Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

The Boundary Reproduction Number for Determining Boundary Steady State Stability in Chemical Reaction Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The boundary reproduction number decides when a chemical species set dies out or persists.

desk verdict A genuinely useful adaptation of the next-generation matrix method to reaction networks, with a sound central threshold, but the written proofs overstate uniqueness and rest on a false lemma that undermines Theorem 2 as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01606 v1 pith:PV5PJ4NH submitted 2025-06-02 q-bio.MN math.DS

Matthew D. Johnston , Florin Avram This is my paper
classification q-bio.MNmath.DS MSC 92C4292D3015B4834D20
keywords boundaryreproductionnumberchemicalreactionnetworkssiphonsnextgenerationmatrixsteadystatestabilitythresholdmass-actionkineticspersistence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper adapts the basic reproduction number from epidemic modelling to chemical reaction networks. It defines a boundary reproduction number $R_{x^*}$ for any boundary steady state associated with a critical siphon—a set of species that can be depleted to zero—and claims that $R_{x^*}<1$ makes that steady state locally stable within its stoichiometric compatibility class while $R_{x^*}>1$ makes it unstable. The payoff is computational: a single scalar comparison replaces the fifth-order polynomial eigenvalue problems and multi-page Routh-Hurwitz tables that direct stability analysis requires. If the claim is right, biochemists can read off, directly from rate and conservation constants, whether a critical metabolite or substrate will be exhausted.

What carries the argument

The central object is the boundary reproduction number $R_{x^*}=\rho(FV^{-1})$, computed from a splitting of the Jacobian restricted to a critical siphon at a boundary steady state: $F$ collects positive 'production' terms that replenish the siphon species, and $-V$ collects the remaining loss and transfer terms, chosen so that $F\geq 0$ and $V$ is a $Z$-matrix (nonpositive off-diagonal entries) with $V^{-1}\geq 0$. Siphons provide the species sets that can be driven to zero, the $X$-reduced network of Theorem 3 provides a graph-theoretic certificate for when such a splitting exists, and Theorem 2 certifies $V^{-1}\geq 0$ by block-triangularizing $V$ into $M$-matrices, the same matrices that appear as negative transposes of generators of absorbed Markov chains.

What would settle it

Set $Y_{\mathrm{tot}} > k_2/k_5$ in the EnvZ-OmpR mass-action system and integrate from a small interior perturbation of the boundary steady state; if the trajectory returns to the boundary instead of leaving it, the claimed instability threshold $R_{x^*}=1$ is not correct for that system.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem 1: let $\mathcal{X}$ be a critical siphon of a chemical reaction system and let $x^*\in E_{\mathcal{X}}$ be an $\mathcal{X}$-free boundary steady state. If the siphon-species dynamics split as $f = F - V$ with $F = \partial F/\partial \tilde{x}(0,\tilde{y}^*)\geq 0$ and $V = \partial V/\partial \tilde{x}(0,\tilde{y}^*)$ a $Z$-matrix with $V^{-1}\geq 0$, then, in either of two settings (no conservation laws with stable $J_{22}$, or $|\mathcal{Y}|=n-s$ with invertible $W_{\mathcal{Y}}$), $x^*$ is locally asymptotically stable within its stoichiometric compatibility class when $R_{x^*} = \rho(F V^{-1}) < 1$ and unstable when $R_{x^*} > 1$. In the EnvZ-OmpR example this yields the threshold $R_{x^*}=k_5Y_{\mathrm{tot}}/k_2$, so the boundary steady state is stable precisely when $Y_{\mathrm{tot}} < k_2/k_5$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole criterion depends on being able to split the siphon-species equations at the boundary steady state as $f=F-V$ with $F\geq 0$ and $V^{-1}\geq 0$; the paper's heuristics do not guarantee such a splitting exists, and the main biochemical example finds its splitting by trial and error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a boundary steady state with an admissible splitting, stability reduces to comparing $R_{x^*}$ with 1; no eigenvalues or Routh-Hurwitz tables are needed.
  • When the antisiphon size matches the number of independent conservation laws and $W_{\mathcal{Y}}$ is invertible, the boundary steady state is unique in each stoichiometric compatibility class, so the threshold is a direct function of conservation constants like $Y_{\mathrm{tot}}$.
  • Classical epidemic quantities are recovered as special cases: SIR gives the usual basic reproduction number, and the multi-strain example gives strain-specific reproduction and invasion numbers.
  • For networks with universally unstable boundary steady states, $R_{x^*}>1$ for all rate constants can certify instability of every boundary steady state, as in the universally persistent Chavez network example.
  • The method applies to systems with synthesis and dissociation reactions, which do not fit the disease-spread interpretation, as long as the splitting conditions hold.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because different admissible splittings can give different numerical values of $R_{x^*}$ while agreeing on the threshold $R_{x^*}=1$, the invariant physical content is likely the sign of $R_{x^*}-1$, not the particular value; the paper itself notes this in the vector-host example.
  • The paper leaves open whether $R_{x^*}>1$ implies full repulsion from the boundary face, not just local instability; closing that gap would connect the boundary reproduction number to the persistence theorems of chemical reaction network theory.
  • A practical algorithmic spin-off would be to automate the heuristic selection of $F$ so that $F V^{-1}$ has rank one, making $R_{x^*}$ readable directly from the network; the paper poses this as an open question.
  • The same construction could plausibly be applied to any invariant boundary face, not only siphons, whenever the 'no production without presence' property $f(0,\tilde{y})=0$ holds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a 'boundary reproduction number' R_x* for chemical reaction networks, adapted from the next-generation matrix method in epidemiology. For a critical siphon X and an X-free boundary steady state x*, the method splits the siphon dynamics as f = F - V and defines R_x* as the spectral radius of F V^{-1}. Theorem 1 claims local asymptotic stability within the stoichiometric compatibility class when R_x* < 1 and instability when R_x* > 1, under no-conservation-law or |antisiphon| = n-s assumptions. Theorem 2 gives a block-triangular sufficient condition for V^{-1} >= 0, and Theorem 3 gives a network-level version. The method is illustrated on infectious disease models and biochemical networks, including a simplified and a full EnvZ-OmpR model, with explicit thresholds such as R_x* = k5 Y_tot/k2 for the simplified model.

Significance. The transfer of the next-generation matrix method to biochemical reaction networks is a genuinely useful idea, and the paper's worked examples show that it can replace lengthy eigenvalue or Routh-Hurwitz computations. The central stability-threshold argument in Theorem 1 is a standard NGM argument and is likely correct whenever a valid splitting with V^{-1} >= 0 exists. The paper is also commendably explicit about limitations, including the gap between instability and persistence, and it proposes concrete open questions. However, the main computational certificate for V^{-1} >= 0, Theorem 2, rests on a false lemma, so the flagship Example 10 and the network-structure Theorem 3 are not currently established. The approach remains promising, but the supporting matrix theorem needs repair before the claims as stated can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Lemma 5; Theorem 2; Example 10] Lemma 5 is false as stated. The matrix A = [[1,-1],[-1,1]] is a Z-matrix and satisfies 1^T A = (0,0) >= 0, yet A is singular, so A^{-1} >= 0 fails. Since the proof of Theorem 2 applies Lemma 5 to each diagonal block A_i, Theorem 2 is not established by the given argument. This is load-bearing because Example 10 in Section 4.2 verifies only 1^T A_i >= 0 for the blocks of V in (4.12) and then concludes V^{-1} >= 0 via Theorem 2, without displaying V^{-1}. A repair requires an additional hypothesis that rules out singular blocks, such as requiring each irreducible block to have at least one strictly positive column sum (or otherwise be nonsingular), and the examples would need to be rechecked under the corrected condition.
  2. [Theorem 3 and Appendix C] Theorem 3 inherits the defect of Theorem 2 because its proof reduces the network conditions to the block-triangular condition of Theorem 2. In particular, the proof asserts that 1^T A_i >= 0 for the diagonal blocks A_i, but as shown by the counterexample to Lemma 5, this condition alone does not imply that A_i is nonsingular or that A_i^{-1} >= 0. Consequently, the network-structure sufficient conditions in Theorem 3 are also insufficient as stated, and the statement that V^{-1} >= 0 under Conditions 1-4 is not proven.
  3. [Theorem 1(b) and Appendix A] The uniqueness claim in Theorem 1(b) is stronger than what the proof establishes. The proof shows that the X-free boundary steady state is unique within a stoichiometric compatibility class because W_Y is invertible and any such boundary steady state must have the form (0, W_Y^{-1} Lambda). It does not exclude the existence of positive steady states in the same compatibility class. The statement 'the steady state x* is the unique steady state within its stoichiometric compatibility class' should therefore be weakened to 'the unique X-free boundary steady state' unless a separate argument rules out coexistence steady states. This overstatement appears in the abstract and introduction and should be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equation (3.7)] In the displayed definition of V in Example 1, the third component is written as k3 x3 y1 - k4 x5; from the mass-action system (3.6) it should be k3 x3 y1 - k6 x5, matching the matrix V in (3.8).
  2. [Appendix B, proof of Lemma 5] The proof refers to 'the conditions of Corollary 2', but no Corollary 2 appears in the paper; this is presumably a reference to Lemma 5 or Theorem 2 and should be corrected.
  3. [Example 12, siphon X1] The text says 'Since A, B, and C are common to X1 and the first conservation law', but X1 = {C,D,E} and the first conservation law C+D+E = Lambda_1 has support {C,D,E}; the intended sentence should name C, D, and E.
  4. [Section 3.2, heuristic (H2)] The word 'disassociative' is used where 'dissociative' is standard in this context; this is a presentation issue only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: R_x* is a computed spectral radius from the model, not a fitted or self-referential input.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The boundary reproduction number is defined in Definition 6 as rho(F V^{-1}) for a chosen splitting F-V of the siphon dynamics and is then computed explicitly from rate constants and conservation constants (e.g., Eq. 3.10 and the Example 10 formula), rather than fitted to the stability outcome. Theorem 1 is proved from the block Jacobian (A.1) and standard M-matrix equivalences (Lemma 4), establishing the equivalence between R_x*<1 and negative real parts of F-V; the theorem does not assume the stability conclusion. The selection of F is heuristic and draws on the authors' prior work [10,11], but this is methodological provenance rather than load-bearing self-citation: each example independently checks the hypotheses F>=0, V a Z-matrix, and V^{-1}>=0, either by direct inversion or via Theorem 2/3. The skeptical concern about Lemma 5 and Theorem 2 is a mathematical-correctness issue, not circularity: an unsound sufficient condition would leave some V^{-1}>=0 certifications unsupported, but it does not make the threshold an input of the computation. No step renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, and the stability threshold is not defined in terms of the observed stability of the boundary steady state.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; rate and conservation constants are inputs from the model. The framework rests on kinetic assumptions (A1)-(A4) and standard M-matrix facts, plus one flawed lemma that needs an irreducibility and reachability condition.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kinetic regularity assumptions (A1)-(A3): reaction rates are C^1, nonnegative and strictly positive iff all reactants are present, and nondecreasing in reactants.
    Section 2.1. These assumptions define the class of chemical reaction systems studied.
  • domain assumption Nondegeneracy assumption (A4): if alpha_ij > 0 and x* is a boundary steady state, then partial R_j / partial x_i (x*) > 0.
    Section 3.5. Needed for Theorem 3; fails when a stoichiometric coefficient is greater than one, so Theorem 3 is restricted to unit coefficient reactions.
  • standard math Lemma 4: a Z-matrix A has A^{-1} ≥ 0 if and only if A is a nonsingular M-matrix.
    Appendix A. Standard result cited from Berman and Plemmons [12] and Plemmons [42].
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 5: a Z-matrix A with 1^T A ≥ 0 is a nonsingular M-matrix.
    Appendix B. False as stated without irreducibility or a reachability condition; the block diagonal matrix with blocks [[1,-1],[-1,1]] and [1] has 1^T A=(0,0,1)≥0 but is singular. The proof silently assumes all Markov chain transient states reach a recurrent class.
  • domain assumption Structural persistence of noncritical siphons from Angeli, De Leenheer, and Sontag [7].
    Example 12 uses this external result to classify siphon X1 as structurally persistent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Boundary Reproduction Number for Determining Boundary Steady State Stability in Chemical Reaction Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PV5PJ4NH

@misc{pith2026250601606,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Boundary Reproduction Number for Determining Boundary Steady State Stability in Chemical Reaction Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PV5PJ4NH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01606}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce the boundary reproduction number, adapted from the next generation matrix method, to assess whether an infusion of species will persist or become exhausted in a chemical reaction system. Our main contributions are as follows: (a) we show how the concept of a siphon, prevalent in Petri nets and chemical reaction network theory, identifies sets of species that may become depleted at steady state, analogous to a disease-free boundary steady state; (b) we develop an approach for incorporating biochemically motivated conservation laws, which allows the stability of boundary steady states to be determined within specific compatibility classes; and (c) we present an effective heuristic for decomposing the Jacobian of the system that reduces the computational complexity required to compute the stability domain of a boundary steady state. The boundary reproduction number approach significantly simplifies existing parameter-dependent methods for determining the stability of boundary steady states in chemical reaction systems and has implications for the capacity of critical metabolites and substrates in metabolic pathways to become exhausted.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. F. Anderson,Global asymptotic stability for a class of nonlinear chemical equations, SIAM J. Appl. Math.68(2008), no. 5, 1464–1476

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    D. F. Anderson,A proof of the global attractor conjecture in the single linkage class case, SIAM J. Appl. Math.71(2011), no. 4, 1487–1508

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    D. F. Anderson, D. Cappelletti, J. Kim, and T. D. Nguyen,Tier structure of strongly endotactic reaction networks, Stochastic Process. Appl.130(2020), no. 12, 7218–7259

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    D. F. Anderson and A. Shiu,The dynamics of weakly reversible population processes near facets, SIAM J. Appl. Math.70(2010), no. 6, 1840–1858

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    On persistence and cascade decompositions of chemical reaction networks

    D. Angeli, P. De Leenheer, and E. Sontag,On persistence and cascade decompositions of chemical reaction networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:0905.1332 (2009)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Angeli, P

    D. Angeli, P. De Leenheer, and E. D. Sontag,On the structural monotonicity of chemical reaction networks, Proceedings of the 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, IEEE, 2006, pp. 7–12

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Angeli, P

    D. Angeli, P. De Leenheer, and E. D. Sontag,A petri net approach to the study of persistence in chemical reaction networks, Math. Biosci.210(2007), no. 2, 598–618. 20

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Angeli and E

    D. Angeli and E. D. Sontag,Translation-invariant monotone systems, and a global convergence result for enzymatic futile cycles, Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl.9(2008), no. 1, 128–140

    work page 2008

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    August and M

    E. August and M. Barahona,Solutions of weakly reversible chemical reaction networks are bounded and persistent, IF AC Proc. Vol.43(2010), no. 6, 42–47

    2010

  2. [10]

    Avram, R

    F. Avram, R. Adenane, L. Basnarkov, and M. D. Johnston,Algorithmic approach for a unique definition of the next-generation matrix, Mathematics12(2023), no. 1, 27

    2023

  3. [11]

    Avram, R

    F. Avram, R. Adenane, A. D. Halanay, and M. D. Johnston,Stability in reaction network models via an extension of the next generation matrix method, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.11867 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Berman and R

    A. Berman and R. J. Plemmons,Nonnegative matrices in the mathematical sciences, SIAM, 1994

    1994

  5. [13]

    J. D. Brunner and G. Craciun,Robust persistence and permanence of polynomial and power law dynamical systems, SIAM J. Appl. Math.78(2018), no. 2, 801–825

    2018

  6. [14]

    Chavez,Observer design for a class of nonlinear systems, with applications to chemical and biological networks, Ph.D

    M. Chavez,Observer design for a class of nonlinear systems, with applications to chemical and biological networks, Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 2003

    2003

  7. [15]

    Craciun,Polynomial dynamical systems, reaction networks, and toric differential inclusions, SIAM J

    G. Craciun,Polynomial dynamical systems, reaction networks, and toric differential inclusions, SIAM J. Appl. Algebra Geom.3(2019), no. 1, 87–106

    2019

  8. [16]

    Craciun and A

    G. Craciun and A. Deshpande,Endotactic networks and toric differential inclusions, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst.19(2020), no. 3, 1798–1822

    2020

  9. [17]

    Craciun, F

    G. Craciun, F. Nazarov, and C. Pantea,Persistence and permanence of mass-action and power-law dynamical systems, SIAM J. Appl. Math.73(2013), no. 1, 305–329

    2013

  10. [18]

    J. Deng, C. Jones, M. Feinberg, and A. Nachman,On the steady states of weakly reversible chemical reaction networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1111.2386 (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Diekmann, J

    O. Diekmann, J. A. P. Heesterbeek, and J. A. J. Metz,On the definition and the computation of the basic reproduction ratior 0 in models for infectious diseases in heterogeneous populations, J. Math. Biol.28(1990), 365–382

    1990

  12. [20]

    Donnell, M

    P. Donnell, M. Banaji, A. Marginean, and C. Pantea,Control: an open source framework for the analysis of chemical reaction networks, Bioinformatics30(2014), no. 11, 1633–1634

    2014

  13. [21]

    Ehrhardt, J

    M. Ehrhardt, J. Gaˇ sper, and S. Kilianov´ a,Sir-based mathematical modeling of infectious diseases with vaccination and waning immunity, J. Comput. Sci.37(2019), 101027

    2019

  14. [22]

    Feinberg,On chemical kinetics of a certain class, Arch

    M. Feinberg,On chemical kinetics of a certain class, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.46(1972), 1–41

    1972

  15. [23]

    Feinberg,Foundations of chemical reaction network theory, 2019

    M. Feinberg,Foundations of chemical reaction network theory, 2019

    2019

  16. [24]

    Feng and J

    Z. Feng and J. X. Velasco-Hern´ andez,Competitive exclusion in a vector-host model for the dengue fever, J. Math. Biol.35(1997), 523–544

    1997

  17. [25]

    Gopalkrishnan, E

    M. Gopalkrishnan, E. Miller, and A. Shiu,A geometric approach to the global attractor conjecture, SIAM J. Appl. Dyn. Syst.13(2014), no. 2, 758–797

    2014

  18. [26]

    C. M. Guldberg and P. Waage, ¨Uber die chemische affinit¨ at, J. Prakt. Chem.127(1879), 69–114

  19. [27]

    Horn,Necessary and sufficient conditions for complex balancing in chemical kinetics, Arch

    F. Horn,Necessary and sufficient conditions for complex balancing in chemical kinetics, Arch. Ra- tion. Mech. Anal.49(1972), 172–186

    1972

  20. [28]

    Horn and R

    F. Horn and R. Jackson,General mass action kinetics, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.47(1972), 81–116

    1972

  21. [29]

    Hurwitz,Ueber die bedingungen, unter welchen eine gleichung nur wurzeln mit negativen reellen theilen besitzt, Math

    A. Hurwitz,Ueber die bedingungen, unter welchen eine gleichung nur wurzeln mit negativen reellen theilen besitzt, Math. Ann.46(1895), no. 2, 273–284

  22. [30]

    J. M. Heffernan, R. J. Smith, and L. M. Wahl,Perspectives on the basic reproductive ratio, J. R. Soc. Interface2(2005), no. 4, 281–293

    2005

  23. [31]

    M. D. Johnston, C. Pantea, and P. Donnell,A computational approach to persistence, permanence, and endotacticity of biochemical reaction systems, J. Math. Biol.72(2016), 467–498. 21

    2016

  24. [32]

    M. D. Johnston, B. Pell, J. Pemberton, and D. A. Rubel,The effect of vaccination on the competitive advantage of two strains of an infectious disease, Bull. Math. Biol.87(2025), no. 2, 19

    2025

  25. [33]

    M. D. Johnston and D. Siegel,Weak dynamical nonemptiability and persistence of chemical kinetics systems, SIAM J. Appl. Math.71(2011), no. 4, 1263–1279

    2011

  26. [34]

    J. G. Kemeny, J. L. Snell, F. W. Gehring, and P. R. Halmos,Absorbing markov chains, Finite Markov chains, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1976, p. 224

    1976

  27. [35]

    Lazebnik and S

    T. Lazebnik and S. Bunimovich-Mendrazitsky,Generic approach for mathematical model of multi- strain pandemics, PloS one17(2022), no. 4, e0260683

    2022

  28. [36]

    De Leenheer, D

    P. De Leenheer, D. Angeli, and E. D. Sontag,Monotone chemical reaction networks, J. Math. Chem. 41(2007), 295–314

    2007

  29. [37]

    Liu and K

    G. Liu and K. Barkaoui,A survey of siphons in petri nets, Inf. Sci.363(2016), 198–220

    2016

  30. [38]

    Martcheva,On the mechanism of strain replacement in epidemic models with vaccination, Math- ematical Approaches for Emerging and Reemerging Infectious Diseases (C

    M. Martcheva,On the mechanism of strain replacement in epidemic models with vaccination, Math- ematical Approaches for Emerging and Reemerging Infectious Diseases (C. Castillo-Chavez and J. M. Hyman, eds.), vol. 1, Springer, 2007, pp. 149–172

    2007

  31. [39]

    Martcheva,An introduction to mathematical epidemiology, Texts Appl

    M. Martcheva,An introduction to mathematical epidemiology, Texts Appl. Math., vol. 61, Springer, New York, 2015

    2015

  32. [40]

    Martcheva, B

    M. Martcheva, B. M. Bolker, and R. D. Holt,Vaccine-induced pathogen strain replacement: what are the mechanisms?, J. R. Soc. Interface5(2008), no. 18, 3–13

    2008

  33. [41]

    J. R. Norris,Markov chains, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1998

    1998

  34. [42]

    R. J. Plemmons,M-matrix characterizations. i—nonsingular m-matrices, Linear Algebra Appl.18 (1977), no. 2, 175–188

    1977

  35. [43]

    S. M. A. Rahman and X. Zou,Global dynamics of a two-strain disease model with latency and saturating incidence rate, Canad. Appl. Math. Quart.20(2012), no. 1, 51–73

    2012

  36. [44]

    D. J. Rose,Convergent regular splittings for singular m-matrices, SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete Meth- ods5(1984), no. 1, 133–144

    1984

  37. [45]

    E. J. Routh,A treatise on the stability of a given state of motion: particularly steady motion. Being the essay to which the adams prize was adjudged in 1877, in the University of Cambridge, Macmillan and Company, 1877

  38. [46]

    Seneta,Non-negative matrices and Markov chains, Springer Sci

    E. Seneta,Non-negative matrices and Markov chains, Springer Sci. & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  39. [47]

    Shinar and M

    G. Shinar and M. Feinberg,Structural sources of robustness in biochemical reaction networks, Science 327(2010), no. 5971, 1389–1391

    2010

  40. [48]

    Shiu and B

    A. Shiu and B. Sturmfels,Siphons in chemical reaction networks, Bull. Math. Biol.72(2010), 1448–1463

    2010

  41. [49]

    Van den Bosch and M

    F. Van den Bosch and M. J. Jeger,The basic reproduction number of vector-borne plant virus epidemics, Virus Res.241(2017), 196–202

    2017

  42. [50]

    van den Driessche and J

    P. van den Driessche and J. Watmough,Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission, Math. Biosci.180(2002), no. 1, 29–48

    2002

  43. [51]

    Van den Driessche and J

    P. Van den Driessche and J. Watmough,Further notes on the basic reproduction number, Mathe- matical Epidemiology (F. Brauer, P. van den Driessche, and J. Wu, eds.), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1945, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 159–178

    1945

  44. [52]

    Van den Driessche,Reproduction numbers of infectious disease models, Infect

    P. Van den Driessche,Reproduction numbers of infectious disease models, Infect. Dis. Model.2 (2017), no. 3, 288–303

    2017

  45. [53]

    R. S. Varga,Iterative analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1962

    1962

  46. [54]

    Wang and E

    L. Wang and E. D. Sontag,Singularly perturbed monotone systems and an application to double phosphorylation cycles, J. Nonlinear Sci.18(2008), 527–550. 22 A Proof of Theorem 1 We introduce the following matrix structures (see [50, 51]) and result (see Theorem 6.2.3 in [12], al...

    2008

  47. [55]

    The set ofrecurrent statesis denotedR⊆S

    A statei∈Sis calledrecurrentif a sequence of transitions fromitojwherej∈Simplies that there is a sequence of transitions fromjtoi. The set ofrecurrent statesis denotedR⊆S

  48. [56]

    The set oftransient statesis denotedT⊆S

    A statei∈Sis calledtransientif there is a sequence of transitions fromitojwherej∈Ssuch that there is no sequence of transitions fromjtoi. The set oftransient statesis denotedT⊆S

  49. [57]

    Thegenerator matrixQ= (q ij), whereq ij ≥0fori̸=jandq ii =− P j̸=i qij, represents the transition rates fromitoj. The generator matrixQcan be partitioned as: Q= QT T QT R 0Q RR (B.1) whereQ T T corresponds to transitions between transient states,Q T Rto transitions from transi...

  50. [58]

    dwell time

    Thefundamental matrixNfor the transient states is given by: N= (−Q T T)−1 where the entryn ij ≥0corresponds to the expected time spent in statejwhen starting in statei before leaving the transient component. We now make the correspondence between the matricesA i in (3.12) and ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.