Stochastic analysis for measles transmission with Lévy noise: a case study

Asad Khan; Anwarud Din; Asad Khan; Anwarud Din

doi:10.3934/math.2023952

AIMS Mathematics

2023, Volume 8, Issue 8: 18696-18716. doi: 10.3934/math.2023952

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Stochastic analysis for measles transmission with Lévy noise: a case study

Asad Khan ^{1
,
,},
Anwarud Din ^{2
,
,}

1.
School of Computer Science and Cyber Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
2.
Department of Mathematics, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China

Received: 02 April 2023 Revised: 10 May 2023 Accepted: 16 May 2023 Published: 02 June 2023
MSC : 60J65, 60E05, 60K37

In this paper, we deal with a Lévy noise-driven epidemic model reflecting the dynamics of measles infection subject to the effect of vaccination. After model formulation, the feasibility of the system was studied by using the underlying existence and uniqueness theory. Moreover, we discussed the behavior of solution around the infection-free and disease-present steady states. To check the persistence and extinction of the infection, we calculated the threshold parameter ${\bf R_s}$ and it was determined that the disease vanishes whenever ${\bf R_s} < 1$ . From January to October 2019, the reported measles cases in Pakistan wear used and the model was fitted against this data by using the well-known fitting techniques. The values of the parameter were estimated and future behavior of the infection was predicted by simulating the model. The model was further simulated and theoretical findings of the study were validated.

Keywords:

Citation: Asad Khan, Anwarud Din. Stochastic analysis for measles transmission with Lévy noise: a case study[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18696-18716. doi: 10.3934/math.2023952

Related Papers:

[1]	Batirkhan Turmetov, Valery Karachik . On solvability of some inverse problems for a nonlocal fourth-order parabolic equation with multiple involution. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 6832-6849. doi: 10.3934/math.2024333
[2]	M. J. Huntul, Kh. Khompysh, M. K. Shazyndayeva, M. K. Iqbal . An inverse source problem for a pseudoparabolic equation with memory. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 14186-14212. doi: 10.3934/math.2024689
[3]	Bauyrzhan Derbissaly, Makhmud Sadybekov . Inverse source problem for multi-term time-fractional diffusion equation with nonlocal boundary conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 9969-9988. doi: 10.3934/math.2024488
[4]	Arivazhagan Anbu, Sakthivel Kumarasamy, Barani Balan Natesan . Lipschitz stability of an inverse problem for the Kawahara equation with damping. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 4529-4545. doi: 10.3934/math.2020291
[5]	Yilihamujiang Yimamu, Zui-Cha Deng, Liu Yang . An inverse volatility problem in a degenerate parabolic equation in a bounded domain. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 19237-19266. doi: 10.3934/math.20221056
[6]	Ahmed M.A. El-Sayed, Eman M.A. Hamdallah, Hameda M. A. Alama . Multiple solutions of a Sturm-Liouville boundary value problem of nonlinear differential inclusion with nonlocal integral conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 11150-11164. doi: 10.3934/math.2022624
[7]	Murat A. Sultanov, Vladimir E. Misilov, Makhmud A. Sadybekov . Numerical method for solving the subdiffusion differential equation with nonlocal boundary conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 36385-36404. doi: 10.3934/math.20241726
[8]	Abdelkader Laiadi, Abdelkrim Merzougui . Free surface flows over a successive obstacles with surface tension and gravity effects. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(2): 316-326. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.2.316
[9]	A. M. A. El-Sayed, W. G. El-Sayed, Somyya S. Amrajaa . On a boundary value problem of arbitrary orders differential inclusion with nonlocal, integral and infinite points boundary conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 3896-3911. doi: 10.3934/math.2022215
[10]	Lin Fan, Shunchu Li, Dongfeng Shao, Xueqian Fu, Pan Liu, Qinmin Gui . Elastic transformation method for solving the initial value problem of variable coefficient nonlinear ordinary differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 11972-11991. doi: 10.3934/math.2022667

Abstract

1. Introduction

Modern problems of natural science lead to the need to generalize the classical problems of mathematical physics, as well as to the formulation of qualitatively new problems, which include non-local problems for differential equations. Among nonlocal problems, problems with integral conditions are of great interest. Integral conditions are encountered in the study of physical phenomena in the case when the boundary of the process flow region is inaccessible for direct measurements. Inverse problems arise in various fields of human activity, such as seismology, mineral exploration, biology, medical visualization, computed tomography, earth remote sensing, spectral analysis, nondestructive control, etc. Various inverse problems for certain types of partial differential equations have been studied in many works. A more detailed bibliography and a classification of problems are found in ^[1,2,3,4,5]. Inverse problems for one-dimensional pseudo-parabolic equations of third-order were studied in ^[6]. The existence and uniqueness of the solution of the inverse problem for the third order pseudoparabolic equation with integral over-determination condition is studied in ^[7]. Khompysh ^[8] investigated the reconstruction of unknown coefficient in pseudo-parabolic inverse problem with the integral over determination condition and studied the uniqueness and existence of solution by means of method of successive approximations. Studies of wave propagation in cold plasma and magnetohydrodynamics also reduce to the partial differential equations of fourth-order. To the study of nonlocal boundary value problems (including integral conditions) for partial differential equations of the fourth-order are devoted large number of works, see, for example, ^[9,10]. It should be noted that boundary value problems with integral conditions are of particular interest. From physical considerations, the integral conditions are completely natural, and they arise in mathematical modelling in cases where it is impossible to obtain information about the process occurring at the boundary of the region of its flow using direct measurements or when it is possible to measure only some averaged (integral) characteristics of the desired quantity.

In this article, we study the an inverse boundary value problem for a fourth order pseudo parabolic equation with periodic and integral condition to identify the time-dependent coefficients along with the solution function theoretically, i.e. existence and uniqueness.

Statement of the problem and its reduction to an equivalent problem. In the domain $D_{T} = \{ (x, t):0\le x\le 1, \, \, 0\le t\le T\}$ , we consider an inverse boundary value problem of recovering the timewise dependent coefficients $p(t)$ in the pseudo-parabolic equation of the fourth-order

$\begin{equation} u_{t} (x, t)-bu_{txx} (x, t)+a(t)u_{xxxx} (x, t) = p(t)u(x, t)+f(x, t) \end{equation}$

(1.1)

with the initial condition

$\begin{equation} u(x, 0)+\delta u(x, T) = \varphi (x)\, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, (0\le x\le 1), \end{equation}$

(1.2)

boundary conditions

$\begin{equation} u(0, t) = u(1, t), u_{x} (0, t) = u_{x} (1, t), u_{xx} (0, t) = u_{xx} (1, t)\, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T), \end{equation}$

(1.3)

nonlocal integral condition

$\begin{equation} \int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)dx = 0 (0\le t\le T) \end{equation}$

(1.4)

and with an additional condition

$\begin{equation} u(0, t) = \int _{0}^{t}\gamma (\tau )u(1, \tau )d\tau + h(t)\, \, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T), \end{equation}$

(1.5)

where $b > 0$ , $\delta \ge 0$ -given numbers, $a(t) > 0, \, \, f(x, t), \, \, \varphi (x), \, \, \gamma (\tau), h(t)$ -given functions, $u(x, t)$ and $p(t)$ - required functions.

Denote

$\bar{C}^{4, 1} (D_{T} ) = \left\{u(x, t):u(x, t)\in C^{2, 1} (D_{T} ), u_{txx} , u_{xxxx} \in C(D_{T} )\right\}.$

Definition.By the classical solution of the inverse boundary value problem (1.1)-(1.5)we mean the pair $\left\{u(x, t), p(t)\right\}$ functions $u(x, t)\in \bar{C}^{4, 1} \left(D_{T} \right)$ , $p(t)\in C\left[0, T\right]$ satisfying equation (1.1) in $D_{T}$ , condition (1.2) in [0, 1] and conditions (1.3)-(1.5) in [0, T].

Theorem 1. Let be $b > 0, \, \, \delta \ge 0, \, \, \,$ $\, \, \varphi (x)\in C\, [0, 1], \, \, \,$ $f(x, t)\in C(D_{T})$ , $\int _{0}^{1}f(x, t)dx = 0$ , $\, 0 < a(t)\in C\, [0, T], \,$ $h(t)\in C^{1} [0, T],$ $h(t)\ne 0\,$ $\, (0\le t\le T)$ , $\gamma (t)\in C\, [0, T], \,$ $\delta \gamma (t) = 0$ $\, (0\le t\le T)$ and

$\int _{0}^{1}\varphi (x)dx = 0, \varphi (0) = h(0)+\delta h(T).$

Then the problem of finding a solution to problem (1.1)-(1.5) is equivalent to the problem of determining the functions $u(x, t)\in \bar{C}^{4, 1} (D_{T})$ and $p(t)\in C[0, T]$ , from (1.1)-(1.3) and

$\begin{equation} u_{xxx} (0, t) = u_{xxx} (1, t)\, \, \, \, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T), \end{equation}$

(1.6)

$\gamma (t)u(1, t)+h'(t)-bu_{txx} (0, t)+a(t)u_{xxxx} (0, t) =$

$\begin{equation} = p(t)\left(\int _{0}^{t}\gamma (\tau )u(1, \tau )d\tau + h(t)\, \right)\, +f(0, t)\, \, \, (0\le t\le T). \end{equation}$

(1.7)

Proof. Let be $\{ u(x, t), \, p(t)\}$ is a classical solution to problem (1.1)-(1.5). Integrating equation (1.1) with respect to $x$ from 0 to 1, we get:

$\frac{d}{dt} \int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)dx -b(u_{tx} (1, t)-u_{tx} (0, t))+a(t)(u_{xxx} (1, t)-u_{xxx} (0, t)) =$

$\begin{equation} = p(t)\int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)dx +\int _{0}^{1}f(x, t)dx \, \, \, (0\le t\le T). \end{equation}$

(1.8)

Assuming that $\int _{0}^{1}f(x, t)dx = 0$ , taking into account (1.3) and (1.4), we arrive at the fulfillment of (1.6).

Further, considering $h(t)\in C^{1} [0, T]$ and differentiating with respect to $t$ (1.5), we get:

$\begin{equation} u_{t} (0, t) = \gamma (t)u(1, t)+h'(t)\, \, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T) \end{equation}$

(1.9)

Substituting $x = 0$ into equation (1.1), we have:

$\begin{equation} u_{t} (0, t)-bu_{txx} (0, t)+a(t)u_{xxxx} (0, t) = p(t)u(0, t)+f(0, t)\, \, \, (0\le t\le T). \end{equation}$

(1.10)

Now, suppose that $\{ u(x, t), \, p(t)\}$ is a solution to problem (1.1)-(1.3), (1.6), (1.7). Then from (1.8), taking into account (1.3) and (1.6), we find:

$\begin{equation} \frac{d}{dt} \int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)dx -p(t)\int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)dx = 0\, \, \, (0\le t\le T). \end{equation}$

(1.11)

Due to (1.2) and $\int _{0}^{1}\varphi (x)dx = 0$ , it's obvious that

$\begin{equation} \int _{0}^{1}u(x, 0)dx +\delta \int _{0}^{1}u(x, T)dx = \int _{0}^{1}\varphi (x)dx = 0. \end{equation}$

(1.12)

Obviously, the general solution(1.11) has the form:

$\begin{equation} \int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)dx = ce^{-\int _{0}^{t}p(\tau )d\tau } \, \, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T). \end{equation}$

(1.13)

From here, taking into account (1.12), we obtain:

$\begin{equation} \int _{0}^{1}u(x, 0)dx +\delta \int _{0}^{1}u(x, T)dx = c(1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}p(\tau )d\tau } ) = 0. \end{equation}$

(1.14)

By virtue of $\delta \ge 0$ , from (1.14) we get that $c = 0$ , and substituting into (1.13) we conclude, that $\int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)dx = 0\, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T)$ . Therefore, condition (1.4) is also satisfied.

Further, from (1.7) and (1.10), we obtain:

$\frac{d}{dt} \left[u(0, t)-\, \left(\int _{0}^{t}\gamma (\tau )u(1, \tau )d\tau + h(t)\, \right)\, \right] =$

$\begin{equation} = p(t)\left[u(0, t)-\, \left(\int _{0}^{t}\gamma (\tau )u(1, \tau )d\tau + h(t)\, \right)\, \right]\, \, (0\le t\le T). \end{equation}$

(1.15)

Let introduce the notation:

$\begin{equation} y(t)\equiv u(0, t)-\, \left(\int _{0}^{t}\gamma (\tau )u(1, \tau )d\tau + h(t)\, \right)\, \, (0\le t\le T) \end{equation}$

(1.16)

and rewrite the last relation in the form:

$\begin{equation} y'(t)+p(t)y(t) = 0\, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T). \end{equation}$

(1.17)

From (1.16), taking into account (1.2), $\delta \gamma (t) = 0$ $\, (0\le t\le T)$ and $\varphi (0) = h(0)+\delta h(T)$ , it is easy to see that

$y(0)+\delta y(T) = \, u(0, 0)-h(0)+\delta \left[u(0, T)-\, \left(\int _{0}^{T}\gamma (\tau )u(1, \tau )d\tau + h(T)\, \right)\, \right] = u(0, 0)+$

$\begin{equation} +\delta u(0, T)-(h(0)+\delta h(T)\, )-\delta \int _{0}^{T}\gamma (\tau )u(1, \tau )d\tau = \varphi (0)-\left(h(0)+\delta h(T)\right) = 0. \end{equation}$

(1.18)

Obviously, the general solution (1.17) has the form:

$\begin{equation} y(t) = ce^{-\int _{0}^{t}p(\tau )d\tau } \, \, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T). \end{equation}$

(1.19)

From here, taking into account (1.18), we obtain:

$\begin{equation} y(0)+\delta y(T) = c(1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a_{0} (\tau )}{a_{1} (\tau )} d\tau } ) = 0. \end{equation}$

(1.20)

By virtue of $\delta \ge 0$ , from (1.20) we get that $c = 0$ , and substituting into (1.19) we conclude that $y(t) = 0\, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T)$ . Therefore, from (1.16) it is clear that the condition (1.5). The theorem has been proven.

2. The existence and uniqueness of the classical solution of the inverse boundary value problem.

It is known ^[5] that the system

$\begin{equation} 1, \cos \lambda _{1} x, \sin \lambda _{1} x, ..., \cos \lambda _{k} x, \sin \lambda _{k} x, ... \end{equation}$

(2.1)

forms the basis of $L_{2} (0, 1)$ , where $\lambda _{k} = 2k\pi \, \, \, \, (k = 0, 1, ...)$ .

Since system (2.1) forms a basis in $L_{2} (0, 1)$ , it is obvious that for each solution $\{ u(x, t), a(t)\} \,$ problem (1.1)–(1.3), (1.6), (1.7):

$\begin{equation} u(x, t) = \sum\limits _{k = 0}^{\infty }u_{1k} (t)\cos \lambda {}_{k} x +\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }u_{2k} (t)\sin \lambda {}_{k} x \, \, \, (\lambda _{k} = 2\pi k), \end{equation}$

(2.2)

where

$u_{10} (t) = \int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)dx\, \, \, , u_{1k} (t) = 2\int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)\cos \lambda _{k} xdx\, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)\, ,$

$u_{2k} (t) = 2\int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)\sin \lambda _{k} xdx\, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...).$

Applying the formal scheme of the Fourier method, to determine the desired coefficients $u_{1k} (t)\, \, \, \, (k = 0, 1, ...)$ and $u_{2k} (t)\, \, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)$ functions $u(x, t)$ from (1.1) and (1.2) we get:

$\begin{equation} u''_{10} (t) = F_{10} (t;u, p)\, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T) , \end{equation}$

(2.3)

$\begin{equation} (1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} )u'_{ik} (t)+a(t)\lambda _{k}^{4} u_{ik} (t) = F_{ik} (t;u, p)\, \, (i = 1, 2;\, 0\le t\le T;\, \, k = 1, 2, ...) , \end{equation}$

(2.4)

$\begin{equation} u_{10} (0)+\delta u_{10} (T) = \varphi _{10} \, \, \, , \end{equation}$

(2.5)

$\begin{equation} u_{ik} (0)+\delta u_{ik} (T) = \varphi _{ik} \, \, \, (\, i = 1, 2;\, k = 1, 2, ...), \end{equation}$

(2.6)

where

$F_{1k} (t;u, a, b) = p(t)u_{1k} (t)+f_{1k} (t)\, \, \, \, (k = 0, 1, ...)\, \, ,$

$f_{10} (t) = \int _{0}^{1}f(x, t)dx \, \, , f_{1k} (t) = 2\int _{0}^{1}f(x, t)\cos \lambda _{k} xdx \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)\, \, , \, \, \,$

$\varphi _{10} = \int _{0}^{1}\varphi (x)dx, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \varphi _{1k} = 2\int _{0}^{1}\varphi (x)\cos \lambda _{k} xdx\, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)\, ,$

$F_{2k} (t;u, a, b) = p(t)u_{2k} (t)+f_{2k} (t), \, \,$

$f_{2k} (t) = 2\int _{0}^{1}f(x, t)\sin \lambda _{k} xdx \, \, \, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)\, \, , \varphi _{2k} = 2\int _{0}^{1}\varphi (x)\sin \lambda _{k} xdx\, \, \, \, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)\, .$

Solving problem (2.3)-(2.6), we find:

$\begin{equation} u_{10} (t) = (1+\delta )^{-1} \left(\varphi _{10} -\delta \int _{0}^{T}F_{0} (\tau ;u, p)d\tau \right)+\int _{0}^{t}F_{10} (\tau ;u, p)d\tau \, \, (0\le t\le T), \end{equation}$

(2.7)

$u_{ik} (t) = \frac{e^{-\int _{0}^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } }{1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;dss } } \varphi _{ik} +\frac{1}{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \int _{0}^{t}F_{ik} (\tau ;u, p)e^{-\int _{\tau }^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } d\tau \, -$

$\begin{equation} -\frac{\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } }{1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } } \frac{1}{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \int _{0}^{T}F_{ik} (\tau ;u, p) e^{-\int _{\tau }^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } d\tau \, \, \, (i = 1, 2;0\le t\le T;k = 1, 2, ...). \end{equation}$

(2.8)

After substituting the expression $u_{1k} (t)\, \, \, \, (k = 0, \, 1, ...),$ $u_{2k} (t)\, \, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)$ in (2.2), to define a component $u(x, t)$ solution of problem (1.1)-(1.3), (1.6), (1.7), we obtain:

$u(x, t) = (1+\delta )^{-1} \left(\varphi _{0} -\delta \int _{0}^{T}F_{0} (\tau ;u, p)d\tau \right)+\int _{0}^{t}F_{0} (\tau ;u, p)d\tau \, +$

$+\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\left\{\frac{e^{-\int _{0}^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } }{1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;dss } } \varphi _{1k} \right. _{k} +\frac{1}{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \int _{0}^{t}F_{1k} (\tau ;u, p)e^{-\int _{\tau }^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } d\tau -$

$-\left. \frac{\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } }{1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } } \frac{1}{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \int _{0}^{T}F_{1k} (\tau ;u, p) e^{-\int _{\tau }^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } d\tau \right\}\, \, \cos \lambda _{k} x+$

$+\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\left\{\frac{e^{-\int _{0}^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda\; _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} } \;ds } }{1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda\; _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} } \;dss } } \varphi _{2k} \right. _{k} +\frac{1}{1+b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} } \int _{0}^{t}F_{2k} (\tau ;u, p)e^{-\int _{\tau }^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda\; _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} } \;ds } d\tau -$

$\begin{equation} -\left. \frac{\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda\; _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} } \;ds } }{1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s){\lambda\; _{k}^{4}} }{1+b{\lambda\; _{k}^{2}} } \;ds } } \frac{1}{1+b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} } \int _{0}^{T}F_{2k} (\tau ;u, p) e^{-\int _{\tau }^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda\; _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} } \;ds } d\tau \right\}\, \, \sin \lambda\; _{k} x. \end{equation}$

(2.9)

Now from (1.7), taking into account (2.2), we have:

$p(t) = \left[h(t)\right]^{-1} \left\{{\mathop{h'(t)-f(0, t)+\gamma (t)u_{10} (t)-}\limits_{}} \right. p(t)\int _{0}^{t}\gamma (\tau )u_{{}_{10} } (\tau )d\tau +$

$\begin{equation} +\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\left({\mathop{b\lambda _{k}^{2} u'_{1k} (t)+a(t)\lambda _{k}^{4} u_{1k} (t)+\gamma (t)u_{1k} (t)}\limits_{}} \right. -\left. p(t)\int _{0}^{t}\gamma (\tau )u_{{}_{1k} } (\tau )d\tau \right). \end{equation}$

(2.10)

Further, from (2.4), taking into account (2.8), we obtain:

$b\lambda _{k}^{2} u'_{1k} (t)+a(t)\lambda _{k}^{4} u_{1k} (t)+\gamma (t)u_{1k} (t) = F_{1k} (t;u, p)-u'_{1k} (t)+\gamma (t)u_{1k} (t) =$

$= \, \frac{b\lambda _{k}^{2} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } F_{1k} (t;u, p)+\left(\frac{a(t)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } +\gamma (t)\right)u_{1k} (t) =$

$\, = \frac{b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} }{1+b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} } F_{k} (t;u, p)+\left(\frac{a(t)\lambda\; _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} } +\gamma (t)\right)\left[\frac{e^{-\int _{0}^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda\; _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} } \;ds } }{1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda\; _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda\; _{k}^{2} } \;dss } } \varphi _{{}_{1k} } \right. +$

$+\frac{1}{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \int _{0}^{t}F_{1k} (\tau ;u, p)e^{-\int _{\tau }^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } d\tau \, -$

$\begin{equation} -\left. \frac{\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } }{1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } } \frac{1}{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \int _{0}^{T}F_{1k} (\tau ;u, p) e^{-\int _{\tau }^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } d\tau \, \right]\, \, (0\le t\le T;k = 1, 2, ...). \end{equation}$

(2.11)

$p(t) = \left[h(t)\right]^{-1} \left\{{\mathop{h'(t)-f(0, t)+}\limits_{}} \right. \,$

$+\gamma (t))\left[(1+\delta )^{-1} \left(\varphi _{10} -\delta \int _{0}^{T}F_{0} (\tau ;u, p)d\tau \right)+\int _{0}^{t}F_{10} (\tau ;u, p)d\tau \right]-$

$-p(t)\int _{0}^{t}\gamma (\tau )u_{{}_{10} } (\tau )d\tau +\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\left[\frac{b\lambda _{k}^{2} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } F_{1k} (t;u, p)\right. +$

$+\, \left(\frac{a(t)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } +\gamma (t)\right)\left[\frac{e^{-\int _{0}^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } }{1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} }\; dss } } \varphi _{1k} \right. +\frac{1}{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \int _{0}^{t}F_{1k} (\tau ;u, p)e^{-\int _{\tau }^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } d\tau \, -$

$+\frac{1}{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \int _{0}^{t}F_{1k} (\tau ;u, p)e^{-\int _{\tau }^{t}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } d\tau \, -$

$\begin{equation} \left. \left. +p(t)\int _{0}^{t}\gamma (\tau )u_{1k} (\tau )d\tau \, \right]\, \, \right\}. \end{equation}$

(2.12)

Thus, the solution of problem (1.1)–(1.3), (1.6), (1.7)is reduced to the solution of system (2.9), (2.12) with respect to unknown functions $u(x, t)$ and $p(t)$ .

To study the question of the uniqueness of the solution of problem (1.1)–(1.3), (1.6), (1.7) the following plays an important role.

Lemma 1. If $\{ u(x, t), \, p(t)\}$ -any solution of problem (1.1)–(1.3), (1.6), (1.7), then the functions

$u_{10} (t) = \int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)dx\, \, \, , u_{1k} (t) = 2\int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)\cos \lambda _{k} xdx\, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)\, ,$

$u_{2k} (t) = 2\int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)\sin \lambda _{k} xdx\, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)$

satisfy the system consisting of equations (27), (28) on $[0, T]$ .

It is obvious that if $u_{10} (t) = \int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)dx\, \, \, ,$ $u_{1k} (t) = 2\int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)\cos \lambda _{k} xdx\, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)\, ,$ $u_{2k} (t) = 2\int _{0}^{1}u(x, t)\sin \lambda _{k} xdx\, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)$ is a solution to system (2.7), (2.8), then the pair $\left\{u(x, t), p(t)\right\}$ functions $u(x, t) = \sum _{k = 0}^{\infty }u_{1k} (t)\cos \lambda {}_{k} x +\sum _{k = 1}^{\infty }u_{2k} (t)\sin \lambda {}_{k} x \, \, \, (\lambda _{k} = 2\pi k)$ and $p(t)$ is a solution to system (2.9), (2.12).

Consequence. Let system (29), (32) have a unique solution. Then problem (1.1)–(1.3), (1.6), (1.7) cannot have more than one solution, i.e. if problem (1.1)-(1.3), (1.6), (1.7) has a solution, then it is unique.

In order to study the problem (1.1)–(1.3), (1.6), (1.7) consider the following spaces.

Denote by $B_{2, T}^{\alpha }$ ^[6] the set of all functions of the form

$u(x, t) = \sum\limits _{k = 0}^{\infty }u_{1k} (t)\cos \lambda {}_{k} x +\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }u_{2k} (t)\sin \lambda {}_{k} x \, \, \, (\lambda _{k} = 2\pi k),$

considered in $D_{T}$ , where each of the functions $u_{1k} (t)\, \, \, \, (k = 0, \, 1, ...),$ $u_{2k} (t)\, \, \, \, (k = 1, 2, ...)$ continuous on $[0, T]$ and

$J(u) = \left\| u_{10} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} +\left\{\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\left(\lambda _{k}^{\alpha } \left\| u_{1k} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \right)^{2} \right\}^{\frac{1}{2} } +\left\{\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\left(\lambda _{k}^{\alpha } \left\| u_{2k} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \right)^{2} \right\}^{\frac{1}{2} } < +\infty ,$

$\alpha \ge 0$ . We define the norm in this set as follows:

$\left\| u(x, t)\right\| _{B_{2, T}^{\alpha } } = J(u).$

Through $E_{T}^{\alpha}$ denote the space $B_{2, T}^{\alpha } \times C[0, T]$ vector - functions $z(x, t) = \{ u(x, t), \, p(t)\}$ with norm

$\left\| z(x, t)\right\| _{E_{T}^{\alpha } } = \left\| u(x, t)\right\| _{B_{2, T}^{\alpha } } +\left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} .$

It is known that $B_{2, T}^{\alpha }$ and $E_{T}^{\alpha }$ are Banach spaces.

Now consider in space $E_{T}^{5}$ operator

$\Phi (u, p) = \left\{\Phi _{1} (u, p), \Phi _{2} (u, p)\right\}\, ,$

operator

$\Phi _{1} (u, p)) = \tilde{u}(x, t)\equiv \sum\limits _{k = 0}^{\infty }\tilde{u}_{1k} (t)\cos \lambda {}_{k} x +\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\tilde{u}_{2k} (t)\sin \lambda {}_{k} x \, \, , \Phi _{2} (u, p) = \tilde{p}(t),$

$\tilde{u}_{10} (t), \tilde{u}_{ik} (t)\, \, \, \, \, (i = 1, 2;\, \, k = 1, 2, ...), \, \, \tilde{p}(t)$ are equal to the right-hand sides of (2.7), (2.8) and (2.12), respectively.

It is easy to see that

$1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} > b\lambda _{k}^{2} , \, \, \, \, 1+\delta \ge 1, . 1+\delta e^{-\int _{0}^{T}\frac{a(s)\lambda _{k}^{4} }{1+b\lambda _{k}^{2} } \;ds } \ge 1.$

Then, we have:

$\begin{equation} \left\| \tilde{u}_{0} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \le \left|\varphi _{10} \right|+(1+\delta )\sqrt{T} \left(\int _{0}^{T}\left|f_{10} (\tau )\right|^{2} d\tau \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } +(1+\delta )T\left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left\| u_{10} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \, , \end{equation}$

(2.13)

$\left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }(\lambda _{k}^{5} \left\| \tilde{u}_{ik} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} )^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } \le \sqrt{3} \left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }(\lambda _{k}^{5} \left|\varphi _{ik} \right|)^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } \\+\frac{\sqrt{3} (1+\delta )}{b} \sqrt{T} \left(\int _{0}^{T}\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }(\lambda _{k}^{3} \left|f_{ik} (\tau )\right|)^{2} d\tau \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } +\,$

$\begin{equation} +\frac{\sqrt{3} (1+\delta )}{b} T\left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }(\lambda _{k}^{5} \left\| u_{ik} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} )^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } \, \, (i = 1, 2) , \end{equation}$

(2.14)

$\left\| \tilde{p}(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \le \left\| [h(t)]^{-1} \right\| _{C[0, T]} \left\{\left\| h'(t)-f(0, t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} +\right.$

$+\left\| \gamma (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left[\left|\varphi _{0} \right|+(1+\delta )\sqrt{T} \left(\int _{0}^{T}\left|f_{0} (\tau )\right|^{2} d\tau \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } +(1+\delta )T\left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left\| u_{0} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \right]+$

$+T\left\| \gamma (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left\| u_{{}_{10} } (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} +$

$+\left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\lambda _{k}^{-2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } \left[\left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\left(\lambda _{k} \left\| f_{1k} (t)\right\| \right)_{C[0, T]}^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } \right. +\left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }(\lambda _{k}^{3} \left\| u_{1k} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} )^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } +$

$\begin{equation*} +\left(\left\| \gamma (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} +\frac{1}{b} \left\| a(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \right)\left[\left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }(\lambda _{k}^{3} \left|\varphi _{1k} \right|)^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } \right. \, +\, \frac{\sqrt{T} (1+\delta )}{b} \left(\int _{0}^{T}\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }(\lambda _{k} \left|f_{1k} (\tau )\right|)^{2} d\tau \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } + \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} +\, \frac{T(1+\delta )}{b} \left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left. \left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }(\lambda _{k}^{5} \left\| u_{1k} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} )^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } \right]\, +\left. \\+T\left\| \gamma (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left. \left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }(\lambda _{k}^{5} \left\| u_{1k} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} )^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } \right]\right\} . \end{equation}$

(2.15)

Let us assume that the data of problem (1.1)–(1.3), (1.6), (1.7) satisfy the following conditions:

$1. \varphi (x)\in W_{2} {}^{(5)} (0, 1), \, \, \, \, \varphi (0) = \varphi (1), \varphi '(0) = \varphi '(1), \,$

$\varphi ''(0) = \varphi ''(1), \, \, \varphi '''(0) = \varphi '''(1), \, \, \varphi ^{(4)} (0) = \varphi ^{(4)} (1);$

$2. f(x, t), \, \, \, f_{x} (x, t), \, \, \, f_{xx} (x, t)\in C(D_{T} ), \, \, \, f_{xxx} (x, t)\in L_{2} (D_{T} )\, , \,$

$\, f(0, t) = \, \, \, f(1, t)\, \, , f_{x} (0, t) = \, \, \, f_{x} (1, t)\, , \, \, f_{xx} (0, t) = \, \, \, f_{xx} (1, t)\, \, \, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T);$

$3. b > 0, \, \, \delta \ge 0, \, \, \gamma (t), \, \, \, a(t)\in C[0, T], \, \, \, \, h(t)\in C^{1} [0, T], \, \, \, \, \, h(t)\ne 0\, \, \, \, \, \, (0\le t\le T).$

Then from (2.10)–(2.12), we have:

$\begin{equation} \left\| \tilde{u}(x, t)\right\| _{B_{2, T}^{5} } \le A_{1} (T)+B_{1} (T)\left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left\| u(x, t)\right\| _{B_{2, T}^{5} } , \end{equation}$

(2.16)

$\begin{equation} \left\| \tilde{p}(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \le A_{2} (T)+B_{2} (T)\left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left\| u(x, t)\right\| _{B_{2, T}^{5} } , \end{equation}$

(2.17)

where

$A_{1} (T) = \left\| \varphi (x)\right\| _{L_{2} (0, 1)} +(1+\delta )\sqrt{T} \left\| f(x, t)\right\| _{L_{2} (D_{T} )} +2\sqrt{3} \left\| \varphi ^{(5)} (x)\right\| _{L_{2} (0, 1)} +$

$\, +\frac{2\sqrt{3} }{b} (1+\delta )\sqrt{T} \left\| f_{xxx} (x, t)\right\| _{L_{2} (D_{T} )} , \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, B_{1} (T) = (1+\delta )\left(1+\frac{\sqrt{3} }{b} \right)T,$

$A_{2} (T) = \left\| [h(t)]^{-1} \right\| _{C[0, T]} \left\{\left\| h'(t)-f(0, t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} +\right.$

$+\left\| \gamma (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \, \left({\mathop{\left\| \varphi (x)\right\| _{L_{2} (0, 1)} +(1+\delta )\sqrt{T} \left\| f(x, t)\right\| _{L_{2} (D_{T} )} }\limits_{}} \right)+\,$

$+\, \left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\lambda _{k}^{-2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } \left[\left\| \left\| f_{x} (x, t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \right\| _{L_{2} (0, 1)} \right. \, +$

$\, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, \, +\, \, \left(\left\| \gamma (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} +\frac{1}{b} \left\| a(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \right)\, \left. \left. \left(\left\| \varphi ^{(3)} (x)\right\| _{L_{2} (0, 1)} +\frac{\sqrt{T} (1+\delta )}{b} \left\| f_{x} (x, t)\right\| _{L_{2} (D_{T} )} \right)\right]\right\},$

$\begin{array}{l} {B_{2} (T) = \left\| [h(t)]^{-1} \right\| _{C[0, T]} \left(\sum _{k = 1}^{\infty }\lambda _{k}^{-2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } \left[\left(\left\| \gamma (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} +\frac{1}{b} \left\| a(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \right)\right. \frac{T(2+\delta )}{b} +} \\ {\, \, } \end{array}$

$\left. {\mathop{+T\left\| \gamma (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} +1}\limits_{}} \right].$

From inequalities (2.16), (2.17) we conclude:

$\begin{equation} \left\| u(x, t)\right\| _{B_{2, T}^{5} } +\left\| \tilde{p}(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \le A(T)+B(T)\left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left\| u(x, t)\right\| _{B_{2, T}^{5} } , \end{equation}$

(2.18)

$A(T) = A_{1} (T)+A_{2} (T), \, \, B(T) = B_{1} (T)+B_{2} (T).$

We can prove the following theorem.

Theorem 2. Let conditions 1-3 be satisfied and

$\begin{equation} (A(T)+2)^{2} B(T) < 1. \end{equation}$

(2.19)

Then problem (1.1)–(1.3), (1.6), (1.7) has in $K = K_{R} (\left\| z\right\| _{E_{T}^{5} } \le R = A(T)+2)$ in the space $E_{T}^{5}$ only one solution.

Proof. In space $E_{T}^{5}$ consider the equation

$\begin{equation} z = \Phi z, \end{equation}$

(2.20)

where $z = \{ u, p\}$ , components $P$ $\Phi _{1} (u, p), \Phi _{2} (u, p)$ of operators $\Phi (u, p)$ are defined by the right-hand sides of equations (2.9) and (2.12).

Consider the operator $\Phi (u, p)$ in a ball $K = K_{R}$ from $E_{T}^{5} \,$ . Similarly to (2.18) we obtain that for any $z = \{ u, p\}$ , $z_{1} = \{ u_{1}, p_{1} \}$ , $z_{2} = \{ u_{2}, p_{2} \} \in K_{R}$ :

$\begin{equation} \left\| \Phi z\right\| _{E_{T}^{5} } \le A(T)+B(T)\left\| p(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left\| u(x, t)\right\| _{B_{2, T}^{5} } , \end{equation}$

(2.21)

$\begin{equation} \left\| \Phi z_{1} -\Phi z_{2} \right\| _{E_{T}^{5} } \le B(T)R(\left\| p_{1} (t)-p_{2} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} +\left\| u_{1} (x, t)-u_{2} (x, t)\right\| _{B_{2, T}^{5} } ). \end{equation}$

(2.22)

Then from estimates (2.21), (2.22), taking into account (2.19), it follows that the operator $\Phi$ acts in a ball $K = K_{R}$ and is contractive. Therefore, in the ball $K = K_{R}$ operator $\Phi$ has a single fixed point $\{ u, p\}$ , which is the only one in the ball $K = K_{R}$ solution of equation (2.20), i.e. is the only one solution in the ball $K = K_{R}$ of system (2.9), (2.12) in the ball.

Functions $u(x, t)$ , as an element of space $B_{2, T}^{5}$ is continuous and has continuous derivatives $\, u_{x} (x, t), \, u_{xx} (x, t)$ , $\, u_{xxx} (x, t), \, u_{xxxx} (x, t)$ in $D_{T}$ .

From (2.4), it is easy to see that

$\left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\left(\lambda _{k}^{} \left\| u'_{ik} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \right)^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } \le \frac{\sqrt{2} }{b} \left\| a(t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \left(\sum\limits _{k = 1}^{\infty }\left(\lambda _{k}^{5} \left\| u_{ik} (t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \right)^{2} \right)^{\frac{1}{2} } +$

$+\frac{\sqrt{2} }{b} \left\| \left\| f_{x} (x, t)+p(t)u_{x} (x, t)\right\| _{C[0, T]} \right\| _{L_{2} (0, 1)} \, \, (i = 1, 2).$

Hence it follows that $u_{t} (x, t)$ and $u_{txx}$ continuous in $D_{T}$ .

It is easy to check that equation (1.1) and conditions (1.2), (1.3), (1.6), (1.7) are satisfied in the usual sense. Consequently, $\{ u(x, t), p(t)\}$ is a solution to problem (1.1)–(1.3), (1.6), (1.7). By the corollary of Lemma 1, it is unique in the ball $K = K_{R}$ . The theorem has been proven.

With the help of Theorem 1, the unique solvability of the original problem (1.1)–(1.5) immediately follows from the last theorem.

Theorem 3. Let all the conditions of Theorem 1 be satisfied, $\int _{0}^{1}f(x, t)dx = 0\, \, (0\le t\le T)$ , $\delta \gamma (t) = 0$ $\, (0\le t\le T)$ and the matching condition is met:

$\int _{0}^{1}\varphi (x)dx = 0, \varphi (0) = h(0)+\delta h(T).$

Then problem (1.1)–(1.5) has in the ball $K = K_{R} (\left\| z\right\| _{E_{T}^{5} } \le R = A(T)+2)$ from $E_{T}^{5} \,$ the only classical solution.

3. Conclusions

The article considered an inverse boundary value problem with a periodic and integral condition, when the unknown coefficient depends on time for a linear pseudoparabolic equation of the fourth order. An existence and uniqueness theorem for the classical solution of the problem is proved.

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

References

[1]	O. F. Mose, J. K. Sigey, J. A. Okello, J. M. Okwoyo, G. J. Kang'ethe, Mathematical modeling on the control of measles by vaccination: case study of Kisii county, Kenya, SIJ Trans. Comput. Sci. Eng. Appl., 2 (2014), 61–69.
[2]	S. M. Garba, M. A. Safi, S. Usaini, Mathematical model for assessing the impact of vaccination and treatment on measles transmission dynamics, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci., 40 (2017), 6371–6388. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.4462 doi: 10.1002/mma.4462
[3]	M. G. Roberts, M. I. Tobias, Predicting and preventing measles epidemic in New Zealand: application of mathematical model, Epidemiol. Infect., 124 (2000), 279–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268899003556 doi: 10.1017/S0950268899003556
[4]	G. Bolarin, On the dynamical analysis of a new model for measles infection, Int. J. Math. Trends Technol., 2 (2014), 144–155.
[5]	World Health Organization, Measles, 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles.
[6]	R. T. Perry, N. A. Halsey, The clinical significance of measles: a review, J. Infect. Dis., 189 (2004), S4–S16. https://doi.org/10.1086/377712 doi: 10.1086/377712
[7]	K. Ejima, R. Omori, K. Aihara, H. Nishiura, Real-time investigation of measles epidemics with estimate of vaccine efficacy, Int. J. Biol. Sci., 8 (2012), 620–629. https://doi.org10.7150/ijbs.4329 doi: 10.7150/ijbs.4329
[8]	J. Mossong, C. P. Muller, Modelling measles re-emergence as a result of waning of immunity in vaccinated populations, Vaccine, 21 (2003), 4597–4603. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-410X(03)00449-3 doi: 10.1016/S0264-410X(03)00449-3
[9]	L. Taiwo, S. Idris, A. Abubakar, P. Nguku, P. Nsubuga, S. Gidado, et al., Factors affecting access to information on routine immunization among mothers of under 5 children in Kaduna state Nigeria, 2015, Pan. Afr. Med. J., 27 (2017), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2017.27.186.11191 doi: 10.11604/pamj.2017.27.186.11191
[10]	Center for disease control. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/measles/indexhtml.
[11]	World Health Organization, Eastern mediterranean vaccine action plan 2016–2020, A framework for implementation of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (No. WHO-EM/EPI/353/E), Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, 2019.
[12]	Z. Memon, Q. Sania, B. R. Memon, Mathematical analysis for a new nonlinear measles epidemiological system using real incidence data from Pakistan, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 135 (2020), 378. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00392-x doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-00392-x
[13]	P. Liu, T. Munir, T. Cui, A. Din, P. Wu, Mathematical assessment of the dynamics of the tobacco smoking model: an application of fractional theory, AIMS Math., 7 (2022), 7143–7165. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2022398 doi: 10.3934/math.2022398
[14]	Y. Zhang, X. Ma, A. Din, Stationary distribution and extinction of a stochastic SEIQ epidemic model with a general incidence function and temporary immunity, AIMS Math., 6 (2021), 12359–12378. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2021715 doi: 10.3934/math.2021715
[15]	P. Liu, R. Ikram, A. Khan, A. Din, The measles epidemic model assessment under real statistics: an application of stochastic optimal control theory, Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng., 26 (2022), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2022.2050222 doi: 10.1080/10255842.2022.2050222
[16]	M. El-Fatini, I. Sekkak, Lévy noise impact on a stochastic delayed epidemic model with Crowly-Martin incidence and crowding effect, Phys. A: Stat. Mech. Appl., 541 (2020), 123315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.123315 doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2019.123315
[17]	L. Huo, Y. Dong, T. Lin, Dynamics of a stochastic rumor propagation model incorporating media coverage and driven by Lévy noise, Chin. Phys. B, 30 (2021), 080201. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-1056/ac0423 doi: 10.1088/1674-1056/ac0423
[18]	B. Berrhazi, M. El-Fatini, T. Caraballo Garrido, P. Roger, A stochastic SIRI epidemic model with Lévy noise, Discrete Cont. Dyn. Systems-Series B, 23 (2018), 3645–3661.
[19]	X. Wang, K. Wang, Z. Teng, Global dynamics and density function in a class of stochastic SVI epidemic models with Lévy jumps and nonlinear incidence, AIMS Math., 8 (2023), 2829–2855. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2023148 doi: 10.3934/math.2023148
[20]	M. A. Kuddus, M. Mohiuddin, A. Rahman, Mathematical analysis of a measles transmission dynamics model in Bangladesh with double dose vaccination, Sci. Rep., 11 (2021), 16571. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-95913-8 doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95913-8
[21]	Y. Zhao, D. Jiang, The threshold of a stochastic SIRS epidemic model with saturated incidence, Appl. Math. Lett., 34 (2014), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2013.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2013.11.002
[22]	Y. Zhao, D. Jiang, The threshold of a stochastic SIS epidemic model with vaccination, Appl. Math. Comput., 243 (2014), 718–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2014.05.124 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2014.05.124
[23]	M. R. Kristensen, Parameter estimation in nonlinear dynamical systems, Master's Thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, 2004.
[24]	A. R. Conn, N. I. M. Gould, P. L. Toint, Trust-region methods, MPS-SIAM Series on Optimization edition, SIAM Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, 2000.
[25]	J. R. Dormand, P. J. Prince, A family of embedded Runge–Kutta formulae, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 6 (1980), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0771-050X(80)90013-3 doi: 10.1016/0771-050X(80)90013-3
[26]	E. Hairer, G. Wanner, S. Nørsett, Solving ordinary differential equations I, 2 Eds., Springer, 1993. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78862-1

This article has been cited by:

1.	Batirkhan Turmetov, Valery Karachik, On solvability of some inverse problems for a nonlocal fourth-order parabolic equation with multiple involution, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 6832, 10.3934/math.2024333
2.	İrem Bağlan, Ahmet Akdemir, Mustafa Dokuyucu, Inverse coefficient problem for quasilinear pseudo-parabolic equation by fourier method, 2023, 37, 0354-5180, 7217, 10.2298/FIL2321217B

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)