2006.16525
Hunting Co-operation in the Middle Predator in Three Species Food Chain Model
Nishchal Sapkota, Rimsha Bhatta, Phillip Dabney
incompletemedium confidence
- Category
- Not specified
- Journal tier
- Note/Short/Other
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:55 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The paper’s Theorem 2.1 claims linear stability of the coexistence equilibrium u[3] under the assumptions J11−J22<0 and J11J22>J23J32, based on a Jacobian with J13=J31=0 and J33≈0 and the characteristic polynomial coefficients A1=−(J11+J22), A2=J11J22−J23J32−J21J12, A3=J11J23J32. However, the proof does not actually establish A3>0 or the decisive Routh–Hurwitz condition A1A2>A3 and even treats the special case A3=0, which is nongeneric at coexistence; moreover, J33 is exactly 0 at coexistence (not merely “almost”), and the paper mixes two model forms ((1) vs (2)), introducing inconsistencies in G1,G2 with and without hunting cooperation H=1+αu2 . The candidate model solution corrects part of this (derives A1,A2,A3 correctly and proves J11<0 using the original u1-equation) and requires the proper trace condition J11+J22<0 for A1>0, but its proof of the key inequality A1A2>A3 is not fully justified without additional quantitative bounds and can fail in admissible sign patterns. Hence both are incomplete.
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} major revisions
\textbf{Journal Tier:} note/short/other
\textbf{Justification:}
The core analytical result (Theorem 2.1) is not proven: the argument does not verify A3>0 or the key Routh–Hurwitz inequality A1A2>A3 and uses an insufficient inequality (J11−J22<0) in place of the correct trace condition. Additionally, there is a modeling inconsistency between the original system (with H=1+αu2) and the stated product-form system used to compute Jacobian entries. Substantial revision is required to correct hypotheses, align model formulas, and complete the Routh–Hurwitz verification.