2212.05733
AN INVESTIGATION OF VIRUS DYNAMICS ON STARLIKE GRAPHS
Akihiro Takigawa, Steven J. Miller
wrongmedium confidenceCounterexample detected
- Category
- math.DS
- Journal tier
- Note/Short/Other
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The paper’s Theorem 4.1 asserts a sharp threshold b* = (1−a)/√(n1+⋯+nk−1) for all k-level starlike graphs, claiming: below b* the only fixed point is 0 and trajectories converge to 0; above b* there is a unique positive fixed point and global convergence to it. This is explicitly stated for k=3 (Theorem 3.1) and extended to arbitrary k (Theorem 4.1) using concavity/convexity and an “analogous” argument for convergence, see the model definitions for 3-level (1.13) and the k-level extension and Theorem 4.1 statements in the PDF . However, for k≥4 the claimed threshold is generally incorrect: the correct sharp threshold is b* = (1−a)/ρ, where ρ is the Perron root of the level-quotient tridiagonal matrix similar to the symmetric tridiagonal with off-diagonals √(n_m). This specializes to √(n1+n2) when k=3, but is strictly smaller than √(n1+⋯+n_{k−1}) in general. A concrete counterexample (k=4, n1=n2=n3=1, a=1/2, b=0.30) lies above the paper’s threshold (0.30 > 0.5/√3) but still dies out because a + b ρ < 1 (with ρ = 2 cos(π/5) ≈ 1.618), contradicting Theorem 4.1 II(b) (existence/attractivity of a nontrivial fixed point) . The model’s Perron–Frobenius argument, global linear comparison F(d) ≤ (aI+bQ)d, and monotone-iteration under strict concavity along rays yield a complete and correct dichotomy at a + bρ = 1 (Seneta, 1981).
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} reject \textbf{Journal Tier:} note/short/other \textbf{Justification:} The manuscript’s core contribution claims a necessary-and-sufficient threshold b ≤ (1−a)/√(n1+⋯+nk−1) for arbitrary k-level starlike graphs. While the 3-level case is consistent with known spectral-radius calculations, the generalization is incorrect: for k≥4 the spectral radius of the pertinent tridiagonal is strictly less than √(n1+⋯+nk−1) in general, so the paper’s threshold is not sharp and its converse can fail. A concrete k=4 counterexample contradicts the stated theorem. Substantive revision is required to replace the √(⋅) formula by the Perron-root criterion and to rework the proofs accordingly.