Back to search
2111.13430

A discrete-time epidemic SISI model

S.K.Shoyimardonov

wrongmedium confidence
Category
math.DS
Journal tier
Specialist/Solid
Processed
Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM

Audit review

The paper’s Theorem 2.4 asserts: (i) uniqueness when β1 k1 = b+α and α β2 k2 > b β1 k1; (ii) uniqueness when β1 k1 > b+α; and (iii) no positive solution when β1 k1 < b+α (all in the setting of the discrete-time SISI model and the fixed-point equation (2.3)) , with (2.3) explicitly given in the paper . The proof of (iii) hinges on treating g(x) as increasing and convex and deriving an inequality that forces β2 k2 > 1/α, claimed to contradict the parameter box (2.2) , which indeed includes b+β2 k2 ≤ 1 among other constraints . However, direct algebra shows the equation reduces to an upward-opening quadratic F(A)=0 with coefficients C2=(b+α)β1β2, C1=b(b+α)(β1+β2)−β1β2(b k1+α k2), C0=b^2(b+α−β1k1), and for β1 k1<b+α it is possible to have two positive solutions when αβ2k2 is large. A concrete parameter set satisfying all constraints (2.2) produces two distinct positive solutions to (2.3), contradicting (iii). Therefore (iii) is false under (2.2), while (i)–(ii) are correct by sign/discriminant analysis.

Referee report (LaTeX)

\textbf{Recommendation:} major revisions

\textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid

\textbf{Justification:}

The main existence/uniqueness trichotomy for positive solutions (Theorem 2.4) contains a critical error in case (iii), where a mischaracterization of curvature and an over-assertive inequality lead to a false nonexistence claim under the paper’s own parameter constraints. Since downstream conclusions (e.g., uniqueness of an interior fixed point) depend on this theorem, the manuscript requires substantial correction. The core ideas remain promising, and a corrected quadratic/discriminant analysis can repair the gap and clarify parameter regimes.