Home The multistep Laplace optimized decomposition method for solving fractional-order coronavirus disease model (COVID-19) via the Caputo fractional approach
Article Open Access

The multistep Laplace optimized decomposition method for solving fractional-order coronavirus disease model (COVID-19) via the Caputo fractional approach

  • Banan Maayah , Asma Moussaoui , Samia Bushnaq and Omar Abu Arqub EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: December 31, 2022
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

COVID-19, a novel coronavirus disease, is still causing concern all over the world. Recently, researchers have been concentrating their efforts on understanding the complex dynamics of this widespread illness. Mathematics plays a big role in understanding the mechanism of the spread of this disease by modeling it and trying to find approximate solutions. In this study, we implement a new technique for an approximation of the analytic series solution called the multistep Laplace optimized decomposition method for solving fractional nonlinear systems of ordinary differential equations. The proposed method is a combination of the multistep method, the Laplace transform, and the optimized decomposition method. To show the ability and effectiveness of this method, we chose the COVID-19 model to apply the proposed technique to it. To develop the model, the Caputo-type fractional-order derivative is employed. The suggested algorithm efficacy is assessed using the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method, and when compared to it, the results show that the proposed approach has a high level of accuracy. Several representative graphs are displayed and analyzed in two dimensions to show the growth and decay in the model concerning the fractional parameter α values. The central processing unit computational time cost in finding graphical results is utilized and tabulated. From a numerical viewpoint, the archived simulations and results justify that the proposed iterative algorithm is a straightforward and appropriate tool with computational efficiency for several coronavirus disease differential model solutions.

MSC 2010: 49M27; 44A10; 26A33; 92D30

1 Introduction

In 2019, a new strain of coronavirus, COVID-19, was discovered in the Wuhan, China. The pandemic may have been started by snakes or bats, although this has been ruled out by other specialists. Fever is one of the first indications of infection, followed by coughing and breathing difficulty. Pneumonia, acute respiratory syndrome of extreme severity, kidney failure, as well as death can occur as a result of infection’s successive phases [1]. The virus has spread quickly and with a high level of severity. As a result, it has become a public health threat on a never-before-seen scale. Researchers and scientists are trying to figure out how this virus works and how to get rid of it, so they are looking for treatments and vaccines. Transmission occurs primarily through droplets and person-to-person contact. Getting the COVID-19 vaccine, wearing a mask, staying at home, social distancing, and washing hands frequently are all highly recommended ways to reduce the spread of infection.

Fundamentally, many biologists and mathematicians are interested in the dynamics of diseases, for example, the model of HIV-1 infection of CD4+ T-cells is studied in [2], the rubella disease model is utilized in [3], the susceptible, infected, and recovered model is discussed in [4], and the model of childhood disease is given in [5]. Mathematicians always aim to model real-world behaviors that they observed in their daily activities. In a new glimpse, several important biological problems have been modeled successfully the last time using the concept of the Caputo fractional derivative (CFD), such as the fractional hybrid thermostat model [6], fractional human liver model [7], fractional measles epidemic model [8], and others [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. However, many researchers have exercised fractional mathematical models to simulate coronavirus transmission as utilized in [18,19,20].

Fractional calculus is a branch of mathematics that aims to comprehend real-world phenomena that are represented by noninteger-order derivatives. In this context, fractional calculus theory and its illustrated applications are gaining popularity around the world. Because of its effective properties, fractional calculus has found widespread use in modeling dynamic processes in a variety of well-known fields of science, engineering, biology, medicine, and many others [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. In general, no method exists that produces an exact solution to the fractional differential problems (FDPs), but only approximate solutions are possible. So, several methods for solving FDPs have been developed with several descriptions and mathematical formulations as included in [32,33,34,35,36,37].

In this article, we present a novel approach named the multistep Laplace optimized decomposition method (MLODM) to obtain analytical approximation solutions for the COVID-19 model using the CFD. The MLODM possesses the combined behavior of Laplace transformation and optimized decomposition method, where the optimized decomposition method is a powerful technique that uses an approach of linearization of nonlinear equations for obtaining a better series solution, which provides efficient algorithms for analytic approximate solutions, and when compared to the traditional Adomian decomposition approach, it gives effective precision and convergence [38]. Besides the solutions of the Laplace optimized decomposition method (LODM) converge in a relatively narrow region, and it had sluggish convergence. For this reason, we modify the LODM to give a novel technique called MLODM that gives good results in a longer time.

Anyhow, let us consider the following COVID-19 model, where the total populations of humans here are divided into four classes [18]: S ( ζ ) : immunocompromised individuals, E ( ζ ) : exposed or infected individuals who do not transmit the infection, I ( ζ ) : people who have been confirmed to have a disease and are infectious, and R ( ζ ) : recovering people. So, the COVID-19 model in CFD concerning 0 < α 1 with ζ 0 is given by [18]

(1) D α S ( ζ ) = δ λ 1 S ( ζ ) E ( ζ ) λ 2 S ( ζ ) I ( ζ ) ν S ( ζ ) + ω R ( ζ ) , D α E ( ζ ) = λ 1 S ( ζ ) E ( ζ ) + λ 2 S ( ζ ) I ( ζ ) ( ν + η ) E ( ζ ) , D α I ( ζ ) = η E ( ζ ) ( υ + ψ + ν ) I ( ζ ) , D α R ( ζ ) = υ I ( ζ ) ( ν + ω ) R ( ζ ) ,

subjected to the corresponding initial conditions:

(2) S ( 0 ) = l 0 , E ( 0 ) = q 0 , I ( 0 ) = m 0 , R ( 0 ) = n 0 .

Hither, in (1) and (2), δ is the rate of recruitment, λ 1 and λ 2 are the incidence rates, respectively, ω is the relapse rate, ν is the natural death rate, η is the rate at which COVID-19-exposed people join the infectious class, υ is the percentage of infected people who recover, and ψ is the death rate of infected class due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus [18]. Indeed, the total population N ( ζ ) is given, at each instant of time, by

(3) N ( ζ ) = S ( ζ ) + E ( ζ ) + I ( ζ ) + R ( ζ ) .

Fundamentally and analytically, the MLODM when handling the COVID-19 model has many practical features and positive advantages. First, the approximate solution is very close when compared with the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method (RKM4), and so it can be observed by the obtained outcomes that the MLODM is very sufficient and accurate. Second, high accuracy can be achieved that is valid for a longer period by using a small number of Adomian polynomials, subdomain [ ζ k 1 , ζ k ] , and time steps ζ . Third, it is a simple method to apply and does not need advanced mathematical tools or a skilled programmer. Fourth, it is universal as it can be used to solve other types of linear and nonlinear fractional problems and systems. Fifth, the proposed multistep approach can be applied to other transforms like Fourier or Sumudu, which is its the main characteristic.

This article is organized as follows. Section 2 presents basic definitions of fractional calculus and the Laplace transform that we shall use. In Section 3, the essential steps of the MLODM to solve nonlinear FDP will be detailed. We apply the MLODM to the COVID-19 model to show its efficiency and compare it with the RKM4 in Section 4. Numerically simulated results and central processing unit (CPU) computational time cost are shown in Section 5. Finally, we give a conclusion in Section 6 with some future planning.

2 Preliminaries

Fractional calculus has been introduced and developed as an excellent mathematical tool to describe the memory and hereditary characteristics of many materials and processes in a variety of fields of pure and applied science. In recent literature, it has been used to formulate many nonlinear differential problems and exploited to provide a comprehensive and clear explanation of dynamics, dispersion, wave propagation, and evolutionary models because of space time change [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31].

In this section, we present some fundamental definitions and properties of the fractional calculus theory and the Laplace transform approach. For more results, interesting properties, and highlights, the readers can refer to the works in [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37].

Definition 1

The Riemann-Liouville fractional integral of order α is expressed as follows:

(4) J α h ( ζ ) = h ( ζ ) , α = 0 , 1 Γ ( α ) 0 ζ ( ζ χ ) α 1 h ( χ ) d χ , α > 0 , ζ > 0 .

Definition 2

The Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative of h ( ζ ) of order k 1 < α k with k N is expressed as follows:

(5) D * α h ( ζ ) = d k d ζ k 1 Γ ( k α ) 0 ζ ( ζ χ ) k α 1 h ( χ ) d χ .

Definition 3

The CFD of h ( ζ ) of order k 1 < α k with k N is expressed as follows:

(6) D α h ( ζ ) = 1 Γ ( k α ) 0 ζ ( ζ χ ) k α 1 h ( k ) ( χ ) d χ .

Hither, the CFD processes the attached frameworks and relationships:

  1. D α J α h ( ζ ) = h ( ζ ) .

  2. J α D α h ( ζ ) = h ( ζ ) i = 0 k 1 h ( i ) ( 0 + ) i ! ζ i with ζ > 0 and k 1 < α k .

Definition 4

The Laplace transform H ( p ) of h ( ζ ) is expressed as follows:

(7) H ( p ) = L [ h ( ζ ) ] = 0 e p ζ h ( χ ) d χ .

Definition 5

The Laplace transform of the CFD of D α h ( ζ ) of order k 1 < α k with k N and ζ > 0 is expressed as follows:

(8) L [ D α h ( ζ ) ] = p α H ( p ) j = 0 k 1 h j ( 0 ) p α j 1 .

Indeed, the attached are some needed characteristics that are used in this study: L [ ζ γ ] = Γ ( γ + 1 ) p γ + 1 with p > 0 and J α ζ γ = Γ ( γ + 1 ) Γ ( α + γ + 1 ) ζ γ + α , where k 1 < α k and k N .

Definition 6

The Leffler function L α ( ζ ) with α > 0 is

(9) L α ( ζ ) = j = 0 ζ j Γ ( j α + 1 ) .

3 The MLODM: formulation and steps

This section is divided into a couple of portions as follows: first, the LODM for the FDPs. Second, the MLODM for the FDPs. Anyhow, with the help of the Laplace transform and decomposition method, a full formulation will be utilized in our discussion.

Let us consider the following FDP insight into the CFD scheme:

(10) D α z ( ζ ) = M ( z ( ζ ) ) + H ( ζ ) ,

subjected to the corresponding initial condition:

(11) z ( 0 ) = d 0 ,

where ζ > 0 , 0 < α 1 , M : R R is a nonlinear term, and H : [ ( 0 , ) R is a given analytic function.

First, let us try the LODM for the FDPs: the optimized decomposition method is used to provide an analytical approximate solution for a wide class of nonlinear problems. This utilized approach is mainly based on the new construction of the solution series that depends on the Taylor approximation of the nonlinear equation [38].

Now, we will propose a new technique called LODM to find the analytical approximate solution for (10) and (11). Fundamentally, we apply the Laplace transform to (10) as follows:

(12) L [ D α z ( ζ ) ] = L [ M ( z ( ζ ) ) ] + L [ H ( ζ ) ] .

By using Definition 5, we have

(13) p α L [ z ( ζ ) ] z ( 0 ) p α 1 = L [ M ( z ( ζ ) ) ] + L [ H ( ζ ) ] ,

(14) L [ z ( ζ ) ] = z ( 0 ) p + 1 p α L [ M ( z ( ζ ) ) ] + 1 p α L [ H ( ζ ) ] .

By using the constraint condition z ( 0 ) = d 0 in (11) and applying the inverse Laplace transform to both sides of (14), we obtain

(15) z ( ζ ) = L 1 d 0 p + 1 p α L [ H ( ζ ) ] ] + L 1 1 p α L [ M ( z ( ζ ) ) .

Let z ( ζ ) be the solution of (15) in which the optimized decomposition method assumes that z ( ζ ) can be decomposed by the infinite series of the formation:

(16) z ( ζ ) = j = 0 w j ( ζ ) .

Hither, M is a nonlinear term that appears in (10), and it can be denoted by

(17) M ( z ( ζ ) ) = j = 0 R j ( ζ ) ,

where R j ( ζ ) takes the formation:

(18) R j ( ζ ) = 1 j ! d j d β j M j = 0 β j w j ( ζ ) β = 0 .

Recalling that R j ( ζ ) is called the Adomian polynomials as described in [34]. Anyhow, after substituting (16) and (17) into (15), one obtained

(19) j = 0 w j ( ζ ) = G ( ζ ) + L 1 1 p α L j = 0 R j ( ζ ) ,

where

(20) G ( ζ ) = L 1 d 0 p + 1 p α L [ H ( ζ ) ] .

The components of { w j ( ζ ) } j = 0 are determined as follows

(21) w 0 ( ζ ) = G ( ζ ) , w 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 1 p α L [ R 0 ( ζ ) ] , w 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 1 p α L [ R 1 ( ζ ) + b ( w 1 ( ζ ) ) ] , w j + 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 1 p α L [ R j ( ζ ) + b ( w j ( ζ ) w j 1 ( ζ ) ) ] , j 2 ,

such that the constant b is expressed as follows:

(22) b = g d z ( D α [ z ( ζ ) ] , z ( ζ ) ) g d D α [ z ] ( D α [ z ( ζ ) ] , z ( ζ ) )

and

(23) g ( D α [ z ( ζ ) ] , z ( ζ ) ) = D α [ z ( ζ ) ] M ( z ( ζ ) ) .

The Taylor series expansion of g of two variables about ζ = 0 is

(24) g ( D α [ z ( ζ ) ] , z ( ζ ) ) g ( D α [ z ( 0 ) ] , z ( 0 ) ) + D α [ z ] g ( D α [ z ( 0 ) ] , z ( 0 ) ) D α [ z ] + z g ( D α [ z ( 0 ) ] , z ( 0 ) ) z .

Then, let us solve g ( D α [ z ( 0 ) ] , z ( 0 ) ) = 0 for D α [ z ( 0 ) ] , say, D α [ z ( 0 ) ] = c 0 and z ( 0 ) = d 0 . Following this by substituting the results in (23), we have

(25) g ( D α [ z ( ζ ) ] , z ( ζ ) ) D α [ z ] g ( c 0 , d 0 ) D α [ z ] + z g ( c 0 , d 0 ) z .

Second, let us complete the formation by applying the MLODM for FDPs. The solutions given by the LODM are valid for a short period of time, and hence, we next introduce a novel technique of MLODM, which gives good results in a longer time. To do this, we construct the general form of the MLODM.

Let [ 0 , T ] is the time period in which we want to find a solution to (10) and (11). Anyhow, [ 0 , T ] is divided into m subintervals [ ζ k 1 , ζ k ] with k = 1 , 2 , , m of equal length Δ ζ . So, (10) will become a system that takes the following formation:

(26) D α z k ( ζ ) = M ( z k ( ζ ) ) + H ( ζ ) .

Further, by applying the same procedure, (11) can be re-written as follows:

(27) z k ( ζ k 1 ) = a k ,

where a 1 = d 0 , 0 < α 1 , ζ > 0 , and k = 1 , 2 , , m .

Finally, the basic steps of algorithm of the MLODM that is used to compute the approximate solutions of (1) and (2) can be given in short as follows:

  • Apply the LODM to find z 1 ( ζ ) on [ ζ 0 , ζ 1 ] , where ζ = 0 by using z 1 ( 0 ) = d 0 .

  • For k 2 , the LODM is used with z k ( ζ k 1 ) over [ ζ k 1 , ζ k ] .

  • The same process is repeated m times to obtain a sequence of approximate solutions as follows:

(28) z ( ζ ) = z 1 ( ζ ) , ζ ( ζ 0 , ζ 1 ) , z 2 ( ζ ) , ζ ( ζ 1 , ζ 2 ) , z k ( ζ ) , ζ [ ζ k 1 , ζ k ] .

It should be mentioned that those steps could be applied using the MATHEMATICA 11 program to obtain the required results.

4 Application: COVID-19

Temporal fractional evolution models are excellent tools for the figuration of nonlinear phenomena of dynamic diseases and for understanding the basic physics, phase properties, and evolutionary dynamics that covered these models.

In this portion, the MLODM in view of the CFD is profitably applied to solve the COVID-19 model in its fractional version. Anyhow, let us reconsider the COVID-19 model utilized in (1)–(3) again in which 0 < α 1 and ζ 0 .

(29) D α S ( ζ ) = δ λ 1 S ( ζ ) E ( ζ ) λ 2 S ( ζ ) I ( ζ ) ν S ( ζ ) + ω R ( ζ ) , D α E ( ζ ) = λ 1 S ( ζ ) E ( ζ ) + λ 2 S ( ζ ) I ( ζ ) ( ν + η ) E ( ζ ) , D α I ( ζ ) = η E ( ζ ) ( υ + ψ + ν ) I ( ζ ) , D α R ( ζ ) = υ I ( ζ ) ( ν + ω ) R ( ζ ) , N ( ζ ) = S ( ζ ) + E ( ζ ) + I ( ζ ) + R ( ζ )

is subjected to the corresponding initial conditions:

(30) S ( 0 ) = l 0 , E ( 0 ) = q 0 , I ( 0 ) = m 0 , R ( 0 ) = n 0 .

Hither, we will apply the proposed MLODM to the time domain [ 0 , 200 ] , where we will split it into subdomains with a step ζ = 1 . First, let S k ( ζ ) , E k ( ζ ) , I k ( ζ ) , and R k ( ζ ) with k = 1 , 2 , , 200 are the approximate solutions of (29) in each subdomain [ ζ k 1 , ζ k ] with k = 1 , 2 , , 200 . Then, (29) can be re-written as follows:

(31) D α S k ( ζ ) = δ λ 1 S k ( ζ ) E k ( ζ ) λ 2 S k ( ζ ) I k ( ζ ) ν S k ( ζ ) + ω R k ( ζ ) , D α E k ( ζ ) = λ 1 S k ( ζ ) E k ( ζ ) + λ 2 S k ( ζ ) I k ( ζ ) ( ν + η ) E k ( ζ ) , D α I k ( ζ ) = η E k ( ζ ) ( υ + ψ + ν ) I k ( ζ ) , D α R k ( ζ ) = υ I k ( ζ ) ( ν + ω ) R k ( ζ )

is subjected to the corresponding initial conditions:

(32) S k ( ζ k 1 ) = l k , l 1 = 220 , E k ( ζ k 1 ) = q k , q 1 = 100 , I k ( ζ k 1 ) = m k , m 1 = 3 , R k ( ζ k 1 ) = n k , n 1 = 0 .

By applying the Laplace transform to both sides of (31), we obtain the following:

(33) L [ D α S k ( ζ ) ] = L [ δ λ 1 S k ( ζ ) E k ( ζ ) λ 2 S k ( ζ ) I k ( ζ ) ν S k ( ζ ) + ω R k ( ζ ) ] , L [ D α E k ( ζ ) ] = L [ λ 1 S k ( ζ ) E k ( ζ ) + λ 2 S k ( ζ ) I k ( ζ ) ( ν + η ) E k ( ζ ) ] , L [ D α I k ( ζ ) ] = L [ η E k ( ζ ) ( υ + ψ + ν ) I k ( ζ ) ] , L [ D α R k ( ζ ) ] = L [ υ I k ( ζ ) ( ν + ω ) R k ( ζ ) ] .

In view of (13)–(15) and by using constraint conditions in (32), we obtain

(34) S k ( ζ ) = l k + L 1 δ p α + 1 + L 1 1 p α L [ λ 1 S k ( ζ ) E k ( ζ ) λ 2 S k ( ζ ) I k ( ζ ) ν S k ( ζ ) + ω R k ( ζ ) ] , E k ( ζ ) = q k + L 1 1 p α L [ λ 1 S k ( ζ ) E k ( ζ ) + λ 2 S k ( ζ ) I k ( ζ ) ( ν + η ) E k ( ζ ) ] , I k ( ζ ) = m k + L 1 1 p α L [ η E k ( ζ ) ( υ + ψ + ν ) I k ( ζ ) ] , R k ( ζ ) = n k + L 1 1 p α L [ υ I k ( ζ ) ( ν + ω ) R k ( ζ ) ] .

The optimized decomposition method solutions of (34) are of the following form:

(35) S k ( ζ ) = j = 0 u k , j ( ζ ) , k = 1 , 2 , , 200 , E k ( ζ ) = j = 0 v k , j ( ζ ) , k = 1 , 2 , , 200 , E k ( ζ ) = j = 0 x k , j ( ζ ) , k = 1 , 2 , , 200 , R k ( ζ ) = j = 0 y k , j ( ζ ) , k = 1 , 2 , , 200 .

Finally, by using (21) with k = 1 , 2 , , 200 , we obtain

(36) u k , 0 ( ζ ) = l k + L 1 δ p α + 1 , u k , 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ A k , 0 ( ζ ) ] p α , u k , 2 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ A k , 1 ( ζ ) ] + b 1 ( u k , 1 ( ζ ) ) p α , u k , j + 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ A k , j ( ζ ) ] + b 1 ( u k , j ( ζ ) ( u k , j 1 ( ζ ) ) p α j 2 ,

(37) x k , 0 ( ζ ) = m k , x k , 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ D k , 0 ( ζ ) ] p α , x k , 2 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ D k , 1 ( ζ ) ] + b 3 ( x k , 1 ( ζ ) ) p α , x k , j + 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ D k , j ( ζ ) ] + b 3 ( x k , j ( ζ ) ( x k , j 1 ( ζ ) ) p α j 2 ,

(38) v k , 0 ( ζ ) = q k , v k , 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ B k , 0 ( ζ ) ] p α , v k , 2 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ B k , 1 ( ζ ) ] + b 2 ( v k , 1 ( ζ ) ) p α , v k , j + 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ B k , j ( ζ ) ] + b 2 ( v k , j ( ζ ) ( v k , j 1 ( ζ ) ) p α j 2 ,

(39) x k , 0 ( ζ ) = m k , x k , 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ D k , 0 ( ζ ) ] p α , x k , 2 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ D k , 1 ( ζ ) ] + b 3 ( x k , 1 ( ζ ) ) p α , x k , j + 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ D k , j ( ζ ) ] + b 3 ( x k , j ( ζ ) ( x k , j 1 ( ζ ) ) p α j 2 ,

(40) y k , 0 ( ζ ) = n k , y k , 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ Q k , 0 ( ζ ) ] p α , y k , 2 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ Q k , 1 ( ζ ) ] + b 4 ( y k , 1 ( ζ ) ) p α , y k , j + 1 ( ζ ) = L 1 L [ Q k , j ( ζ ) ] + b 4 ( y k , j ( ζ ) ( y k , j 1 ( ζ ) ) p α j 2 ,

Hither, the Adomian polynomial components are given by

(41) A k , j ( ζ ) = 1 j ! d j d β j [ λ 1 ( u k , 0 v k , 0 ) λ 2 ( u k , 0 x k , 0 ) + ω ( y k , 0 ) + θ ( λ 1 ( u k , 1 v k , 1 ) λ 2 ( u k , 1 x k , 1 ) + ω ( y k , 1 ) ) + ] β = 0 ,

(42) B k , j ( ζ ) = 1 j ! d j d β j [ λ 1 ( u k , 0 v k , 0 ) + λ 2 ( u k , 0 x k , 0 ) ( ν + η ) ( v k , 0 ) + θ ( λ 1 ( u k , 1 v k , 1 ) + λ 2 ( u k , 1 x k , 1 ) ) θ ( ( ν + η ) ( v k , 1 ) ) + ] β = 0 ,

(43) D k , j ( ζ ) = 1 j ! d j d β j [ η ( v k , 0 ) ( υ + ψ + ν ) ( x k , 0 ) + θ ( η ( v k , 1 ) ( υ + ψ + ν ) ( x k , 1 ) ) + ] β = 0 ,

(44) Q k , j ( ζ ) = 1 j ! d j d β j [ υ ( x k , 0 ) ( ν + ω ) ( y k , 0 ) + θ ( υ ( x k , 1 ) ( ν + ω ) ( y k , 1 ) ) + ] β = 0 .

Further, the constants b i with i = 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 are given as follows:

(45) b 1 = λ 1 ( u k , 0 + v k , 0 ) + λ 2 ( v k , 0 + x k , 0 ) + ν ω , b 2 = η λ 1 ( u k , 0 + v k , 0 ) λ 2 ( v k , 0 + x k , 0 ) + ν , b 3 = υ η + ψ + ν , b 4 = ω υ + ν .

5 Numerical simulations

Numerical simulations are used to demonstrate the theoretical results reported in earlier sections. For this, various simulation outcomes of the COVID-19 model are discussed and studied as well in this portion. Some graphical representative results are presented with physical interpretations for several fractional parameters to support the theoretical framework and to give a clear visualization of the behavior of the proposed model. Further, numerical comparisons with the RKM4 are made to illustrate the effectiveness and simplicity of the presented MLODM. All calculations and representative results are performed by using the mathematica computing system.

To perform numerical simulation, we use the initial conditions as follows [20]: S ( 0 ) = 220 , E ( 0 ) = 100 , I ( 0 ) = 3 , and R ( 0 ) = 0 with time steps ζ = 200 . Anyhow, the parameter values with their mathematical descriptions are tabulated in Table 1 beside their numerical values for the simulations of the utilized fractional-order COVID-19 model.

Table 1

Parameter numerical values for the simulations of the fractional-order COVID-19 model

Parameter Description Value
δ The rate of recruitment 0.3
λ 1 The incidence rate 4 × 1 0 4
λ 2 The incidence rate 4.1 × 1 0 4
ν The natural death rates 1.02 × 1 0 3
η The rate at which COVID-19 exposed people join the infectious class 6 × 1 0 3
υ The percentage of infected people who recover 6.8 × 1 0 3
ω The relapse rate 1.9 × 1 0 3
ψ The number of people who died as a result of the SARS-CoV-2 virus 3 × 1 0 4

First, the information and needed requirements shown in Figures 1 and 2 are tabulated in Table 2. However, in Figure 1(a), we plot the susceptible population of (29) for α = 1 , where the dotted lines denote the MLODM solution of susceptible class S ( ζ ) and the solid lines denote the RKM4 solution of susceptible class S ( ζ ) . Figure 1(b) represents the exposed population of (29) for α = 1 , where the dotted lines and solid lines denote the MLODM solution and the RKM4 solution of the exposed class E ( ζ ) , respectively. Figure 1(c) and (d) illustrate the infectious population I ( ζ ) and the recovered population R ( ζ ) , respectively, of (29) for α = 1 , where the MLODM solution represents the dotted lines and the RKM4 solution represents the solid lines. We can observe from the numerical approximation results drawn in Figure 1(a)–(d) that the approximate solutions exhibited using MLODM have a high level of accuracy.

Figure 1 
               The MLODM solution versus the RKM4 solution at 
                     
                        
                        
                           α
                           =
                           1
                        
                        \alpha =1
                     
                   and 
                     
                        
                        
                           0
                           ≤
                           ζ
                           ≤
                           200
                        
                        0\le \zeta \le 200
                     
                   of the COVID-19 model as (a) susceptible class 
                     
                        
                        
                           S
                           
                              
                                 (
                                 
                                    ζ
                                 
                                 )
                              
                           
                        
                        S(\zeta )
                     
                  , (b) exposed class 
                     
                        
                        
                           E
                           
                              
                                 (
                                 
                                    ζ
                                 
                                 )
                              
                           
                        
                        E(\zeta )
                     
                  , (c) infected class 
                     
                        
                        
                           I
                           
                              
                                 (
                                 
                                    ζ
                                 
                                 )
                              
                           
                        
                        I(\zeta )
                     
                  , and (d) recovered class 
                     
                        
                        
                           R
                           
                              
                                 (
                                 
                                    ζ
                                 
                                 )
                              
                           
                        
                        R(\zeta )
                     
                  .
Figure 1

The MLODM solution versus the RKM4 solution at α = 1 and 0 ζ 200 of the COVID-19 model as (a) susceptible class S ( ζ ) , (b) exposed class E ( ζ ) , (c) infected class I ( ζ ) , and (d) recovered class R ( ζ ) .

Figure 2 
               The MLODM solution at 
                     
                        
                        
                           α
                           ∈
                           
                              
                                 {
                                 
                                    1,0.9,0.85,0.75,0.65
                                 
                                 }
                              
                           
                        
                        \alpha \in \{\mathrm{1,0.9,0.85,0.75,0.65}\}
                     
                   and 
                     
                        
                        
                           0
                           ≤
                           ζ
                           ≤
                           200
                        
                        0\le \zeta \le 200
                     
                   of the COVID-19 model as (a) susceptible class 
                     
                        
                        
                           S
                           
                              
                                 (
                                 
                                    ζ
                                 
                                 )
                              
                           
                        
                        S(\zeta )
                     
                  , (b) exposed class 
                     
                        
                        
                           E
                           
                              
                                 (
                                 
                                    ζ
                                 
                                 )
                              
                           
                        
                        E(\zeta )
                     
                  , (c) infected class 
                     
                        
                        
                           I
                           
                              
                                 (
                                 
                                    ζ
                                 
                                 )
                              
                           
                        
                        I(\zeta )
                     
                  , and (d) recovered class 
                     
                        
                        
                           R
                           
                              
                                 (
                                 
                                    ζ
                                 
                                 )
                              
                           
                        
                        R(\zeta )
                     
                  .
Figure 2

The MLODM solution at α { 1,0.9,0.85,0.75,0.65 } and 0 ζ 200 of the COVID-19 model as (a) susceptible class S ( ζ ) , (b) exposed class E ( ζ ) , (c) infected class I ( ζ ) , and (d) recovered class R ( ζ ) .

Table 2

Symbolic indicator in terms of colors, lines, and indicative for all figures across several values of α

Figure Figure 1(a)–(d) Figure 2(a)–(d)
Color Purple Green Blue Purple Gold Green Blue Purple
Line Dashed Solid Solid Dashed Dashed Dashed Dotted Dotted
Indicative MLODM RKM4 α = 1 α = 0.9 α = 0.85 α = 0.8 α = 0.75 α = 0.65

From this comparison, it is evident that the results obtained by MLODM are in good agreement with those presented in the literature. In this context, it can be concluded that the implemented approximation algorithm is a superior tool for computational purposes, it is computer oriented, it is relatively better compared to the existing numerical method, and it is a straightforward methodology that needs a few iterations to obtain accurate solutions.

Next, Figure 2(a)–(d) represents the MLODM solution of the susceptible class S ( ζ ) , the exposed class E ( ζ ) , the infected class I ( ζ ) , and the recovered class R ( ζ ) , respectively, for α = 1 , α = 0.90 , α = 0.85 , α = 0.80 , α = 0.75 , and α = 0.65 . From the graphical representations, it is noticed that the solution behavior is harmonious for different fractional values and consistent with the integer value.

To understand the behaviors of the numerical results we obtained using the presented MLODM, several data are arranged for the susceptible population of (29) for α { 1 , 0.9 , 0.85 , 0.75 , 0.65 } as follows: Table 3 utilized the data results solution of susceptible class S ( ζ ) , Table 4 utilized the data results solution of the exposed class E ( ζ ) , Table 5 utilized the data results solution of the infectious population I ( ζ ) , and Table 6 utilized the data results solution of the recovered population R ( ζ ) .

Table 3

The MLODM data results solution of S ( ζ ) utilizing various α amounts

ζ α = 1 α = 0 . 9 α = 0 . 85 α = 0 . 8 α = 0 . 75 α = 0 . 65
0 220 220 220 220 220 220
20 45 . 842 1 41 . 934 7 40 . 281 0 38 . 8247 37 . 5637 35 . 6217
40 5 . 7917 8 5 . 1331 7 4 . 8814 7 4 . 67230 4 . 50013 4 . 24936
60 2 . 81035 2 . 76539 2 . 75172 2 . 74198 2 . 73505 2 . 72623
80 2 . 80242 2 . 83501 2 . 85054 2 . 86499 2 . 87797 2 . 89819
100 3 . 04937 3 . 10641 3 . 13229 3 . 15593 3 . 17695 3 . 20976
120 3 . 35180 3 . 42942 3 . 46447 3 . 49644 3 . 52490 3 . 56953
140 3 . 68759 3 . 78594 3 . 83025 3 . 87064 3 . 90659 3 . 96310
160 4 . 04864 4 . 16768 4 . 22119 4 . 26989 4 . 31320 4 . 38133
180 4 . 42845 4 . 56754 4 . 62986 4 . 68650 4 . 73680 4 . 81587
Table 4

The MLODM data results solution of E ( ζ ) utilizing various α amounts

ζ α = 1 α = 0 . 9 α = 0 . 85 α = 0 . 8 α = 0 . 75 α = 0 . 65
0 100 100 100 100 100 100
20 251 . 876 254 . 688 255 . 885 256 . 958 257 . 920 259 . 558
40 260 . 699 259 . 046 258 . 305 257 . 647 257 . 090 256 . 342
60 235 . 129 232 . 132 230 . 834 229 . 688 228 . 706 227 . 291
80 210 . 530 207 . 019 205 . 504 204 . 164 203 . 012 201 . 318
100 189 . 270 185 . 514 183 . 898 182 . 469 181 . 238 179 . 412
120 171 . 117 167 . 287 165 . 644 164 . 195 162 . 946 161 . 086
140 155 . 688 151 . 910 150 . 297 148 . 876 147 . 654 145 . 833
160 142 . 628 138 . 933 137 . 450 136 . 094 132 . 930 133 . 197
180 131 . 616 128 . 189 126 . 742 125 . 475 124 . 390 122 . 779
Table 5

The MLODM data results solution of I ( ζ ) utilizing various α amounts

ζ α = 1 α = 0 . 9 α = 0 . 85 α = 0 . 8 α = 0 . 75 α = 0 . 65
0 3 3 3 3 3 3
20 23 . 2812 24 . 3815 24 . 8821 25 . 3444 25 . 7642 26 . 4609
40 48 . 9954 50 . 8766 51 . 7122 52 . 4728 53 . 1548 54 . 2682
60 69 . 1036 71 . 1240 72 . 0089 72 . 8082 73 . 5204 74 . 6777
80 83 . 3585 85 . 1923 85 . 9839 86 . 6938 87 . 3231 88 . 3447
100 92 . 9416 94 . 4090 95 . 0304 95 . 5823 96 . 0688 96 . 8604
120 98 . 9138 99 . 9252 100 . 340 100 . 702 101 . 019 101 . 539
140 102 . 139 102 . 666 102 . 864 103 . 031 103 . 173 103 . 417
160 103 . 309 103 . 366 103 . 358 103 . 337 103 . 315 103 . 300
180 102 . 977 102 . 604 102 . 408 102 . 221 102 . 053 101 . 808
Table 6

The MLODM data results solution of R ( ζ ) utilizing various α amounts

ζ α = 1 α = 0 . 9 α = 0 . 85 α = 0 . 8 α = 0 . 75 α = 0 . 65
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 1 . 57397 1 . 70917 1 . 77291 1 . 83304 1 . 88878 1 . 98373
40 6 . 31463 6 . 84924 7 . 09753 7 . 32939 7 . 54194 7 . 89754
60 13 . 8410 14 . 9139 15 . 4067 15 . 8636 16 . 2794 16 . 9677
80 23 . 1941 24 . 8355 25 . 5832 26 . 2728 26 . 8974 27 . 9238
100 33 . 5753 35 . 7499 36 . 7336 37 . 6369 38 . 4518 39 . 7839
120 44 . 3820 47 . 0161 48 . 1998 49 . 2828 50 . 2562 51 . 8408
140 55 . 1727 58 . 1724 59 . 5122 60 . 7334 61 . 8277 63 . 6025
160 65 . 6335 68 . 8980 70 . 3471 71 . 6636 72 . 8397 74 . 7412
180 75 . 5498 78 . 9800 80 . 4936 81 . 8640 83 . 0848 85 . 0531

Finally, the CPU computational time cost in finding graphical results is important in this article. To this end, Table 7 lists and estimates the computational CPU time per minute and order for a couple of MLODM and RKM4 schemes at each figure. Herein, CPU Time ̅ refers to the average time per each individual figure for both MLODM and RKM4, while Final Time ̅ refers to the average time per all figure for both schemes. Anyhow, the average CPU computational time in total is about 2.78 minutes and the total CPU computational time is about 22.2 minutes.

Table 7

Estimated CPU time per minute for different schemes and each figure

Scheme m ζ Figure Order derivatives Part CPU Time CPU Time ̅ Final Time ̅
MLODM 200 1 1 α = 1 (a) 2.2 2.15 2.78
(b) 2.1
RKM4 0.005 (c) 2.3
(d) 2.0
MLODM 200 1 2 α { 1 , 0.9 , 0.85 , 0.75 , 0.65 } (a) 3.1 3.40
(b) 3.7
(c) 3.5
(d) 3.3

6 Conclusions

In this article, we have developed an efficient technique called the MLODM for solving nonlinear systems of FDPs. The proposed method has been tested on the COVID-19 model to find approximate solutions and then evaluated with the help of the CFD and Mathematica 11. The MLODM shows its advantage in that calculations are relatively easy to follow and understand. The results obtained by the MLODM are accurate, valid for a longer period, and highly compatible with that obtained by the RKM4. Hence, the MLODM can be used to solve many other nonlinear problems that appear in the applied sciences and engineering applications. To understand the behaviors of the numerical MLODM results, several data are arranged for the susceptible population utilizing various α amounts. The CPU computational time cost in finding graphical results is tabulated and discussed. In the future work, we plan to study the convergence analysis of the method using other definitions of fractional derivatives on nonlinear systems of FDPs in which multivariate series expansion can be employed for the utilized fractional evolution model.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the unknown referees for carefully reading the paper and for their helpful comments.

  1. Funding information: No funding is available for this research.

  2. Author contributions: B.M.: data curation, investigation, software, methodology, validation, and writing – review and editing. A.M.: funding acquisition, investigation, resources, supervision, visualization, and roles/writing – original draft. S.B.: funding acquisition, investigation, supervision, visualization, and roles/writing – original draft. O.A.A.: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, project administration, and writing – review and editing.

  3. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

  4. Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

  5. Informed consent: The preparation and results of this study contained in this article do not require any prior permission.

  6. Data availability statement: No datasets are associated with this article. The datasets used for generating the plots and results during the current study can be directly obtained from the numerical simulation of the related mathematical equations in the article.

References

[1] N. H. Tuan, H. Mohammadi, and S. Rezapour, A mathematical model for COVID-19 transmission by using the Caputo fractional derivative, Chaos, Solitons Fractals 140 (2020), 110107.10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110107Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[2] F. Haq, K. Shah, G. U. Rahman, and M. Shahzad, Numerical analysis of fractional order model of HIV-1 infection of CD4+ T-cells, Comput. Methods Differential Equations 5 (2017), 1–11.Search in Google Scholar

[3] I. Koca, Analysis of rubella disease model with non-local and non-singular fractional derivatives, An. Int. J. Optim. Control: Theories Appl. 8 (2018), 17–25.10.11121/ijocta.01.2018.00532Search in Google Scholar

[4] S. Z. Rida, A. A. M. Arafa, and Y. A. Gaber, Solution of the fractional epidemic model by L-ADM, J. Fract. Calculus Appl. 7 (2016), 189–195.Search in Google Scholar

[5] H. Singh, J. Dhar, H. S. Bhatti, and S. Chandok, An epidemic model of childhood disease dynamics with maturation delay and latent period of infection, Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2 (2016), 79.10.1201/9781351251709-18Search in Google Scholar

[6] D. Baleanu, S. Etemad, and S. Rezapour, A hybrid Caputo fractional modeling for thermostat with hybrid boundary value conditions, Bound. Value Probl. 2020 (2020), 64.10.1186/s13661-020-01361-0Search in Google Scholar

[7] D. Baleanu, A. Jajarmi, H. Mohammadi, S. Rezapour, A new study on the mathematical modelling of human liver with Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative, Chaos, Solitons Fractals 134 (2020), 109705.10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109705Search in Google Scholar

[8] S. Qureshi, Monotonically decreasing behavior of measles epidemic well captured by Atangana–Baleanu–Caputo fractional operator under real measles data of Pakistan, Chaos, Solitons Fractals 131 (2020), 109478.10.1016/j.chaos.2019.109478Search in Google Scholar

[9] E. A. Kojabad and S. Rezapour, Approximate solutions of a sum-type fractional integro-differential equation by using Chebyshev and Legendre polynomials, Adv. Differential Equations 2017 (2017), 351.10.1186/s13662-017-1404-ySearch in Google Scholar

[10] D. Baleanu, H. Mohammadi, and S. Rezapour, Analysis of the model of HIV-1 infection of CD4+ T-cell with a new approach of fractional derivative, Adv. Differential Equations 2020 (2020), 71.10.1186/s13662-020-02544-wSearch in Google Scholar

[11] M. Talaee, M. Shabibi, A. Gilani, and S. Rezapour, On the existence of solutions for a pointwise defined multi-singular integro-differential equation with integral boundary condition, Adv. Differential Equations 2020 (2020), 41.10.1186/s13662-020-2517-2Search in Google Scholar

[12] S. Qureshi, M.M. Chang, and A.A. Shaikh, Analysis of series RL and RC circuits with time-invariant source using truncated M, Atangana beta and conformable derivatives, J. Ocean. Eng. Sci. 6 (2021), 217–227.10.1016/j.joes.2020.11.006Search in Google Scholar

[13] S. Qureshi, A. Yusuf, and S. Aziz, Fractional numerical dynamics for the logistic population growth model under Conformable Caputo: a case study with real observations, Phys. Scr. 96 (2021), 114002.10.1088/1402-4896/ac13e0Search in Google Scholar

[14] A. Dighe, T. Jombart, M. Van Kerkhove, and N. Ferguson, IMED abstracts, Int. J. Infect. Dis. 79 (2019), 1–150.10.1016/j.ijid.2018.11.023Search in Google Scholar

[15] Y. Zhou, Z. Ma, and F. Brauer, A discrete epidemic model for SARS transmission and control in China, Math. Comput. Model. 40 (2004), 1491–1506.10.1016/j.mcm.2005.01.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[16] B. K. Jha, H. Joshi, and D. D. Dave, Portraying the effect of calcium-binding proteins on cytosolic calcium concentration distribution fractionally in nerve cells, Interdiscip. Sci.: Comput. Life Sci. 10 (2018), 674–685.10.1007/s12539-016-0202-7Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] M. Yavuz and E. Bonyah, New approaches to the fractional dynamics of schistosomiasis disease model, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. its Appl. 525 (2019), 373–393.10.1016/j.physa.2019.03.069Search in Google Scholar

[18] A. Atangana, Modelling the spread of COVID-19 with new fractal-fractional operators: can the lockdown save mankind before vaccination?, Chaos, Solitons Fractals 136 (2020), 109860.10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109860Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[19] M. A. Khan and A. Atangana, Modeling the dynamics of novel coronavirus (2019-nCov) with fractional derivative, Alex. Eng. J. 59 (2020), 2379–2389.10.1016/j.aej.2020.02.033Search in Google Scholar

[20] S. Bushnaq, T. Saeed, D. F. Torres, and A. Zeb, Control of COVID-19 dynamics through a fractional-order model, Alex. Eng. J. 60 (2021), 3587–3592.10.1016/j.aej.2021.02.022Search in Google Scholar

[21] P. A. Naik, Z. Eskandari, M. Yavuz, and J. Zu, Complex dynamics of a discrete-time Bazykin–Berezovskaya prey-predator model with a strong Allee effect, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 413 (2022), 114401.10.1016/j.cam.2022.114401Search in Google Scholar

[22] F. Özköse, M. Yavuz, M.T. Şenel, and R. Habbireeh, Fractional order modelling of omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant containing heart attack effect using real data from the United Kingdom, Chaos, Solitons Fractals 157 (2022), 111954.10.1016/j.chaos.2022.111954Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[23] F. Özköse and M. Yavuz, Investigation of interactions between COVID-19 and diabetes with hereditary traits using real data: A case study in Turkey, Comput. Biol. Med. 141 (2022), 105044.10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105044Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] R. Ikram, A. Khan, M. Zahri, A. Saeed, M. Yavuz, and P. Kumam, Extinction and stationary distribution of a stochastic COVID-19 epidemic model with time-delay, Comput. Biol. Med. 141 (2022), 105115.10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105115Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[25] J. Danane, Z. Hammouch, K. Allali, S. Rashid, and J. Singh, A fractional-order model of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with governmental action and individual reaction, Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 2021 (2021), 1–14, 10.1002/mma.7759.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[26] E. Bonyah, A. K. Sagoe, D. Kumar, and S. Deniz, Fractional optimal control dynamics of coronavirus model with Mittag–Leffler law, Ecol. Complex. 45 (2021), 100880.10.1016/j.ecocom.2020.100880Search in Google Scholar

[27] S. Yadav, D. Kumar, J. Singh, and D. Baleanu, Analysis and dynamics of fractional order Covid-19 model with memory effect, Results Phys. 24 (2021), 104017.10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104017Search in Google Scholar

[28] J. Singh, Analysis of fractional blood alcohol model with composite fractional derivative, Chaos, Solitons Fractals 140 (2020), 110127.10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110127Search in Google Scholar

[29] M. Alqhtani, K. M. Owolabi, K. M. Saad, and E. Pindza, Efficient numerical techniques for computing the Riesz fractional-order reaction-diffusion models arising in biology, Chaos, Solitons Fractals 161 (2022), 112394.10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112394Search in Google Scholar

[30] H. M. Srivastava, K. M. Saad, W. M. Hamanah, Certain new models of the multi-space fractal-fractional Kuramoto-Sivashinsky and Korteweg-de Vries equations, Mathematics 10 (2022), 1089.10.3390/math10071089Search in Google Scholar

[31] M. Alqhtani, K. M. Saad, R. Shah, W. Weera, W. M. Hamanah, Analysis of the fractional-order local Poisson equation in fractal porous media, Symmetry 14 (2022), 1323.10.3390/sym14071323Search in Google Scholar

[32] B. Inan, M. S. Osman, T. Ak, D. Baleanu, Analytical and numerical solutions of mathematical biology models: The Newell-Whitehead-Segel and Allen-Cahn equations, Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 43 (2020), 2588–2600.10.1002/mma.6067Search in Google Scholar

[33] B. Cuahutenango-Barro, M. A. Taneco-Hernández, Y. P. Lv, J. F. Gómez-Aguilar, M. S. Osman, H. Jahanshahi, et al. Analytical solutions of fractional wave equation with memory effect using the fractional derivative with exponential kernel, Results Phys. 25 (2021), 104148.10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104148Search in Google Scholar

[34] E. Çelik, M. Bayram, and T. Yeloglu, Solution of differential-algebraic equations (DAEs) by Adomian decomposition method, Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. Sci. 3 (2006), 93–100.Search in Google Scholar

[35] J. Cang, Y. Tan, H. Xu, S. J. Liao, Series solutions of non-linear Riccati differential equations with fractional order, Chaos, Solitons Fractals 40 (2009), 1–9.10.1016/j.chaos.2007.04.018Search in Google Scholar

[36] L. Song and H. Zhang, Application of homotopy analysis method to fractional KdV–Burgers–Kuramoto equation, Phys. Lett. A 367 (2007), 88–94.10.1016/j.physleta.2007.02.083Search in Google Scholar

[37] H. Khan, R. Shah, P. Kumam, D. Baleanu, and M. Arif, Laplace decomposition for solving nonlinear system of fractional order partial differential equations, Adv. Differential Equations 2020 (2020), 375.10.1186/s13662-020-02839-ySearch in Google Scholar

[38] Z. Odibat, An optimized decomposition method for nonlinear ordinary and partial differential equations, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. its Appl. 541 (2020), 123323.10.1016/j.physa.2019.123323Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-06-10
Revised: 2022-10-13
Accepted: 2022-11-15
Published Online: 2022-12-31

© 2022 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Articles
  2. On some summation formulas
  3. A study of a meromorphic perturbation of the sine family
  4. Asymptotic behavior of even-order noncanonical neutral differential equations
  5. Unconditionally positive NSFD and classical finite difference schemes for biofilm formation on medical implant using Allen-Cahn equation
  6. Starlike and convexity properties of q-Bessel-Struve functions
  7. Mathematical modeling and optimal control of the impact of rumors on the banking crisis
  8. On linear chaos in function spaces
  9. Convergence of generalized sampling series in weighted spaces
  10. Persistence landscapes of affine fractals
  11. Inertial iterative method with self-adaptive step size for finite family of split monotone variational inclusion and fixed point problems in Banach spaces
  12. Various notions of module amenability on weighted semigroup algebras
  13. Regularity and normality in hereditary bi m-spaces
  14. On a first-order differential system with initial and nonlocal boundary conditions
  15. On solving pseudomonotone equilibrium problems via two new extragradient-type methods under convex constraints
  16. Local linear approach: Conditional density estimate for functional and censored data
  17. Some properties of graded generalized 2-absorbing submodules
  18. Eigenvalue inclusion sets for linear response eigenvalue problems
  19. Some integral inequalities for generalized left and right log convex interval-valued functions based upon the pseudo-order relation
  20. More properties of generalized open sets in generalized topological spaces
  21. An extragradient inertial algorithm for solving split fixed-point problems of demicontractive mappings, with equilibrium and variational inequality problems
  22. An accurate and efficient local one-dimensional method for the 3D acoustic wave equation
  23. On a weighted elliptic equation of N-Kirchhoff type with double exponential growth
  24. On split feasibility problem for finite families of equilibrium and fixed point problems in Banach spaces
  25. Entire and meromorphic solutions for systems of the differential difference equations
  26. Multiplication operators on the Banach algebra of bounded Φ-variation functions on compact subsets of ℂ
  27. Mannheim curves and their partner curves in Minkowski 3-space E13
  28. Characterizations of the group invertibility of a matrix revisited
  29. Iterates of q-Bernstein operators on triangular domain with all curved sides
  30. Data analysis-based time series forecast for managing household electricity consumption
  31. A robust study of the transmission dynamics of zoonotic infection through non-integer derivative
  32. A Dai-Liao-type projection method for monotone nonlinear equations and signal processing
  33. Review Article
  34. Remarks on some variants of minimal point theorem and Ekeland variational principle with applications
  35. Special Issue on Recent Methods in Approximation Theory - Part I
  36. Coupled fixed point theorems under new coupled implicit relation in Hilbert spaces
  37. Approximation of integrable functions by general linear matrix operators of their Fourier series
  38. Sharp sufficient condition for the convergence of greedy expansions with errors in coefficient computation
  39. Approximation of conic sections by weighted Lupaş post-quantum Bézier curves
  40. On the generalized growth and approximation of entire solutions of certain elliptic partial differential equation
  41. Existence results for ABC-fractional BVP via new fixed point results of F-Lipschitzian mappings
  42. Linear barycentric rational collocation method for solving biharmonic equation
  43. A note on the convergence of Phillips operators by the sequence of functions via q-calculus
  44. Taylor’s series expansions for real powers of two functions containing squares of inverse cosine function, closed-form formula for specific partial Bell polynomials, and series representations for real powers of Pi
  45. Special Issue on Recent Advances in Fractional Calculus and Nonlinear Fractional Evaluation Equations - Part I
  46. Positive solutions for fractional differential equation at resonance under integral boundary conditions
  47. Source term model for elasticity system with nonlinear dissipative term in a thin domain
  48. A numerical study of anomalous electro-diffusion cells in cable sense with a non-singular kernel
  49. On Opial-type inequality for a generalized fractional integral operator
  50. Special Issue on Advances in Integral Transforms and Analysis of Differential Equations with Applications
  51. Mathematical analysis of a MERS-Cov coronavirus model
  52. Rapid exponential stabilization of nonlinear continuous systems via event-triggered impulsive control
  53. Novel soliton solutions for the fractional three-wave resonant interaction equations
  54. The multistep Laplace optimized decomposition method for solving fractional-order coronavirus disease model (COVID-19) via the Caputo fractional approach
  55. Special Issue on Problems, Methods and Applications of Nonlinear Analysis
  56. Some recent results on singular p-Laplacian equations
  57. Infinitely many solutions for quasilinear Schrödinger equations with sign-changing nonlinearity without the aid of 4-superlinear at infinity
  58. Special Issue on Recent Advances for Computational and Mathematical Methods in Scientific Problems
  59. Existence of solutions for a nonlinear problem at resonance
  60. Asymptotic stability of solutions for a diffusive epidemic model
  61. Special Issue on Computational and Numerical Methods for Special Functions - Part I
  62. Fully degenerate Bernoulli numbers and polynomials
  63. Wigner-Ville distribution and ambiguity function associated with the quaternion offset linear canonical transform
  64. Some identities related to degenerate Stirling numbers of the second kind
  65. Two identities and closed-form formulas for the Bernoulli numbers in terms of central factorial numbers of the second kind
  66. λ-q-Sheffer sequence and its applications
  67. Special Issue on Fixed Point Theory and Applications to Various Differential/Integral Equations - Part I
  68. General decay for a nonlinear pseudo-parabolic equation with viscoelastic term
  69. Generalized common fixed point theorem for generalized hybrid mappings in Hilbert spaces
  70. Computation of solution of integral equations via fixed point results
  71. Characterizations of quasi-metric and G-metric completeness involving w-distances and fixed points
  72. Notes on continuity result for conformable diffusion equation on the sphere: The linear case
Downloaded on 15.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/dema-2022-0183/html
Scroll to top button