
Delay differential equations and algorithms hold a crucial position in the exploration of some biological systems and several models in real-world applications. So, some algorithms contribute to improve mathematical models related to natural life problems and global optimization. A novel hybridization between the downhill Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm (NM) and the classic bat algorithm (BA) was presented. The classic BA suffers from premature convergence, which is due to its global search weakness. In this research, this weakness was overcome by the intervention of NM in the velocity updating formula of the particles as an additional term. This improvement distracts particles from the rapporteur route, toward only the best solution found, to discover the search space more accurately. Once this improvement detects a promising area, sequential expansions are performed to deeply explore the area. This mechanism provides rapid convergence for the algorithm. Deep analysis of the algorithm's behaviour was provided, and thoughtful experiments were conducted and evaluated utilizing several evaluation metrics together with the Wilcoxon signed rank test to accentuate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed algorithm.
Citation: Enas Suhail, Mahmoud El-Alem, Omar Bazighifan, Ahmed Zekri. Improving diversification by a hybrid bat-Nelder-Mead algorithm and DDE for rapid convergence to solve global optimization[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 35655-35677. doi: 10.3934/math.20241692
[1] | Ridha Dida, Hamid Boulares, Bahaaeldin Abdalla, Manar A. Alqudah, Thabet Abdeljawad . On positive solutions of fractional pantograph equations within function-dependent kernel Caputo derivatives. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 23032-23045. doi: 10.3934/math.20231172 |
[2] | Wedad Albalawi, Muhammad Imran Liaqat, Fahim Ud Din, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Abdel-Haleem Abdel-Aty . Significant results in the pth moment for Hilfer fractional stochastic delay differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(4): 9852-9881. doi: 10.3934/math.2025451 |
[3] | Waleed M. Alfaqih, Abdullah Aldurayhim, Mohammad Imdad, Atiya Perveen . Relation-theoretic fixed point theorems under a new implicit function with applications to ordinary differential equations. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6766-6781. doi: 10.3934/math.2020435 |
[4] | Xianying Huang, Yongkun Li . Besicovitch almost periodic solutions for a stochastic generalized Mackey-Glass hematopoietic model. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 26602-26630. doi: 10.3934/math.20241294 |
[5] | Yanli Ma, Hamza Khalil, Akbar Zada, Ioan-Lucian Popa . Existence theory and stability analysis of neutral ψ–Hilfer fractional stochastic differential system with fractional noises and non-instantaneous impulses. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 8148-8173. doi: 10.3934/math.2024396 |
[6] | Amjad Ali, Kamal Shah, Dildar Ahmad, Ghaus Ur Rahman, Nabil Mlaiki, Thabet Abdeljawad . Study of multi term delay fractional order impulsive differential equation using fixed point approach. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 11551-11580. doi: 10.3934/math.2022644 |
[7] | Ugyen Samdrup Tshering, Ekkarath Thailert, Sotiris K. Ntouyas . Existence and stability results for a coupled system of Hilfer-Hadamard sequential fractional differential equations with multi-point fractional integral boundary conditions. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 25849-25878. doi: 10.3934/math.20241263 |
[8] | M. Syed Ali, M. Hymavathi, Bandana Priya, Syeda Asma Kauser, Ganesh Kumar Thakur . Stability analysis of stochastic fractional-order competitive neural networks with leakage delay. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(4): 3205-3241. doi: 10.3934/math.2021193 |
[9] | Hasanen A. Hammad, Doha A. Kattan . Strong tripled fixed points under a new class of F-contractive mappings with supportive applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 5785-5805. doi: 10.3934/math.2025266 |
[10] | Songkran Pleumpreedaporn, Chanidaporn Pleumpreedaporn, Weerawat Sudsutad, Jutarat Kongson, Chatthai Thaiprayoon, Jehad Alzabut . On a novel impulsive boundary value pantograph problem under Caputo proportional fractional derivative operator with respect to another function. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 7817-7846. doi: 10.3934/math.2022438 |
Delay differential equations and algorithms hold a crucial position in the exploration of some biological systems and several models in real-world applications. So, some algorithms contribute to improve mathematical models related to natural life problems and global optimization. A novel hybridization between the downhill Nelder-Mead simplex algorithm (NM) and the classic bat algorithm (BA) was presented. The classic BA suffers from premature convergence, which is due to its global search weakness. In this research, this weakness was overcome by the intervention of NM in the velocity updating formula of the particles as an additional term. This improvement distracts particles from the rapporteur route, toward only the best solution found, to discover the search space more accurately. Once this improvement detects a promising area, sequential expansions are performed to deeply explore the area. This mechanism provides rapid convergence for the algorithm. Deep analysis of the algorithm's behaviour was provided, and thoughtful experiments were conducted and evaluated utilizing several evaluation metrics together with the Wilcoxon signed rank test to accentuate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed algorithm.
COVID-19 is a contagious disease that can be easily transmitted from one person to another. At the end of 2019, Wuhan, China, was the site of this terrible infection for the first time. Later, this disease gave rise to a worldwide outbreak, which the World Health Organization (WHO) notified in the first quarter of 2020 [1]. Almost all of the countries of the world have experienced widespread transmission of this virus. The aforementioned sickness has currently claimed the lives of almost 50 billion people. COVID-19 has affected more than 500 million people worldwide. We cite [2,3] for a detailed explanation of how diseases are contracted and spread. Because the pandemic has affected the entire world, every nation has implemented its own policies. Some nations have implemented lockdowns, while others have issued laws requiring strict safety measures like wearing face masks and avoiding large gatherings, etc. The countries most impacted by the disease are Brazil, Italy, India, Iran, Spain, USA and the UK. Earlier research suggested that the virus originated in animals, but later research showed that it may also transfer from person to person [4,5].
Numerous infectious diseases are being investigated for potential treatments, controls, cures, etc. Since epidemiology is an important field of medical science, one of the key subfields from this viewpoint is mathematical biology. In contrast to earlier times, researchers are now becoming increasingly interested in biomathematics and bio-math engineering. In order to give a framework for comprehending the dynamics of diverse infectious diseases, mathematical models have been utilized. The most effective tools for studying different diseases are mathematical models [6,7,8]. We can create numerous predictions, regulating strategies, etc [9,10,11], for a disease in a community by using mathematical models. Considering these factors, researchers have shown a strong interest in the aforementioned subject, we refer the reader to [12,13,14,15]. Many mathematical models have recently been developed by researchers for COVID-19 as well; we provide e.g., see [16,17,18,19]. Major public health difficulties and an economic catastrophe are being faced internationally as a result of the aforementioned disease's recent pandemic status and quick global spread.
In order to theoretically improve existing mathematical models for the aforementioned disease, it is necessary to evaluate the influence of recently developed vaccinations with known high efficacy that have weak transmission-controlling measures. For example, Pearson et al. [20] studied COVID-19 immunization in low as well as middle-income countries. they found it to be very cost-effective, according to recent research [21], if a vaccination with high efficacy and low cost is available. This will have a big impact on disease eradication. Prior to pharmaceutical interventions like treatment and immunization, non-pharmaceutical precautionary measures like the self-quarantining of confirmed cases, isolation, using of face masks, hand washing, social distancing, lockdowns, avoiding gatherings, and closing schools have been employed. This, however, is not a permanent solution. The best strategy will thus be to develop a suitable immunization and make it broadly accessible in every civilization at a fair price. Investigation of COVID-19, various researchers have developed many models. In order to do this, we have aimed to develop a mathematical model with a class of people who have received vaccinations and qualitatively analyze it while considering the therapeutic choices, immunization of those who are susceptible, and healthcare for infected/hospitalized people. Our model takes into account certain important biological and epidemiological elements of the disease under study, such as the disease's inhibitory effect, mortality rates from infections and natural causes, birth rate, and various vaccination rates.
Here, we build the dynamical model for COVID-19. Additionally, we depict the interactions between several model compartments in flow charts in Figure 1. Consequently, we first explain our model as follows:
{dSdt=B−kSI1+βI−(VS+d0+qS)SdEdt=kSI1+βI−(α+d0+qE+vE)EdIdt=αE−(d0+μ+vI+qI)IdQdt=qSS+qEE+qII−(d0+vQ)QdVdt=vSS+vEE+vII+vQQ−d0V. | (1.1) |
Parameters | Physical meaning and representation |
Susceptible compartment | |
Exposed compartment | |
Infected compartment | |
Quarantine compartment | |
Vaccinated compartment | |
Birth rate | |
COVID death rate | |
Natural death rate | |
inhibitory effect rate | |
Saturation constant | |
Infection rate from exposed class | |
Quarantine from susceptible class | |
Quarantine from exposed class | |
Quarantine from infected class | |
Vaccination rate of susceptible | |
Vaccination rate of exposed | |
Vaccination rate of infected | |
Vaccination rate of quarantine |
In Figure 1, the model is presented as a flowchart. Epidemiological models have been examined using difference equations or classical order derivatives. Some references are cited as [22,23]. The aforementioned operators cannot generate the phenomenon's global dynamical behavior because of their local nature [24,25,26,27]. As a result, academics have now taken the majority of models into account when considering fractional order derivatives [28,29,30,31]. The growth of the aforementioned field is attributable to its numerous applications to practical issues, particularly in the fields of mathematical biology and dynamical analysis [32,33,34,35,36]. As far as we are aware, fractional calculus is being used to describe an increasing number of real-world scenarios; we refer the reader to [37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. Additionally, the idea of fractional calculus has been applied in a number of scientific and technological fields [44,45,46]. Because of its global nature and memory-preserving methodology, the theory of fractional calculus has been widely used in the mathematical modeling of numerous diseases for further information, see [47,48,49]. The conventional analytical and numerical approaches have been upgraded to handle situations with fractional order derivatives (see references [50,51]). To examine diverse dynamical issues involving fractional order derivatives, the classical decomposition, perturbation, and transformation methods, for instance, have been expanded (some references are cited as [52,53]). Traditional numerical techniques, such as RKM tools, Euler and Taylor methods, the Adams-Bashforth method, etc., have been upgraded more and more to cope with fractional order problems (see [54,55]). Recently, a novel idea has been identified that describes the crossover behavior of the dynamics, because the states of multiple evolution processes frequently change suddenly. Due to these effects, typical derivatives, whether classical or fractional, cannot be used to appropriately address the relevant multi-phase behaviors. Therefore, scholars [56,57,58,59,60,61] have suggested this idea, which has the potential to appropriately address the aforementioned behavior to a certain extent. As a result, we also attempt at numerical analysis for our studied mathematical model by looking at multi-phase behaviors under various fractional orders by utilizing some numerical technique based on Newton interpolation polynomials. Discussion and a graphic presentation versus some actual facts are offered.
The provided model (1.1) can be stated as follows in the sense of the new derivative:
PWCDφ+0(S)(t)=B−kSI1+βI−(VS+d0+qS)SPWCDφ+0(E)(t)=kSI1+βI−(α+d0+qE+vE)EPWCDφ+0(I)(t)=αE−(d0+μ+vI+qI)IPWCDφ+0(Q)(t)=qSS+qEE+qII−(d0+vQ)QPWCDφ+0(V)(t)=vSS+vEE+vII+vQQ−d0V, | (1.2) |
where PWCD+0 denotes piecewise classical or Caputo derivative with two sub-intervals in [0,T].
For further clarification, we respectively express the left hand sides of (1.2) as follows:
PWCDφ+0(S)(t)={D+0[S(t)], 0<t≤t1,CDφ+0(S)(t)=1Γ(1−φ)∫t2t1(t−η)−φdS(η)dηdη, t1<t≤T,,PWCDφ+0(E)(t)={D+0[E(t)], 0<t≤t1,CDφ+0(E)(t)=1Γ(1−φ)∫t2t1(t−η)−φdE(η)dηdη, t1<t≤T,,PWCDφ+0(I)(t)={D+0[I(t)], 0<t≤t1,CDφ+0(I)(t)=1Γ(1−δ)∫t2t1(t−η)−δdI(η)dηdη, t1<t≤T,,PWCDφ+0(Q)(t)={D+0[Q(t)], 0<t≤t1,CDφ+0(Q)(t)=1Γ(1−δ)∫t2t1(t−η)−δdQ(η)dηdη, t1<t≤T,,PWCDφ+0(V)(t)={D+0[V(t)], 0<t≤t1,CDφ+0(V)(t)=1Γ(1−δ)∫t2t1(t−η)−δdV(η)dη(η)dη, t1<t≤T,, | (1.3) |
where D+0 and CDφ+0 are classical and Caputo derivatives, respectively.
Our manuscript is structured as follows: In the first section, we give introduction. In the Section 2, we give basic results. Stability results are given in the Section 3. Numerical results are given in the Section 4. In the Section 5, the fractional order form of the proposed model is investigated. In the Section 6, we given conclusion.
We recollect some fundamental results of fractional calculus.
Definition 2.1. [43] Let ϖ>0, then, the non-integer order integral of a function S:[0,∞)→R is defined as
Iφ+0S(t)=1Γ(φ)∫t0S(η)(t−η)1−φdη, |
provided that right-hand side exists. Also, derivative in the Caputo sense is defined as
Dφ0+S(t)={1Γ(1−φ)∫t0(t−η)−φS′(η)dη, 0<φ<1,dSdt, φ=1. |
Lemma 2.2. [43] Let h∈L[0,∞), then, the solution of
Dφ0+S(t)=h(t), φ∈(0,1],S(0)=S0 |
is given by
S(t)=S0+1Γ(φ)∫t0h(η)(t−η)1−φdη. |
Here, we recollect the piecewise definitions of the fractional order derivative and integral.
Definition 2.3. [61] If h(t) is a differentiable function, then the definition of the classical, and fractional piecewise derivative is
PWC0Dφth(t)={h′(t), 0<t≤t1,Dφ0+h(t) t1<t≤t2, |
such that PWC0Dφt is the classical derivative for 0<t≤t1 and fractional derivative for t1<t≤t2.
Definition 2.4. [61] Let h be a differentiable function, then, the classical, and fractional order piecewise integration is given as
PWIφ0+h(t)={∫t0h(η)dη, 0<t≤t1,1Γ(φ)∫tt1(t−η)φ−1h(η)d(η) t1<t≤t2, |
such that PFI+0φ(t) denotes the classical integration for 0<t≤t1, and Reimann-Liouville integration for t1<t≤t2.
Lemma 2.5. [61] Consider the problem with the piecewise fractional order derivative
PFC0Dφth(t)=F(t,h(t)), 0<φ≤1, |
whose solution is given by
h(t)={h0+∫t0h(η)dη, 0<t≤t1;h(t1)+1Γ(φ)∫tt1(t−η)φ−1h(η)d(η) t1<t≤t2. |
Here, we define the Taylor series from [59]; consider
Dφtx(t)=F(t,x(t)),x(0)=x0, | (2.1) |
where F:[0,∞)×R→R. The generalized Taylor series is thus given by
x(t+h)=x(t)+hφγ(φ+1)Dφtx(t)+h2φγ(2φ+1)D2φtx(t)+... | (2.2) |
The outcomes of fractional calculus are used here. D2φtx=DφtF(t,x(t))+F(t,x(t))DφxF(t,x(t)). By using (2.2), after rearranging the terms, we obtain the general formula shown below.
x(t+h)=x(t)+hφγ(φ+1)F(t,x(t))+hφ2Γ(φ+1)[K1+K2], | (2.3) |
where
K1=F(ti,xi(ti)), K2=F(ti+2hφΓ(φ+1)Γ(2φ+1), x(ti)+2hφΓ(φ+1)Γ(2φ+1)F(ti,xi(ti))). | (2.4) |
Assume that φ=1; the standard method described by (4.2).
We initially examine our model's feasibility in this part. In order to achieve this, we add each equation in the model (1.1) under the condition that
N(t)=S(t)+E(t)+I(t)+Q(t)+V(t), |
one has
dNdt=B−d0N−μI. | (3.1) |
From (3.1), we have
limt→∞supN≤N0. |
Then, limt→∞supN=N0 if and only if limt→∞supI=0.
In the system (1.1), the first equation yields
0≤limt→∞supS≤S0. |
Similarly, the second equation of the model (1.1) yields
0≤limt→∞supE≤E0. |
From above, we conclude that dNdt<0 if N>N0. Additionally, we have
χ={(S,E,I,Q,V)∈R5+:N≤N0≤Bd0}. | (3.2) |
Disease free equilibrium points: We analyze whether the system (1.1) has an equilibrium point. E0=(S0,0,0,0)=(Bdo,0,0,0) is a representation of the model (1.1) disease-free equilibrium.
S0=BvS+d0+qSQ0=S0d0+vQV0=vSS0+vQQ0d0. |
Endemic equilibrium: From (1.1), lets assume that dSdt=0,dEdt=0,dIdt=0,dQdt=0 and dVdt=0; then, by simple calculation one can find the endemic equilibrium to be as follows:
S∗(t)=(α+d0+qE+vE)(d0+μ+vI+qI)(1+βI∗)αkE∗(t)=(d0+μ+vI+qI)I∗αI∗(t)=αkβ−(vS+d0+qS)(α+d0+qE+vE)(d0+μ+vI+qI)(α+d0+qE+vE)(d0+μ+vI+qI)(k+β(vS+d0+qS))Q∗(t)=qSS∗+qEE∗+qII∗d0+vQV∗(t)=vSS∗+vQQ∗+vII∗d0. |
In epidemiology, the idea of the fundamental reproduction number, or R0, outlines how illnesses spread and are treated. Both the frequency of the illness in the populace and the best countermeasures to protect the neighborhood's residents from the deadly virus are disclosed by R0. The most recent method for determining R0 is as follows. If we set χ=(E,I), we have from the system (1.1) the following
dχdt=H−F, |
where
H=(kSI1+βI0) |
and
F=((α+d0+qE+vE)E−αE(t)+(d0+μ+vI+qI)I). |
The Jacobian of H for the disease-free equilibrium is
H=(0kS000), |
and for the disease-free equilibrium, the Jacobian of F is given by
F=(α+d0+qE+vE0−αd0+μ+qI+vI). |
Hence
F−1=1(α+d0+qE+vE)(d0+μ+vI+qI)(d0+μ+vI+qI0αα+d0+qE+vE.). |
We have
HF−1=1(α+d0+qE+vE)(d0+μ+vI+qI)(αkS0000). |
Hence, the required R0 is given by
R0=kαB(α+d0+vE+qE)(vS+d0+qS)(d0+μ+qI+vI). | (3.3) |
If and only if the reproduction number meets the requirement that R0<1, then we may state that the disease-free equilibrium is stable and the population is disease-free. You can halt the spread of an epidemic by exercising prudence. By sitting the numerical values of the variables above, R0=0.98347. This number shows that the spread of COVID-19 in the locality is well managed.
On the basis of R0, we established the following theorem.
Theorem 3.1. (ⅰ) If R0≤1, then positive equilibria for system (1.1) are not possible.
(ⅱ) If R0>1, then there is an endemic equilibrium, often known as a distinct positive (unique) equilibrium E∗=(S∗,I∗,Q∗,V∗).
Some further results on equilibrium point with global and local stability are presented here for system (1.1).
Theorem 3.2. The disease-free equilibrium E0 is locally asymptotically stable, if R0≤1, and unstable if R0>1.
Proof. The Jacobian matrix at E0 is given below:
M0=[−(vS+d0+qS)0−kBvS+d0+qS000−(α+d0+qE+vE)−kBvS+d0+qS000α−(d0+μ+vI+qI)00qSqEqI−(d0+vQ)00vSvEvIvQ−d0]. |
From a simple straightforward calculation M0 has three eigenvalues which are negative; Λ1=−(vS+d0+qS), Λ2=−(d0+vQ) and Λ3=−d0. The next eigenvalues of M0 are derived from
Λ2+(2d0+α+μ+vI+qI+qE+vE)Λ+(α+d0+qE+vE)(d0+μ+vI+qI)−kαBvS+d0+qS=0. | (3.4) |
If R0>1, then,
(α+d0+qE+vE)(d0+μ+vI+qI)−kαBvS+d0+qS<0, |
which means that (3.4) has two roots, i.e., one positive root and one negative root. Therefore, the disease-free equilibrium E0 has an unstable saddle point. When R0=1, to get the result for the disease-free equilibrium E0 that is globally asymptotically stable, we consider the function called the Lyapunov function.
L(E,I)=αE+(α+d0+qE+vE)I. |
Taking the derivative of L(E,I) with respect to time t gives
dL(E,I)dt=[kαS1+αI−(α+d0+qE+vE)(d0+μ+vI+qI)]I≤[kαS−(α+d0+qE+vE)(d0+μ+vI+qI)]I≤αkS0R0(R0SS0−1)≤0. | (3.5) |
Suppose that I=0 implies that dL(E,I)dt=0. Furthermore, when R0=1, which implies that E0 is globally asymptotically stable in Φ.
In the next theorem, we study the stability at point E∗.
Theorem 3.3. If R0>1, the endemic equilibrium E∗ is globally asymptotically stable.
Proof. For the system (1.1), the Jacobian matrix is
M=[−kI∗1+βI∗−(vS+d0+vS)0kS∗(1+βI∗)200kI∗1+βI∗−(α+d0+qE+vE)kS∗(1+βI∗)2000α(d0+μ+vI+qI)00qSqEqI−(d0+vQ)0vSvEvIvQ−d0]. |
We see that the eigen values of M' i.e., Λ1=−d0 and Λ2=−(d0+vQ) are negative. Also, we have
Λ3+A1Λ2+A2Λ+A3=0, |
where
A1=kI∗1+βI∗+3d0+vS+vE+μ+vI+qI+qE+qS>0A2=(kI∗1+βI∗+vS+d0+qS)(2d0+α+μ+vI+qI+vE+qE)+(α+d0+qE+vE)(d0+μ+vI+qI)−αkS∗(1+βI∗)2>0>(kI∗1+βI∗+vS+d0+qS)(2d0+α+μ+vI+qI+vE+qE)>0A3=(kI∗1+βI∗+vS+d0+qS)[(α+d0+vE+qE)(d0+μ+vI+qI)−αkS∗(1+βI∗)2]+αkI∗(1+βI∗).αkS∗(1+βI∗)2>0. |
Consider the following equation
αkS∗(1+βI∗)=(α+d0+qE+vI)(d0+μ+qI). |
Using the Routh-Hurwitz theorem, we have that A1.A2−A3>0 by a simple direct calculation which shows that E∗ is locally asymptotically stable. This completes the proof.
Using the parameters from Table 2, we conducted the numerical simulations for model (1.1), we describe them in this section. Here, we describe how we simulate our system (1.1) by using the second-order Runge-Kutta (RK2) method as implemented in [64]. For this, we took into consideration
dx(t)dt=Ψ(t,x(t)). | (4.1) |
Parameters | Physical meaning and representation | Numerical value |
S | Susceptible compartment | 222.6 million[65] |
E | Exposed compartment | 120million [65,66,67] |
I | Infected compartment | 1.30[65] |
Q | Quarantine compartment | 1.30 [65] |
V | Vaccinated compartment | 100 millions [66] |
B | Birth rate | 1000059×365 [67] |
μ | COVID death rate | 0.018 [67] |
d0 | Natural death rate | 159×365 [67] |
β | inhibitory effect rate | 0.0701 [65,67] |
k | Saturation constant | 0.00019 [66,67] |
α | Infection rate from exposed class | 0.0833 [65,67] |
qS | Quarantine from susceptible class | 0.0701 [65,66,67] |
qE | Quarantine from exposed class | 0.13 [65,67,68] |
qI | Quarantine from infected class | 0.0701 [67] |
vS | Vaccination rate of susceptible | 0.0001 [65,67] |
vE | Vaccination rate of exposed | 0.4 [65,67] |
vI | Vaccination rate of infected | 0.00001 [65,67] |
vQ | Vaccination rate of quarantine | 0.0999 [65,67] |
Here x=(S,E,I,Q,V). The suggested approach allows us to express the relevant iterative formula as
xi+1=xi+h2Ψ(ti+h2,xi(ti)+K12). | (4.2) |
Here, K1=hF(ti,xi(ti)), also, h=ti+1−ti. We simulated our results by using the numerical approach described in (4.2) and use the numbers from Table 2 in order to evaluate with our built-in model (1.1). We use the results of the numerical simulations to demonstrate our theoretical results. The parameter values and their descriptions for the numerical simulations are listed in Table 2. However, some parameter values that are unknown have been assumed for the sake of illustration.
We applied 300 days of the actual data from Pakistan. The overall population of the nation is approximately equal to 222.60 million, according to the data in [65,67]. Nearly 47 of the nation's population was fully vaccinated during the past nine months, while 57 was partially vaccinated. In order to analyze the dynamics of disease propagation and the impact of the vaccination on its cure, we simulated the outcomes for 300 days as shown in Figures 2–6, respectively by using the numerical approach described by (4.2) of RK2 type. Here, we describe the model (1.1).
Figures 2 through 6 depict the spread of the disease over a 300-day period at the specified speeds. The exposed class and the susceptible class as shown by the actual data that were employed. The infection spread relatively quickly in less than 50 days. As a result, there were also more persons under quarantine. More people had full or partial vaccinations during this time. We can notice that there were more persons who had received vaccinations.
Here, we develop a numerical scheme based on RK2 method for the model (1.2) as expressed in terms of (1.3). We have developed a numerical method for the two sub-intervals of [0,T]. We express the system (1.2) in terms of 1.3 by using (x)=(S,E,I,Q,V) as follows:
PWCDφ+0(S)(t)={D+0[S(t)]=Ψ1(t,(x)), 0<t≤t1,CDφ+0(S)(t)=Ψ1(t,(x)), t1<t≤T,,PWCDφ+0(E)(t)={D+0[E(t)]=Ψ2(t,(x)),, 0<t≤t1,CDφ+0(E)(t)=Ψ2(t,(x)),, t1<t≤T,,PWCDφ+0(I)(t)={D+0[I(t)]=Ψ3(t,(x)),, 0<t≤t1,CDφ+0(I)(t)=Ψ3(t,(x)),, t1<t≤T,,PWCDφ+0(Q)(t)={D+0[Q(t)]=Ψ4(t,(x)),, 0<t≤t1,CDφ+0(Q)(t)=Ψ4(t,(x)),, t1<t≤T,,PWCDφ+0(V)(t)={D+0[V(t)]=Ψ5(t,(x)),, 0<t≤t1,CDφ+0(V)(t)=Ψ5(t,(x)), t1<t≤T. | (5.1) |
We may write the aforesaid system (5.1) by using (4.2) for classical order derivative when 0<t<t1 and (2.3) with the (2.4) for the fractional order Caputo derivative with t1<t<T. Hence, we can write the first equation of the system (5.1) as follows:
S(ti+1))={Si−1(ti−1)+h2Ψ1[ti−1+h2,xi−1(ti−1)+K12], 0<t≤t1Si(ti)+hφγ(φ+1)Ψ1(ti,xi(ti))+hφ2Γ(φ+1)[K2+K3], t1<t≤T, | (5.2) |
where h=ti+1−ti, and
K1=Ψ1(ti−1,xi−1(ti−1)), K2=Ψ1(ti,xi(ti)),K3=Ψ1(ti+2hφΓ(φ+1)Γ(2φ+1),x(ti)+2hφΓ(φ+1)Γ(2φ+1)Ψ1(ti,xi(ti))). | (5.3) |
Similarly, the equations for the other compartments can be written as follows:
E(ti+1))={Ei−1(ti−1)+h2Ψ2[ti−1+h2,xi−1(ti−1)+K12], 0<t≤t1Ei(ti)+hφγ(φ+1)Ψ2(ti,xi(ti))+hφ2Γ(φ+1)[K2+K3], t1<t≤T, | (5.4) |
I(ti+1))={Ii−1(ti−1)+h2Ψ3[ti−1+h2,xi−1(ti−1)+K12], 0<t≤t1Ii(ti)+hφγ(φ+1)Ψ3(ti,xi(ti))+hφ2Γ(φ+1)[K2+K3], t1<t≤T, | (5.5) |
Q(ti+1))={Qi−1(ti−1)+h2Ψ4[ti−1+h2,xi−1(ti−1)+K12], 0<t≤t1Qi(ti)+hφγ(φ+1)Ψ4(ti,xi(ti))+hφ2Γ(φ+1)[K2+K3], t1<t≤T, | (5.6) |
and
V(ti+1))={Vi−1(ti−1)+h2Ψ5[ti−1+h2,xi−1(ti−1)+K12], 0<t≤t1Vi(ti)+hφγ(φ+1)Ψ5(ti,xi(ti))+hφ2Γ(φ+1)[K2+K3], t1<t≤T. | (5.7) |
Here, we plot the approximated results for two sets of fractional orders in two cases.
Case Ⅰ: When 0<φ≤0.6, the corresponding solutions exhibiting crossover behavior were obtained as in Figures 7–11 for different fractional orders.
Case Ⅱ: Now we present the numerical results corresponding to different fractional orders such that 0.6<φ<1 in Figures 12–16, respectively which show the crossover behaviors of different compartments.
Here, we discuss the results of modeling of the piecewise derivative shown in Figures 7–16. We observed a the sudden change after 150 days. So, for various fractional orders in [0,50) and [50,300], we have plotted the numerical findings for systems (1.3) and (5.1). It is possible to see the declines and rises in several compartments with obvious crossover behavior. This novel idea makes a significant contribution to the understanding of how a system that experiences sudden changes in its dynamics behaves. Additionally, the fractional order derivative is a global operator that furthers our comprehension of the phenomenon. In Figure 17, we have compared some real data of infected cases with the simulated results at given fractional orders. Data applied here were taken from Pakistan from January 1, 2021 to January 30, 2021 (see [65]). We see that the simulated results were very similar to the real data which confirm the authentication of the fractional order model that we have considered.
Also, we have compared the simulated data for the vaccinated class for the period of 11 days i.e., March 1, 2022 to March 11, 2022 (see [67]) in Figure 18.
Here, a dynamical system for the COVID-19 disease has been examined. The traditional method for determining the conditions for both local and global stability, as well as for computing R0 at equilibrium locations, is to employ classical analysis. Additionally, the classical model scenario was numerically simulated. We then developed a strong algorithm to carry out the numerical analysis of the suggested model under the conditions of the new concept, extending the RK2 approach to piece-wise derivative applications. Using actual data from Pakistan for the first 300 days by splitting into two sub intervals, we have carried out a number of numerical simulations for various fractional orders. We have found that fractional calculus that involves applying in terms of piecewise derivative is more effective at clearly indicating the rapid changes in various model compartments. Crossover behavior is what we call such behavior. In the aforementioned process, a system experiences a rapid change in its state of dynamics and runs its crossover behavior is terminated. The aforementioned idea can be further refined to encompass more complex dynamical systems with various types of fractional differential operators. Also, in the future, we will combine stochastic type and fractals-fractional differential type operators in piecewise form for various infectious disease models.
The authors declare they have not used artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
This work was supported and funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU) (Grant Number IMSIU- RG23124).
The authors declare that they have no competing interest.
[1] | J. Holland, Genetic algorithms, Sci. Am., 267 (1992), 66–73. |
[2] | J. Kennedy, R. Eberhart, Particle swarm optimization, Proceedings of ICNN'95-International conference on neural network, 1995, 1942–1948. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICNN.1995.488968 |
[3] |
M. Dorigo, V. Maniezzo, A. Colorni, Ant system: Optimization by a colony of cooperating agents, IEEE T. Syst. Man Cy. B, 26 (1996), 29–41. http://doi.org/10.1109/3477.484436 doi: 10.1109/3477.484436
![]() |
[4] |
X. L. Li, Z. J. Shao, J. X. Qian, An optimizing method based on autonomous animats: Fish-swarm algorithm, Syst. Eng.-Theory Pract., 22 (2002), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.12011/1000-6788(2002)11-32 doi: 10.12011/1000-6788(2002)11-32
![]() |
[5] | X-S. Yang, A new metaheuristic bat-inspired algorithm, In: Nature inspired cooperative strategies for optimization (NICSO 2010), Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2010, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12538-6_6 |
[6] |
E. H. Houssein, D. Oliva, N. A. Samee, N. F. Mahmoud, M. M. Emam, liver cancer algorithm: a novel bio-inspired optimizer, Comput. Biol. Med., 165 (2023), 107–389. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11139.27688 doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11139.27688
![]() |
[7] |
A. Qi, D. Zhao, A. A. Heidari, L. Liu, Yi. Chen, H. Chen, FATA: An efficient optimization method based on geophysics, Neurocomputing, 607 (2024), 128–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128289 doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2024.128289
![]() |
[8] |
A-Q. Tian, F-F. Liu, H-X. Lv, snow geese algorithm: A novel migration-inspired meta-heuristic algorithm for constrained engineering optimization problems, Appl. Math. Modell., 126 (2024), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2023.10.045 doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2023.10.045
![]() |
[9] | M. Chen, L. Yang, G. Zeng, K. Lu, Y. Huang, IFA-EO: An improved firefly algorithm hybridized with extremal optimization for continuous unconstrained optimization problems, 2021, Available from: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-190790/v1 |
[10] |
B. Shi, J. Chen, H. Chen, W. Lin, prediction of recurrent spontaneous abortion using evolutionary machine learning with joint self-adaptive sime mould algorithm, Comput. Bio. Med., 148 (2022), 105–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105885 doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105885
![]() |
[11] |
M. Shehab, M. A. Abu-Hashem, M. K. Y. Shambour, A. I. Alsalibi, O. A. Alomari, A. Gupta, et al., A comprehensive review of bat inspired algorithm: variants, applications, and hybridization, Arch. Computat. Methods Eng., 30(2023), 765–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-022-09817-5 doi: 10.1007/s11831-022-09817-5
![]() |
[12] | J-H. Lin, C-W. Chou, C-H. Yang, H-L. Tsai, A chaotic Levy flight bat algorithm for parameter estimation in nonlinear dynamic biological systems, CIT, 2 (2012), 56–63. |
[13] |
C. Gan, W. Cao, M. Wu, X. Chen, A new bat algorithm based on iterative local search and stochastic inertia weight, Expert Syst. Appl., 104 (2018), 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.03.015 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2018.03.015
![]() |
[14] |
S. Yu, J. Zhu, C. Lv, A Quantum Annealing Bat Algorithm for Node Localization in Wireless Sensor Network, Sensors, 23 (2023), 782. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23020782 doi: 10.3390/s23020782
![]() |
[15] | G. Wang, L. Guo, A novel hybrid bat algorithm with harmony search for global numerical optimization, J. Appl. Math., 2013 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/696491 |
[16] | R. Gupta, N. Chaudhary, S. K. Pal, Hybrid model to improve Bat algorithm performance, 2014 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI), 2014, 1967–1970. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCI.2014.6968649 |
[17] |
G. B. Mahanta, A. Rout, G. B. Muralia, B. Deepak, B. B. Biswal, Application of Hybrid Nelder-Mead Bat Algorithm to Improve the Grasp Quality during the Automated Robotic Grasping, Proc. Comput. Sci., 133 (2018), 612–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.093 doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.093
![]() |
[18] | B. Kheireddine, B. Zoubida, H. Tarik, Improvements of bat algorithm using crossover technique and hybridization with Nelder-Mead simplex method, COMPEL, 38 (2019), 977–989. |
[19] | A. F. Ali, Accelerated bat algorithm for solving integer programming problems, Egypt. Comput. Sci. J., 39 (2015), 507–518. |
[20] |
A. F. Ali, M. A. Tawhid, Solving integer programming problems by hybrid bat algorithm and direct search method, Trends Artif. Intell., 2 (2018), 46–59. http://doi.org/10.36959/643/303 doi: 10.36959/643/303
![]() |
[21] |
J. A. Nelder, R. Mead, A simplex method for function minimization, Comput. J., 7 (1965), 308–313. http://doi.org/10.1093/COMJNL/7.4.308 doi: 10.1093/COMJNL/7.4.308
![]() |
[22] | S. Surjanovic, D. Bingham, Virtual Library of Simulation Experiments: Test Functions and Datasets, accessed on 31 December 2022. Available from: https://www.sfu.ca/ssurjano. |
[23] | J. Liang, B. Qu, P. Suganthan, Problem definitions and evaluation criteria for the CEC 2014 special session and competition on single objective real-parameter numerical optimization, Computational Intelligence Laboratory, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou China and Technical Report, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 2013, Technical Report 201311. |
[24] |
J. Derrac, S. García, D. Molina, F. Herrera, A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms, Swarm Evol. Comput., 1 (2011), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2011.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.swevo.2011.02.002
![]() |
[25] | Z. Zhou, Z. Sun, Research and application of improved quantum-behaved bat algorithm, Comp. Eng. D, 40 (2019), 84–91. |
[26] | Z. Li, Improved bat algorithm based on grouping evolution and hybrid optimization, Math. Pr. Th, 50 (2020), 141–149. |
[27] | Z. Zhao, M. Zeng, H-M. Mo, Z. Li, T. Wen, Cooperatively intelligent hybrid bat and differential evolution algorithm, Comp. Eng. D, 41 (2020), 402–410. |
[28] |
R. Storn, K. Price, Differential evolution–a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces, J. Global Optim., 11 (1997), 341–359. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328 doi: 10.1023/A:1008202821328
![]() |
[29] |
M-R. Chen, Y-Y. Huang, G-Q. Zeng, K-D. Lu, L-Q. Yang, An improved bat algorithm hybridized with extremal optimization and Boltzmann selection, Expert Syst. Appl., 175 (2021), 114–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114812 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114812
![]() |
[30] |
M. Omran, A. Engelbrecht, Time complexity of population-based metaheuristics, MENDEL, 29 (2023), 255–260. https://doi.org/10.13164/mendel.2023.2.255 doi: 10.13164/mendel.2023.2.255
![]() |
[31] |
L. Zhou, K. Chen, H. Dong, S. Chi, Z. Chen, An improved beetle swarm optimization algorithm for the intelligent navigation control of autonomous sailing robots, IEEE Access, 9 (2020), 5296–5311. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3047816 doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3047816
![]() |
Parameters | Physical meaning and representation |
Susceptible compartment | |
Exposed compartment | |
Infected compartment | |
Quarantine compartment | |
Vaccinated compartment | |
Birth rate | |
COVID death rate | |
Natural death rate | |
inhibitory effect rate | |
Saturation constant | |
Infection rate from exposed class | |
Quarantine from susceptible class | |
Quarantine from exposed class | |
Quarantine from infected class | |
Vaccination rate of susceptible | |
Vaccination rate of exposed | |
Vaccination rate of infected | |
Vaccination rate of quarantine |
Parameters | Physical meaning and representation | Numerical value |
S | Susceptible compartment | 222.6 million[65] |
E | Exposed compartment | 120million [65,66,67] |
I | Infected compartment | 1.30[65] |
Q | Quarantine compartment | 1.30 [65] |
V | Vaccinated compartment | 100 millions [66] |
B | Birth rate | 1000059×365 [67] |
μ | COVID death rate | 0.018 [67] |
d0 | Natural death rate | 159×365 [67] |
β | inhibitory effect rate | 0.0701 [65,67] |
k | Saturation constant | 0.00019 [66,67] |
α | Infection rate from exposed class | 0.0833 [65,67] |
qS | Quarantine from susceptible class | 0.0701 [65,66,67] |
qE | Quarantine from exposed class | 0.13 [65,67,68] |
qI | Quarantine from infected class | 0.0701 [67] |
vS | Vaccination rate of susceptible | 0.0001 [65,67] |
vE | Vaccination rate of exposed | 0.4 [65,67] |
vI | Vaccination rate of infected | 0.00001 [65,67] |
vQ | Vaccination rate of quarantine | 0.0999 [65,67] |
Parameters | Physical meaning and representation |
Susceptible compartment | |
Exposed compartment | |
Infected compartment | |
Quarantine compartment | |
Vaccinated compartment | |
Birth rate | |
COVID death rate | |
Natural death rate | |
inhibitory effect rate | |
Saturation constant | |
Infection rate from exposed class | |
Quarantine from susceptible class | |
Quarantine from exposed class | |
Quarantine from infected class | |
Vaccination rate of susceptible | |
Vaccination rate of exposed | |
Vaccination rate of infected | |
Vaccination rate of quarantine |
Parameters | Physical meaning and representation | Numerical value |
S | Susceptible compartment | 222.6 million[65] |
E | Exposed compartment | 120million [65,66,67] |
I | Infected compartment | 1.30[65] |
Q | Quarantine compartment | 1.30 [65] |
V | Vaccinated compartment | 100 millions [66] |
B | Birth rate | 1000059×365 [67] |
μ | COVID death rate | 0.018 [67] |
d0 | Natural death rate | 159×365 [67] |
β | inhibitory effect rate | 0.0701 [65,67] |
k | Saturation constant | 0.00019 [66,67] |
α | Infection rate from exposed class | 0.0833 [65,67] |
qS | Quarantine from susceptible class | 0.0701 [65,66,67] |
qE | Quarantine from exposed class | 0.13 [65,67,68] |
qI | Quarantine from infected class | 0.0701 [67] |
vS | Vaccination rate of susceptible | 0.0001 [65,67] |
vE | Vaccination rate of exposed | 0.4 [65,67] |
vI | Vaccination rate of infected | 0.00001 [65,67] |
vQ | Vaccination rate of quarantine | 0.0999 [65,67] |