Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/MathOperators.js
Theory article

Model averaging with causal effects for partially linear models

  • Treatment effects with heterogeneity and heteroskedasticity are widely studied and applied in many fields, such as statistics and econometrics. The conditional average treatment effect provides an excellent measure of the heterogeneous treatment effect. In this paper, we propose a model averaging estimation for the conditional average treatment effect with partially linear models based on the jackknife-type criterion under heteroscedastic error. Within this context, we provide theoretical justification for our model averaging approach, and we establish asymptotic optimality and weight convergence properties for our model under certain conditions. The performance of our proposed estimator is compared with that of classical estimators by using a Monte Carlo study and empirical analysis.

    Citation: Xiaowei Zhang, Junliang Li. Model averaging with causal effects for partially linear models[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(6): 16392-16421. doi: 10.3934/math.2024794

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yuanfu Shao . Dynamics and optimal harvesting of a stochastic predator-prey system with regime switching, S-type distributed time delays and Lévy jumps. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(3): 4068-4093. doi: 10.3934/math.2022225
    [2] Hong Qiu, Yanzhang Huo, Tianhui Ma . Dynamical analysis of a stochastic hybrid predator-prey model with Beddington-DeAngelis functional response and Lévy jumps. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(8): 14492-14512. doi: 10.3934/math.2022799
    [3] Yassine Sabbar, Aeshah A. Raezah . Modeling mosquito-borne disease dynamics via stochastic differential equations and generalized tempered stable distribution. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 22454-22485. doi: 10.3934/math.20241092
    [4] Yassine Sabbar, Aeshah A. Raezah, Mohammed Moumni . Enhancing epidemic modeling: exploring heavy-tailed dynamics with the generalized tempered stable distribution. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 29496-29528. doi: 10.3934/math.20241429
    [5] Yajun Song, Ruyue Hu, Yifan Wu, Xiaohui Ai . Analysis of a stochastic two-species Schoener's competitive model with Lévy jumps and Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 12239-12258. doi: 10.3934/math.2024598
    [6] Yubo Liu, Daipeng Kuang, Jianli Li . Threshold behaviour of a triple-delay SIQR stochastic epidemic model with Lévy noise perturbation. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16498-16518. doi: 10.3934/math.2022903
    [7] Xuegui Zhang, Yuanfu Shao . Analysis of a stochastic predator-prey system with mixed functional responses and Lévy jumps. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 4404-4427. doi: 10.3934/math.2021261
    [8] Jinji Du, Chuangliang Qin, Yuanxian Hui . Optimal control and analysis of a stochastic SEIR epidemic model with nonlinear incidence and treatment. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 33532-33550. doi: 10.3934/math.20241600
    [9] Yan Ren, Yan Cheng, Yuzhen Chai, Ping Guo . Dynamics and density function of a HTLV-1 model with latent infection and Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 36444-36469. doi: 10.3934/math.20241728
    [10] Yue Wu, Shenglong Chen, Ge Zhang, Zhiming Li . Dynamic analysis of a stochastic vector-borne model with direct transmission and media coverage. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 9128-9151. doi: 10.3934/math.2024444
  • Treatment effects with heterogeneity and heteroskedasticity are widely studied and applied in many fields, such as statistics and econometrics. The conditional average treatment effect provides an excellent measure of the heterogeneous treatment effect. In this paper, we propose a model averaging estimation for the conditional average treatment effect with partially linear models based on the jackknife-type criterion under heteroscedastic error. Within this context, we provide theoretical justification for our model averaging approach, and we establish asymptotic optimality and weight convergence properties for our model under certain conditions. The performance of our proposed estimator is compared with that of classical estimators by using a Monte Carlo study and empirical analysis.



    As is well known, in real life, there are many infectious diseases that seriously threaten human health. Especially, in recent decades, the repeated epidemic of infectious diseases has brought great disasters to human survival and the national economy and people's livelihood.

    It has been confirmed that vaccination is one of the most practical and efficient strategies to prevent and control the spread of many diseases, such as measles, pertussis, influenza, Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human tuberculosis (TB) (see [1,2,3,4]). The spectacular successful cases were seen to be the eradication of small-pox in 1977 [5], the control of poliomyelitis and measles throughout Central and South America [6,7], and in the United Kingdom the vaccination campaign against measles in 1994 [8]. In order to analyze the dynamical properties of vaccination, in recent years various types of epidemic dynamical models with vaccination are established and investigated widely (see[9,10,11,12,13,14,15] and the references cited therein).

    On the other hand, to the best of our knowledge, in modeling the dynamics of epidemic systems the incidence rate is an important substance. In many practicalities, such as media reports, vaccination, quarantine, catch and kill, protection, and population density, which may directly or indirectly influence the incidence rate. At this time, the nonlinear incidence, such as the saturated incidence βSI1+αI, Beddington-DeAngelis incidence βSI1+ωS+αI, nonlinear incidences βSg(I) and βf(S,I), is more realistic and achieving more exact results (see [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]and the references cited therein).

    Motivated by the previous works, this paper describes the effects of vaccination prevention strategies for the newly susceptible individuals and the vaccinated can also be affected under the nonlinear incidence of disease, we propose the following deterministic Susceptible-Vaccinated-Infected (SVI) epidemic model with nonlinear incidence:

    {dS(t)=[(1π)ΛμS(t)βbS(t)f(I(t))]dt,dV(t)=[πΛμV(t)βvV(t)g(I(t))]dt,dI(t)=[βbS(t)f(I(t))+βvV(t)g(I(t))(μ+δ)I(t)]dt, (1.1)

    where the definitions of all state variables, parameters and functions in model (1.1) are listed in Tables 13. It will be seen below that the basic reproduction number R0 of the model (1.1) depends directly on the vaccination rate and nonlinear incidence, and that the main dynamical properties of the model, such as the stability of equilibria, the extinction and persistence of the disease, etc., are fully determined by R0.

    Table 1.  The definitions of state variables in model (1.1).
    State variable Definition
    S(t) population density of susceptible individuals at time t
    V(t) population density of vaccinated individuals at time t
    I(t) population density of infected individuals at time t

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  The definitions of parameters in model (1.1).
    Parameter Definition
    Λ the recruitment rate of susceptible individuals
    βb the transmission rate between susceptible and infected
    βv the transmission rate between vaccinated and infected
    μ the natural death rate of total population
    π the prevalence rate of the vaccination program
    δ the death rate due to the disease of infected

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  The definitions of functions in model (1.1).
    Function Definition
    f(I) fC1(R+), f(0)=0, f(I)>0 and f(I)f(0)I for all I>0
    g(I) gC1(R+), g(0)=0, g(I)>0 and g(I)g(0)I for all I>0

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    However, the results of studies over the past few years have shown that birth and death rates are more or less influenced by random white noise during disease transmission. As a result, a growing number of authors have studied the associated stochastic epidemic models (see [13,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31] and the references cited therein). The main research subjects include the global existence of a positive solution with any positive initial value in probability, the persistence and extinction of the disease in probability, the asymptotical behaviors in probability around the disease-free and endemic equilibria of the corresponding deterministic models, the existence of stationary distribution as well as ergodicity, the expressions of probability density functions, etc. Especially, in articles [13,18,31] the stochastic epidemic models with vaccination are proposed and studied.

    From the perspective of epidemiology, the existence and ergodicity of stationary distribution indicates that an infectious disease will prevail and persist for a long time. More importantly, the corresponding probability density function of the stationary distribution can reflect all statistical properties of different compartment individuals. It can be regarded as a great intersection of epidemiological dynamics and statistics. We see that recently the probability density functions for stochastic epidemic models are studied in articles [25,29,30,31] by solving the corresponding algebraic equations which are equivalent to the Fokker-Planck equation. It should be pointed out that until now there are still relatively few works devoted to the expressions of probability density functions due to the difficulty of solving the corresponding Fokker-Planck equation.

    It is a pity that the stochastic model with only white noise cannot reasonably describe some random disturbance in the actual environment, such as the outbreak of bird flu and SARS, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, discharge of toxic pollutants, etc., this is because these processes are discontinuous. In order to accurately describe these phenomena, it is a feasible and more realistic method to introduce the Lévy jumps noise to the original basic dynamical model. We see that a lot of research has been done to direct at the epidemic models with Lévy jumps noise (see [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41] and the references cited therein). Particularly, in articles [34,41], the stochastic epidemic models with vaccination and Lévy jumps are proposed and studied. It was shown that the white noises and Lévy jumps could make the stationary distribution vanish as well as appear.

    Motivated by the above works, in order to describe the effects of Lévy jumps in the transmission of disease under the vaccination prevention strategies, on the basis of model (1.1), in this paper we propose the following stochastic SVI models with white noise, Lévy jumps and nonlinear incidence:

    {dS(t)=[(1π)ΛμS(t)βbS(t)f(I(t))]dt+σ1S(t)dB1(t)+Zη1(u)S(t)˜W(dt,du),dV(t)=[πΛμV(t)βvV(t)g(I(t))]dt+σ2V(t)dB2(t)+Zη2(u)V(t)˜W(dt,du),dI(t)=[βbS(t)f(I(t))+βvV(t)g(I(t))(μ+δ)I(t)]dt+σ3I(t)dB3(t)+Zη3(u)I(t)˜W(dt,du). (1.2)

    In this paper, we always assume that model (1.2) is defined on a complete probability space (Ω,{F}t0,P) with a filtration {F}t0 satisfying the usual conditions (that is to say, it is increasing and right continuous while F0 contains all P-null sets). In model (1.2), Bi(t)(i=1,2,3) are standard Brownian motion, σi(i=1,2,3) are the intensities of Bi(t); ˜W(t,u) is the compensated Poisson random measure with characteristic measure ν on Z, where Z is a measurable subset of (0,+) with the measure ν(Z)<. ˜W(t,u)=W(t,u)tν(u), and W(t,u) is a Poisson counting measure with characteristic measure ν which is defined on Z and often used to describe jumps process. ηi(u)(i=1,2,3) are the density of jumps process defined for all uZ. S(t), V(t) and I(t) are the left limit of S(t), V(t) and I(t), respectively.

    For the jumps process in model (1.2), we always require the following assumptions (see [39]):

    (H1) ηi(u) is continuous function for uZ, and Zη2i(u)v(du)<,i=1,2,3.

    (H2) 1+ηi(u)>0 for all uZ, and Z[ηi(u)ln(1+ηi(u))]v(du)<,i=1,2,3.

    The main purpose in this paper is to investigate the stochastic dynamics of model (1.2) including the stochastic extinction and persistence of disease, the existence of ergodic stationary distribution and expressions of probability density functions, which are corresponding to the global stability of disease-free and endemic equilibria and the uniform persistence of positive solutions for corresponding deterministic model (1.1). The main contribution and innovations are summarized as follows:

    (1) The basic reproduction number R0 of deterministic model (1.1) is calculated, which depends directly on the vaccination and nonlinear incidence. The stability of disease-free and endemic equilibria is fully determined by R0.

    (2) The threshold value Rs0 of stochastic model (1.2) is defined which depends on the white noise, Lévy jumps, vaccination and nonlinear incidence. The threshold criteria for the stochastic extinction and persistence in the mean of the disease are established.

    (3) The existence and ergodicity of stationary distribution for model (1.2) are obtained by constructing a suitable Lyapunov function, and it is determined by threshold value Rs0.

    (4) The expression of a log-normal density function around the quasi-endemic equilibrium of stochastic model is calculated, and a new technique for the calculation of probability density function is proposed.

    The rest of this article is organized as follows. In Section 2, the dynamical behavior for model (1.1) is discussed. In Sections 3 and 4, we investigate the stochastic extinction and persistence in the mean of the disease, and the existence of stationary distribution for model (1.2), respectively. In Section 5, the criterion on the existence of log-normal probability density function of model (1.2) is established, here we will adopt a new technique for the calculation of density function. Furthermore, in Section 6, we present the numerical simulations to support the main results obtained in this paper. Lastly, in Section 7, we give a brief conclusion.

    The initial condition of any solution for model (1.1) is given by

    S(0)=ˆS00,V(0)=ˆV00,I(0)=ˆI00.

    Based on the fundamental theory of ordinary differential equations, it is easy to get that the unique nonnegative solution (S(t),V(t),I(t)) for any initial value (ˆS0,ˆV0,ˆI0)R3+ model (1.1) is defined for all t0. Moreover, in the light of model (1.1) we have

    d(S+V+I)=[Λμ(S+V+I)δI]dt[Λμ(S+V+I)]dt.

    This implies lim supt(S+V+I)Λμ, and the set

    Π={(S,V,I):S0,V0,I0,S+V+IΛμ}

    is a positive invariant set of model (1.1). This shows that, without loss of generality, we only need to consider the solutions of model (1.1) in the region Π.

    Model (1.1) always has a unique disease-free equilibrium P0=(S0,V0,0) with S0=(1π)Λμ and V0=πΛμ. By using the next generation matrix method we can obtain that the basic reproduction number of model (1.1) is

    R0=βbf(0)S0+βvg(0)V0μ+δ. (2.1)

    When R0>1, we can easily obtain that model (1.1) has a unique endemic equilibrium P=(S,V,I) with S=(1π)Λμ+βbf(I), V=πΛμ+βvg(I) and I is the unique positive solution of the equation

    (1π)Λβbf(I)I(μ+βbf(I))+πΛβvg(I)I(μ+βvg(I))(μ+δ)=0.

    Furthermore, we can build the following result.

    Theorem 2.1. For model (1.1), the following conclusions hold.

    (i) If R01, then disease-free equilibrium P0 is globally asymptotically stable.

    (ii) If R0>1, then P0 is unstable and endemic equilibrium P is locally asymptotically stable.

    Proof. (i) In view of model (1.1), we have dS[(1π)ΛμS]dt and dV[πΛμV]dt, which implies that lim suptS(1π)Λμ:=S0 and lim suptVπΛμ:=V0. Choose a Lyapunov function U(t)=12I2(t), then when R01 we have

    dUdt=I2[βbSf(I)I+βvVg(I)I(μ+δ)]I2(μ+δ)(R01)0

    for any (S,V,I)Π. Furthermore, we easily prove that the maximal invariant set in {(S,V,I)Π:dU(t)dt=0} is equilibrium P0. Therefore, by the LaSalle's invariant principle, P0 is globally asymptotically stable.

    (ii) Calculating the Jacobi matrix of model (1.1) at equilibrium P0 implies the characteristic equation: (λ+μ)2(λ(μ+δ)(R01))=0. When R0>1, it is clear that J(P0) has an eigenvalue λ=(μ+δ)(R01)>0. Hence, P0 is unstable.

    The Jacobi matrix of model (1.1) at equilibrium P is

    J(P)=(ˆl110ˆl130ˆl22ˆl23ˆl31ˆl32ˆl33),

    where ˆl11=μ+βbf(I), ˆl13=βbSf(I), ˆl22=μ+βvg(I), ˆl23=βvVg(I), ˆl31=βbf(I), ˆl32=βvg(I) and ˆl33=βbSf(I)(βvVg(I)+(μ+δ)>βbSf(I)IβvVg(I)I+(μ+δ)=0. By directly calculating, we can obtain the characteristic equation of J(P)

    ϕ(ζ)=ζ3+ˆl1ζ2+ˆl2ζ+ˆl3=0,

    where ˆl1=ˆl11+ˆl22+ˆl33>0, ˆl2=ˆl11(ˆl22+ˆl33)+ˆl22ˆl33+ˆl23ˆl32+ˆl13ˆl31>0 and ˆl3=ˆl11(ˆl22ˆl33+ˆl23ˆl32)+ˆl13ˆl22ˆl31>0. Since

    ˆl1ˆl2ˆl3=(ˆl22+ˆl33)[ˆl11(ˆl11+ˆl22+ˆl33)+ˆl22ˆl33+ˆl23ˆl32]+(ˆl11+ˆl33)ˆl13ˆl31>0,

    owing to the Routh-Hurwitz criterion, we can obtain that P is locally asymptotically stable. This completes the proof.

    Remark 2.1. The conclusion (i) of Theorem 2.1 shows that the disease in model (1.1) is extinct. Furthermore, from conclusion (ii) of Theorem 2.1 and by using the persistence theory of dynamical systems we can easily prove that when R0>1 the disease in model (1.1) is uniformly persistent, that is, there is a constant m>0 such that for any positive solution (S(t),V(t),I(t)) of model (1.1), one has lim inft(S(t),V(t),I(t))(m,m,m). However, it is regrettable that when R0>1 we can not get the global stability of P. Therefore, this will be an interesting open problem.

    Firstly, as the based properties of solutions for model (1.2), we introduce the following lemmas.

    Lemma 3.1. For any initial value (S(0),V(0),I(0))R3+, model (1.2) has a unique solution (S(t),V(t),I(t)) defined for all t0, and this solution remains in R3+ with probability one.

    The proof of this lemma is similar to that given in [37], we here omit it.

    Lemma 3.2. For any initial value (S(0),V(0),I(0))R3+, then solution (S(t),V(t),I(t)) of model (1.2) satisfies

    limt1tlnS(t)0,limt1tlnI(t)0,limt1tlnV(t)0a.s.,limt1t(S(t)+V(t)+I(t))=0a.s.. (3.1)

    Moreover, if μ>12(σ21σ22σ23), we obtain

    limt1tt0xi(τ)dBi(τ)=0a.s.,i=1,2,3,limt1tt0Zηi(u)xi(s)˜W(ds,du)=0a.s.,i=1,2,3, (3.2)

    where x1(t)=S(t), x2(t)=V(t) and x3(t)=I(t).

    The proof of Lemma 3.2 is similar to that given in [37], we hence omit it here.

    In this section, we mainly discuss the extinction and persistence in mean of the disease in model (1.2). Firstly, define a threshold value as follows:

    Rs0=Λμ3+δ[(1π)βbf(0)μ+πβvg(0)μ], (3.3)

    where μ3=μ+σ232+Z(η3(u)ln[1+η3(u)])v(du).

    For the following stochastic system:

    {dˉS=[(1π)ΛμˉS]dt+σ1ˉSdB1(t)+Zη1(u)ˉS(s)˜W(ds,du),dˉV=[πΛμˉV]dt+σ2ˉVdB2(t)+Zη2(u)ˉV(s)˜W(ds,du), (3.4)

    with the initial values ˉS(0)=S(0)>0 and ˉV(0)=V(0)>0, owing to the stochastic comparison theorem, we have

    S(t)ˉS(t),V(t)ˉV(t)a.s., (3.5)

    where (S(t),V(t),I(t)) is the solution of model (1.2) with initial value (S(0),V(0),I(0)). Moreover, by integrating (3.4) we easily obtain that

    limt1tt0ˉS(s)ds=(1π)Λμ,limt1tt0ˉV(s)ds=πΛμa.s.. (3.6)

    Now, we can establish the following main conclusions in this section.

    Theorem 3.1. Let (S(t),V(t),I(t)) be any positive solution of system (1.2) with initial value (S(0),V(0),I(0))R3+. Then the following conclusions hold.

    (i) If Rs0<1, then lim suptlnI(t)t(μ3+δ)(Rs01)<0a.s. That is, limtI(t)=0a.s. Furthermore, limt1tt0S(s)ds=(1π)Λμ and limt1tt0V(s)ds=πΛμa.s.

    (ii) If Rs0>1, then lim inft1tt0I(s)ds1γ(μ3+δ)(Rs01)a.s., where γ:=μ+δμ[{μ+βb}f(0)+{μ+βv}g(0)]>0. Furthermore, when 0π<1, then lim inft1tt0S(s)ds>0, and when 0<π1, then lim inft1tt0V(s)ds>0.

    Proof. (i) Using Ito formula to lnI(t), we obtain

    dlnI(t)=[βbSf(I)I+βvVg(I)I(μ+δ+σ232)]dt+σ3dB3(t)+Z[ln(1+η3)IlnIη3]v(du)dt+Z[ln(1+η3)IlnI]˜W(dt,du).

    Hence, we have

    lnI(t)=lnI(0)+t0[βbSf(I)I+βvVg(I)I(μ+δ+σ232)]ds+σ3t0dB3(s)+t0Z[ln(1+η3)IlnIη3]v(du)+t0Z[ln(1+η3)IlnI]˜W(dt,du). (3.7)

    In the light of the strong law of large numbers [42], we have limt1tt0dB3(s)=0a.s. and limt1tt0Z[ln(1+η3)I(s)lnI(s)]˜W(ds,du)=0a.s. Divided by t the both sides of (3.7), then taking the superior limit and combining (3.6), we can obtain

    lim suptlnI(t)t=lim supt1tt0[βbSf(I)I+βvVg(I)I]ds(μ+δ+σ232+Z[η3ln(1+η3)]v(du))[(1π)βbΛf(0)μ+πβvΛg(0)μ](μ+δ+σ232+Z[η3ln(1+η3)]v(du))=(μ3+δ)(Rs01)<0a.s..

    It shows that limtI(t)=0a.s. Namely, the disease will be eliminated in the future. Furthermore, when limtI(t)=0a.s., we further obtain the limit system as follows:

    {dS=[(1π)ΛμS]dt+σ1SdB1(t)+Zη1(u)S(s)˜W(ds,du),dV=[πΛμV]dt+σ2VdB2(t)+Zη2(u)V(s)˜W(ds,du).

    Clearly, by integrating, as in (3.6), we can directly obtain

    limt1tt0S(s)ds=(1π)Λμ,limt1tt0V(s)ds=πΛμ,a.s..

    (ii) Define function U1 as follows:

    U1(S,V,I)=lnI(f(0)+g(0))Iβbf(0)μ(S+I)βvg(0)μ(V+I).

    Using Ito formula, we can obtain

    LU1μ+δ+σ232+Z[η3ln(1+η3)]v(du)βbf(0)Sβvg(0)Vβbf(0)[(1π)ΛμS]βvg(0)[πΛμV]+μ+δμ[(μ+βb)f(0)+(μ+βv)g(0)]I(μ3+δ)(Rs01)+γI.

    Therefore,

    dU1LU1dtσ3dB3(t)βbf(0)μσ1SdB3(t)βvg(0)μσ2VdB3(t)[(μ+βb)f(0)μ+(μ+βv)g(0)μ]σ3IdB3(t)Zln(1+η3(u))˜W(dt,du)(f(0)+g(0))Zη3(u)I˜W(dt,du)βbf(0)μZ(η1(u)S+η3(u)I)˜W(dt,du)βvg(0)μZ(η2(u)V+η3(u)I)˜W(dt,du). (3.8)

    Integrating both sides of (3.8) on interval [0,t], and then divide by t, in the light of Lemma 3.2, we can obtain lim inft1tt0I(s)ds1γ(μ3+δ)(Rs01)>0a.s. It shows that if Rs0>1, then the disease will persistence in the mean.

    Let N(t)=S(t)+V(t)+I(t), then from model (1.2) and Lemma 3.1 we obtain

    dN(t)=[Λμ(S(t)+V(t)+I(t))δI(t)]dt+H(t)[ΛμN(t)]dt+H(t),

    where H(t)=3i=1[σixi(t)dBi(t)+Zηi(u)xi(t)˜W(dt,du)], here we denote x1(t)=S(t), x2(t)=V(t) and x3(t)=I(t) for the convenience. By the comparison principle of stochastic differential equations, we further obtain

    N(t)N(0)eμt+Λμ(1eμt)+E(t)a.s., (3.9)

    where

    E(t)=t0eμ(ts)3i=1[σixi(s)dBi(s)+Zηi(u)xi(s)˜W(ds,du)].

    Define X(t)=N(0)+A(t)U(t)+E(t), where A(t)=Λμ(1eμt) and U(t)=N(0)(1eμt). From (3.9) we have N(t)X(t) for all t0. Obviously, X(t)0a.s. for all t0, and A(t) and U(t) are continuous adapted increasing processes on t0 with A(0)=U(0)=0. Therefore, by Theorem 3.9 in [42], we can obtain that limtX(t)<a.s. Consequently, lim suptN(t)<a.s. Thus, there is a constant M0>0, which is dependent on the solution (S(t),V(t),I(t)), such that for all t0,

    S(t)M0,V(t)M0,I(t)M0a.s.. (3.10)

    When 0π<1, from the first equation of model (1.2) and (3.10), we have

    S(t)S(0)t=1tt0[(1π)ΛμS(s)βbS(s)f(I(s))]ds+1tσ1t0S(s)dB1(s)+1tt0Zη1(u)S(s)˜W(ds,du)(1π)Λ1tt0(μ+βbf(0)M0)S(s)ds+1tσ1t0S(s)dB1(s)+1tt0Zη1(u)S(s)˜W(ds,du).

    From Lemma 3.2 we finally obtain

    lim inft1tt0S(s)ds(1π)Λμ+βbf(0)M0>0a.s..

    When 0<π1, a similar argument as in above, we can obtain

    lim inft1tt0V(s)dsπΛμ+βvg(0)M0>0a.s..

    This completes the proof.

    Remark 3.1. When σi=0 and ηi(u)0(i=1,2,3), we see that model (1.2) becomes into model (1.1), and threshold value Rs0 reduces to the basic reproduction number R0 of model (1.1). Therefore, a comparison of Theorem 3.1 with Theorem 2.1 and Remark 2.1 shows that the conclusions on the extinction and persistence of the disease for model (1.1) is extended to the conclusions on the extinction and persistence in the mean with probability one for model (1.2).

    Remark 3.2. Regrettably, in conclusion (ii) of Theorem 3.1 we do not obtain a more strong conclusion for S(t) and V(t) just as for I(t). That is, there is a common constant m>0 such that for any positive solution (S(t),V(t),I(t)) of model (1.2) one has lim inft1tt0S(s)dsma.s. or lim inft1tt0V(s)dsma.s. Here, we will leave this problem in the future study.

    In this section, we discuss the ergodicity and the existence of stationary distribution in model (1.2). We can directly establish the following result.

    Theorem 4.1. Assume Rs0>1. Then any positive solution (S(t),V(t),I(t)) of model (1.2) with initial value (S(0),V(0),I(0))R3+ is ergodic and has a unique stationary distribution π().

    Proof. Define function W:R3+R+ as follows:

    W(S,V,I)=QU1lnSlnV+1θ+1(S+V+I)θ+1QU1+U2+U3+U4,

    where U1 is defined in the proof of conclusion (ii) of Theorem 3.1, Q>0 is an enough large constant which is determined below, θ(0,1) is an enough small constant satisfying ρ=μθ2(σ21σ22σ23)>0. Additionally, U2=lnS, U3=lnV and U4=1θ+1(S+V+I)θ+1. For any integer k>0, let set Hk=(1k,k)×(1k,k)×(1k,k)R3+. It is clear that

    lim inf(S,V,I)R3+HkkW(S,V,I)=+.

    Hence, function W(S,V,I) has a minimum point (S0,V0,I0) in the interior of R3+. Then, we can define the nonnegative function U:R3+R+ as follows:

    U(S,V,I)=W(S,V,I)W(S0,V0,I0).

    In view of Ito formula, we have

    LU=LW=QLU1+LU2+LU3+LU4. (4.1)

    From the proof of conclusion (ii) of Theorem 3.1, we have obtained

    LU1(μ3+δ)(Rs01)+γI. (4.2)

    Calculating LU2, LU3 and LU4 respectively, we further obtain

    LU2=(1π)ΛS+βbf(I)+μ+σ212+Z(η1(u)ln[1+η1(u)])v(du)βbf(0)I+μ+σ212+Z(η1(u)ln[1+η1(u)])v(du)(1π)ΛS, (4.3)
    LU3=πΛV+μ+σ222+βvg(I)+Z(η2(u)ln[1+η2(u)])v(du)μ+σ222+βvg(0)I+Z(η2(u)ln[1+η2(u)])v(du)πΛV, (4.4)

    and

    LU4=(S+V+I)θ[Λμ(S+V+I)δI]+θ2(S+V+I)θ(σ21S2+σ22V2+σ23I2)Λ(S+V+I)θμ(S+V+I)θ+1+θ2(σ21σ22σ23)(S+V+I)θ+1Aρ2(S+V+I)θ+1Aρ2(Sθ+1+Vθ+1+Iθ+1), (4.5)

    where

    A=sup(S,V,I)R3+{Λ(S+V+I)θ12[μθ2(σ21σ22σ23](S+V+I+)θ+1}<.

    Choose constant Q>0 satisfying the following inequality:

    Q(μ+δ+σ232+Z[η3ln(1+η3)]v(du))(Rs01)+Λ+2μ+σ212+σ222++Z(η1(u)ln[1+η1(u)])v(du)+Z(η2(u)ln[1+η2(u)])v(du)+A<2. (4.6)

    Then, from (4.1)–(4.6) we can obtain

    LU2+[Qγ+βbf(0)+βvg(0)]I(1π)ΛSπΛVρ2(Sθ+1+Vθ+1+Iθ+1). (4.7)

    Now, we define the set H={(S,V,I):ξ<S<1ξ,ξ<V<1ξ,ξ<I<1ξ}, where ξ>0 is an enough small constant satisfying the following inequalities:

    2+B(1π)Λξ<1, (4.8)
    2+BπΛϵ<1, (4.9)
    2+[Qγ+βbf(0)+βvg(0)]ξ<1, (4.10)
    2+Bϱ4(1ξ)θ+1<1, (4.11)

    where B=supIR1+{[Qγ+βbf(0)+βvg(0)]Iρ4Iθ+1}<.

    Divide the set Hc into the following six domains:

    H1={(S,V,I)R3+,0<Sξ},H2={(S,V,I)R3+,0<Vξ,S>ξ},H3={(S,V,I)R3+,0<Iξ,V>ξ},H4={(S,V,I)R3+,S1ξ},H5={(S,V,I)R3+,V1ξ},H6={(S,V,I)R3+,I1ξ}.

    Now, we deduce LU(S,V,I)1 for any (S,V,I)Hc in the following four cases.

    Case 1. If (S,V,I)H1, by (4.8), we can get

    LU2+[Qγ+βbf(0)+βvg(0)]Iϱ4Iθ+1(1π)ΛS2+B(1π)Λξ<1. (4.12)

    Case 2. If (S,V,I)H2, by (4.9), we can get

    LU2+[Qγ+βbf(0)+βvg(0)]Iϱ4Iθ+1πΛV2+BπΛξ<1. (4.13)

    Case 3. If (S,V,I)H3, by (4.10), we can get

    LU2+[Qγ+βbf(0)+βvg(0)]I2+[Qγ+βbf(0)+βvg(0)]ξ<1. (4.14)

    Case 4. If (S,V,I)H4H5H6, by (4.11), we can get

    LU2+[Qγ+βbf(0)+βvg(0)]Iϱ4Iθ+1ϱ4Sθ+1ϱ4Vθ+1ϱ4Iθ+12+Bϱ4(1ξ)θ+1<1. (4.15)

    In addition, for model (1.2) the diffusion matrix is A=diag(σ21S2,σ22V2,σ23I2). Choose M0=min(S,V,I)¯H{σ21S2,σ22V2,σ23I2}, we can obtain

    τAτT=σ21S2τ21+σ22V2τ22+σ23I2τ23M0|τ|2

    for any (S,V,I)¯H and τ=(τ1,τ2,τ3)R3+.

    Thus, by Rayleigh's principle in [43] and [44], the conditions (i) and (ii) in [45,Lemma 4.4] are verified, respectively. It follows from the conclusions in [45,Lemma 4.4] that model (1.2) is ergodic and has a unique stationary distribution π(). This completes the proof.

    Remark 4.1. From Theorems 3.1 and 4.1, we see that when threshold value Rs0>1, for model (1.2), we not only establish the persistence of positive solutions in the mean, but also the ergodicity and the existence of stationary distribution of positive solutions. This shows that model (1.2) has more rich dynamical properties than the corresponding deterministic model (1.1).

    Remark 4.2. From conclusion (i) in Theorem 3.1, we can obtain that if any positive solution (S(t),V(t),I(t)) of model (1.2) is persistent in the mean then threshold value Rs01. If we further can get Rs0>1, then from Theorem 4.1 it will show that the solution (S(t),V(t),I(t)) has a unique stationary distribution. This seems to indicate that the persistence in the mean for model (1.2) may imply the existence of stationary distribution. Here, we will leave this issue in the future study.

    In this section, we investigate the existence and calculation of log-normal probability density function for model (1.2). Firstly, in order to facilitate calculation and demonstration, we introduce the logarithmic transformation x1=lnS, x2=lnV and x3=lnI to model (1.2), then by Ito formula, we have

    {dx1=[(1π)Λex1μ1βbf(ex3)]dt+σ1dB1(t)+Zln(1+η1(u))˜W(dt,du),dx2=[πΛex2μ2βvg(ex3)]dt+σ2dB2(t)+Zln(1+η2(u))˜W(dt,du),dx3=[βbf(ex3)ex1x3+βvg(ex3)ex2x3(μ3+δ)]dt+σ3dB3(t)+Zln(1+η3(u))˜W(dt,du), (5.1)

    where μi=μ+σ2i2+Z(ηi(u)ln[1+ηi(u)])v(du),i=1,2,3. Define a constant as follows:

    ˜Rs0=Λμ3+δ[(1π)βbf(0)μ1+πβvg(0)μ2].

    If ˜Rs0>1, then function equation:

    h(I)

    has a unique positive root I_{*}^{+}. Define E_{*}^{+} = (S_{*}^{+}, V_{*}^{+}, I_{*}^{+}) = (e^{x_{1}^{*}}, e^{x_{2}^{*}}, e^{x_{3}^{*}}) , where

    S_*^+ = \frac{(1-\pi)\Lambda}{\mu_{1}+\beta_{b}f(I_{*}^{+})}, \;V_*^+ = \frac{\pi\Lambda}{\mu_{2}+\beta_{v}g(I_{*}^{+})}.

    It can be seen that E_{*}^{+} = (S_{*}^{+}, V_{*}^{+}, I_{*}^{+}) coincides with endemic equilibrium P^* = (S^*, V^*, I^*) of model (1.1) when \sigma_{1} = \sigma_{2} = \sigma_{3} = 0. In the general, E_*^+ is called the quasi-stationary state of model (1.2).

    Let (y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3}) = (x_{1}-x_{1}^{*}, x_{2}-x_{2}^{*}, x_{3}-x_{3}^{*}) , where x_{1}^{*} = \ln S_{*}^{+} , x_{2}^{*} = \ln V_{*}^{+} and x_{3}^{*} = \ln I_{*}^{+}, the linearization of system (5.1) at E_*^+ is

    \begin{equation} \left\{\begin{aligned} d y_1 = &\left[-l_{11}y_{1}-l_{13}y_{3}\right] d t+\sigma_{1} d B_{1}(t)+\int_{Z}{\ln(1+\eta_{1}(u))\widetilde{W}(dt, du)}, \\ d y_2 = &\left[-l_{22}y_{1}-l_{23}y_{3}\right] d t+\sigma_{2} d B_{2}(t) +\int_{Z}{\ln(1+\eta_{2}(u))\widetilde{W}(dt, du)}, \\ d y_3 = &\left[l_{31}y_{1}+l_{32}y_{2}-l_{33}y_{3}\right] d t+\sigma_{3} d B_{3}(t)+\int_{Z}{\ln(1+\eta_{3}(u))\widetilde{W}(dt, du)}, \end{aligned}\right. \end{equation} (5.2)

    where

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} l_{11} = &(1-\pi)\Lambda e^{-x_{1}^{*}} > 0, \; l_{13} = \beta_{b}e^{x_{3}^{*}}f'(e^{x_{3}^{*}}) > 0, \\ l_{22} = &\pi\Lambda e^{-x_{2}^{*}} > 0, \; l_{23} = \beta_{v}e^{x_{3}^{*}}g'(e^{x_{3}^{*}}) > 0, \\ l_{31} = &\beta_{b}f(e^{x_{3}^{*}})e^{x_{1}^{*}-x_{3}^{*}} > 0, \; l_{32} = \beta_{v}g(e^{x_{3}^{*}})e^{x_{2}^{*}-x_{3}^{*}} > 0, \\ l_{33} = &\beta_{b}e^{x_{1}^{*}}[e^{-x_{3}^{*}}f(e^{x_{3}^{*}})-f'(e^{x_{3}^{*}})]+\beta_{v}e^{x_{2}^{*}}[e^{-x_{3}^{*}}g(e^{x_{3}^{*}})-g'(e^{x_{3}^{*}})] > 0. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    To prove the existence of a log-normal probability density function for model (1.2), we firstly introduce the following auxiliary lemmas.

    Lemma 5.1. [31] For the algebraic equation G_{0}^{2}+A_{0}\Sigma_{0}+\Sigma_{0}A_{0}^{T} = 0 , where G_{0} = diag(1, 0, 0) ,

    \begin{equation} A_{0} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} -l_{1} & -l_{2} &-l_{3}\\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{array} \right). \end{equation} (5.3)

    If l_1 > 0 , l_3 > 0 and l_1l_2 -l_3 > 0 , then \Sigma_{0} is a positive definite matrix and has the expression:

    \begin{equation} \Sigma_{0} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{l_{2}}{2(l_{1}l_{2}-l_{3})} & 0 &-\frac{1}{2(l_{1}l_{2}-l_{3})}\\ 0 & \frac{1}{2(l_{1}l_{2}-l_{3})} & 0 \\ -\frac{1}{2(l_{1}l_{2}-l_{3})} & 0 &\frac{l_{1}}{2l_3(l_{1}l_{2}-l_{3})} \end{array} \right). \end{equation} (5.4)

    Lemma 5.2. [31] For the algebraic equation G_{0}^{2}+A_{0}\Gamma_{0}+\Gamma_{0}A_{0}^{T} = 0 , where G_{0} = diag(1, 0, 0) ,

    \begin{equation} A_{0} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} -b_{1} & -b_{2} &-b_{3}\\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & b_{33} \end{array} \right). \end{equation} (5.5)

    If b_1 > 0 and b_2 > 0 , then \Gamma_{0} is a positive semidefinite matrix and has the expression:

    \begin{equation} \Gamma_{0} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{1}{2b_{1}}& 0&0\\ 0 & \frac{1}{2b_{1}b_{2}}& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right). \end{equation} (5.6)

    Next, by introducing a new calculation technique for the density function, the conclusion on the existence of log-normal probability density function is given as follows.

    Theorem 5.1. Let (y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3}) be any solution of system (5.2) with initial value (y_{1}(0), y_{2}(0), y_{3}(0)) \in R^3 , If \tilde{R}_{0}^{s} > 1 , then there is a log-normal probability density function \Phi(y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3}) around quasi-stationary state E_{*}^{+} , which has the following expression:

    \Phi(y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3}) = (2\pi)^{-\frac{3}{2}}|\Sigma|^{-\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}(y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3})\Sigma^{-1}(y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3})^{T}},

    where \Sigma is a positive definite matrix, and the specific form of \Sigma is given as follows:

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \Sigma = J_{1}^{-1}\Sigma_{0}(J_{1}^{T})^{-1}+J_{2}^{-1}\Sigma_{0}(J_{2}^{T})^{-1}+J_{3}^{-1}\Theta_{0}(J_{3}^{T})^{-1}, \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    where

    \begin{equation*} J_{1} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{1}{\rho_{1}} & \frac{l_{22}^{2}+l_{32}l_{23}}{l_{31}\rho_{1}} &-\frac{l_{22}+l_{33}}{l_{31}\rho_{1}}\\ 0 & \frac{l_{22}}{l_{23}l_{31}\rho_{1}} & \frac{1}{l_{31}\rho_{1}} \\ 0 & -\frac{1}{l_{23}l_{31}\rho_{1}} & 0 \end{array} \right), \; J_{2} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} -\frac{l_{11}^{2}-l_{13}l_{31}}{l_{13}l_{32}\rho_{2}}& \frac{1}{\rho_{2}} &-\frac{l_{11}+l_{33}}{l_{32}\rho_{2}}\\ \frac{l_{11}}{l_{13}l_{32}\rho_{2}} & 0 & \frac{1}{l_{32}\rho_{2}} \\ -\frac{1}{l_{13}l_{32}\rho_{2}} & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right), \end{equation*}

    and if l_{11}\neq l_{22} , then

    \begin{equation*} \Theta_0 = \Sigma_0, \; J_{3} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{l_{11}l_{23}}{l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta} & -\frac{l_{13}l_{22}}{l_{11}\rho_{3}\Delta} &\frac{1}{\rho_{3}}\\ -\frac{l_{23}}{l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta} & \frac{l_{13}}{l_{11}\rho_{3}\Delta} & 0\\ \frac{l_{23}}{l_{11}l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta} & -\frac{l_{13}}{l_{11}l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta} & 0 \end{array} \right), \end{equation*}

    if l_{11} = l_{22} , then

    \begin{equation*} \Theta_0 = \Gamma_0, \; J_{3} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{l_{11}}{l_{13}\rho_{3}} & 0 &\frac{1}{\rho_{3}}\\ -\frac{1}{l_{13}\rho_{3}}& 0 & 0\\ -\frac{l_{23}}{l_{13}} & 1 & 0 \end{array} \right), \end{equation*}

    where \Delta = \frac{l_{13}l_{23}(l_{11}-l_{22})}{l_{11}l_{22}} and \rho_{i}^{2} = \sigma_{i}^{2}+2\int_{Z}(\eta_{i}(u)-\ln[1+\eta_{i}(u)])v(du)\; (i = 1, 2, 3).

    Proof. In view of (5.2), let Y = (y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3})^{T} and the coefficients matrix

    \begin{equation*} A = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} -l_{11} & 0 &-l_{13}\\ 0 & -l_{22} &-l_{23} \\ l_{31} & l_{32} & -l_{33} \end{array} \right). \end{equation*}

    Similar to the method in [46], the density function \Phi(Y) = \Phi(y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3}) of the quasi-stationary distribution of system (5.1) around the origin point can be obtained by solving the following three-dimensional Fokker-Plank equation

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &-\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{3}[\frac{\sigma_{i}^{2}}{2}+\int_{Z}(\eta_{i}(u)-\ln[1+\eta_{i}(u)])v(du)]\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y_{i}^{2}}\Phi+\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{1}}[(-l_{11}y_{1}-l_{13}y_{3})\Phi]\\ &+\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{2}}[(-l_{22}y_{1}-l_{23}y_{3})\Phi]+\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{3}}[(l_{31}y_{1}+l_{32}y_{2}-l_{33}y_{3})\Phi] = 0, \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    its form may be expressed approximately as a Gaussian distribution

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \Phi(Y) = ce^{-\frac{1}{2}(Y-Y^*)\tilde{Q}(Y-Y^*)^{T}}, \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.7)

    where Y^* = (0, 0, 0) , and \tilde{Q} is a real symmetric matrix which satisfies the following equation:

    \tilde{Q}G^2\tilde{Q}+A^{T}\tilde{Q}+\tilde{Q}A = 0,

    where G^2 = diag(\rho_{1}^{2}, \rho_{2}^{2}, \rho_{3}^{2}) with \rho_{i}^{2} = \sigma_{i}^{2}+2\int_{Z}(\eta_{i}(u)-\ln[1+\eta_{i}(u)])v(du), i = 1, 2, 3.

    If \tilde{Q} is positive definite matrix, let \tilde{Q}^{-1} = \Sigma , then

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} G^{2}+A\Sigma+\Sigma A^{T} = 0. \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.8)

    Therefore, if a positive definite matrix \Sigma is calculated, then positive definite matrix \tilde{Q} will be obtained. Thus, density function \Phi(Y) will be concretely acquired. According to [47], Eq (5.8) can be formed from the sum of the following three equations:

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} G_{i}^{2}+A\Sigma_{i}+\Sigma_{i} A^{T} = 0, \;i = 1, 2, 3, \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    where \Sigma = \Sigma_{1}+\Sigma_{2}+\Sigma_{3} and G^{2} = G_{1}^{2}+G_{2}^{2}+G_{3}^{2} with

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &G_{1}^{2} = diag(\rho_{1}^{2}, 0, 0), \; G_{2}^{2} = diag(0, \rho_{2}^{2}, 0), \; G_{3}^{2} = diag(0, 0, \rho_{3}^{2}). \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    Next, it will be shown that A is a stable matrix. In fact, the characteristic equation of the matrix A is

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \varphi_{A}(\lambda) = \lambda^{3}+l_{1}\lambda^2+l_{2}\lambda+l_{3}, \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.9)

    where l_{1} = l_{11}+l_{22}+l_{33} > 0 , l_{2} = l_{11}(l_{22}+l_{33})+l_{22}l_{33}+l_{23}l_{32}+l_{13}l_{31} > 0 and l_{3} = l_{11}(l_{22}l_{33}+l_{23}l_{32})+l_{13}l_{22}l_{31} > 0 . By calculation, we can obtain

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} l_{1}l_{2}-l_{3} = &(l_{22}+l_{33})[l_{11}(l_{11}+l_{22}+l_{33})+l_{22}l_{33}+l_{23}l_{32}]+(l_{11}+l_{33})l_{13}l_{31} > 0, \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.10)

    which means that A is a stable matrix by the Hurwitz criterion.

    Now, the special expression of \Sigma can be found in three steps as follows: \Sigma = \Sigma_{1}+\Sigma_{2}+\Sigma_{3} .

    Step 1. We consider the following algebraic equation:

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} G_{1}^{2}+A\Sigma_{1}+\Sigma_{1} A^{T} = 0. \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.11)

    We will choose a reversible matrix J_{1} with the expression

    \begin{equation*} J_{1} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \mu_{11} & \mu_{12} &\mu_{13}\\ \mu_{21} & \mu_{22} & \mu_{23} \\ \mu_{31} & \mu_{32} & \mu_{33} \end{array} \right) \end{equation*}

    such that Eq (5.11) changes to the following form:

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} J_{1}G_{1}^{2}J_{1}^{T}+ J_{1}AJ_{1}^{-1}J_{1}\Sigma_{1}J_{1}^{T}+J_{1}\Sigma_{1}J_{1}^{T}(J_{1}AJ_{1}^{-1})^{T} = 0, \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.12)

    which satisfies J_1G_1^2J_1^T = G_0^2 = diag(1, 0, 0) and J_1AJ_1^{-1} = A_0. Let \Sigma_{0} = J_{1}\Sigma_{1}J_{1}^{T} , then Eq (5.12) is equivalently rewritten by G_0^2+A_0\Sigma_0+\Sigma_0A_0^{T} = 0 .

    According to G_{0}^{2} = J_{1}G_{1}^{2}J_{1}^{T} , we have

    \begin{equation*} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \mu_{11}^{2}\rho_{1}^{2} & \mu_{11}\mu_{21}\rho_{1}^{2} &\mu_{11}\mu_{31}\rho_{1}^{2}\\ \mu_{11}\mu_{21}\rho_{1}^{2} & \mu_{21}^{2}\rho_{1}^{2} & \mu_{21}\mu_{31}\rho_{1}^{2} \\ \mu_{11}\mu_{31}\rho_{1}^{2} & \mu_{31}\mu_{21}\rho_{1}^{2} & \mu_{31}^{2}\rho_{1}^{2} \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 &0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right), \end{equation*}

    it implies that

    \begin{equation} \mu_{11}^{2}\rho_{1}^{2} = 1\Rightarrow \mu_{11} = \frac{1}{\rho_{1}}, \; \mu_{21} = 0, \; \mu_{31} = 0. \end{equation} (5.13)

    In view of A_{0} = J_{1}AJ_{1}^{-1} and (1.2), namely, J_{1}A = A_{0}J_{1} , we have

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &\left( \begin{array}{ccc} -l_{11}\mu_{11}+l_{31}\mu_{13} &-l_{22} \mu_{12}+l_{32}\mu_{13} &-(l_{13}\mu_{11}+l_{23}\mu_{12}+l_{33}\mu_{13})\\ l_{31}\mu_{23} & -l_{22}\mu_{22}+l_{32}\mu_{23} & -l_{23}\mu_{22}-l_{33}\mu_{23} \\ l_{31}\mu_{33} &-l_{22} \mu_{32}+l_{32}\mu_{33} & -l_{23}\mu_{32}-l_{33}\mu_{33} \end{array} \right)\\ = &\left( \begin{array}{ccc} -l_{1}\mu_{11} & -(l_{1}\mu_{12}+l_{2}\mu_{22}+l_{3}\mu_{32}) &-(l_{1}\mu_{13}+l_{2}\mu_{23}+l_{3}\mu_{33})\\ \mu_{11} & \mu_{12} & \mu_{13}\\ 0 & \mu_{22} & \mu_{23} \end{array} \right). \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    Hence, we have l_{31}\mu_{33} = 0 , -l_{22}\mu_{32}+l_{32}\mu_{33} = \mu_{22} , l_{31}\mu_{23} = \mu_{11} , -l_{23}\mu_{32}-l_{33}\mu_{33} = \mu_{23} , -l_{22}\mu_{22}+l_{32}\mu_{23} = \mu_{12} and -l_{23}\mu_{22}-l_{33}\mu_{23} = \mu_{13} . Solving these equations we further can obtain

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \mu_{33} = &0, \; \mu_{23} = \frac{1}{l_{31}\rho_{1}}, \; \mu_{32} = -\frac{\mu_{23}}{l_{23}} = -\frac{1}{l_{23}a_{31}\rho_{1}}, \;\mu_{13} = -\frac{l_{22}+l_{33}}{a_{31}\rho_{1}}, \\ \mu_{22} = &-l_{22}\mu_{32} = \frac{l_{22}}{l_{23}l_{31}\rho_{1}}, \; \mu_{12} = \frac{l_{22}^{2}}{l_{23}l_{31}\rho_{1}}+\frac{l_{32}}{l_{31}\rho_{1}} = \frac{l_{22}^{2}+l_{32}l_{23}}{l_{31}\rho_{1}}. \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.14)

    In addition, by carefully calculating we can verify that -l_{11}\mu_{11}+l_{31}\mu_{13} = -l_1\mu_{11} , -l_{22}\mu_{12}+l_{32}\mu_{13} = -(l_1\mu_{12}+l_2\mu_{22}+l_3\mu_{32}) and -(l_{13}\mu_{11}+l_{23}\mu_{12}+l_{33}\mu_{13}) = -(l_1\mu_{13}+l_2\mu_{23}). Thus, by (5.13) and (5.14), the specific expression of J_1 is calculated as

    \begin{equation*} J_{1} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{1}{\rho_{1}} & \frac{l_{22}^{2}+l_{32}l_{23}}{l_{31}\rho_{1}} &-\frac{l_{22}+l_{33}}{l_{31}\rho_{1}}\\ 0 & \frac{l_{22}}{l_{23}l_{31}\rho_{1}} & \frac{1}{l_{31}\rho_{1}} \\ 0 & -\frac{1}{l_{23}l_{31}\rho_{1}} & 0 \end{array} \right). \end{equation*}

    Clearly, J_1 is reversible. From Lemma 5.1, we have known that \Sigma_{0} is positive definite and

    \begin{equation*} \Sigma_{0} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{l_{2}}{2(l_{1}l_{2}-l_{3})} & 0 &-\frac{1}{2(l_{1}l_{2}-l_{3})}\\ 0 & \frac{1}{2(l_{1}l_{2}-l_{3})} & 0 \\ -\frac{1}{2(l_{1}l_{2}-l_{3})} & 0 &\frac{l_{1}}{2l_3(l_{1}l_{2}-l_{3})} \end{array} \right). \end{equation*}

    Therefore, from \Sigma_{0} = J_{1}\Sigma_{1}J_{1}^{T} , we finally obtain a positive definite matrix

    \begin{equation} \Sigma_{1} = J_{1}^{-1}\Sigma_{0}(J_{1}^{T})^{-1}. \end{equation} (5.15)

    Step 2. We consider the following algebraic equation:

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} G_{2}^{2}+A\Sigma_{2}+\Sigma_{2} A^{T} = 0. \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.16)

    Similarly to Step 1, we will choose a reversible matrix J_{2} with the expression

    \begin{align} J_{2} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} m_{11} & m_{12} &m_{13}\\ m_{21} & m_{22} & m_{23} \\ m_{31} & m_{32} & m_{33} \end{array} \right) \end{align}

    such that Eq (5.16) changes to the following form:

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} J_{2}G_{2}^{2}J_{2}^{T}+ J_{2}AJ_{2}^{-1}J_{2}\Sigma_{2}J_{1}^{T}+J_{2}\Sigma_{2}J_{2}^{T}(J_{2}AJ_{2}^{-1})^{T} = 0, \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    which satisfies J_2G_2^2J_2^T = G_0^2 = diag(1, 0, 0) and J_2AJ_2^{-1} = A_0. According to G_{0}^{2} = J_{2}G_{2}^{2}J_{2}^{T} , we have

    \begin{equation*} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} m_{12}^{2}\rho_{2}^{2} & m_{12}m_{22}\rho_{2}^{2} &m_{12}m_{32}\rho_{2}^{2}\\ m_{12}m_{22}\rho_{2}^{2} & m_{22}^{2}\rho_{2}^{2} & m_{22}m_{32}\rho_{2}^{2} \\ m_{12}m_{32}\rho_{2}^{2} & m_{32}m_{22}\rho_{2}^{2}& m_{32}^{2}\rho_{2}^{2} \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 &0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right), \end{equation*}

    which implies

    \begin{equation} m_{12}^{2}\rho_{2}^{2} = 1\Rightarrow m_{12} = \frac{1}{\rho_{2}}, \; m_{22} = 0, \; m_{32} = 0. \end{equation} (5.17)

    In view of A_{0} = J_{2}AJ_{2}^{-1} and (5.17), namely, J_{2}A = A_{0}J_{2} , we have

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &\left( \begin{array}{ccc} -l_{11}m_{11}+l_{31}m_{13} &-l_{22}m_{12}+l_{32}m_{13} &-(l_{13}m_{11}+l_{23}m_{12}+l_{33}m_{13})\\ -l_{11}m_{21}+l_{31}m_{23} & l_{32}m_{23}& -l_{13}m_{21}-l_{33}m_{23} \\ - l_{11}m_{31}+l_{31}m_{33} &l_{32}m_{33} & -l_{13}m_{31}-l_{33}m_{33} \end{array} \right)\\ = &\left( \begin{array}{ccc} -(l_{1}m_{11}+l_{2}m_{21}+l_{3}m_{31}) & -l_{1}m_{12} &-(l_{1}m_{13}+l_{2}m_{23}+l_{3}m_{33})\\ m_{11} & m_{12} & m_{13}\\ m_{21} & 0 & m_{23} \end{array} \right). \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    Hence, we obtain l_{32}m_{33} = 0 , l_{32}m_{23} = m_{12} , -l_{13}m_{31}-l_{33}m_{33} = m_{23} , -l_{11}m_{31}+l_{31}m_{33} = m_{21} , -l_{11}m_{21}+l_{31}m_{23} = m_{11} , -l_{13}m_{21}-l_{33}m_{23} = m_{13} . Solving these equations, we further obtain

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} &m_{33} = 0, \; m_{23} = \frac{m_{12}}{l_{32}} = \frac{1}{l_{32}\rho_{2}}, \; m_{31} = -\frac{1}{l_{13}l_{32}\rho_{2}}, \\ &m_{21} = \frac{l_{11}}{l_{13}l_{32}\rho_{2}}, \; m_{11} = -\frac{l_{11}^{2}-l_{13}l_{31}}{l_{13}l_{32}\rho_{2}}, \; m_{13} = -\frac{l_{11}+l_{33}}{l_{32}\rho_{2}}. \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.18)

    In addition, by carefully calculating we can verify that -l_{11}m_{11}+l_{31}m_{13} = -(l_{1}m_{11}+l_{2}m_{21}+l_{3}m_{31}) , -l_{22}m_{12}+l_{32}m_{13} = -l_{1}m_{12} and -(l_{13}m_{11}+l_{23}m_{12}+l_{33}m_{13}) = -(l_{1}m_{13}+l_{2}m_{23}) . Thus, by (5.17) and (5.18), we can also obtain

    \begin{equation*} J_{2} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} -\frac{l_{11}^{2}-l_{13}l_{31}}{l_{13}l_{32}\rho_{2}}& \frac{1}{\rho_{2}} &-\frac{l_{11}+l_{33}}{l_{32}\rho_{2}}\\ \frac{l_{11}}{l_{13}l_{32}\rho_{2}} & 0 & \frac{1}{l_{32}\rho_{2}} \\ -\frac{1}{l_{13}l_{32}\rho_{2}} & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right). \end{equation*}

    Clearly, J_2 is reversible. From Lemma 5.1, we finally obtain a positive definite matrix

    \begin{equation} \Sigma_{2} = J_{2}^{-1}\Sigma_{0}(J_{2}^{T})^{-1}. \end{equation} (5.19)

    Step 3. We consider the algebraic equation

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} G_{3}^{2}+A\Sigma_{3}+\Sigma_{3} A^{T} = 0. \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.20)

    Likewise, we will choose a reversible matrix J_{3} such that Eq (5.20) changes to the following form:

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} J_{3}G_{3}^{2}J_{3}^{T}+ J_{3}AJ_{3}^{-1}J_{3}\Sigma_{3}J_{3}^{T}+J_{3}\Sigma_{3}J_{3}^{T}(J_{3}AJ_{3}^{-1})^{T} = 0, \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    which satisfies G_{0}^{2} = J_{3}G_{3}^{2}J_{3}^{T} and A_0 = J_{3}AJ_{3}^{-1} , where

    \begin{equation*} J_{3} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} n_{11} & n_{12} &n_{13}\\ n_{21} & n_{22} & n_{23} \\ n_{31} & n_{32} & n_{33} \end{array} \right). \end{equation*}

    In the light of G_{0}^{2} = J_{3}G_{3}^{2}J_{3}^{T} , we have

    \begin{equation*} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} n_{13}^{2}\rho_{3}^{2} & n_{23}n_{13}\rho_{3}^{2} &n_{33}n_{13}\rho_{3}^{2}\\ n_{23}n_{13}\rho_3^2 & n_{23}^2\rho_3^2 & n_{23}n_{33}\rho_3^2 \\ n_{33}n_{13}\rho_3^2 & n_{33}n_{23}\rho_3^2 & n_{33}^2\rho_3^2 \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 &0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right). \end{equation*}

    Then, we can obtain

    \begin{equation} n_{13}^{2}\rho_{3}^{2} = 1\Rightarrow n_{13} = \frac{1}{\rho_{3}}, \; n_{23} = 0, \; n_{33} = 0. \end{equation} (5.21)

    In view of A_{0} = J_{3}AJ_{3}^{-1} and (5.21), namely, J_{3}A = A_{0}J_{33} , we have

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} &\left( \begin{array}{ccc} -l_{11}n_{11}+l_{31}n_{13} &-l_{22}n_{12}+l_{32}n_{13} &-(l_{13}n_{11}+l_{23}n_{12}+l_{33}n_{13})\\ -l_{11}n_{21} & -l_{22}n_{22}& -l_{13}n_{21}-l_{23}n_{22} \\ - l_{11}n_{31} &-l_{22}n_{32} & -l_{13}n_{31}-l_{23}n_{32} \end{array} \right)\\ = &\left( \begin{array}{ccc} -(l_{1}n_{11}+l_{2}n_{21}+l_{3}n_{31}) & -(l_{1}n_{12}+l_{2}n_{22}+l_{3}n_{32}) &-l_{1}n_{13}\\ n_{11} & n_{12} & n_{13}\\ n_{21} & n_{22}& 0 \end{array} \right). \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    Thus, we have

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} &-l_{11}n_{21} = n_{11}, \; -l_{11}n_{31} = n_{21}, \; -l_{22}n_{22} = n_{12}, \; -l_{22}n_{32} = -l_{22}n_{32}, \\ &-l_{13}n_{31}-l_{23}n_{32} = 0, \; -l_{13}n_{21}-l_{23}n_{22} = n_{13} = \frac{1}{\rho_{3}}, \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.22)

    which implies

    \begin{equation} \left\{\begin{aligned} &l_{13}n_{21}+l_{23}n_{22} = -\frac{1}{\rho_{3}}, \\ &\frac{l_{13}}{l_{11}}n_{21}+\frac{l_{23}}{l_{22}}n_{22} = 0. \end{aligned}\right. \end{equation} (5.23)

    Assume l_{11}\neq l_{22} . By solving Eq (5.23), we have

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} n_{21} = -\frac{l_{23}}{l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta}, \; n_{22} = \frac{l_{13}}{l_{11}\rho_{3}\Delta}, \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.24)

    where \Delta = \frac{l_{13}l_{23}(l_{11}-l_{22})}{l_{11}l_{22}} . According to (5.22) and (5.24), one can easily obtain n_{11} = -l_{11}n_{21} = \frac{l_{11}l_{23}}{l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta} , n_{12} = -l_{22}n_{22} = -\frac{l_{13}l_{22}}{l_{11}\rho_{3}\Delta} , n_{31} = -\frac{n_{21}}{l_{11}} = \frac{l_{23}}{l_{11}l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta} and n_{32} = -\frac{n_{22}}{l_{22}} = -\frac{l_{13}}{l_{11}l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta} . In addition, by carefully calculating we can verify that -l_{11}n_{11}+l_{31}n_{13} = -(l_{1}n_{11}+l_{2}n_{21}+l_{3}n_{31}) , -l_{22}n_{12}+l_{32}n_{13} = -(l_{1}n_{12}+l_{2}n_{22}+l_{3}n_{32}) and -(l_{13}n_{11}+l_{23}n_{12}+l_{33}n_{13}) = -l_{1}n_{13} . Thus, we can obtain

    \begin{equation*} J_{3} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{l_{11}l_{23}}{l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta} & -\frac{l_{13}l_{22}}{l_{11}\rho_{3}\Delta} &\frac{1}{\rho_{3}}\\ -\frac{l_{23}}{l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta} & \frac{l_{13}}{l_{11}\rho_{3}\Delta} & 0\\ \frac{l_{23}}{l_{11}l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta} & -\frac{l_{13}}{l_{11}l_{22}\rho_{3}\Delta} & 0 \end{array} \right). \end{equation*}

    Clearly, J_3 is reversible. From Lemma 5.1, we finally obtain a positive definite matrix

    \begin{equation} \Sigma_{3} = J_{3}^{-1}\Sigma_{0}(J_{3}^{T})^{-1}. \end{equation} (5.25)

    When l_{11} = l_{22} , we will use Lemma 5.2. Let

    \begin{equation*} A_{0} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} -b_{1} & -b_{2} &-b_{3}\\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & a_{11} \end{array} \right), \end{equation*}

    where b_{1} = l_{22}+l_{33} , b_{2} = l_{22}l_{33}+l_{23}l_{32}+l_{13}l_{31} and b_3 is given below. From A_{0} = J_{3}AJ_{3}^{-1} and (5.21), namely, J_{3}A = A_{0}J_{33} , we have

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} &\left( \begin{array}{ccc} -l_{11}n_{11}+l_{31}n_{13} &-l_{22}n_{12}+l_{32}n_{13} &-(l_{13}n_{11}+l_{23}n_{12}+l_{33}n_{13})\\ -l_{11}n_{21} & -l_{22}n_{22}& -l_{13}n_{21}-l_{23}n_{22} \\ - l_{11}n_{31} &-l_{22}n_{32} & -l_{13}n_{31}-l_{23}n_{32} \end{array} \right)\\ = &\left( \begin{array}{ccc} -(b_{1}n_{11}+b_{2}n_{21}+b_{3}n_{31}) & -(b_{1}n_{12}+b_{2}n_{22}+b_{3}n_{32}) &-b_{1}n_{13}\\ n_{11} & n_{12} & n_{13}\\ -l_{11}n_{31} & -l_{11}n_{32}& 0 \end{array} \right). \end{aligned} \end{align}

    Thus, we have

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} &-l_{11}n_{21} = n_{11}, \; -l_{22}n_{22} = n_{12}, \; -l_{13}n_{31}-l_{23}n_{32} = 0, \\ &-l_{13}n_{21}-l_{23}n_{22} = n_{13}, \; -(l_{13}n_{11}+l_{23}n_{12}+l_{33}n_{13}) = -b_{1}n_{13}, \\ &-l_{11}n_{11}+l_{31}n_{13} = -(b_{1}n_{11}+b_{2}n_{21}+b_{3}n_{31}), \\ & -l_{22}n_{12}+l_{32}n_{13} = -(b_{1}n_{12}+b_{2}n_{22}+b_{3}n_{32}). \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.26)

    We further have

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} -l_{11}n_{11}+l_{31}n_{13} = &-(b_{1}n_{11}+b_{2}n_{21}+b_{3}n_{31})\\ = &-(l_{22}+l_{33})n_{11}+(l_{22}l_{33}+l_{23}l_{32}+l_{13}l_{31})\frac{n_{11}}{l_{11}}-b_{3}n_{31}, \\ -l_{22}n_{12}+l_{32}n_{13} = &-(b_{1}n_{12}+b_{2}n_{22}+b_{3}n_{32})\\ = &-(l_{22}+l_{33})n_{12}+(l_{22}l_{33}+l_{23}l_{32}+l_{13}l_{31})\frac{n_{12}}{l_{22}}-b_{3}n_{32}, \\ \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    and then

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} n_{11}[l_{23}l_{32}+l_{13}l_{31}] = &l_{11}(l_{31}n_{13}+b_{3}n_{31}), \\ n_{12}[l_{23}l_{32}+l_{13}l_{31}] = &l_{22}(l_{32}n_{13}+b_{3}n_{32}).\\ \end{aligned} \end{equation} (5.27)

    Choose n_{32} = 1 and b_3 = -l_{32}n_{13} = -\frac{l_{32}}{\rho_3} , then from (5.26) and (5.27) we easily obtain n_{12} = 0 , n_{31} = -\frac{l_{23}}{l_{13}} , n_{11} = \frac{l_{11}}{l_{13}\rho_{3}} , n_{21} = -\frac{1}{l_{13}\rho_{3}} and n_{22} = 0 . Thus, we finally have

    \begin{align*} J_{3} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{l_{11}}{l_{13}\rho_{3}} & 0 &\frac{1}{\rho_{3}}\\ -\frac{1}{l_{13}\rho_{3}}& 0 & 0\\ -\frac{l_{23}}{l_{13}} & 1 & 0 \end{array} \right). \end{align*}

    Clearly, J_3 is reversible. From Lemma 5.2, we can choose a semipositive definite \Gamma_{0} as follows:

    \begin{equation*} \Gamma_{0} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{1}{2b_{1}}& 0&0\\ 0 & \frac{1}{2b_{1}b_{2}}& 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right). \end{equation*}

    By \Gamma_{0} = J_{3}\Sigma_{3}J_{3}^{T} , we finally obtain a semipositive definite matrix

    \begin{equation} \Sigma_{3} = J_{3}^{-1}\Gamma_{0}(J_{3}^{T})^{-1}. \end{equation} (5.28)

    Summarizing the above calculations, we finally conclude that there exists a real symmetric positive definite matrix \Sigma = \Sigma_{1}+\Sigma_{2}+\Sigma_{3} satisfying (5.8). As a result, there is a locally approximate log-normal probability density function

    \Phi(y_1, y_2, y_3) = (2\pi)^{-\frac{3}{2}}|\Sigma|^{-\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}(\ln \frac{S}{S_{*}^{+}}, \ln \frac{V}{V_{*}^{+}}, \ln \frac{I}{I_{*}^{+}})\Sigma^{-1}(\ln \frac{S}{S_{*}^{+}}, \ln \frac{V}{V_{*}^{+}}, \ln \frac{I}{I_{*}^{+}})^{T}}

    near the quasi-stationary state E_{*}^{+} . This completes the proof.

    Remark 5.1. From the proof of Theorem 5.1 it is shown that a new calculation technique for matrix \Sigma is proposed. Obviously, this technique is different from the calculation method given in [31].

    In this section, we present the simulation results to give the reader a clear understanding of our results were achieved by using the method mentioned in [48]. Throughout the following numerical simulations, we choose the nonlinear incidence functions as follows:

    f(I) = \frac{I}{H_{b}+\alpha I}, \; g(I) = \frac{I}{H_{\nu}+\alpha I}.

    Example 1. In model (1.2), we choose the parameters \mu = 0.5 , \lambda = 2.5 , \beta_{b} = 0.4 , \beta_{\nu} = 0.2 , p = 0.4 , \delta = 0.85 , H_{b} = H_{\nu} = 1 , \alpha = 1 , (\sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2}, \sigma_{3}) = (0.2, 0.2, 0.65) , (\eta_{1}, \eta_{2}, \eta_{3}) = (0.01, 0.01, 0.02) and \nu(Z) = 1 . By calculating, from (3.3) we obtain R_{0}^{s} = 0.98 < 1 , which means that disease I(t) will disappear with probability one by conclusion (i) of Theorem 3.1. However, model (1.1) has an endemic equilibrium P^* = (S^*, V^*, I^*) , which is local asymptotically stable because the basic reproduction number R_{0} = 1.0963 > 1 by Theorem 2.1.

    The numerical simulations are presented in Figure 1 in allusion to the deterministic, white noise and Lévy jumps, respectively. We easily see from Figure 1 that the solution (S(t), V(t), I(t)) of deterministic model (1.1) converges to its endemic equilibrium as t\to\infty , and the solution (S(t), V(t), I(t)) for stochastic model (1.2) satisfies that I(t) is extinct with probability one, and S(t) , V(t) are persistence in the mean. Therefore, conclusion (ii) in Theorem 2.1 and conclusion (i) in Theorem 3.1 are verified by the numerical simulations. This also demonstrates that the jump noise have a positive impact on control the diseases. Hence, the impact of the noise cannot be overlooked in modeling process.

    Figure 1.  The simulation of solution (S(t), V(t), I(t)) for deterministic models (1.1) and (1.2) with white noise and model (1.2) with jumps ( R_{0}^{s} = 0.98 < 1 and R_{0} = 1.12 > 1 ).

    Example 2. In model (1.2), we take the parameters (\sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2}, \sigma_{3}) = (0.02, 0.02, 0.06) and other parameters are given as in Example 1. By calculation, we obtain R_{0}^{s} = 2.949 > 1 , which shows that the diseases will persistence in the mean and any positive solution of model (1.2) is ergodic and has a unique stationary distribution by Theorems 3.1 and 4.1, respectively.

    The numerical simulations are presented in Figure 2. We easily see from Figure 2 that the solution (S(t), V(t), I(t)) of model (1.1) converges to its endemic equilibrium as t\to\infty , and the solution (S(t), V(t), I(t)) for stochastic model (1.2) is persistence in the mean and has a unique stationary distribution. Therefore, conclusion (ii) in Theorem 2.1, conclusion (ii) in Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 4.1 are verified by the numerical simulations.

    Figure 2.  The simulation of solution (S(t), V(t), I(t)) for deterministic models (1.1) and (1.2) with white noise and model (1.2) with jumps ( R_{0}^{s} = 2.949 > 1 ).

    In addition, by calculating we also have \tilde{R}_{0}^{s} = 2.9478 > 1 . Hence, there is a log-normal probability density function \Phi(y_{1}, y_{2}, y_{3}) in the quasi-stationary state E_{*}^{+} by Theorem 5.1. Moreover, it is calculated that \Delta = \frac{l_{13}l_{23}(l_{11}-l_{22})}{l_{11}l_{22}} = 0.00122\neq0 , which implies

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \Sigma = &J_{1}^{-1}\Sigma_{0}(J_{1}^{T})^{-1}+J_{2}^{-1}\Sigma_{0}(J_{2}^{T})^{-1}+J_{3}^{-1}\Sigma_{0}(J_{3}^{T})^{-1}\\ = &10^{-4}\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 5.172& -0.102&1.345\\ -0.102 & 4.108& 0.041 \\ 1.345 & 0.041 & 28.981 \end{array} \right). \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    By simple calculation, one can get that E_{+}^{*} = (S_{+}^{*}, V_{+}^{*}, I_{+}^{*}) = (5.074, 3.952, 1.154) . Thus, the log-normal probability density function \Phi(S, V, I) of system (1.2) is derived as

    \begin{equation*} \begin{aligned} \Phi(S, V, I) = 2576.972 e^{-\frac{1}{2}(\ln \frac{S}{5.074}, \ln \frac{V}{3.952}, \ln \frac{I}{1.154})\Sigma^{-1}(\ln \frac{S}{5.074}, \ln \frac{V}{3.952}, \ln \frac{I}{1.154} \ \ )^{T}}. \end{aligned} \end{equation*}

    The numerical simulations are given in Figure 3, which present the visual expressions of marginal density functions of solution (S(t), V(t), I(t)) for model (1.2).

    Figure 3.  The simulations of marginal density functions of solution (S(t), V(t), I(t)) for model (1.2) with jumps ( \tilde{R}_{0}^{s} = 2.9478 > 1 ).

    In this paper, we investigated the dynamical behavior for a stochastic SVI epidemic model with white noise, Lévy jumps and nonlinear incidence. In order to observe the influence of randomness, deterministic model (1.1) is first discussed. The basic reproduction number R_{0} is calculated, and then it is proved the disease-free equilibrium is globally asymptotically stable if R_{0} > 1 , otherwise, the endemic equilibrium is local asymptotically stable if R_{0} > 1 . For stochastic model (1.2), a new threshold value R_0^s is defined, and when R_0^s < 1 then the extinction with probability one of the disease is proved, and when R_0^s > 1 then the persistence in the mean and the existence of stationary distribution for any positive solution are established. Furthermore, we also established the existence criterion for the log-normal probability density function by solving the corresponding Fokker-Planck equation. Particularly, a new technique for the calculation of probability density function is introduced. The results show that Lévy noise can effectively alter the dynamical behaviour of the disease and that it can also contribute to its extinction.

    Theorems 3.1 and 4.1 imply that the disease dies out as threshold value R_{0}^{s} < 1 , and otherwise the disease persists and possesses a unique stationary distribution as R_{0}^{s} > 1 . This shows that R_{0}^{s} plays a similar role to the basic reproduction number R_{0} of model (1.1). Comparing R_{0} and R_{0}^{s} given in (2.1) and (3.3), we have R_{0}^{s} < R_{0} . This means that Lévy jumps can also inhibit the outbreak of the disease. These important results demonstrate that the Lévy jumps process may have a greater impact on the dynamical properties of model (1.2).

    There is a few interesting topics to worthy of further study. It is possible to come up with more realistic and complex stochastic models, such as considering the impact of vaccination of susceptible individuals, vaccine effectiveness on model (1.2). In addition, it is important to note that the approach used in this paper can also be applied to the study of other interesting models, such as COVID-19 spread model, SVEIS model, SVIRS model and so on. We will study these problems in the future.

    Furthermore, in [39,40] we see that the stochastic SIC epidemic system with quadratic white noise and Lévy jumps and an application to COVID-19 in Morocco, and the stochastic and fractal-fractional Atangana-Baleanu order hepatitis B model with Lévy noise are proposed and investigated. Particularly, in [40] the probability density function is discussed for quadratic white noise intensity by the numerical simulations. Therefore, an interesting and challenging issue is to establish the theoretical results in allusion to probability density function {for the} above two kinds of models.

    This research was supported by Program for Tianshan Innovative Research Team of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, China (2020D14020) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72174175, 72064036) and Chinese Foundation for Hepatitis Prevention and Control(YGFK20200059)

    We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with this work.



    [1] B. A. Brumback, Fundamentals of causal inference: With R, CRC Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2023.2287599
    [2] R. K. Crump, V. J. Hotz, G. W. Imbens, O. A. Mitnik, Nonparametric tests for treatment effect heterogeneity, Rev. Econ. Stat., 90 (2008), 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.90.3.389 doi: 10.1162/rest.90.3.389
    [3] R. F. Engle, C. W. J. Granger, J. Rice, A. Weiss, Semiparametric estimates of the relation between weather and electricity sales, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 81 (1986), 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1986.10478274 doi: 10.1080/01621459.1986.10478274
    [4] J. Fan, Y. Ma, W. Dai, Nonparametric independence screening in sparse ultra-high-dimensional varying coefficient models, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 109 (2014), 1270–1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2013.879828 doi: 10.1080/01621459.2013.879828
    [5] Y. Gao, W. Long, Z. Wang, Estimating average treatment effect by model averaging, Econ. Lett., 135 (2015), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2015.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2015.08.002
    [6] B. E. Hansen, Least squares model averaging, Econometrica, 75 (2007), 1175–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2007.00785.x doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2007.00785.x
    [7] B. E. Hansen, J. S. Racine, Jackknife model averaging, J. Econ., 167 (2012), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.06.019 doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2011.06.019
    [8] G. W. Imbens, J. M. Wooldridge, Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation, J. Econ. Lit., 47 (2009), 5–86. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.1.5 doi: 10.1257/jel.47.1.5
    [9] K. Imai, M. Ratkovic, Estimating treatment effect heterogeneity in randomized program evaluation, Ann. Appl. Stat., 7 (2013), 443–470. https://doi.org/10.1214/12-AOAS593 doi: 10.1214/12-AOAS593
    [10] H. Jo, M. A. Harjoto, The causal effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility, J. Bus. Ethics., 106 (2012), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1052-1 doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1052-1
    [11] T. Kitagawa, C. Muris, Model averaging in semiparametric estimation of treatment effects, J. Econ., 193 (2016), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2016.03.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2016.03.002
    [12] K. C. Li, Asymptotic optimality for C_p, C_L, cross-validation and generalized cross-validation: Discrete index set, Ann. Stat., 15 (1987), 958–975. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176350486 doi: 10.1214/aos/1176350486
    [13] Q. Liu, R. Okui, Heteroskedasticity-robust C_p model averaging, Econom. J., 16 (2013), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/ectj.12009 doi: 10.1111/ectj.12009
    [14] M. Müller, Estimation and testing in generalized partial linear models–-A comparative study, Stat. Comput., 11 (2001), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011981314532 doi: 10.1023/A:1011981314532
    [15] C. A. Rolling, Y. Yang, Model selection for estimating treatment effects, J. R. Stat. Soc. B, 76 (2014), 749–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssb.12043 doi: 10.1111/rssb.12043
    [16] C. A. Rolling, Y. Yang, D. Velez, Combining estimates of conditional treatment effects, Economet. Theor., 35 (2019), 1089–1110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266466618000397 doi: 10.1017/S0266466618000397
    [17] P. R. Rosenbaum, D. B. Rubin, The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrika, 70 (1983), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/2335942 doi: 10.2307/2335942
    [18] D. B. Rubin, Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies, J. Educ. Psychol., 66 (1974), 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037350 doi: 10.1037/h0037350
    [19] D. B. Rubin, Assignment to treatment group on the basis of a covariate, J. Educ. Behav. Stat., 2 (1977), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164933 doi: 10.2307/1164933
    [20] T. A. Severini, J. G. Staniswalis, Quasi-likelihood estimation in semiparametric models, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 89 (1994), 501–511. https://doi.org/10.2307/2290852 doi: 10.2307/2290852
    [21] C. J. Stone, Optimal global rates of convergence for nonparametric regression, Ann. Stat., 10 (1982), 1040–1053. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176345969 doi: 10.1214/aos/1176345969
    [22] L. Tian, A. A. Alizadeh, A. J. Gentles, R. Tibshirani, A simple method for estimating interactions between a treatment and a large number of covariates, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 109 (2014), 1517–1532. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2014.951443 doi: 10.1080/01621459.2014.951443
    [23] W. Whittle, Bounds for the moments of linear and quadratic forms in independent variables, Theory Probab. Appl., 5 (1960), 302–305. https://doi.org/10.1137/1105028 doi: 10.1137/1105028
    [24] Z. Tan, On doubly robust estimation for logistic partially linear models, Stat. Probab. Lett., 155 (2019), 108577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2019.108577 doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2019.108577
    [25] J. Zeng, W. Cheng, G. Hu, Y. Rong, Model selection and model averaging for semiparametric partially linear models with missing data, Commun. Stat.-Theor. M., 48 (2019), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2017.1410717 doi: 10.1080/03610926.2017.1410717
    [26] X. Zhang, A. T. Wan, G. Zou, Model averaging by jackknife criterion in models with dependent data, J. Econ., 174 (2013), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2013.01.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2013.01.004
    [27] X. Zhang, W. Wang, Optimal model averaging estimation for partially linear models, Stat. Sin., 29 (2019), 693–718. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2948380 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2948380
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Asad Khan, Anwarud Din, Stochastic analysis for measles transmission with Lévy noise: a case study, 2023, 8, 2473-6988, 18696, 10.3934/math.2023952
    2. Hong Cao, Xiaohu Liu, Linfei Nie, Dynamical behavior of a stochastic epidemic model with general incidence rate and Black-Karasinski process, 2024, 65, 0022-2488, 10.1063/5.0215337
    3. Abdulwasea Alkhazzan, Jungang Wang, Yufeng Nie, Sayed Murad Ali Shah, D.K. Almutairi, Hasib Khan, Jehad Alzabut, Lyapunov-based analysis and worm extinction in wireless networks using stochastic SVEIR model, 2025, 118, 11100168, 337, 10.1016/j.aej.2025.01.040
    4. Nabeela Anwar, Kiran Shahzadi, Muhammad Asif Zahoor Raja, Iftikhar Ahmad, Muhammad Shoaib, Adiqa Kausar Kiani, Intelligent Bayesian Neural Networks for Stochastic SVIS Epidemic Dynamics: Vaccination Strategies and Prevalence Fractions with Wiener Process, 2025, 24, 0219-4775, 10.1142/S0219477525500208
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

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

Metrics

Article views(1069) PDF downloads(49) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(5)  /  Tables(2)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog