
Citation: Akhil Kumar Srivastav, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, Prashant K Srivastava, Mini Ghosh, Yun Kang. A mathematical model for the impacts of face mask, hospitalization and quarantine on the dynamics of COVID-19 in India: deterministic vs. stochastic[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(1): 182-213. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021010
[1] | Jingli Xie, Hongli Guo, Meiyang Zhang . Dynamics of an SEIR model with media coverage mediated nonlinear infectious force. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 14616-14633. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023654 |
[2] | Martin Luther Mann Manyombe, Joseph Mbang, Jean Lubuma, Berge Tsanou . Global dynamics of a vaccination model for infectious diseases with asymptomatic carriers. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(4): 813-840. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016019 |
[3] | Hamdy M. Youssef, Najat A. Alghamdi, Magdy A. Ezzat, Alaa A. El-Bary, Ahmed M. Shawky . A new dynamical modeling SEIR with global analysis applied to the real data of spreading COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 7018-7044. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020362 |
[4] | Abdisa Shiferaw Melese, Oluwole Daniel Makinde, Legesse Lemecha Obsu . Mathematical modelling and analysis of coffee berry disease dynamics on a coffee farm. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(7): 7349-7373. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022347 |
[5] | Yujie Sheng, Jing-An Cui, Songbai Guo . The modeling and analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic with vaccination and isolation: a case study of Italy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 5966-5992. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023258 |
[6] | María Guadalupe Vázquez-Peña, Cruz Vargas-De-León, Jorge Fernando Camacho-Pérez, Jorge Velázquez-Castro . Analysis and Bayesian estimation of a model for Chikungunya dynamics with relapse: An outbreak in Acapulco, Mexico. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(10): 18123-18145. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023805 |
[7] | S. J. Gutowska, K. A. Hoffman, K. F. Gurski . The effect of PrEP uptake and adherence on the spread of HIV in the presence of casual and long-term partnerships. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(12): 11903-11934. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022555 |
[8] | Maryam Al-Yahyai, Fatma Al-Musalhi, Ibrahim Elmojtaba, Nasser Al-Salti . Mathematical analysis of a COVID-19 model with different types of quarantine and isolation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 1344-1375. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023061 |
[9] | Yiwei He, Qianqian Cui, Zengyun Hu . Modeling and analysis of the transmission dynamics of cystic echinococcosis: Effects of increasing the number of sheep. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 14596-14615. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023653 |
[10] | Rajanish Kumar Rai, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, Yun Kang, Arvind Kumar Misra . Modeling the effect of literacy and social media advertisements on the dynamics of infectious diseases. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 5812-5848. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020311 |
By a graph G=(V(G),E(G)), with V(G) and E(G) the set of vertices and edges of G respectively, we mean an undirected simple graph without isolated vertices (i.e., each vertex has at least a neighbor).
Given a graph G, representing a chemical structure,
X(G)=∑uv∈E(G)F(du,dv) |
is said a topological descriptor and, if also it correlates with a molecular property, it is called a topological index. Above, by uv we mean the edge of a graph G joining the vertices u and v, du denotes the degree of u, and F is an appropriate chosen function. Remarkably, topological indices capture physical properties of a chemical compound in a single number.
A great number of topological indices have been defined and studied over more than four decades. Among them, probably the most popular topological indices are the Randić and the Zagreb indices. The first and second Zagreb indices, denoted by M1 and M2, respectively, were defined by Gutman and Trinajstić (see [1]) in 1972 by
M1(G)=∑u∈V(G)d2u,M2(G)=∑uv∈E(G)dudv. |
For more details of the applications and mathematical properties of Zagreb indices see [2,3,4], and the references therein. Zagreb indices have many connections with other topological indices, see e.g., [5,6].
The concept of variable molecular descriptors was proposed as a way of characterizing heteroatoms (see [7,8]), but also to assess structural differences in alkylcycloalkanes [9]. The idea behind the variable molecular descriptors is that the variables are determined during the regression in order to minimize the error of estimate for a particular chemical property (see, e.g., [10]).
In this line of ideas, the variable versions of the first and second Zagreb indices were introduced as [10,11,12]
Mα1(G)=∑u∈V(G)dαu,Mα2(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(dudv)α, |
with α∈R. Evidently, M21 and M12 are the first and second Zagreb indices, respectively. In addition, the first and second variable Zagreb indices include several known indices. As examples we note that M−1/22 is the Randić index, M31 is the forgotten index F, M−11 is the inverse index ID, and M−12 is the modified Zagreb index.
In 2011, Vukičević proposed the variable symmetric division deg index [13]
SDDα(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(dαudαv+dαvdαu). | (1.1) |
Note that SDD−α(G)=SDDα(G) and so, it suffices to consider positive values of α. The symmetric division deg index is the best predictor of total surface area for polychlorobiphenyls [14].
In this work we perform studies of the variable symmetric division deg index from analytical and computational viewpoints. We obtain new inequalities for the variable symmetric division deg index SDDα(G) and we characterize graphs extremal with respect to them. Some of these inequalities generalize and improve previous results for the symmetric division deg index. In addition, we computationally apply the SDDα(G) index on random graphs and we demonstrate that the ratio ⟨SDDα(G)⟩/n (n denotes the order of the graph) depends only on the average degree ⟨d⟩.
One of our main results is Theorem 8, which provides upper and lower bounds of SDDα(G) in terms of the number of edges, the maximum and the minimum degree of G.
Let us start by proving a monotonicity property of these indices.
Theorem 1. Let G be a graph and 0<α<β.Then
SDDα(G)≤SDDβ(G), |
and the equality in the bound is attained if and only if each connected component of G is a regular graph.
Proof. Let us consider x≥1. Thus, xα≥x−β and
xβ−α−1≥0,xα(xβ−α−1)≥x−β(xβ−α−1),xβ−xα≥x−α−x−β,xβ+x−β≥xα+x−α, |
for every x≥1. Since u(x)=xα+x−α satisfies u(1/x)=u(x) for every x>0, we have xβ+x−β≥xα+x−α for every x>0. Note that we obtain the equality if and only if x=1.
Thus, we have
SDDβ(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(dβudβv+dβvdβu)≥∑uv∈E(G)(dαudαv+dαvdαu)=SDDα(G). |
The previous argument gives that we have the equality in the bound if and only if du/dv=1 for every uv∈E(G), i.e., each connected component of G is a regular graph.
Our next results in this section provide bounds of SDDα(G) involving the maximum and minimum degree of the graph G. Since scientists often estimate average degree of large networks, we present in the next section results involving the average degree.
Our next theorem relates the SDDα and the variable Zagreb indices.
Theorem 2. If G is a graph with minimum degree δ and maximum degree Δ, and α>0, then
2δ2αM−α2(G)≤SDDα(G)≤2Δ2αM−α2(G),Δ−2αM2α+11(G)≤SDDα(G)≤δ−2αM2α+11(G), |
and we have the equality in each bound if and only if G is regular.
Proof. First of all recall that for every function f the following equality
∑uv∈E(G)(f(du)+f(dv))=∑u∈V(G)duf(du) |
holds. In particular,
∑uv∈E(G)(d2αu+d2αv)=∑u∈V(G)d2α+1u=M2a+11(G). |
Since
SDDα(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(dαudαv+dαvdαu)=∑uv∈E(G)d2αu+d2αv(dudv)α. |
and α>0, we obtain
SDDα(G)=∑uv∈E(G)d2αu+d2αv(dudv)α≤2Δ2α∑uv∈E(G)(dudv)−α=2Δ2αM−α2(G), |
and
SDDα(G)=∑uv∈E(G)d2αu+d2αv(dudv)α≥2δ2α∑uv∈E(G)(dudv)−α=2δ2αM−α2(G). |
We also have
SDDα(G)=∑uv∈E(G)d2αu+d2αv(dudv)α≤δ−2α∑uv∈E(G)(d2αu+d2αv)=δ−2α∑u∈V(G)d2α+1u=δ−2αM2α+11(G), |
and
SDDα(G)=∑uv∈E(G)d2αu+d2αv(dudv)α≥Δ−2α∑uv∈E(G)(d2αu+d2αv)=Δ−2α∑u∈V(G)d2α+1u=Δ−2αM2α+11(G). |
If G is a regular graph, then each lower bound and its corresponding upper bound are the same, and both are equal to SDDα(G).
Assume now that the equality in either the first or second bound holds. The previous argument gives that we have either d2αu+d2αv=2Δ2α for any uv∈E(G) or d2αu+d2αv=2δ2α for any uv∈E(G). Since α>0, we have δ2α≤d2αu,d2αv≤Δ2α, and we conclude that du=dv=Δ for any uv∈E(G), or du=dv=δ for any uv∈E(G). Hence, G is a regular graph.
Finally, assume that the equality in either the third or fourth bound holds. The previous argument gives that we have either (dudv)α=δ2α for any uv∈E(G) or (dudv)α=Δ2α for any uv∈E(G). Since α>0, we have δα≤dαu,dαv≤Δα, and we conclude that du=dv=δ for any uv∈E(G), or du=dv=Δ for every uv∈E(G). Therefore, G is a regular graph.
We will need the following technical result.
Lemma 3. Let 0<a<A. Then
a≤x2+y2x+y≤A |
for every a≤x,y≤A.The lower bound is attained if and only if x=y=a.The upper bound is attained if and only if x=y=A.
Proof. If a≤x,y≤A, then ax+ay≤x2+y2≤Ax+Ay, and the statement holds.
A large kind of topological indices, named Adriatic indices, was introduced in [14,15]. Twenty of them were selected as significant predictors of chemical properties. One of them, the inverse sum indeg index, defined by
ISI(G)=∑uv∈E(G)dudvdu+dv=∑uv∈E(G)11du+1dv. |
appears in [14,15] as a good predictor of total surface area of octane isomers.
Next, we relate SDDα(G) with the variable inverse sum deg index defined, for each a∈R, as
ISDa(G)=∑uv∈E(G)1dau+dav. |
Note that ISD−1 is the inverse sum indeg index ISI.
Theorem 4. If G is a graph with m edges and minimum degree δ, and α>0, then
SDDα(G)≥δαm2ISD−α(G), |
and the equality in the bound holds if and only if G is regular.
Proof. Lemma 3 gives
δα≤x2α+y2αxα+yα≤Δα,1x2α+y2α≤δ−αxα+yα,1d2αu+d2αv≤δ−αdαu+dαv, |
for every δ≤x,y≤Δ. This last inequality and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality give
m2=(∑uv∈E(G)1)2=(∑uv∈E(G)(d2αu+d2αvdαudαv)1/2(dαudαvd2αu+d2αv)1/2)2≤∑uv∈E(G)d2αu+d2αvdαudαv∑uv∈E(G)dαudαvd2αu+d2αv≤δ−αSDDα(G)∑uv∈E(G)dαudαvdαu+dαv=δ−αSDDα(G)∑uv∈E(G)1d−αu+d−αv=δ−αSDDα(G)ISD−α(G). |
If G is a regular graph, then SDDα(G)=2m, ISD−α(G)=mδα/2 and the equality in the bound holds.
Assume now that the equality in the bound holds. Thus, by the previous argument,
1d2αu+d2αv=δ−αdαu+dαv |
for any uv∈E(G). Then Lemma 3 gives du=dv=δ for any uv∈E(G). Hence, G is a regular graph.
The modified Narumi-Katayama index is defined by
NK∗(G)=∏u∈V(G)dduu=∏uv∈E(G)dudv |
in [16], inspired in the Narumi-Katayama index [17]. Next, we present an inequality relating SDDα(G) and NK∗(G).
Theorem 5. Let G be a graph with m edges and minimum degree δ, and α>0.Then
SDDα(G)≥2δ2αmNK∗(G)−α/m, |
and the equality in the bound holds if and only if G is a regular graph.
Proof. Since the geometric mean is at most the arithmetic mean, we have
1mSDDα(G)=1m∑uv∈E(G)(dαudαv+dαvdαu)=1m∑uv∈E(G)d2αu+d2αv(dudv)α≥2δ2α1m∑uv∈E(G)1(dudv)α≥2δ2α(∏uv∈E(G)1(dudv)α)1/m=2δ2αNK∗(G)−α/m. |
If G is a regular graph, then
2δ2αmNK∗(G)−α/m=2δ2αm(δ2m)−α/m=2m=SDDα(G). |
Finally, assume that the equality in the bound holds. The previous argument gives that d2αu+d2αv=2δ2α for any uv∈E(G). Since α>0, we obtain δ2α≤d2αu,d2αv, and we have du=dv=δ for any uv∈E(G). Hence, G is regular.
Next, we obtain additional bounds of SDDα.
Theorem 6. Let G be a graph with m edges, minimum degree δ and maximum degree δ+1, α>0 and let A be the number of edges uv∈E(G) with du≠dv.Then A is an even integer and
SDDα(G)=2m+A((δ+1)αδα+δα(δ+1)α−2). |
Proof. Let F={uv∈E(G):du≠dv}, then A is the cardinality of the set F. Since the maximum degree of G is δ+1 and its minimum degree is δ, if uv∈F, then du=δ and dv=δ+1 or viceversa, and therefore
dαudαv+dαvdαu=(δ+1)αδα+δα(δ+1)α. |
If uv∈Fc=E(G)∖F, then du=dv=δ or du=dv=δ+1, and therefore
dαudαv+dαvdαu=2. |
Since there are exactly A edges in F and m−A edges in Fc, we have
SDDα(G)=∑uv∈E(G)(dαudαv+dαvdαu)=∑uv∈Fc(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+∑uv∈F(dαudαv+dαvdαu)=∑uv∈Fc2+∑uv∈F((δ+1)αδα+δα(δ+1)α)=2m−2A+A((δ+1)αδα+δα(δ+1)α). |
This gives the equality.
Seeking for a contradiction assume that A is an odd integer.
Let Γ1 be a subgraph of G obtained as follows: Γ1 is induced by the n1 vertices with degree δ in V(G); denote by m1 the number of edges of Γ1. Handshaking Lemma implies n1δ−A=2m1. Since A is an odd integer, δ is also an odd integer. Thus, δ+1 is even.
Let Γ2 be the subgraph of G induced by the n2 vertices with degree δ+1 in V(G), and denote by m2 the number of edges of Γ2. Handshaking Lemma implies n2(δ+1)−A=2m2, a contradiction, since A is odd and δ+1 is even.
Thus, we conclude that A is an even integer.
We will need the following result in the proof of Theorem 8 below.
Lemma 7. Given α>0, consider the function u:(0,∞)→(0,∞) defined as u(t)=tα+t−α.Then u strictly decreases on (0,1], u strictly increases on [1,∞) and u(t)≥u(1)=2.
Proof. We have
u′(t)=αtα−1−αt−α−1=αt−α−1(t2α−1). |
Since α>0, we have u′<0 on (0,1) and u′>0 on (1,∞). This gives the result. The following figure shows the function u(t) for some values of α.
Theorem 6 gives the precise value of SDDα when Δ=δ+1. Theorem 8 below provides a lower bound when Δ>δ+1.
Theorem 8. Let G be a graph with m edges, minimum degree δ and maximum degree Δ>δ+1. Denote by A0,A1,A2, the cardinality of the subsets of edges F0={uv∈E(G):du=δ,dv=Δ}, F1={uv∈E(G):du=δ,δ<dv<Δ}, F2={uv∈E(G):du=Δ,δ<dv<Δ}, respectively. If α>0, then
SDDα(G)≤(m−A1−A2)(Δαδα+δαΔα)+A1((Δ−1)αδα+δα(Δ−1)α)+A2(Δα(δ+1)α+(δ+1)αΔα),SDDα(G)≥2m+A0(Δαδα+δαΔα−2)+A1((δ+1)αδα+δα(δ+1)α−2)+A2(Δα(Δ−1)α+(Δ−1)αΔα−2). |
Proof. Lemma 7 gives that the function
dαvδα+δαdαv=u(dvδ) |
is increasing in dv∈[δ+1,Δ−1] and so,
(δ+1)αδα+δα(δ+1)α≤dαvδα+δαdαv≤(Δ−1)αδα+δα(Δ−1)α, |
for every uv∈F1.
In a similar way, Lemma 7 gives that the function
Δαdαv+dαvΔα=u(dvΔ) |
is decreasing in dv∈[δ+1,Δ−1] and so,
Δα(Δ−1)α+(Δ−1)αΔα≤Δαdαv+dαvΔα≤Δα(δ+1)α+(δ+1)αΔα, |
for every uv∈F2.
Also,
2≤dαudαv+dαvdαu≤Δαδα+δαΔα |
for any uv∈E(G).
We obtain
SDDα(G)=∑uv∈E(G)∖(F0∪F1∪F2)(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+∑uv∈F0(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+∑uv∈F1(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+∑uv∈F2(dαudαv+dαvdαu)≥∑uv∈E(G)∖(F0∪F1∪F2)2+∑uv∈F0(Δαδα+δαΔα)+∑uv∈F1(dαvδα+δαdαv)+∑uv∈F2(Δαdαv+dαvΔα). |
Hence,
SDDα(G)≥2m−2A0−2A1−2A2+A0(Δαδα+δαΔα)+A1((δ+1)αδα+δα(δ+1)α)+A2(Δα(Δ−1)α+(Δ−1)αΔα). |
We also have
SDDα(G)=∑uv∈E(G)∖(F1∪F2)(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+∑uv∈F1(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+∑uv∈F2(dαudαv+dαvdαu)≤(m−A1−A2)(Δαδα+δαΔα)+A1((Δ−1)αδα+δα(Δ−1)α)+A2(Δα(δ+1)α+(δ+1)αΔα). |
Here we deal with two classes of random graphs G: Erdös-Rényi (ER) graphs G(n,p) and bipartite random (BR) graphs G(n1,n2,p). ER graphs are formed by n vertices connected independently with probability p∈[0,1]. While BR graphs are composed by two disjoint sets, sets 1 and 2, with n1 and n2 vertices each such that there are no adjacent vertices within the same set, being n=n1+n2 the total number of vertices in the bipartite graph. The vertices of the two sets are connected randomly with probability p∈[0,1]. Another work in this spirit is [18].
We stress that the computational study of the variable symmetric division deg index we perform below is justified by the random nature of the graph models we want to explore. Since a given parameter set (n,p) [(n1,n2,p)] represents an infinite-size ensemble of ER graphs [BR graphs], the computation of SDDα(G) on a single graph is irrelevant. In contrast, the computation of ⟨SDDα(G)⟩ (where ⟨⋅⟩ indicates ensemble average) over a large number of random graphs, all characterized by the same parameter set (n,p) [(n1,n2,p)], may provide useful average information about the full ensemble. This computational approach, well known in random matrix theory studies, is not widespread in studies involving topological indices, mainly because topological indices are not commonly applied to random graphs; for very recent exceptions see [19,20,21,22].
From the definition of the variable symmetric division deg index, see Eq (1.1), we have that:
(i) For α=0, ⟨SDD0(G)⟩ gives twice the average number of edges of the ER graph. That is,
⟨SDD0(G)⟩=⟨∑uv∈E(G)(d0ud0v+d0vd0u)⟩=⟨∑uv∈E(G)(1+1)⟩=⟨2|E(G)|⟩=n(n−1)p. | (3.1) |
(ii) When np≫1, we can approximate du≈dv≈⟨d⟩, then
⟨SDDα(G)⟩≈⟨∑uv∈E(G)(1α+1α)⟩=⟨∑uv∈E(G)2⟩=⟨2|E(G)|⟩=n(n−1)p. | (3.2) |
(iii) By recognizing that the average degree of the ER graph model reads as
⟨d⟩=(n−1)p, | (3.3) |
we can rewrite Eq (3.2) as
⟨SDDα(G)⟩n≈⟨d⟩. | (3.4) |
We stress that Eq (3.4) is expected to be valid for np≫1.
In Figure 2(a) we plot ⟨SDDα(G)⟩ as a function of the probability p of ER graphs of size n=500. All averages in Figure 2 are computed over ensembles of 107/n random graphs. In Figure 2(a) we show curves for α∈[0,4]. The dashed-magenta curve corresponds to the case α=0, which coincides with Eq (3.1). Moreover, we observe that
⟨SDDα≤0.5(G)⟩≈⟨SDD0(G)⟩=n(n−1)p. |
However, once α>0.5, the curves ⟨SDDα(G)⟩ versus p deviate from Eq (3.1), at intermediate values of p, in the form of a bump which is enhanced the larger the value of α is. Also, in Figure 2(a) we can clearly see that Eq (3.2) is satisfied when np≫1, as expected.
Now, in Figure 2(b) we present ⟨SDDα(G)⟩ as a function of the probability p of ER graphs of three different sizes. It is clear from this figure that the blocks of curves, characterized by the different graph sizes (and shown in different colors), display similar curves but displaced on both axes. Moreover, the fact that these blocks of curves, plotted in semi-log scale, are shifted the same amount on both x− and y−axis when doubling n make us anticipate the scaling of ⟨SDDα(G)⟩. We stress that other average variable degree-based indices on ER random graphs (normalized to the graph size) have been shown to scale with the average degree [22]. Indeed, this statement is encoded in Eq (3.4), that we derived for np≫1 but should serve as the global scaling equation for ⟨SDDα(G)⟩.
Therefore, in Figure 2(c) we show ⟨SDDα(G)⟩/n as a function of the average degree ⟨d⟩ where the same curves of Figure 2(b) have been used. There we verify the global scaling of ⟨SDDα(G)⟩, as anticipated in Eq (3.4), by noticing that the blocks of curves (painted in different colors) for different graph sizes fall on top of each other.
Also, from Figure 2(a)–(c) we observe that the inequality of Theorem 1 is extended to the average variable symmetric division deg index on random graphs:
⟨SDDα(G)⟩≤⟨SDDβ(G)⟩,0<α<β; | (3.5) |
see e.g., the blue arrow in Figure 2(a) which indicates increasing α. Here, the equality is attained if and only if p=1. However, we have observed that ⟨SDDα(G)⟩≈⟨SDDβ(G)⟩ already for ⟨d⟩≥10.
In Figure 2(d), (e) we present curves of the ⟨SDDα(G)⟩ as a function of the probability p of BR graphs. For simplicity we show results for BR graphs composed by sets of equal sizes n1=n2. In Figure 2(d) we consider the case of n1=n2=500 while in (e) we report n1=n2={125,250,500}. In both figures we show curves for α∈[0,4] in steps of 0.5.
Since edges in a bipartite graph join vertices of different sets, and we are labeling here the sets as sets 1 and 2, we replace du by d1 and dv by d2 in the expression for the SDDα(G) index below. Thus,
(i) For α=0, ⟨SDD0(G)⟩ gives twice the average number of edges of the BG graph. That is,
⟨SDD0(G)⟩=⟨∑E(G)(d01d02+d02d01)⟩=⟨∑E(G)(1+1)⟩=⟨2|E(G)|⟩=2n1n2p. | (3.6) |
(ii) When both n1p≫1 and n2p≫1, we can approximate d1≈⟨d1⟩ and d2≈⟨d2⟩, then
⟨SDDα(G)⟩≈⟨∑E(G)(⟨d1⟩α⟨d2⟩α+⟨d2⟩α⟨d1⟩α)⟩=⟨|E(G)|(⟨d1⟩α⟨d2⟩α+⟨d2⟩α⟨d1⟩α)⟩. | (3.7) |
(iii) In the case we consider in Figure 2(d)–(f), where n1=n2=n/2, so that ⟨d1⟩=⟨d2⟩=⟨d⟩, Equation (3.7) reduces to
⟨SDDα(G)⟩≈⟨2|E(G)|⟩=2n1n2p=n22p. | (3.8) |
(iv) By recognizing that ⟨d⟩=np/2 we can rewrite Eq (3.8) as
⟨SDDα(G)⟩n≈⟨d⟩. | (3.9) |
We stress that Eq (3.9) is expected to be valid for np≫1. We also note that Eq (3.9) has exactly the same form as Eq (3.4).
From Figure 2(d), (e) we note that
⟨SDDα≤0.5(G)⟩≈⟨SDD0(G)⟩=2n1n2p, |
see the dashed-magenta curve in Figure 2(d). But once α>0.5, the curves ⟨SDDα(G)⟩ versus p deviate from Eq (3.6), at intermediate values of p, in the form of bumps which are enhanced the larger the value of α is. These bumps make clear the validity of inequality (3.5) on BR graphs; see e.g., the blue arrow in Figure 2(d) which indicates increasing α.
Finally, following the scaling analysis made in the previous subsection for ER graphs, in Figure 2(f) we plot the ⟨SDDα(G)⟩/n as a function of the average degree ⟨d⟩ where the same data sets of Figure 2(e) have been used. Thus we verify that ⟨SDDα(G)⟩/n scales with ⟨d⟩, as anticipated in Eq (3.9); that is, the blocks of curves (painted in different colors) for different graph sizes coincide.
In this paper we have performed analytical and computational studies of the variable symmetric division deg index SDDα(G). First, we provided a monotonicity property and obtained new inequalities connecting SDDα(G) with other well–known topological indices such as the variable inverse sum deg index, as well as the the modified Narumi-Katayama index. Then, we apply the index SDDα(G) on two ensembles of random graphs: Erd\H{o}s-Rényi graphs and bipartite random graphs. Thus, we computationally showed, for both random graph models, that the ratio ⟨SDDα(G)⟩/n is a function of the average degree ⟨d⟩ only (n being the order of the graph). We note that this last result, also observed for other variable topological indices [22], is valid for random bipartite graphs only when they are formed by sets of the same size.
Since many important topological indices can be written as
X(G)=∑uv∈E(G)F(du,dv), |
an open problem is to extend the results of this paper to other indices of this kind.
J. A. M.-B. has been supported by CONACyT (Grant No. CB-2016-286633-F). J. M. R. and J. M. S. have been supported by a grant from Agencia Estatal de Investigación (PID2019-106433GBI00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033), Spain. J. M. R. has been supported by the Madrid Government (Comunidad de Madrid-Spain) under the Multiannual Agreement with UC3M in the line of Excellence of University Professors (EPUC3M23), and in the context of the V PRICIT (Regional Programme of Research and Technological Innovation).
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
[1] | N. M. Ferguson, D. Laydon, G. Nedjati-Gilani, N. Imai, K. Ainslie, M. Baguelin, et al., Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand, London: Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team, March 16, 2020. |
[2] |
M. McKee, D. Stuckler, If the world fails to protect the economy, COVID-19 will damage health not just now but also in the future, Nat. Med., 26 (2020), 640-642. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0863-y
![]() |
[3] |
M. Nicola, Z. Alsafi, C. Sohrabi, A. Kerwan, A. Al-Jabir, C. Iosifidis, et al., The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review, Int. J. Surg., 78 (2020), 185-193. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.04.018
![]() |
[4] |
N. van Doremalen, T. Bushmaker, D. H. Morris, M. G. Holbrook, A. Gamble, B. N. Williamson, et al., Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1, N. Engl. J. Med., 382 (2020), 1564-1567. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2004973
![]() |
[5] | World Health Organization, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). WHO situation report - 73, 2020. Avaiable from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200402-sitrep-73-covid-19.pdf. |
[6] | X. Liu, S. Zhang, COVID-19: face masks and human-to-human transmission. Influenza Other Respir Viruses, 2020. Avaiable from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/irv.12740. |
[7] |
C. J. Noakes, C. B. Beggs, P. A. Sleigh, K. G. Kerr, Modelling the transmission of airborne infections in enclosed spaces, Epidemiol. Infect., 134 (2006), 1082-1091. doi: 10.1017/S0950268806005875
![]() |
[8] | C. J. Noakes, P. A. Sleigh, Mathematical models for assessing the role of airflow on the risk of airborne infection in hospital wards, J. R. Soc. Interface, 6 (2009), S791-S800. |
[9] |
R. Chetty, M. Stepner, S. Abraham, S. Lin, B. Scuderi, N. Turner, et al., The association between income and life expectancy in the United States, 2001-2014, JAMA, 315 (2016), 1750. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.4226
![]() |
[10] |
R. O. Stutt, R. Retkute, M. Bradley, C. A. Gilligan, J. Colvin, A modelling framework to assess the likely effectiveness of facemasks in combination with 'lock-down'in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, Proc. R. Soc. A, 476 (2020), 20200376. doi: 10.1098/rspa.2020.0376
![]() |
[11] |
D. K. Chu, E. A. Akl, S. Duda, K. Solo, S. Yaacoub, H. J. Schunemann, et al., Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis, The Lancet, 395 (2020), 1973-1987. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9
![]() |
[12] |
C. N. Ngonghala, E. Iboi, S. Eikenberry, M. Scotch, C. R. MacIntyre, M. H. Bonds, et al., Mathematical assessment of the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on curtailing the 2019 novel Coronavirus, Math. Biosci., 325 (2020), 108364. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2020.108364
![]() |
[13] | S. E. Eikenberry, M. Mancuso, E. Iboi, T. Phan, K. Eikenberry, Y. Kuang, et al., To mask or not to mask: Modeling the potential for face mask use by the general public to curtail the COVID-19 pandemic, Infect. Dis. Model., 5 (2020), 293-308. |
[14] | E. A. Iboi, O. O. Sharomi, C. N. Ngonghala, A. B. Gumel, Mathematical modeling and analysis of COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria, Math. Biosci. Eng., 17 (2020), 7192-7220. |
[15] |
D. Okuonghae, A. Omame, Analysis of a mathematical model for COVID-19 population dynamics in Lagos, Nigeria, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 139 (2020), 110032. doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110032
![]() |
[16] |
B. J. Cowling, K. H. Chan, V. J. Fang, C. K. Cheng, R. O. Fung, W. Wai, et al., Facemasks and hand hygiene to prevent influenza transmission in households: a cluster randomized trial, Ann. Intern. Med., 151 (2009), 437-446. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-7-200910060-00142
![]() |
[17] |
M. Lipsitch, T. Cohen, B. Cooper, J. M. Robins, S. Ma, L. James, et al., Transmission dynamics and control of severe acute respiratory syndrome, Science, 300 (2003), 1966-1970. doi: 10.1126/science.1086616
![]() |
[18] |
S. Zhao, L. Stone, D. Gao, S. S. Musa, M. K. Chong, D. He, et al., Imitation dynamics in the mitigation of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Wuhan, China from 2019 to 2020, Ann. Transl. Med., 8 (2020), 448. doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.03.168
![]() |
[19] |
S. H. A. Khoshnaw, R. H. Salih, S. Sulaimany, Mathematical modeling for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in predicting future behaviours and sensitivity analysis, Math. Model. Nat. Phenom., 15 (2020), 1-13. doi: 10.1051/mmnp/2019006
![]() |
[20] | M. Serhani, H. Labbardi, Mathematical modeling of COVID-19 spreading with asymptomatic infected and interacting peoples, J. Appl. Math. Comput., 17 (2020), 1-20. |
[21] |
C. Huang, Y. Wang, X. Li, L. Ren, J. Zhao, Y. Hu, et al., Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China, Lancet, 395 (2020), 497-506. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5
![]() |
[22] |
P. van den Driessche, J. Watmough, Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission, Math. Biosci., 180 (2002), 29-48. doi: 10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00108-6
![]() |
[23] | COVID 2019, India, available from: https://www.covid19india.org/. |
[24] |
L. F. White, M. Pagano, A likelihood-based method for real-time estimation of the serial interval and reproductive number of an epidemic, Stat. Med., 27 (2008), 2999-3016. doi: 10.1002/sim.3136
![]() |
[25] |
A. Davies, K. A. Thompson, K. Giri, G. Kafatos, J. Walker, A. Bennett, Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic?, Disaster Med. Public Health Prep., 7 (2013), 413-418. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2013.43
![]() |
[26] |
C. N. Ngonghala, E. Iboi, S. Eikenberry, M. Scotch, C. R. MacIntyre, M. H. Bonds, et al., Mathematical assessment of the impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on curtailing the 2019 novel coronavirus, Math. Biosci., 325 (2020), 108364. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2020.108364
![]() |
[27] |
S. A. Lauer, K. H. Grantz, Q. Bi, F. K. Jones, Q. Zheng, H. R. Meredith, et al., The incubation period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from publicly reported confirmed cases: estimation and application, Ann. Intern. Med., 172 (2020), 577-582. doi: 10.7326/M20-0504
![]() |
[28] |
R. Li, S. Pei, B. Chen, Y. Song, T. Zhang, W. Yang, et al., Substantial undocumented infection facilitates the rapid dissemination of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV2), Science, 368 (2020), 489-493. doi: 10.1126/science.abb3221
![]() |
[29] |
F. Zhou, T. Yu, R. Du, G. Fan, Y. Liu, Z. Liu, et al., Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study, Lancet, 395 (2020), 1054-1062. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30566-3
![]() |
[30] |
B. Tang, X. Wang, Q. Li, N. L. Bragazzi, S. Tang, Y. Xiao, et al., Estimation of the transmission risk of the 2019-nCoV and its implication for public health interventions, J. Clin. Med., 9 (2020), 462. doi: 10.3390/jcm9020462
![]() |
[31] |
D. Aldila, M. Z. Ndii, B. M. Samiadji, Optimal control on COVID-19 eradication program in Indonesia under the effect of community awareness, Math. Biosci. Eng., 17 (2020), 6355-6389. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020335
![]() |
[32] |
D. He, S. Zhao, X. Xu, Q. Lin, Z. Zhuang, P. Cao, et al., Low dispersion in the infectiousness of COVID-19 cases implies difficulty in control, BMC Public Health, 20 (2020), 1558. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09624-2
![]() |
[33] |
I. Ghosh, P. K. Tiwari, J. Chattopadhyay, Effect of active case finding on dengue control: Implications from a mathematical model, J. Theor. Biol., 464 (2019), 50-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.12.027
![]() |
[34] |
S. M. Blower, H. Dowlatabadi, Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of complex models of disease transmission: an HIV model, as an example, Int. Stat. Rev., 62 (1994), 229-243. doi: 10.2307/1403510
![]() |
[35] |
S. Marino, I. B. Hogue, C. J. Ray, D. E. Kirschner, A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology, J. Theor. Biol., 254 (2008), 178-196. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.04.011
![]() |
[36] |
Y. Yuan, L. J. S. Allen, Stochastic models for virus and immune system dynamics, Math. Biosci., 234 (2011), 84-94. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2011.08.007
![]() |
1. | Bahati Erick, Maranya Mayengo, Modelling the dynamics of Cassava Mosaic Disease with non-cassava host plants, 2022, 33, 23529148, 101086, 10.1016/j.imu.2022.101086 | |
2. | Caihong Song, Ning Li, Dynamic analysis and bifurcation control of a fractional-order cassava mosaic disease model, 2022, 1598-5865, 10.1007/s12190-022-01809-9 | |
3. | Nabeela Anwar, Shafaq Naz, Muhammad Shoaib, Reliable numerical treatment with Adams and BDF methods for plant virus propagation model by vector with impact of time lag and density, 2022, 8, 2297-4687, 10.3389/fams.2022.1001392 | |
4. | Geofrey Sikazwe, Rosita E.E. Yocgo, Pietro Landi, David M. Richardson, Cang Hui, Managing whitefly development to control cassava brown streak virus coinfections, 2024, 493, 03043800, 110753, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2024.110753 | |
5. | Tariq Q. S. Abdullah, Gang Huang, Wadhah Al-Sadi, Yasser Aboelmagd, Wael Mobarak, Fractional Dynamics of Cassava Mosaic Disease Model with Recovery Rate Using New Proposed Numerical Scheme, 2024, 12, 2227-7390, 2386, 10.3390/math12152386 | |
6. | Sireepatch Sangsawang, Usa Humphries, Amir Khan, Puntani Pongsumpun, Sensitivity analysis and optimal control for the dynamic mathematical model of cassava mosaic disease, 2024, 14, 2158-3226, 10.1063/5.0207497 | |
7. | E. Azroul, N. Kamali, M. Shimi, Novel insights into Cassava mosaic disease using Caputo fractional derivative: modeling and analysis, 2025, 0003-6811, 1, 10.1080/00036811.2025.2509314 |