
In this article, an analytical and numerical analysis of a computer virus epidemic model is presented. To more thoroughly examine the dynamics of the virus, the classical model is transformed into a fractional order model. The Caputo differential operator is applied to achieve this. The Jacobian approach is employed to investigate the model's stability. To investigate the model's numerical solution, a hybridized numerical scheme called the Grunwald Letnikov nonstandard finite difference (GL-NSFD) scheme is created. Some essential characteristics of the population model are scrutinized, including positivity boundedness and scheme stability. The aforementioned features are validated using test cases and computer simulations. The mathematical graphs are all detailed. It is also investigated how the fundamental reproduction number R0 functions in stability analysis and illness dynamics.
Citation: Zafar Iqbal, Muhammad Aziz-ur Rehman, Muhammad Imran, Nauman Ahmed, Umbreen Fatima, Ali Akgül, Muhammad Rafiq, Ali Raza, Ali Asrorovich Djuraev, Fahd Jarad. A finite difference scheme to solve a fractional order epidemic model of computer virus[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 2337-2359. doi: 10.3934/math.2023121
[1] | Jagdev Singh, Jitendra Kumar, Devendra kumar, Dumitru Baleanu . A reliable numerical algorithm based on an operational matrix method for treatment of a fractional order computer virus model. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 3195-3210. doi: 10.3934/math.2024155 |
[2] | Fawaz K. Alalhareth, Seham M. Al-Mekhlafi, Ahmed Boudaoui, Noura Laksaci, Mohammed H. Alharbi . Numerical treatment for a novel crossover mathematical model of the COVID-19 epidemic. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 5376-5393. doi: 10.3934/math.2024259 |
[3] | Mehmet Kocabiyik, Mevlüde Yakit Ongun . Construction a distributed order smoking model and its nonstandard finite difference discretization. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 4636-4654. doi: 10.3934/math.2022258 |
[4] | Muhammad Asim Khan, Majid Khan Majahar Ali, and Saratha Sathasivam . High-order finite difference method for the two-dimensional variable-order fractional cable equation in complex systems and neuronal dynamics. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 8647-8672. doi: 10.3934/math.2025396 |
[5] | Yasir Nawaz, Muhammad Shoaib Arif, Wasfi Shatanawi, Muhammad Usman Ashraf . A new unconditionally stable implicit numerical scheme for fractional diffusive epidemic model. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14299-14322. doi: 10.3934/math.2022788 |
[6] | Maryam Amin, Muhammad Farman, Ali Akgül, Mohammad Partohaghighi, Fahd Jarad . Computational analysis of COVID-19 model outbreak with singular and nonlocal operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16741-16759. doi: 10.3934/math.2022919 |
[7] | Shao-Wen Yao, Muhammad Farman, Maryam Amin, Mustafa Inc, Ali Akgül, Aqeel Ahmad . Fractional order COVID-19 model with transmission rout infected through environment. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 5156-5174. doi: 10.3934/math.2022288 |
[8] | Rohul Amin, Kamal Shah, Hijaz Ahmad, Abdul Hamid Ganie, Abdel-Haleem Abdel-Aty, Thongchai Botmart . Haar wavelet method for solution of variable order linear fractional integro-differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 5431-5443. doi: 10.3934/math.2022301 |
[9] | Omar Kahouli, Imane Zouak, Ma'mon Abu Hammad, Adel Ouannas . Chaos, control and synchronization in discrete time computer virus system with fractional orders. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(6): 13594-13621. doi: 10.3934/math.2025612 |
[10] | Agus Suryanto, Isnani Darti . On the nonstandard numerical discretization of SIR epidemic model with a saturated incidence rate and vaccination. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(1): 141-155. doi: 10.3934/math.2021010 |
In this article, an analytical and numerical analysis of a computer virus epidemic model is presented. To more thoroughly examine the dynamics of the virus, the classical model is transformed into a fractional order model. The Caputo differential operator is applied to achieve this. The Jacobian approach is employed to investigate the model's stability. To investigate the model's numerical solution, a hybridized numerical scheme called the Grunwald Letnikov nonstandard finite difference (GL-NSFD) scheme is created. Some essential characteristics of the population model are scrutinized, including positivity boundedness and scheme stability. The aforementioned features are validated using test cases and computer simulations. The mathematical graphs are all detailed. It is also investigated how the fundamental reproduction number R0 functions in stability analysis and illness dynamics.
The only difference between a computer virus and other programs on a computer is that viruses are not helpful. It is a dangerous program that was created to carry out destructive deeds like wiping data or harming other software in the computer system [1].
The earliest viruses to be introduced were for technological purposes alone. Instead of harming or attacking, the purpose of these algorithms was to determine the propagation time. These viruses were created for research and useful purposes. Creeper's goal was to create a malicious mobile application. Ross and Hamer introduced the mathematical models of communicable illnesses in the 20th century. Bernoulli first proposed the idea of disease dynamics and its mathematical modeling in the year 1766, which opened the door to modern epidemiology. To examine the dynamics of the sickness, they took into account the law of mass action. Following the same path, Frost and Reed Frost created the infectious illness model, which explains how susceptible, infected, and recovered people are related. The smoking model has recently drawn the attention of researchers among other models.
Smoking poses a serious risk to one's health because it directly or indirectly affects every organ of the body. Scientists face a difficult problem when it comes to mathematical modeling of biological sciences [2,3,4,5]. The relationship between mathematical modeling of the physical problem is that, whereas biological systems discuss changes in structure, nonlinear terms, and multi-scale issues in the mathematical modeling for the interrelationship of the parameters, complex systems discuss change in structure in the systems [6]. Using traditional integer order derivatives, numerous biological models were thoroughly examined in the final decades of the 20th century. See for more information [7]. The dynamical features of numerous physical systems can be better understood via fractional derivative. These differential operators are noteworthy because, in contrast to traditional differential operators, they exhibit non-local behavior. The memory effect is one of the fundamental characteristics of fractional differential equations. In fact, the physical model can be developed using a realistic and useful technique using fractional order derivatives. Higher degrees of freedom in physical models are provided via the fractional order derivative's property. Powerful tools for determining the dynamical properties of diverse biomaterials and systems include arbitrary real or complex order derivatives. These models' global (nonlocal) features are their most well-known characteristic. Magin looked on the relationship between stress and strain in biomaterials using fractional order derivatives in the model [8].
For a clear understanding of the phenomenon, fractional-order derivatives are used in the modeling of the intricate biological system patterns. The memory effect of fractional models enables more information to be gleaned from the past, improving the accuracy of the dynamics forecasts. Depending on the virus's characteristics, many researchers created numerous compartmental models to explain the dynamics of the virus. For instance, SEIAR stands for Susceptible, Exposed, Infected, Asymptomatic, and Recovered. Other acronyms for this condition include SI (Susceptible-Infected), SIS (Susceptible, Infected, and Susceptible), SIR (Susceptible, Infected and Recovered), SEIR (Susceptible, Exposed, Infected, and Recovered), SEIQR (Susceptible, Exposed, Infected, Quarantine and Recovered).
SLB (Susceptible, Latent and Breakout), SLBS (Susceptible, Latent, Breakout and Susceptible), SLBRS (Susceptible, Latent, Breakout, Recovered and Susceptible), and SEIS are among the models of computer viruses that are often employed (Susceptible, Exposed, Infected and Susceptible) Since the state variables in these models indicate the number of individuals (whether they be humans or computers), their values must not be negative. As a result, non negative is a key characteristic of these state variables. Additionally, the total population of the model's subpopulations must not exceed the model's overall population.
Computer viruses include worms, Trojan horses, ransomware, spyware, adware, and scareware, to name a few. In 1949, John von Neumann is credited as being the first scientist to propose the idea of a self-replicating computer program. The Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata is the name given to his published work. As the theoretical founder of computer virology, von Neumann is credited with creating the first computer virus, a self-replicating computer program [9]. Kraus [10] postulated that computer instructions could behave like biological viruses in 1980. The first virus discovered on ARPANET, the initial internet, was called Creeper Malware [11]. Before the advent of computer networks, information and programs were exchanged using portable devices such floppies, discs, magnetic tapes, and magnetic drums. In the 1980s, conventional computer viruses first arose. The dynamics of the first computer virus model for malware programs were created in 1991. This style was influenced by the work of Kermack and Mc Kendrick [12]. Later, many computer virus models that took into account the dynamics of the virus's control parameters were created. Antivirus software is being accumulated in computer libraries using the traditional methods. On the other hand, researchers are drawn to the macroscopic approach to viral dynamics. The first researchers to examine computer virus models based on biological infections were Kepler and White [13]. Many dynamical models of internet viruses have been constructed along the same lines. According to the connectivity of the computers, these models can be divided into two primary types, namely heterogeneous models and homogeneous models. More academics are currently researching heterogeneous computer virus models. By taking into account real data, Kjaergaard and his co-authors examined the SI, or susceptible-infected, model for the computer virus dynamics with regard to time [14]. In order to elaborate the model, Castellano and Pastor-Satorras established the power law and described the fundamental models in saturated net works using SIS, susceptible-infected and susceptible models. A brand-new computer virus SIS model with a nonlinear rate of infectivity was created by Zhu and his co-authors. They thought about the edges and nodes' inclusion and expiration [16]. By taking into account the power law degree distribution of the internet, Yang and his colleagues created a new epidemic system for computer viruses and looked into the critical value for the dynamics of the virus. On the basis of decreased scale-free networking, a computer virus model was created [17].
There are many viruses that can communicate without topology, including Conficker (2004), Witty (2004), Blaster (2003), Slammer (2003), and Code Red (2001). These programs have the potential to harm the expensive machine by exploring the entire IPv4 space or local IP addresses. The network-spreading virus in this instance can be regarded as fully connected. Furthermore, according to references [34,35], virtual clusters are a form of interconnected network. Another recent development in the field of dynamical models of computer viruses is the study of homogeneous systems. A subset of compromised computer nodes may end up on the internet and on portable devices that contain viruses. Gan et al. [20] created a collection of physical viral systems. Amador and Astalejo investigated how computer malware spread by taking into consideration the stochastic SIRS system, in which immune modes send out alerts to slow the spread of viruses across computers [21]. Liu and Zhong looked at a compartment model known as the SDIRS model representing malware communication under the homogeneity restriction [22]. For the purpose of analyzing the various physical behaviors of network virus propagation, Yuan et al. [23] described the SEIR model with a function of non-linear infection. This article offers a new computer malware communication method for researching the variables that affect the dynamics of computer viruses on networking. There are several globally asymptotically stable sites of equilibria of the continuous model, according to a thorough analysis of this system. In addition, various computer simulation tests are run to examine the results of this system. Finally, certain crucial steps to manage the dynamics of the infection are recommended. Non-linear integer order models can be solved using a variety of techniques, including the Adomian decomposition approach and the Homotopy perturbation method. It is an analytical approach that has been suggested for solving nonlinear problems with numerical analytic series. He developed this technology [24]. There are no set universal principles for higher order systems, though. Computer malware programs are extremely risky for consumers. Once a node in a network is infected, it is difficult to keep the virus under control. Cohan described computer viruses and looked at how they might destroy computer systems on a large scale [25].
Kephart et al. [26,27] used a human infection model to study the spread of computer viruses. A computer infection model with homogenous mixing properties was created by Mishra et al. [28,29]. In order to anticipate whether a virus would exist, they first gave the threshold value for the dynamics of computer viruses in the population of computers. See [31,32] for more information.
Now that studies have shown that traditional models do not accurately capture occurrences in the real world. They do not completely address the model's dynamics. These models also yield significant error since they do not accurately reflect the actual data [35]. As a result, for a variety of reasons, it becomes necessary to build fractional order models for nonlinear dynamical systems. These models have the system's historical memory as well as the inheritance property, and they fit real data more closely. The models' use of fractional order derivatives to establish a class of differential operators. Because the order of the fractional derivatives can take on infinite values across an interval, the fractional order models represent a class of systems.
Finding the necessary approximations using a fresh numerical design is a difficult undertaking. Because one of the fundamental prerequisites for population dynamics is numerical solutions with great precision. The population of the various categories is characterized by the state variables used in these models. Therefore, at any point in time, these variables cannot have negative values [33,37]. Masood and colleagues looked into the fractional dynamics of the spread of the stuxnet virus in industrial control systems. They demonstrated that the primary cause of worm spread in isolated networks is removable storage devices [38].
Muhkdasai and coauthors used supervised neural networks to take into account the impact of stochastic processes as they worked on numerical simulations for the fractional order Leptospirosis epidemic model. The fractional order model is studied using the Levenberg-Marquardt backward technique [39]. In a similar vein, Sabir et al. [40] looked at the stochastic variables and artificial neuron networks in the nonlinear fractional order prey predator model. The mean square error is reduced by combining the scaled conjugate gradient with the artificial neural network strategy. The fractional food supply model was mathematically explored by Souayeh [41] by incorporating the stochastic factor. The underlying model takes into account the three groups of populations: common prey, top predators, and specific categories of predators. The SCGNN was created to produce more accurate and superior results. On the basis of a mathematical model of the disease with a fractional order, Sabir and coauthors investigated the dynamics of the breast cancer disease. During the chemotherapy process, the tumor concentration was taken into account. For the fractional order model, four different compartment types are taken into consideration. Normal cell population, malignant cell population, immunological reaction class, and estrogen compartment are the compartments covered in the model. The numerical efficiency of the numerical design has become very attractive by the inclusion of the stochastic Levenberg-Marquardt back propagation neural networks [42].
In order to obtain the approximate solutions of the fractional order model, Sabir et al. [43] used the LMB numerical scheme. By taking into account the generalized Caputo type fractional derivatives, Kumar and co-authors investigated the new numerical template to solve the fractional differential equations [44]. The existence analysis for these kinds of differential equations was also presented. The existence analysis for these kinds of differential equations was also presented. They also used the technique on some pertinent examples to demonstrate its importance. Following the same path, Kumer et al. investigated the spread of the maize streak virus by taking the fractional order epidemic model into consideration. To arrive at the numerical solutions of the model under consideration, they used the predictor-corrector method. They have demonstrated certain crucial characteristics of the state variables, such as stability, boundedness, and non-negativity [45]. Additionally, Kumer and his co-authors researched the dynamics of dental decay in the general population. They took into account both the epidemic model for integer and fractional orders. For the stability study, the Lypounov and LaSalle's invariance criterion is utilized [46].
The following are this article's significant contributions:
● Stability of the model.
● Construction of robust numerical scheme.
● Positivity of the numerical method.
● Boundedness of the scheme.
● Numerical experiment and simulations.
Some basic concepts, definitions, and notations are covered in this section.
Definition 1. The Riemann-Liouville (RL) integral operator is defined as:
Jαf(x)=1Γα∫b0(s−t)α−1f(t)dt, |
where Γ(⋅) is the famous Euler Gamma function.
Definition 2. The RL differential operator of order α, where m−1<α<m, m∈Z+ is presented as:
DαRLf(x)=dmdxmJm−αf(x)=1Γ(m−α)dmdxm∫b0(s−t)m−α−1f(t)dt |
where f∈L1[0,b]. Note that the space Lp(X,μ), or Lp(X) or simply Lp consists of all complex valued measurable functions on [0,b] that satisfy:
∫b0|f(x)|pdμ(x)<∞,1≤p<∞,p≠2 |
when p=1 the space L1[0,b] consists of all integrable functions on [0,b]. The most common and initial concept of fractional derivation is the RL fraction. When initial circumstances are taken as RL derivatives, the operator has a few drawbacks.
Definition 3. The Caputo differential operator of any arbitrary order α is defined as:
Dαcf(x)=Jm−αf(x)=1Γ(m−α)∫a0(x−t)m−α−1dmdxmf(t)dt, |
where α>0, m−1<α<m and m∈Z+.
From the above definition, it is obvious that the fractional order derivative with order α, at time t is a non local operator. It depends upon the overall outcomes of the classically applied mth order derivatives, with m∈Z+ in the interval [0,t]. Therefore, this operator is useful in describing the change of a system in which the past state of the system imparts a critical role. In this article, we focus on the systems (2.1)–(2.3) by taking into account the growth rates of each state variables. The rates not only depend instantly upon the present state but also depend upon the past situation, known as memory effect.
The classical SLBS model [1] for computer virus is given as:
dS(t)dt=δ−βS(L+B)+γB−δS | (2.1) |
dL(t)dt=βS(L+B)−αL−δL | (2.2) |
dB(t)dt=αL−γB−δS. | (2.3) |
Its fractional order version is presented as:
c0DθtS(t)=δθ−βθS(t)(L(t)+B(t))+γθB(t)−δθS(t) | (2.4) |
c0DθtL(t)=βθS(t)(L(t)+B(t))−αθL(t)−δθL(t) | (2.5) |
c0DθtB(t)=αθL(t)−γθB(t)−δθB(t) | (2.6) |
where S(t)+L(t)+B(t)=1.
In this section, we discuss the stability of the models (2.4)–(2.6) at equilibrium points. This model has two equilibrium points, virus free state (VFS) ζ0(1,0,0) and virus existence state (VES) ζ∗(S∗,L∗,B∗) and these points are obtained by substituting c0DθtS(t)=0, c0DθtL(t)=0, c0DθtB(t)=0. The reproductive number of the epidemic systems (2.4)–(2.6) are R0=βθ(αθ+γθ+δθ)(αθ+δθ)(γθ+δθ).
Theorem 1. The underlying computer virus epidemic models (2.4)–(2.6) are locally asymptotically stable at ζ0 under the condition R0<1.
Proof. Let
P=δθ−βθS(t)(L(t)+B(t))+γθB(t)−δθS(t)Q=βθS(t)(L(t)+B(t))−αθL(t)−δθL(t)R=αθL(t)−γθB(t)−δθB(t). |
In order to linearize the system we will use Jacobian matrix, for Jacobian matrix,
J(S,L,B)=|∂P∂S∂P∂L∂P∂B∂Q∂S∂Q∂L∂Q∂B∂R∂S∂R∂L∂R∂B| |
J(S,L,B)=|−βθS(t)(L(t)+B(t))−βθS(t)−βθS(t)+γθβθ(L(t)+B(t))βθS(t)−αθ−δθβθS(t)0αθ−γθ−δθ|. |
At ζ0, Jacobian is obtained as:
J(1,0,0)=|−δθ−βθ−βθ+γθ0βθ−αθ−δθβθ0αθ−γθ−δθ|. |
By evaluating,
|J−λI|=0|J−λI|=|−δθ−λ−βθ−βθ+γθ0βθ−αθ−δθ−λβθ0αθ−γθ−δθ−λ|. |
We have the eigen values λ=−δθ and (βθ−αθ−δθ−λ)(−γθ−δθ−λ)−αθβθ=0. Now let T=βθ−αθ−δθ, V= −γθ−δθ, W=−αθβθ
(λ−T)(λ−V)+W=0λ2+λ(−V−T)+TV+W=0. |
This equation can be written as λ2+aλ+b=0, where a,b>0 if RO<1. So, the given system is locally asymptotically stable at ζ0.
Theorem 2. The underlying computer virus epidemic models (2.4)–(2.6) are locally asymptotically stable at ζ∗ under the condition R0>1.
Proof. The Jacobian matrix at ζ∗ is given as,
|J(S∗,L∗,B∗)−λ|=|−βθS∗(L∗+B∗)−λ−βθS∗−βθS∗+γθβθ(L∗+B∗)βθS∗−αθ−δθ−λβθS∗0αθ−γθ−δθ−λ|. |
Let G=−βθS∗(L∗+B∗), H=−βθS∗ I=−βθS∗+γθ K=βθ(L∗+B∗), L=βθS∗−αθ−δθ, M=βθS∗, and N=αθ, U=−γθ−δθ. Now Jacobians will be,
|J(S∗,L∗,B∗)−λ|=|G−λHIKL−λM0NU−λ|. |
By evaluating,
|J(S∗,L∗,B∗)−λ|=0 |
(G−λ)((L−λ)(U−λ)−NM)−H(K(U−λ))+I(KN)=0 |
λ3+λ2(−G−L−U)+λ(GL+GU+LU−UN)+GUN+HKU−IKU−GLU=0. |
Which is written as λ3+aλ2+bλ+d=0, where a>0, b>0, d>0 if RO>1. By using Routh Hurwitz of order 3 we will conclude that the given system is locally asymptotically stable at ζ∗ if R0>1.
In order to prove the global stability of the fractional systems (2.4)–(2.6), we present an important lemma which is as follows.
Lemma 3. [36] Let U(t)∈R+ be a continuous function. Then, for any time t≥t0 c0Dθt[U(t)−U∗−U∗lnU(t)U∗]≤(1−U∗U(t))c0DθtU(t). U∗∈R+, for all θ∈(0,1).
Next, in the following theorems, the globally asymptotically stabilities (GAS) of the systems (2.4)–(2.6) at DFE and EE are carried out.
Theorem 4. The underlying computer virus epidemic models (2.4)–(2.6) are globally asymptotically stable (GAS) at ζ0 under the condition R0<1.
Proof. Define a Voltera Lyaponov function as,
V:H→R |
and
V=S+L+B, ∀(S,L,B)∈H. |
By using ζ0, we have
V=(S−S0−S0LogSS0)+L+B. |
By using Lemma 3
c0DθtV≤(S−S0S) c0DθtS+c0DθtL+c0DθtBc0DθtV≤(S−S0S)(δθ−βθS(L+B)+γθB−δθS)+βθS(L+B)−αθL−δθL+αθL−γθB−δθBc0DθtV≤−δθ(S−S0)2SS0−γθB(S−S0)2SS0−δθ(L+γθδθ)−δθ(B−βθ(S+L)δθ) |
c0DθtV<0 if RO<1 and c0DθtV=0 if S=1, L=0, B=0. It concludes that the given system is GAS at ζ0.
Theorem 5. The underlying computer virus epidemic models (2.4)–(2.6) are globally asymptotically stable (GAS) at ζ∗ under the condition R0>1.
Proof.
V=(S−S∗−S∗logSS∗)+(L−L∗−LogLL∗)+(B−B∗−LogBB∗). |
By using Lemma 3
c0DθtV≤(S−S∗S) c0DθtS+(L−L∗L) c0DθtL+(B−B∗B) c0DθtBc0DθtV≤(S−S∗S)(δθ−βθS(L+B)+γθB−δθS)+(L−L∗L)(βθS(L+B)−αθL−δθL)+(B−B∗B)(αθL−γθB−δθB)c0DθtV≤−−δθ(S−S∗)2SS∗−γθB(S−S∗)2SS∗−βθSB(L−L∗)2LL∗−αθL(B−B∗)2BB∗ |
c0DθtV<0 if RO>1 and c0DθtV=0 if S=S∗, L=L∗, B=B∗. Hence the given system is GAS at ζ∗.
In this section, numerical method is presented for the underlying fractional computer virus model. Again, the system of fractional order is given as,
c0DθtS(t)|t=tn=δθ−βθSn+1(t)(Ln(t)+Bn(t))+γθBn(t)−δθSn+1(t) | (4.1) |
c0DθtL(t)|t=tn=βθSn+1(t)(Ln(t)+Bn(t))−αθLn+1(t)−δθLn+1(t) | (4.2) |
c0DθtB(t)|t=tn=αθLn+1(t)−γθBn+1(t)−δθBn+1(t). | (4.3) |
Firstly, Grunwald-Letnikove approach (G. L. Approach) is discussed, for detail see [34].
c0Dθtx(t)|t=tn=1(ψ(Δt))θ(xn+1−Σn+1i=1cixn+1−i−qn+1x0) | (4.4) |
where ci=(−1)i−1(θi),c1=θ
qi=i−θΓ(1−θ),i=1,2,3,...,n+1.
Now, the following result is helpful in proving some other results.
Lemma 6. The detailed discussion of this lemma can be seen in [34]. Let 0<θ<1 then all the coefficients defined as cθi=−(1)θ−1(θi),qθn+1=hθqθ0(tn+1)=qθ0,−1(n+1)−θ are positive and unveil the property cθi=O(1v1+θ) as i→∞. Moreover, the coefficients cθi and qθi hold the following two relations for i≥1 0<cθi+1<cθi<.....<cθ1=θ<1 0<qθi+1<qθi<......<qθ1=1Γ(1−θ).
By incorporating NSFD rules in the G. L. Approach, the discrete model for susceptible computers becomes as,
1(ψ(h))θ(Sn+1−Σn+1i=1ciSn+1−i−qn+1S0)=δθ−βθ(Ln+Bn)Sn+1+γθBn−δθSn+1 | (4.5) |
Sn+1=Σn+1i=1ciSn+1−i+qn+1S0+(ψ(h))θδθ+γθ(ψ(h))θBn1+(ψ(h))θ(βθLn+βθBn+δθ). | (4.6) |
Similarly GL-NSFD scheme for latent and breaking out computers as,
Ln+1=Σn+1i=1ciLn+1−i+qn+1L0+(ψ(h))θβθ(Ln+Bn)Sn+11+(ψ(h))θ(αθ+δθ) | (4.7) |
Bn+1=Σn+1i=1ciBn+1−i+qn+1B0+(ψ(h))θαθLn+11+(ψ(h))θ(γθ+δθ). | (4.8) |
Pseudocodes of proposed numerical technique (4.6)–(4.8) are given in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 Pseudocodes of the proposed scheme (4.6)–(4.8). |
procedure Function(S,L,B) Get(θ) INIT → β,δ,η,γ SET → t Initial values ←S,L,B for each n until length(t)+1 do qn←hθ,Γ end for repeat n← length(t)-1 for SLB do for each i until n do c1→θ if i>1 then c→θi end if ∑ci×(S,L,B)n+1−i Update S,L,B end for [S,I,R]n+1= right hand side of (4.6)–(4.8) end for end procedure |
The following theorem validates the positivity of the solution of the systems (2.4)–(2.6).
Theorem 7. Suppose that S0≥0,L0≥0,B0≥0,αθ≥0,γθ≥0,δθ≥0,βθ≥0 then Sn≥0,Ln≥0,Bn≥0 for all n=1,2,3,.....
Proof.
S1=c1S0+q1S0+(ψ(h))θδθ+γθ(ψ(h))θBo1+(ψ(h))θ(βθL0+βθB0+δθ)≥0 |
L1=c1L0+q1L0+ψ(h)θβθ(L0+B0)S11+ψ(h)θ(αθ+δθ)≥0 |
B1=c1B0+q1B0+(ψ(h))θαθL11+(ψ(h))θ(γθ+δθ)≥0 |
for n=1
S2=c1S1+c2S0+q2S0+(ψ(h))θδθ+γθ(ψ(h))θB11+(ψ(h))θ(βθL1+βθB1+δθ)≥0 |
L2=c1L1+c2L0+q2L0+(ψ(h))θβθ(L1+B1)S21+(ψ(h))θ(αθ+δθ)≥0 |
B2=c1B1+c2B0+q2B0+(ψ(h))θαθL21+(ψ(h))θ(γθ+δθ)≥0 |
for n=2
S3=c1S2+c2S1+c3S0+q3S0+(ψ(h))θδθ+γθ(ψ(h))θB21+(ψ(h))θ(βθL2+βθB2+δθ)≥0 |
L3=c1L2+c2L1+c3L0+q3L0+(ψ(h))θβθ(L2+B2)S31+(ψ(h))θ(αθ+δθ)≥0 |
B3=c1B2+c2B1+c3B0+q3B0+(ψ(h))θαθL31+(ψ(h))θ(γθ+δθ)≥0. |
Suppose that for n=1,2,3,......,n−1,Sn≥0,Ln≥0, and Bn≥0.
Thus for n=n
Sn+1=Σn+1i=1ciSn+1−i+qn+1S0+(ψ(h))θδθ+γθ(ψ(h))θBn1+(ψ(h))θ(βθLn+βθBn+δθ)≥0 |
Ln+1=Σn+1i=1ciLn+1−i+qn+1L0+(ψ(h))θβθ(Ln+Bn)Sn+11+(ψ(h))θ(αθ+δθ)≥0 |
Bn+1=Σn+1i=1ciBn+1−i+qn+1B0+(ψ(h))θαθLn+11+(ψ(h))θ(γθ+δθ)≥0. |
In this section, the following theorem is given which proves that the proposed technique preserves the boundedness of the continuous system.
Theorem 8. Suppose that S0+L0+B0=1,αθ≥0,βθ≥0,γθ≥0,δθ≥0 and (ψ(h))θ≥0 for θ∈[0,1] then Sn,Ln, and Bn are bounded for all n=1,2,3,......n.
Proof.
Sn+1+(ψ(h))θβθLnSn+1+(ψ(h))θβθBnSn+1(ψ(h))θδθSn+1+Ln+1+(ψ(h))θαθLn+1+(ψ(h))θδθLn+1+Bn+1+(ψ(h))θγθBn+1(ψ(h))θδθBn+1=Σn+1i=1ciSn+1−i+qn+1S0+(ψ(h))θδθ+(ψ(h))θγθBn+Σn+1i=1ciLn+1−i+qn+1L0+(ψ(h))θβθLnSn+1+(ψ(h))θβθBnSn+1+Σn+1i=1ciBn+1−i+qn+1B0+(ψ(h))θαθLn+1 |
(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)Sn+1+(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)Ln+1+(1+(ψ(h))θ(γθ+δθ))Bn+1=Σn+1i=1ci(Sn+1−i+Ln+1−i+Bn+1−i)+qn+1(S0+L0+B0)+(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)+(1+(ψ(h))θγθ)Bn |
=Σn+1i=1ci(Sn+1−i+Ln+1−i+Bn+1−i)+qn+1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθBn). |
For n=0
(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)S1+(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)L1+(1+(ψ(h))θ(γθ+δθ))B1=c1(S0+L0+B0)+q1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθB0)=θ+1Γ(1−θ)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθB0)=M1 |
⇒(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)S1≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθB0)⇒(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)L1≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθB0)⇒(1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθ)B1≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθB0) |
⇒S1≤M1(1+(ψ(h))θδθ),L1≤M1(1+(ψ(h))θδθ),B1≤M1(1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθ) |
⇒S1≤M1 ,L1≤M1 ,B1≤M1. |
For n=1
(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)S2+(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)L2+(1+(ψ(h))θ(γθ+δθ))B2=c1(S1+L1+B1)+c2(S0+L0+B0)+q2+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθB1)≤θ(1)+θ(M1+M1+M1)+1Γ(1−θ)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM1)=θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θM1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM1)=M2 |
⇒(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)S2≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θM1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM1)⇒(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)L2≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM1)⇒(1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθ)B2≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θM1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM1) |
⇒S2≤M2(1+(ψ(h))θδθ),L2≤M2(1+(ψ(h))θδθ),B2≤M2(1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθ) |
⇒S2≤M2 ,L2≤M2 ,B2≤M2. |
For n=2
(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)S3+(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)L3+(1+(ψ(h))θ(γθ+δθ))B3=c1(S2+L2+B2)+c2(S1+L1+B1)+c3(S0+L0+B0)+q3+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθB2)≤θ(1)+θ(3M2)+θ(3M1)+1Γ(1−θ)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM2)=θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(M2+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM2)=M3 |
⇒(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)S3≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(M2+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM2)⇒(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)L3≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(M2+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM2)⇒(1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθ)B3≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(M2+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM2) |
⇒S3≤M3(1+(ψ(h))θδθ),L3≤M3(1+(ψ(h))θδθ),B3≤M3(1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθ) |
⇒S3≤M3 ,L3≤M3 ,B3≤M3. |
For n=3
(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)S4+(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)L4+(1+(ψ(h))θ(γθ+δθ))B4=c1(S3+L3+B3)+c2(S2+L2+B2)+c3(S1+L1+B1)+c4(S0+L0+B0)+q4+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθB3)≤θ(1)+θ(3M3)+θ(3M2)+θ(3M1)+1Γ(1−θ)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM3)=θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(M3+M2+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM3)=M4 |
⇒(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)S4≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(M3+M2+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM3)⇒(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)L4≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(M3+M2+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM3)⇒(1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθ)B4≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(M3+M2+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθM3) |
⇒S4≤M4(1+(ψ(h))θδθ),L4≤M4(1+(ψ(h))θδθ),B4≤M4(1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθ) |
⇒S4≤M4 ,L4≤M4 ,B4≤M4. |
Now suppose that
⇒Sn≤Mn ,Ln≤Mn ,Bn≤Mn. |
Where
Mn=θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(Mn−1+Mn−2+........+M2+M1)+ψ(h)θ(δθ+γθMn−1). |
For n=n
(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)Sn+1+(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)Ln+1+(1+(ψ(h))θ(γθ+δθ))Bn+1=Σn+1i=1ci(Sn+1−i+Ln+1−i+Bn+1−i)+qn+1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθBn)=c1(Sn+Ln+Bn)+c2(Sn−1+Ln−1+Bn−1)+......+cn(S1+L1+B1)+cn+1(S0+L0+B0)+qn+1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθBn)≤θ(3Mn)+θ(3Mn−1)+.....+θ(3M2)+θ(3M1)+θ(1)+1Γ(1−θ)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθMn)=θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(Mn+Mn−1+......+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθMn)=Mn+1 |
⇒(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)Sn+1≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(Mn+Mn−1+......+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθMn)⇒(1+(ψ(h))θδθ)Ln+1≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(Mn+Mn−1+......+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθMn)⇒(1+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθ)Bn+1≤θ+1Γ(1−θ)+3θ(Mn+Mn−1+......+M1)+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθMn) |
⇒Sn+1≤Mn+11+(ψ(h))θδθ,Ln+1≤Mn+11+(ψ(h))θδθ,Bn+1≤Mn+11+(ψ(h))θ(δθ+γθ) |
⇒Sn+1≤Mn+1 ,Ln+1≤Mn+1 ,Bn+1≤Mn+1. |
In this section, we used proposed technique to present the simulations of the underlying computer virus epidemic models (2.4)–(2.6).
In this section, the simulation behavior of the systems (2.4)–(2.6) was presented at VFS. The values of the parameters involved in the underlying model are δθ=0.1, βθ=0.1, γθ=0.2, αθ=0.3 [1].
The graph in Figure 1 shows that they all converges to the virus free equilibrium state, by using the proposed scheme. Each graph in the Figure 1 is plotted against a suitable selected value of θ i.e., the order of the fractional order derivative, even then the graph converges towards the true equilibrium point E0(1,0,0). More over, the rate of convergence to reach at the VFS is different, which shows the dynamics of the system to reach at the mean position.
All the curved sketches in Figure 2 reflect the graphical solution of L(t), the latent nodes at VFS with four different values of θ (the order of fractional differential order). It may be observed that all the curved lines converge to the virus free state which is zero in this case. Also, the state of convergence of these trajectories is different against each value of θ. This situation implies that the rate of convergence strictly depends upon the value of θ. The rate of convergence of the trajectory is directly proportional to the value of θ i.e., the rate of convergence against the smaller value of θ is slower and vise versa.
The curved graph in Figure 3 provides the strong evidence that the approximate solutions obtained by our proposed scheme are strongly in line with the analytical solution. Moreover, the drawn graphs touch the equilibrium point, which is zero in this case, with the different rates depending upon the order of fractional order derivatives. Also, the graph against θ=0.99 attains the zero (virus free state) earlier than the other three graph with θ=0.89,0.79,0.70.
In this section, the simulation behavior of the system (2.4)–(2.6) is presented at VES. The values of the parameters involved in the underlying model are δθ=0.1, βθ=0.6, γθ=0.2, αθ=0.1 [1].
The sketches in Figure 4 are the approximate solution of the state variable S(t) which describes the susceptible nodes in the computer population at virus existence state. The curves validate the fact that the proposed scheme converges to the true steady state, which is zero in the present case. All the graphs in the Figure 4 have the specific rate of convergence to reach at the virus existence position.
The graphs in the Figure 5 show that all the lines converges to the virus free equilibrium for the latent computers. All the curves converge to the true steady state with different rate of convergence according to the value of θ, selected for each curve. The rate of convergence is directly proportional to the value of fractional order θ.
The graphs in Figure 6 indicate that all the curved trajectories drawn with the help of our proposed scheme converge to the exact steady state. The rate of each curved trajectory is different from each other depends upon the selection of θ (the order of fractional differential operator). For smaller value o θ, the rate of convergence is also slower as compared to the lager value of θ.
For a clear understanding of the dynamics of the virus, a traditional compartmental SLBS model for a computer virus was transformed into a non-integer order model in this study. It was demonstrated that the fractional order computer virus model is stable both locally and globally. For the derivatives of fractional order, the GL scheme was used. The fractional order derivative was numerically approximated using the GL technique. The Micken's defined rule was the primary design consideration for the NSFD scheme. In order to solve the non linear dynamical system that represents the dynamics of computer viruses, a hybrid GL NSFD algorithm was created. The model's viral equilibrium and virus free equilibrium stable states were determined. At the viral free equilibrium point, a Jacobian matrix was generated to represent the stability of the numerical method. The scheme's positivity and boundlessness were also determined. Additionally, computer simulations were run to ensure the effectiveness of the numerical design. All of the aforementioned information suggests that the suggested scheme is a solid method that can be used to resolve the nonlinear physical system. In order for the fractional order computer virus model to reach its exact stable state, the projected numerical scheme converges toward it. Additionally, the numerical design ensures a positive and constrained solution, which are crucial aspects of the compartmental model. A kind of drawback of this work is that we were unable to incorporate isolation or quarantine into the model, nor were we able to determine the ideal value of the fractional order parameters θ. The system with delay, diffusion, and advection factors may be solved using this unique numerical design in the future. Additionally, by using the projected numerical method, the fractional order stochastic epidemic and predator-prey models can also be resolved.
The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments and suggestions, all of which led to a substantial improvement of the final work.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
[1] |
L. X. Yang, X. F. Yang, L. S. Wen, J. M. Liu, A novel computer virus propagation model and its dynamics, Int. J. Comput. Math., 89 (2012), 2307–2314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207160.2012.715388 doi: 10.1080/00207160.2012.715388
![]() |
[2] |
S. Z. Rida, A. S. Abdel Rady, A. A. M. Arafa, M. Khalil, Approximate analytical solution of the fractional epidemic model, IJMR, 1 (2012), 17–19. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijamr.v1i1.20 doi: 10.14419/ijamr.v1i1.20
![]() |
[3] |
O. A. Arqub, A. El-Ajou, Solution of the fractional epidemic model by homotopy analysis method, J. King Saud Univ. Sci., 25 (2013), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2012.01.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jksus.2012.01.003
![]() |
[4] | S. Z. Rida, A. A. M. Arafa, Y. A. Gaber, Solution of the fractional epidemic model by L-ADM, Fract. Calc. Appl., 7 (2016), 189–195. |
[5] |
H. M. Wei, X. Z. Li, M. Martcheva, An epidemic model of a vector-born disease with direct transmission and time delay, Math. Anal. Appl., 342 (2008), 895–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.12.058 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.12.058
![]() |
[6] |
A. A. M. Arafa, S. Z. Rida, M. Khalil, Fractional modeling dynamics of HIV and 4 T-cells during primary infection, Nonlinear Biomed. Phys., 6 (2012), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-4631-6-1 doi: 10.1186/1753-4631-6-1
![]() |
[7] |
X. Liu, C. Wang, Bifurcation of a predator-prey model with disease in the prey, Nonlinear Dyn., 62 (2010), 841–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-010-9766-7 doi: 10.1007/s11071-010-9766-7
![]() |
[8] | R. Magin, Fractional calculus in bioengineering, Begell House Publishers, 2004. |
[9] |
J. R. Piqueira, A. A. De Vasconcelos, C. E. Gabriel, V. O. Araujo, Dynamic models for computer viruses, Comput. Secur., 27 (2008), 355–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2008.07.006 doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2008.07.006
![]() |
[10] | J. Kraus, Selbstreproduktion bei programmen, Diplom thesis, University of Dortmund, Dortmund, 1980. |
[11] | M. Peng, X. He, J. Huang, T. Dong. Modeling computer virus and its dynamics, Math. Probl. Eng., 84 (2013), 842614. |
[12] |
W. O. Kermack, A. G. McKendrick, Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics Ⅲ. Further studies of the problem of endemicity, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A., 141 (1933), 94–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8240(05)80042-4 doi: 10.1016/S0092-8240(05)80042-4
![]() |
[13] | J. O. Kephart, S. R. White, Directed-graph epidemiological models of computer viruses, Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Symp. Res. Secur. Privacy, Oakland, Calif, USA, 1991,343–359. https://doi.org/10.1109/RISP.1991.130801 |
[14] |
M. Karsai, M. Kivela, R. K. Pan, K. Kaski, J. Kertesz, A. L. Barabesi, J. Saramaki, Small but slow world: How network topology and burstiness slow down spreading, Phys. Rev. E, 83 (2010), 602–608. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.83.025102 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.83.025102
![]() |
[15] |
C. Castellano, R. Pastor-Satorras, Thresholds for epidemic spreading in networks, Phys. Rev. Lett., 105 (2010), 218701. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.218701 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.218701
![]() |
[16] |
G. Zhu, X. Fu, G. Chen, Global attractivity of a network-based epidemic SIS model with nonlinear infectivity, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simu., 17 (2021), 2588–2594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2011.08.039 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2011.08.039
![]() |
[17] | X. Yang, X. Yang, The spread of computer viruses over a reduced scale-free network, Physica A, 396 (2014), 173–184. |
[18] |
Z. Fu, X. Sun, Q. Liu, L. Zhou, J. Shu, Achieving efficient cloud search services: multi-keyword ranked search over encrypted cloud data supporting parallel computing, IEICE Trans. Commun., 98 (2015), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1587/transcom.E98.B.190 doi: 10.1587/transcom.E98.B.190
![]() |
[19] |
Q. Liu, W. Cai, J. Shen, Z. Fu, X. Liu, N. Linge, A speculative approach to spatial-temporal efficiency with multi-objective optimization in a heterogeneous cloud environment, Secur. Commun. Netw., 9 (2016), 4002–4012. https://doi.org/10.1002/sec.1582 doi: 10.1002/sec.1582
![]() |
[20] |
C. Gan, Modeling and analysis of the effect of network eigenvalue on viral spread, Nonlinear Dyn., 84 (2016), 1727–1733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-016-2600-0 doi: 10.1007/s11071-016-2600-0
![]() |
[21] |
J. Amador, J. R. Artalejo, Stochastic modeling of computer virus spreading with warning signals, J. Franklin I., 350 (2013), 1112–1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfranklin.2013.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2013.02.008
![]() |
[22] |
W. Liu, S. Zhong, Web malware spread modelling and optimal control strategies, Sci. Rep., 7 (2017), 42308. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42308 doi: 10.1038/srep42308
![]() |
[23] |
H. Yuan, G. Liu, G. Chen, On modeling the crowding and psychological effects in network-virus prevalence with nonlinear epidemic model, Appl. Math. Comput., 219 (2012), 2387–2397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2012.07.059 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2012.07.059
![]() |
[24] | J. H. He, Recent development of the homotopy perterbation method, Topol. Method. Nonl. An., 31 (2008), 205–209. |
[25] | F. Cohen, Computer viruses: Theory and experiments, Comput. Secur., 6 (1987), 22–35. |
[26] | J. O. Kephart, S. R. White, Directed-graph epidemiological models of computer viruses, Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Symp. Res. Secur. Privacy, 1991,343–358. https://doi.org/10.1109/RISP.1991.130801 |
[27] | J. O. Kephart, S. R. White, Measuring and modeling computer virus prevalence, Proc. IEEE Comput. Soc. Symp. Res. Secur. Privacy, Oakland, Calif, USA, 1993, 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/RISP.1993.287647 |
[28] |
B. K. Mishra, N. Jha, Fixed period of temporary immunity after run of anti-malicious software on computer nodes, Appl. Math. Comput., 190 (2007), 1207–1212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2007.02.004 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2007.02.004
![]() |
[29] |
B. K. Mishra, D. K. Saini, SEIRS epidemic model with delay for transmission of malicious objects in computer network, Appl. Math. Comput., 188 (2007), 1476–1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2006.11.012 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2006.11.012
![]() |
[30] |
J. R. C. Piqueira, B. F. Navarro, H. A. M. Luiz, Epidemiological models applied to viruses in computer networks, J. Comput. Sci., 1 (2005), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.3844/jcssp.2005.31.34 doi: 10.3844/jcssp.2005.31.34
![]() |
[31] | B. K. Mishra, G. M. Ansari, Differential epidemic model of virus and worms in computer network, Int. J. Netw. Secur., 14 (2012), 149–155. |
[32] |
F. W. Wang, Y. K. Zhang, C. G. Wang, J. F. Ma, S. Moon, Stability analysis of a SEIQV epidemic model for rapid spreading worms, Comput. Secur., 29 (2010), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2009.10.002 doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2009.10.002
![]() |
[33] |
Z. Iqbal, N. Ahmed, D. Baleanu, M. Rafiq, M. S. Iqbal, M. A. Rehman, Structure preserving computational technique for fractional order Schnakenberg model, Comp. Appl. Math., 39 (2020), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-020-1068-1 doi: 10.1007/s40314-020-1068-1
![]() |
[34] |
R. Scherer, S. Kalla, Y. Tang, J. Huang, The Grunwald-letnikov method for fractional differential equations, Comput. Math. Appl., 62 (2011), 902–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2011.03.054 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2011.03.054
![]() |
[35] |
A. A. M. Arafa, S. Z. Rida, M. Khalil, A fractional-order model of HIV infection: Numerical solution and comparisons with data of patients, Int. J. Biomath., 7 (2014), 1450036. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793524514500363 doi: 10.1142/S1793524514500363
![]() |
[36] |
C. V. Leon, Volterra Lyapunov functions for fractional-order epidemic systems, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 24 (2015), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2014.12.013 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2014.12.013
![]() |
[37] |
J. Alba-Pérez, J. E. Macías-Díaz, A finite-difference discretization preserving the structure of solutions of a diffusive model of type-1 human immunodeficiency virus, Adv. Differ. Equ., 158 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-021-03322-y doi: 10.1186/s13662-021-03322-y
![]() |
[38] |
Z. Masood, M. A. Z. Raja, N. I. Chaudhary, K. M. Cheema, A. H. Milyani, Fractional dynamics of stuxnet virus propagation in industrial control systems, Mathematics, 9 (2021), 2160. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9172160 doi: 10.3390/math9172160
![]() |
[39] |
K. Mukdasai, Z. Sabir, M. A. Z. Raja, R. Sadat, M. R. Ali, P. Singkibud, A numerical simulation of the fractional order Leptospirosis model using the supervise neural network, Alex. Eng. J., 61 (2022), 12431–12441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2022.06.013 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2022.06.013
![]() |
[40] |
Z. Sabir, T. Botmart, M. A. Z. Raja, W. Weera, An advanced computing scheme for the numerical investigations of an infection-based fractional-order nonlinear prey-predator system, Plos One, 17 (2022), e0265064. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265064 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265064
![]() |
[41] |
B. Souayeh, Z. Sabir, M. Umar, M. W. Alam, Supervised neural network procedures for the novel fractional food supply model, Fractal Fract., 6 (2022), 333. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6060333 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract6060333
![]() |
[42] |
Z. Sabir, M. Munawar, M. A. Abdelkawy, M. A. Z. Raja, C. Unlu, M. B. Jeelani, et al., Numerical investigations of the fractional-order mathematical model underlying immune-chemotherapeutic treatment for breast cancer using the neural networks, Fractal Fract., 6 (2022), 184. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6040184 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract6040184
![]() |
[43] |
Z. Sabir, M. A. Z. Raja, N. Mumtaz, I. Fathurrochman, R. Sadat, M. R. Ali, An investigation through stochastic procedures for solving the fractional order computer virus propagation mathematical model with kill signals, Neural Process. Lett., 2022, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11063-022-10963-x doi: 10.1007/s11063-022-10963-x
![]() |
[44] | P. Kumar, V. S. Erturk, A. Kumar, M. Inc, A new technique to solve generalized Caputo-type fractional differential equations with the example of computer virus model, J. Math. Ext., 15 (2021), 1–23. |
[45] |
P. Kumar, V. S. Erturk, M. Vellappandi, H. Trinh, V. Govindaraj, A study on the maize streak virus epidemic model by using optimized linearization-based predictor-corrector method in Caputo sense, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 158 (2022), 112067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112067 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112067
![]() |
[46] |
P. Kumar, V. Govindaraj, V. S. Erturk, A novel mathematical model to describe the transmission dynamics of tooth cavity in the human population, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 161 (2022), 112370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112370 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112370
![]() |
1. | H R Marasi, M H Derakhshan, A Soltani Joujehi, Pushpendra Kumar, Higher-order fractional linear multi-step methods, 2023, 98, 0031-8949, 024004, 10.1088/1402-4896/acad42 | |
2. | Ghazaleh Aliasghari, Hamid Mesgarani, Omid Nikan, Zakieh Avazzadeh, On Fractional Order Model of Tumor Growth with Cancer Stem Cell, 2022, 7, 2504-3110, 27, 10.3390/fractalfract7010027 | |
3. | Savas Takan, Gokmen Katipoglu, Novel Metrics for Mutation Analysis, 2023, 46, 0267-6192, 2075, 10.32604/csse.2023.036791 | |
4. | Eman Rezk, May Haggag, Mohamed Eltorki, Wael El-Dakhakhni, A comprehensive review of artificial intelligence methods and applications in skin cancer diagnosis and treatment: Emerging trends and challenges, 2023, 4, 27724425, 100259, 10.1016/j.health.2023.100259 | |
5. | M.H. Heydari, D. Baleanu, A numerical approach based on the Chebyshev polynomials for tempered time fractional coupled Burger’s equations, 2024, 104, 11100168, 349, 10.1016/j.aej.2024.06.051 | |
6. | K. Haritha, S. Shailesh, M. V. Judy, K. S. Ravichandran, Raghunathan Krishankumar, Amir H. Gandomi, A novel neural network model with distributed evolutionary approach for big data classification, 2023, 13, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-023-37540-z | |
7. | M.H. Heydari, M. Razzaghi, Jacobi polynomials method for a coupled system of Hadamard fractional Klein–Gordon–Schrödinger equations, 2024, 107, 11100168, 73, 10.1016/j.aej.2024.07.016 | |
8. | Ebrahem A. Algehyne, Musaad S. Aldhabani, Mounirah Areshi, Essam R. El-Zahar, Abdelhalim Ebaid, Hind K. Al-Jeaid, A Proposed Application of Fractional Calculus on Time Dilation in Special Theory of Relativity, 2023, 11, 2227-7390, 3343, 10.3390/math11153343 | |
9. | Pshtiwan Othman Mohammed, Hari Mohan Srivastava, Dumitru Baleanu, Eman Al-Sarairah, Soubhagya Kumar Sahoo, Nejmeddine Chorfi, Monotonicity and positivity analyses for two discrete fractional-order operator types with exponential and Mittag–Leffler kernels, 2023, 35, 10183647, 102794, 10.1016/j.jksus.2023.102794 | |
10. | Kumbinarasaiah Srinivasa, Harishchandra Sona Ramane, Ravikiran Ashok Mundewadi, Raju Basavaraj Jummannaver, Solutions of differential equations using linearly independent Hosoya polynomials of trees, 2024, 2, 2956-7068, 13, 10.2478/ijmce-2024-0002 | |
11. | Muhammad Asif Zahoor Raja, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Muhammad Shoaib, Marwan Abukhaled, Aqsa Riaz, Intelligent computing for MHD radiative Von Kármán Casson nanofluid along Darcy-Fochheimer medium with activation energy, 2023, 9, 24058440, e20911, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20911 | |
12. | Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Fizza Sahar, Muhammad Asif Zahoor Raja, Muhammad Shoaib, Intelligent neuro-computing to analyze the awareness programs of fractional epidemic system outbreaks, 2023, 35, 10183647, 102691, 10.1016/j.jksus.2023.102691 | |
13. | H. Alaeiyan, M.R. Mosavi, A. Ayatollahi, Hybrid noise removal to improve the accuracy of inertial sensors using lifting wavelet transform optimized by genetic algorithm, 2023, 80, 11100168, 326, 10.1016/j.aej.2023.08.069 | |
14. | M.H. Heydari, D. Baleanu, A new strategy based on the logarithmic Chebyshev cardinal functions for Hadamard time fractional coupled nonlinear Schrödinger–Hirota equations, 2024, 135, 10075704, 108018, 10.1016/j.cnsns.2024.108018 | |
15. | Fazal Dayan, Nauman Ahmed, Muhammad Rafiq, Ali Raza, Ilyas Khan, Elsayed Mohamed Tag eldin, A reliable numerical investigation of an SEIR model of measles disease dynamics with fuzzy criteria, 2023, 13, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-023-42953-x | |
16. | Khalid I.A. Ahmed, Haroon D.S. Adam, M.Y. Youssif, Sayed Saber, Different strategies for diabetes by mathematical modeling: Modified Minimal Model, 2023, 80, 11100168, 74, 10.1016/j.aej.2023.07.050 | |
17. | Linji Yang, Qiankun Song, Yurong Liu, Dynamics analysis of a new fractional-order SVEIR-KS model for computer virus propagation: Stability and Hopf bifurcation, 2024, 598, 09252312, 128075, 10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128075 | |
18. | Zhixiang Liu, Yunhao Zhao, Shaohua Shi, Yang Wang, A regularized lattice Boltzmann method based on the multi-layer grid using a buffer scheme, 2024, 35, 0129-1831, 10.1142/S0129183124501171 | |
19. | Mohammad Hossein Heydari, Dumitru Baleanu, An efficient discrete Chebyshev polynomials strategy for tempered time fractional nonlinear Schrödinger problems, 2024, 20901232, 10.1016/j.jare.2024.11.014 | |
20. | IMTIAZ AHMAD, ASMIDAR ABU BAKAR, HIJAZ AHMAD, AZIZ KHAN, THABET ABDELJAWAD, INVESTIGATING VIRUS SPREAD ANALYSIS IN COMPUTER NETWORKS WITH ATANGANA–BALEANU FRACTIONAL DERIVATIVE MODELS, 2024, 32, 0218-348X, 10.1142/S0218348X24400437 | |
21. | Imtiaz Ahmad, Asmidar Abu Bakar, Rashid Jan, Salman Yussof, Dynamic behaviors of a modified computer virus model: Insights into parameters and network attributes, 2024, 103, 11100168, 266, 10.1016/j.aej.2024.06.009 | |
22. | Ali Akgül, Nauman Ahmed, Sadiya Ali Rano, Qasem Al-Mdallal, A hybrid fractional model for cervical cancer due to human papillomavirus infection, 2025, 26662027, 101098, 10.1016/j.ijft.2025.101098 | |
23. | M.H. Heydari, D. Baleanu, M. Bayram, Discrete Legendre polynomials method to solve the coupled nonlinear Caputo–Hadamard fractional Ginzburg–Landau equations, 2025, 22113797, 108147, 10.1016/j.rinp.2025.108147 |