× | 0 | a | b | c |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
a | 0 | b | 0 | b |
b | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
c | 0 | b | 0 | b |
In this study, a fractional-order model for COVID-19 disease transmission is proposed and studied. First, the disease-free equilibrium and the basic reproduction number, R0 of the model has been communicated. The local and global stability of the disease-free equilibrium have been proved using well-constructed Lyapunov functions. Moreover, a normalized sensitivity analysis for the model parameters has been performed to identify their influence on R0. Real data on COVID-19 disease from Wuhan in China has been used to validate the proposed model. Finally, a simulation of the model has been performed to determine the effects of memory and control strategies. Overall, one can note that vaccination and quarantine have the potential to minimize the spread of COVID-19 in the population.
Citation: Mlyashimbi Helikumi, Paride O. Lolika. Dynamics and analysis of COVID-19 disease transmission: The effect of vaccination and quarantine[J]. Mathematical Modelling and Control, 2023, 3(3): 192-209. doi: 10.3934/mmc.2023017
[1] | Erhan Deniz, Muhammet Kamali, Semra Korkmaz . A certain subclass of bi-univalent functions associated with Bell numbers and q−Srivastava Attiya operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 7259-7271. doi: 10.3934/math.2020464 |
[2] | Luminiţa-Ioana Cotîrlǎ . New classes of analytic and bi-univalent functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 10642-10651. doi: 10.3934/math.2021618 |
[3] | Ahmad A. Abubaker, Khaled Matarneh, Mohammad Faisal Khan, Suha B. Al-Shaikh, Mustafa Kamal . Study of quantum calculus for a new subclass of q-starlike bi-univalent functions connected with vertical strip domain. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 11789-11804. doi: 10.3934/math.2024577 |
[4] | Sheza. M. El-Deeb, Gangadharan Murugusundaramoorthy, Kaliyappan Vijaya, Alhanouf Alburaikan . Certain class of bi-univalent functions defined by quantum calculus operator associated with Faber polynomial. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2989-3005. doi: 10.3934/math.2022165 |
[5] | Tariq Al-Hawary, Ala Amourah, Abdullah Alsoboh, Osama Ogilat, Irianto Harny, Maslina Darus . Applications of q−Ultraspherical polynomials to bi-univalent functions defined by q−Saigo's fractional integral operators. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 17063-17075. doi: 10.3934/math.2024828 |
[6] | Sarem H. Hadi, Maslina Darus, Choonkil Park, Jung Rye Lee . Some geometric properties of multivalent functions associated with a new generalized q-Mittag-Leffler function. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 11772-11783. doi: 10.3934/math.2022656 |
[7] | Ekram E. Ali, Miguel Vivas-Cortez, Rabha M. El-Ashwah . New results about fuzzy γ-convex functions connected with the q-analogue multiplier-Noor integral operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 5451-5465. doi: 10.3934/math.2024263 |
[8] | Ala Amourah, B. A. Frasin, G. Murugusundaramoorthy, Tariq Al-Hawary . Bi-Bazilevič functions of order ϑ+iδ associated with (p,q)− Lucas polynomials. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 4296-4305. doi: 10.3934/math.2021254 |
[9] | F. Müge Sakar, Arzu Akgül . Based on a family of bi-univalent functions introduced through the Faber polynomial expansions and Noor integral operator. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 5146-5155. doi: 10.3934/math.2022287 |
[10] | Prathviraj Sharma, Srikandan Sivasubramanian, Nak Eun Cho . Initial coefficient bounds for certain new subclasses of bi-univalent functions with bounded boundary rotation. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 29535-29554. doi: 10.3934/math.20231512 |
In this study, a fractional-order model for COVID-19 disease transmission is proposed and studied. First, the disease-free equilibrium and the basic reproduction number, R0 of the model has been communicated. The local and global stability of the disease-free equilibrium have been proved using well-constructed Lyapunov functions. Moreover, a normalized sensitivity analysis for the model parameters has been performed to identify their influence on R0. Real data on COVID-19 disease from Wuhan in China has been used to validate the proposed model. Finally, a simulation of the model has been performed to determine the effects of memory and control strategies. Overall, one can note that vaccination and quarantine have the potential to minimize the spread of COVID-19 in the population.
One of the many techniques for constructing self-dual codes over rings is to build their generator matrices from combinatorial matrices, that is to say, matrices related to graphs and designs. For instance, quadratic double circulant matrices related to the Paley graph [9,13], and more generally, adjacency matrices of two-class association schemes [11] and three-class association schemes [6] were used to construct self-dual codes over fields and unital rings. The notion that plays the role of self-dual codes over non-unital rings of order four is that of quasi self-dual (QSD) codes, which are self-orthogonal codes of length n and size 2n. The introduction of this new notion in [1,2] was motivated by the fact that the usual relation between the size of a linear code and the size of its dual does not hold in general for linear codes over non-unital rings. In that context, Type Ⅳ codes were defined as QSD codes with all Hamming weights even. The non-unital rings E and I of order four in the list of Fine [12] have received some short length classification of QSD codes [1,2,3,4]. The codes in these classifications had minimum distance at most 2 in the case of I, and 4 in the case of E. This motivates us to look for general constructions in higher lengths to search for codes with better minimum distance.
Similar constructions to those in [11] were used to construct QSD codes over E in [17] and I in [5]. In this work, we describe two constructions (namely pure and bordered) for linear codes over the rings E and I in which we employ the adjacency matrices of symmetric or non-symmetric three-class association schemes. These constructions were first described for self-dual binary codes and codes over Zk in [6]. The form of the generator matrices of the linear codes with these two constructions motivated some new results on free linear codes over E and I. These observations imply that all QSD codes over E formed by using either construction are equivalent as additive F4-codes to QSD codes over I. Consequently, we focus on studying QSD and Type Ⅳ codes over I and we give the conditions that guarantee such structures. Many codes meeting these conditions, and with minimum distance higher than 4, are presented. All computations are done via the additive codes package in Magma [7] using the connection between F4 and the non-unital rings as additive groups of order 4. Note that, since their inception, additive quaternary codes have some implications for quantum computing [8].
The paper is structured in the following way. Section 2 collects preliminary definitions and notations about rings, linear codes and association schemes with three classes. Section 3 studies free linear codes over the non-unital rings E and I. Section 4 describes the two constructions used to generate linear codes from the adjacency matrices of three-class association schemes and investigates the conditions required to obtain QSD codes as well as sufficient Type Ⅳ conditions. Section 5 concludes the paper.
The ring I defined by I=⟨a,b∣2a=2b=0,a2=b,ab=0⟩ consists of the four elements {0,a,b,c} where c=a+b. It is a non-unital commutative ring with characteristic two. The multiplication table for I is given in Table 1.
× | 0 | a | b | c |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
a | 0 | b | 0 | b |
b | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
c | 0 | b | 0 | b |
The ring E defined by E=⟨a,b∣2a=2b=0,a2=a,b2=b,ab=a,ba=b⟩ consists of the four elements {0,a,b,c} where c=a+b. It is a non-unital non-commutative ring with characteristic two. The multiplication table for E is given in Table 2.
× | 0 | a | b | c |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
a | 0 | a | a | 0 |
b | 0 | b | b | 0 |
c | 0 | c | c | 0 |
Let R be either E or I. Throughout this paper, if the statement does not depend on which ring we are using, we shall denote the ring by R.
For a positive integer n, Rn is an R-module whose elements are n-tuples over R. We will use the term vectors for these n-tuples. The (Hamming) weight wt(x) of x∈Rn is the number of nonzero coordinates in x.
A linear code of length n over I is an I-submodule of In whereas a linear code of length n over E is a left E-submodule of En. If C is a linear code of length n over R with a k×n generator matrix G, then
● for R=I, C={∑ki=1(αigi+βiagi) | αi,βi∈F2},
● for R=E, C={∑ki=1(αigi+βiagi+γibgi) | αi,βi,γi∈F2},
where gi is the ith row of G for each 1≤i≤k. A linear code with an additive generator matrix M is the F2-span of the rows of M.
With every linear code C over R, we attach an additive code ϕR(C) over F4=F2[ω] such that
● ϕI(C) is defined by the alphabet substitution 0→0, a→ω, b→1, c→ω2,
● ϕE(C) is defined by the alphabet substitution 0→0, a→ω, b→ω2, c→1.
There are two binary linear codes of length n associated canonically with every linear code C of length n over R, namely the residue code res(C) and the torsion code tor(C).
For R=I,
res(C)={α(y)∣y∈C} |
where α:I→F2 is the map defined by α(0)=α(b)=0 and α(a)=α(c)=1, extended componentwise from C to Fn2, and
tor(C)={x∈Fn2∣bx∈C}. |
For R=E,
res(C)={α(y)∣y∈C} |
where α:E→F2 is the map defined by α(0)=α(c)=0 and α(a)=α(b)=1, extended componentwise from C to Fn2, and
tor(C)={x∈Fn2∣cx∈C}. |
The two binary codes satisfy the inclusion res(C)⊆tor(C) and their sizes are related to the size of C by |C|=|res(C)||tor(C)| as shown in [1,2]. Throughout the paper, we let k1=dim(res(C)) and k2=dim(tor(C))−k1. The linear code C is said to be of type (k1,k2). We say that the linear code C is free if and only if k2=0.
Two linear codes over R are permutation equivalent if there is a permutation of coordinates that maps one to the other.
An inner product on Rn is defined by x⋅y=∑ni=1xiyi where x=(x1,x2,…,xn) and y=(y1,y2,…,yn) in Rn. A linear code C over R is self-orthogonal if for any x,y∈C, x⋅y=0. A linear code of length n is quasi self-dual (QSD) if it is self-orthogonal and of size 2n. A QSD code with all weights even is called a Type Ⅳ code. A quasi Type Ⅳ code over I is a QSD code with an even torsion code.
The following matrix notations will be used consistently throughout this paper: Ik denotes the identity matrix of size k, O denotes the zero matrix of appropriate dimensions, and ⟨M1,...,Mn⟩F2 denotes the F2-span of the rows of the matrices Mi with entries not necessarily from F2.
For any positive integer m, an association scheme with m classes is a set together with m+1 relations defined on it satisfying certain conditions. Adopting Delsarte's [10] notations and conditions for m=3, we have the following definition:
Definition 1. Let X be a set of size n≥2. Let R={R0,R1,R2,R3} be a family of four relations Ri on X. The pair (X,R) is called a three-class association scheme if the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) The set R is a partition of X×X and R0={(x,x)∣x∈X}.
(2) For i∈{0,1,2,3}, R−1i={(y,x)∣(x,y)∈Ri}=Rj for some j∈{0,1,2,3}.
(3) For any triple of integers i,j,k∈{0,1,2,3}, there exists a number pkij=pkji such that for all (x,y)∈Rk,
pkij=|{z∈X∣(x,z)∈Ri and (z,y)∈Rj}|. |
We describe the relations Ri by their adjacency matrices A0=In,A1,A2 and A3=J−In−A1−A2 where In is the identity matrix of size n and J is the all-one matrix of size n.
The values pkij are called intersection numbers. It follows from the above definition that for any i,j∈{0,1,2,3},
AiAj=AjAi=3∑k=0pkijAk. | (2.1) |
For 0≤i≤3, we have
AiJ=JAi=κiJ | (2.2) |
where κi represents the number of ones per row (or column) in Ai. The matrix Ai is called a valency κi matrix of degree n.
It was shown in [14] that each pkij is a non-negative integer that can be computed using the trace of the adjacency matrices as follows
pkij=tr(ATkAiAj)nκk | (2.3) |
where κk is the valency of Ak.
If R−1i=Ri for all i, then the association scheme is said to be symmetric, otherwise it is non-symmetric. If the association scheme is symmetric, then Ai=ATi for all i and Ai is called a non-directed matrix. By counting the number of 1's in a non-directed valency κ matrix in two ways, the following lemma is obtained.
Lemma 1. [16] There do not exist non-directed valency κ matrices of degree n if n and κ are odd.
Using the standard form of the generator matrices of linear codes over R, we establish some new results on free codes as well as QSD codes.
We state the following result from [1] without proof.
Theorem 1. [1] Assume C is a linear code over I of length n and type (k1,k2). Then, up to a permutation of columns, a generator matrix G of C is of the form
G=(aIk1aXYObIk2bZ) |
where Iki is the identity matrix of size ki, X and Z are matrices with entries from F2, Y is a matrix with entries from I, and O is the k2×k1 zero matrix.
We will need the following structural theorem.
Theorem 2. Let k be a positive integer and let C be a linear code over I. Then C is a free code of type (k,0) if and only if C is permutation equivalent to a code with generator matrix (aIk,Y) where Ik is the identity matrix of size k and Y is a matrix with entries from I.
Proof. It is immediate from Theorem 1 that every free code of type (k,0) over I is permutation equivalent to a code with generator matrix (aIk,Y) where Y is a matrix with entries from I.
For the converse, let G=(aIk,Y) be a generator matrix for C where Ik and Y are as given in the hypothesis. Observe that
G′=(GaG)=(aIkYbIkaY) |
is an additive generator matrix for C where the rows are F2- linearly independent. Hence, |C|=22k. Since |C|=|res(C)||tor(C)|, it follows that 2k=2k1+k2. Since ⟨α(G)⟩F2=res(C) and α(G) is a binary matrix with rank k, it follows that k=k1 and thus k2=0. Hence, C is a free code of type (k,0).
For x,y∈In, following [5], we denote by x∩≠y the vector in In which has a nonzero element x+y∈I precisely in those positions where x has a nonzero x and y has a different nonzero y, and 0 elsewhere.
Lemma 2. [5] Let m be an integer with m≥2. If xi∈In for each 1≤i≤m, then
wt(m∑i=1xi) ≡ m∑i=1wt(xi)+m−1∑j=1j∑i=1wt(xi∩≠xj+1) (mod 2). |
Let C be a linear code over I. For x,y∈C and i,j∈I, denote by ni(x) the number of coordinates of x that are i and denote by ni,j(x,y) the number of coordinates satisfying simultaneously that i is a component in x and j is a component in y. These notations are useful in gathering some facts about the weights of vectors related to the codewords of self-orthogonal codes over I as the following lemma shows.
Lemma 3. If C is a self-orthogonal code over I, then the following hold for x,y∈C:
(ⅰ) wt(x)≡nb(x) (mod 2),
(ⅱ) wt(ax)≡0 (mod 2),
(ⅲ) wt(x∩≠ay)≡0 (mod 2).
Proof. The self-orthogonality of C implies that
na(x)+nc(x)≡0 (mod 2) | (3.1) |
and
na,a(x,y)+na,c(x,y)+nc,a(x,y)+nc,c(x,y)≡0 (mod 2). | (3.2) |
Using the definition of ni(x), ni,j(x,y) and x∩≠y, we have the following:
(ⅰ) wt(x)=na(x)+nb(x)+nc(x),
(ⅱ) wt(ax)=nb(ax)=na(x)+nc(x),
(ⅲ) wt(x∩≠ay)=na,b(x,ay)+nc,b(x,ay)=na,a(x,y)+na,c(x,y)+nc,a(x,y)+nc,c(x,y).
Substituting Eqs (3.1) and (3.2) into the above equations, we obtain the desired result.
The next theorem gives a way to tell when a QSD code over I is Type Ⅳ.
Theorem 3. Let C be a QSD code of length n over I and has a generator matrix G each of whose rows has an even weight. Then C is Type Ⅳ if and only if each distinct pair of rows gi and gj of G satisfies that wt(gi∩≠gj) is even.
Proof. If C is a Type Ⅳ code, then every codeword in C has an even weight. In particular, wt(gi+gj) is even. Since wt(gi) and wt(gj) are even, by Lemma 2, wt(gi∩≠gj) is even.
For the converse, assume that wt(gi∩≠gj) is even. We need to prove that every codeword c in C has an even weight. By definition, c has one of the following forms:
gi , agi , ∑gi , ∑agi , or ∑(gi+agj). |
We will use Lemma 2 to prove that wt(c) is even. In particular, we will show that
wt(gi),wt(agi),wt(gi∩≠gj),wt(agi∩≠agj), and wt(gi∩≠agj) |
are even for all 1≤i,j≤k where k is the number of rows of G. From the hypotheses, wt(gi) and wt(gi∩≠gj) are even. By definition, agi∩≠agj=0 and so wt(agi∩≠agj)=0 proving that wt(agi∩≠agj) is even. Since C is self-orthogonal, by Lemma 3, wt(agi) and wt(gi∩≠agj) are even. Hence, c has an even weight and thus C is Type Ⅳ.
The following result is basic and useful.
Theorem 4. [5] If C is a self-orthogonal code over I, then res(C) is even.
Corollary 1. Every free QSD code over I is quasi Type Ⅳ.
Proof. Let C be a free QSD code. Then res(C)=tor(C). Since C is self-orthogonal, by Theorem 4, tor(C) is even. Hence, C is quasi Type Ⅳ.
We state the following result from [2] without proof.
Theorem 5. [2] Assume C is a linear code over E of length n and type (k1,k2). Then, a generator matrix G of C is of the form
G=(aIk1XYOcIk2cZ) |
where Iki is the identity matrix of size ki, X and Y are matrices with entries from E, Z is a binary matrix, and O is the k2×k1 zero matrix.
The analogue of Theorem 2 does not hold in general for codes over E.
Example 1. The linear code C over E of length 2 and generator matrix G=(a c) is not free as the residue and torsion codes of C have generator matrices (1 0) and I2, respectively.
Theorem 6. Let k be a positive integer and let C be a linear code over E. Then C is a free code of type (k,0) if and only if C is permutation equivalent to a code with generator matrix (aIk,aM) where Ik is the identity matrix of size k and M is a binary matrix.
Proof. Let C be a free code of type (k,0). Then |C|=22k. By Theorem 5, we can write the generator matrix of C as G=(aIk,Y) where Y is a matrix with entries from E. As every element in E can be written in a c-adic decomposition form [2, Section 2.2], we can write Y=aY1+cY2 where Y1 and Y2 are binary matrices. By linearity of C, we have ⟨aG,bG⟩F2⊆C. Observe that
(aGbG)=(aIkaY1bIkbY1) |
is a matrix with 2k linearly independent rows over F2. Hence, |⟨aG,bG⟩F2|=22k=|C| and thus ⟨aG,bG⟩F2=C. We claim that Y2 is a zero matrix. Suppose to the contrary that Y2 is a nonzero matrix. Then, there exists a row x in G such that the first k components consist of exactly one a and k−1 zeros, whereas the last n−k components contain at least one c, where n is the length of C. Without loss of generality, let x=(a,0,…,0,c,xk+2,…,xn) where xi∈E for k+2≤i≤n. Since x∈C=⟨aG,bG⟩F2, the first k components imply that x is a row in aG which is a contradiction as the entries of aG are from {0,a}. Thus Y2 is a zero matrix, as claimed. Hence, G=(aIk,aY1) where Y1 is a binary matrix.
Conversely, if G=(aIk,aM) is a generator matrix for C where Ik and M are as given in the hypotheses, then G=aG and therefore,
(GbG)=(aIkaMbIkbM) |
is an additive generator matrix for C where the rows are F2- linearly independent. Hence, |C|=22k. Since |C|=|res(C)||tor(C)|, it follows that 2k=2k1+k2. Since ⟨α(G)⟩F2=res(C) and α(G) is a binary matrix with rank k, it follows that k=k1 and thus k2=0. Hence, C is a free code of type (k,0).
Corollary 2. Let C be a self-orthogonal code over E with generator matrix G=(aIn,Y) where Y is a square matrix of size n with entries from E. Then C is QSD if and only if C is a free code of type (n,0).
Proof. Assume that C is a QSD code with generator matrix G=(aIn,Y) where Y is a square matrix of size n with entries from E. Then |C|=22n. Using the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 6, it follows that Y=aM where M is a binary square matrix of size n and hence C is a free code of type (n,0). The converse is immediate since |C|=|res(C)||tor(C)|=22n.
The residue and the torsion codes of QSD codes over E admit some useful properties as presented in the next theorem.
Theorem 7. [2] If C is a QSD code over E, then
(1) res(C)⊆res(C)⊥,
(2) tor(C)=res(C)⊥.
Furthermore, a QSD code C is Type Ⅳ if and only if res(C) contains the all-one codeword.
Corollary 3. Every free QSD code over E is Type Ⅳ.
Proof. Let C be a free QSD code. Then res(C)=tor(C)=res(C)⊥. Hence, res(C) is a binary self-dual code and so it contains the all-one codeword. By Theorem 7, C is Type Ⅳ.
Let A0,A1,A2 and A3 be the adjacency matrices of the relations of a three-class association scheme on a set of size n. Let QR(r,s,t,u)=rA0+sA1+tA2+uA3 where r,s,t,u∈R. As A0=In and A3=J−In−A1−A2,
QR(r,s,t,u)=(r−u)In+uJ+(s−u)A1+(t−u)A2. | (4.1) |
We describe two constructions using QR(r,s,t,u):
● The pure construction is the n×2n matrix
PR(r,s,t,u)=(aIn,QR(r,s,t,u)). |
The linear code over R of length 2n and generator matrix PR(r,s,t,u) is denoted by CPR(r,s,t,u).
● The bordered construction is the (n+1)×(2n+2) matrix
BR(r,s,t,u)=(a0⋯00a⋯a0a⋮aIn⋮QR(r,s,t,u)0a). |
The linear code over R of length 2n+2 and generator matrix BR(r,s,t,u) is denoted by CBR(r,s,t,u).
Remark 1. Let a∈R. Observe the following:
(1) The pure and the bordered constructions over R can be written as G=(aIm,Y) where Y is a square matrix of size m with entries from R.
(2) If C is a self-orthogonal code over E with generator matrix G=(aIm,Y) where Y is a square matrix of size m, then by Theorem 6 and Corollary 2, C is QSD if and only if Y=aS for some binary square matrix S of size m.
(3) Let M be a binary matrix of any size. If GR=aM is a generator matrix for a linear code CR over R, then
G′R=(aMbM) |
is an additive generator matrix for CR. By the definitions of the maps ϕE and ϕI, the additive codes ϕE(CE) and ϕI(CI) over F4 satisfy that
ϕE(CE)=⟨ωM,ω2M⟩F2=⟨ωM,M⟩F2=ϕI(CI). |
Hence, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the linear codes CE and CI and so they have the same size and weight distribution. Note that CR is self-orthogonal if and only if GRGTR=O if and only if a2MMT=O. Since a2≠0, CR is self-orthogonal if and only if MMT=O and so the self-orthogonality as well as the quasi-self duality and the Type Ⅳ property are preserved under this correspondence.
From the above three observations, it follows that if C is a QSD code over I from either the pure or the bordered construction with r,s,t,u∈{0,a}, then C can be regarded as a QSD code over E. Conversely, if C is a QSD code over E from either the pure or the bordered construction, then C can be regarded as a QSD code over I. Note that this is not generally true for self-orthogonal codes which are not QSD. Also this remark implies that the ring I may produce more free QSD codes and hence possibly more free Type Ⅳ codes than the ring E would.
Based on Remark 1 and since we are focusing on QSD and Type Ⅳ codes, it suffices to investigate the conditions which guarantee the quasi-self duality and the Type Ⅳ property of linear codes over the ring I. Indeed, in the case r,s,t,u∈{0,a}, such conditions would hold for QSD and Type Ⅳ codes over E. Hence, from this point forward, we only study linear codes over I.
Let (X,R) be a non-symmetric three-class association scheme. We can order the relations such that R2=RT1 and R3 is a symmetric relation. The association scheme is uniquely determined by R1. If we denote the adjacency matrix for R1 by A, then the adjacency matrices for R0,R2 and R3 are In,AT and J−In−A−AT, respectively. In this case, Eq (4.1) over I can be written as
QI(r,s,t,u)=(r−u)In+uJ+(s−u)A+(t−u)AT. | (4.2) |
To study self-orthogonality of the codes CPI(r,s,t,u) and CBI(r,s,t,u), we need to calculate QI(r,s,t,u)QI(r,s,t,u)T. To do this, we make substantial use of the following lemma.
Lemma 4. [6] If (X,R) is a non-symmetric three-class association scheme, then the following equations hold:
AJ=JA=κJ, | (4.3) |
AAT=ATA=κIn+λ(A+AT)+μ(J−In−A−AT), | (4.4) |
A2=αA+βAT+γ(J−In−A−AT), | (4.5) |
where κ=p012=p021,λ=p112=p121=p212=p221, μ=p312=p321,α=p111,β=p211, and γ=p311. Moreover, α=λ and κ is the number of ones at each row and at each column of A.
Lemma 5. Keep the notations in Lemma 4 and let QI=QI(r,s,t,u). Then,
QIQTI=(r2+u2+(s2+t2)(κ+μ))In+(nu2+(s2+t2)μ)J +((r+u)(t+s)+(s2+t2)(λ+μ)+(s+u)(t+u)(β+λ))(A+AT). |
Proof. By Eq (4.2) and the properties of I, we have
QIQTI=((r+u)In+uJ+(s+u)A+(t+u)AT)((r+u)In+uJ+(s+u)A+(t+u)AT)T=((r+u)In+uJ+(s+u)A+(t+u)AT)((r+u)In+uJ+(s+u)AT+(t+u)A)=(r2+u2)In+(r+u)uJ+(r+u)(s+u)AT+(r+u)(t+u)A+u(r+u)J+u2J2+u(s+u)JAT +u(t+u)JA+(s+u)(r+u)A+(s+u)uAJ+(s2+u2)AAT+(s+u)(t+u)A2 +(t+u)(r+u)AT+(t+u)uATJ+(t+u)(s+u)(AT)2+(t2+u2)ATA. |
Applying Eq (4.3) gives
QIQTI=(r2+u2)In+(r+u)(s+u)AT+(r+u)(t+u)A+nu2J+u(s+u)κJ+u(t+u)κJ +(s+u)(r+u)A+(s+u)uκJ+(s2+u2)AAT+(s+u)(t+u)A2+(t+u)(r+u)AT +(t+u)uκJ+(t+u)(s+u)(A2)T+(t2+u2)ATA=(r2+u2)In+nu2J+(r+u)(t+s)(A+AT)+(s2+t2)AAT+(s+u)(t+u)(A2+(A2)T). |
From Eqs (4.4) and (4.5), we obtain
QIQTI=(r2+u2)In+nu2J+(r+u)(t+s)(A+AT)+(s2+t2)(κIn+λ(A+AT)+μ(J−In−A−AT)) +(s+u)(t+u)(αA+βAT+αAT+βA). |
Since α=λ and I has characteristic two, it follows that
QIQTI=(r2+u2+(s2+t2)(κ+μ))In+(nu2+(s2+t2)μ)J+((r+u)(t+s)+(s2+t2)(λ+μ) +(s+u)(t+u)(β+λ))(A+AT). |
Theorem 8. The code CPI(r,s,t,u) constructed from a non-symmetric three-class association scheme is QSD if and only if the parameters are as in Table 3.
r | s | t | u | CPI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | n≡0 and β≡λ |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡0 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | always |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | never |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | β≡λ |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | never |
Proof. By Theorem 2, CPI(r,s,t,u) is a free code of type (n,0) and thus it has 22n codewords. Hence, to prove that CPI(r,s,t,u) is QSD, we only need to show that it is self-orthogonal.
The code CPI(r,s,t,u) is self-orthogonal if and only if PI(r,s,t,u)PI(r,s,t,u)T=O which occurs if and only if QI(r,s,t,u)QI(r,s,t,u)T=bIn. Then, by Lemma 5, the code CPI(r,s,t,u) is self-orthogonal if and only if the following are satisfied:
r2+u2+(s2+t2)(κ+μ)=b, | (4.6) |
nu2+(s2+t2)μ=0, | (4.7) |
(r+u)(s+t)+(s2+t2)(λ+μ)+(s+u)(t+u)(β+λ)=0. | (4.8) |
To determine when the codes are self-orthogonal, we need to find the solutions that satisfy Eqs (4.6)–(4.8). We consider four cases depending on the values of the scalars s and t:
Case 1: s,t∈{0,b}.
Then s2+t2=0 and s+t∈{0,b}. Equations (4.6)–(4.8) then reduce to
r2+u2=b,nu2=0,u2(β+λ)=0. |
If u∈{0,b}, then r∈{a,c}. If u∈{a,c}, then r∈{0,b}, n is even, and β≡λ (mod 2).
Case 2: s,t∈{a,c}.
Then s2+t2=0 and s+t∈{0,b}. Equations (4.6)–(4.8) then reduce to
r2+u2=b,nu2=0,(s+u)(t+u)(β+λ)=0. |
If u∈{0,b}, then r∈{a,c} and β≡λ (mod 2). If u∈{a,c}, then r∈{0,b} and n is even.
Case 3: s∈{0,b} and t∈{a,c}.
Then s2+t2=b. Equations (4.6)–(4.8) then reduce to
r2+u2+b(κ+μ)=b,nu2+bμ=0,(r+u)t+b(λ+μ)+u(t+u)(β+λ)=0. |
If r,u∈{0,b}, then κ+1≡λ≡μ≡0 (mod 2). If r,u∈{a,c}, then κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n (mod 2). If r∈{0,b} and u∈{a,c}, then λ+1≡κ≡μ≡n (mod 2). If u∈{0,b} and r∈{a,c}, then λ+1≡κ≡μ≡0 (mod 2).
Case 4: t∈{0,b} and s∈{a,c}.
By interchanging t and s in Case 3, we get the same restrictions on r and u as well as the parameters of the association scheme.
Theorem 9. The code CBI(r,s,t,u) constructed from a non-symmetric three-class association scheme is QSD if and only if the parameters are as in Table 4.
r | s | t | u | CBI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | n≡1 and β≡λ |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡1 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | never |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n≡1 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n≡1 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | never |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | never |
Proof. By Theorem 2, CBI(r,s,t,u) is a free code of type (n+1,0) and thus it has 22n+2 codewords. Hence, to prove that CBI(r,s,t,u) is QSD, we only need to show that it is self-orthogonal.
The code CBI(r,s,t,u) is self-orthogonal if and only if BI(r,s,t,u)BI(r,s,t,u)T=O which occurs if and only if the following are satisfied:
(n+1)b=0,a(r+sκ+tκ+u(n−2κ−1))=0,QI(r,s,t,u)QI(r,s,t,u)T=b(In+J). |
Note that the first equation is the inner product of the top row with itself. The second equation is the inner product of the top row with any other row. The third equation ensures that the remaining rows are orthogonal to each other.
The first equation requires n to be odd. The remaining two equations then satisfy
a(r+sκ+tκ)=0,QI(r,s,t,u)QI(r,s,t,u)T=b(In+J). |
Then, by Lemma 5, the code CBI(r,s,t,u) is self-orthogonal if and only if n is odd and the following are satisfied:
a(r+sκ+tκ)=0, | (4.9) |
r2+u2+(s2+t2)(κ+μ)=b, | (4.10) |
u2+(s2+t2)μ=b, | (4.11) |
(r+u)(s+t)+(s2+t2)(λ+μ)+(s+u)(t+u)(β+λ)=0. | (4.12) |
To determine when the codes are self-orthogonal, we need to find the solutions that satisfy Eqs (4.9)–(4.12). We consider four cases depending on the values of the scalars s and t:
Case 1: s,t∈{0,b}.
Then s2+t2=0 and s+t∈{0,b}. Equations (4.9)–(4.12) then reduce to
ar=0,r2+u2=b,u2=b,u2(β+λ)=0. |
Hence, we must have r∈{0,b}, u∈{a,c}, and β≡λ (mod 2).
Case 2: s,t∈{a,c}.
Then s2+t2=0 and s+t∈{0,b}. Equations (4.9)–(4.12) then reduce to
ar=0,r2+u2=b,u2=b,(s+u)(t+u)(β+λ)=0. |
Hence, we must have r∈{0,b} and u∈{a,c}.
Case 3: s∈{0,b} and t∈{a,c}.
Then s2+t2=b. Equations (4.9)–(4.12) then reduce to
ar+bκ=0,r2+u2+b(κ+μ)=b,u2+bμ=b,(r+u)t+b(λ+μ)+u(t+u)(β+λ)=0. |
If r,u∈{0,b}, then λ+1≡μ+1≡κ≡0 (mod 2). If r,u∈{a,c}, then κ+1≡λ≡μ≡0 (mod 2). If r∈{0,b} and u∈{a,c}, then λ+1≡μ≡κ≡0 (mod 2). If u∈{0,b} and r∈{a,c}, then λ+1≡μ≡κ≡1 (mod 2).
Case 4: t∈{0,b} and s∈{a,c}.
By interchanging t and s in Case 3, we get the same restrictions on r and u as well as the parameters of the association scheme.
Theorem 10. Every QSD code constructed from a non-symmetric three-class association scheme by either the pure or the bordered construction is quasi Type Ⅳ.
Proof. Let C denote a QSD code constructed from a non-symmetric three-class association scheme by either the pure or the bordered construction. Then C is a free code by Theorem 2 and thus C is quasi Type Ⅳ by Corollary 1.
Example 2. In Table 5, we present examples of (N,d) QSD codes over I of length N and minimum distance d satisfying the conditions in Theorems 8 and 9 constructed from non-symmetric three-class association schemes. The corresponding adjacency matrices with length n and parameters (κ,β,λ,μ) as defined in Lemma 4 of such schemes can be found in [15].
Construction | (n,κ,β,λ,μ) | Code | (N,d) | Type Ⅳ |
(6,1,1,0,0) | CPI(a,0,a,a) | (12,4) | yes | |
(9,1,1,0,0) | CPI(a,b,b,0) | (18,2) | yes | |
(12,1,1,0,0) | CPI(b,a,a,a) | (24,4) | no | |
(14,3,2,1,0) | CPI(0,a,a,a) | (28,4) | yes | |
(15,1,1,0,0) | CPI(0,a,0,b) | (30,2) | yes | |
Pure | (18,1,1,0,0) | CPI(0,a,c,c) | (36,4) | no |
(21,3,2,1,0) | CPI(a,0,0,b) | (42,2) | yes | |
(22,5,3,2,0) | CPI(c,0,c,a) | (44,8) | yes | |
(28,3,2,1,0) | CPI(0,a,a,a) | (56,4) | yes | |
(33,5,3,2,0) | CPI(0,0,a,0) | (66,6) | yes | |
(38,9,5,4,0) | CPI(c,c,0,c) | (76,8) | yes | |
(9,1,1,0,0) | CBI(0,c,c,a) | (20,4) | yes | |
Bordered | (15,1,1,0,0) | CBI(0,a,a,a) | (32,4) | yes |
(33,5,3,2,0) | CBI(c,0,c,a) | (68,8) | yes |
Lemma 6. Let C be a QSD code of length 2n over I with generator matrix G=(xIn,yM) where x,y∈{a,c} and M is a nonzero binary square matrix of size n. Then C is Type Ⅳ.
Proof. Since C is self-orthogonal, by Lemma 3, wt(gi)≡nb(gi) (mod 2) for each row gi of G. As x,y∈{a,c}, nb(gi)=0 and thus wt(gi) is even. Since each column of G has entries from either {0,a} or {0,c}, wt(gi∩≠gj)=0 and hence this weight is also even. By Theorem 3, C is Type Ⅳ.
The conditions in the next two theorems are sufficient but not necessary as Table 5 shows.
Theorem 11. A QSD CPI(r,s,t,u) constructed from a non-symmetric three-class association scheme is Type Ⅳ if one of the following holds
(ⅰ) r,s,t,u∈{0,a},
(ⅱ) r,s,t,u∈{0,c},
(ⅲ) r=0, s,t∈{a,b,c}, u∈{a,c}, and s=t≠u,
(ⅳ) r∈{a,c}, s=t≠r, and u=0,
(ⅴ) r∈{a,c}, s=t≠r, u=b, and n is odd.
Proof. If either (ⅰ) or (ⅱ) are satisfied, then CPI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ by Lemma 6.
To prove (ⅲ)–(ⅴ), we will use Theorem 3. So we need to show that wt(gi) and wt(gi∩≠gj) are even where gi and gj for 1≤i,j≤n are distinct rows of the generator matrix PI(r,s,t,u). By Lemma 3, wt(gi)≡nb(gi) (mod 2). Since
nb(gi)={0in cases (iii) and (iv) with s=t≠b,2κin cases (iii) and (iv) with s=t=b,n−2κ−1in case (v) with s=t≠b,n−1in case (v) with s=t=b, |
and n is odd in (ⅴ), wt(gi) is even.
Next, we will prove that wt(gi∩≠gj) is even. Let qi be the ith row of the matrix QI(r,s,t,u). Since PI=(aIn,QI(r,s,t,u)),
wt(gi∩≠gj)=wt(qi∩≠qj). |
Since s=t, we can view the rows qi and qj of QI(r,s,t,u) having the following entries:
qi:rqijssuuqj:qjirsusuABCDEF |
where A,B,C,D,E, and F are the numbers of coordinates where qi and qj satisfy the entries in the corresponding column. The jth entry in qi and the ith entry in qj are denoted by qij and qji, respectively. Note that A=B=1 and qij,qji∈{s,u}.
Since QI(r,s,t,u)=rIn+s(A+AT)+u(J−I−A−AT), QI(r,s,t,u) is symmetric and so qij=qji. Observe that in case (ⅲ),
wt(qi∩≠qj)=D+E, |
in case (ⅳ),
wt(qi∩≠qj)={0if qij=0,2if qij≠0, |
and in case (ⅴ),
wt(qi∩≠qj)={D+E+2if s=t∈{a,c},0if s=t∈{0,b} and qij=0,2if s=t∈{0,b} and qij=b. |
Since ns(qi)=ns(qj) along with the symmetry of QI(r,s,t,u), it follows that C+D=C+E. Hence, D=E and therefore wt(gi∩≠gj)=wt(qi∩≠qj) is even. Hence, CPI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ. This proves (ⅲ)–(ⅴ).
Theorem 12. A QSD CBI(r,s,t,u) constructed from a non-symmetric three-class association scheme is Type Ⅳ if one of the following holds
(ⅰ) r,s,t,u∈{0,a},
(ⅱ) r,s,t,u∈{0,c},
(ⅲ) r=0 and s,t,u∈{a,c} such that s=t≠u.
Proof. If (ⅰ) is satisfied, then CBI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ by Lemma 6.
To prove (ⅱ) and (ⅲ), we will use Theorem 3. So we need to show that wt(gi) and wt(gi∩≠gj) are even where gi and gj for 1≤i,j≤n+1 are distinct rows of the generator matrix BI(r,s,t,u). By Lemma 3, wt(gi)≡nb(gi) (mod 2). Since none of the entries of BI(r,s,t,u) equals b in cases (ⅱ) and (ⅲ), nb(gi)=0 and thus wt(gi) is even.
Now we will prove that wt(gi∩≠gj) is even.
The self-orthogonality of CBI(r,s,t,u) implies that
na,a(gi,gj)+na,c(gi,gj)+nc,a(gi,gj)+nc,c(gi,gj)≡0 (mod 2). | (4.13) |
In case (ⅱ), since r,s,t,u∈{0,c}, Eq (4.13) implies that na,c(g1,gj)≡0 (mod 2) for j>1. Observe that wt(g1∩≠gj)=na,c(g1,gj) and wt(gi∩≠gj)=0 for i,j>1. Hence, wt(gi∩≠gj) is even for all i and j. Therefore, CBI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ. This proves (ⅱ).
In case (ⅲ), observe that
wt(g1∩≠gj)=na,c(g1,gj)=nc(gj)={2κif s=t=c and u=a,n−2κ−1if s=t=a and u=c. |
Since n is odd in the bordered construction, wt(g1∩≠gj) is even. Now let qi be the ith row of the matrix QI(r,s,t,u). Then for 2≤i,j≤n+1,
wt(gi∩≠gj)=wt(qi−1∩≠qj−1). |
We can view the rows qi−1 and qj−1 of QI(r,s,t,u) having the following entries:
qi−1:0qj−1aaccqj−1:qi−10acacABCDEF |
where A,B,C,D,E, and F are the numbers of coordinates where qi−1 and qj−1 satisfy the entries in the corresponding column. The entries qj−1 and qi−1 denote the components in the j−1 and i−1 positions of qi−1 and qj−1, respectively. Note that A=B=1 and qi−1,qj−1∈{a,c}. Since QI(r,s,t,u)=s(A+AT)+u(J−I−A−AT), QI(r,s,t,u) is symmetric and so qi−1=qj−1. Since na(qi−1)=na(qj−1) along with the symmetry of QI(r,s,t,u), it follows that C+D=C+E. Hence, D=E and so wt(gi∩≠gj)=wt(qi−1∩≠qj−1)=D+E is even. Therefore, CBI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ. This proves (ⅲ).
The next example shows that employing the same adjacency matrices of a three-class association scheme but interchanging the scalars within {0,b} or {a,c} leaves the quasi-self duality of the code unchanged but not the Type Ⅳ property or the weight distribution.
Example 3. Let (X,R) be the non-symmetric three-class association scheme of size 6 and relation matrix No. 4 of [15]. The corresponding adjacency matrices are as follows, A0=I6,
A1=(010000001000100000000010000001000100) , A2=(001000100000010000000001000100000010) , A3=(000111000111000111111000111000111000). |
Recall that QI(r,s,t,u)=rA0+sA1+tA2+uA3. Then
PI(r,s,t,u)=(aI6,QI(r,s,t,u))=(a00000rstuuu0a0000trsuuu00a000struuu000a00uuurst0000a0uuutrs00000auuustr) |
is a generator matrix for CPI(r,s,t,u). Using Eq (2.3), we calculate the parameters (n,κ,β,λ,μ)=(6,1,1,0,0) of (X,R). Hence, κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n≡0 (mod 2). Consistent with Theorem 8, the following codes are QSD but not necessarily Type Ⅳ:
● CPI(a,0,a,a) is a (12,4) Type Ⅳ code with weight distribution [<0,1>,<4,45>,<6,216>, <8,1755>,<10,1800>,<12,279>].
● CPI(a,b,a,a) is a (12,4) QSD but not Type Ⅳ code with weight distribution [<0,1>,<4,45>, <6,152>,<7,384>,<8,795>,<9,1280>,<10,840>,<11,384>,<12,215>].
● CPI(a,b,c,c) is a (12,4) QSD but not Type Ⅳ code with weight distribution [<0,1>,<4,15>, <5,24>,<6,216>,<7,312>,<8,975>,<9,840>,<10,1176>,<11,360>, <12,177>].
● CPI(c,0,a,c) is a (12,4) QSD but not Type Ⅳ code with weight distribution [<0,1>,<4,15>, <5,24>,<6,200>,<7,408>,<8,735>,<9,1160>,<10,936>,<11,456>, <12,161>].
Let (X,R) be a symmetric three-class association scheme. Then all adjacency matrices are symmetric. In this case, Eq (4.1) over I can be written as
QI(r,s,t,u)=(r−u)In+uJ+(s−u)A1+(t−u)A2. | (4.14) |
To study self-orthogonality of the codes CPI(r,s,t,u) and CBI(r,s,t,u), we need to calculate QI(r,s,t,u)QI(r,s,t,u)T. To do this, we make substantial use of the following lemma.
Lemma 7. If (X,R) is a symmetric three-class association scheme, then the following equations hold:
AiJ=JAi=κiJ,A2i=AiATi=κiIn+αiA1+βiA2+γi(J−In−A1−A2), |
where κi=p0ii,αi=p1ii,βi=p2ii, and γi=p3ii.
Proof. The equations follow immediately from Eqs (2.1) and (2.2).
Lemma 8. Keep the notations in Lemma 7 and let QI=QI(r,s,t,u). Then,
QIQTI=(r2+u2+(s2+u2)(κ1+γ1)+(t2+u2)(κ2+γ2))In+(nu2+(s2+u2)γ1+(t2+u2)γ2)J +((s2+u2)(α1+γ1)+(t2+u2)(α2+γ2))A1+((s2+u2)(β1+γ1)+(t2+u2)(β2+γ2))A2. |
Proof. By Eq (4.14), Lemma 7 and the properties of I, we have
QIQTI=((r+u)In+uJ+(s+u)A1+(t+u)A2)((r+u)In+uJ+(s+u)A1+(t+u)A2)T=((r+u)In+uJ+(s+u)A1+(t+u)A2)((r+u)In+uJ+(s+u)A1+(t+u)A2)=(r+u)2In+(r+u)uJ+(r+u)(s+u)A1+(r+u)(t+u)A2+u(r+u)J+u2J2 +u(s+u)JA1+u(t+u)JA2+(s+u)(r+u)A1+(s+u)uA1J+(s+u)2A21 +(s+u)(t+u)A1A2+(t+u)(r+u)A2+(t+u)uA2J+(t+u)(s+u)A2A1+(t+u)2A22=(r2+u2)In+u2J2+(s2+u2)A21+(t2+u2)A22=(r2+u2)In+nu2J+(s2+u2)(κ1In+α1A1+β1A2+γ1(J−In−A1−A2)) +(t2+u2)(κ2In+α2A1+β2A2+γ2(J−In−A1−A2))=(r2+u2+(s2+u2)(κ1+γ1)+(t2+u2)(κ2+γ2))In+(nu2+(s2+u2)γ1+(t2+u2)γ2)J +((s2+u2)(α1+γ1)+(t2+u2)(α2+γ2))A1+((s2+u2)(β1+γ1)+(t2+u2)(β2+γ2))A2. |
In the next two theorems, all congruences are given in F2.
Theorem 13. The code CPI(r,s,t,u) constructed from a symmetric three-class association scheme is QSD if and only if the parameters are as in Table 6.
r | s | t | u | CPI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2≡n |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | always |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2+1≡n |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1+1≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2+1≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | never |
Proof. By Theorem 2, CPI(r,s,t,u) is a free code of type (n,0) and thus it has 22n codewords. Hence, to prove that CPI(r,s,t,u) is QSD, we only need to show that it is self-orthogonal.
The code CPI(r,s,t,u) is self-orthogonal if and only if PI(r,s,t,u)PI(r,s,t,u)T=O which occurs if and only if QI(r,s,t,u)QI(r,s,t,u)T=bIn. Then, by Lemma 8, the code CPI(r,s,t,u) is self-orthogonal if and only if the following are satisfied:
r2+u2+(s2+u2)(κ1+γ1)+(t2+u2)(κ2+γ2)=b, | (4.15) |
nu2+(s2+u2)γ1+(t2+u2)γ2=0, | (4.16) |
(s2+u2)(α1+γ1)+(t2+u2)(α2+γ2)=0, | (4.17) |
(s2+u2)(β1+γ1)+(t2+u2)(β2+γ2)=0. | (4.18) |
To determine when the codes are self-orthogonal, we need to find the solutions that satisfy Eqs (4.15)–(4.18). We consider four cases depending on the values of the scalars s and u:
Case 1: s,u∈{0,b}.
Then s2+u2=0 and Eqs (4.15)–(4.18) reduce to
r2+t2(κ2+γ2)=b,t2γ2=0,t2(α2+γ2)=0,t2(β2+γ2)=0. |
If t∈{0,b}, then r∈{a,c}.
If t∈{a,c}, then either r∈{0,b} and α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2+1≡0 (mod 2), or r∈{a,c} and α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2≡0 (mod 2).
Case 2: s,u∈{a,c}.
Then s2+u2=0 and Eqs (4.15)–(4.18) reduce to
r2+b+(t2+b)(κ2+γ2)=b,nb+(t2+b)γ2=0,(t2+b)(α2+γ2)=0,(t2+b)(β2+γ2)=0. |
If t∈{a,c}, then r∈{0,b} and n is even.
If t∈{0,b}, then either r∈{0,b} and α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2≡n (mod 2), or r∈{a,c} and α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2+1≡n (mod 2).
Case 3: s∈{0,b} and u∈{a,c}.
Then s2+u2=b and Eqs (4.15)–(4.18) reduce to
r2+b(1+κ1+γ1)+(t2+b)(κ2+γ2)=b,b(n+γ1)+(t2+b)γ2=0,b(α1+γ1)+(t2+b)(α2+γ2)=0,b(β1+γ1)+(t2+b)(β2+γ2)=0. |
If r,t∈{0,b}, then κ1+κ2≡α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡n (mod 2).
If r,t∈{a,c}, then κ1+1≡α1≡β1≡γ1≡n (mod 2).
If r∈{0,b} and t∈{a,c}, then κ1≡α1≡β1≡γ1≡n (mod 2).
If r∈{a,c} and t∈{0,b}, then κ1+κ2+1≡α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡n (mod 2).
Case 4: u∈{0,b} and s∈{a,c}.
Then s2+u2=b and Eqs (4.15)–(4.18) reduce to
r2+b(κ1+γ1)+t2(κ2+γ2)=b,bγ1+t2γ2=0,b(α1+γ1)+t2(α2+γ2)=0,b(β1+γ1)+t2(β2+γ2)=0. |
If r,t∈{0,b}, then κ1+1≡α1≡β1≡γ1≡0 (mod 2).
If r,t∈{a,c}, then κ1+κ2≡α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡0 (mod 2).
If r∈{0,b} and t∈{a,c}, then κ1+κ2+1≡α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡0 (mod 2).
If r∈{a,c} and t∈{0,b}, then κ1≡α1≡β1≡γ1≡0 (mod 2).
Theorem 14. The code CBI(r,s,t,u) constructed from a symmetric three-class association scheme is QSD if and only if the parameters are as in Table 7.
r | s | t | u | CBI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡1 |
{a,c} | I | I | I | never |
Proof. By Theorem 2, CBI(r,s,t,u) is a free code of type (n+1,0) and thus it has 22n+2 codewords. Hence, to prove that CBI(r,s,t,u) is QSD, we only need to show that it is self-orthogonal.
The code CBI(r,s,t,u) is self-orthogonal if and only if BI(r,s,t,u)BI(r,s,t,u)T=O which occurs if and only if the following are satisfied:
(n+1)b=0,a(r+sκ1+tκ2+u(n−κ1−κ2−1))=0,QI(r,s,t,u)QI(r,s,t,u)T=b(In+J). |
Note that the first equation is the inner product of the top row with itself. The second equation is the inner product of the top row with any other row. The third equation ensures that the remaining rows are orthogonal to each other.
The first equation requires n to be odd. Therefore, by Lemma 1, κ1 and κ2 are even. The other two equations then satisfy
ar=0,QI(r,s,t,u)QI(r,s,t,u)T=b(In+J). |
Then, by Lemma 8, the code CBI(r,s,t,u) is self-orthogonal if and only if n is odd, κ1 and κ2 are even, r∈{0,b}, and the following are satisfied:
u2+(s2+u2)γ1+(t2+u2)γ2=b, | (4.19) |
(s2+u2)(α1+γ1)+(t2+u2)(α2+γ2)=0, | (4.20) |
(s2+u2)(β1+γ1)+(t2+u2)(β2+γ2)=0. | (4.21) |
To determine when the codes are self-orthogonal, we need to find the solutions that satisfy Eqs (4.19)–(4.21). We consider four cases depending on the values of the scalars s and u:
Case 1: s,u∈{0,b}.
Then s2+u2=0 and Eqs (4.19)–(4.21) reduce to
t2γ2=b,t2(α2+γ2)=0,t2(β2+γ2)=0. |
The equations are satisfied when t∈{a,c} and α2≡β2≡γ2≡1 (mod 2).
Case 2: s,u∈{a,c}.
Then s2+u2=0 and Eqs (4.19)–(4.21) reduce to
b+(t2+b)γ2=b,(t2+b)(α2+γ2)=0,(t2+b)(β2+γ2)=0. |
The equations are satisfied when either t∈{a,c}, or t∈{0,b} together with γ2≡α2≡β2≡0 (mod 2).
Case 3: s∈{0,b} and u∈{a,c}.
Then s2+u2=b and Eqs (4.19)–(4.21) reduce to
b(1+γ1)+(t2+b)γ2=b,b(α1+γ1)+(t2+b)(α2+γ2)=0,b(β1+γ1)+(t2+b)(β2+γ2)=0. |
If t∈{0,b}, then γ1+γ2≡α1+α2≡β1+β2≡0 (mod 2). If t∈{a,c}, then γ1≡α1≡β1≡0 (mod 2).
Case 4: s∈{a,c} and u∈{0,b}.
Then s2+u2=b and Eqs (4.19)–(4.21) reduce to
bγ1+t2γ2=b,b(α1+γ1)+t2(α2+γ2)=0,b(β1+γ1)+t2(β2+γ2)=0. |
If t∈{0,b}, then γ1≡α1≡β1≡1 (mod 2). If t∈{a,c}, then γ1+γ2≡α1+α2≡β1+β2≡1 (mod 2).
Theorem 15. Every QSD code constructed from a symmetric three-class association scheme by either the pure or the bordered construction is quasi Type Ⅳ.
Proof. Let C denote a QSD code constructed from a symmetric three-class association scheme by either the pure or the bordered construction. Then C is a free code by Theorem 2 and thus C is quasi Type Ⅳ by Corollary 1.
The following remark will assist us in studying the conditions on QSD codes constructed from symmetric association schemes to be Type Ⅳ.
Remark 2. Let (X,R) be a symmetric three-class association scheme. From the third condition in Definition 1, for any i,j,k∈{0,1,2,3}, pkij=pkji is a constant number which does not depend on the choice of x and y that satisfy (x,y)∈Rk. By the symmetry of each Ri, we have
|{z∈X∣(x,z)∈Ri and (y,z)∈Rj}|=|{z∈X∣(x,z)∈Ri and (z,y)∈Rj}|=pkij=pkji=|{z∈X∣(x,z)∈Rj and (z,y)∈Ri}|=|{z∈X∣(x,z)∈Rj and (y,z)∈Ri}|. |
Hence, for ℓ,m∈I, the number of occurrences of (ℓ m)T is the same as the number of occurrences of (m ℓ)T in the columns of any two distinct rows of QI(r,s,t,u), as defined in the symmetric case. That is, any two rows x and y in QI(r,s,t,u) satisfy that nℓ,m(x,y)=nm,ℓ(x,y).
Lemma 9. Let C be a QSD code constructed from a symmetric three-class association scheme by either the pure or the bordered construction. If every row of the generator matrix of C has an even weight, then C is Type Ⅳ.
Proof. By Theorem 3, it suffices to prove that wt(gi∩≠gj) is even for every distinct pair of rows gi and gj of the generator matrices of CPI(r,s,t,u) and CBI(r,s,t,u). Let qi be the ith row of the matrix QI(r,s,t,u).
In the pure construction, we have PI=(aIn,QI(r,s,t,u)). Hence, wt(gi∩≠gj)=wt(qi∩≠qj). Let nℓ,m=nℓ,m(qi,qj). Then, by Remark 2, nℓ,m=nm,ℓ and so
wt(qi∩≠qj)=na,b+na,c+nb,a+nb,c+nc,a+nc,b=2(na,b+na,c+nb,c). |
Therefore wt(gi∩≠gj)=wt(qi∩≠qj) is even. By Theorem 3, CPI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ.
In the bordered construction, we have
BI(r,s,t,u)=(a0⋯00a⋯a0a⋮aIn⋮QI(r,s,t,u)0a). |
Hence, for j>1,
wt(g1∩≠gj)=nb(gj)+nc(gj) |
and for 2≤i,j≤n+1,
wt(gi∩≠gj)=wt(qi−1∩≠qj−1). |
By Theorem 14, n is odd. By Lemma 1, κ1,κ2, and n−κ1−κ2−1 are even. Observe that for j>1
wt(gj)=2+wt(r)+wt(s)κ1+wt(t)κ2+wt(u)(n−κ1−κ2−1) |
which is an even number, by assumption. So we must have r=0. Hence, nb(gj) and nc(gj) are equal to any sum of the even values {0,κ1,κ2,n−κ1−κ2−1}. Hence, wt(g1∩≠gj) is even. By the same argument as in the pure construction, wt(gi∩≠gj)=wt(qi−1∩≠qj−1) is even. By Theorem 3, CBI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ.
Theorem 16. A QSD CPI(r,s,t,u) constructed from a symmetric three-class association scheme is Type Ⅳ if and only if either r,s,t,u∈{0,a,c} or at least one scalar is b and the parameters are as in Table 8, where all congruences are given in F2 and "≠" means the scalar is different from b.
r | s | t | u | CPI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ |
≠ | ≠ | ≠ | b | n≡κ1+κ2+1 |
≠ | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2≡0 |
≠ | ≠ | b | b | n≡κ1+1 |
≠ | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1≡0 |
≠ | b | ≠ | b | n≡κ2+1 |
≠ | b | b | ≠ | κ1≡κ2 |
≠ | b | b | b | n≡1 |
b | ≠ | ≠ | ≠ | never |
b | ≠ | ≠ | b | n≡κ1+κ2 |
b | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2≡1 |
b | ≠ | b | b | n≡κ1 |
b | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1≡1 |
b | b | ≠ | b | n≡κ2 |
b | b | b | ≠ | κ1+κ2≡1 |
Proof. Since CPI(r,s,t,u) is self-orthogonal, by Lemma 3, wt(gi)≡nb(gi) (mod 2) for every row gi of the generator matrix PI(r,s,t,u). The quasi self-duality of CPI(r,s,t,u), by Theorem 13, requires that at least one scalar is different from b. In Table 9, we compute the congruence of the weights of every row gi in all possible cases.
r | s | t | u | wt(gi) (mod 2) |
≠ | ≠ | ≠ | ≠ | 0 |
≠ | ≠ | ≠ | b | n+κ1+κ2+1 |
≠ | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2 |
≠ | ≠ | b | b | n+κ1+1 |
≠ | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1 |
≠ | b | ≠ | b | n+κ2+1 |
≠ | b | b | ≠ | κ1+κ2 |
≠ | b | b | b | n+1 |
b | ≠ | ≠ | ≠ | 1 |
b | ≠ | ≠ | b | n+κ1+κ2 |
b | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2+1 |
b | ≠ | b | b | n+κ1 |
b | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1+1 |
b | b | ≠ | b | n+κ2 |
b | b | b | ≠ | κ1+κ2+1 |
From Table 9, it follows that wt(gi) is even if and only if either r,s,t,u∈{0,a,c} or at least one scalar is b and the parameters are as in Table 8. By Lemma 9, CPI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ. The converse follows immediately.
Theorem 17. A QSD CBI(r,s,t,u) constructed from a symmetric three-class association scheme is Type Ⅳ if and only if r=0.
Proof. Since CBI(r,s,t,u) is QSD, by Theorem 14, we know that r∈{0,b}.
Assume that r=0. We will prove that CBI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ. Let gi be any arbitrary row of the generator matrix BI(0,s,t,u) for 1≤i≤n+1. Observe that wt(g1)=n+1 and wt(gi)=2+wt(s)κ1+wt(t)κ2+wt(u)(n−κ1−κ2−1) for i>1. Since n is odd in the bordered construction, by Lemma 1, κ1 and κ2 are even. Hence, wt(gi) is even for all i. By Lemma 9, CBI(0,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ.
Now suppose that r=b. Then for i>1, wt(gi)=3+wt(s)κ1+wt(t)κ2+wt(u)(n−κ1−κ2−1). Since n is odd in the bordered construction, by Lemma 1, κ1 and κ2 are even and thus wt(gi) is odd. Hence, CBI(b,s,t,u) is not Type Ⅳ.
Example 4. In Table 10, we present examples of (N,d) QSD codes over I of length N and minimum distance d satisfying the conditions in Theorems 13, 14, 16 and 17 constructed from symmetric three-class association schemes. The corresponding adjacency matrices with length n and parameters as defined in Lemma 7 of such schemes can be found in [15].
Construction | (n,κ1,κ2) | Code | (N,d) | Type Ⅳ |
(6,1,2) | CPI(a,0,a,a) | (12,4) | yes | |
(7,2,2) | CPI(a,0,0,0) | (14,2) | yes | |
(9,2,2) | CPI(a,b,0,b) | (18,2) | yes | |
(10,2,2) | CPI(b,a,a,a) | (20,4) | no | |
(12,1,5) | CPI(b,0,a,b) | (24,4) | yes | |
Pure | (14,3,4) | CPI(a,0,a,0) | (28,6) | yes |
(16,3,3) | CPI(0,a,b,0) | (32,4) | no | |
(18,2,4) | CPI(c,c,0,c) | (36,4) | yes | |
(26,4,9) | CPI(a,a,0,a) | (52,8) | yes | |
(28,3,12) | CPI(b,a,b,a) | (56,8) | no | |
(32,6,10) | CPI(a,b,a,0) | (64,8) | yes | |
(7,2,2) | CBI(0,a,a,a) | (16,4) | yes | |
(9,2,2) | CBI(0,a,c,a) | (20,4) | yes | |
(15,2,4) | CBI(0,c,a,b) | (32,8) | yes | |
Bordered | (19,6,6) | CBI(b,a,a,a) | (40,4) | no |
(21,4,8) | CBI(0,a,b,c) | (44,8) | yes | |
(27,2,8) | CBI(0,c,a,0) | (56,8) | yes | |
(33,2,10) | CBI(0,c,c,c) | (68,4) | yes |
In this work, we have described two methods for constructing linear codes over two non-unital rings, denoted E and I, using the adjacency matrices of three-class association schemes. We proved that the two constructions, under some restrictions, yield QSD codes and Type Ⅳ codes. Drawing on the rich literature on association schemes with small vertices in [15], many QSD codes and Type Ⅳ codes with minimum distance exceeding 4 were constructed. New results related to free codes over the two rings were given. Based on these results and the forms of the two described constructions, we remark that all QSD codes over E from the two constructions can be regarded as QSD codes over I. Consequently, our investigation focused on codes over I.
One possible direction for future research is to use m-class association schemes with m≥4 to construct QSD codes. Another direction is to consider the construction techniques presented in this paper over different non-unital rings that have been studied in the literature.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
This project was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia under grant no. (KEP-PhD-66-130-42). The authors, therefore, acknowledge with thanks DSR for their technical and financial support.
Prof. Patrick Solé is the Guest Editor of special issue "Mathematical Coding Theory and its Applications" for AIMS Mathematics. Prof. Patrick Solé was not involved in the editorial review and the decision to publish this article.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
M. Higazy, Novel fractional order SIDARTHE mathematical model of COVID-19 pandemic, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 139 (2020), 110007. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110007 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110007
![]() |
[2] |
C. H. Jeong, K. J. Wan, R. S. Ki, K. Y. Kyung, S. J. Soo, M. J. Ho, et al., COVID-19 transmission and blood transfusion: A case report, J. INFECT. PUBLIC HEAL., 13 (2020), 1678–1679. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2020.05.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jiph.2020.05.001
![]() |
[3] |
R. J. Larsen, R. M. Margaret, D. J. Martin, K. Peter, B. J. Hicks, Modeling the onset of symptoms of COVID-19, Front. Public Health, 8 (2020), 473. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00473 doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00473
![]() |
[4] |
H. Abdul, A. Shmmon, S. S. Ali, A. Mumtaz, M. Shruti, A review of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease-2019) diagnosis, treatments and prevention, Ejmo, 4 (2020), 116–125. http://doi.org/10.14744/ejmo.2020.90853 doi: 10.14744/ejmo.2020.90853
![]() |
[5] |
R. Yelena, B. Jennifer, M. Haley, H. Whitney, B. Karen, C. J. Rhonda, A model of disparities: risk factors associated with COVID-19 infection, International journal for equity in health, 19 (2020), 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01242-z doi: 10.1186/s12939-020-01242-z
![]() |
[6] |
B. A. William, G. O. Ouslander, B. A. William, G. O. Joseph, COVID-19 Presents High Risk to Older Persons, J. AM. GERIATR. SOC., 68 (2020), 681. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16426 doi: 10.1111/jgs.16426
![]() |
[7] |
C. Shao-Chung, C. Yuan-Chia, C. Y-L. Fan, C. Yu-Chan, C. Mingte, Y. Chin-Hua, et al., First case of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia in Taiwan, J. FORMOS. MED. ASSOC., 119 (2020), 747–751. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2020.02.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2020.02.007
![]() |
[8] |
A. Khadijah, B. Y. Abdul, Y. Maryam, T. Javaid, S. I. Abira. Progress of COVID-19 Epidemic in Pakistan, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 32 (2020), 154–156 http://doi.org/10.1177/1010539520927259 doi: 10.1177/1010539520927259
![]() |
[9] |
J. M. Abdul-Rahman, K. H. Alfred, Mathematical modelling on COVID-19 transmission impacts with preventive measures: a case study of Tanzania, J. Biol. Dyn., 14 (2020), 748–766. http://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2020.1823494 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2020.1823494
![]() |
[10] |
A. Imran, ML. A. Omar, COVID-19: Disease, management, treatment, and social impact, Sci. Total Environ., 728 (2020), 138861 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138861 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138861
![]() |
[11] |
M. I. Baltazar, N. J. Samwel, M. Melina, S. L. Philip, P. J. Jackson, A. Caroline, et al., Community engagement in COVID-19 prevention: experiences from Kilimanjaro region, Northern Tanzania, The Pan African Medical Journal, 35 (2020), 146. http://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.supp.2020.35.2.24473 doi: 10.11604/pamj.supp.2020.35.2.24473
![]() |
[12] |
L. Marc, E. D. Natalie, Understanding COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, Science, 370 (2020), 763–765. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe5938 doi: 10.1126/science.abe5938
![]() |
[13] | S. Adekunle, O. Chuku, H. Zaheeda, P. Risha, D. Priyank, P. Stephanie, et al., Global pandemicity of COVID-19: situation report, Infectious Diseases: Research and Treatment, 14 (2020). |
[14] |
R. R. Kumar, K. Subhas, T. P. Kumar, V. Ezio, M. A. Kumar, Impact of social media advertisements on the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 pandemic in India, J. Appl. Math. Comput., 68 (2020), 19–44. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12190-021-01507-y doi: 10.1007/s12190-021-01507-y
![]() |
[15] |
G. Said, B. Yassir, A. Abdelghafour, B. Mostafa, K. Fahd, M. Driss, An adaptive social distancing SIR model for COVID-19 disease spreading and forecasting, Epidemiologic Methods, 10 (2021), 20200044. http://doi.org/10.1515/em-2020-0044 doi: 10.1515/em-2020-0044
![]() |
[16] |
K. W. Ogilvy, G. M. Anderson, Contributions to the mathematical theory of epidemics. Ⅱ.—The problem of endemicity, The Royal Society London, 138 (1932), 55–83. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02464424 doi: 10.1007/BF02464424
![]() |
[17] |
G. Major, G. Y. Udny, An inquiry into the nature of frequency distributions representative of multiple happenings with particular reference to the occurrence of multiple attacks of disease or of repeated accidents, Journal of the Royal statistical society, 83 (1920), 255–279. http://doi.org/10.2307/2341080 doi: 10.2307/2341080
![]() |
[18] |
R. Ronald, An application of the theory of probabilities to the study of a priori pathometry.—Part I, The Royal Society London, 92 (1916), 204–230. http://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1917.0014 doi: 10.1098/rspa.1917.0014
![]() |
[19] |
B. Daniel, Essai d'une nouvelle analyse de la mortalité causée par la petite vérole, et des avantages de l'inoculation pour la prévenir, Des Math. And Phis., Mem., (1960), 1–45. doi: 10.1177/003591571801101305
![]() |
[20] |
B. John, Certain Aspects of the Theory of Epidemiology in Special Relation to Plague, Proceedings of the Royal Society of medicine, 11 (1918), 85–132. http://doi.org/10.1177/003591571801101305 doi: 10.1177/003591571801101305
![]() |
[21] |
E. S. Herbert, The interpretation of periodicity in disease prevalence, JSTOR, 92 (1929), 34–73. http://doi.org/10.2307/2341437 doi: 10.2307/2341437
![]() |
[22] |
G. Major, The statistical study of infectious diseases, JSTOR, 109 (1946), 85–110. http://doi.org/10.2307/2981176 doi: 10.2307/2981176
![]() |
[23] | TJ. B. Norman, The mathematical theory of infectious diseases and its applications, Charles Griffin & Company Ltd, 5a Crendon Street, High Wycombe, Bucks HP13 6LE., 1975. http://doi.org/10.2307/3009004 |
[24] | M. A. Roy, The population dynamics of infectious diseases: theory and applications, Springer, 2013. http://doi.org/10.2307/4361 |
[25] |
H. R. Thieme, Convergence results and a Poincare-Bendison trichotomy for asymptotical autonomous differential equations, J. Math. Biol., 30 (1992), 755–763. http://doi.org/10.1007/bf00173267 doi: 10.1007/bf00173267
![]() |
[26] | S. Lenhart, JT. Workman, Optimal Control Applied to Biological Models, Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, 2007. http://doi.org/10.1201/9781420011418 |
[27] |
W. Wang, X-Q. Zha, Threshold dynamics for compartment epidemic models in periodic environments, J. Dyn. Differ. Equ., 20 (2008), 699–717. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10884-008-9111-8 doi: 10.1007/s10884-008-9111-8
![]() |
[28] |
SF. Dowel, Seasonal Variation in Host Susceptibility and Cycles of Certain Infectious Diseases, EMERG. INFECT. DIS., 7 (2001), 369–374. http://doi.org/10.3201/eid0703.010301 doi: 10.3201/eid0703.010301
![]() |
[29] |
Z. Shuai, J. A. P. Heesterbeek, P. van den Driessche, Extending the type reproduction number to infectious disease control targeting contacts between types, J. Math. Biol., 67 (2013), 1067–1082. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-012-0579-9 doi: 10.1007/s00285-012-0579-9
![]() |
[30] | LS. Pontryagin, VT. Boltyanskii, RV. Gamkrelidze, EF. Mishcheuko, The mathematical theory of optimal processes, Wiley, New Jersey, 1962. http://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1965.92 |
[31] |
P. Van den Driessche, J. Watmough, Reproduction number and subthreshold endemic equilibria for compartment models of disease transmission, Math. Biosci., 180, (2002), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00108-6 doi: 10.1016/S0025-5564(02)00108-6
![]() |
[32] |
M. Saeedian, M. Khalighi, N. A.-Tafreshi, GR. Jafari, A. Marcel, Memory effects on epidemic evolution: The susceptible-infected-recovered epidemic model, Phys. Rev. E, 95 (2017), 022409. http://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.95.022409 doi: 10.1103/physreve.95.022409
![]() |
[33] |
FA. Rihan, QM. A-Mdallal, HJ. AlSakaji, A. H. Adel, A fractional-order epidemic model with time-delay and nonlinear incidence rate, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 126 (2019), 97–105. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2019.05.039 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2019.05.039
![]() |
[34] |
H. Nur'Izzati, K. Adem, Analysis of the fractional order dengue transmission model: a case study in Malaysia, Adv. Differ. Equations, 1 (2019), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-019-1981-z doi: 10.1186/s13662-019-1981-z
![]() |
[35] | M. Abderrahim, B. Adnane, H. Khalid, Y. Noura, A fractional order SIR epidemic model with nonlinear incidence rate, Springer, 2018. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-018-1613-z |
[36] |
M. Awais, F. S. Alshammari, S. Ullah, M. A. Khan, S. Islam, Modeling and simulation of the novel coronavirus in Caputo derivative, Results Phys., 19 (2020), 103588. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103588 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103588
![]() |
[37] |
B. Samia, S. Tareq, FM. T. Delfim, Z. Anwar, Control of COVID-19 dynamics through a fractional-order model, Alex. Eng. J., 60 (2020), 3587–3592. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2021.02.022 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2021.02.022
![]() |
[38] |
O.-M. Isaac, A. Lanre, O.Bismark, S. I. Olaniyi, A fractional order approach to modeling and simulations of the novel COVID-19, Adv. Differ. Equations, 1 (2020), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-020-03141-7 doi: 10.1186/s13662-020-03141-7
![]() |
[39] |
A. Idris, B. I. Abdullahi, Y. Abdullahi, K. Poom, K. Wiyada, Analysis of Caputo fractional-order model for COVID-19 with lockdown, Adv. Differ. Equations, 2020 (2020), 394. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13662-020-02853-0 doi: 10.1186/s13662-020-02853-0
![]() |
[40] |
B. B. Abdullahi, B. Bulent, Optimal control of a fractional order model for the COVID–19 pandemic, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 144 (2021), 110678. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.110678 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.110678
![]() |
[41] |
A. Omame, M. Abbas, CP. Onyenegecha, A fractional-order model for COVID-19 and tuberculosis co-infection using Atangana–Baleanu derivative, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 153 (2021), 111486 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111486 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111486
![]() |
[42] |
A. Muhammad, F. Muhammad, A. Ali, S. Meng, Modeling and simulation of fractional order COVID-19 model with quarantined-isolated people, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 44 (2021), 6389–6405. http://doi.org/10.1002/mma.7191 doi: 10.1002/mma.7191
![]() |
[43] |
A. Ul Rehman, R. Singh, Ram, P. Agarwal, Modeling, analysis and prediction of new variants of covid-19 and dengue co-infection on complex network, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 150 (2021), 111008. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111008 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111008
![]() |
[44] |
R. Singh, P. Tiwari, S. S. Band, A. Ul Rehman, S. Mahajan, Y. Ding, et al., Impact of quarantine on fractional order dynamical model of Covid-19, Comput. Biol. Med., 151 (2022), 106266. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.106266 doi: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.106266
![]() |
[45] |
P. Agarwal, R. Singh, A. Ul Rehman, Numerical solution of hybrid mathematical model of dengue transmission with relapse and memory via Adam–Bashforth–Moulton predictor-corrector scheme, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 143 (2021), 110564. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110564 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110564
![]() |
[46] |
N. Sharma, R. Singh, J. Singh, O. Castillo, Modeling assumptions, optimal control strategies and mitigation through vaccination to zika virus, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 150 (2021), 111137. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111137 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111137
![]() |
[47] |
A. Nursanti, B. L. Kalvein, Modeling of COVID-19 spread with self-isolation at home and hospitalized classes, Results Phys., 36 (2022), 105378. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2022.105378 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2022.105378
![]() |
[48] |
P. O. Lolika, M. Helikumi, Global stability analysis of a COVID-19 epidemic model with incubation delay, Math. Model. Control, 3 (2023), 23–38. http://doi.org/10.3934/mmc.2023003 doi: 10.3934/mmc.2023003
![]() |
[49] |
J. Huo, H. Zhao, L. Zhu, The effect of vaccines on backward bifurcation in a fractional order HIV model, NONLINEAR ANAL-REAL., 26 (2015), 289–305. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.nonrwa.2015.05.014 doi: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2015.05.014
![]() |
[50] |
P. A. Naik, J. Zu, K. M. Owolabi, Global dynamics of a fractional order model for the transmission of HIV epidemic with optimal control, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 138 (2020), 109826. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109826 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109826
![]() |
[51] |
K. M. Owolabi, Behavioural study of symbiosis dynamics via the Caputo and Atangana–Baleanu fractional derivatives, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 122 (2019), 89–101. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2019.03.014 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2019.03.014
![]() |
[52] |
K. M. Owolabi, A. Atangana, Mathematical analysis and computational experiments for an epidemic system with nonlocal and nonsingular derivative, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 126 (2019), 41–49. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2019.06.001 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2019.06.001
![]() |
[53] |
Z. U. A. Zafar, K. Rehan, M. Mushtaq, HIV/AIDS epidemic fractional-order model, J. Differ. Equations Appl., 23 (2017), 1298–1315. http://doi.org/10.1080/10236198.2017.1321640 doi: 10.1080/10236198.2017.1321640
![]() |
[54] |
H. L. Li, L. Zhang, C. Hu, Y. L. Jiang, Z. Teng, Dynamical analysis of a fractional-order predator-prey model incorporating a prey refuge, J. Appl. Math. Comput., 54 (2017), 435–449. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12190-016-1017-8 doi: 10.1007/s12190-016-1017-8
![]() |
[55] |
D. Barros, L. C. Lopes, M. M. S. Pedro, F. Esmi, E. Santos, D. E. Sánchez, The memory effect on fractional calculus: an application in the spread of COVID-19, Comput. Appl. Math., 40 (2021), 1–21. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-021-01456-z doi: 10.1007/s40314-021-01456-z
![]() |
[56] |
V.-De-Leó n, Volterra-type Lyapunov functions for fractional-order epidemic systems, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 24 (2015), 75–85. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2014.12.013 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2014.12.013
![]() |
[57] |
M. Caputo, Linear models of dissipation whose Q is almost frequency independent-Ⅱ, Geophys. J. Int., 13 (1967), 529–539. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.1967.tb02303.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246x.1967.tb02303.x
![]() |
[58] |
K. Diethelm, The Analysis of Fractional Differential Equations: An Application-Oriented Exposition using Differential Operators of Caputon type, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 247 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14574-2 doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-14574-2
![]() |
[59] | I. Podlubny, Fractional Differential Equations, San Diego: Academic Pres, 1999. |
[60] |
H. Delavari, D. Baleanu, J. Sadati, Stability analysis of Caputo fractional-order nonlinear systems revisited, Nonlinear Dyn., 67 (2012), 2433–2439. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-011-0157-5 doi: 10.1007/s11071-011-0157-5
![]() |
[61] |
O. Diekmann, J. A. P. Heesterbeek, J. A. J. Metz, On the definition and the computation of the basic reproduction ratioR0 in models for infectious diseases in heterogeneous populations, J. Math. Biol., 28 (1990), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00178324 doi: 10.1007/BF00178324
![]() |
[62] | J. P. LaSalle, The Stability of Dynamical Systems, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1976. |
[63] |
H. Mlyashimbi, E. Gideon, M. Steady, Dynamics of a Fractional-Order Chikungunya Model with Asymptomatic Infectious Class, Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, (2022). http://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5118382 doi: 10.1155/2022/5118382
![]() |
[64] |
A. Dénes, B. A. Gumel, Modeling the impact of quarantine during an outbreak of Ebola virus disease, Infectious Disease Modelling, 4 (2019), 12–27. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.idm.2019.01.003 doi: 10.1016/j.idm.2019.01.003
![]() |
[65] |
A. Aatif, U. Saif, M. A. Khan, The impact of vaccination on the modeling of COVID-19 dynamics: a fractional order model, Nonlinear Dynam., (2022), 1–20. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-022-07798-5 doi: 10.1007/s11071-022-07798-5
![]() |
[66] | A. Leon, J. Hyman, Forward and adjoint sensitivity analysis with applications in dynamical systems, Lecture Notes in Linear Algebra and Optimization, (2005). |
[67] |
N. Faïçal, A. Iván, J. N. Juan, FM. T. Delfim, Mathematical modeling of COVID-19 transmission dynamics with a case study of Wuhan, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 135 (2020), 109846. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109846 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109846
![]() |
[68] |
F. Wang, L. Cao, X. Song, Mathematical modeling of mutated COVID-19 transmission with quarantine, isolation and vaccination, Math. Biosci. Eng., 19 (2022), 8035–8056. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2022376 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022376
![]() |
[69] |
Y. B. Ruhomally, M. Mungur, A. A. H. Khoodaruth, V. Oree, M. A. Dauhoo, Assessing the Impact of Contact Tracing, Quarantine and Red Zone on the Dynamical Evolution of the Covid-19 Pandemic using the Cellular Automata Approach and the Resulting Mean Field System: A Case study in Mauritius, Appl. Math. Model., 111 (2022), 567–589. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2022.07.008 doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2022.07.008
![]() |
[70] |
C. Hou, J. Chen, Y. Zhou, L. Hua, J. Yuan, S. He, et al., The effectiveness of quarantine of Wuhan city against the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A well-mixed SEIR model analysis, J. Med. Virol., 92 (2020), 841–848. http://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25827 doi: 10.1002/jmv.25827
![]() |
[71] |
J. Nelder, R. Mead, A simplex method for function minimization, The computer Journal, 7 (1964), 308–313. http://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308
![]() |
× | 0 | a | b | c |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
a | 0 | b | 0 | b |
b | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
c | 0 | b | 0 | b |
× | 0 | a | b | c |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
a | 0 | a | a | 0 |
b | 0 | b | b | 0 |
c | 0 | c | c | 0 |
r | s | t | u | CPI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | n≡0 and β≡λ |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡0 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | always |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | never |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | β≡λ |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | never |
r | s | t | u | CBI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | n≡1 and β≡λ |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡1 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | never |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n≡1 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n≡1 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | never |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | never |
Construction | (n,κ,β,λ,μ) | Code | (N,d) | Type Ⅳ |
(6,1,1,0,0) | CPI(a,0,a,a) | (12,4) | yes | |
(9,1,1,0,0) | CPI(a,b,b,0) | (18,2) | yes | |
(12,1,1,0,0) | CPI(b,a,a,a) | (24,4) | no | |
(14,3,2,1,0) | CPI(0,a,a,a) | (28,4) | yes | |
(15,1,1,0,0) | CPI(0,a,0,b) | (30,2) | yes | |
Pure | (18,1,1,0,0) | CPI(0,a,c,c) | (36,4) | no |
(21,3,2,1,0) | CPI(a,0,0,b) | (42,2) | yes | |
(22,5,3,2,0) | CPI(c,0,c,a) | (44,8) | yes | |
(28,3,2,1,0) | CPI(0,a,a,a) | (56,4) | yes | |
(33,5,3,2,0) | CPI(0,0,a,0) | (66,6) | yes | |
(38,9,5,4,0) | CPI(c,c,0,c) | (76,8) | yes | |
(9,1,1,0,0) | CBI(0,c,c,a) | (20,4) | yes | |
Bordered | (15,1,1,0,0) | CBI(0,a,a,a) | (32,4) | yes |
(33,5,3,2,0) | CBI(c,0,c,a) | (68,8) | yes |
r | s | t | u | CPI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2≡n |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | always |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2+1≡n |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1+1≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2+1≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | never |
r | s | t | u | CBI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡1 |
{a,c} | I | I | I | never |
r | s | t | u | CPI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ |
≠ | ≠ | ≠ | b | n≡κ1+κ2+1 |
≠ | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2≡0 |
≠ | ≠ | b | b | n≡κ1+1 |
≠ | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1≡0 |
≠ | b | ≠ | b | n≡κ2+1 |
≠ | b | b | ≠ | κ1≡κ2 |
≠ | b | b | b | n≡1 |
b | ≠ | ≠ | ≠ | never |
b | ≠ | ≠ | b | n≡κ1+κ2 |
b | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2≡1 |
b | ≠ | b | b | n≡κ1 |
b | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1≡1 |
b | b | ≠ | b | n≡κ2 |
b | b | b | ≠ | κ1+κ2≡1 |
r | s | t | u | wt(gi) (mod 2) |
≠ | ≠ | ≠ | ≠ | 0 |
≠ | ≠ | ≠ | b | n+κ1+κ2+1 |
≠ | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2 |
≠ | ≠ | b | b | n+κ1+1 |
≠ | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1 |
≠ | b | ≠ | b | n+κ2+1 |
≠ | b | b | ≠ | κ1+κ2 |
≠ | b | b | b | n+1 |
b | ≠ | ≠ | ≠ | 1 |
b | ≠ | ≠ | b | n+κ1+κ2 |
b | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2+1 |
b | ≠ | b | b | n+κ1 |
b | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1+1 |
b | b | ≠ | b | n+κ2 |
b | b | b | ≠ | κ1+κ2+1 |
Construction | (n,κ1,κ2) | Code | (N,d) | Type Ⅳ |
(6,1,2) | CPI(a,0,a,a) | (12,4) | yes | |
(7,2,2) | CPI(a,0,0,0) | (14,2) | yes | |
(9,2,2) | CPI(a,b,0,b) | (18,2) | yes | |
(10,2,2) | CPI(b,a,a,a) | (20,4) | no | |
(12,1,5) | CPI(b,0,a,b) | (24,4) | yes | |
Pure | (14,3,4) | CPI(a,0,a,0) | (28,6) | yes |
(16,3,3) | CPI(0,a,b,0) | (32,4) | no | |
(18,2,4) | CPI(c,c,0,c) | (36,4) | yes | |
(26,4,9) | CPI(a,a,0,a) | (52,8) | yes | |
(28,3,12) | CPI(b,a,b,a) | (56,8) | no | |
(32,6,10) | CPI(a,b,a,0) | (64,8) | yes | |
(7,2,2) | CBI(0,a,a,a) | (16,4) | yes | |
(9,2,2) | CBI(0,a,c,a) | (20,4) | yes | |
(15,2,4) | CBI(0,c,a,b) | (32,8) | yes | |
Bordered | (19,6,6) | CBI(b,a,a,a) | (40,4) | no |
(21,4,8) | CBI(0,a,b,c) | (44,8) | yes | |
(27,2,8) | CBI(0,c,a,0) | (56,8) | yes | |
(33,2,10) | CBI(0,c,c,c) | (68,4) | yes |
× | 0 | a | b | c |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
a | 0 | b | 0 | b |
b | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
c | 0 | b | 0 | b |
× | 0 | a | b | c |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
a | 0 | a | a | 0 |
b | 0 | b | b | 0 |
c | 0 | c | c | 0 |
r | s | t | u | CPI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | n≡0 and β≡λ |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡0 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | always |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | never |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | β≡λ |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | never |
r | s | t | u | CBI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | n≡1 and β≡λ |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡1 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | never |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n≡1 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | κ≡λ+1≡μ≡n≡1 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | κ+1≡λ≡μ≡n+1≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | never |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | never |
Construction | (n,κ,β,λ,μ) | Code | (N,d) | Type Ⅳ |
(6,1,1,0,0) | CPI(a,0,a,a) | (12,4) | yes | |
(9,1,1,0,0) | CPI(a,b,b,0) | (18,2) | yes | |
(12,1,1,0,0) | CPI(b,a,a,a) | (24,4) | no | |
(14,3,2,1,0) | CPI(0,a,a,a) | (28,4) | yes | |
(15,1,1,0,0) | CPI(0,a,0,b) | (30,2) | yes | |
Pure | (18,1,1,0,0) | CPI(0,a,c,c) | (36,4) | no |
(21,3,2,1,0) | CPI(a,0,0,b) | (42,2) | yes | |
(22,5,3,2,0) | CPI(c,0,c,a) | (44,8) | yes | |
(28,3,2,1,0) | CPI(0,a,a,a) | (56,4) | yes | |
(33,5,3,2,0) | CPI(0,0,a,0) | (66,6) | yes | |
(38,9,5,4,0) | CPI(c,c,0,c) | (76,8) | yes | |
(9,1,1,0,0) | CBI(0,c,c,a) | (20,4) | yes | |
Bordered | (15,1,1,0,0) | CBI(0,a,a,a) | (32,4) | yes |
(33,5,3,2,0) | CBI(c,0,c,a) | (68,8) | yes |
r | s | t | u | CPI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2≡n |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2≡n |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | always |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2+1≡n |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2≡0 |
{a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1+1≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡κ1≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡κ2+1≡n |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡κ1+κ2≡0 |
{a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | never |
r | s | t | u | CBI(r,s,t,u) is QSD |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | never |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {0,b} | α1≡β1≡γ1≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {0,b} | {a,c} | α2≡β2≡γ2≡n+1≡0 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {0,b} | α1+α2≡β1+β2≡γ1+γ2≡n≡1 |
{0,b} | {a,c} | {a,c} | {a,c} | n≡1 |
{a,c} | I | I | I | never |
r | s | t | u | CPI(r,s,t,u) is Type Ⅳ |
≠ | ≠ | ≠ | b | n≡κ1+κ2+1 |
≠ | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2≡0 |
≠ | ≠ | b | b | n≡κ1+1 |
≠ | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1≡0 |
≠ | b | ≠ | b | n≡κ2+1 |
≠ | b | b | ≠ | κ1≡κ2 |
≠ | b | b | b | n≡1 |
b | ≠ | ≠ | ≠ | never |
b | ≠ | ≠ | b | n≡κ1+κ2 |
b | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2≡1 |
b | ≠ | b | b | n≡κ1 |
b | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1≡1 |
b | b | ≠ | b | n≡κ2 |
b | b | b | ≠ | κ1+κ2≡1 |
r | s | t | u | wt(gi) (mod 2) |
≠ | ≠ | ≠ | ≠ | 0 |
≠ | ≠ | ≠ | b | n+κ1+κ2+1 |
≠ | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2 |
≠ | ≠ | b | b | n+κ1+1 |
≠ | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1 |
≠ | b | ≠ | b | n+κ2+1 |
≠ | b | b | ≠ | κ1+κ2 |
≠ | b | b | b | n+1 |
b | ≠ | ≠ | ≠ | 1 |
b | ≠ | ≠ | b | n+κ1+κ2 |
b | ≠ | b | ≠ | κ2+1 |
b | ≠ | b | b | n+κ1 |
b | b | ≠ | ≠ | κ1+1 |
b | b | ≠ | b | n+κ2 |
b | b | b | ≠ | κ1+κ2+1 |
Construction | (n,κ1,κ2) | Code | (N,d) | Type Ⅳ |
(6,1,2) | CPI(a,0,a,a) | (12,4) | yes | |
(7,2,2) | CPI(a,0,0,0) | (14,2) | yes | |
(9,2,2) | CPI(a,b,0,b) | (18,2) | yes | |
(10,2,2) | CPI(b,a,a,a) | (20,4) | no | |
(12,1,5) | CPI(b,0,a,b) | (24,4) | yes | |
Pure | (14,3,4) | CPI(a,0,a,0) | (28,6) | yes |
(16,3,3) | CPI(0,a,b,0) | (32,4) | no | |
(18,2,4) | CPI(c,c,0,c) | (36,4) | yes | |
(26,4,9) | CPI(a,a,0,a) | (52,8) | yes | |
(28,3,12) | CPI(b,a,b,a) | (56,8) | no | |
(32,6,10) | CPI(a,b,a,0) | (64,8) | yes | |
(7,2,2) | CBI(0,a,a,a) | (16,4) | yes | |
(9,2,2) | CBI(0,a,c,a) | (20,4) | yes | |
(15,2,4) | CBI(0,c,a,b) | (32,8) | yes | |
Bordered | (19,6,6) | CBI(b,a,a,a) | (40,4) | no |
(21,4,8) | CBI(0,a,b,c) | (44,8) | yes | |
(27,2,8) | CBI(0,c,a,0) | (56,8) | yes | |
(33,2,10) | CBI(0,c,c,c) | (68,4) | yes |