2007.07815
Application of the criterion of Li-Wang to a five dimensional epidemic model of COVID-19. Part I
Abdelkader Intissar
incompletemedium confidence
- Category
- Not specified
- Journal tier
- Note/Short/Other
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:55 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
Both the paper and the candidate solution use Li–Wang via the second additive compound to infer Hurwitz stability at the disease-free equilibrium, but they each contain material gaps. In the paper, the Jacobian at the DFE is printed with a52=a53=0, contradicting the model’s d-equation and the earlier definition of Jp* (which has a52=β6 and a53=β5); the determinant formula is then derived from this mis-specified matrix, and Theorem 4.11(ii) asserts column-diagonal dominance of J[2]p0 under (a)–(d) without a correct column-by-column verification. Using the correct Jp0 and J[2]p0, one can produce parameters satisfying (a)–(d) (and the paper’s determinant hypothesis) for which the sixth column margin is negative, so J[2]p0 is not column-diagonally dominant. The candidate solution repeats the same dominance claim, omits β5 in the S5 column sum, and uses a loose bound to conclude m1>0. Hence both arguments are incomplete on the key dominance step, though the overall Li–Wang logic is otherwise standard.
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} major revisions
\textbf{Journal Tier:} note/short/other
\textbf{Justification:}
The manuscript leverages Li–Wang’s compound-matrix criterion on a concrete 5D COVID-19 model, which could be valuable. However, the printed Jacobian at the DFE omits two nonzero entries (a52=β6, a53=β5) and the determinant identity is derived from that mis-specified matrix. More critically, the key claim that conditions (a)–(d) ensure column–diagonal dominance of J[2]p0 is not proven and is actually false in general, as an explicit parameter set shows. Substantial corrections are required: fix Jp0, re-derive det(Jp0), and provide correct/stronger conditions for column dominance.