timescale of interactions.

Figure 2 shows the estimated values of $\varphi$ for all networks in our study. We organize the measurements of social fluidity by interaction type. Aggressive interactions have the highest fluidity (which implies that most interactions are rarely repeated between the same individuals), while grooming and other forms of social bonding have the lowest (which implies frequent repeated interactions between the same individuals). Social fluidity also appears to be related to species: ant systems cluster around $\varphi =1$, monkeys around $\varphi =0.5$, humans take a range of values that depend on the social environment. Sociality type does not appear to affect $\varphi$; sheep, bison, and cattle have different social fluidity compared to kangaroos and bats, although they are all categorized as fission-fusion species (Sah et al., 2018).

Figure 2 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Across the 57 networks, there is no evidence that social fluidity scales with the size of the network or the number of observations per individual. No correlation was found between the mean number of interactions per individual ($\overline{s}$) and social fluidity when testing for a monotonic relationship between the variables (Spearman $r^2=0.02$, $p=0.36$), and in general no correlation across sets of networks taken from the same study (Supplementary file 1: Table S2). Similarly, network size ($N$) does not correlate with $\varphi$ (Spearman $r^2=0.02$, $p=0.28$). To test for a non-monotonic relationship, we partition the set of networks into 10 equally sized groups according to each of the two measures being compared, and compute the adjusted mutual information (AMI) of the two groupings. We find AMI=0.15 for the relationship between $\varphi$ and $N$, and AMI=0.2 between $\varphi$ and $\overline{s}$. While non-negative values of AMI typically indicate a non-random relationship, an inherent amount of clustering is to be expected in data aggregated from a diverse range of sources.

Larger values of $\varphi$ correspond to higher mean degrees (Spearman $r^2=0.21$, $p<0.001$) and lower variability in the distribution of edge weights (measured as the index of dispersion of $w_{i,j}$; Spearman $r^2=0.46$, $p<0.001$). Weight variability and mean degree are uncorrelated in these data (Spearman $r^2=0.01$, $p=0.54$, AMI=0.01) implying that $\varphi$ combines these two entirely distinct features of social behavior. Finally, the modularity of the network (computed by the Louvain method on the unweighted network Blondel et al., 2008) is negatively correlated with $\varphi$ ($r^2=0.52$, $p<0.001$). This is expected as individuals tend to be loyal to those within the same module while maintaining weaker connections with the remaining network - in all but one network the mean weight of edges within modules is higher than the mean weight of edges between modules (supplementary document).

As with any applied modeling, the validity of these results depends on the extent to which each study system conforms to the assumptions of the model. The value of $N$, for example, might not represent the true group size if some individuals in the group did not have their interactions recorded, or if there are individuals who did not interact during the time-frame of observation. While we found that variation in the value of $N$ did not have a large impact on the estimated value of $\varphi$, as shown in Figure 2—figure supplement 1, we warn that the amount of consistency between model assumptions and the conditions of each study will vary, and close consideration should be given to the way data were collected when interpreting these results.

Disease transmission model

We consider the transmission of an infectious disease on the social behavior model introduced in the previous section. An infectious node $i$ interacting with a susceptible node $j$ will transmit the infection with probability β. The node will recover from infection with rate γ, assuming an exponential distribution of the length of the infectious period. The probability that the infection is transmitted from $i$ to any given $j$ is

(5) $T_{i\to j}(\beta ,\gamma ,s_i,\tau ,x_{j|i})=1-\exp (-s_i{x}_{j|i}\beta /\gamma \tau ),$

assuming that the interactions s_i of $i$ are distributed randomly across an observation period of duration τ.

By integrating Equation (5) over all possible values $x_{j|i}$ and infectious period durations and multiplying by the number of susceptible individuals ($N-1$) we obtain the expected number of infections caused by individual $i$, 

(6) $r(s_i)={\displaystyle \frac{1-\varphi }{\varphi ({ϵ}^{\varphi }-ϵ)}}[1-{ϵ}^{\varphi }+{ϵ}^{\varphi }{}_{2}F_1(-\varphi ,1,1-\varphi ;-\beta s_i/\gamma \tau )-{}_{2}F_1(-\varphi ,1,1-\varphi ;-ϵ\beta s_i/\gamma \tau )].$

The basic reproductive number (usually denoted R₀) is defined as the mean number of secondary infections caused by a typical infectious individual in an otherwise susceptible population (Diekmann et al., 1990). We will use the notation $R_0^{\varphi }$ to signify the social fluidity reproductive number, that is the analogue of R₀ derived from our social behavior model.

We assess the relation of the reproductive number with the population density by focusing on a special case where every node has the same strength, that is $s_i=s$ for all $i$, so that $R_0^{\varphi }=r(s)$. Furthermore, we choose $\beta =\gamma \tau R_0^{\mathrm{\infty }}/s$ where $R_0^{\mathrm{\infty }}$ is $R_0^{\varphi }$ as $\varphi \to \mathrm{\infty }$, that is a constant that represents what the basic reproductive number would be if every new interaction occurred between a pair of individuals who have not previously interacted with each other.

Figure 3 shows the effect of social fluidity on the density dependence of the disease. At small population sizes, $R_0^{\varphi }$ increases with $N$ and converges as $N$ goes to ∞ (Figure 3A). The rate of this convergence increases with $\varphi$, and the limit it converges to is higher, meaning that $\varphi$ determines the extent to which density affects the spread of disease. As $N\to \mathrm{\infty }$, we find that $R_0^{\varphi }\to R_0^{\mathrm{\infty }}$ for $\varphi >1$. When $\varphi <1$, $R_0^{\varphi }\to [(1-\varphi )/\varphi ][{}_{2}F_1(-\varphi ,1,1-\varphi ;-R_0^{\mathrm{\infty }})-1]$. At these values of $\varphi$ the disease is constrained by individuals choosing to repeat interactions despite having the choice of infinitely many potential interaction partners (Figure 3B).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

We proposed a measure of fluidity in social behavior which quantifies how much mixing exists within the social relationships of a population. While social networks can be measured with a variety of metrics including size, connectivity, contact heterogeneity and frequency, our methodology reduces all such factors to a single quantity allowing comparisons across a range of human and animal social systems. Social fluidity correlates with both the density of social ties (mean degree) and the variability in the weight of those ties, although these quantities do not correlate with each other. Social fluidity is thus able to combine these two aspects seamlessly in one quantity.

By measuring social fluidity across a range of human and animal systems we are able to rank social behaviors. We identify aggressive interactions as the most socially fluid; this indicates a possible learning effect whereby each aggressive encounter is followed by a period during which individuals avoid further aggression with each other (Parker, 1974). At the opposite end of the scale, we find interactions that strengthen bonds (and thus require repeated interactions) such as grooming in monkeys (Seyfarth and Cheney, 1984) and food-sharing in bats (Carter and Wilkinson, 2013). The fact that food-sharing ants are far more fluid than bats, despite performing the same kind of interaction, reflects their eusocial nature and the absence of any need to consistently reinforce bonds with their kin (Hölldobler and Wilson, 2009).

Our results contribute to a body of work examining the disproportionate distribution of social effort in both human and animal groups. This phenomena has been directly observed in human telecommunication (Mac Carron et al., 2016; Saramäki et al., 2014; Gonçalves et al., 2011; Tamarit et al., 2018). Quantifying this aspect of sociality in animal systems, however, has been held back by the limitations of the data, such as the bias introduced by variation in activity levels across the social group (Di Bitetti, 2000). Additionally, while heterogeneous interaction frequencies and temporal dynamics have become common in epidemiological models (Rocha and Blondel, 2013; Colman et al., 2018), our results highlight the importance of including variability in how the individual chooses to expend their social effort.

As with most studies that aim to describe and quantify social structure, there are a number of concerns that ought to be mentioned. The degree of an individual, for example, is known to scale with the length of the observation period (Perra et al., 2012). This is also true of the networks used here (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). Similarly, social fluidity can be affected by the length of the observation window. However, since our model focuses not on the absolute value of degree, but on how degree scales with the number of observations, the results we obtain are relatively robust against this variability (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). Additionally, observed interactions are typically assumed to persist over time (Perreault, 2010). In our model this is not the case; only the distribution of edge weights remains constant, an assumption consistent with growing evidence (Miritello et al., 2013; Centellegher et al., 2017).

We therefore consider the model to be applicable to the data analysed in this study, but advise caution when applying this approach to other data sources. If the duration of a study allows for substantial developments in the group structure, for example, then a model of edge formation and dissolution may be preferred.

Finally, we do not know the extent to which an interaction, as defined for each network, is capable of transmission which can depend on the pathogen’s transmission mode and the infectious dose required. Furthermore, the transmission probability is unlikely to be the same for all interactions within the group since, for example, the duration of contact is known to be important for disease spread (Stehlé et al., 2011b). We did not include explicitly the duration of each contact in our model as this information was only available in a fraction of the datasets (Barrat et al., 2014). There is therefore potential to improve the applicability of this model as more high resolution data becomes openly available.

Our estimate of reproductive number derived from social fluidity provides a better predictor for the epidemic risk of a host population, going beyond predictors based on density or degree only. To illustrate this point, the social network of individuals at a conference ($R_0^{\text{Est}}=1.60$; conference_0, supplementary document) is predicted to be at higher risk compared to the social network at a school ($R_0^{\text{Est}}=1.39$; highschool_0), despite having a smaller size and lower connectivity ($N=93$ vs. $N=312$, and $\overline{k}=5.63$ vs. $\overline{k}=6.78$, respectively). The discrepancy in the risk prediction comes from the lower frequency of repeated contacts between individuals in the conference, compared to the school. Interactions between infectious individuals and those they have previously infected are redundant in terms of transmission. This dynamic is nicely captured by the social fluidity, with $\varphi =0.66$ for the conference and $\varphi =0.40$ for the high school.

Unlike previous work that explores the disease consequences of population mixing (Volz and Meyers, 2007; Reluga and Shim, 2014), our analysis allows us to investigate this relation across a range of social systems. We see, for example, how the relationship between mixing and disease risk scales with group size. For social systems that have high values of social fluidity, $R_0^{\varphi }$ is highly sensitive to changes in $N$, whereas this sensitivity is not present at low values of $\varphi$. This corroborates past work on the scaling of transmission being associated to heterogeneity in contact (Begon et al., 2002; Ferrari et al., 2011). Going beyond previous work, our model captures in a coherent theoretical framework both density-dependence and frequency-dependence, and social fluidity is the measure to tune from one to the other in a continuous way. Since many empirical studies support a transmission function that is somewhere between these two modeling paradigms (Smith et al., 2009; Cross et al., 2013; Borremans et al., 2017; Hopkins et al., 2020), the modeling approaches applied in this paper can be carried forward to inform transmission relationships in future disease studies.

All scripts, data, and documentation used in this study are available through https://github.com/EwanColman/Social-Fluidity (copy archived at https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:rev:90b27e1b84ce4417633885cd260c89bbf1b07eac).

1. 1. Modlmeier AP
   2. Colman E
   3. Hanks EM
   4. Bringenberg R
   5. Bansal S
   6. Hughes DP

   (2019) Dryad Digital Repository

   Ant colonies maintain social homeostasis in the face of decreased density.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.sh4m4s6
2. 1. Hobson EA
   2. DeDeo S

   (2016) Dryad Digital Repository

   Social feedback and the emergence of rank in animal society.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.p56q7
3. 1. Mourier J
   2. Brown C
   3. Planes S

   (2016) Dryad Digital Repository

   Learning and robustness to catch-and-release fishing in a shark social network.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.gg859
4. 1. Carter CG
   2. Wilkinson GS

   (2013) Dryad Digital Repository

   Food sharing in vampire bats: reciprocal help predicts donations more than relatedness or harassment.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.tg7b1
5. 1. Levin II
   2. Zonana DM
   3. Fosdick BK
   4. Song SJ
   5. Knight R
   6. Safran RJ

   (2016) Dryad Digital Repository

   Stress response, gut microbial diversity and sexual signals correlate with social interactions.

   https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3jn35
6. 1. Gelardi V
   2. Godard J
   3. Paleressompoulle D
   4. Claidière N
   5. Barrat A

   (2008) Sociapatterns

   ID baboons-interactions. Baboons’ interactions.

   http://www.sociopatterns.org/datasets/baboons-interactions/

1. Book

   1. Abramowitz M
   2. Stegun I

   (1975)

   Handbook of Mathematical Functions

   Dover.

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Altizer S
   2. Nunn CL
   3. Thrall PH
   4. Gittleman JL
   5. Antonovics J
   6. Cunningham AA
   7. Dobson AP
   8. Ezenwa V
   9. Jones KE
   10. Pedersen AB
   11. Poss M
   12. Pulliam JRC

   (2003) Social organization and parasite risk in mammals: integrating theory and empirical studies

   Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:517–547.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.030102.151725

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Anderson R
   2. Medley G
   3. May R
   4. Johnson AM

   (1986) A preliminary study of the transmission dynamics of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the causative agent of AIDS

   Mathematical Medicine and Biology 3:229–263.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/imammb/3.4.229

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Barrat A
   2. Barthélemy M
   3. Pastor-Satorras R
   4. Vespignani A

   (2004) The architecture of complex weighted networks

   PNAS 101:3747–3752.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400087101

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Barrat A
   2. Cattuto C
   3. Tozzi AE
   4. Vanhems P
   5. Voirin N

   (2014) Measuring contact patterns with wearable sensors: methods, data characteristics and applications to data-driven simulations of infectious diseases

   Clinical Microbiology and Infection 20:10–16.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12472

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Begon M
   2. Bennett M
   3. Bowers RG
   4. French NP
   5. Hazel SM
   6. Turner J

   (2002) A clarification of transmission terms in host-microparasite models: numbers, densities and Areas

   Epidemiology and Infection 129:147–153.

   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268802007148

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Blondel VD
   2. Guillaume J-L
   3. Lambiotte R
   4. Lefebvre E

   (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks

   Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008:P10008.

   https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Blonder B
   2. Dornhaus A

   (2011) Time-ordered networks reveal limitations to information flow in ant colonies

   PLOS ONE 6:e20298.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020298

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Borremans B
   2. Reijniers J
   3. Hughes NK
   4. Godfrey SS
   5. Gryseels S
   6. Makundi RH
   7. Leirs H

   (2017) Nonlinear scaling of foraging contacts with rodent population density

   Oikos 126:792–800.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.03623

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Butovskaya ML
    2. Kozintsev AG
    3. Kozintsev BA

    (1994) The structure of affiliative relations in a primate community: allogrooming in stumptailed macaques (Macaca arctoides)

    Human Evolution 9:11–23.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02438136

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Carter GG
    2. Wilkinson GS

    (2013) Food sharing in vampire bats: reciprocal help predicts donations more than relatedness or harassment

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280:20122573.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2573

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Centellegher S
    2. López E
    3. Saramäki J
    4. Lepri B

    (2017) Personality traits and ego-network dynamics

    PLOS ONE 12:e0173110.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Colman E
    2. Spies K
    3. Bansal S

    (2018) The reachability of contagion in temporal contact networks: how disease latency can exploit the rhythm of human behavior

    BMC Infectious Diseases 18:219.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-018-3117-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. Software

    1. Colman E

    (2021) Social-Fluidity, version swh:1:rev:90b27e1b84ce4417633885cd260c89bbf1b07eac

    Software Heritage.

    https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:2854ae3c238db4c1529ef259cfde5ed686b0a120;origin=https://github.com/EwanColman/Social-Fluidity;visit=swh:1:snp:27ca8c160079191dfae4caee3a6de5239b238737;anchor=swh:1:rev:90b27e1b84ce4417633885cd260c89bbf1b07eac
15. 1. Cross PC
    2. Creech TG
    3. Ebinger MR
    4. Manlove K
    5. Irvine K
    6. Henningsen J
    7. Rogerson J
    8. Scurlock BM
    9. Creel S

    (2013) Female elk contacts are neither frequency nor density dependent

    Ecology 94:2076–2086.

    https://doi.org/10.1890/12-2086.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Dakin R
    2. Ryder TB

    (2020) Reciprocity and behavioral heterogeneity govern the stability of social networks

    PNAS 117:2993–2999.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913284117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. Book

    1. de Jong MC
    2. Diekmann O
    3. Heesterbeek J

    (1995) How does transmission of infection depend on population size?

    In: Mollison D, editors. Epidemic Models: Their Structure and Relation to Data. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1019–1022.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02459495

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Di Bitetti MS

    (2000) The distribution of grooming among female primates: testing hypotheses with the shannon-wiener diversity index

    Behaviour 137:1517–1540.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/156853900502709

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Diekmann O
    2. Heesterbeek JA
    3. Metz JA

    (1990) On the definition and the computation of the basic reproduction ratio R0 in models for infectious diseases in heterogeneous populations

    Journal of Mathematical Biology 28:365–382.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00178324

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. Book

    1. Dunbar RI
    2. Shultz S

    (2010) Bondedness and sociality

    In: Dunbar R. I, editors. Behaviour. Brill. pp. 775–803.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/000579510X501151

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Ferrari MJ
    2. Perkins SE
    3. Pomeroy LW
    4. Bjørnstad ON

    (2011) Pathogens, social networks, and the paradox of transmission scaling

    Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Infectious Diseases 2011:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/267049

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Génois M
    2. Vestergaard CL
    3. Fournet J
    4. Panisson A
    5. Bonmarin I
    6. Barrat A

    (2015) Data on face-to-face contacts in an office building suggest a low-cost vaccination strategy based on community linkers

    Network Science 3:326–347.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2015.10

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Gernat T
    2. Rao VD
    3. Middendorf M
    4. Dankowicz H
    5. Goldenfeld N
    6. Robinson GE

    (2018) Automated monitoring of behavior reveals bursty interaction patterns and rapid spreading dynamics in honeybee social networks

    PNAS 115:1433–1438.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713568115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Gonçalves B
    2. Perra N
    3. Vespignani A

    (2011) Modeling users' activity on twitter networks: validation of Dunbar's number

    PLOS ONE 6:e22656.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022656

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Grant TR

    (1973) Dominance and association among members of a captive and a free-ranging group of grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus)

    Animal Behaviour 21:449–456.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(73)80004-1

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Hass CC

    (1991) Social status in female bighorn sheep ( Ovis canadensis ): expression, development and reproductive correlates

    Journal of Zoology 225:509–523.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1991.tb03832.x

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Hinde RA

    (1976) Interactions, relationships and social structure

    Man 11:1–17.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/2800384

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Hobson EA
    2. DeDeo S

    (2015) Social feedback and the emergence of rank in animal society

    PLOS Computational Biology 11:e1004411.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004411

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. Book

    1. Hölldobler B
    2. Wilson EO

    (2009)

    The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies

    WW Norton & Company.

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Hopkins SR
    2. Fleming‐Davies AE
    3. Belden LK
    4. Wojdak JM

    (2020) Systematic review of modelling assumptions and empirical evidence: does parasite transmission increase nonlinearly with host density?

    Methods in Ecology and Evolution 11:476–486.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13361

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Isella L
    2. Stehlé J
    3. Barrat A
    4. Cattuto C
    5. Pinton JF
    6. Van den Broeck W

    (2011) What's in a crowd? analysis of face-to-face behavioral networks

    Journal of Theoretical Biology 271:166–180.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.11.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Karsai M
    2. Perra N
    3. Vespignani A

    (2014) Time varying networks and the weakness of strong ties

    Scientific Reports 4:4001.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. Book

    1. Krause J
    2. Ruxton GD

    (2002) Living in Groups

    Oxford University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1865-1

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Lehmann J
    2. Korstjens AH
    3. Dunbar RIM

    (2007) Group size, grooming and social cohesion in primates

    Animal Behaviour 74:1617–1629.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.10.025

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Levin II
    2. Zonana DM
    3. Fosdick BK
    4. Song SJ
    5. Knight R
    6. Safran RJ

    (2016) Stress response, gut microbial diversity and sexual signals correlate with social interactions

    Biology Letters 12:20160352.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0352

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Lott DF

    (1979) Dominance relations and breeding rate in mature male american Bison

    Ethology : Formerly Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie 49:418–432.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1979.tb00302.x

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Mac Carron P
    2. Kaski K
    3. Dunbar R

    (2016) Calling Dunbar's numbers

    Social Networks 47:151–155.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2016.06.003

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Massen JJM
    2. Sterck EHM

    (2013) Stability and durability of intra- and intersex social bonds of captive rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta)

    International Journal of Primatology 34:770–791.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-013-9695-7

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Mastrandrea R
    2. Fournet J
    3. Barrat A

    (2015) Contact patterns in a high school: a comparison between data collected using wearable sensors, contact diaries and friendship surveys

    PLOS ONE 10:e0136497.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136497

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Miller JC

    (2009) Spread of infectious disease through clustered populations

    Journal of the Royal Society Interface 6:1121–1134.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2008.0524

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Miritello G
    2. Lara R
    3. Cebrian M
    4. Moro E

    (2013) Limited communication capacity unveils strategies for human interaction

    Scientific Reports 3:1950.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep01950

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Modlmeier AP
    2. Colman E
    3. Hanks EM
    4. Bringenberg R
    5. Bansal S
    6. Hughes DP

    (2019) Ant colonies maintain social homeostasis in the face of decreased density

    eLife 8:e38473.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38473

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Mourier J
    2. Brown C
    3. Planes S

    (2017) Learning and robustness to catch-and-release fishing in a shark social network

    Biology Letters 13:20160824.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2016.0824

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. Book

    1. Newman M

    (2018) Networks

    Oxford university press.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206650.001.0001

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Parker GA

    (1974) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour

    Journal of Theoretical Biology 47:223–243.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(74)90111-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Patterson JE
    2. Ruckstuhl KE

    (2013) Parasite infection and host group size: a meta-analytical review

    Parasitology 140:803–813.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182012002259

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Perra N
    2. Gonçalves B
    3. Pastor-Satorras R
    4. Vespignani A

    (2012) Activity driven modeling of time varying networks

    Scientific Reports 2:469.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00469

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Perreault C

    (2010) A note on reconstructing animal social networks from independent small-group observations

    Animal Behaviour 80:551–562.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.06.020

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Reluga TC
    2. Shim E

    (2014) Population viscosity suppresses disease emergence by preserving local herd immunity

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20141901.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1901

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Rocha LE
    2. Blondel VD

    (2013) Bursts of vertex activation and epidemics in evolving networks

    PLOS Computational Biology 9:e1002974.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002974

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Sade DS

    (1972) Sociometrics of macaca mulatta i. linkages and cliques in grooming matrices

    Folia Primatologica 18:196–223.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000155480

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Sah P
    2. Leu ST
    3. Cross PC
    4. Hudson PJ
    5. Bansal S

    (2017) Unraveling the disease consequences and mechanisms of modular structure in animal social networks

    PNAS 114:4165–4170.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1613616114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Sah P
    2. Mann J
    3. Bansal S

    (2018) Disease implications of animal social network structure: a synthesis across social systems

    Journal of Animal Ecology 87:546–558.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12786

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Sailer LD
    2. Gaulin SJC

    (1984) Proximity, sociality, and observation: the definition of social groups

    American Anthropologist 86:91–98.

    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00080

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Saramäki J
    2. Leicht EA
    3. López E
    4. Roberts SG
    5. Reed-Tsochas F
    6. Dunbar RI

    (2014) Persistence of social signatures in human communication

    PNAS 111:942–947.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308540110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Schein MW
    2. Fohrman MH

    (1955) Social dominance relationships in a herd of dairy cattle

    The British Journal of Animal Behaviour 3:45–55.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5601(55)80012-3

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Seyfarth RM
    2. Cheney DL

    (1984) Grooming, alliances and reciprocal altruism in vervet monkeys

    Nature 308:541–543.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/308541a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Silk JB

    (2007) The adaptive value of sociality in mammalian groups

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362:539–559.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1994

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Silk MJ
    2. Croft DP
    3. Delahay RJ
    4. Hodgson DJ
    5. Boots M
    6. Weber N
    7. McDonald RA

    (2017) Using social network measures in wildlife disease ecology, epidemiology, and management

    BioScience 67:245–257.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw175

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Smieszek T
    2. Fiebig L
    3. Scholz RW

    (2009) Models of epidemics: when contact repetition and clustering should be included

    Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 6:11.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-6-11

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Smith MJ
    2. Telfer S
    3. Kallio ER
    4. Burthe S
    5. Cook AR
    6. Lambin X
    7. Begon M

    (2009) Host-pathogen time series data in wildlife support a transmission function between density and frequency dependence

    PNAS 106:7905–7909.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0809145106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Stehlé J
    2. Voirin N
    3. Barrat A
    4. Cattuto C
    5. Isella L
    6. Pinton JF
    7. Quaggiotto M
    8. Van den Broeck W
    9. Régis C
    10. Lina B
    11. Vanhems P

    (2011a) High-resolution measurements of face-to-face contact patterns in a primary school

    PLOS ONE 6:e23176.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023176

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Stehlé J
    2. Voirin N
    3. Barrat A
    4. Cattuto C
    5. Colizza V
    6. Isella L
    7. Régis C
    8. Pinton JF
    9. Khanafer N
    10. Van den Broeck W
    11. Vanhems P

    (2011b) Simulation of an SEIR infectious disease model on the dynamic contact network of conference attendees

    BMC Medicine 9:87.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-87

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Sueur C
    2. Deneubourg JL
    3. Petit O
    4. Couzin ID

    (2011) Group size, grooming and fission in primates: a modeling approach based on group structure

    Journal of Theoretical Biology 273:156–166.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.12.035

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. Book

    1. Takahata Y

    (1991)

    Diachronic changes in the dominance relations of adult female japanese monkeys of the arashiyama b group

    In: Fedigan L. M, Asquith P. M, editors. The Monkeys of Arashiyama. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 123–139.

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Tamarit I
    2. Cuesta JA
    3. Dunbar RIM
    4. Sánchez A

    (2018) Cognitive resource allocation determines the organization of personal networks

    PNAS 115:8316–8321.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719233115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Valdano E
    2. Poletto C
    3. Giovannini A
    4. Palma D
    5. Savini L
    6. Colizza V

    (2015) Predicting epidemic risk from past temporal contact data

    PLOS Computational Biology 11:e1004152.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004152

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Vanhems P
    2. Barrat A
    3. Cattuto C
    4. Pinton JF
    5. Khanafer N
    6. Régis C
    7. Kim BA
    8. Comte B
    9. Voirin N

    (2013) Estimating potential infection transmission routes in hospital wards using wearable proximity sensors

    PLOS ONE 8:e73970.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073970

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Volz E
    2. Meyers LA

    (2007) Susceptible–infected–recovered epidemics in dynamic contact networks

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 274:2925–2934.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.1159

    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Watts DJ
    2. Strogatz SH

    (1998) Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks

    Nature 393:440–442.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/30918

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Acceptance summary:

This manuscript makes an important point for studies of contagion in both human and animal populations. This paper provides a way of characterising heterogeneity in social systems. Furthermore, the proposed measure of social fluidity can be used to distinguish between different types of animal social systems. Hence, the measure is of relevance for studies of human and animal social networks.

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for submitting your article "Social fluidity mobilizes contagion in human and animal populations" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 3 peer reviewers, including Niel Hens as the Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #3, and the evaluation has been overseen by Miles Davenport as the Senior Editor. The following individual involved in review of your submission has agreed to reveal their identity: Jari Saramaki (Reviewer #2).

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

Please pay particular attention to the comments by Reviewer #1: items 1 and 2 and Reviewer #3: item 1 which focus on the relevance of this work. The other comments address punctual issues and/or clarifications; they should be looked at carefully and it would be good to organise your reply based on topics rather than a point-by-point reply.

We would like to draw your attention to changes in our revision policy that we have made in response to COVID-19 (https://elifesciences.org/articles/57162). Specifically, we are asking editors to accept without delay manuscripts, like yours, that they judge can stand as eLife papers without additional data, even if they feel that they would make the manuscript stronger. Thus the revisions requested below only address clarity and presentation.

Reviewer #1:

This is a well written paper on an interesting and important topic, characterizing the social contact frequency and network degree into a single measure, social fluidity. The concept is explained and mathematically derived, then applied to an analysis of 50 network data sets spanning 13 human and animal species. The authors then apply that parameter into a mathematical model for infectious disease dynamics to characterize its impact on transmission potential, via R. This is useful in developing understanding of the measure, and demonstrating its applicability in epidemiology. I have only relatively minor suggestions, mostly related to clarifying ideas and terms in the manuscript.

1. The main concern is the treatment of time within the data and fluidity measure. The authors appropriate note this as a limitation in the Discussion section. Because the inputs to fluidity depend on degree and within-node contacts, the measurement time frame for both in each dataset is critical. The authors cite a paper to support the idea that degree scales with the observation length (citation 59), but that is a limited analysis of 3 human networks (2 of which were online convenience samples) that may not apply more broadly. It would be helpful to have more clarification on the range of time frames for data collection across the datasets to understand whether weighted cross-sectional networks are the best modeling approach here (versus modeling dynamic networks of edge formation and dissolution). This may be important in the comparative analysis of different contact types (aggression contacts versus grooming contacts).

2. The authors establish the importance of the fluidity measure for comparative empirical research well, but It would also be helpful to have further clarity on its advantages for modeling over current approaches that might model network structure with two or more parameters. What are the broader benefits of this approach?

3. It was not clear how the contact types (aggression versus grooming, eg) were defined. Were these a component of the secondary data, or did the current authors use a classification scheme? Some further details on the measurement of the data would be helpful.

4. What are the implications of treating the system as closed and the network consisting only of non-isolates on the empirical comparisons and the epidemic modeling? These are assumptions required by the data, but not always realistic and could have a meaningful impact on the outcomes (e.g., non-differential misclassification for aggression contacts that may change the network structure, or include many isolates). The importance of these assumptions may depend on the measurement timeframe (i.e., less important if short observations).

Reviewer #2:

This manuscript makes an important point for studies of contagion in both human and animal populations: the heterogeneity of contact frequencies matters a lot. The individual-level heterogeneity of weights/contact frequencies in egocentric networks is nicely captured by the concept of social fluidity and the model parametrised by $\phi$ whose fitted values clearly differ for datasets from different species (Figure 2). Finally, the spreading model shows that $\phi$ has clear effects on R0 – the effect of ego-network weight heterogeneity on disease transmission is something that I have hypothesised myself as well, so I congratulate the authors for getting there first!

In my view, this paper makes several important contributions: in addition to the context of contagious disease, it provides a way of characterising heterogeneity in social systems and shows that it even works for distinguishing human contact networks under different circumstances (the Sociopatterns data sets). Furthermore, the proposed measure of social fluidity can be used to distinguish between different types of animal social systems. Hence, the measure is of relevance for studies of human and animal social networks.

As the science is solid, the results are important, and the manuscript is well and clearly written, I recommend publishing it, after some fairly straightforward clarifications/modifications.

1) Would it be possible to justify the choice of the power-law form for Equation (2)? And would the results be sensitive to this choice – would using something like a log-normal or stretched exp yield similar results? (Intuitively, my expectation is that the exact form of the distribution should not matter too much as N is fairly low in all studied cases, so whatever is mathematically the most convenient distribution should be fine).

2) page 3, bottom left column: "There is no significant correlation between the mean number of interactions per individual (s) and social fluidity…" Has r^2 been calculated over all datasets or separately for one species over their respective data sets?

"…which implies that sampling bias does not affect the estimation of social fluidity". How this is to be interpreted depends on the answer to the above, but I am not certain if one can make this statement, at least if the correlation is over all species/datasets. I would think that it is difficult to escape some sampling bias (as for most network measures…), unless one has several samples of different size for the same species under the same circumstances, and can show in those samples that $\phi$ doesn't depend on N.

"Similarly, network size does not correlate with $\phi$…" Again, is the correlation over all species?

3) In the subsection "Numerical validation using empirical networks" it is stated that "Since a large edge weight implies a high frequency of repeated interactions, networks with a higher mean weight tend to have lower basic reproductive number. Furthermore, variability in the distribution of weights…"

Would the variability not be a requirement for a higher mean weight leading to lower R0, so that the cause of the lower R0 is the combination of higher weights and high variability? If one considers two networks with uniform weights that are otherwise identical but one has twice the mean weight, would that one not have a *higher* R0?

4) Discussion: "We see, for example, how the relationship between mixing and disease risk scales with population density. For social systems that have high values of social fluidity, $R_0^\phi$ is highly sensitive to changes in N…" Is N conceptually the same as population density? Would, under the network paradigm, the average degree be a better proxy of population density?

Reviewer #3:

The authors define the concept of social fluidity to better define how social behaviour influences contagion process in human and animal populations. Whereas I believe the manuscript is well written, its current version requires a few clarifications.

1. I think it's important to mention that the concept of social fluidity hasn't been tested in relation to infectious disease data. Does it provide a good/better fit to infectious disease data as compared to assumptions of frequency and density dependent mass action etc.

2. In the social behavior model: the authors use frequency for the edge weight; should weighing not be done on the basis of risk assessment of these interactions?

3. Please better motivate the use of the power-law form in equation (2). Have the authors considered alternatives?

[Editors' note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for resubmitting your work entitled "Social fluidity mobilizes contagion in human and animal populations" for further consideration by eLife. Your revised article has been evaluated by Miles Davenport (Senior Editor) and a Reviewing Editor.

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed, as outlined below:

– In terms of the authors' reply on 'Was this relationship linear … ': Given that a Pearson correlation coefficient assumes linearity holds, one cannot measure strength of association in case of non-linearity. Please verify or use an alternative measure (see e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3354).

– The authors use 100 bootstraps to quantify the uncertainty of phi; this seems small to me; why not use 1000 bootstraps (as well as assessing whether or not estimates of 5% and 95% percentiles are stable for that number)?

Please pay particular attention to the comments by Reviewer #1: items 1 and 2 and Reviewer #3: item 1 which focus on the relevance of this work. The other comments address punctual issues and/or clarifications; they should be looked at carefully and it would be good to organise your reply based on topics rather than a point-by-point reply.

As suggested, we start by detailing our response and modifications to the manuscript that were mentioned by more than one reviewer, and then address our remaining responses to each individual reviewer.

Point 1: Power law

Reviewer 2: "1) Would it be possible to justify the choice of the power-law form for Equation (2)? And would the results be sensitive to this choice – would using something like a log-normal or stretched exp yield similar results? (Intuitively, my expectation is that the exact form of the distribution should not matter too much as N is fairly low in all studied cases, so whatever is mathematically the most convenient distribution should be fine)"

Reviewer 3: "3. Please better motivate the use of the power-law form in equation (2). Have the authors considered alternatives?"

It is true that the exact form of this distribution is not important, and other heavy-tailed distributions will give similar results. We show this is in a supplementary analysis (Figure 1-supplement 1) by simulating the interactions of one individual whose interactions with other members of the group are determined by probabilities drawn from other distributions. Figure 1-supplement 1 shows that results obtained from log-Normal and power-law distributions look very similar and can cover a similar range of behaviours.

In the main text this is referenced in the "Social behavior model" section. When introducing the power-law it now says:

“The form of $ρ(x)$ was chosen for its analytical tractability but other heavy-tailed distributions produce a similar result (Figure S2).”

Point 2: Scope of this work

Reviewer 1: "The authors establish the importance of the fluidity measure for comparative empirical research well, but It would also be helpful to have further clarity on its advantages for modeling over current approaches that might model network structure with two or more parameters. What are the broader benefits of this approach?"

Reviewer 3: "1. I think it's important to mention that the concept of social fluidity hasn't been tested in relation to infectious disease data. Does it provide a good/better fit to infectious disease data as compared to assumptions of frequency and density dependent mass action etc."

We feel that the strength of our work resides in (i) introducing a concept, named social fluidity and expressed in mathematical form, that captures the distribution of interactions of individual hosts with varying frequency and strength, and (ii) showing that social fluidity is a stronger predictor of epidemic outcomes than commonly used metrics. While this specific study was not meant to fit the social fluidity model to infectious disease data, social fluidity was estimated from empirical networks and its role in disease spread was compared to simulated disease data on the original empirical networks. Finally, the theory we introduce is able to seamlessly connect between density-dependent and frequency-dependent approaches, so far considered independent and resting on disjoint frameworks.

Both comments suggest that we need to clarify the scope and purpose of this work. Firstly, we have added additional sentences to the abstract to emphasize the novelty…

“Large values of social fluidity correspond to gregarious behavior whereas small values signify the existence of persistent bonds between individuals.”

And the contribution to the field…

“…we demonstrate that social fluidity is a stronger predictor of disease outcomes than both group size and connectivity, and it provides an integrated framework for both density-dependent and frequency-dependent transmission.”

We have also changed the third paragraph of the introduction to better motivate the purpose of our study and the current gap in the literature that it addresses…

“While transmission rate has been observed to scale non-linearly with group size for a number of disease systems, it remains unclear how much this dependency is related to the internal social structure of the group; few studies observe social dynamics at sufficient detail while simultaneously monitoring the disease status of each individual. In the absence of direct observations, our contribution to this discussion centers around modelling; incorporating empirical social data with computational simulations. We address two specific questions. Firstly, can we quantify the variability in how individuals choose to distribute their social effort within a group, and secondly, what will this tell us about the effect that population density has on disease transmission?”

Additionally, in the first paragraph of "Estimating social fluidity in empirical networks" we mention one specific advantage of the model over models that have more parameters…

“The advantage of using this model over more detailed network descriptions is that we obtain a single parameter estimate, $\phi$ that is easily compared across animal species and environments.”

Reviewer #1:

1. The main concern is the treatment of time within the data and fluidity measure. The authors appropriate note this as a limitation in the Discussion section.

We thank the reviewers for this comment. We have addressed this with a supplementary analysis of the networks for which temporal information are available (Figure 2-supplement 2). Briefly, it is a sensitivity analysis to see the effects of using a shorter time frame. References to this analysis are added to various parts of the main text and correspond to your more specific remarks as follows….

Because the inputs to fluidity depend on degree and within-node contacts, the measurement time frame for both in each dataset is critical.

Our supplementary analysis presents the values of phi calculated when only the first 50% of the observations are used. The estimation of social fluidity is largely insensitive to the sampling time frame, using two different methods of estimation. This is referenced in the "Discussion" section …

“However, since our model focuses not on the absolute value of degree, but on how degree scales with the number of observations, the results we obtain are relatively robust against this variability (Figure S3A)”

The authors cite a paper to support the idea that degree scales with the observation length (citation 59), but that is a limited analysis of 3 human networks (2 of which were online convenience samples) that may not apply more broadly.

We checked this for the networks used in our study and include the results in the same supplementary figure. At the same point in the discussion we now add …

“This is also true of the networks used here (Figure 2 supplement 2).”

It would be helpful to have more clarification on the range of time frames for data collection across the datasets to understand whether weighted cross-sectional networks are the best modeling approach here (versus modeling dynamic networks of edge formation and dissolution). This may be important in the comparative analysis of different contact types (aggression contacts versus grooming contacts).

The time frames for data collection do vary greatly and this is something we want to be clear about. We include details of the datasets in the "Data handling" part of the "Materials and methods" section. In the "Discussion" section we mention this concern…

“We therefore consider the model to be applicable to the data analysed in this study, but advise caution when applying this approach to other data sources. If the duration of a study allows for substantial developments in the group structure, for example, then a model of edge formation and dissolution may be preferred.”

3. It was not clear how the contact types (e.g. aggression versus grooming) were defined. Were these a component of the secondary data, or did the current authors use a classification scheme? Some further details on the measurement of the data would be helpful.

These are all defined by the original studies. We have added a sentence to the "Data handling" part of the "Materials and methods" section to make this clear.

4. What are the implications of treating the system as closed and the network consisting only of non-isolates on the empirical comparisons and the epidemic modeling? These are assumptions required by the data, but not always realistic and could have a meaningful impact on the outcomes (e.g., non-differential misclassification for aggression contacts that may change the network structure, or include many isolates). The importance of these assumptions may depend on the measurement timeframe (i.e., less important if short observations).

We agree with the reviewer that isolates (individuals that do not interact during the time frame of observation) are an important data limitation to consider as they can affect the value of N (group size). In our supplementary analysis we tested this directly by varying the time frame of observation, and thus changing the number of isolates.

The following added to end of the section "Estimating social fluidity in empirical networks"

“As with any applied modelling, the validity of these results depends on the extent to which each study system conforms to the assumptions of the model. The value of $N$, for example, might not represent the true group size if some individuals in the group did not have their interactions recorded, or if there are individuals who did not interact during the time-frame of observation. While we found that variation in the value of $N$ did not have a large impact on the estimated value of $\phi$, as shown in Figure S3D, we warn that the amount of consistency between model assumptions and the conditions of each study will vary, and close consideration should be given to the way data were collected when interpreting these results.”

Reviewer #2:

2) page 3, bottom left column: "There is no significant correlation between the mean number of interactions per individual (s) and social fluidity…" Has r^2 been calculated over all datasets or separately for one species over their respective data sets?

The results were presented for all species, and we have added a set of supplementary tables containing correlations between all the social variables within species. This is referenced in the section "Estimating social fluidity in empirical networks" as follows …

Across the $57$ networks, there is no significant correlation between the mean number of interactions per individual ($\bar{s}$) and social fluidity (Pearson $r^{2}=0.02$, $p=0.27$), and in general no correlation across sets of networks taken from the same study (Tables S2).

"…which implies that sampling bias does not affect the estimation of social fluidity". How this is to be interpreted depends on the answer to the above, but I am not certain if one can make this statement, at least if the correlation is over all species/datasets. I would think that it is difficult to escape some sampling bias (as for most network measures…), unless one has several samples of different size for the same species under the same circumstances, and can show in those samples that $\phi$ doesn't depend on N.

We thank the reviewer for this comment – we have removed that statement now. Instead we say:

“Thus there is no evidence that the number of observations per individual affects the estimated value of $\phi$.”

"Similarly, network size does not correlate with $\phi$…" Again, is the correlation over all species?

As before, we have now added that information in the supplement. The main results still hold.

3) In the subsection "Numerical validation using empirical networks" it is stated that "Since a large edge weight implies a high frequency of repeated interactions, networks with a higher mean weight tend to have lower basic reproductive number. Furthermore, variability in the distribution of weights…"

Would the variability not be a requirement for a higher mean weight leading to lower R0, so that the cause of the lower R0 is the combination of higher weights and high variability? If one considers two networks with uniform weights that are otherwise identical, but one has twice the mean weight, would that one not have a ‘higher’ R0?

An important part of the disease model is the calibration of the β parameter to control for the effect of contact frequency, which varies greatly between different networks. Since mean weight is closely related to the contact frequency (i.e. the mean strength divided by the length of the time frame) choosing β in the way we do causes networks with high mean weight to have lower values of β (all else being equal). In the example you provide, the network with higher mean weight would indeed have lower R0, since the mean strength would also double and the β we apply would be halved.

We have explained this in a bit more depth in the revised version:

“While contact frequency is known to be one of the major contributors to disease risk, calibrating $\β$ in this way eliminates its effect, allowing the contribution of other network characteristics to be compared. Thus, the mean strength does not have a significant effect on $R_{0}^{\text{Sim}}(g)$, and higher mean edge weight does not necessarily imply higher transmission probability over the edges of the network.”

4) Discussion: "We see, for example, how the relationship between mixing and disease risk scales with population density. For social systems that have high values of social fluidity, $R_0^\phi$ is highly sensitive to changes in N…" Is N conceptually the same as population density? Would, under the network paradigm, the average degree be a better proxy of population density?

We have changed "population density" to "group size" to more accurately reflect what we found.

1) Figure 2 – it took me a while to understand that there are several data sets for each species (or Sociopatterns setting), so this could be mentioned in the caption.

2) This is probably an error in production, but there is a full-page figure (k vs s for the different datasets) at the end of the PDF without any caption that is also not referred to in the text (unless I missed it).

Thank you for pointing these things out. We have added "Colours correspond to the species and the setting in the case of human networks" to the figure caption. The supplementary figure 2 is now included in the new supplementary document.

Reviewer #3:

2. In the social behavior model: the authors use frequency for the edge weight; should weighing not be done on the basis of risk assessment of these interactions?

In general, yes, we agree that it makes sense to define "interaction" in terms of a disease. In our study, however, we do not specify any particular disease. Specifically, in the section "Estimating infection spread in empirical networks with heterogeneous connectivity" we specify how the transmission risk parameter (β) is selected:

“… value of $\β$ was chosen for each network to control for the varying interaction rates between networks … While contact frequency is known to be one of the major contributors to disease risk, calibrating $\β$ in this way eliminates its effect, allowing the contribution of other network characteristics to be compared.”

To address your concern we have added the following to the part of "Discussion" that mentions the limitations of this study:

“Finally, we do not know the extent to which an interaction, as defined for each network, is capable of transmission which can depend on the pathogen's transmission mode and the infectious dose required.”

[Editors' note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed, as outlined below:

– In terms of the authors' reply on 'Was this relationship linear … ': Given that a Pearson correlation coefficient assumes linearity holds, one cannot measure strength of association in case of non-linearity. Please verify or use an alternative measure (see e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/3354).

We want to know if the size of the network, or the number of observations in the sample, has an effect on our introduced measure, social fluidity. We therefore think it is appropriate to test for a monotonic relationship, and have switched from using the Pearson coefficient to the Spearman coefficient, which yields similar results. We further address whether there may be a non-monotonic relationship using mutual information as suggested.

This is now addressed in the section "Estimating social fluidity in empirical networks" as follows:

Across the $57$ networks, there is no evidence that social fluidity scales with the size of the network or the number of observations per individual. No correlation was found between the mean number of interactions per individual ($\bar{s}$) and social fluidity when testing for a monotonic relationship between the variables (Spearman $r^{2}=0.02$, $p=0.36$), and in general no correlation across sets of networks taken from the same study (Tables S2). Similarly, network size ($N$) does not correlate with $\phi$ (Spearman $r^{2}=0.02$, $p=0.28$). To test for a non-monotonic relationship, we partition the set of networks into $10$ equally sized groups according to each of the two measures being compared, and compute the adjusted mutual information (AMI) of the two groupings. We find AMI=$0.15$ for the relationship between $\phi$ and $N$, and AMI=$0.2$ between $\phi$ and $\bar{s}$. While non-negative values of AMI typically indicate a non-random relationship, an inherent amount of clustering is to be expected in data aggregated from a diverse range of sources.

We have also added the measure of mutual information to Table 1 for comparing analytical and simulated values of R0. Note that we still use the Pearson coefficient here as we want to show that this relationship is linear.

– The authors use 100 bootstraps to quantify the uncertainty of phi; this seems small to me; why not use 1000 bootstraps (as well as assessing whether or not estimates of 5% and 95% percentiles are stable for that number)?

We have increased the number of bootstrap samples to 1000 and updated Figure 2.

Author details

1. Ewan Colman

   1. Department of Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, United States
   2. Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   ecolman@ed.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2551-8589

2. Vittoria Colizza

   INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Institut Pierre Louis d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP UMRS 1136), F75012, Paris, France

   Contribution

   Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2113-2374

3. Ephraim M Hanks

   Department of Statistics, Eberly College of Science, Penn State University, State College, United States

   Contribution

   Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. David P Hughes

   Department of Entomology, College of Agricultural Sciences, Penn State University, State College, United States

   Contribution

   Funding acquisition, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9954-8919

5. Shweta Bansal

   Department of Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   shweta.bansal@georgetown.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1740-5421

• 571

  Page views

• 54

  Downloads

• 2

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.