Back to search
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

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.