Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js

Keep right or left? Towards a cognitive-mathematical model for pedestrians

  • In this paper we discuss the necessity of insight in the cognitive processes involved in environment navigation into mathematical models for pedestrian motion. We first provide a review of psychological literature on the cognitive processes involved in walking and on the quantitative one coming from applied mathematics, physics, and engineering. Then, we present a critical analysis of the experimental setting for model testing and we show experimental results given by observation. Finally we propose a cognitive model making use of psychological insight as well as optimization models from robotics.

    Citation: Mary J. Bravo, Marco Caponigro, Emily Leibowitz, Benedetto Piccoli. Keep right or left? Towards a cognitive-mathematical model for pedestrians[J]. Networks and Heterogeneous Media, 2015, 10(3): 559-578. doi: 10.3934/nhm.2015.10.559

    Related Papers:

    [1] Andreas Widder, Christian Kuehn . Heterogeneous population dynamics and scaling laws near epidemic outbreaks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(5): 1093-1118. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016032
    [2] Yicang Zhou, Zhien Ma . Global stability of a class of discrete age-structured SIS models with immigration. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2009, 6(2): 409-425. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2009.6.409
    [3] Marcin Choiński . An inherently discrete–time $ SIS $ model based on the mass action law for a heterogeneous population. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(12): 7740-7759. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024340
    [4] Peter Rashkov, Ezio Venturino, Maira Aguiar, Nico Stollenwerk, Bob W. Kooi . On the role of vector modeling in a minimalistic epidemic model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 4314-4338. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019215
    [5] Joan Ponce, Horst R. Thieme . Can infectious diseases eradicate host species? The effect of infection-age structure. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(10): 18717-18760. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023830
    [6] Xiaowei An, Xianfa Song . A spatial SIS model in heterogeneous environments with vary advective rate. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5449-5477. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021276
    [7] Marcin Choiński, Mariusz Bodzioch, Urszula Foryś . A non-standard discretized SIS model of epidemics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(1): 115-133. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022006
    [8] Philip K. Pollett . An SIS epidemic model with individual variation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(4): 5446-5455. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024240
    [9] Zhen Jin, Guiquan Sun, Huaiping Zhu . Epidemic models for complex networks with demographics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2014, 11(6): 1295-1317. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.1295
    [10] Jinzhe Suo, Bo Li . Analysis on a diffusive SIS epidemic system with linear source and frequency-dependent incidence function in a heterogeneous environment. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(1): 418-441. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020023
  • In this paper we discuss the necessity of insight in the cognitive processes involved in environment navigation into mathematical models for pedestrian motion. We first provide a review of psychological literature on the cognitive processes involved in walking and on the quantitative one coming from applied mathematics, physics, and engineering. Then, we present a critical analysis of the experimental setting for model testing and we show experimental results given by observation. Finally we propose a cognitive model making use of psychological insight as well as optimization models from robotics.


    There is a large number of papers with mathematical models of epidemic dynamics. These papers relate to both homogeneous and heterogeneous populations. By heterogeneous population we understand a population with at least two subpopulations that differ in the risk of getting infected. Because of convenience and lack of appropriate data, only two subpopulations are often distinguished. In recent papers [1] and [2], one can find exemplary models of epidemic spread in such populations with mathematical analysis.

    Nowadays, the risk of co-infections is increasing worldwide, including co-infections with COVID-19 [3]. This increase is caused by, for example, increased people's mobility [4], drug resistance [5], impaired immunity after suffering from long COVID-19, and reduction of exposure to microbiota caused by home isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic [6]. Also, getting an infection raises the probability of simultaneous development of another illness [7]. Co-infection also boosts healthcare costs [8] and number of deaths [9]. It is therefore essential to put an effort into reducing co-infection cases. This reduction can be achieved by applying mathematical modeling. Thanks to mathematical models of co-infection spreading and their mathematical analysis, one can predict co-infections and implement proper therapeutic approaches. This is desirable since data concerning co-infections are less accessible than for single epidemics.

    Generally, models of co-infection dynamics are based on models that describe the spread of a single epidemic. Hence, they have a more complex form and are, consequently, more difficult to analyze. However, one can find literature dealing with mathematical analysis of co-infection spread. A recent paper [10] conducted a systemic review of mathematical models. A model of general co-infection for an acute and a chronic disease was presented in [11]. The authors in [12] proposed and analyzed the model of COVID-19 and tuberculosis $ (TB) $ infection. The same type of epidemics, together with measuring impact on isolation, was investigated in [13]. Papers [14] and [15] provide mathematical models for the spread of SARS-CoV-2 with hepatitis B virus and SARS-CoV-2 with human T-cell lymphotropic virus type-I, respectively. The analysis of models concerning individuals suffering from COVID-19 and kidney disease was presented in a recent work [16]. An interesting approach is presented in [17], where the authors investigated the co-infection of airborne and vector-host diseases, namely COVID-19 and dengue.

    Not only COVID-19 is investigated in co-infection modeling. Since $ HIV $ infection increases the probability of developing $ TB $ [18], papers related to the modeling of $ TB $ and $ HIV $ spread contribute significantly to the literature. Authors in [19] distinguish two $ TB $ infected classes: fast and slow latent. They also considered acute and chronic $ HIV $-infected groups. A recent paper [20] focused on an analysis of a $ TB $/$ HIV $ epidemic spread in Ethiopia, with two infected groups for each disease. Naturally, other co-infections are also analyzed in the literature. Authors in [21] investigated the epidemic of $ HIV $ and hepatitis C virus, whereas paper [22] dealt with co-infection of $ TB $ and pneumonia.

    In each paper described above, authors assumed that there is only one class of people that are not infected with any disease; this means they are susceptible to both infections. This leads to situations where the probability of co-infection is raised only by encountering a single infection. That supposition implies no population heterogeneity for healthy individuals. Clearly, this case is not valid. Therefore, there is a need to include heterogeneity in a susceptible class. While modeling an epidemic of a single infection for a heterogeneous population, authors assume that values of parameters reflecting a given subpopulation are the same. This assumption actually leads to the case of a homogeneous population. To adequately describe the dynamics of infection, and consequently of co-infection, in a heterogeneous population, one must consider different values of parameters for each subpopulation. Such consideration makes the mathematical analysis of the model more difficult; thus, this approach is uncommon.

    Our paper aims to construct and analyze the mathematical models of co-infection in a heterogeneous population consisting of two subpopulations. We assume that parameter values reflecting a given process in each subpopulation differ. This assumption and the heterogeneity in the population make our paper novel among the literature considering the modeling of co-infections. In our model, we also introduce a case of a spread of each disease not only among one subpopulation but also between subpopulations. This introduction enables our system to be classified as a criss-cross model. We propose a system of ordinary differential equations that is a $ SIS $-type (susceptibleinfectedsusceptible) model. In models of such type, there is no immunity after recovery and an individual becomes susceptible again. Including heterogeneity constrains computations. For this reason, we do not incorporate a recovered class to maintain explicit results of the analysis. Our model does not relate to particular diseases. Hence, one can apply the obtained results to different infections. Such applications include co-infections that combine sole airborne illnesses, such as $ TB $, COVID-19, or influenza, sexually transmitted diseases, such as gonorrhea, $ HIV $, and hepatitis $ B $, or incorporate illnesses from both types.

    This paper is a continuation of our work from [23] and [24], in which we investigated the criss-cross model of epidemic spread of a single disease for a heterogeneous population. In [23], we conducted the mathematical analysis of the model that was proposed in [25]. The aim of that analysis was to confirm, from a mathematical point of view, the medical hypothesis that stated that to control the epidemic spread in the heterogeneous population, one must consider criss-cross illness transmission. Investigating such spread in a single subpopulation does not provide complete insight into the epidemic dynamics. Because of the proposed model's unexpected properties, such as a possible unbounded population growth, we modified the system from [23] by assuming a constant inflow into each subpopulation. We analyzed that modified system in [24] and again obtained consistency with the medical hypothesis. Considering that the second disease in epidemic dynamics for a heterogeneous population is medically driven by an increasing number of co-infections worldwide and different scenarios regarding individuals' susceptibility can provide mathematical results that can help predict a co-infection course.

    In [23] and [24], we focused on the stability analysis; we indicated stationary states appearing in the given systems and determined the conditions for their local stability. In this paper, we also apply this approach. The model presented herein relies on the system from [24].

    The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we describe and introduce our model. Then we find stationary states of the system and describe conditions for their existence. The basic reproduction number of the model is computed in Section 4. The following section deals with local stability of the found stationary state. We summarize our results in Section 7.

    Let us first describe the assumptions concerning the proposed model. In a population, we indicate two subpopulations, a low-risk ($ LS $) and a high-risk ($ HS $) subpopulation, relating to the risk of getting infected. $ LS $ and $ HS $ have, respectively, lower and higher susceptibility to each disease. For every variable and parameter, we assign a subscript $ i $ equal to 1 and 2 for $ LS $ and $ HS $ respectively. If $ i $ has no assigned value, then $ i \in \{1, 2 \} $. By $ S_1 $ and $ S_2 $, we denote a density of healthy people in $ LS $ and $ HS $, respectively. The variables $ I_i $ refer to the density of individuals from the given subpopulation that are infected by a pathogen of the disease that we call disease $ A $ ($ DA $). Similarly, we define $ J_i $ as the density of individuals suffering from disease $ B $ ($ DB $). The density of a group infected by pathogens from both diseases is denoted by $ K_i $.

    Migrating and newborn individuals join each subpopulation through $ S_i $ class with a recruitment rate $ C_i $. A natural death rate for each subpopulation is equal to $ \mu_i $. For $ DA $, we introduce the transmission rates $ \beta_{11} $, $ \beta_{22} $, $ \beta_{12} $ and $ \beta_{21} $, reflecting transmission among $ LS $, among $ HS $, from $ HS $ to $ LS $, and from $ LS $ to $ HS $, respectively. These four different rates mean that $ DA $ differs in spreading and contracting a pathogen. To get a preliminary insight on co-infection dynamics for the heterogeneous population, for $ DB $ we assume that individuals differ only in contracting a pathogen. For this reason, we take only two transmission coefficients for $ DB $: $ \sigma_1 $ for $ LS $ and $ \sigma_2 $ for $ HS $. By $ \gamma_i $ and $ g_i $, we denote the recovery rate for $ DA $ and $ DB $, respectively. The disease-mortality rate for $ DA $ and $ DB $ is depicted by $ \alpha_i $ and $ a_i $.

    The proposed model of co-infection is

    $ ˙S1=C1β11S1I1β12S1I2+γ1I1μ1S1σ1S1(J1+J2)+g1J1, $ (2.1a)
    $ ˙I1=β11S1I1+β12S1I2(γ1+α1+μ1)I1σ1I1(J1+J2)+g1K1, $ (2.1b)
    $ ˙J1=σ1S1(J1+J2)(g1+a1+μ1)J1β11J1I1β12J1I2+γ1K1, $ (2.1c)
    $ ˙K1=σ1I1(J1+J2)+β11J1I1+β12J1I2(g1+a1+γ1+α1+μ1)K1, $ (2.1d)
    $ ˙S2=C2β22S2I2β21S2I1+γ2I2μ2S2σ2S2(J1+J2)+g2J2, $ (2.1e)
    $ ˙I2=β22S2I2+β21S2I1(γ2+α2+μ2)I2σ2I2(J1+J2)+g2K2, $ (2.1f)
    $ ˙J2=σ2S2(J1+J2)(g2+a2+μ2)J2β22J2I2β21J2I1+γ2K2, $ (2.1g)
    $ ˙K2=σ2I2(J1+J2)+β22J2I2+β21J2I1(g2+a2+γ2+α2+μ2)K2. $ (2.1h)

    Each parameter is fixed and positive. In particular, every parameter besides $ C_i $ is in the range $ (0, 1) $. If we assume that $ \sigma_i, g_i, a_i = 0 $, the above system would reduce to the system that we introduced and analyzed in [24].

    Figure 1 is a schematic drawing of the proposed model.

    Figure 1.  Possible movements between particular classes from system (2.1). The green rectangles correspond to non-infected classes, the red rectangles reflect groups with one infection, and the blue rectangles relate to co-infected classes. For the sake of transparency, subscripts are expressed as regular symbols.

    In order to make the form of system (2.1) more transparent, we define:

    $ ki:=γi+αi+μi,qi:=gi+ai+μi,ri:=gi+ai+γi+αi+μi. $ (2.2)

    Now we indicate the basic properties of the model. The form of the right-hand side of system (2.1) implies that its solutions exist and are unique and positive for any positive initial condition. Let us introduce a variable $ N_i : = S_i + I_i + J_i + K_i $ that naturally means a density of the whole $ HS $ or $ LS $. After adding both sides of Eqs (2.1a)–(2.1d) or Eqs (2.1e)–(2.1h), we get

    $ ˙Ni=˙Si+˙Ii+˙Ji+˙Ki=CiμiNiαiIiaiJi(αi+ai)Ki. $ (2.3)

    See that we can estimate Eq (2.3) from above by the inequality

    $ ˙NiCiμiNi, $ (2.4)

    which solution is

    $ N_i (t) \leq \left( N_i(0) - \frac{C_i}{\mu_i} \right) e^{- \mu_i t} + \frac{C_i}{\mu_i}. $

    For $ N_i(0) > \tfrac{C_i}{\mu_i} $, we observe a decrease of the population. Clearly, we have

    $ S_i(t), I_i(t), J_i(t), K_i(t) \leq N_i(t) \leq N_i(0). $

    For $ N_i(0) < \tfrac{C_i}{\mu_i} $, we have a limited growth of the population, since

    $ S_i(t), I_i(t), J_i(t), K_i(t) \leq N_i(t) \leq - \tilde{C} e^{- \mu_i t} + \frac{C_i}{\mu_i} \leq \frac{C_i}{\mu_i}, $

    where $ \tilde{C} $ is any positive constant.

    Now we estimate Eq (2.3) by

    $ ˙NiCi(μi+αi+ai)Ni. $ (2.5)

    Combining inequalities (2.4) and (2.5), we get

    $ C_i - (\mu_i + \alpha_i + a_i) N_i \leq \dot{N}_i \leq C_i - \mu_i N_i, $

    which produces the invariant set

    $ \Omega : \left \{ (S_1, I_1, J_1, K_1, S_2, I_2, J_2, K_2): S_i+I_i+J_i+K_i \in \left[ \frac{C_i}{\mu_i + \alpha_i + a_i}, \frac{C_i}{\mu_i} \right] \right \}. $

    This set attracts all solutions of system (2.1). We therefore conclude that the variables $ S_i(t) $, $ I_i(t) $, $ J_i(t) $, and $ K_i(t) $ are defined for every $ t > 0 $.

    In this section, we indicate stationary states of system (2.1) and determine conditions for their existence.

    Firstly, we find stationary states that are not endemic, meaning that at least one of their coordinates equals zero.

    We consider separated cases.

    1) Firstly, let us assume that $ I_i = J_i = K_i = 0 $. We immediately get the form of the disease-free stationary state:

    $ Edf=(ˆS1,0,0,0,ˆS2,0,0,0),whereˆS1=C1μ1,ˆS2=C2μ2. $ (3.1)

    Clearly, this state always exists.

    2) Now, consider the case $ K_i = 0 $. Without loss of generality, we take $ K_1 = 0 $. From Eq (2.1d) for any stationary, state we have $ 0 = \sigma_1 I_1 (J_1 + J_2) + \beta_{11} J_1 I_1 + \beta_{12} J_1 I_2, $ which implies

    $ (I1=0J1+J2=0)(J1=0I1=0)(J1=0I2=0). $ (3.2)

    Let us consider the first alternative from (3.2).

    a) We first take $ I_1 = 0 $. From Eq (2.1b), we have $ \beta_{12} S_1 I_{2} = 0 $, which yields $ S_1 = 0 $ or $ I_2 = 0 $. If $ S_1 = 0 $, then Eq (2.1b) gives the contradiction $ 0 = C_1 + g_1 J_1 $. If $ I_2 = 0 $, then from Eq (2.1h) we have $ K_2 = 0 $ and our system reduces to:

    $ ˙Si=0=CiμiSiσiSi(J1+J2)+giJi,˙Ji=0=σiSi(J1+J2)qiJi. $ (3.3)

    The above system's form suggests that there is a stationary state with present $ DB $ and absent $ DA $. We will investigate the existence of such postulated state later. System (3.3) fulfills the case $ I_1 = 0 \land I_1 = 0 \land I_2 = 0 $ from (3.2).

    Now, assume that $ I_1 = 0 \land J_1 = 0 \land J_1 = 0 $ holds. Then from Eq (2.1b), we get $ \beta_{11} S_1 I_2 + g_1 K_1 = 0 $. It provides $ S_1 = 0 $ or $ I_2 = 0 $. Case $ S_1 = 0 $ linked to Eq (2.1a) yields the contrary, $ 0 = C_1 $, hence we must have $ I_2 = 0 $. Then from Eqs (2.1c) and (2.1h), we get $ J_2 = 0 $ and $ K_2 = 0 $, respectively. We obtain state $ E_{df} $.

    It is easy to check that the case $ I_1 = 0 \land J_1 = 0 \land I_2 = 0 $ gives $ E_{df} $ as well. The case $ I_1 = 0 \land I_1 = 0 \land J_1 = 0 $ is equivalent to $ I_1 = 0 \land J_1 = 0 \land J_1 = 0 $.

    b) Now assume that $ J_1+J_2 = 0 $. This assumption obviously provides $ J_1 = 0 $ and $ J_2 = 0 $. From Eq (2.1g), we get $ \dot J_2 = \gamma_2 K_2 $, giving $ K_2 = 0 $. We obtain the system

    $ ˙Si=0=CiβiiSiIiβijSiIj+γiIiμiSi,˙Ii=0=βiiSiIi+βijSiIjkiIi, $ (3.4)

    where $ j = 3-i $. The above system fulfills condition $ J_1+J_2 = 0 \land J_1 = 0 \land J_1 = 0 $, emerged from (3.2).

    If we take $ J_1+J_2 = 0 $ and simultaneously one of the cases $ J_1 = 0 \land I_2 = 0 $, $ I_1 = 0 \land J_1 = 0 $ or $ I_1 = 0 \land I_2 = 0 $, then we obtain $ E_{df} $.

    3) Now suppose that $ I_1 = 0 $. From Eq (2.1b), we get $ 0 = \beta_{12} S_1I_2 + g_1 K_1 $. From $ S_1 I_2 = 0 $, we get $ I_2 = 0 $, which gives system (3.3). Choosing $ K_1 = 0 $ leads to system (3.4).

    4) Consider $ J_1 = 0 $. Then Eq (2.1c) yields $ 0 = \sigma_1 S_1 J_2 + \gamma_1 K_1 $. Both cases $ J_2 = 0 $ and $ K_1 = 0 $ provide system (3.4).

    5) Assuming $ I_1 = 0 \land J_1 = 0 $ leads to state $ E_{df} $.

    6) Supposing $ I_1 = 0 \land K_1 = 0 $ and $ J_1 = 0 \land K_1 = 0 $ results in systems (3.3) and (3.4), respectively.

    Reasoning from points 1)–6) conducted for the variables with subscript 2 gives the same conclusions.

    System (3.4) appears in our previous paper [24]. The solution of this system provides the endemic state $ E^* = (S_1^*, I_1^*, S_2^*, I_2^*) $. This state is the projection of the state

    $ EA=(S1,I1,0,0,S2,I2,0,0),Si,Ii>0, $ (3.5)

    onto the non-negative subspace $ (S_1, I_1, S_2, I_2) \in \mathbb{R}^4 $. State $ E_A $ reflects the presence of $ DA $ and the absence of $ DB $. Observe that adding both sides of Eqs (2.1a)–(2.1b) and Eqs (2.1e)–(2.1f) for $ E_A $ yields $ 0 = C_i - \mu_i (I_i + S_i) - \alpha_i I_i $, providing

    $ Ii=CiμiSiμi+αi. $ (3.6)

    Relying on results for state $ E^* $ from [24], we formulate conditions for the existence of state $ E_A $.

    Proposition 1. In System (2.1), there exists the stationary state $ E_A $ defined in (3.5) that reflects the presence of disease $ A $ and the absence of disease $ B $. This state exists if at least one of three cases holds:

    1) $ \beta_{11} C_1 \geq\mu_1 k_1 $;

    2) $ \beta_{22} C_2 \geq\mu_2 k_2 $;

    3) $ \beta_{ii} C_i < \mu_i k_i $ and

    $ (μ1k1β11C1)(μ2k2β22C2)β12β21C1C2. $ (3.7)

    For $ E_A $, we have

    $ 0<Si<kiβii,max(0,βiiCiμikiμi+αi)<Ii<βiiCiμi+αi. $

    Now we focus on system (3.3). Equation (2.3), being the sum of equations from this system, simplifies to $ \dot{N}_i = 0 = C_i - \mu_i S_i - (\mu_i + a_i) J_i $, which gives

    $ Si=Ci(μi+ai)Jiμi. $ (3.8)

    Computations concerning this system indicate the expected stationary state. Observe that the structure of system (3.3) is analogous to the structure of system (3.4). Based on this analogousness and Proposition 1, we formulate the following proposition concerning the other stationary state.

    Proposition 2. In System (2.1), there exists the stationary state

    $ EB:=(ˉS1,0,ˉJ1,0,ˉS2,0,ˉJ2,0),ˉSi,ˉJi>0, $ (3.9)

    with present disease $ B $ and absent disease $ A $. This state exists if at least one of three cases holds:

    1) $ \sigma_1 C_1 \geq\mu_1 q_1 $;

    2) $ \sigma_2 C_2 \geq\mu_2 q_2 $;

    3) $ \sigma_i C_i < \mu_i q_i $ and

    $ σ1C1μ1q1+σ2C2μ2q21. $ (3.10)

    For $ E_B $, we have

    $ 0<ˉSi<qiβii,max(0,σiCiμiqiμi+ai)<ˉIi<σiCiμi+ai. $

    Now we investigate the endemic stationary state, reflecting the presence of both diseases $ A $ and $ B $. Since it is difficult to obtain its explicit form, we limit our investigation to indicate some properties concerning its existence. Let us define $ Z_i : = I_i + J_I + K_i $. Obviously, variable $ Z_i $ is the density of individuals from the particular subpopulation infected by disease $ A $, $ B $, or both. Summing both sides of Eqs (2.1b)–(2.1d) gives

    $ \dot{Z}_1 = \beta_{11} I_1 S_1 + \beta_{12} I_2 S_1 - g_1 J_1 - a_1 (J_1 + K_1) + \sigma_1 S_1 (J_1 + J_2) - \gamma_1 I_1 - \mu_1 Z_1 - \alpha_1 (I_1 + K_1). $

    From the above equation for the postulated endemic state, we have

    $ S1=g1J1+a1(J1+K1)+γ1I1+μ1Z1+α1(I1+K1)β11I1+β12I2+σ1(J1+J2). $ (3.11)

    Equation (2.3) and definition of $ N_1 $ for this state yield

    $ S1=1μ1(C1μ1(I1+J1+K1)α1I1a1J1(α1+a1)K1). $ (3.12)

    Since $ S_1 > 0 $, one must fulfill

    $ C_1 > \mu_1 (I_1+J_1+K_1) + \alpha_1 I_1 + a_1 J_1 + (\alpha_1 + a_1) K_1. $

    Combining reorganized Eqs (3.12) and (3.11), we get

    $ (C1μ1(I1+J1)α1I1a1J1s1K1)(β11I1+β12I2+σ1(J1+J2))=μ1(k1I1+w1J1+s1K1), $ (3.13)

    where $ s_1 : = \alpha_1 + a_1 + \mu_1 $ and $ w_1 : = g_1 + a_1 + \mu_1 $.

    From Eqs (2.1a)–(2.1d), we get the formula for coordinates $ S_1, I_1, J_1, K_1 $:

    $ S1=C1+g1J1+γ1I1β11I1+β12I2+μ1+σ1(J1+J2), $ (3.14a)
    $ I1=β12S1I2+g1K1σ1(J1+J2)+k1I1β11S1, $ (3.14b)
    $ J1=σ1S1J2+γ1K1q1+β11I1+β12I2σ1S1 $ (3.14c)
    $ K1=β11I1J1+β12J1I2+σ1I1(J1+J2)r1. $ (3.14d)

    Positivity of coordinates $ I_1 $ and $ J_1 $ yields inequalities:

    $ S_1 < \frac{ \sigma_1 (J_1 + J_2) + k_1 I_1}{\beta_{11}}, \qquad S_1 < \frac{q_1 + \beta_{11} I_1 + \beta_{12} I_2}{\sigma_1}. $

    Combining the above dependences with condition (3.14a), we get

    $ C1<min(σ1(J1+J2)+k1I1β11,q1+β11I1+β12I2σ1)(σ1(J1+J2)+μ1+β11I1+β12I2)γ1I1g1J1. $

    If we substitute Eq (3.14d) into the above inequality, we get

    $ C_1 > \mu_1 (I_1+J_1) + \alpha_1 I_1 + a_1 J_1 + \frac{\alpha_1 + a_1 + \mu_1}{r_1} \Bigg( \beta_{11} I_1 J_1 + \beta_{12} J_1 I_2 + \sigma_1 I_1 (J_1 + J_2) \Bigg) . $

    Observe that the reasoning presented in this subsection can be applied to variables with subscript 2. This application provides another condition for the existence of the postulated endemic state.

    In this section, we find and investigate the basic reproduction number $ \mathcal{R}_0 $ of system (2.1). According to the definition from [26], $ \mathcal{R}_0 $ refers to the number of new infections produced by a single infectious individual in a population at a disease-free stationary state. To compute $ \mathcal{R}_0 $, we will rely on the next generation method described in [26]. In this section, we provide a sketch of computations leading to the formula for $ \mathcal{R}_0 $. We consider the subsystem of system (2.1), including the equations only for infected variables:

    $ [˙I1,˙J1,˙K1,˙I2,˙J2,˙K2]^T = \mathcal{F} - \mathcal{V}, $

    where vector $ \mathcal{F} $ concerns the terms related to new infections, and vector $ \mathcal{V} $ reflects the remaining processes. These vectors read

    $ \mathcal{F} = [β11S1I1+β12S1I2σ1S1(J1+J2)σ1I1(J1+J2)+β11J1I1+β12J1I2β22S2I2+β21S2I1σ2S2(J1+J2)b2I2(J1+J2)+β22J2I2+β12J2I1], \qquad \mathcal{V} = [k1I1+σ1I1(J1+J2)g1K1q1J1+β11J1I1+β12J1I2γ1K1r1K1k2I2+σ2I1(J1+J2)g2K2q2J2+β22J2I2+β21J2I1γ2K2r2K2], $

    respectively. We construct matrices $ F $ and $ V $ that are the Jacobian matrices of $ \mathcal{F} $ and $ \mathcal{V} $ evaluated at $ E_{df} $. These matrices have the form

    $ F = [β11ˆS1β12ˆS10000β21ˆS2β22ˆS2000000σ1ˆS1σ1ˆS10000σ2ˆS2σ2ˆS200000000000000], \qquad V = [k1000g100k2000g200q10γ10000q20γ20000r1000000r2], $

    Then we compute $ F V^{-1} $ and obtain

    $ FV^{-1} = [β11k1ˆS1β12k2ˆS100g1β11k1r1ˆS1g2β12k2r2ˆS1β21k1S2β22k2ˆS200g1β21k1r1ˆS2g2β22k2r2ˆS200σ1q1ˆS1σ1q2ˆS1γ1σ1q1r1ˆS1γ2σ1q2r2ˆS100σ2q1ˆS2σ2q2ˆS2γ1σ2q1r1ˆS2γ2σ2q2r2ˆS2000000000000]. $

    The basic reproduction number is the spectral radius of the matrix $ FV^{-1} $. The eigenvalues of this read $ \lambda_{1, 2, 3} = 0, \lambda_4 = \tfrac{\sigma_1}{q_1} \widehat{S}_1 + \tfrac{\sigma_2}{q_2} \widehat{S}_2 $, and

    $ \lambda_{5,6} = \frac{1}{2 k_1 k_2} \left( k_2 \beta_{11} \widehat{S}_1 + k_1 \beta_{22} \widehat{S}_2 \mp \sqrt{ ( k_2 \beta_{11} \widehat{S}_1 - k_1 \beta_{22} \widehat{S}_2 )^2 + 4 k_1 k_2 \beta_{12} \beta_{21} \widehat{S}_1 \widehat{S}_2 } \right) $

    We finally get

    $ \mathcal{R}_0 = \max (\lambda_4, \lambda_6). $

    See that $ \lambda_4 $ consists of terms relying to only infection $ B $, whereas $ \lambda_6 $ refers only to infection $ A $.

    Now we formulate the theorem relied on the dependence between $ \lambda_4 $ and $ \lambda_6 $.

    Theorem 4.1. $ \mathcal{R}_0 = \lambda_4 $ if

    $ ˆS1ˆS2(β12β21β11β12)<ˆS1ˆS2(σ1u2q1+σ2u1q2)+σ1u1q1ˆS21+σ2u2q2ˆS22, $ (4.1)

    where

    $ ui:=k3i(kiσiqiβii), $ (4.2)

    and

    $ ˆS1(2σ1q1k2β11)+ˆS2(2σ2q2k1β22)>0. $ (4.3)

    Proof. Observe that $ \lambda_4 > \lambda_6 $ if

    $ (k2β11ˆS1k1β22ˆS2)2+4k1k2β12β21ˆS1ˆS2<2λ4k1k2k2β11ˆS1k1β22ˆS2. $ (4.4)

    Under fulfillment of

    $ 2λ4k1k2>k2β11ˆS1+k1β22ˆS2 $ (4.5)

    we raise both sides of inequality (4.4) to the square and transform the result to

    $ \widehat{S}_1 \widehat{S}_2 (\beta_{12} \beta_{21} - \beta_{11} \beta_{12} ) < \lambda_4 (\lambda_4 - k_2 \beta_{11} \widehat{S}_1 - k_1 \beta_{22} \widehat{S}_2). $

    Using the definition of $ \lambda_4 $ in the above inequality and transforming the obtained expression, we get

    $ ˆS1ˆS2(β12β21β11β12)<(σ1ˆS1q1+σ2ˆS2q2)(ˆS1u1+ˆS2u2), $ (4.6)

    where $ u_i $ is defined by Eq (4.2). We rewrite inequality (4.6) as inequality (4.1). Inequality (4.5) with the definition of $ \lambda_4 $ can be transformed into inequality (4.3).

    Let us strengthen the assumptions from Theorem 4.1 so that we obtain more explicit ones. Suppose that $ u_i > 0 $, which can be written as

    $ βiiqi<kiσi. $ (4.7)

    Then condition

    $ σ1u2q1+σ2u1q2>β12β21β11β12 $ (4.8)

    suffices fulfillment of inequality (4.1). Moreover, if

    $ βiiqi<2σik3i, $ (4.9)

    then inequality (4.3) is always true. Combining inequalities (4.7) and (4.9) yields

    $ βiiqi<max(kiσi,2σik3i). $ (4.10)

    We conclude that

    Corollary 1. If inequality (4.10), then $ \mathcal{R}_0 = \lambda_4 $.

    The above corollary confirms the obvious dependence that if the transmission of infection $ B $, represented by $ \sigma_i $, is sufficiently stronger than the transmission of infection $ A $ between different subpopulations, reflected by $ \beta_{ii} $, then infection $ B $ plays a bigger role in the whole population.

    Observe that if in inequality (4.3) we replace sign $ > $ by sign $ < $, then $ \lambda_4 < \lambda_6 $. It yields $ \mathcal{R}_0 = \lambda_6 $, which is the same as $ \mathcal{R}_0 $ for the system with one infection from [24].

    From a medical point of view, the desirable situation is when $ \mathcal{R}_0 < 1 $. Let us check when this case holds. We formulate the theorem

    Theorem 4.2. For system (2.1) $ \mathcal{R}_0 < 1 $ if

    $ σ1q1ˆS1+σ2q2ˆS2<1, $ (4.11)
    $ ˆSi<kiβii $ (4.12)

    and

    $ β12β21ˆS1ˆS2<(β11ˆS1k1)(β22S2k2). $ (4.13)

    Proof. Condition (4.11) is obvious from the definition of $ \lambda_4 $. The part of the proof related to $ \lambda_6 $ is similar to the proof of Theorem 4.1. The inequality $ \lambda_6 < 1 $ can be transformed into

    $ (k2β11ˆS1k1β22ˆS2)2+4k1k2β12β21ˆS1ˆS2<2k1k2(k2β11ˆS1+k1β22ˆS2). $ (4.14)

    Under condition

    $ 2>β11k1ˆS1+β22k2ˆS2 $ (4.15)

    multiplying both sides of inequality (4.14) yields

    $ \beta_{12} \beta_{21} \widehat{S}_1 \widehat{S}_2 < k_1 k_2 - k_2 \beta_{11} \widehat{S}_1 - k_1 \beta_{22} \widehat{S}_2 + \beta_{11} \beta_{12} \widehat{S}_1 \widehat{S}_2, $

    which can be written as inequality (4.13). The right-hand side of inequality (4.13) must be positive. It is true when $ \widehat{S}_i > \tfrac{k_i}{\beta_{ii}} $ or (4.12). The first case is contrary to inequality (4.15). Hence, inequality (4.12) must hold, which is stronger than inequality (4.15).

    If is easy to check that inequality (4.13) is opposite to inequality (3.7) from Preposition 1 discussing the existence of state $ E_A $. Similarly, inequality (4.11) is opposite to inequality (3.10) from Preposition 2 providing conditions for the $ E_B $ existence.

    Now we investigate the local stability of states $ E_{df} $, $ E_A $, and $ E_B $. The Jacobian matrix of system (2.1) can be written as $ J = (M1M2) $, where

    $ M_1 = (G1β11S1+γ1σ1S1+g10F1β11S1k1σ1(J1+J2)σ1I1g1σ1(J1+J2)β11J1σ1S1q1F1γ10σ1(J1+J2)+β11J1σ1I1+F1r10β21S2σ2S200β21S2σ2I200β21J2σ2S200β21J2σ2I20), $

    and

    $ M_2 = (0β12S1σ1S100β12S1σ1I100β12J1σ1S100β12J1σ1I10G2β22S2+γ2σ2S2+g20F2β22S2k2σ2(J1+J2)σ2I2g2σ2(J1+J2)β22J2σ2S2q2F2γ20σ2(J1+J2)+β22J2σ2I2+F2r2) $

    with

    $ Fi:=Fi(I1,I2)=βiiIi+βijIj,Gi:=Gi(I1,I2,J1,J2)=Fiμiσi(J1+J2),j=3i. $

    We start from the local stability of $ E_{df} $.

    Theorem 5.1. $ E_{df} $ is locally stable if $ \mathcal{R}_0 < 1 $.

    Proof. The Jacobian matrix for state $ E_{df} $ reads

    $ (μ1β11ˆS1+γ1σ1ˆS1+g100β12ˆS1σ1ˆS100β11ˆS1k10g10β12ˆS10000σ1ˆS1q1γ100σ1ˆS10000r100000β21ˆS2σ2ˆS20μ2β22ˆS2+γ2σ2ˆS2+g200β21ˆS2000β22ˆS2k20g200σ2ˆS2000σ2ˆS2q2γ20000000r2). $

    Immediately, we get four negative eigenvalues: $ - \mu_1 $, $ -\mu_2 $, $ -r_1 $, $ -r_2 $. The remaining eigenvalues are the zeros of the characteristic polynomial of the matrix:

    $ (β11ˆS1k10β12ˆS100σ1ˆS1q10σ1ˆS1β21ˆS20β22ˆS2k200σ2ˆS20σ2ˆS2q2). $

    This polynomial reads $ P(\lambda) = P_1(\lambda) P_2(\lambda) $, where

    $ P1(λ)=λ2(β11ˆS1k1+β22ˆS2k2)λ+(β11ˆS1k1)(β22S2k2)β12β21ˆS1ˆS2,P2(λ)=λ2(σ1ˆS1q1+σ2ˆS2q2)λ+(σ1ˆS1q1)(σ2ˆS2q2)σ1σ2ˆS1ˆS2. $

    It is easy to check that their discriminants are positive. The zeros of $ P_1 $ are negative if inequalities (4.12) and (4.13) hold. Analogously, $ P_2 $ has negative zeros if

    $ σ1ˆS1q1+σ2S2q2<0 $ (5.1)

    and

    $ (σ1ˆS1q1)(σ2ˆS2q2)>σ1σ2ˆS1ˆS2. $ (5.2)

    Inequality (5.2) can be transformed into inequality (4.11). According to Theorem 4.2, merging inequality (4.11)–(4.13) yields $ \mathcal{R}_0 < 1 $. Inequality (5.2) yields two exclusive possibilities: $ \sigma_i \widehat{S}_i > q_i $ or

    $ σiˆSi<qi. $ (5.3)

    The first case is contrary to inequality (5.1), whereas inequality (5.3), under condition (5.2), yields inequality (5.1). Hence, we replace inequality (5.1) by inequality (5.3). We rewrite inequality (5.3) as

    $ \widehat{S}_i < \frac{q_i}{\sigma_i}. $

    Observe that the above inequality is weaker than inequality (4.11); hence, it is omitted in the thesis of Theorem 5.1.

    Theorem 5.1 is in line with the analogical result from [24], where we also obtained the local stability of the given disease-free stationary for the basic reproduction number smaller than one.

    Now we provide a theorem guaranteeing the local stability of state $ E_A $.

    Theorem 5.2. $ E_A $ is locally stable if

    $ γiβii<Si<kiβii, $ (5.4)
    $ (k1β11S1)(k2β22S2)>β12β21S1S2, $ (5.5)
    $ βiiIi+βijIj+qi>σiSi,j=3i, $ (5.6)
    $ S1S2<r1r2σ1σ2, $ (5.7)
    $ ri(βiiIi+βijIjσiSi+qi)>γi(βiiIi+βijIj+σiIi), $ (5.8)
    $ (rjγj(βjjIj+βjiIiσjSj+qj)βjjIjβjiIiσjIj)(βiiIi+βijIjσiSi+qi+ri)>σiSi(rjσjγjSj+σjIj),j=3i, $ (5.9)

    and

    $ 2m=1(rm(βmmIm+βmjIjσmSm+qm)γm(βmmIm+βmjIj+σmIm))>2m=1(rmσmSm+γmσmIm),j=3m. $ (5.10)

    Proof. Let us rearrange matrix $ J(E_A) $ so that the characteristic polynomial of the new matrix remains the same. We get $ M^* = (M1 M20M3), $ where

    $ M_1^* = \left(β11I1β12I2μ1β11S1+γ10β12S1β11I1+β12I2β11S1k10β12S10β21S2β22I2β21I1μ2β22S2+γ20β21S2β22I2+β21I1β22S2k2\right) $

    and

    $ M_3^* = \left(β11I1β12I2+σ1S1q1γ1σ1S10β11I1+β12I2+σ1I1r1σ1I10σ2S20β22I2β21I1+σ2S2q2γ2σ2I20β22I2+β21I1+σ2I2r2\right). $

    The form of $ M_2^* \in M_4(\mathbb{R}) $ is not needed for further computations.

    We start by investigating matrix $ M_1^* $. To simplify computations, we define auxiliary notations:

    $ ai=βiiIi+βijIj,ui=βiiSiγi,ti=kiβiiSi,zi=βijSi,wherej=3i. $ (5.11)

    Thanks to this simplification, matrix $ M_1^* $ reads

    $ M_1^* = \left(a1μ1u10z1a1t10z10z2a2μ2u20z2a2t2\right). $

    The characteristic polynomial of $ M_1^* $ has the form

    $ P_1 (\lambda) : = \lambda^4 + c_3 \lambda^3 + c_2 \lambda^2 + c_1 \lambda + c_0, $

    where

    $ c3=a1+a2+t1+t2+μ1+μ2,c2=(a1+μ1)(a2+μ2)+(t1+t2)(a1+a2+μ1+μ2)+a1u1+a2u2+t1t2z1z2,c1=a1a2(t1+t2+u1+u2)+μ1μ2(t1+t2)+t1t2(a1+a2)+a1μ2(t1+t2+u1)+a2μ1(t1+t2+u2)+a1u1t2+a2u2t1+(μ1+μ2)(t1t2z1z2),c0=a1a2(t1+u1)(t2+u2)+a1t2μ2(t1+u1)+a2t1μ1(t2+u2)+μ1μ2(t1t2z1z2). $

    Observe that if

    $ ui>0,ti>0 $ (5.12)

    and

    $ t1t2z1z2>0, $ (5.13)

    then each coefficient of $ P_1 $ is positive. Hence, from Descartes' rule of signs, we get that $ P_4 $ has real negative roots or complex roots with negative real parts. Substituting definition (5.11) into inequalities (5.12) and (5.13) provides inequalities (5.4) and (5.5), respectively.

    Let us focus now on matrix $ M_3^* $. After using notations:

    $ ti=βiiIi+βijIjσiSi+qi,ai=βiiIi+βijIj+σiIi,si=σiSi,yi=σiIi,wherej=3i, $ (5.14)

    we rewrite $ M_3^* $ as

    $ M3=(t1γ1s10a1r1y10s20t2γ2y20a2r2). $ (5.15)

    The characteristic polynomial of the matrix reads $ P_3 (\lambda) : = \lambda^4 + c_3 \lambda^3 + c_2 \lambda^2 + c_1 \lambda + c_0 $, where

    $ c3=t1+t2+r1+r2>0,c2=(r1+t1)(r2+t2)s1s2+r1t1γ1a1+r2t2γ2a2,c1=2j=1((tj+rj)(t3jr3jγ3ja3j)sj(r3js3j+γ3jy3j)),c0=(γ1a1r1t1)(γ2a2r2t2)(r1s1+γ1y1)(r2s2+γ2y2). $

    Let us investigate the signs of the coefficients of polynomial $ P_3 $. Observe that if inequality (5.6) holds, then $ t_1, t_2 > 0 $, which yields $ c_3 > 0 $. Conditions $ r_1 r_2 > s_1 s_2 $ and $ r_i t_i > \gamma_i a_i $, which can be written as inequalities (5.7) and (5.8), respectively, yield $ c_2 > 0 $. See that $ c_1 > 0 $ if $ (t_i + r_i) (t_j r_j - \gamma_j a_j) > s_i (r_j s_j + \gamma_j y_j) $ for $ j = 3-i $, which we transform to

    $ (t_i + r_i) \left(\frac{r_j }{\gamma_j } t_j - a_j \right) > s_i \left( \frac{r_j}{\gamma_j} s_j + y_j \right). $

    Using expressions from (5.14), we rewrite the above inequality as inequality (5.9). Condition $ c_0 > 0 $ can be written as

    $ \prod\limits_{m = 1}^2 (\gamma_m a_m - r_m t_m) > \prod\limits_{m = 1}^2 (r_m s_m + \gamma_m y_m) $

    With (5.14), the above inequality transforms into inequality (5.10).

    Now let us strengthen conditions from Theorem 5.2 providing the local stability of $ E_A $ so that they have a more explicit form. Observe that the condition

    $ Si<qiσi. $ (5.16)

    yields fulfillment of inequality (5.6). Moreover, from definitions (2.2), clearly we have $ r_i > q_i $. Hence, inequality (5.16) implies inequality (5.7).

    Again relying on (2.2), we get $ r_i > \gamma_i $. Instead of inequality (5.8), it is therefore enough to investigate the inequality

    $ r_i ( q_i - \sigma_i S_i^* ) > \gamma_i \sigma_i I_i^*. $

    If inequality (5.16) holds, then the left-hand side of the above inequality is always positive. Using Eq (3.6), we transform this inequality into

    $ Si<riqiCiγiσiαi+μiriσiγiσiμiαi+μi. $ (5.17)

    From the definition of $ r_i $, the denominator of the right-hand side of inequality (5.17) is positive if

    $ (g_i + a_i + \alpha_i + \mu_i) (\mu_i + \alpha_i) + \gamma_i \alpha_i > 0 , $

    which is always true. The positivity of the numerator of the right-hand side of inequality (5.17) is maintained if

    $ Ci<riqi(μi+αi)γiσi. $ (5.18)

    Now observe that since $ r_i > \gamma_i $, inequality (5.9) can be, under fulfillment of inequality (5.16), strengthened to

    $ (qjσj(Sj+Ij))(βiiIi+βijIjσiSi+qi+ri)>σiSi(rjσjγjSj+σjIj). $ (5.19)

    If inequality (5.16) holds, then one must fulfill

    $ Si+Ii<qiσi. $ (5.20)

    so that inequality (5.19) makes sense. Using Eq (3.6), we transform inequality (5.20) into

    $ Si<qi(μi+αi)Ciσiσiαi, $ (5.21)

    which is reasonable if

    $ Ci<qi(μi+αi)σi. $ (5.22)

    Observe that inequality (5.22) is stricter than inequality (5.18). Rewriting inequality (5.19), we get

    $ (βiiIi+βijIj)(qjσj(Sj+Ij))+(qi+ri)qj>(rjγj1)σ1σ2S1S2+(σiqjSi+(qi+ri)σj(Sj+Ij)). $

    Using again Eq (3.6), we transform the above inequality into

    $ βijσjμ2j(μj+αj)2(Sj)2βiiμiμi+αiσjμjμj+αjS1S2+(rjγj1)σ1σ2S1S2+(βiiCiμi+αiβijCjμj+αj)σjμjμj+αjSjβijμjμj+αj(qjσjCjμj+αj)Sj+αj(qi+ri)μj+αjSj+(qjσjCjμj+αj)(βii(CiμiSi)μi+αi+βijCjμj+αj)+σiqjSi+(qi+ri)σjCjμj+αj+(qi+ri)qj>0,j=3i. $ (5.23)

    Now we use the dependence $ r_i > \gamma_i $ and transform inequality (5.10) into

    $ \prod\limits_{m = 1}^2 \Big( r_m (q_m - \sigma_m S_m^*) - \gamma_m \sigma_m I_m^* \Big) > \prod\limits_{m = 1}^2 (r_m \sigma_m S_m^* + \gamma_m \sigma_m I_m^*), $

    which can be simplified to

    $ σ1q1(S1+I1)+σ2q2(S2+I2)<1. $ (5.24)

    Clearly, inequality (5.24) is stricter than inequalities (5.16) and (5.21).

    Using Eq (3.6), we rewrite inequality (5.24) as

    $ 2j=1(σj(Sjαj+Cj)qj(μj+αj))<1. $ (5.25)

    We finally conclude that

    Corollary 2. If (5.4), (5.5), (5.17), (5.22), (5.23) and (5.25), then $ E_A $ is locally stable.

    Let us treat the left-hand side of inequality (5.23) as a quadratic trinomial $ P(S_j^*) $. If inequality (5.22) holds, then the condition $ C_i > \sigma_i S_i^* $ suffices for the constant of $ P(S_j^*) $ to be positive. Hence, the form of $ P(S_j^*) $ implies that inequality (5.23) is true for $ 0 < S_j^* < \mathcal{S} $, where $ \mathcal{S} $ is the positive zero of $ P(S_j^*) $.

    Now we provide the theorem indicating the conditions for the local stability of state $ E_B $:

    Theorem 5.3. $ E_B $ is locally stable if

    $ ˉSi<kiβii, $ (5.26)
    $ ˉS1ˉS2<r1r2β12β21, $ (5.27)
    $ ri(σi(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)βiiˉSi+ki)>gi(σi(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)+βiiˉJi), $ (5.28)
    $ (rjgj(σj(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)βjjˉSj+kj)σj(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)βjjˉJj)(σi(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)βiiˉSi+ki+ri)>β12β21ˉSi(rjgjˉSj+ˉJj),j=3i, $ (5.29)
    $ 2m=1(gm(σm(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)+βmmˉJm)rm(σm(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)βmmˉSm+km))>2m=1(rmβmjˉSm+gmβmjˉJm),j=3m. $ (5.30)

    Proof. Similarly as in the proof of Theorem 5.2, we transform matrix $ J(E_B) $ into $ M_B = (ˉM1ˉM20ˉM3), $ where

    $ \bar{M}_1 = \left(μ1σ1(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)σ1ˉS1+g10σ1ˉS1σ1(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)σ1ˉS1q10σ1ˉS10σ2ˉS2μ2σ2(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)σ2ˉS2+g20σ2ˉS2σ2(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)σ2ˉS2q2\right), $
    $ \bar{M}_3 = \left(β11ˉS1k1σ1(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)g1β12ˉS10σ1(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)+β11ˉJ1r1β12ˉJ10β21ˉS20β22ˉS2k2+σ2(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)g2β21ˉJ20σ2(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)+β22ˉJ2r2\right). $

    We start from matrix $ \bar{M}_1 $. After using notations:

    $ ai=σi(ˉJ1+ˉJ2),si=σiˉSi,ti=qiσiˉSi, $ (5.31)

    we transform $ \bar{M}_1 $ to

    $ \bar{M}_1 = \left(a1μ1g1s10s1a1t10s10s2a2μ2g2s20s2a2t2\right). $

    The characteristic polynomial of matrix $ \bar{M}_1 $ reads $ P_1 (\lambda) = \lambda^4 + c_3 \lambda^3 + c_2 \lambda^2 + c_1 \lambda + c_0 $, where

    $ c3=a1+a2+t1+t2+γ1+γ2,c2=t1t2s1s2+a1(s1g1)+a2(s2g2)+(t1+t2)(a1+μ1+a2+μ2)+(a1+μ1)(a2+μ2),c1=a1a2(s1+s2g1g2)+(μ1+μ2)(t1t2s1s2)+a1(t2+μ2)(s1g1)+a2(t1+μ1)(s2g2),+a1t1(t2+μ2)+a2t2(t1+μ1)+(a1a2+μ1μ2)(t1+t2)+a1t2μ2+a2t1μ1,c0=(t1t2s1s2)(μ1μ2+a1a2)+a1t2(a2+μ2)(s2g2)+t1t2(a1μ2+a2μ1)+a2t1(a1+μ1)(s1g1)+a1a2(s1g1)(s2g2)+a1a2s1s2. $

    Observe that if

    $ s1>g1,s2>g2, $ (5.32)

    and

    $ t1t2>s1s2 $ (5.33)

    then $ c_2, c_1, c_0 > 0 $. Hence, from Descartes' rule of signs, we get that $ P_1 $ has real negative roots or complex roots with negative real parts.

    Using definitions (5.31), we rewrite inequality (5.32) as inequality (5.6) and inequality (5.33) as

    $ σ1q1ˉS1+σ2q2ˉS2<1. $ (5.34)

    Now we focus on matrix $ \bar{M}_3 $. With the use of expressions,

    $ ti=σi(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)βiiˉSi+ki,ai=σi(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)+βiiˉJi,si=βijˉSi,yi=βijˉJi,wherej=3i, $ (5.35)

    we rewrite $ \bar{M}_3 $ as

    $ \bar{M}_3 = \left(t1g1s10a1r1y10s20t2g2y20a2r2\right), $

    which has a similar form as matrix $ M_3^* $ from (5.15). This similarity allows us to apply reasoning for $ M_3^* $ to $ \bar{M}_3 $. Analogically to conditions (5.6)–(5.10), we obtain inequalities (5.26)–(5.30).

    Similarly as for Theorem 5.2, let us strengthen conditions from Theorem 5.3 providing the local stability of $ E_B $. Since $ r_i > g_i $, we replace inequality (5.28) by

    $ ri(kiβiiˉSi)>giβiiˉJi, $ (5.36)

    which obviously requires fulfillment of inequality (5.26). Using Eq (3.8), we express the above inequality as

    $ ˉSi<ri(μi+αi)kiCiβiigiβii((ai+γi+αi+μi)μi+riαi), $ (5.37)

    under fulfillment of

    $ Ci<ri(μi+αi)kiβiigi. $ (5.38)

    Again using the dependence $ r_i > g_i $, we simplify inequality (5.29) to

    $ (rjgj(kjβjjˉSj)βjjˉJj)(σi(ˉJ1+ˉJ2)βiiˉSi+ki+ri)>β12β21ˉSi(rjgjˉSj+ˉJj),j=3i. $ (5.39)

    Since inequality (5.26) holds, it is enough that inequality (5.36) holds so that inequality (5.39) makes sense.

    Inequality (5.30) can be strengthened by

    $ \prod\limits_{m = 1}^2 \Big( g_m \beta_{mm} J_m + r_m ( \beta_{mm} \bar{S}_m - k_m ) \Big) > \prod\limits_{m = 1}^2 \Big( r_m \beta_{mj} \bar{S}_m + g_m \beta_{mj} \bar{J}_m \Big), $

    which can be expressed as

    $ (β11β22β12β21)(g1ˉJ1+r1ˉS1)(g2ˉJ2+r2ˉS2)+β11k2r2(r1ˉS1g1ˉJ1)+β22k2r1(r2ˉS2g2ˉJ2)+r1r2k1k2>0. $ (5.40)

    The above inequality is always true if

    $ β11β22>β12β21 $ (5.41)

    and

    $ riˉSi>giˉJi. $ (5.42)

    Using Eq (3.8), we rewrite inequality (5.42) as

    $ ˉSi>Cigiμigi+μiri+αiri. $ (5.43)

    Let us compare inequalities (5.26) and (5.27). Observe that $ r_i > k_i $. Moreover, if inequality (5.41) holds, then inequality (5.26) is stronger than inequality (5.27).

    Finally, we conclude that

    Corollary 3. If inequalities (5.26), (5.37), (5.38), (5.39), (5.40), (5.41), and (5.43) hold, then $ E_B $ is locally stable.

    In Subsection 3.2, we provided only a slight analysis of the existence of the endemic stationary state $ E_E $, with two diseases present. We are therefore not certain if this state exists. Furthermore, the complexity of the proper Jacobian matrix does not allow us to obtain the explicit conditions for local stability of such a postulated equilibrium. However, the conditions from Theorems 5.2 and 5.3 restrict a set of parameters' values guaranteeing the local stability of existing states $ E_A $ and $ E_B $. Such restriction suggests that there should be ranges of the values for the $ E_E $ local stability under its existence. Indicating these ranges is difficult, even numerically, because of the system's intricacy. For this reason, for each parameter, we only give specific values that yield the desirable local stability. We rely on the values from [10] that concern $ TB $ and COVID-19. In our system, these diseases correspond to diseases $ A $ and $ B $, respectively. Since paper [10] relates to co-infection dynamics in a homogeneous population, we arbitrarily choose the values of incompatible parameters from our system. These values are chosen so that we reach the $ E_E $ local stability. In Table 1, one can find the taken numbers.

    Table 1.  The parameters' values providing the local stability of postulated state $ E_E $. Each value has the unit day$ ^{-1} $. The values of $ C_1 $, $ C_2 $, $ \beta_{12} $, $ \beta_{21} $, $ \beta_{22} $ are indicated discretionally, whereas the remaining numbers can be found in [10].
    Symbol Value
    $ C_1 $ 130
    $ C_2 $ 10
    $ \beta_{11} $ $ 2 \cdot 10^{-6} $
    $ \beta_{12} $ $ 8 \cdot 10^{-6} $
    $ \beta_{21} $ $ 3 \cdot 10^{-6} $
    $ \beta_{22} $ $ 6.5 \cdot 10^{-6} $
    $ \sigma_1 $, $ \sigma_2 $ $ 5.5 \cdot 10^{-6} $
    $ \gamma_1 $, $ \gamma_2 $ $ 0.02 $
    $ \mu_1 $, $ \mu_2 $ $ \tfrac{1}{59.365} $
    $ g_1 $, $ g_2 $ $ 0.015 $
    $ \alpha_1, \alpha_2 $ $ 0.004 $
    $ a_1 $, $ a_2 $ $ 0.0018 $

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We illustrate the local stability of $ E_E $ on the plots showing the dependence of the system's solution on time for each particular variable. For the illustration, we use the Matlab software, which provides a built-in $ ode45 $ function. This function numerically solves a given differential equation system for a specified initial condition [27]. For the simulation, we take the parameters' values from Table 1 and the arbitrarily chosen initial condition

    $ \Big( S_1(0), I_1(0), J_1(0), K_1(0), S_2(0), I_2(0), J_2(0), K_2(0) \Big) = (5000,100,300, 10,500, 60, 70, 5). $

    Figures 23 depict the result of the simulation. For the figures' transparency, we show plots for the infected variables for each subpopulation and the non-infected variables in separate picture graphs. The obtained figures suggest the existence of the stationary state $ E_e $ that is locally stable for the parameter values from Table 1.

    Figure 2.  Dependence of the infected variables for the low-risk (a) and the high-risk (b) subpopulation of system 2.1 on time. Each curve for the particular variable has a different color. In Figure 2(a) the curves for variables $ J_1 $ and $ K_1 $ merge because of the similar values of these variables.
    Figure 3.  Dependence of the non-infected variables of system 2.1 on time.

    Now for the illustrated example of epidemic, we depict the relative sizes of the infections for time $ t $ that we define by ratios:

    $ R_1(t): = \frac{I_1(t)+K_1(t)}{J_1(t)+K_1(t)}, \qquad R_2(t): = \frac{I_2(t)+K_2(t)}{J_2(t)+K_2(t)}, \qquad R(t) : = \frac{I_1(t)+I_2(t)+K_1(t)+K_2(t)}{J_1(t)+J_2(t)+K_1(t)+K_2(t)}. $

    These ratios correspond to $ LS $, $ HS $, and the whole population, respectively, and in our case represent the number of $ TB $-infected individuals relative to the number of COVID-infected ones. Figure 4 shows the dependence of the relative sizes on time.

    Figure 4.  The relative sizes of the infections.

    For the last point of the simulation timescale, i.e., $ \bar{t} = 1600 $, we get $ R_1(\bar{t}) = 0.1176 $ and $ R_2(\bar{t}) = 0.3432 $. Plots from the figure suggest the convergence of each relative size. We therefore state that for the stabilized co-infection epidemic, for one $ TB $-infected person, there are approximately nine and three COVID-infected people in $ LS $ and $ HS $, respectively.

    In this paper, we proposed and analyzed the continuous-time model (2.1) describing co-infection in a heterogeneous population, in which we distinguish two subpopulations. These subpopulations, low-risk $ LS $ and high-risk $ HS $, differ in the risk of getting infected by any of two diseases, called disease $ A $ ($ DA $) and disease $ B $ ($ DA $). The values of the parameters for every subpopulation are different, which guarantees complete population heterogeneity. System (2.1) has three stationary states: disease-free ($ E_{df} $), with sole $ DA $ or $ DB $ ($ E_A $ and $ E_B $). We also suspect that the endemic state, with two diseases present, exists, but we did not manage to prove it because of complicated computations. State $ E_{df} $ exists unconditionally, while provided conditions determine the existence of $ E_A $ and $ E_B $. For state $ E_e $, we only gave insight into its existence because of the complexity of the computations. For system (2.1), we computed the basic reproduction number $ \mathcal{R}_0 $. This number is the maximum of two terms, whose forms depend on parameters corresponding to the particular sole infection. Later, we investigated the local stability of the stationary state. State $ E_{df} $ is locally stable if $ \mathcal{R}_0 < 1 $, which is expected. Analysis of the local stability for $ E_A $ and $ E_B $ provided the list of conditions. Importantly, the parameters from both diseases affect the local stability of both states.

    The proposed model expands the system from [24], where we investigated the epidemic dynamics of one disease in heterogeneous populations. In that system, there are only two stationary states: the disease-free state and the endemic state, which is a counterpart of state $ E_A $ of system (2.1). The results for their local stabilities are analogical to those for state $ E_{df} $ and $ E_A $ in this paper.

    The next step of our work will be an analysis of the proposed model with some assumptions simplifying this form. We hope to obtain the endemic state of the simplified model and get explicit results concerning its local stability.

    The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    The author declares there is no conflict of interest.

    [1] G. Arechavaleta, J.-P. Laumond, H. Hicheur and A. Berthoz, An optimality principle governing human walking, Robotics, IEEE Transactions on, 24 (2008), 5-14. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2008.915449
    [2] N. Bellomo and C. Dogbe, On the modeling of traffic and crowds: A survey of models, speculations, and perspectives, SIAM Review, 53 (2011), 409-463. doi: 10.1137/090746677
    [3] E. M. Cepolina and N. Tyler, Understanding Capacity Drop for designing pedestrian environments, in Proceedings of the 6th International Walk21 Conference, Zurich, 2005, 1-11.
    [4] Y. Chitour, F. Jean and P. Mason, Optimal control models of goal-oriented human locomotion, SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 50 (2012), 147-170. doi: 10.1137/100799344
    [5] F. Chittaro, F. Jean and P. Mason, On inverse optimal control problems of human locomotion: Stability and robustness of the minimizers, Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 195 (2013), 269-287. doi: 10.1007/s10958-013-1579-z
    [6] R. Conroy-Dalton, The secret is to follow your nose: Route path selection and angularity, in 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta, 2003, 1-47.
    [7] E. Cristiani, B. Piccoli and A. Tosin, Multiscale Modeling of Pedestrian Dynamics, MS&A: Modeling, Simulation and Applications, 12, Springer-Verlag, 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-06620-2
    [8] W. Daamen and S. Hoogendoorn, Experimental research of pedestrian walking behavior, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1828 (2003), 20-30. doi: 10.3141/1828-03
    [9] Sociometry, 551-557.
    [10] 1971.
    [11] R. G. Golledge, Human wayfinding and cognitive maps, in Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes, JHU Press, 1999, 5-45.
    [12] H. L. Golson and J. M. Dabbs, et al., Line-following tendencies among pedestrians: A sex difference, Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 1 (1974), 16-18. doi: 10.1177/014616727400100106
    [13] D. Helbing, Boltzmann-like and boltzmann-fokker-planck equations as a foundation of behavioral models, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 196 (1993), 546-573. doi: 10.1016/0378-4371(93)90034-2
    [14] D. Helbing, L. Buzna, A. Johansson and T. Werner, Self-organized pedestrian crowd dynamics: Experiments, simulations, and design solutions, Transportation Science, 39 (2005), 1-24. doi: 10.1287/trsc.1040.0108
    [15] D. Helbing and P. Molnar, Social force model for pedestrian dynamics, Physical Review E, 51 (1995), 4282. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.51.4282
    [16] D. Helbing, P. Molnar, I. J. Farkas and K. Bolay, Self-organizing pedestrian movement, Environment and Planning B, 28 (2001), 361-383. doi: 10.1068/b2697
    [17] S. P. Hoogendoorn and P. H. Bovy, State-of-the-art of vehicular traffic flow modelling, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Control Engineering, 215 (2001), 283-303.
    [18] T. Ishikawa, H. Fujiwara, O. Imai and A. Okabe, Wayfinding with a gps-based mobile navigation system: A comparison with maps and direct experience, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28 (2008), 74-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.002
    [19] T. Ishikawa and D. R. Montello, Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places, Cognitive Psychology, 52 (2006), 93-129. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.08.003
    [20] A. Johansson, D. Helbing and P. K. Shukla, Specification of the social force pedestrian model by evolutionary adjustment to video tracking data, Advances in Complex Systems, 10 (2007), 271-288. doi: 10.1142/S0219525907001355
    [21] H. S. Jung and H.-S. Jung, Survey of korean pedestrians' natural preference for walking directions, Applied Ergonomics, 44 (2013), 1015-1023. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2013.04.003
    [22] A. Lachapelle and M.-T. Wolfram, On a mean field game approach modeling congestion and aversion in pedestrian crowds, Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 45 (2011), 1572-1589. doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2011.07.011
    [23] R. Lloyd and C. Heivly, Systematic distortions in urban cognitive maps, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77 (1987), 191-207. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00153.x
    [24] K. Mombaur, J.-P. Laumond and E. Yoshida, An optimal control-based formulation to determine natural locomotor paths for humanoid robots, Advanced Robotics, 24 (2010), 515-535. doi: 10.1163/016918610X487090
    [25] K. Mombaur, A. Truong and J.-P. Laumond, From human to humanoid locomotion-an inverse optimal control approach, Autonomous Robots, 28 (2010), 369-383. doi: 10.1007/s10514-009-9170-7
    [26] D. R. Montello, The perception and cognition of environmental distance: Direct sources of information, in Spatial Information Theory A Theoretical Basis for GIS, Springer, 1329 (1997), 297-311. doi: 10.1007/3-540-63623-4_57
    [27] M. Moussaīd, D. Helbing and G. Theraulaz, How simple rules determine pedestrian behavior and crowd disasters, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (2011), 6884-6888.
    [28] J. Ondřej, J. Pettré, A.-H. Olivier and S. Donikian, A synthetic-vision based steering approach for crowd simulation, in ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), ACM, 29 (2010), p123.
    [29] E. Papadimitriou, G. Yannis and J. Golias, A critical assessment of pedestrian behaviour models, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12 (2009), 242-255. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2008.12.004
    [30] T. Rosenbloom, Crossing at a red light: Behaviour of individuals and groups, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12 (2009), 389-394. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2009.05.002
    [31] J. van den Berg, S. Patil, J. Sewall, D. Manocha and M. Lin, Interactive navigation of multiple agents in crowded environments, in Proceedings of the 2008 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics and games, ACM, 2008, 139-147.
    [32] D. Vickers, P. Bovet, M. D. Lee and P. Hughes, The perception of minimal structures: Performance on open and closed versions of visually presented euclidean travelling salesperson problems, Perception-London, 32 (2003), 871-886. doi: 10.1068/p3416
    [33] M. Wolff, Notes on the behaviour of pedestrians, People in Places: The Sociology of the Familiar, Praeger, New York, 1973, 35-48.
    [34] L. Yang, J. Li and S. Liu, Simulation of pedestrian counter-flow with right-moving preference, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 387 (2008), 3281-3289. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2008.01.107
    [35] F. Zanlungo, T. Ikeda and T. Kanda, A microscopic "social norm" model to obtain realistic macroscopic velocity and density pedestrian distributions, PloS one, 7 (2012), e50720. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050720
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(4717) PDF downloads(170) Cited by(2)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog