A viral load-based model for epidemic spread on spatial networks

Nadia Loy; Andrea Tosin; Nadia Loy; Andrea Tosin

doi:10.3934/mbe.2021285

Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering

2021, Volume 18, Issue 5: 5635-5663. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021285

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

A viral load-based model for epidemic spread on spatial networks

Nadia Loy ^,,
Andrea Tosin

Department of Mathematical Sciences "G. L. Lagrange", Politecnico di Torino, Italy

Received: 24 April 2021 Accepted: 16 June 2021 Published: 23 June 2021

In this paper, we propose a Boltzmann-type kinetic model of the spreading of an infectious disease on a network. The latter describes the connections among countries, cities or districts depending on the spatial scale of interest. The disease transmission is represented in terms of the viral load of the individuals and is mediated by social contacts among them, taking into account their displacements across the nodes of the network. We formally derive the hydrodynamic equations for the density and the mean viral load of the individuals on the network and we analyse the large-time trends of these quantities with special emphasis on the cases of blow-up or eradication of the infection. By means of numerical tests, we also investigate the impact of confinement measures, such as quarantine or localised lockdown, on the diffusion of the disease on the network.

Keywords:

Citation: Nadia Loy, Andrea Tosin. A viral load-based model for epidemic spread on spatial networks[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5635-5663. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021285

Related Papers:

[1]	Shuang-Shuang Zhou, Saima Rashid, Muhammad Aslam Noor, Khalida Inayat Noor, Farhat Safdar, Yu-Ming Chu . New Hermite-Hadamard type inequalities for exponentially convex functions and applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6874-6901. doi: 10.3934/math.2020441
[2]	Miguel Vivas-Cortez, Muhammad Aamir Ali, Artion Kashuri, Hüseyin Budak . Generalizations of fractional Hermite-Hadamard-Mercer like inequalities for convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(9): 9397-9421. doi: 10.3934/math.2021546
[3]	Muhammad Imran Asjad, Waqas Ali Faridi, Mohammed M. Al-Shomrani, Abdullahi Yusuf . The generalization of Hermite-Hadamard type Inequality with exp-convexity involving non-singular fractional operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 7040-7055. doi: 10.3934/math.2022392
[4]	XuRan Hai, ShuHong Wang . Hermite-Hadamard type inequalities based on the Erdélyi-Kober fractional integrals. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 11494-11507. doi: 10.3934/math.2021666
[5]	Hengxiao Qi, Muhammad Yussouf, Sajid Mehmood, Yu-Ming Chu, Ghulam Farid . Fractional integral versions of Hermite-Hadamard type inequality for generalized exponentially convexity. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6030-6042. doi: 10.3934/math.2020386
[6]	Manar A. Alqudah, Artion Kashuri, Pshtiwan Othman Mohammed, Muhammad Raees, Thabet Abdeljawad, Matloob Anwar, Y. S. Hamed . On modified convex interval valued functions and related inclusions via the interval valued generalized fractional integrals in extended interval space. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 4638-4663. doi: 10.3934/math.2021273
[7]	Atiq Ur Rehman, Ghulam Farid, Sidra Bibi, Chahn Yong Jung, Shin Min Kang . $k$ -fractional integral inequalities of Hadamard type for exponentially $(s, m)$ -convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(1): 882-892. doi: 10.3934/math.2021052
[8]	Maryam Saddiqa, Ghulam Farid, Saleem Ullah, Chahn Yong Jung, Soo Hak Shim . On Bounds of fractional integral operators containing Mittag-Leffler functions for generalized exponentially convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(6): 6454-6468. doi: 10.3934/math.2021379
[9]	Hu Ge-JiLe, Saima Rashid, Muhammad Aslam Noor, Arshiya Suhail, Yu-Ming Chu . Some unified bounds for exponentially $tgs$ -convex functions governed by conformable fractional operators. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6108-6123. doi: 10.3934/math.2020392
[10]	Maryam Saddiqa, Saleem Ullah, Ferdous M. O. Tawfiq, Jong-Suk Ro, Ghulam Farid, Saira Zainab . $k$ -Fractional inequalities associated with a generalized convexity. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 28540-28557. doi: 10.3934/math.20231460

Abstract

1. Introduction

There are numerous problems wherein fractional derivatives (non-integer order derivatives and integrals) attain a valuable position ^{[4,5,8,16,24,27,31,36,41,60,62,63,70]}. It must be emphasized that fractional derivatives are furnished in many techniques, especially, characterizing three distinct approaches, which we are able to mention in an effort to grow the work in certainly one of them. Every classical fractional operator is typically described in terms of a particular significance. Many of the most well recognized definitions of fractional operators we can also point out the Riemann-Liouville, Caputo, Grunwald-Letnikov, and Hadamard operators ^[13], whose formulations include integrals with singular kernels and which may be used to have a check, as an example, issues involving the reminiscence effect ^[34]. However, within the years 2010, specific formulations of fractional operators have seemed inside the literature ^[42].

On the other hand, there are numerous approaches to acquire a generalization of classical fractional integrals. Many authors introduce parameters in classical definitions or in some unique specific function ^[45], as we shall do below. Moreover, in a present paper, the authors introduce a parameter and enunciate a generalization for fractional integrals on a selected space, which they name generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integrals, and further advocate an Ostrowski type inequality modification of this generalization. A verity of such type of new definitions of fractional integrals and derivatives promotes future research to establish more new ideas and fractional integral inequalities by utilizing new fractional derivative and integral operators. Integral inequalities are used in countless mathematical problems such as approximation theory and spectral analysis, statistical analysis and the theory of distributions. Studies involving integral inequalities play an important role in several areas of science and engineering. In ^[53], the authors established certain Grüss type inequalities and some other inequalities containing generalized proportional fractional and generalized proportional fractional with respect to another function. Khan et al. ^[3] studied several inequalities for the conformable fractional integral operators. Nisar et al. ^[44] presented Gronwall inequalities involving the generalized Riemann-Liouville and Hadamard $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional derivatives with applications. In ^[39], Kwun et al. proved integrals associated with Ostrowski type inequalities and error bounds of Hadamard inequalities involving the generalized Riemann-Liouville $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integral operators. Especially, several striking inequalities, properties, and applicability for the fractional integrals and derivatives are recently studied by various researchers. We refer the interesting readers to the works by ^{[30,37,52,55]}.

In 1937, Ostrowski ^[46] established an interesting integral inequality associated with differentiable mappings in one dimension stipulates a bound between a function evaluated at an interior point $z$ and the average of the function $\hbar$ over an interval. That is

$\begin{equation} \Bigg\vert\hbar(z)-\frac{1}{\varsigma_{2}-\varsigma_{1}}\int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{\varsigma_{2}}\hbar(\lambda)d\lambda\Bigg\vert \leq\left[\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\left(z-\frac{\varsigma_{1}+\varsigma_{2}}{2}\right)^{2}}{\varsigma_{2}-\varsigma_{1}}\right] (\varsigma_{2}-\varsigma_{1})\|\hbar\|_{\infty} \end{equation}$

(1.1)

holds for all $z\in[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]$ , where $\hbar\in L^{\infty}(\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2})$ and $\hbar:[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a differentiable mapping on $(\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2})$ . The constant $\frac{1}{4}$ is sharp in the sense that it cannot be replaced by a smaller one. We also observe that the tightest bound is obtained at $z = \frac{\varsigma_{1}+\varsigma_{2}}{2}$ , resulting in the well-known mid-point inequality. Ostrowski inequalities have great importance while studying the error bounds of different numerical quadrature rules, for example, the midpoint rule, Simpson's rule, the trapezoidal rule, and other generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integrals, see ^[19,21].

Almost every mathematician knows the importance of convexity theory in every field of mathematics, for example in nonlinear programming and optimization theory. By using the concept of convexity, several integral inequalities have been introduced such as Jensen, Hermite-Hadamard and Slater inequalities, and so forth. Exponentially convex functions have emerged as a significant new class of convex functions, which have important applications in technology, data science, and statistics. The main motivation of this paper depends on new Ostrowski inequalities that have been proved via $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integrals and applied for exponentially convex functions. Ostrowski inequality offers some new estimation of a function to its integral mean. It is beneficial in error estimations of quadrature rules in numerical analysis. Some particular cases have been discussed, which can be deduced from these consequences.

Recall the definition of an exponentially convex function, which is investigated by Dragomir and Gomm ^[20].

Definition 1.1. (^[20]) A positive real-valued function $\hbar:{K}\subseteq\mathbb{R}\longrightarrow (0, \infty)$ is said to be exponentially convex on $K$ if the inequality

$\begin{equation*} e^{\hbar(\lambda \varsigma_{1}+(1-\lambda)\varsigma_{2})}\leq \lambda e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})}+(1-\lambda)e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{2})} \end{equation*}$

holds for all $\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}\in K$ and $\lambda\in [0, 1]$ .

Exponentially convex function explored by Bernstein ^[14] in covariance formation then Avriel ^[11] established and investigated this concept by imposing the condition of $r$ -convex functions. Dragomir and Gomm ^[20] proved the Hermite-Hadamard inequality by employing exponentially convex functions. Pal ^[47], Alirezai and Mathar ^[9] provided the fertile application of exponentially convex functions in information theory, optimization theory, and statistical theory. For observing various other kinds of exponentially convex functions and their generalizations, see ^{[1,2,6,7,10,12,40,54,66,67]}. Due to its significance, Jakšetić and Pečarić ^[28] used another kind of exponentially convex function introduced in reference ^[14] and have provided some applications in Euler-Radau expansions and stolarsky means. Our intention is to use the exponentially convexity property of the functions as well as the absolute values of their derivatives in order to establish estimates for generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integrals.

Inspired by the above works, we give a novel approach for deriving new generalizations of Ostrowski type that correlates with exponentially convex functions and generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional techniques in this paper. One highlight is that our consequences, which are more consistent and efficient, are accelerated via the fractional calculus technique. In addition, our consequences also taking into account the estimates for Hermite-Hadamard inequality for exponentially convex functions by employing Remark 2.1. We also investigate the applications of the two proposed methods to exponentially convex functions and fractional calculus. Furthermore, we give some numerical examples to illustrate the convergence efficiency of our theorems. The proposed numerical experiments show that our results are superior to some related results.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we demonstrate some important concepts from fractional calculus that play a major role in proving the results of the present paper. The essential points of interest are exhibited in the monograph by Kilbas et al. ^[38].

Definition 2.1. (^[38]) Let $p\geq 1$ , $u\geq 0$ and $\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}\in\mathbb{R}$ with $\varsigma_{1} < \varsigma_{2}$ . Then the $L_{p, u}[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]$ space is defined by

$\begin{equation*} L_{p, u}[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}] = \left\{\hbar:\|\hbar\|_{L_{p, u}[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]} = \left(\int_{\varsigma_{1}}^{\varsigma_{2}}\vert\hbar(\lambda)\vert^{p}\lambda^{u}d\lambda\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \lt \infty\right\}. \end{equation*}$

In particular, we denote

$\begin{equation*} \|\hbar\|_{L_{p}[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]} = \|\hbar\|_{L_{p, 0}[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]} \end{equation*}$

and

$\begin{equation*} L_{p}[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}] = L_{p, 0}[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}] \end{equation*}$

Definition 2.2. (^[32]) Let $p\geq 1$ and $\Phi$ be an increasing and positive function on $[0, \infty)$ such that $\Phi^{\prime}$ is continuous on $[0, \infty)$ with $\Phi(0) = 0$ . Then the $\chi_{\Phi}^{p}[0, \infty)$ space is the set of all the real-valued Lebesgue measurable functions $\hbar\in L_{1}[0, \infty)$ such that

$\begin{equation*} \|\hbar\|_{\chi_{\Phi}^{p}} = \left(\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}\vert\hbar(\lambda)\vert^{p}\Phi^{\prime}(\lambda)d\lambda\right)^{\frac{1}{p}} \lt \infty. \end{equation*}$

In particular, if $p = \infty$ , then $\|\hbar\|_{\chi_{\Phi}^{\infty}}$ is defined by

$\begin{equation*} \|\hbar\|_{\chi_{\Phi}^{\infty}} = ess\quad\sup\limits_{0\leq\lambda \lt \infty}\left[\Phi^{\prime}(\lambda)\hbar(\lambda)\right]. \end{equation*}$

We clearly see that $\chi_{\Phi}^{p}[0, \infty)$ becomes to $L_{p}[0, \infty)$ if $\Phi(z) = z$ , and $\chi_{\Phi}^{p}[0, \infty)$ reduces to $L_{p, u}[0, \infty)$ if $\Phi(z) = \frac{1}{u+1}z^{u+1}$ .

Now, we present a new fractional operator that is known as the generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integral operator of a function in the sense of another function $\Phi$ .

Definition 2.3. Let $\hbar\in\chi_{\Phi}^{q}(0, \infty)$ and $\Phi$ be an increasing positive function defined on $[0, \infty)$ such that $\Phi^{\prime}(z)$ is continuous on $[0, \infty)$ with $\Phi(0) = 0$ . Then the left and right generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integral operators of the function $\hbar$ in the sense of the function $\Phi$ of order $\rho > 0$ are defined by

$\begin{equation} \mathfrak{J}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}\hbar(z) = \frac{1}{\mathcal{K}\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho)}\int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{z} \Phi^{\prime}(\lambda){(\Phi (z)-\Phi(\lambda))^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}-1}}{\hbar_{1}(\lambda)}d\lambda \quad (\varsigma_{1} \lt z) \end{equation}$

(2.1)

and

$\begin{equation} \mathfrak{J}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}\hbar(z) = \frac{1}{\mathcal{K}\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho)}\int\limits_{z}^{\varsigma_{2}} \Phi^{\prime}(\lambda){(\Phi(\lambda)-\Phi (z))^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}-1}}{\hbar_{1}(\lambda)}d\lambda \quad (z \lt \varsigma_{2}), \end{equation}$

(2.2)

respectively, where $\rho\in\mathbb{C}$ , $\Re(\rho) > 0$ and $\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(z) = \int\limits_{0}^{\infty}\lambda^{z-1}e^{-\frac{\lambda^{\mathcal{K}}}{\mathcal{K}}}d\lambda$ $(\Re(z) > 0)$ is the $\mathcal{K}$ -Gamma function ^[18].

Remark 2.1. From (2.1) and (2.2) we clearly see that

$(1)$ They turn into the both sided generalized RL-fractional integral operators ^[38] if $\mathcal{K} = 1$ .

$(2)$ They reduce to the both-sided $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integral operators ^[43] if $\Phi(z) = z$ .

$(3)$ They lead to the both-sided RL-fractional integral operators if $\Phi(z) = z$ and $\mathcal{K} = 1$ .

$(4)$ They become to the both-sided Hadamard fractional integral operators ^[38] if $\Phi(z) = \log z$ and $\mathcal{K} = 1$ .

$(5)$ They degenerate to the both-sided Katugampola fractional integral operators ^[33] if $\Phi(z) = \frac{z^{\beta}}{\beta}$ $(\beta > 0)$ and $\mathcal{K} = 1$ .

$(6)$ They turn out to be the both-sided conformable fractional integral operators defined by Jarad et al. ^[29] if $\Phi(z) = \frac{(z-a)^{\beta}}{\beta}$ $(\beta > 0)$ and $\mathcal{K} = 1$ .

$(7)$ They change into the both-sided generalized conformable fractional integrals defined by Khan and Adil Khan ^[35] if Choosing $\Phi(z) = \frac{z^{u+v}}{u+v}$ and $\mathcal{K} = 1$ .

3. Main results

In what follows, we assume that $\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}\in \mathbb{R}$ with $\varsigma_{1} < \varsigma_{2}$ , $\mathcal{I} = [\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]$ is a finite or infinite interval, $\hbar$ is a positive integrable function defined on $\mathcal{I}$ and $\Phi$ is an increasing and positive function on $(\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]$ such that $\Phi^{\prime}$ is continuous on $(\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2})$ .

Now, we are going to present several new Ostrowski-type inequalities for the exponentially convex functions via the generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integrals.

Theorem 3.1. Let $\rho, \delta, \mathcal{K}, \mathcal{M} > 0$ , $\mathcal{I}^{\circ}$ be the interior of $\mathcal{I}$ , and $\hbar:\mathcal{I}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be differentiable on $\mathcal{I}^{\circ}$ . Then the inequality

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}+ \left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}}\right)e^{\hbar(z)} -\left(\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} +\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1}+ \frac{\mathcal{M}\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1} \end{equation}$

(3.1)

holds if $\Phi^{\prime}(z)\geq 1$ and $\vert(e^{\hbar(\lambda)})^{\prime}\vert\leq\mathcal{M}$ for all $z, \lambda\in \mathcal{I}$ .

Proof. It follows from the monotonicity of $\Phi$ that

$\begin{equation} \big(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\lambda)\big)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}\leq\big(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\big)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}} \end{equation}$

(3.2)

for $\lambda\in[\varsigma_{1}, z]$ .

From (3.2) and the hypothesis $\vert(e^{\hbar(\lambda)})^{\prime}\vert\leq\mathcal{M}$ we clearly see that

$\begin{equation*} \int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{z}\left(\mathcal{M}\Phi^{\prime}(\lambda)-e^{\hbar(\lambda)}\hbar^{\prime}(\lambda)\right) \left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\lambda)\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}d\lambda \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \leq\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}} \int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{z}\left(\mathcal{M}\Phi^{\prime}(\lambda)-e^{\hbar(\lambda)}\hbar^{\prime}(\lambda)\right)d\lambda \end{equation*}$

and

$\begin{equation*} \int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{z}\left(\mathcal{M}\Phi^{\prime}(\lambda)+e^{\hbar(\lambda)}\hbar^{\prime}(\lambda)\right) \left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\lambda)\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}d\lambda \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \leq\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}} \int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{z}\left(\mathcal{M}\Phi^{\prime}(\lambda)+e^{\hbar(\lambda)}\hbar^{\prime}(\lambda)\right)d\lambda. \end{equation*}$

After integrating above inequalities and then using Definition 2.3 we get

$\begin{equation} \left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(z)}-\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K}) \mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}\leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}} \left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1} \end{equation}$

(3.3)

and

$\begin{equation} \Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}- \left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(z)}\leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}} \left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1}. \end{equation}$

(3.4)

Inequalities (3.3) and (3.4) lead to the following modulus inequality

$\begin{equation} \Bigg\vert\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(z)} -\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}\Bigg\vert \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1}. \end{equation}$

(3.5)

Analogously, we have

$\begin{equation} \big(\Phi(\lambda)-\Phi(z)\big)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}}\leq\big(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\big)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}} \end{equation}$

(3.6)

for $\lambda\in[z, \varsigma_{2}]$ .

Making use of (3.6) and adopting the same procedure as we did for obtaining (3.5), we get the following modulus inequality

$\begin{equation} \Bigg\vert\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(z)} -\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}\Bigg\vert \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1}. \end{equation}$

(3.7)

Therefore, inequality (3.1) follows from (3.5) and (3.7).

Corollary 3.1. Letting $\rho = \delta$ . Then Theorem 3.1 leads to

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}} +\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}\right)e^{\hbar(z)} -\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\left(\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} +\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1} +\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1}\right). \end{equation*}$

Corollary 3.2. Let $\mathcal{K} = 1$ . Then Theorem 3.1 gives the Ostrowski-type inequality as follows

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\rho}+\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\delta}\right)e^{\hbar(z)} -\left(\Gamma(\rho+1)\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho}e^{\hbar(z)}+\Gamma(\delta+1) \mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta}e^{\hbar(z)}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+1}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{{\rho}+1} +\frac{\mathcal{M}\delta}{\delta+1}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\delta+1}. \end{equation*}$

Corollary 3.3. Letting $\Phi(z) = (z)$ . Then Theorem 3.1 reduces to the following Ostrowski-type inequality for $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integral

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\left(z-\varsigma_{1}\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}} +\left(\varsigma_{2}-z\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}}\right)e^{\hbar(z)} -\left(\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} +\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(z-\varsigma_{1}\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1}+ \frac{\mathcal{M}\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\varsigma_{2}-z\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1}. \end{equation*}$

Corollary 3.4. Let $\Phi(z) = (z)$ and $\mathcal{K} = 1$ . Then Theorem 3.1 leads to

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\big(z-\varsigma_{1}\big)^{{\rho}}+\left(\varsigma_{2}-z\right)^{{\delta}}\right)e^{\hbar(z)} -\left(\Gamma(\rho+1)\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}}^{\rho}e^{\hbar(z)} +\Gamma(\delta+1)\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}}^{\delta}e^{\hbar(z)}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+1}\left(z-\varsigma_{1}\right)^{{\rho}}+ \frac{\mathcal{M}\delta}{\delta+1}\left(\varsigma_{2}-z\right)^{{\delta}}. \end{equation*}$

Corollary 3.5. Let $\Phi(z) = (z)$ and $\rho = \delta = \mathcal{K} = 1$ . Then Theorem 3.1 becomes to the Ostrowski-type inequality

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert e^{\hbar(z)}-\frac{1}{\varsigma_{2}-\varsigma_{1}}\int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{\varsigma_{2}}e^{\hbar(\lambda)}d\lambda \Bigg\vert\leq\left[\frac{1}{4}+\frac{\big(z-\frac{\varsigma_{1}+\varsigma_{2}}{2}\big)^{2}}{(\varsigma_{2}-\varsigma_{1})^{2}}\right] (\varsigma_{2}-\varsigma_{1})\mathcal{M}. \end{equation*}$

In addition, we can get more results by use of Theorem 3.1 as follows.

(Ⅰ) By choosing $z = \varsigma_{1}$ and $z = \varsigma_{2}$ in (3.1), then adding the concluding terms, we have

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})} +\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{2})} -\left(\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})} +\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{2})}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1} +\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1}. \end{equation}$

(3.8)

(Ⅱ) By choosing $\rho = \delta$ in (3.8), then we have

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}} \left(e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})}+e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{2})}\right)-\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K}) \left(\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})} +\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{2})}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\frac{2\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1}. \end{equation}$

(3.9)

(Ⅲ) By choosing $\Phi(z) = z$ in (3.9), then we get the Hermite-Hadamard type inequality for $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integrals

$\begin{equation} \Bigg\vert \frac{e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})}+e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{2})}}{2} -\frac{\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})}{2(\varsigma_{2}-\varsigma_{1})^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}} \left(\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})} +\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{2})}\right)\Bigg\vert \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\varsigma_{2}-\varsigma_{1}\right). \end{equation}$

(3.10)

Theorem 3.2. Let $\rho, \delta, \mathcal{K}, \mathcal{M} > 0$ , $\mathfrak{m}\leq0$ , $\hbar:\mathcal{I}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be differentiable on $\mathcal{I}^{\circ}$ , and $\Phi:[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a strictly increasing function such that $\Phi^{\prime}(z)\geq1$ , $\vert (e^{\hbar(\lambda)})^{\prime}\vert\leq\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathfrak{m}\leq (e^{\hbar(\lambda)})^{\prime}\leq\mathcal{M}$ for all $z, \lambda\in[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]$ . Then we have the inequalities for generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integrals as follows

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}} -\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}}\right)e^{\hbar(z)} -\left(\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} -\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\mathcal{M}\left(\frac{\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1} +\frac{\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1}\right) \end{equation}$

(3.11)

and

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}} -\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}\right)e^{\hbar(z)} +\left(\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} -\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq-\mathfrak{m}\left(\frac{\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1} +\frac{\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1}\right). \end{equation}$

(3.12)

Proof. It follows from (3.2) and the hypothesis in Theorem 3.2 that

and

$\begin{equation*} \int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{z}\left(e^{\hbar(\lambda)}\hbar^{\prime}(\lambda) -\mathfrak{m}\Phi^{\prime}(\lambda)\right)\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\lambda)\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}d\lambda \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \leq\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}\int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{z} \left(e^{\hbar(\lambda)}\hbar^{\prime}(\lambda)-\mathfrak{m}\Phi^{\prime}(\lambda)\right)d\lambda. \end{equation*}$

After integrating above inequalities and by using Definition 3.2 we get

$\begin{equation*} \left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(z)} -\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1} \end{equation}$

(3.13)

and

$\begin{equation*} \Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}-\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(z)} \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq-\frac{\mathfrak{m}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1}. \end{equation}$

(3.14)

Analogously, we have

$\begin{equation*} \Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} -\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(z)} \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1} \end{equation}$

(3.15)

and

$\begin{equation*} \left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(z)} -\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq-\frac{\mathfrak{m}\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}} \left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1}. \end{equation}$

(3.16)

Therefore, inequality (3.11) follows from (3.13) and (3.15), and inequality (3.12) follows from (3.14) and (3.16).

Remark 3.1. Theorem 3.2 leads to the conclusion that

$(i)$ If $\mathcal{K} = 1$ , then we attain the Ostrowski-type inequality for $\mathcal{GRLFI}$ .

$(ii)$ If $\Phi(z) = z$ , then we get the Ostrowski-type inequality for $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integral.

$(iii)$ If $\mathcal{K} = 1$ and $\Phi(z) = z$ , then we obtain the the Ostrowski-type inequality for $\mathcal{RLFI}$ .

$(iv)$ If $\mathfrak{m} = -\mathcal{M}$ , then after some calculations it constitutes Theorem 3.1.

Theorem 3.3. Let $\rho, \delta, \mathcal{K}, \mathcal{M} > 0$ , $\mathfrak{m}\leq0$ , $\hbar:\mathcal{I}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be differentiable on $\mathcal{I}^{\circ}$ , and $\Phi:[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a strictly increasing function such that $\Phi^{\prime}(z)\geq1$ , $\vert (e^{\hbar(\lambda)})^{\prime}\vert\leq\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathfrak{m}\leq (e^{\hbar(\lambda)})^{\prime}\leq\mathcal{M}$ for all $z, \lambda\in[\varsigma_{1}, \varsigma_{2}]$ . Then one has the generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integrals inequalities

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}} +\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}}\right)e^{\hbar(z)} -\left(\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} +\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1} -\frac{\mathfrak{m}\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1} \end{equation}$

(3.17)

and

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert-\left(\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}} +\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}\right)e^{\hbar(z)} +\left(\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} +\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\left(\frac{-\mathfrak{m}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1}+ \frac{\mathcal{M}\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1}\right). \end{equation}$

(3.18)

Proof. Inequality (3.17) follows from (3.13) and (3.16), and inequality (3.18) follows from (3.14) and (3.15).

Theorem 3.4. Let $\rho, \delta, \mathcal{K}, \mathcal{M} > 0$ , $\mathcal{I}^{\circ}$ be the interior of $\mathcal{I}$ , and $\hbar:\mathcal{I}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be differentiable on $\mathcal{I}^{\circ}$ . Then the inequality

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{2})} +\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})}\right) -\left(\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{z^{-}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})} +\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{z^{+}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{2})}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

(3.19)

holds if $\Phi^{\prime}(z)\geq 1$ and $\vert(e^{\hbar(\lambda)})^{\prime}\vert\leq\mathcal{M}$ for all $z, \lambda\in \mathcal{I}$ .

Proof. It follows from the monotonicity of $\Phi$ that

$\begin{equation} \big(\Phi(\lambda)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\big)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}\leq\big(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\big)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}} \end{equation}$

(3.20)

for $\lambda\in[\varsigma_{1}, z]$ .

Inequality (3.20) and the hypothesis on $(e^{\hbar})^{\prime}$ lead to

$\begin{equation*} \int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{z}\left(\mathcal{M}\Phi^{\prime}(\lambda)-e^{\hbar(\lambda)}\hbar^{\prime}(\lambda)\right) \left(\Phi(\lambda)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}d\lambda \end{equation*}$

and

$\begin{equation*} \int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{z}\left(\mathcal{M}\Phi^{\prime}(\lambda)+e^{\hbar(\lambda)}\hbar^{\prime}(\lambda)\right) \left(\Phi(\lambda)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}d\lambda \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \leq\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}\int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{z} \left(\mathcal{M}\Phi^{\prime}(\lambda)+e^{\hbar(\lambda)}\hbar^{\prime}(\lambda)\right)d\lambda. \end{equation*}$

Integrating above inequalities and using the Definition 2.3 lead to

$\begin{equation*} \Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{z^{-}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})} -\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})} \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1} \end{equation}$

(3.21)

and

$\begin{equation*} \left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})} -\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{{z}^{-}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})} \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1}. \end{equation}$

(3.22)

From (3.21) and (3.22) we obtain the modulus inequality

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})} -\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{{z}^{-}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})}\bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1}. \end{equation}$

(3.23)

Again, making use of the fact the monotonicity of $\Phi$ we have

$\begin{equation} \left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(\lambda)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}} \leq\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}}. \end{equation}$

(3.24)

for $\lambda\in[z, \varsigma_{2}]$ .

Using (3.24) and adopting the same procedure as we did for obtaining (3.23), we get

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})} -\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{{z}^{+}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(\varsigma_{1})}\bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} \leq\frac{\mathcal{M}\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{1})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1}. \end{equation}$

(3.25)

Therefore, inequality (3.19) follows easily from (3.23) and (3.25).

Remark 3.2. From Theorem 3.4 we clearly see that

$(i)$ If $\mathcal{K} = 1$ , then we get the Ostrowski type inequality for the $\mathcal{GRLFI}$ .

$(ii)$ If $\Phi(z) = z$ , then we attain the Ostrowski type inequality for the $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integral.

$(iii)$ If $\Phi(z) = z$ and $\mathcal{K} = 1$ , then we have the Ostrowski type inequality for the $\mathcal{RLFI}$ .

4. Examples

The generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integral operator is very a useful operator in the theory of fractional calculus and its applications since it is already mentioned that it is eligible to use it as a solution of fractional order differential equations, integral equations and fractional Schrödinger equations. To show the accuracy of our results, we present two examples to support our obtained results in the previous section.

Example 4.1. Let $\mathcal{K} = 1$ , $\varsigma_{1} = 0$ , $\varsigma_{2} = \frac{\pi}{2}$ , $\rho = 1$ , $\delta = 3$ , $\mathcal{M} = 1$ , $\hbar(z) = \ln(\cos z)$ , and $\Phi(z) = \sin z$ . Then all the assumptions in Theorem 3.1 are satisfied. It is not difficult to verify that

$\begin{equation*} \left(\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}} +\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}}\right)e^{\hbar(z)} \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} = \left(\left(\sin\frac{\pi}{4}-\sin 0\right)+ \left(\sin \frac{\pi}{2}-\sin\frac{\pi}{4}\right)^{3}\right)\cos\frac{\pi}{4}\approx0.5178, \end{equation}$

(4.1)

$\begin{equation*} \Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} = \Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\int\limits_{\varsigma_{1}}^{z}\Phi^{\prime }(\lambda) \left(\Phi(z)-\Psi(\lambda)\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}-1}e^{\hbar(\lambda)}d\lambda \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} = \int\limits_{0}^{\frac{\pi}{4}}\cos^{2}\lambda d\lambda\approx 0.6427 \end{equation*}$

and

$\begin{equation*} \Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} = \Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\int\limits_{z}^{\varsigma_{2} }\Phi^{\prime }(\lambda) \left(\Psi(\lambda)-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}-1}e^{\hbar(\lambda)}d\lambda \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} = 6\int\limits_{\frac{\pi}{4}}^{\frac{\pi}{2}}\cos^{2}\lambda\left(\sin\lambda-\sin\frac{\pi}{4}\right)^{2}d\lambda\approx0.01715. \end{equation*}$

Adding the above equations, we get the left-hand side term of (3.1) as follows

$\begin{equation} -\left(\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\rho+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{1}^{+}, \Phi}^{\rho, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)} +\Gamma_{\mathcal{K}}(\delta+\mathcal{K})\mathfrak{I}_{\varsigma_{2}^{-}, \Phi}^{\delta, \mathcal{K}}e^{\hbar(z)}\right)\Bigg\vert \approx0.1432. \end{equation}$

(4.2)

On the other hand, we have

$\begin{equation*} \frac{\mathcal{M}\rho}{\rho+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(z)-\Phi(\varsigma_{1})\right)^{\frac{\rho}{\mathcal{K}}+1} +\frac{\mathcal{M}\delta}{\delta+\mathcal{K}}\left(\Phi(\varsigma_{2})-\Phi(z)\right)^{\frac{\delta}{\mathcal{K}}+1} \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation} = \left[\left(\sin\frac{\pi}{4}\right)+\left(\sin\frac{\pi}{2}-\sin\frac{\pi}{4}\right)^{3}\right]\cos\frac{\pi}{4} \approx0.5178. \end{equation}$

(4.3)

It is nice to see that the following implications hold in (4.2) and (4.3)

$\begin{equation*} 0.1432 \lt 0.5178. \end{equation*}$

Example 4.2. Let $\mathcal{K} = 1$ , $\varsigma_{1} = 0$ , $\varsigma_{2} = 4$ , $\rho = \frac{1}{2}$ , $\delta = \frac{5}{2}$ , $\mathfrak{m} = -6$ , $\mathcal{M} = 2$ , $\hbar(z) = 2\ln(z-3)$ and $\Phi(z) = 2(z+3)$ . Then all the assumptions of Theorem 3.3 are satisfied, and Theorem 3.3 leads to the Ostrowski type inequalities

$\begin{equation*} \Bigg\vert\left(\left(2(z+3)-6\right)^{0.5}+\left(14-2(z+3)\right)^{2.5}\right)(z-3)^{2} -\left(\Gamma(1.5)\mathfrak{I}_{0^{+}, \Phi}^{0.5, 1}(z-3)^{2} +\Gamma(3.5)\mathfrak{I}_{4^{-}, \Phi}^{2.5, 1}(z-3)^{2}\right)\Bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \leq\frac{2}{5}\big(2(z+3)-6)\big)^{1.5}+\frac{30}{7}\big(14-2(z+3)\big)^{3.5} \end{equation*}$

and

$\begin{equation*} \bigg\vert-\left(\left(14-2(z+3)\right)^{2.5}+ \left(2(z+3)-10\right)^{0.5}\right)(z-3)^{2} +\left(\Gamma(1.5)\mathfrak{I}_{0^{+}, \Phi}^{0.5, 1}(z-3)^{2} +\Gamma(3.5)\mathfrak{I}_{4^{-}, \Phi}^{2.5, 1}(z-3)^{2}\right)\bigg\vert \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \leq 2\left(2(z+3)-10)\right)^{1.5}+\frac{10}{7}\left(14-2(z+3)\right)^{3.5}. \end{equation*}$

5. Applications

A real-valued function $M: (0, \infty)\times (0, \infty)\rightarrow (0, \infty)$ is said to be a bivariate mean ^[15] if $\min\{a, b\}\leq M(a, b)\leq\max\{a, b\}$ for all $a, b\in (0, \infty)$ . Recently, the properties and applications for the bivariate means and their related special functions have attracted the attention of many researchers ^{[17,22,23,25,26,48,49,50,51,56,57,58,59,61,64,65,68,69]}.

Let $\mu_{1}, \nu_{1} > 0$ with $\mu_{1}\neq\nu_{1}$ . Then the arithmetic mean $\mathcal{A}(\mu_{1}, \nu_{1})$ , harmonic mean $\mathcal{H}(\mu_{1}, \nu_{1})$ , logarithmic mean $\mathcal{L}(\mu_{1}, \nu_{1})$ and $n$ -th generalized logarithmic mean $\mathcal{L}_{n}(\mu_{1}, \nu_{1})$ are defined by

$\begin{equation*} \mathcal{A}(\mu_{1}, \nu_{1}) = \frac{\mu_{1}+\nu_{1}}{2}, \quad \mathcal{H}(\mu_{1}, \nu_{1}) = \frac{2\mu_{1}\nu_{1}}{\mu_{1}+\nu_{1}}, \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \mathcal{L}(\mu_{1}, \nu_{1}) = \frac{\nu_{1}-\mu_{1}}{\ln\nu_{1}-\ln\mu_{1}}, \quad \mathcal{L}_{n}(\mu_{1}, \nu_{1}) = \left[\frac{\nu_{1}^{n+1}-\mu_{1}^{n+1}}{(n+1)(\nu_{1}-\mu_{1})}\right]^{1/n} \; (n\neq 0, -1), \end{equation*}$

$\begin{equation*} \quad \mathcal{L}_{0}(\mu_{1}, \nu_{1}) = \frac{1}{e}\left(\frac{\nu_{1}^{\nu_{1}}}{\mu_{1}^{\mu_{1}}}\right)^{1/(\nu_{1}-\mu_{1})}, \quad \mathcal{L}_{-1}(\mu_{1}, \nu_{1}) = \mathcal{L}(\mu_{1}, \nu_{1}), \end{equation*}$

respectively.

In this section, we use our obtained results in section 3 to provide several novel inequalities involving the special bivariate means mentioned above.

Proposition 5.1. Let $\eta_{1}, \eta_{2} > 0$ with $\eta_{2} > \eta_{1}$ . Then

$\begin{equation*} \big\vert\mathcal{A}(e^{\eta_{1}}, e^{\eta_{2}})-\mathcal{L}(e^{\eta_{1}}, e^{\eta_{2}})\big\vert \leq\frac{\left(\eta_{2}-\eta_{1}\right)}{2}e^{\eta_{2}}. \end{equation*}$

Proof. Let $\rho = \mathcal{K} = 1$ and $e^{\hbar(z)} = e^{z}$ . Then the desired result follows from the assertion $\textbf(III)$ of Theorem 3.1.

Proposition 5.2. Let $\eta_{1}, \eta_{2} > 0$ with $\eta_{1} < \eta_{2}$ . Then

$\begin{equation*} \big\vert\mathcal{H}^{-1}({\eta_{1}}, {\eta_{2}})-\mathcal{L}^{-1}({\eta_{1}}, {\eta_{2}})\big\vert \leq\frac{\big(\eta_{2}-\eta_{1}\big)}{2\eta^{2}_{1}}. \end{equation*}$

Proof. Let $\rho = \mathcal{K} = 1$ and $e^{\hbar(z)} = \frac{1}{z}$ . Then the desired result can be derived from the assertion $\textbf(III)$ of Theorem 3.1.

Proposition 5.3. Let $\eta_{1}, \eta_{2} > 0$ with $\eta_{1} < \eta_{2}$ . Then

$\begin{equation*} \big\vert\mathcal{A}(\eta_{1}^{2}, \eta_{2}^{2})-\mathcal{L}_{2}^{2}(\eta_{1}, \eta_{2})\big\vert \leq(\eta_{2}-\eta_{1}\big)\eta_{2}. \end{equation*}$

Proof. Let $\rho = \mathcal{K} = 1$ and $e^{\hbar(z)} = z^{2}$ . Then the desired result can be obtained from the assertion $\textbf(III)$ of Theorem 3.1.

Proposition 5.4. Let $\eta_{1}, \eta_{2} > 0$ with $\eta_{1} < \eta_{2}$ . Then

$\begin{equation*} \big\vert\mathcal{A}(\eta_{1}^{n}, \eta_{2}^{n})-\mathcal{L}_{n}^{n}(\eta_{1}, \eta_{2}) \big\vert\leq\frac{|n|\big(\eta_{2}-\eta_{1}\big)}{2}\max\left\{|\eta_{1}|^{n-1}, |\eta_{2}|^{n-1}\right\}. \end{equation*}$

Proof. Proposition 5.4 follows easily from the assertion $\textbf(III)$ of Theorem 3.1 and $e^{\hbar(z)} = z^{n}$ together with $\mathcal{K} = \rho = 1$ .

6. Conclusion

In this paper, we proposed a novel technique with two different approaches for deriving several generalizations for an exponentially convex function that accelerates with generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integral operator. We also established strong convergence theorems for Ostrowski type inequalities via exponentially convex functions. By choosing different parameter values $\mathcal{K}$ and $\Phi$ , we analyzed the convergence behavior of our proposed methods in form of corollaries. Another aspect is that, to show the effectiveness of our novel generalizations, our results have potential applications in fractional integrodifferential, difference equations and fractional Schrödinger equations. Numerical examples show that our findings are consistent and efficient. Finally, we remark that the framework of the generalized $\mathcal{K}$ -fractional integral operator, it is of interest to further our results to the framework of Riemann-Liouville, Hadamard and conformable fractional integral operators.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions, which led to considerable improvement of the article.

The research is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. Grant Nos. 11701176, 61673169, 11301127, 11626101, 11601485).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

[1]	A. Wesolowski, E. zu Erbach-Schoenberg, A. J. Tatem, C. Lourenço, C. Viboud, V. Charu, et al., Multinational patterns of seasonal asymmetry in human movement influence infectious disease dynamics, Nat. Commun., 8 (2017), 1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41467-016-0009-6
[2]	W. O. Kermack, A. G. McKendrick, Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics–I, Bull. Math. Biol., 53 (1991), 33–55.
[3]	V. Colizza, A. Vespignani, Epidemic modeling in metapopulation systems with heterogeneous coupling pattern: Theory and simulations, J. Theor. Biol., 251 (2008), 450–467. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.11.028
[4]	M. J. Keeling, K. T. D. Eames, Networks and epidemic models, J. R. Soc. Interface, 2 (2005), 295–307.
[5]	G. Bertaglia, L. Pareschi, Hyperbolic models for the spread of epidemics on networks: kinetic description and numerical methods, ESAIM Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 55 (2020), 381–407.
[6]	W. Boscheri, G. Dimarco, L. Pareschi, Modeling and simulating the spatial spread of an epidemic through multiscale kinetic transport equations, preprint, arXiv: 2012.10101.
[7]	L. Almeida, P. A. Bliman, G. Nadin, B. Perthame, N. Vauchelet, Final size and convergence rate for an epidemic in heterogeneous population, preprint, arXiv: 2010.1541.
[8]	M. Martcheva, An Introduction to Mathematical Epidemiology, Springer, 2015.
[9]	A. Apolloni, C. Poletto, J. J. Ramasco, P. Jensen, V. Colizza, Metapopulation epidemic models with heterogeneous mixing and travel behaviour, Theor. Biol. Med. Model., 11 (2014), 1–26.
[10]	F. Arrigoni, A. Pugliese, Global stability of equilibria for a metapopulation S-I-S model, in Math Everywhere (eds. G. Aletti, A. Micheletti, D. Morale and M. Burger), Springer, 2007,229–240.
[11]	A. D. Barbour, A. Pugliese, Convergence of a structured metapopulation model to Levins's model, J. Math. Biol., 49 (2004), 468–500. doi: 10.1007/s00285-004-0272-8
[12]	R. Pastor-Satorras, C. Castellano, P. Van Mieghem, A. Vespignani, Epidemic processes in complex networks, Rev. Modern Phys., 87 (2015), 925–979. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.87.925
[13]	L. Zino, M. Cao, Analysis, prediction, and control of epidemics: A survey from scalar to dynamic network models, preprint: arXiv: 2013.00181.
[14]	F. Parino, L. Zino, M. Porfiri, A. Rizzo, Modelling and predicting the effect of social distancing and travel restrictions on COVID-19 spreading, preprint: arXiv: 2010.05968.
[15]	M. Garavello, K. Han, B. Piccoli, Models for Vehicular Traffic on Networks, Am. Inst. Math. Sci., 2016 (2016).
[16]	M. Garavello, B. Piccoli, Traffic Flow on Networks–Conservation Laws Models, Am. Inst. Math. Sci., 2016 (2016).
[17]	G. Dimarco, L. Pareschi, G. Toscani, M. Zanella, Wealth distribution under the spread of infectious diseases, Phys. Rev. E, 102 (2020), 022303. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.102.022303
[18]	G. Dimarco, B. Perthame, G. Toscani, M. Zanella, Kinetic models for epidemic dynamics with social heterogeneity, preprint: arXiv: 2009.01140.
[19]	D. B. Larremore, B. Wilder, E. Lester, S. Shehata, J. M. Burke, J. A. Hay, et al., Test sensitivity is secondary to frequency and turnaround time for COVID-19 screening, Sci. Adv., 7 (2021), eabd5393. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abd5393
[20]	M. L. Bertotti, G. Modanese, Discretized kinetic theory on scale-free networks, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics, 225 (2016), 1879–1891. doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2015-50119-6
[21]	M. Burger, Network structured kinetic models of social interactions, Vietnam J. Math., 2021 (2021), 1–20.
[22]	N. Lanchier, Rigorous proof of the Boltzmann-Gibbs distribution of money on connected graphs, J. Stat. Phys., 167 (2017), 160–172. doi: 10.1007/s10955-017-1744-8
[23]	N. Lanchier, S. Reed, Rigorous results for the distribution of money on connected graphs, J. Stat. Phys., 171 (2018), 727–743. doi: 10.1007/s10955-018-2024-y
[24]	N. Loy, A. Tosin, Boltzmann-type equations for multi-agent systems with label switching, Forthcoming, 2021.
[25]	L. Pareschi, G. Toscani, Interacting Multiagent Systems: Kinetic equations and Monte Carlo methods, Oxford University Press, 2013.
[26]	H. Minc, Nonnegative matrices, Wiley-Interscience, 1988.
[27]	B. Espinoza, C. Castillo-Chavez, C. Perrings, Mobility restrictions for the control of epidemics: When do they work?, PLoS ONE, 15 (2020), e0235731. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235731

This article has been cited by:

1.	Pshtiwan Othman Mohammed, Thabet Abdeljawad, Integral inequalities for a fractional operator of a function with respect to another function with nonsingular kernel, 2020, 2020, 1687-1847, 10.1186/s13662-020-02825-4
2.	SAIMA RASHID, ZAKIA HAMMOUCH, FAHD JARAD, YU-MING CHU, NEW ESTIMATES OF INTEGRAL INEQUALITIES VIA GENERALIZED PROPORTIONAL FRACTIONAL INTEGRAL OPERATOR WITH RESPECT TO ANOTHER FUNCTION, 2020, 28, 0218-348X, 2040027, 10.1142/S0218348X20400277
3.	Muhammad Uzair Awan, Nousheen Akhtar, Artion Kashuri, Muhammad Aslam Noor, Yu-Ming Chu, 2D approximately reciprocal ρ-convex functions and associated integral inequalities, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 4662, 10.3934/math.2020299
4.	Ling Zhu, New inequalities of Wilker’s type for circular functions, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 4874, 10.3934/math.2020311
5.	Jian-Mei Shen, Saima Rashid, Muhammad Aslam Noor, Rehana Ashraf, Yu-Ming Chu, Certain novel estimates within fractional calculus theory on time scales, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 6073, 10.3934/math.2020390
6.	Muhammad Adil Khan, Josip Pečarić, Yu-Ming Chu, Refinements of Jensen’s and McShane’s inequalities with applications, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 4931, 10.3934/math.2020315
7.	Saima Rashid, Ahmet Ocak Akdemir, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Thabet Abdeljawad, Gauhar Rahman, New generalized reverse Minkowski and related integral inequalities involving generalized fractional conformable integrals, 2020, 2020, 1029-242X, 10.1186/s13660-020-02445-2
8.	Zareen A. Khan, Fahd Jarad, Aziz Khan, Hasib Khan, Derivation of dynamical integral inequalities based on two-dimensional time scales theory, 2020, 2020, 1029-242X, 10.1186/s13660-020-02475-w
9.	Humaira Kalsoom, Muhammad Idrees, Dumitru Baleanu, Yu-Ming Chu, New Estimates of q1q2-Ostrowski-Type Inequalities within a Class of n-Polynomial Prevexity of Functions, 2020, 2020, 2314-8896, 1, 10.1155/2020/3720798
10.	Saima Rashid, İmdat İşcan, Dumitru Baleanu, Yu-Ming Chu, Generation of new fractional inequalities via n polynomials s-type convexity with applications, 2020, 2020, 1687-1847, 10.1186/s13662-020-02720-y
11.	Thabet Abdeljawad, Saima Rashid, Zakia Hammouch, Yu-Ming Chu, Some new local fractional inequalities associated with generalized $(s,m)$ -convex functions and applications, 2020, 2020, 1687-1847, 10.1186/s13662-020-02865-w
12.	Saima Rashid, Aasma Khalid, Gauhar Rahman, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Yu-Ming Chu, On New Modifications Governed by Quantum Hahn’s Integral Operator Pertaining to Fractional Calculus, 2020, 2020, 2314-8896, 1, 10.1155/2020/8262860
13.	Imran Abbas Baloch, Aqeel Ahmad Mughal, Yu-Ming Chu, Absar Ul Haq, Manuel De La Sen, A variant of Jensen-type inequality and related results for harmonic convex functions, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 6404, 10.3934/math.2020412
14.	Tie-Hong Zhao, Miao-Kun Wang, Yu-Ming Chu, A sharp double inequality involving generalized complete elliptic integral of the first kind, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 4512, 10.3934/math.2020290
15.	Xi-Fan Huang, Miao-Kun Wang, Hao Shao, Yi-Fan Zhao, Yu-Ming Chu, Monotonicity properties and bounds for the complete p-elliptic integrals, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 7071, 10.3934/math.2020453
16.	Shuang-Shuang Zhou, Saima Rashid, Fahd Jarad, Humaira Kalsoom, Yu-Ming Chu, New estimates considering the generalized proportional Hadamard fractional integral operators, 2020, 2020, 1687-1847, 10.1186/s13662-020-02730-w
17.	Yousaf Khurshid, Muhammad Adil Khan, Yu-Ming Chu, Conformable integral version of Hermite-Hadamard-Fejér inequalities via η-convex functions, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 5106, 10.3934/math.2020328
18.	Shuang-Shuang Zhou, Saima Rashid, Muhammad Aslam Noor, Khalida Inayat Noor, Farhat Safdar, Yu-Ming Chu, New Hermite-Hadamard type inequalities for exponentially convex functions and applications, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 6874, 10.3934/math.2020441
19.	Saima Rashid, Zakia Hammouch, Rehana Ashraf, Dumitru Baleanu, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, New quantum estimates in the setting of fractional calculus theory, 2020, 2020, 1687-1847, 10.1186/s13662-020-02843-2
20.	SAIMA RASHID, ZAKIA HAMMOUCH, DUMITRU BALEANU, YU-MING CHU, NEW GENERALIZATIONS IN THE SENSE OF THE WEIGHTED NON-SINGULAR FRACTIONAL INTEGRAL OPERATOR, 2020, 28, 0218-348X, 2040003, 10.1142/S0218348X20400034
21.	Ling Zhu, Completely monotonic integer degrees for a class of special functions, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 3456, 10.3934/math.2020224
22.	Emrah Yıldırım, Some Monotonicity Properties on k-Gamma Function and Related Inequalities, 2020, 6, 2349-5103, 10.1007/s40819-020-00926-y
23.	Yousaf Khurshid, Muhammad Adil Khan, Yu-Ming Chu, Conformable fractional integral inequalities for GG- and GA-convex functions, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 5012, 10.3934/math.2020322
24.	Li Xu, Yu-Ming Chu, Saima Rashid, A. A. El-Deeb, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, On New Unified Bounds for a Family of Functions via Fractionalq-Calculus Theory, 2020, 2020, 2314-8896, 1, 10.1155/2020/4984612
25.	Muhammad Uzair Awan, Nousheen Akhtar, Sabah Iftikhar, Muhammad Aslam Noor, Yu-Ming Chu, New Hermite–Hadamard type inequalities for n-polynomial harmonically convex functions, 2020, 2020, 1029-242X, 10.1186/s13660-020-02393-x
26.	Hu Ge-JiLe, Saima Rashid, Muhammad Aslam Noor, Arshiya Suhail, Yu-Ming Chu, Some unified bounds for exponentially $tgs$ -convex functions governed by conformable fractional operators, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 6108, 10.3934/math.2020392
27.	Arshad Iqbal, Muhammad Adil Khan, Noor Mohammad, Eze R. Nwaeze, Yu-Ming Chu, Revisiting the Hermite-Hadamard fractional integral inequality via a Green function, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 6087, 10.3934/math.2020391
28.	Saima Rashid, Rehana Ashraf, Muhammad Aslam Noor, Khalida Inayat Noor, Yu-Ming Chu, New weighted generalizations for differentiable exponentially convex mapping with application, 2020, 5, 2473-6988, 3525, 10.3934/math.2020229
29.	Saima Rashid, Fahd Jarad, Yu-Ming Chu, A Note on Reverse Minkowski Inequality via Generalized Proportional Fractional Integral Operator with respect to Another Function, 2020, 2020, 1024-123X, 1, 10.1155/2020/7630260
30.	Thabet Abdeljawad, Saima Rashid, Hasib Khan, Yu-Ming Chu, On new fractional integral inequalities for p-convexity within interval-valued functions, 2020, 2020, 1687-1847, 10.1186/s13662-020-02782-y
31.	Saima Rashid, Rehana Ashraf, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Thabet Abdeljawad, Imtiaz Ahmad, Estimation of Integral Inequalities Using the Generalized Fractional Derivative Operator in the Hilfer Sense, 2020, 2020, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2020/1626091
32.	Saima Rashid, Hijaz Ahmad, Aasma Khalid, Yu-Ming Chu, Mostafa M. A. Khater, On Discrete Fractional Integral Inequalities for a Class of Functions, 2020, 2020, 1099-0526, 1, 10.1155/2020/8845867
33.	YONG-MIN LI, SAIMA RASHID, ZAKIA HAMMOUCH, DUMITRU BALEANU, YU-MING CHU, NEW NEWTON’S TYPE ESTIMATES PERTAINING TO LOCAL FRACTIONAL INTEGRAL VIA GENERALIZED p-CONVEXITY WITH APPLICATIONS, 2021, 29, 0218-348X, 2140018, 10.1142/S0218348X21400181
34.	Abdelkrim Salim, Soufyane Bouriah, Mouffak Benchohra, Jamal Eddine Lazreg, Erdal Karapinar, A study on k $k$ ‐generalized ψ $\psi$ ‐Hilfer fractional differential equations with periodic integral conditions, 2023, 0170-4214, 10.1002/mma.9056
35.	Farhat Safdar, Muhammad Attique, Some new generalizations for exponentially (s, m)-preinvex functions considering generalized fractional integral operators, 2021, 1016-2526, 861, 10.52280/pujm.2021.531203
36.	Martha Paola Cruz, Ricardo Abreu-Blaya, Paul Bosch, José M. Rodríguez, José M. Sigarreta, Xiaolong Qin, On Ostrowski Type Inequalities for Generalized Integral Operators, 2022, 2022, 2314-4785, 1, 10.1155/2022/2247246
37.	JIAN-GEN LIU, XIAO-JUN YANG, YI-YING FENG, LU-LU GENG, ON THE GENERALIZED WEIGHTED CAPUTO-TYPE DIFFERENTIAL OPERATOR, 2022, 30, 0218-348X, 10.1142/S0218348X22500323
38.	Saima Rashid, Dumitru Baleanu, Yu-Ming Chu, Some new extensions for fractional integral operator having exponential in the kernel and their applications in physical systems, 2020, 18, 2391-5471, 478, 10.1515/phys-2020-0114
39.	Ghulam Farid, Hafsa Yasmeen, Hijaz Ahmad, Chahn Yong Jung, Riemann-Liouville Fractional integral operators with respect to increasing functions and strongly $(\alpha, m)$ -convex functions, 2021, 6, 2473-6988, 11403, 10.3934/math.2021661
40.	Artion Kashuri, Themistocles M. Rassias, Rozana Liko, 2022, Chapter 24, 978-3-030-84121-8, 457, 10.1007/978-3-030-84122-5_24
41.	WENGUI YANG, CERTAIN NEW WEIGHTED YOUNG- AND PÓLYA–SZEGÖ-TYPE INEQUALITIES FOR UNIFIED FRACTIONAL INTEGRAL OPERATORS VIA AN EXTENDED GENERALIZED MITTAG-LEFFLER FUNCTION WITH APPLICATIONS, 2022, 30, 0218-348X, 10.1142/S0218348X22501067
42.	Abdelkrim Salim, Jamal Eddine Lazreg, Bashir Ahmad, Mouffak Benchohra, Juan J. Nieto, A Study on k-Generalized ψ-Hilfer Derivative Operator, 2022, 2305-221X, 10.1007/s10013-022-00561-8
43.	Hengxiao Qi, Muhammad Shoaib Saleem, Imran Ahmed, Sana Sajid, Waqas Nazeer, Fractional version of Ostrowski-type inequalities for strongly p-convex stochastic processes via a k-fractional Hilfer–Katugampola derivative, 2023, 2023, 1029-242X, 10.1186/s13660-022-02901-1
44.	Saima Rashid, Aasma Khalid, Omar Bazighifan, Georgia Irina Oros, New Modifications of Integral Inequalities via ℘-Convexity Pertaining to Fractional Calculus and Their Applications, 2021, 9, 2227-7390, 1753, 10.3390/math9151753
45.	Paul Bosch, José M. Rodríguez, José M. Sigarreta, On new Milne-type inequalities and applications, 2023, 2023, 1029-242X, 10.1186/s13660-022-02910-0
46.	Paul Bosch, Yamilet Quintana, José M. Rodríguez, José M. Sigarreta, Jensen-type inequalities for m-convex functions, 2022, 20, 2391-5455, 946, 10.1515/math-2022-0061
47.	Saima Rashid, Zakia Hammouch, Rehana Ashraf, Yu-Ming Chu, New Computation of Unified Bounds via a More General Fractional Operator Using Generalized Mittag–Leffler Function in the Kernel, 2021, 126, 1526-1506, 359, 10.32604/cmes.2021.011782
48.	Weerawat Sudsutad, Nantapat Jarasthitikulchai, Chatthai Thaiprayoon, Jutarat Kongson, Jehad Alzabut, Novel Generalized Proportional Fractional Integral Inequalities on Probabilistic Random Variables and Their Applications, 2022, 10, 2227-7390, 573, 10.3390/math10040573
49.	Salim ABDELKRİM, Mouﬀak BENCHOHRA, Jamal Eddine LAZREG, Johnny HENDERSON, On $k$ -Generalized $\psi$ -Hilfer Boundary Value Problems with Retardation and Anticipation, 2022, 2587-2648, 10.31197/atnaa.973992
50.	Çetin Yildiz, Luminiţa-Ioana Cotîrlă, Examining the Hermite–Hadamard Inequalities for k-Fractional Operators Using the Green Function, 2023, 7, 2504-3110, 161, 10.3390/fractalfract7020161
51.	Jamal Eddine Lazreg, Mouffak Benchohra, Abdelkrim Salim, Existence and ulam stability of k-generalized ψ-Hilfer fractional problem , 2022, 2, 2773-4196, 1, 10.58205/jiamcs.v2i2.19
52.	Qingjin Cheng, Chunyan Luo, Estimation of the parameterized integral inequalities involving generalized p-convex mappings on fractal sets and related applications, 2022, 161, 09600779, 112371, 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112371
53.	SAIMA RASHID, SOBIA SULTANA, YELIZ KARACA, AASMA KHALID, YU-MING CHU, SOME FURTHER EXTENSIONS CONSIDERING DISCRETE PROPORTIONAL FRACTIONAL OPERATORS, 2022, 30, 0218-348X, 10.1142/S0218348X22400266
54.	Abdelkrim Salim, Mouffak Benchohra, Jamal Eddine Lazreg, On Implicit k-Generalized $\psi$ -Hilfer Fractional Differential Coupled Systems with Periodic Conditions, 2023, 22, 1575-5460, 10.1007/s12346-023-00776-1
55.	A. Salim, C. Derbazi, J. Alzabut, A. Küçükaslan, Existence and κ-Mittag-Leffler-Ulam-Hyers stability results for implicit coupled (κ,ϑ)-fractional differential systems, 2024, 31, 2576-5299, 225, 10.1080/25765299.2024.2334130
56.	Muhammad Tariq, Sotiris K. Ntouyas, Bashir Ahmad, Ostrowski-Type Fractional Integral Inequalities: A Survey, 2023, 3, 2673-9321, 660, 10.3390/foundations3040040
57.	Mouffak Benchohra, Erdal Karapınar, Jamal Eddine Lazreg, Abdelkrim Salim, 2023, Chapter 2, 978-3-031-34876-1, 15, 10.1007/978-3-031-34877-8_2
58.	Qingjin Cheng, Chunyan Luo, Analytical properties, fractal dimensions and related inequalities of (k,h)-Riemann–Liouville fractional integrals, 2024, 450, 03770427, 115999, 10.1016/j.cam.2024.115999
59.	Paul Bosch, Ana Portilla, Jose M. Rodriguez, Jose M. Sigarreta, On a generalization of the Opial inequality, 2024, 57, 2391-4661, 10.1515/dema-2023-0149
60.	Serap Özcan, Saad Ihsan Butt, Sanja Tipurić-Spužević, Bandar Bin Mohsin, Construction of new fractional inequalities via generalized $n$ -fractional polynomial $s$ -type convexity, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 23924, 10.3934/math.20241163
61.	YONGFANG QI, GUOPING LI, FRACTIONAL OSTROWSKI TYPE INEQUALITIES FOR (s,m)-CONVEX FUNCTION WITH APPLICATIONS, 2023, 31, 0218-348X, 10.1142/S0218348X23501281
62.	Abdelkrim Salim, Mouffak Benchohra, Jamal Eddine Lazreg, 2023, Chapter 22, 978-3-031-20020-5, 443, 10.1007/978-3-031-20021-2_22
63.	Junxi Chen, Chunyan Luo, Certain generalized Riemann–Liouville fractional integrals inequalities based on exponentially (h,m)-preinvexity, 2024, 530, 0022247X, 127731, 10.1016/j.jmaa.2023.127731
64.	Mouffak Benchohra, Erdal Karapınar, Jamal Eddine Lazreg, Abdelkrim Salim, 2023, Chapter 5, 978-3-031-34876-1, 109, 10.1007/978-3-031-34877-8_5
65.	Paul Bosch, José M. Rodríguez, José M. Sigarreta, Eva Tourís, Some new Milne-type inequalities, 2024, 2024, 1029-242X, 10.1186/s13660-024-03184-4
66.	Mouffak Benchohra, Erdal Karapınar, Jamal Eddine Lazreg, Abdelkrim Salim, 2023, Chapter 4, 978-3-031-34876-1, 77, 10.1007/978-3-031-34877-8_4
67.	Abdelkrim Salim, Sabri T. M. Thabet, Imed Kedim, Miguel Vivas-Cortez, On the nonlocal hybrid $({\mathsf{k}}, {\rm{\mathsf{φ}}})$ -Hilfer inverse problem with delay and anticipation, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 22859, 10.3934/math.20241112
68.	Ibtisam Aldawish, Rabha W. Ibrahim, Studies on a new K-symbol analytic functions generated by a modified K-symbol Riemann-Liouville fractional calculus, 2023, 11, 22150161, 102398, 10.1016/j.mex.2023.102398
69.	Péter Kórus, Juan Eduardo Nápoles Valdés, José Manuel Rodríguez, José Maríá Sigarreta Almira, Petrović-type inequality via fractional calculus, 2024, 25, 1787-2405, 819, 10.18514/MMN.2024.4366
70.	Arslan Munir, Li Shumin, Hüseyin Budak, Fatih Hezenci, Hasan Kara, A Study on Fractional Integral Inequalities for Trigonometric and Exponential Trigonometric-convex Functions, 2025, 21, 1927-5129, 66, 10.29169/1927-5129.2025.21.08
71.	Paul Bosch, Jorge A. Paz Moyado, José M. Rodríguez-García, José M. Sigarreta, Refinement of Jensen-type inequalities: fractional extensions (global and local), 2025, 10, 2473-6988, 6574, 10.3934/math.2025301
72.	Jiao Yu, Quantum integral Favard-type inequality, 2025, 500, 00963003, 129452, 10.1016/j.amc.2025.129452

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2021 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)