Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/SuppMathOperators.js
Research article

Two classes of two-weight linear codes over finite fields

  • Received: 03 April 2023 Revised: 19 April 2023 Accepted: 22 April 2023 Published: 26 April 2023
  • MSC : 11T71, 11T24

  • Let p1(mod4) be a prime, m a positive integer, ϕ(pm)2 the multiplicative order of 2 modulo pm, and let q=2ϕ(pm)2, where ϕ() is the Euler's function. In this paper, we construct two classes of linear codes over Fq and investigate their weight distributions. By calculating two classes of special exponential sums, the desired results are obtained.

    Citation: Jianying Rong, Fengwei Li, Ting Li. Two classes of two-weight linear codes over finite fields[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(7): 15317-15331. doi: 10.3934/math.2023783

    Related Papers:

    [1] Shah Hussain, Naveed Iqbal, Elissa Nadia Madi, Thoraya N. Alharthi, Ilyas Khan . Vaccination strategies in a stochastic SIVR epidemic model. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 4441-4456. doi: 10.3934/math.2025204
    [2] Asad Khan, Anwarud Din . Stochastic analysis for measles transmission with Lévy noise: a case study. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 18696-18716. doi: 10.3934/math.2023952
    [3] Xiangming Zhao, Jianping Shi . Dynamic behavior of a stochastic SIR model with nonlinear incidence and recovery rates. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 25037-25059. doi: 10.3934/math.20231278
    [4] Yanfang Zhang, Fuchang Wang, Yibin Zhao . Statistical characteristics of earthquake magnitude based on the composite model. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 607-624. doi: 10.3934/math.2024032
    [5] Yue Wu, Shenglong Chen, Ge Zhang, Zhiming Li . Dynamic analysis of a stochastic vector-borne model with direct transmission and media coverage. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 9128-9151. doi: 10.3934/math.2024444
    [6] Roshan Ara, Saeed Ahmad, Zareen A. Khan, Mostafa Zahri . Threshold dynamics of stochastic cholera epidemic model with direct transmission. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26863-26881. doi: 10.3934/math.20231375
    [7] Ishtiaq Ali, Sami Ullah Khan . Dynamics and simulations of stochastic COVID-19 epidemic model using Legendre spectral collocation method. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 4220-4236. doi: 10.3934/math.2023210
    [8] Mireia Besalú, Giulia Binotto . Time-dependent non-homogeneous stochastic epidemic model of SIR type. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 23218-23246. doi: 10.3934/math.20231181
    [9] Butsayapat Chaihao, Sujin Khomrutai . Extinction and permanence of a general non-autonomous discrete-time SIRS epidemic model. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 9624-9646. doi: 10.3934/math.2023486
    [10] Yubo Liu, Daipeng Kuang, Jianli Li . Threshold behaviour of a triple-delay SIQR stochastic epidemic model with Lévy noise perturbation. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(9): 16498-16518. doi: 10.3934/math.2022903
  • Let p1(mod4) be a prime, m a positive integer, ϕ(pm)2 the multiplicative order of 2 modulo pm, and let q=2ϕ(pm)2, where ϕ() is the Euler's function. In this paper, we construct two classes of linear codes over Fq and investigate their weight distributions. By calculating two classes of special exponential sums, the desired results are obtained.



    Epidemic dynamics is a crucial method for the quantitative study of infectious diseases, developing mathematical models that represent the process of disease progression and the principles of transmission. Mathematical research has achieved significant advances in both theory and application, leading to several well-known models of infectious disease dynamics [1,2,3,4].

    Numerous researchers have explored mathematical models concerning population-level transmission dynamics, such as SIR model that susceptible-infected-recovered-infectious disease model and SIRS model is based on the SIR model with the addition of the process of loss of immunity, among others[1]. These models have been studied and analyzed from various perspectives, including incidence, treatment functions, and age structure. Many reliable conclusions have emerged, contributing to the advancement of infectious disease dynamics [3,4,5,6]. For example, Li et al. [5] investigated epidemic models of the SIR and SIRS types with a general contact rate and constant immigration, particularly emphasizing the impact of the influx of infectious individuals. The model complexity and greater stochastic volatility of multiparameter stochastic perturbations have resulted in relatively little relevant research. The purpose of this study is to investigate the extinction and persistence of stochastic SIRSW model solutions under multiparameter stochastic perturbations, the propagation laws of infectious disease dynamics, and the effects of different parameters on disease spread. Among these, the SIRSW model is based on the SIRS model, adding the environmental pathogen infection process.

    In recent years, due to environmental degradation and varying degrees of contamination of water and food, people have faced numerous infectious diseases stemming from environmental issues[7]. Infectious diseases such as cholera, tuberculosis, and COVID-19 exhibit spatial-temporal and multi-scale characteristics, including direct transmission between humans at the macroscale population level and indirect transmission between humans and environmental pathogens at the microscale [8,9,10,11]. In the environmental transmission of certain infectious diseases, the excretion of pathogens and their transmission are two major processes. Additionally, between-host disease transmission and within-host viral load are interdependent[12]. To investigate the effects of individual movement and pathogen dispersal in space on disease transmission, Xiao et al.[13] developed a coupled model that considers direct infection resulting from random human movements and indirect infection following pathogen shedding in the environment, which took the following form

    {dS(t)dt=βSIvSW,dI(t)dt=βSI+νSWγI,dR(t)dt=γI,dW(t)dt=ηI(μ+νN)W(t), (1.1)

    where N denotes the total population, S,I,R are the number of susceptible, infected, and recovered individuals, W(t) is the pathogen concentration in the environment at time t, respectively, β is the direct transmission rate, ν is the indirect transmission rate, η is the environmental virus shedding rate, μ is the natural mortality rate, and γ is the rate of recovery of infected individuals. Xiao et al. performed a numerical simulation analysis from a data-driven perspective and reached many interesting conclusions, but no theoretical analysis was performed. In the following section, refining the theoretical analyses of the corresponding models is also an important research objective of this paper.

    Deterministic modeling of viral infections has been studied by some researchers[14,15,16]. Edoardo[14] proposes a mathematical model of the marine bacteriophage infection and analyzes its basic mathematical features. Ivo et al.[15] extended the Beretta-Kuang model to allow the estimation of virus growth parameters under model-specific parameterizations. Depending on the characteristics of the infection, the recovering person loses immunity after a period of time and becomes susceptible to infection again, which is called SIRS infection[17]. On this basis, by considering birth and death rates, the following deterministic model is obtained:

    {dS=(ΛβSIνSWμS+ζR)dt,dI=(βSI+νSWγIμI)dt,dR=(γI(μ+ζ)R)dt,dW=(ηIcW)dt, (1.2)

    where Λ is the input rate of susceptible individuals, ζ denotes the rate of immune loss, and c denotes the rate of viral failure. The environmental pathogen concentration level is denoted by W. Denote

    Rn+={xRn|xi>0,1in}.

    By calculation, model (1.2) has a disease-free equilibrium

    E0=(S0,I0,R0,W0)=(Λμ,0,0,0)

    and exists an endemic equilibrium

    E=(S,I,R,W)=(c(μ+γ)(βc+νη),Λ(μ+ζ)μ(μ+ζ+γ)(11R0),Λγμ(μ+ζ+γ)(11R0),Λη(μ+ζ)μc(μ+ζ+γ)(11R0)).

    The basic reproduction number

    R0=Λ(βc+νη)μc(μ+γ)

    is obtained by using the next generation matrix method. Further, if R0<1, E0 is globally asymptotically stable in D (in Remark 1). If R0>1, E is globally asymptotically stable in D.

    In the realm of infectious diseases transmission, the coefficients governing this process are frequently affected by stochastic environmental disturbances [18,19]. This environmental interference can be mathematically characterized as standard Brownian motion. Relying solely on deterministic models to describe and predict the evolution of disease dynamics and transmission mechanisms is often inadequate. Hence, there is an increasing recognition of the practical significance of investigating infectious disease models that incorporate stochastic factors, leading to a growing scholarly focus on these stochastic frameworks in recent years [20,21,22]. For instance, Ji et al.[23,24] explored the threshold behavior of the SIR infection model in the presence of stochastic noise perturbations, examining both the persistence and extinction dynamics of the SIR model under various stochastic perturbation patterns. They derived threshold conditions for disease extinction and persistence utilizing Itô's formula and the stochastic comparison theorem. In another study, Zhao et al. [25] investigated a class of stochastic SIRS models characterized by saturated incidence, taking into account the dynamics of recovered individuals who lose immunity and revert to susceptibility after a period. They established conditions for disease extinction and persistence through the stochastic comparison theorem, supported by numerical simulations that corroborated their theoretical findings. Yang et al. [26] developed a stochastic multi-scale COVID-19 model that integrates both within-host and between-host dynamics, employing interval parameters. This model was derived through fast-slow decoupling via singular perturbation theory, distinguishing between a rapid within-host model and a slower between-host stochastic model. Rihan et al.[27,28] developed a stochastic epidemiological SIRC model to study the transmission of COVID-19 with cross-immunity classes and time-delayed transmission terms. Which the SIRC model is a new partition added to the SIR model, cross immunity (C). Echoing the insights of Mao et al. [29], this paper posits that fluctuations in the environment predominantly manifest as variations in the transmission coefficient

    ββ+σ1B1(t),νν+σ2B2(t),

    where Bi(t) is a standard Brownian motion and σi>0 indicates the white noise intensity, i=1,2. Then we have

    {dS=(ΛβSIνSWμS+ζR)dtσ1SIdB1(t)σ2SWdB2(t),dI=(βSI+νSWγIμI)dt+σ1SIdB1(t)+σ2SWdB2(t),dR=(γI(μ+ζ)R)dt,dW=(ηIcW)dt. (1.3)

    Our model considers the loss of immunity rate and the effects of random disturbances based on Xiao et al.[13], investigating a stochastic SIRSW model that accounts for environmentally driven infection and incorporates multiparameter perturbations. It innovatively examines the impacts of both direct and indirect transmission rates on the spread of the disease through multiparameter perturbations. This model is more comprehensive and aligns more closely with real-world situations. However, as a multi-scale model that integrates macro and micro perspectives, it is challenging to unify the data across temporal and spatial scales. The numerical simulation remains relatively idealized, and there is still a significant gap between the results and the actual inter-evolutionary outcomes. It considers environmental pathogen infections with stochastic perturbations in two key parameters: direct and indirect transmission rates. We conclude that, compared to perturbations in the indirect infection rate, changes in noise intensity affecting the direct infection rate have a more significant impact on disease transmission. Additionally, we find that the direct transmission rate notably influences the threshold of Rs0. These parameters are crucial for analyzing the impact of environmental fluctuations on disease dynamics.

    The structure of the paper is delineated as follows: In Sections 1 and 2, we present the foundational concepts, along with relevant notations and lemmas essential for our analysis. Section 3 is devoted to establishing the existence and uniqueness of global positive solutions for the SIRS infectious disease system under consideration. In Sections 4 and 5, we explore the sufficient conditions that govern the persistence and extinction of the stochastic SIRS infectious disease model. Section 6 focuses on analyzing the asymptotic stability of the disease-free equilibrium, as well as the endemic equilibrium of the deterministic counterpart to the stochastic model. To conclude, we provide a series of numerical simulations accompanied by a summary of our principal findings, aimed at elucidating the theoretical results presented throughout the paper.

    In this paper, unless otherwise stated, let (Ω,F,{Ft}t0,P) denote the complete probability space of the filtration Ftt0 that satisfies the regularity condition. Let Bi(t)(i=1,2) denote the independent standard Brownian motions defined on this complete probability space. For any a,bR, note that

    ab=max{a,b}.

    For convenience, the following symbols have been introduced,

    x(t)=1tt0x(r)dr.

    Lemma 1. [30] (Strong law of large number) Let

    M={Mt}t0

    be a real-valued continuous local martingale, and

    M(0)=0.

    Then,

    limtM,Mt=,a.s.limtMtM,Mt=0a.s.

    and

    lim suptM,Mtt<,a.s.limtMtt=0a.s.

    Lemma 2. [23] Suppose fC[Ω×[0,+),R+] if there exists a positive ordinal λ,λ0, such that

    lnf(t)λtλ0t0f(s)ds+F(t),a.s.

    Then, for any t0, there are FC[Ω×[0,+),(,+)] and

    limtF(t)t=0

    a.s., such that

    lim inft1tt0f(s)dsλλ0a.s.

    Lemma 3. Suppose fC[Ω×[0,+),R+] if there exists a positive ordinal λ,λ0, such that

    lnf(t)λtλ0t0f(s)ds+F(t),a.s.

    Then, for any t0, there are FC[Ω×[0,+),(,+)] and

    limtF(t)t=0

    a.s., such that

    lim supt1tt0f(s)dsλλ0a.s.

    Remark 1. For the model (1.3), we have

    d[S(t)+I(t)+R(t)][Λμ(S(t)+I(t)+R(t))]dt,

    and we assume the initial values (S0,I0,R0,W0)D, which shows that the positive invariant set of the model is

    D={(S,I,R,W)TR4+|0S(t)+I(t)+R(t)Λμ,0W(t)ηΛcμ}.

    The following theorem will show the existence and uniqueness of global positive solutions of system (1.3).

    Theorem 1. For any initial value (S(0),I(0),R(0),W(0))R4+, there exists a positive salutation (S(t),I(t),R(t),W(t)) of the stochastic model (1.3) for t0, and the solution will hold in R4+ with probability one.

    Proof. Since the coefficients of the model (1.3) satisfy the local Lipschits condition, for any S(0),I(0),R(0),W(0))R4+, there exists a locally unique solution (S(t),I(t),R(t),W(t)) on t[0,τε), where τe denotes the moment of explosion. It is sufficient to show that

    τε=+a.s.

    Let k01 denote a sufficiently large constant, and we have that S(0),I(0),R(0),W(0) are all in the interval [1k0,k0]. For any constant k>k0, define the stopping time,

    τk=inf{t[0,τε):min[S(t),I(t),R(t),W(t)]1k

    or

    max[S(t),I(t),R(t),W(t)]k}.

    Let

    inf=,

    usually, denotes the empty set. Clearly, {τk}kk0 is a monotonically increasing function. If

    τ=limkτk,

    then ττe a.s. If

    τ=a.s.,

    then for any t0,τe=, and (S(t),I(t),R(t),W(t))R4+a.s. Assuming that τ, there exist a constant T0 and ε(0,1) such that

    P{τT}>ε

    where, for any kk0, there exists a constant k1k0 such that, when all the kk1, there is

    P{τkT}>ε. (3.1)

    Define a C2-equation V: R4+R+ as follows:

    V(S,I,R,W)=(S+I+R+W)2+1S.

    Apply the Itˆo's formula

    dV(S,I,R,W)=LV(S,I,R,W)dt+1Sσ1IdB1(t)+1Sσ2WdB2(t), (3.2)

    where,

    LV(S,I,R,W)=2(S+I+R+W)(Λ+ηIcWμSμIμR)1S2(ΛβSIνSW+ζRμS)+(2S2+1S)(σ21I2+σ22W2). (3.3)

    Because of the mean value theorem, we can obtain

    LV(S,I,R,W)Λ2+(S+I+R+W)2+2ηI(S+I+R+W)+1S(βI+νW+μ)+(2S2+1S)(σ21I2+σ22W2)=Λ2+S2(1+σ21I2+σ22W2)+2(SR+SW+WR)+I2(1+2η)+R2+W2+(SI+RI+WI)(2+2η)+1S(βI+νW+μ+σ21I2+σ22W2)Λ2+S2(1+σ21Λ2μ2+σ22Λ2η2c2μ2)+2(SR+SW+WR)+I2(1+2η)+R2+W2+(SI+RI+WI)(2+2η)+1S(βΛμ+νηΛcμ+μ+σ21Λ2μ2+σ22Λ2η2c2μ2)Λ2+H1(S+I+R+W)2+1S(βΛμ+νηΛcμ+μ+σ21Λ2μ2+σ22Λ2η2c2μ2)Λ2+H2[(S+I+R+W)2+1S]H(1+V), (3.4)

    where,

    H1=Max{1,1+2η,1+σ21Λ2μ2+σ22Λ2η2c2μ2},H2=Max{H1,βΛμ+νηΛcμ+μ+σ21Λ2μ2+σ22Λ2η2c2μ2},H=Max{H1,H2,Λ2}. (3.5)

    H is a positive constant which is independent of S(t),I(t),R(t),W(t),t. Integrate both sides of the Eq (3.2) from 0 to

    Tτk=min{T,τk},

    and then take the expectation as follows:

    EV(S(Tτk),I(Tτk),R(Tτk),W(Tτk))ETτk0LV(s)dt+V(S(0),I(0),R(0),W(0))HT0EV(S(Tτk),I(Tτk),R(Tτk),W(Tτk))dt+V(S(0),I(0),R(0),W(0))+HT. (3.6)

    By using Gronwall inequality [31], we have

    EV(S(Tτk),I(Tτk),R(Tτk),W(Tτk))(V(S(0),I(0),R(0),W(0))+HT)eHT. (3.7)

    Let

    Ωk={τkT},

    and by the inequality (3.1), it is known that

    P{Ωk}ε.

    For any ωΩk, S(τk,ω),I(τk,ω),R(τk,ω),W(τk,ω), at least one of them equals 1k or k, therefore,

    V(S(τk,ω),I(τk,ω),R(τk,ω),W(τk,ω))(16k2+k)(16k2+1k). (3.8)

    Combined with the above Eqs (3.2) and (3.8), we can get

    (V(S(0),I(0),R(0),W(0))+HT)eHTE[IΩk(ω)V(S(τk,ω),I(τk,ω),R(τk,ω),W(τk,ω))]ε[(16k2+k)(16k2+1k)].

    Here IΩk(ω) is the indicator function for Ωk. When k+, there are

    +>(V(S(0),I(0),R(0),W(0))+HT)eHT=+.

    This is a clear contradiction, and it is proved that

    τ=+

    a.s. Thus, the theorem can be proved.

    As a stochastic infectious disease model, when diseases become extinct it is a major concern. In this section, we study the conditions for disease extinction and give a better condition for when a phenomenon like disease extinction will occur. Denote

    RS0=R0Λ2(σ21c2+σ22η2)2μ2c2(μ+γ),Rs=σ21+σ22η2c2μ(βc+νη)cΛ. (4.1)

    Theorem 2. Let (S(t),I(t),R(t),W(t)) be the solution of the model (1.3) with initial values (S(0),I(0),R(0),W(0))R4+. If

    (σ21+σ22η2c2)>max{μ(βc+νη)cΛ,(β+νηc)22(μ+γ)} (4.2)

    or

    Rs0<1andRs0, (4.3)

    then we have

    lim suptlnI(t)t<0a.s.

    It can be shown that the I(t) index tends to 0, the disease will become die out with probability one, and there are

    limtS(t)=Λμ,limtI(t)=0,limtR(t)=0,limtW(t)=0a.s.

    Proof. Integration of the model (1.3) is obtained,

    {S(t)S(0)t=ΛμS(t)βS(t)I(t)νS(t)W(t)+ζR(t)  σ1tt0S(r)I(r)dB1(r)σ2tt0S(r)W(r)dB2(r),I(t)I(0)t=βS(t)I(t)+νS(t)W(t)(μ+γ)I(t) +σ1tt0S(r)I(r)dB1(r)+σ2tt0S(r)W(r)dB2(r),R(t)R(0)t=γI(t)(μ+ζ)R(t),W(t)W(0)t=ηI(t)cW(t). (4.4)

    According to Eq (4.4), it can be obtained that

    S(t)S(0)t+I(t)I(0)t+ζμ+ζR(t)R(0)t=ΛμS(t)(μ+μγμ+ζ)I(t). (4.5)

    From Eqs (4.4) and (4.5), we can get

    S(t)=1tt0S(s)ds=Λμ(μ+γ+ζμ+ζ)I(t)φ(t),W(t)=1tt0W(s)ds=ηcI(t)ϕ(t), (4.6)

    where

    φ(t)=1μt[S(t)S(0)+I(t)I(0)+ζμ+ζ(R(t)R(0))],ϕ(t)=1ct[W(t)W(0)]. (4.7)

    Obviously,

    limtφ(t)=0,limtϕ(t)=0. (4.8)

    Applying Itô's formula to the second equation of model (1.3) and integrating from 0 to t leads to

    lnI(t)lnI(0)=βt0S(s)ds+νt0S(s)W(s)I(s)dsσ212t0S2(s)dsσ222t0S2(s)W2(s)I2(s)ds+σ1t0S(s)dB(s)(μ+γ)t+σ2t0S(s)W(s)I(s)dB(s) (4.9)

    where

    M_1(t) = \sigma_{1} \int_0^t S(s) \mathrm{d} B(s),\quad M_2(t) = \sigma_{2}\int_0^t \frac{S(s)W(s)}{I(s)} \mathrm{d} B(s) .

    Note that M_1(t) and M_2(t) are a real-valued continuous local martingale vanishing at time zero and

    \begin{align} \limsup\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\langle M_1, M_1\rangle_t}{t} \leqslant \frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda^2}{\mu^2} < \infty,\quad \limsup\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\langle M_2, M_2\rangle_t}{t} \leqslant \frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \eta^2 \Lambda^2}{c^2 \mu^2} < \infty, \end{align} (4.10)

    then by Lemma 1 , it leads to

    \begin{align} \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{M_1(t) }{t}& = \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\sigma_{1} }{t}\int_0^t S(s) \mathrm{d} B(s) = 0\; \; \; \text { a.s.},\\ \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{M_2(t) }{t}& = \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\sigma_{2} }{t}\int_0^t \frac{S(s)W(s)}{I(s)} \mathrm{d} B(s) = 0 \; \; \; \text { a.s.} \end{align} (4.11)

    Bringing Eq (4.6) into the above Eq (4.9), we have

    \begin{align} \frac{\ln I(t)-\ln I(0)}{t} = & \left[ \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}-\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)\langle I(t)\rangle-\varphi(t) \right](\beta+\frac{\nu \eta }{c}-\frac{\nu \phi(t) }{\langle I(t)\rangle}) \\ &-\frac{\sigma_{2}^2}{2} \left[ \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}-\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)\langle I(t)\rangle-\varphi(t)\right]^2 \left[ \frac{\eta}{c} -\frac{\phi(t)}{\langle I(t)\rangle} \right]^2 \\ & -\frac{\sigma_{1}^2}{2} \left[ \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}-\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)\langle I(t)\rangle-\varphi(t)\right]^2 \\ &-(\mu+\gamma)+\frac{M_1(t) }{t} +\frac{M_2(t) }{t} \\ = &\frac{\beta \Lambda}{\mu}-(\mu +\gamma)-\frac{\sigma_{1} ^2 \Lambda^2}{2 \mu^2} -(\frac{\sigma_{1}^2}{2}+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2}{2c^2})\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)^2\langle I(t)\rangle^2 \\ &+\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right) \left(\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda}{\mu}+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda\eta^2}{\mu c^2} -\frac{\nu \eta}{c}-\beta \right)\langle I(t)\rangle +\frac{\nu \Lambda \eta}{\mu c}-\frac{\sigma_{2} ^2 \Lambda^2 \eta^2}{2 \mu^2 c^2} +\Psi(t), \end{align} (4.12)

    where

    \begin{align} \Psi(t) = &\left[\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda}{\mu}+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda\eta^2}{\mu c^2}-\beta -\frac{\nu \eta}{c} - (\sigma_{1}^2+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \eta^2}{ c^2}) \left(\frac{(\mu+\gamma+\zeta)}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)\langle I(t)\rangle \right]\varphi(t) \\ & -\frac{\sigma_{2}^2}{2} \left[ \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}-\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)\langle I(t)\rangle-\varphi(t)\right]^2 \left[ (\frac{\phi(t)}{\langle I(t)\rangle} )^2-\frac{2 \eta}{c}\frac{\phi(t)}{\langle I(t)\rangle} \right] \\ &+\nu \left[\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta} -\frac{\Lambda }{\mu \langle I(t)\rangle}+ \frac{ \varphi (t)}{\langle I(t)\rangle}\right]\phi(t)+\frac{M_1(t) }{t} +\frac{M_2(t) }{t} . \end{align} (4.13)

    From Eqs ( 4.8 ) and ( 4.11 ), we obtain

    \begin{align} \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \Psi(t) = 0\ \;\text{ a.s.} \end{align} (4.14)

    Case 1. Assume that R_0^s < 1 and R_s \leq 0, then the above Eq (4.12) gets

    \begin{align} \frac{\ln I(t)-\ln I(0)}{t} \leqslant \frac{\beta \Lambda}{\mu}-(\mu +\gamma)-\frac{\sigma_{1} ^2 \Lambda^2}{2 \mu^2}-\frac{\sigma_{2} ^2 \Lambda^2 \eta^2}{2 \mu^2 c^2}+\frac{\nu \Lambda \eta}{\mu c}+\Psi(t), \end{align} (4.15)

    and combining ( 4.14 ), it can be obtained that

    \begin{align} \limsup\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\ln I(t)}{t} &\leqslant \frac{\beta \Lambda}{\mu}-(\mu +\gamma)-\frac{\sigma_{1} ^2 \Lambda^2}{2 \mu^2}-\frac{\sigma_{2} ^2 \Lambda^2 \eta^2}{2 \mu^2 c^2}+\frac{\nu \Lambda \eta}{\mu c} \\ & = (\mu+\gamma)\left(\bar{R}_0^s-1\right) < 0 \; \; \; \text { a.s.} \end{align} (4.16)

    Case 2. Assume that

    (\sigma_{1}^2+\sigma_{2}^2\frac{\eta^2}{c^2}) > max \{ \frac{\mu (\beta c + \nu \eta)}{c \Lambda},\frac{(\beta + \frac{\nu \eta }{c})^2}{2(\mu + \gamma)} \} ,

    since

    \begin{align} h(x) = &-(\frac{\sigma_{1}^2}{2}+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2}{2c^2})\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)^2 x^2 +\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right) \left(\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda}{\mu}+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda\eta^2}{\mu c^2} -\frac{\nu \eta}{c}-\beta \right)x \\ \leq& \dfrac{\left(\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda}{\mu}+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda\eta^2}{\mu c^2} -\frac{\nu \eta}{c}-\beta \right)^2}{2 \left(\sigma_{1}^2+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2}{c^2}\right)}. \end{align} (4.17)

    Therefore, from Eqs ( 4.12 ) and ( 4.17 ), we have

    \begin{align} \frac{\ln I(t)-\ln I(0)}{t} \leqslant& \frac{\beta \Lambda}{\mu}-(\mu +\gamma)-\frac{\sigma_{1} ^2 \Lambda^2}{2 \mu^2}-\frac{\sigma_{2} ^2 \Lambda^2 \eta^2}{2 \mu^2 c^2}+\frac{\nu \Lambda \eta}{\mu c} +\frac{\left(\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda}{\mu}+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda\eta^2}{\mu c^2} -\frac{\nu \eta}{c}-\beta \right)^2}{2 \left(\sigma_{1}^2+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2}{c^2}\right)}+\Psi(t) \\ = &\frac{(\beta + \frac{\nu \eta }{c})^2}{2 (\sigma_{1}^2+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2}{c^2})}-(\mu + \gamma) + \Psi(t) , \end{align} (4.18)

    and combining ( 4.14 ), it can be obtained that

    \begin{align} \limsup\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{\ln I(t)}{t} \leqslant \frac{(\beta + \frac{\nu \eta }{c})^2}{2(\sigma_{1}^2+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2}{c^2}) }-(\mu + \gamma) < 0 \; \; \; \text { a.s.} \end{align} (4.19)

    From the proofs of Cases 1 and 2, it can be shown that the I(\mathrm{t}) index tends to 0 and the disease will become die out with probability one, then we have

    \begin{align} \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} I(t) = 0\; \; \; \text { a.s.} \end{align} (4.20)

    Let

    \Omega_i = \{ \omega \in \Omega :\lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} I(t,\omega) = 0 \},

    Accroding to (4.20), we have

    \mathbb{P}(\Omega_i) = 1.

    For any \theta > 0 and \omega \in \Omega_i , there exists

    T_i = T_i\ (\omega,\theta) > 0,

    such that for any t \geq T_i , there exists

    I(t,\omega) \leq \theta .

    Substituting it into the third equation of model (1.3), and according to the comparison theorem for stochastic differential equations, we obtain

    \begin{align} \limsup\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} R(t,\omega) \leq \frac{\gamma \theta}{\mu + \zeta},\ \ \ \omega \in \Omega_i, t\geq T_i. \end{align} (4.21)

    For all \omega \in \Omega_i and t > 0 , such that R(t, \omega) , since the arbitrariness of \theta , we can get

    \begin{align} \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} R(t,\omega) = 0,\ \ \ \omega \in \Omega_i, t\geq T_i. \end{align} (4.22)

    It follows from

    \mathbb{P}(\Omega_i) = 1

    that, consequently,

    \begin{align} \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} R(t) = 0\; \; \; \text { a.s.} \end{align} (4.23)

    Similarly, we have

    \begin{align} \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} W(t) = 0\; \; \; \text { a.s.} \end{align} (4.24)

    Through model (1.3), we can obtain

    \frac{d(S(t)+I(t)+R(t))}{dt} = \Lambda -\mu (S+I+R),

    therefore,

    \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty}\left[S(t)+I(t)+R(t) \right] = \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\;\ \text{ a.s.} ,

    which, together with Eqs (4.20) and (4.23), yields

    \begin{align} \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} S(t) = \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}\; \; \; \text { a.s.} \end{align} (4.25)

    This completes the proof.

    Disease persistence is an important characteristic of infectious disease dynamics, meaning that the disease persists in the population. Theorem 3 will show the persistence of disease.

    Theorem 3. If R_0^S > 1, R_s \leq 0, let (S(t), I(t), R(t), W(t)) be the solution of the model (1.3) with initial values (S(0), I(0), R(0), W(0)) \in \Omega . It has the following properties:

    \begin{align*} \limsup\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{t} \int_{0}^{t}I(s)ds& \leqslant \frac{(\mu + \gamma)(R_0^s -1)}{\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right) \left(\frac{\nu \eta}{c}+\beta-\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda}{\mu}-\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda\eta^2}{\mu c^2} \right)} , \\ \liminf\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{t} \int_{0}^{t}I(s)ds& \geqslant \frac{(\mu+\gamma) (R_0^s -1)}{\left( 1+\frac{\eta}{c}\right) \left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)} \; \; \; \mathit{\text{a.s.}} \end{align*}

    Proof. From the above Eq (4.12), we get:

    \begin{align} \frac{\ln I(t)-\ln I(0)}{t} \leq & \frac{\beta \Lambda}{\mu}-(\mu +\gamma)-\frac{\sigma_{1} ^2 \Lambda^2}{2 \mu^2}+\frac{\nu \Lambda \eta}{\mu c}-\frac{\sigma_{2} ^2 \Lambda^2 \eta^2}{2 \mu^2 c^2}+\Psi(t) \\ &-(\frac{\sigma_{1}^2}{2}+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2}{2c^2})\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)^2(\frac{1 }{t} \int_0^t I(s) \mathrm{d} s ) ^2 \\ &+\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right) \left(\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda}{\mu}+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda\eta^2}{\mu c^2} -\frac{\nu \eta}{c}-\beta \right)\frac{1 }{t} \int_0^t I(s) \mathrm{d} s. \end{align} (5.1)

    Therefore,

    \begin{align} \frac{\ln I(t)}{t} = &-\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right) \left(\frac{\nu \eta}{c}+\beta-\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda}{\mu}-\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda\eta^2}{\mu c^2} \right)\frac{1 }{t} \int_0^t I(s) \mathrm{d} s \\ &+ (\mu + \gamma)(R_0^s -1)+\frac{\ln I(0)}{t}+\Psi(t) . \end{align} (5.2)

    By Eq (4.14) and Lemma 3, we have

    \limsup\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{t} \int_{0}^{t}I(s)ds \leqslant \frac{(\mu + \gamma)(R_0^s -1)}{\left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right) \left(\frac{\nu \eta}{c}+\beta-\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda}{\mu}-\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda\eta^2}{\mu c^2} \right)} \; \; \; \text{ a.s.}

    Bring Eq (4.24) to Eq (4.9), and by Remark 1, we have

    \begin{align} \frac{\ln I(t)-\ln I(0)}{t} = \beta \langle S(t)\rangle +\frac{\nu \langle S(t)\rangle \langle W(t)\rangle }{\langle I(t)\rangle} -(\mu+\gamma) -\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda^2}{2 \mu^2}-\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\Lambda^2 \eta^2}{2 \mu^2 c^2} +\frac{M_1(t) }{t} +\frac{M_2(t) }{t} . \end{align} (5.3)

    Bringing Eq (4.6) into the above Eq (5.3), we have

    \begin{align} \frac{\ln I(t)-\ln I(0)}{t} = & \frac{\beta \Lambda}{\mu}+\frac{ \nu \Lambda \eta}{\mu c}-(\mu+\gamma)-\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda^2}{2 \mu^2}-\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\Lambda^2 \eta^2}{2 \mu^2 c^2} \\ & -\left( 1+\frac{\eta}{c}\right) \left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)\int_{0}^{t} I(s)ds +\Phi(t). \end{align} (5.4)

    Therefore, it is possible to get

    \begin{align} \frac{\ln I(t)}{t} = (\mu + \gamma)(R_0^s -1)-\left( 1+\frac{\eta}{c}\right) \left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)\int_{0}^{t} I(s)\mathrm{d}s+\frac{\ln I(0)}{t}+ \Phi(t), \end{align} (5.5)

    where

    \begin{align} \Phi(t) = & \nu \phi(t) \left[\frac{\varphi (t) }{\langle I(t)\rangle} -\frac{\Lambda }{\mu \langle I(t)\rangle} +\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta} \right]-(\frac{\eta}{c} +\beta) \varphi(t) +\frac{M_1(t) }{t} +\frac{M_2(t) }{t} . \end{align} (5.6)

    From Eqs ( 4.8 ) and ( 4.11 ), we can get

    \underset{t \rightarrow \infty}{\lim } \Phi(t) = 0.

    By Lemma 2 and Eq ( 5.5 ), one obtains

    \liminf\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{t} \int_{0}^{t}I(s)ds \geqslant \frac{(\mu+\gamma) (R_0^s -1)}{\left( 1+\frac{\eta}{c}\right) \left(\frac{\mu+\gamma+\zeta}{\mu+ \zeta}\right)}.

    The proof is complete.

    In epidemiology, stability is of high practical importance. This section discusses the asymptotical stability of the disease-free equilibrium and the endemic equilibrium of the deterministic model corresponding to the stochastic model.

    The basic reproduction number plays an important role in the study of infectious disease dynamics and determines whether a disease becomes extinct or not. We know that the basic reproduction number of a deterministic system

    R_0 = \frac{\Lambda (\beta c +\nu \eta)}{\mu c (\mu+\gamma)},

    and the disease-free equilibrium of the deterministic model is E_{0}(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}, 0, 0) .

    Theorem 4. Let (S(t), I(t), R(t), W(t)) be the solution of the model (1.3) with initial values (S(0), I(0), R(0), W(0)) \in \Omega . If R_{0} < 1 and \sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2} are small enough, then

    \begin{align*} \label{qz} & \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{t} \mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{t}(\mu(S-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu})^2+(1-R_{0})(\gamma +\mu) I+\frac{\Lambda \nu }{\mu }W +\frac{(\Lambda +\mu ) \zeta}{\mu}R)\mathrm{d}s \nonumber \\ &\leq \frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}(\frac{\beta \Lambda}{\mu}+\frac{(\Lambda+\mu) \mu \eta }{\mu c}+\zeta )+\frac{\zeta \gamma \Lambda}{(\mu +\zeta)\mu }+\frac{ \Lambda^2}{2\mu^2}(\sigma_{1}^2 +\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \eta ^2}{ c^2}) \mathit{\text{a.s}}. \nonumber \end{align*}

    Proof. Define a Lyapunov function V : \mathbb{R}_{+}^4 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+} as follows:

    \begin{align} V_{1}(S,I)& = \frac{1}{2}(S-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu})^2+I, \\ V_{2}(R,W)& = \frac{\Lambda \nu}{\mu c}W+\frac{\zeta}{\mu +\zeta}R, \\ V_{3}(S,I,R,W)& = V_{1}(S,I)+V_{2}(R,W). \end{align} (6.1)

    Applying It \hat{o} 's formula, we have

    \begin{align} \mathrm{\; L}V_{1} = &(S-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu})(\Lambda -\beta SI-\nu S W-\mu S+\zeta R)+(\beta S I+\nu S W-\gamma I -\mu I) +\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{1}^2 S^2 I^2+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{2}^2 S^2 W^2 \\ = &-\mu(S-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu})^2-S(\beta SI+\nu S W)+\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}(\beta SI+\nu S W)+(S-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu})\zeta R \\ &+(\beta SI+\nu SW-\gamma I-\mu I)+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{1}^2 S^2 I^2+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{2}^2 S^2 W^2 \\ \leq &-\mu(S-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu})^2 + \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}(\beta SI+\nu S W)+\zeta SR-\frac{\Lambda \zeta}{\mu}R +\frac{\Lambda \beta}{\mu} I \\ &+\nu SW-(\gamma +\mu) I+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{1}^2 S^2 I^2+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{2}^2 S^2 W^2 , \\ \mathrm{\; L}V_{2} = &\frac{\Lambda \nu}{\mu c}(\eta I -c W)+\frac{\zeta}{\mu +\zeta}(\gamma I -\mu R- \zeta R) \\ \leq&\frac{\Lambda \nu \eta}{\mu c} I-\frac{\Lambda \nu }{\mu }W+\frac{\zeta \gamma }{\mu +\zeta}I-\zeta R . \end{align}

    Therefore,

    \begin{align} \mathrm{\; L}V_{3}\leq&-\mu(S-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu})^2+\frac{\Lambda \nu \eta}{\mu c} I +\frac{\beta \Lambda }{\mu} I -(\gamma +\mu) I -\frac{\Lambda \nu }{\mu }W \\ &-(\frac{\Lambda \zeta}{\mu}+\zeta)R+\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}(\beta SI+\nu S W)+\zeta SR+\nu S W \\ &+\frac{\zeta \gamma }{\mu +\zeta}I+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{1}^2 S^2 I^2+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{2}^2 S^2 W^2 , \\ \leq& -\mu(S-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu})^2+(R_{0}-1)(\gamma +\mu) I-\frac{\Lambda \nu }{\mu }W \\ &-\frac{(\Lambda +\mu ) \zeta}{\mu}R+\frac{\beta \Lambda^3}{\mu^3}+\frac{(\Lambda+\mu) \mu \eta \Lambda^2}{\mu^3 c} \\ &+\frac{\zeta \Lambda^2}{\mu^2}+\frac{\zeta \gamma \Lambda}{(\mu +\zeta)\mu }+\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda^2}{2\mu^2} +\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda^2 \eta ^2}{2\mu^2 c^2} . \end{align}

    Due to

    \begin{align} & \mathrm{d}V_{3}(S,I,R,W) = (\mathrm{\; L}V_{3} )\mathrm{d}t+(1+\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}-S)(\sigma_{1} SI\mathrm{d}B_{1}(t)+\sigma_{2} SW\mathrm{d}B_{2}(t)), \end{align} (6.2)

    integrating both sides of the above Eq (6.2) from 0 to t , and then taking the expectation as follows:

    \begin{align} 0 \leq &\mathbb{E}V_{3}(t)-V_{3}(0) = \mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{t}\mathrm{\; L}V_{3}(s)\mathrm{d}s \\ \leq& -\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{t}[\mu(S(s)-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu})^2+(1-R_{0})(\gamma +\mu) I(s) +\frac{(\Lambda +\mu ) \zeta}{\mu}R(s)+\frac{\Lambda \nu }{\mu }W(s)]\mathrm{d}s \\ &+\left(\frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}(\frac{\beta \Lambda}{\mu}+\frac{(\Lambda+\mu) \mu \eta }{\mu c}+\zeta )+\frac{\zeta \gamma \Lambda}{(\mu +\zeta)\mu }+\frac{ \Lambda^2}{2\mu^2}(\sigma_{1}^2 +\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \eta ^2}{ c^2})\right)t. \end{align} (6.3)

    Therefore,

    \begin{align*} &\lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{t} \mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{t}(\mu(S-\frac{\Lambda}{\mu})^2+(1-R_{0})(\gamma +\mu) I+\frac{\Lambda \nu }{\mu }W +\frac{(\Lambda +\mu ) \zeta}{\mu}R)\mathrm{d}s\\ &\leq \frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu^2}(\frac{\beta \Lambda}{\mu}+\frac{(\Lambda+\mu) \mu \eta }{\mu c}+\zeta )+\frac{\zeta \gamma \Lambda}{(\mu +\zeta)\mu }+\frac{ \Lambda^2}{2\mu^2}(\sigma_{1}^2 +\frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \eta ^2}{ c^2}). \end{align*}

    The proof is complete.

    In studying epidemic dynamics, the stochastic infectious disease model has no endemic equilibrium, but it is obtained from a deterministic model in which the infectious rate is subjected to a random perturbation. Therefore, the asymptotic behavior of the solution of the stochastic model in the region around E^{*}(S^*, I^*, R^*, W^*) is studied. The expressions E^{*} is as follows:

    E^* = \left(\frac{ c (\mu+\gamma) }{(\beta c +\nu \eta)},\frac{\Lambda(\mu+\zeta)}{\mu(\mu+\zeta+\gamma)}(1-\frac{1}{R_0}),\frac{\Lambda\gamma}{\mu(\mu+\zeta+\gamma)}(1-\frac{1}{R_0}),\frac{\Lambda\eta(\mu+\zeta)}{\mu c(\mu+\zeta+\gamma)}(1-\frac{1}{R_0})\right).

    Theorem 5. Let (S(t), I(t), R(t), W(t)) be the solution of the model (1.3) with initial values (S(0), I(0), R(0), W(0)) \in \Omega . If R_{0} > 1 ,

    \mu > \frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta,\ \ \gamma +\mu > \epsilon\eta+\epsilon \gamma +\frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta,\ \ 2\frac{\gamma I^*}{R^*} > \frac{\gamma +\zeta}{ \epsilon},\ \ 2\frac{\eta I^*}{W^*} > \frac{\eta}{ \epsilon}.

    Then,

    \begin{align} &\lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{t} \mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{t}[(\mu-\frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta ) (S-S^*)^2+ (\gamma +\mu-\epsilon\eta-\epsilon \gamma -\frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta)(I-I^*)^2 \\ &\quad+(2\frac{\gamma I^*}{R^*}-\frac{\gamma +\zeta}{ \epsilon})(R-R^*)^2 +(2\frac{\eta I^*}{W^*}-\frac{\eta}{ \epsilon})(W-W^*)^2]\mathrm{d}s \\ &\leq \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}(\gamma +2 \mu )( S^* +I^*)+\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda^4}{\mu^4} + \frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda^4\eta^2}{\mu^4 c^2}. \end{align}

    Proof. The deterministic system obeys the following relationship at the endemic equilibrium:

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} \Lambda & = \beta S^*I^*+\nu S^* W^*+\mu S^*-\zeta R^*,\\ \beta S^* I^*+\nu S^* W^*& = (\gamma+\mu) I* ,\\ \gamma I^*& = (\mu+ \zeta )R^*,\\ \eta I^* & = c W^*. \end{aligned} \end{align} (6.4)

    Define a Lyapunov function V : \mathbb{R}_{+}^4 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+} as follows:

    \begin{align} \begin{aligned} V_{4}(S,I)& = \frac{1}{2}\left((S-S^*)+(I-I^*)\right)^2, \\ V_{5}(R,W) & = (R-R^*)^2+(W-W^*)^2 , \\ V_{6}(S,I,R,W)& = V_{4}+V_{5}.\end{aligned} \end{align} (6.5)

    Applying It \hat{o} 's formula, we have

    \begin{align} \mathrm{\; L}V_{4} = &(S-S^*+I-I^*)(\Lambda -\mu S+\zeta R-\gamma I -\mu I)+\sigma_{1}^2 S^2 I^2 + \sigma_{2}^2 S^2 W^2 \\ = &-\mu (S-S^*)^2- (\gamma +\mu)(I-I^*)^2-(\gamma +2\mu)(S-S^*)(I-I^*) \\ &+\zeta (R-R^*)(S-S^*)+\zeta (R-R^*)(I-I^*)+\sigma_{1}^2 S^2 I^2 + \sigma_{2}^2 S^2 W^2 ,\\ \mathrm{\; L}V_{5} = &2(R-R^*)(\gamma I -\mu R- \zeta R)+2(W-W^*)(\eta I -c W) \\ = &2(R-R^*)\gamma I^*(\frac{ I}{ I^*}-\frac{ I^*}{ I^*}+\frac{ R^*}{ R^*} -\frac{ R}{R^*}) +2(W-W^*)\eta I^*(\frac{ I}{ I^*}-\frac{ I^*}{ I^*}+\frac{ W^*}{ W^*}-\frac{W}{W^*} )\\ = &2\gamma(R-R^*)(I-I^*)-2\frac{\gamma I^*}{R^*}(R-R^*)^2 +2\eta(W-W^*)(I-I^*)-2\frac{\eta I^*}{W^*}(W-W^*)^2 . \end{align}

    Therefore,

    \begin{align} \mathrm{\; L}V_{6} = &-\mu (S-S^*)^2- (\gamma +\mu)(I-I^*)^2-2\frac{\gamma I^*}{R^*}(R-R^*)^2-2\frac{\eta I^*}{W^*}(W-W^*)^2\\ &-(\gamma+2\mu)(SI-S^*I-SI^*+S^*I^*) +(2\gamma+\zeta) (R-R^*)(I-I^*)\\ &+\zeta(R-R^*)(S-S^*) +2\eta(W-W^*)(I-I^*)+\sigma_{1}^2 S^2 I^2 + \sigma_{2}^2 S^2 W^2, \end{align}

    and because a \leq |a| , we can get

    \begin{align} \mathrm{\; L}V_{6} \leq& -\mu (S-S^*)^2- (\gamma +\mu)(I-I^*)^2-2\frac{\gamma I^*}{R^*}(R-R^*)^2 \\ &-2\frac{\eta I^*}{W^*}(W-W^*)^2+(\gamma+2\mu)(S^*I+SI^*) \\ &+|(2\gamma+\zeta)||(R-R^*)||(I-I^*)|+\lvert \zeta \rvert\lvert (R-R^*)\rvert|(S-S^*)|\\ &+|2\eta||(W-W^*)||(I-I^*)|+\sigma_{1}^2 S^2 I^2 + \sigma_{2}^2 S^2 W^2. \end{align}

    Take a positive number \epsilon , such that

    2ab \leq \epsilon a^2+\frac{b^2}{\epsilon},

    and from Remark 1, we have

    \begin{align} \mathrm{\; L}V_{6} \leq& -\mu (S-S^*)^2- (\gamma +\mu)(I-I^*)^2-2\frac{\gamma I^*}{R^*}(R-R^*)^2-2\frac{\eta I^*}{W^*}(W-W^*)^2\\ &+\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}(\gamma +2 \mu )( S^* +I^*) +\frac{1}{2 \epsilon}\zeta (R-R^*)^2+ \frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta (S-S^*)^2\\ &+\frac{1}{2 \epsilon}(2\gamma+\zeta) (R-R^*)^2+\frac{\epsilon}{2 }(2\gamma+\zeta) (I-I^*)^2+\frac{\eta}{ \epsilon}(W-W^*)^2 \\ &+ \epsilon\eta (I-I^*)^2+\sigma_{1}^2 S^2 I^2 + \sigma_{2}^2 S^2 W^2 \\ \leq &(\frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta -\mu) (S-S^*)^2- (\gamma +\mu-\epsilon\eta-\epsilon \gamma -\frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta)(I-I^*)^2\\ &-(2\frac{\gamma I^*}{R^*}-\frac{\gamma +\zeta}{ \epsilon})(R-R^*)^2-(2\frac{\eta I^*}{W^*}-\frac{\eta}{ \epsilon})(W-W^*)^2 \\ &+\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}(\gamma +2 \mu )( S^* +I^*)+\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda^4}{\mu^4} + \frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda^4\eta^2}{\mu^4 c^2}. \end{align}

    Due to

    \begin{align} \mathrm{d}V_{6}(S,I,R,W) = & (\mathrm{\; L}V_{4}+\mathrm{\; L}V_{5} )\mathrm{d}t+(S-S^*+I-I^*)(-\sigma_{1} SI\mathrm{d}B_{1}(t)-\sigma_{2} SW\mathrm{d}B_{2}(t)) \\ & +(S-S^*+I-I^*)(\sigma_{1} SI\mathrm{d}B_{1}(t)+\sigma_{2} SW\mathrm{d}B_{2}(t)), \end{align} (6.6)

    integrating both sides of the above Eq (6.6) from 0 to t , and then taking the expectation as follows,

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{t}LV_{6}(s)\mathrm{d}s = & \mathbb{E}V_{6}(t)-V_{6}(0)\\ \leq& -\mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{t}[(\mu-\frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta ) (S-S^*)^2+ (\gamma +\mu-\epsilon\eta-\epsilon \gamma -\frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta)(I-I^*)^2\\ &+(2\frac{\gamma I^*}{R^*}-\frac{\gamma +\zeta}{ \epsilon})(R-R^*)^2+(2\frac{\eta I^*}{W^*}-\frac{\eta}{\epsilon})(W-W^*)^2]\mathrm{d}s\\ &+\left(\frac{\Lambda}{\mu}(\gamma +2 \mu )( S^* +I^*)+\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda^4}{\mu^4} + \frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda^4\eta^2}{\mu^4 c^2}\right)t.\\ \end{aligned} \end{equation} (6.7)

    Because of

    \mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{t}LV_{6}(s)\mathrm{d}s \geq 0,

    we obtain

    \begin{align} \lim\limits_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{t} & \mathbb{E}\int_{0}^{t}[(\mu-\frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta ) (S-S^*)^2+ (\gamma +\mu-\epsilon\eta-\epsilon \gamma -\frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta)(I-I^*)^2 \\ &+(2\frac{\gamma I^*}{R^*}-\frac{\gamma +\zeta}{ \epsilon})(R-R^*)^2 +(2\frac{\eta I^*}{W^*}-\frac{\eta}{ \epsilon})(W-W^*)^2]\mathrm{d}s \\ \leq& \frac{\Lambda}{\mu}(\gamma +2 \mu )( S^* +I^*)+\frac{\sigma_{1}^2 \Lambda^4}{\mu^4} + \frac{\sigma_{2}^2 \Lambda^4\eta^2}{\mu^4 c^2}. \end{align}

    The proof is complete.

    Numerical simulations are presented below to illustrate the theoretical results of this chapter. We provide some numerical examples to support our results. The numerical simulations of epidemic dynamics are carried out for academic purposes, using arbitrary parameter values that do not correspond to any specific epidemic and only demonstrate the theoretical properties of the numerical solutions of the models considered. We present our results using the Milstein's higher order method developed in [32]. The discrete form of the model ( 1.3 ) is as follows:

    \begin{equation} \left \{\begin{array}{l} \quad S_{i+1} = S_i + \left(\Lambda -\beta S_i I_i -\nu S_i W_i -\mu S_i +\zeta R_i \right) \Delta t-\sigma_{1} S_i I_i \xi_{1,i}\sqrt{\Delta t}\\ \qquad \quad -\frac{\sigma_{1}^2}{2}S_i I_i (\xi_{1,i}^2-1) \Delta t-\sigma_{2} S_i W_i \xi_{2,i}\sqrt{\Delta t}-\frac{\sigma_{2}^2}{2}S_i W_i (\xi_{2,i}^2-1) \Delta t,\\ \quad I_{i+1} = I_i + \left(\beta S_i I_i + \nu S_i W_i -\mu I_i-\gamma I_i \right) \Delta t +\sigma_{1} S_i I_i \xi_{1,i}\sqrt{\Delta t}\\ \qquad \quad +\frac{\sigma_{1}^2}{2}S_i I_i (\xi_{1,i}^2-1) \Delta t+\sigma_{2} S_i W_i \xi_{2,i}\sqrt{\Delta t}+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2}{2}S_i W_i (\xi_{2,i}^2-1) \Delta t,\\ \quad R_{i+1} = R_i + \left(\gamma I_i -\mu R_i -\zeta R_i \right) \Delta t,\\ W_{i+1} = W_i + \left( \eta I_i -c W_i \right) \Delta t, \end{array}\right. \end{equation} (7.1)

    where \xi_{j, i} j = 1, 2 are Gaussian random variables following the standard normal distribution N(0, 1) and the time increment

    \Delta t = 0.01 .

    Let

    \begin{align} \begin{split} & \Lambda = 0.9 ,\quad\mu = 0.36 ,\quad\zeta = 0.3 ,\quad \Gamma = 0.1 ,\quad\eta = 0.3,c = 0.5, \\ & (S(0),I(0),R(0),W(0)) = (1.2,1.2,0.1,0.5 ). \end{split} \end{align} (7.2)

    In different examples, parameters \beta, \nu, \sigma_{1} , and \sigma_{2} will take different values.

    Example 1. To start, we choose

    \beta = 0.15,\ \ \ \nu = 0.16,\ \ \ \sigma_{1} = 0.55,\ \ \ \sigma_{2} = 0.11,

    such that

    (\sigma_{1}^2+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2}{c^2}) - max \{ \frac{\mu (\beta c + \nu \eta)}{c \Lambda},\frac{(\beta + \frac{\nu \eta }{c})^2}{2(\mu + \gamma)} \} = 0.2411 > 0,

    then from Theorem 2, the disease of model ( 1.3 ) will become extinct; see Figure 1.

    Figure 1.  Simulation of the path S(t), I(t) for the stochastic model ( 1.3 ) and the corresponding deterministic model with R_0 = 1.3370 > 1 .

    Let

    \beta = 0.14,\ \ \ \nu = 0.1,\ \ \ \sigma_{1} = 0.12,\ \ \ \sigma_{2} = 0.32,

    and the other parameters are shown in (7.2) such that

    R_0^S = R_0-\frac{\Lambda^2 (\sigma_{1}^2c^2+\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2 )}{2 \mu^2 c^2 (\mu+\gamma)} = 0.7387 < 1

    and

    (\sigma_{1}^2+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2}{c^2}) - \frac{\mu (\beta c + \nu \eta)}{c \Lambda} = -0.0287 < 0.

    According to Theorem 2, the disease of model ( 1.3 ) will be extinct; see Figure 2.

    Figure 2.  Simulation of the path S(t), I(t) for the stochastic model ( 1.3 ) and the corresponding deterministic model with R_0 = 1.0870 > 1 .

    In order to verify Theorem 2, numerical simulations were carried out with the parameters selected above. The results are shown in Figures 1 and 2. From the Figures 1b and 2b, it can be concluded that the disease I(t) in stochastic model ( 1.3 ) will die out with probability one, and compared to deterministic model (1.2), white noise accelerates disease extinction and inhibits disease transmission.

    Example 2. To begin, we choose

    \beta = 0.1 ,\ \ \ \nu = 0.1 ,\ \ \ \sigma_{1} = 0.05,\ \ \ \sigma_{2} = 0.05,

    and the other parameters are shown in (7.2) such that

    R_0^S = R_0-\frac{\Lambda^2 (\sigma_{1}^2c^2+\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2 )}{2 \mu^2 c^2 (\mu+\gamma)} = 1.1618 > 1

    and

    (\sigma_{1}^2+\frac{\sigma_{2}^2\eta^2}{c^2}) - \frac{\mu (\beta c + \nu \eta)}{c \Lambda} = -0.0499 < 0.

    According to Theorem 3, the disease of model ( 1.3 ) will be persist. Figure 3 supports the result.

    Figure 3.  Simulation of the path S(t), I(t) for the stochastic model ( 1.3 ) and the corresponding deterministic model with R_0 = 1.2000 > 1 .

    In order to verify Theorem 3, numerical simulations were carried out with the parameters selected above. The results are shown in Figure 3. From the Figure 3b, it can be concluded that the disease I(t) in stochastic model ( 1.3 ) will be permanent in the time mean. This suggests that the disease will persist.

    Example 3. Take

    \beta = 0.1 ,\ \ \ \nu = 0.1 ,\; \; \; {and}\; \; \; \epsilon = 0.4,

    and the other parameters are shown in (7.2) such that

    R_0 = 1.2000 > 1,\quad E^{*} = (2.4995,0.4290,0.0715,0.2575),

    and

    \begin{align*} \mu-\frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta& = 0.24 > 0,\quad \gamma +\mu-\epsilon\eta+\epsilon \gamma +\frac{\epsilon}{2 }\zeta = 0.18 > 0,\\ 2\frac{\gamma I^*}{R^*}&-\frac{\gamma +\zeta}{ \epsilon} = 0.2 > 0,\quad 2\frac{\eta I^*}{W^*}-\frac{\eta}{ \epsilon} = 0.8320 > 0. \end{align*}

    According to Theorem 5, solutions of stochastic model ( 1.3 ) fluctuate in time average around endemic equilibrium E^{*} of the deterministic model, which can be verified by using Figure 4, and the oscillation amplitude increases with white noise intensity.

    Figure 4.  Simulation of the path S(t), I(t) for deterministic model and the stochastic model ( 1.3 ) for different \sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2} with \beta = 0.1 and \nu = 0.1 .

    Example 4. Take

    \beta = 0.15 ,\ \ \ \nu = 0.16

    and the other parameters are shown in (7.2) such that

    R_0 = 1.3370 > 1.

    Figure 5 shows that \sigma_{1} and \sigma_{2} have a significant impact on both extinction and persistence of disease. With the intensity of \sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2} , the disease of model ( 1.3 ) will accelerate extinction.

    Figure 5.  Simulation of the path I(t) of the stochastic model ( 1.3 ) for different \sigma_{1}, \sigma_{2} .

    The results show that large amounts of white noise can lead to disease extinction, while even small amounts of white noise were found to inhibit disease outbreaks. We conclude that changes in noise intensity affecting direct transmission rates have a more pronounced effect on disease spread than perturbations in indirect infection rates. This tells us that in the prevention and control of infectious diseases, as well as in public health practice, cutting off direct sources of infection and reducing the rate of direct infection are very useful measures.

    Example 5. Take \sigma_1 = 0.25 , \sigma_2 = 0.1 , and the other parameters are shown in (7.2) . Figure 6a shows how threshold R_0^s varies with \beta and \nu , as well as shows the positive correlation. Figure 6b shows how threshold R_0^s varies with white noise intensity \sigma_1 and \sigma_2 , and as the noise intensity increases, R_0^s becomes smaller and smaller.

    Figure 6.  Plot(a) of the R_0^s versus direct transmission rate \beta and indirect transmission rate \nu . Plot(b) of the R_0^s versus white noise intensity \sigma_{1} and \sigma_{2} .

    In this paper, we investigate a stochastic SIRS epidemic model that incorporates environmentally driven transmission dynamics alongside multiparameter perturbations. The purpose of this study is to investigate the extinction and persistence of stochastic SIRW model solutions under multiparameter stochastic perturbations, the propagation laws of infectious disease dynamics, and the effects of different parameters on disease spread. We commence our study by establishing the existence and uniqueness of the global positive solution for the model presented in Eq ( 1.3 ). Subsequently, we derive the threshold conditions necessary for disease extinction and persistence, employing the comparison theorem in conjunction with It \hat{o} 's formula for stochastic differential equations. The theoretical findings are substantiated through a series of numerical simulations, as depicted in Figures 13. These simulations show that large amounts of white noise can lead to disease extinction, whereas even small amounts of white noise can suppress disease outbreaks, with the dynamics transitioning from persistence to extinction as the noise intensity increases. Furthermore, we analyze the asymptotic stability of both the disease-free equilibrium and the endemic equilibrium of the deterministic model corresponding to our stochastic framework, utilizing principles from stochastic stability theory. Our results demonstrate that the solutions of the stochastic model ( 1.3 ) exhibit fluctuations around the endemic equilibrium E^{*} of the deterministic counterpart, with the oscillation amplitude increasing in response to higher levels of white noise intensity, as shown in Figure 4. Additionally, we observe that variations in noise intensity affecting the direct transmission rate exert a more pronounced influence on disease transmission compared to perturbations in the indirect infection rate, as illustrated in Figure 5. Finally, we find that the direct transmission rate plays a critical role in determining the threshold R_0^s , as highlighted in Figure 6. This suggests that disruption of direct source links and isolation controls to reduce the rate of direct infection are very useful measures in the prevention and control of infectious diseases and in public health practice.

    In the future, we will consider the dynamics of infectious disease processes across different temporal scales. It is also interesting to incorporate the immunological processes occurring within the host into system (1.2), and we will leave this for future research.

    Zhengwen Yin: responsible for mathematical modelling and analysis, paper writing, numerical simulations; Yuanshun Tan: responsible for mathematical modelling, model analysis, paper framework construction. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

    This work was supported by the National Natural Scicnce Foundation of China (No. 12271068), the Rescarch and Innovation Project for Graduate Research in Chongqing Jiaotong University (No. 2024S0138).

    The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest concerning this article.



    [1] K. T. Arasu, C. Ding, T. Helleseth, P. V. Kumar, H. M. Martinsen, Almost difference sets and their sequences with optimal autocorrelation, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 47 (2001), 2934–2943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/18.959271 doi: 10.1109/18.959271
    [2] C. Carlet, C. Ding, J. Yuan, Linear codes from perfect nonlinear mappings and their secret sharing schemes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 51 (2005), 2089–2102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2005.847722 doi: 10.1109/TIT.2005.847722
    [3] L. E. Dickson, Cyclotomy, higher congruences, and Waring's problem, Amer. J. Math., 57 (1935), 391–424. https://doi.org/10.2307/2371217
    [4] K. Ding, C. Ding, Binary linear codes with three weights, IEEE Commun. Lett., 18 (2014), 1879–1882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/LCOMM.2014.2361516 doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2014.2361516
    [5] K. Ding, C. Ding, A class of two-weight and three-weight codes and their applications in secret sharing, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 61 (2015), 5835–5842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2015.2473861 doi: 10.1109/TIT.2015.2473861
    [6] M. Grassl, Bounds on the minumum distance of linear codes, 2022. Avaiable from: http://www.codetables.de.
    [7] Z. Heng, C. Ding, Z. Zhou, Minimal linear codes over finite fields, Finite Fields Appl., 54 (2018), 176–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ffa.2018.08.010 doi: 10.1016/j.ffa.2018.08.010
    [8] Z. Heng, W. Wang, Y. Wang, Projective binary linear codes from special Boolean functions, AAECC, 32 (2021), 521–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00200-019-00412-z doi: 10.1007/s00200-019-00412-z
    [9] Z. Heng, Q. Yue, A class of binary linear codes with at most three weights, IEEE Commun. Lett., 19 (2015), 1488–1491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/LCOMM.2015.2455032 doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2015.2455032
    [10] Z. Heng, Q. Yue, Two classes of two-weight linear codes, Finite Fields Appl., 38 (2016), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ffa.2015.12.002 doi: 10.1016/j.ffa.2015.12.002
    [11] Z. Heng, Q. Yue, Evaluation of the Hamming weights of a class of linear codes based on Gauss sums, Des. Codes Cryptogr., 83 (2017), 307–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10623-016-0222-7 doi: 10.1007/s10623-016-0222-7
    [12] Z. Heng, Q. Yue, C. Li, Three classes of linear codes with two or three weights, Discrete Math., 339 (2016), 2832–2847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2016.05.033 doi: 10.1016/j.disc.2016.05.033
    [13] C. Li, Q. Yue, F. Li, Weight distributions of cyclic codes with respect to pairwise coprime order elements, Finite Fields Appl., 28 (2014), 94–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ffa.2014.01.009 doi: 10.1016/j.ffa.2014.01.009
    [14] F. Li, Several classes of exponential sums and three-valued Walsh spectrums over finite fields, Finite Fields Appl., 87 (2023), 102142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ffa.2022.102142 doi: 10.1016/j.ffa.2022.102142
    [15] M. Moisio, A note on evaluations of some exponential sums, Acta Arith., 93 (2000), 117–119. https://doi.org/10.4064/aa-93-2-117-119 doi: 10.4064/aa-93-2-117-119
    [16] M. Moisio, Explicit evaluation of some exponential sums, Finite Fields Appl., 15 (2009), 644–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ffa.2009.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.ffa.2009.05.005
    [17] T. Storer, Cyclotomic and difference sets, Markham, Chicago, 1967.
    [18] Q. Wang, K. Ding, D. D. Lin, R. Xue, A kind of three-weight linear codes, Cryptogr. Commun., 9 (2017), 315–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12095-015-0180-3 doi: 10.1007/s12095-015-0180-3
    [19] Q. Wang, K. Ding, R. Xue, Binary linear codes with two weights, IEEE Commun. Lett., 19 (2015), 1097–1100. https://doi.org/10.1109/LCOMM.2015.2431253 doi: 10.1109/LCOMM.2015.2431253
    [20] Y. Wu, Q. Yue, X. Shi, At most three-weight binary linear codes from generalized Moisio's exponential sums, Des. Codes Cryptogr., 87 (2019), 1927–1943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10623-018-00595-5 doi: 10.1007/s10623-018-00595-5
    [21] Z. Zhou, C. Ding, J. Luo, A. Zhang, A family of five-weight cyclic codes and their weight enumerators, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 59 (2013), 6674–6682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2013.2267722 doi: 10.1109/TIT.2013.2267722
    [22] Z. Zhou, A. Zhang, C. Ding, M. Xiong, The weight enumerator of three families of cyclic codes, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 59 (2013), 6002–6009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2013.2262095 doi: 10.1109/TIT.2013.2262095
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

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

Metrics

Article views(1382) PDF downloads(66) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Tables(9)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog