
Variants of COVID-19 have sparked controversy regarding mask and/or vaccine mandates in some sectors of the country. Many people hold polarized opinions about such mandates, and it is uncertain what predicts attitudes towards these protective behavior mandates. Through a snow-ball sampling procedure of respondents on social media platforms, this study examined skepticism of 774 respondents toward these mandates as a function of the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) of health. Hierarchical linear regressions examined Protection Motivation (PM) as a predictor of mask and vaccine mandate skepticism independently and with political party affiliation as a control. PM alone accounted for 76% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001 and 65% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001. When political affiliation was entered (accounting for 28% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001, and 26% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001), PM still accounted for significant percentages of variance in both mask (50%) and vaccine (43%) mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001. Across regressions, perceived severity, outcome efficaciousness, and self-efficacy each directly accounted for unique variance in mask and vaccine mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001; only perceived vulnerability failed to account for unique variance in the regressions, ps > 0.05. Specifically, the more severe participants perceived COVID-19 to be and the greater the perceived efficacy of masks and vaccines preventing the spread of COVID-19, the lower participants' skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates. Similarly, the higher participants' self-efficacy in wearing masks or receiving the vaccine, the lower their skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates.
Citation: Robin M. Kowalski, Kenzie Hurley, Nicholas Deas, Sophie Finnell, Kelly Evans, Chelsea Robbins, Andrew Cook, Emily Radovic, Hailey Carroll, Lyndsey Brewer, Gabriela Mochizuki. Protection motivation unmasked: Applying protection motivation theory to skepticism toward COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(3): 506-520. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022035
[1] | Asadullah Sohail, Muhammad Adil Khan, Emad Abouel Nasr, Xiaoye Ding . Further improvements of the Jensen inequality in the integral sense by virtue of 6-convexity along with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 11278-11303. doi: 10.3934/math.2024553 |
[2] | Imran Abbas Baloch, Aqeel Ahmad Mughal, Yu-Ming Chu, Absar Ul Haq, Manuel De La Sen . A variant of Jensen-type inequality and related results for harmonic convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6404-6418. doi: 10.3934/math.2020412 |
[3] | Muhammad Zakria Javed, Muhammad Uzair Awan, Loredana Ciurdariu, Omar Mutab Alsalami . Pseudo-ordering and δ1-level mappings: A study in fuzzy interval convex analysis. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(3): 7154-7190. doi: 10.3934/math.2025327 |
[4] | Waqar Afzal, Khurram Shabbir, Savin Treanţă, Kamsing Nonlaopon . Jensen and Hermite-Hadamard type inclusions for harmonical h-Godunova-Levin functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 3303-3321. doi: 10.3934/math.2023170 |
[5] | Soubhagya Kumar Sahoo, Fahd Jarad, Bibhakar Kodamasingh, Artion Kashuri . Hermite-Hadamard type inclusions via generalized Atangana-Baleanu fractional operator with application. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 12303-12321. doi: 10.3934/math.2022683 |
[6] | Saad Ihsan Butt, Artion Kashuri, Muhammad Umar, Adnan Aslam, Wei Gao . Hermite-Jensen-Mercer type inequalities via Ψ-Riemann-Liouville k-fractional integrals. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5193-5220. doi: 10.3934/math.2020334 |
[7] | Tareq Saeed, Muhammad Adil Khan, Hidayat Ullah . Refinements of Jensen's inequality and applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 5328-5346. doi: 10.3934/math.2022297 |
[8] | Elahe Jaafari, Mohammad Sadegh Asgari, Mohsen Shah Hosseini, Baharak Moosavi . On the Jensen’s inequality and its variants. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 1177-1185. doi: 10.3934/math.2020081 |
[9] | Waqar Afzal, Waqas Nazeer, Thongchai Botmart, Savin Treanţă . Some properties and inequalities for generalized class of harmonical Godunova-Levin function via center radius order relation. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 1696-1712. doi: 10.3934/math.2023087 |
[10] | Tekin Toplu, Mahir Kadakal, İmdat İşcan . On n-Polynomial convexity and some related inequalities. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(2): 1304-1318. doi: 10.3934/math.2020089 |
Variants of COVID-19 have sparked controversy regarding mask and/or vaccine mandates in some sectors of the country. Many people hold polarized opinions about such mandates, and it is uncertain what predicts attitudes towards these protective behavior mandates. Through a snow-ball sampling procedure of respondents on social media platforms, this study examined skepticism of 774 respondents toward these mandates as a function of the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) of health. Hierarchical linear regressions examined Protection Motivation (PM) as a predictor of mask and vaccine mandate skepticism independently and with political party affiliation as a control. PM alone accounted for 76% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001 and 65% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001. When political affiliation was entered (accounting for 28% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001, and 26% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001), PM still accounted for significant percentages of variance in both mask (50%) and vaccine (43%) mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001. Across regressions, perceived severity, outcome efficaciousness, and self-efficacy each directly accounted for unique variance in mask and vaccine mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001; only perceived vulnerability failed to account for unique variance in the regressions, ps > 0.05. Specifically, the more severe participants perceived COVID-19 to be and the greater the perceived efficacy of masks and vaccines preventing the spread of COVID-19, the lower participants' skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates. Similarly, the higher participants' self-efficacy in wearing masks or receiving the vaccine, the lower their skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates.
The notion of convexity and its related entities are very fundamental concepts in the area of mathematics and other scientific fields due to their dynamic and extensive applications [9,24,33]. The fundamental characteristics and properties of the concept of convexity have been developed into essential tools that are vital to the progress of theoretical understanding, computational methodologies, and practical implementations across various domains [15,18,20]. Convex functions are extremely useful at addressing and solving problems that are complex or assumed unsolvable in previous years [2,6,32]. Thus, the broad significance of convex functions is highlighted by their rich properties and extensive applicability [3,4]. We now provide a formal definition of a convex function.
A function Θ:[γ1,γ2]→R is convex, if for all ϱ1,ϱ2∈[γ1,γ2] and 0≤Υ≤1,
Θ(Υϱ1+(1−Υ)ϱ2)≤ΥΘ(ϱ1)+(1−Υ)Θ(ϱ2). | (1.1) |
If the aforementioned inequality is true in the reverse sense, then Θ is concave on [γ1,γ2].
Over the past few years, convex functions have been refined, extended, and generalized in various angles through their properties and behaviors [16,30]. Some well-known examples of convex functions, with regard to their extensions, generalizations, and refinements, include P-convex [25], η-convex [8], s-convex [10], h-convex [28], and coordinate convex functions [17]. In many domains, convex functions and their generalizations have been essential however, their most significant impact is observed in the area of inequalities [14,31]. Several inequalities, such as Ostrowski's [12], the majorization [20], the Hermite-Hadamard [9], and the Jensen-Mercer inequalities, cannot be proven without the use of convex functions; however, the introduction of convex functions has made it possible to establish and prove these inequalities. One of the most notable contributions of convex functions to the study of inequality in mathematics is the establishment of Jensen's inequality. This inequality holds significant interest as it generalizes ordinary convexity, the triangular inequality and serves as the origin for various other classical inequalities. Researchers have applied Jensen's inequality to explore and solve complex problems across diverse domains, ranging from pure mathematics to applied mathematics [5,18,29], engineering [24], economics [1], information theory [27], and epidemiology [26].
The Jensen inequality for the continuous version was developed by taking integrable functions in place of tuples, which is stated below:
Let :[α1,α2]→[0,∞],
:[α1,α2]→[β1,β2] be integrable functions such that
. In addition, the function F:[β1,β2]→R is a convex and the function
is an integrable. Then,
![]() |
(1.2) |
For the concave function F, the inequality (1.2) flips.
Recently, Jensen's inequality has been generalized in various directions through the use of convex functions and their generalizations. In 2018, Lu [19] introduced refined versions of discrete Jensen's inequality, yielding improved results compared to earlier results of the similar nature. Additional uses of these obtained modifications are stronger upper bounds for the Shannon entropy. In 2010, Dragomir [7] examined a refinement of Jensen's inequality for convex functions over linear spaces and subsequently demonstrated applications of the acquired refinement in the context of norms, mean f-deviation, and f-divergences. Mikić et al. [21] derived Jensen-type inequalities for positive linear functionals through the utilization of the concept of 3-convex functions. The applications of the obtained results are then examined in the domains of generalized means, power means, and the generalized f-divergence functional. Ivelić and Pečarić [11] introduced generalizations of the reverse of the Jensen inequality for convex functions defined on convex hulls. Additionally, for convex functions, they deduced expansions of the Hermite-Hadamard inequality defined on k-simplices in Rk as direct consequences of their main findings. Rasheed et al. [23] expanded the Jensen integral inequality for real Stieltjes integrals by applying the Montgomery identity in the context of n-convex functions. Furthermore, they provided various formulations of the discrete Jensen inequality and its converses for weights real.
This manuscript is organized as follows: In Section 2, we present the major results. In Section 3, we discuss the significance of these results, focusing on conditions imposed on the function and the derived bounds. Section 4 contains applications of the major results to the Hölder and Hermite-Hadamard inequalities, while Section 5 contains applications to means, including graphical verification of the results. In Section 6, we explore applications in information theory. Finally, the conclusion of the manuscript is provided in the last section.
To begin this section, let us consider the following theorem, which offers an enhancement of Jensen's inequality.
Theorem 2.1. Assume that the function F:[ℏ1,ℏ2]→R is thrice differentiable with |F‴| is a convex function and ℘:[ρ1,ρ2]→(−∞,∞), Γ:[ρ1,ρ2]→[ℏ1,ℏ2] be any integrable functions. Further, presume that ¯℘:=∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)dσ≠0 and ¯⅁:=1¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)Γ(σ)dσ∈[ℏ1,ℏ2]. Then,
|F(¯⅁)−1¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)F(Γ(σ))dσ|≤112|¯℘|∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3|×(3|F‴(¯⅁)|+|F‴(Γ(σ))|2)dσ+|F″(¯⅁)|2|¯℘|∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2|dσ. | (2.1) |
Proof. Without loss of generality, assume that ¯⅁≠Γ(σ). Now, by applying the rule of integration, we get
12¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3∫10t2F‴(t¯⅁+(1−t)Γ(σ))dtdσ=12¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3(t2F″(t¯⅁+(1−t)Γ(σ))|10¯⅁−Γ(σ)−∫102tF″(t¯⅁+(1−t)Γ(σ))dt¯⅁−Γ(σ))dσ=12¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3(F″(¯⅁)¯⅁−Γ(σ)−2¯⅁−Γ(σ)(tF′(t¯⅁+(1−t)Γ(σ))|10¯⅁−Γ(σ)−1¯⅁−Γ(σ)∫10F′(t¯⅁+(1−t)Γ(σ))dt))dσ=12¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3(F″(¯⅁)¯⅁−Γ(σ)−2F′(¯⅁)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2+2(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2×∫10F′(t¯⅁+(1−t)Γ(σ))dt)dσ=12¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3(F″(¯⅁)¯⅁−Γ(σ)−2F′(¯⅁)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2+2(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2F(t¯⅁+(1−t)Γ(σ))|10(¯⅁−Γ(σ)))dσ=12¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3(F″(¯⅁)¯⅁−Γ(σ)−2F′(¯⅁)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2+2(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3(F(¯⅁)−F(Γ(σ))))dσ=12¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3(F″(¯⅁)¯⅁−Γ(σ))dσ−12¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3(2F′(¯⅁)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2)dσ+12¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3(2(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3)×(F(¯⅁)−F(Γ(σ)))dσ. |
This implies that
F(¯⅁)−1¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)F(Γ(σ))dσ=−12¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3×∫10t2F‴(t¯⅁+(1−t)Γ(σ))dtdσ+12¯℘F″(¯⅁)∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2dσ−1pnF′(¯⅁)∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))dσ. | (2.2) |
Taking absolute value of identity (2.2), and subsequently using triangular inequality, we arrive at
|F(¯⅁)−1¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)F(Γ(σ))dσ|≤12∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3¯℘|∫10t2|F‴(t¯⅁+(1−t)Γ(σ))|dtdσ+|F″(¯⅁)|2∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2¯℘|dσ. | (2.3) |
Since, the function |F‴| is convex. Therefore, utilize the convexity of |F‴| in (2.3), we get
|F(¯⅁)−1¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)F(Γ(σ))dσ|≤12∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3¯℘|∫10(t3|F‴(¯⅁)|+(t2−t3)|F‴(Γ(σ))|)dtdσ+|F″(¯⅁)|2∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2¯℘|dσ=12∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3¯℘|(|F‴(¯⅁)|∫10t3dt+|F‴(Γ(σ))|∫10(t2−t3)dt)dσ+|F″(¯⅁)|2∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2¯℘|dσ=12∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3¯℘|[|F‴(¯⅁)|4+|F‴(Γ(σ))|12]dσ+|F″(¯⅁)|2∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2¯℘|dσ. | (2.4) |
By simplifying the inequality (2.4), we obtain (2.1).
The theorem stated below presents another improvement of the Jensen inequality using concave functions.
Theorem 2.2. Let F:[ℏ1,ℏ2]→R be any function such that F‴ exists. Also, assume that ℘:[ρ1,ρ2]→R and Γ:[ρ1,ρ2]→[ℏ1,ℏ2] are integrable functions with ¯℘:=∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)dσ≠0, ¯⅁:=1¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)Γ(σ)dσ∈[ℏ1,ℏ2]. If |F‴| is a concave function, then,
|F(¯⅁)−1¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)F(Γ(σ))dσ|≤16|¯℘|∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3||F‴(3¯⅁+Γ(σ)4)|dσ+|F″(¯⅁)|2|¯℘|∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2|dσ. | (2.5) |
Proof. We can infer from inequality (2.3) that
|F(¯⅁)−1¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)F(Γ(σ))dσ|≤12∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3¯℘|∫10t2|F‴(t¯⅁+(1−t)Γ(σ))|dt3∫10t2dtdσ+|F″(¯⅁)|2∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2¯℘|dσ. | (2.6) |
Using integral Jensen's inequality for the concave function, we obtain (2.7):
|F(¯⅁)−1¯℘∫ρ2ρ1℘(σ)F(Γ(σ))dσ|≤16∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))3¯℘||F‴(∫10t2(t¯⅁+(1−t)Γ(σ))dt∫10t2dt)|dσ+|F″(¯⅁)|2∫ρ2ρ1|℘(σ)(¯⅁−Γ(σ))2¯℘|dσ. | (2.7) |
We determine (2.5), after computing the integral in the inequality (2.7).
In this section, we analyze the relevance of the observed improvements in bitterness compared to previously established findings.
To demonstrate the importance of our main finding across various applications in different fields, we outline the process that led us to this conclusion, specifically deriving bounds for the third-order derivative absolute function is being a convex. During our literature review, we identified functions for which the first and second-order derivatives absolute functions are not convex. An example of such a function is presented below:
F(σ)=σ4−σ3,σ∈[−1,1]. |
First-order absolute function lacks convexity.
|F′(σ)|=|4σ3−3σ2|,σ∈[−1,1]. |
Second-order absolute function lacks convexity.
|F′′(σ)|=|12σ2−6σ|,σ∈[−1,1]. |
Third-order absolute function is convex.
|F′′′(σ)|=|24σ−6|,σ∈[−1,1]. |
This is illustrated with the help of the following graph (see Figure 1), which shows that the first- and second-order absolute functions lack convexity, while the third-order absolute function is convex. This highlights the unique contribution of our article.
We perform numerical experiments in this part to illustrate how bitter the performance of our major findings over some other results is.
Example 3.1. Let F(σ)=expσ,σ∈[0,1], then |F‴(σ)|=expσ, which indicates that |F‴(σ)| is convex function. Therefore, using the inequality (2.1) for ℘(σ)=1,Γ(σ)=σ, where σ∈[0,1], we have
0.0696<0.0775. | (3.1) |
Using the aforementioned information and the particular function in the inequality (2.24) provided in the article [13], we obtain
0.0696<0.4253. | (3.2) |
The estimates for Jensen's difference given in this study are better than the estimate archived from [13], as demonstrated by (3.1) and (3.2).
Example 3.2. Let F(σ)=σ4,σ∈[0,1], then |F‴(σ)|=24σ, which indicates that |F‴(σ)| is convex function. So, using the inequality (2.1) for Γ(σ)=σ, ℘(σ)=1, where σ∈[0,1], we get
0.1375<0.1875. | (3.3) |
Using the inequality (2.24) provided in the article [13] along with the previously mentioned values, we can now obtain
0.1375<0.2201. | (3.4) |
This paper's estimates of Jensen's difference surpass those in [13], as evidenced by (3.3) and (3.4).
Hölder's inequality is a powerful mathematical tool widely employed in various fields, including functional analysis, probability theory, and optimization. Named after the mathematician Otto Hölder, this inequality provides a fundamental relationship between different norms and their inner products. Its application extends to problems involving integrals, series, and vector spaces, allowing for the establishment of bounds and inequalities that are crucial in mathematical modeling and analysis. Hölder's Inequality has proven particularly useful in the study of inequalities arising in probability and statistics, functional analysis, and harmonic analysis. The versatility of this inequality makes it an indispensable tool for researchers and practitioners in diverse mathematical disciplines [22]. In this section, we focus on the applicability of major results for the Hölder and Hermite-Hadamard inequalities. Theorem 2.1 leads to an improvement of the Hölder inequality, as presented in this proposition.
Proposition 4.1. Let γ and η be two positive functions such that ηm1,γn1 and ηγ are integrable. Also, assume that m1,n1>1 with 1m1+1n1=1. If m1∈(1,3]∪[4,∞), then,
(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ)1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1n1−∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ≤[|m1(m1−1)(m1−2)|24∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηγ)3|×(3|(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−3+(ηγ−n1m1)m1−3|)dσ+|m1(m1−1)|2|(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−2|×∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηγ)2dσ|]1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1n1. | (4.1) |
Proof. Consider the function F(σ)=σm1,σ>0, then by the successive differentiation of the given function F, we obtain F″(σ)=m1(m1−1)σm1−2 and |F‴(σ)|″=|m1(m1−1)(m1−2)|(m1−3)(m1−4)σm1−5. Clearly, both F″ and |F‴(σ)|″ are nonnegative on (0,∞) for m1∈(1,3]∪[4,∞), which substantiate the convexity as well as |F‴(σ)| convexity of F(σ)=σm1. Therefore, utilizing (2.1) for F(σ)=σm1 and p(σ)=γn1,Γ(σ)=ηγ−n1m1 and then taking power 1m1, we get
[∫ρ2ρ1ηm1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−1dσ−(∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ)m1]1m1≤[|m1(m1−1)(m1−2)|24∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηγ)3|×(3|(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−3+(ηγ−n1m1)m1−3|)dσ+|m1(m1−1)|2|(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−2|×∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηγ)2|]1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1n1dσ. | (4.2) |
Since, the inequality kl1−kl2≤(k1−k2)l holds for l∈[0,1] and 0≤k1≤k2. Therefore, using this inequality for k1=(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ)(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−1,k2=(∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ)m1 and l=1m1, we get
(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ)1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1n1−∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ≤[∫ρ2ρ1ηm1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−1dσ−(∫ρ2ρ1ηγ)m1dσ]1m1. | (4.3) |
By comparing the inequalities (4.2) and (4.3), we arrive to the inequality (4.1).
The next proposition from Theorem 2.1 improves the Hölder inequality.
Proposition 4.2. Let γ and η be two positive functions such that ηm1,γn1 and ηγ are integrable functions and m1∈(0,1), with n1=m1m1−1. If 1m1∈(1,3]∪[4,∞), then,
∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ−(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ)1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1n1≤|1m1(1m1−1)(1m1−2)|24∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηm1γ−n1)3|×(3|(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1m1−3+(ηm1γ−n1)1m1−3|)dσ+|1m1(1m1−1)|2|(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1m1−2|×∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηm1γ−n1)2|dσ. | (4.4) |
Proof. Let us take the function F(σ)=σ1m1, defined on (0,∞). Then, F″(σ)=1m1(1m1−1)σ1m1−2 and |F‴(σ)|″=|1m1(1m1−1)(1m1−2)|(1m1−3)(1m1−4)σ1m1−5. Surely, F″ and |F‴(σ)|″ ≥0. This validates the functions F(σ)=σ1m1 and |F‴(σ)| both are convex on (0,∞), for 1m1∈(1,3]∪[4,∞). Therefore, utilizing (2.1) for F(σ)=σ1m1 and ℘(σ)=γn1,Γ(σ)=ηm1γ−n1, we get
∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ)1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1m1≤|1m1(1m1−1)(1m1−2)|24×∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηm1γ−n1)3|×(3|(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1m1−3+(ηm1γ−n1)1m1−3|)dσ+|1m1(1m1−1)|2×∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ|(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1m1−2|×∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηm1γ−n1)2|dσ. | (4.5) |
Now, multiplying both sides of the inequality (4.5) by ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ, we get inequality (4.4).
The next corollary provides an improvement for the Hölder inequality as a consequence of Theorem 2.2.
Proposition 4.3. Let γ,η:[β1,β2]→(0,∞) be any functions and m1,n1>1 with 1m1+1n1=1. Further, let γn1, ηm1, γη and ηγ−n1m1 be integrable over the interval [β1,β2]. If m1∈(3,4), then,
(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ)1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1n1−∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ≤[|m1(m1−1)(m1−2)|6∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηγ−n1m1)3|×(3(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−3+ηγ−n1m14)m1−3dσ+|m1(m1−1)|2|(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−2|×∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηγ)2|]1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1n1dσ. | (4.6) |
Proof. Consider the function F(σ)=σm1,σ>0, then by differentiating the function F, we obtain F″(σ)=m1(m1−1)σm1−2 and |F‴(σ)|″=|m1(m1−1)(m1−2)|(m1−3)(m1−4)σm1−5. So, the function F″ is positive on (0,∞) and |F‴(σ)|″ <0 for m1∈(3,4), which substantiate the convexity of F(σ)=σm1 and |F‴(σ)| concavity. Therefore, utilizing (2.5) for F(σ)=σm1 and ℘(σ)=γn1,Γ(σ)=ηγ−n1m1 and then taking power 1m1, we get
[∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−1−(∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ)m1]1m1≤[|m1(m1−1)(m1−2)|6∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηγ−n1m1)3|×(3(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−3+ηγ−n1m14)m1−3dσ+|m1(m1−1)|2|(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−2|×∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1γηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηγ)2|]1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1n1dσ. | (4.7) |
Note that, the inequality kl1−kl2≤(k1−k2)l holds for l∈[0,1] and 0≤k1≤k2. Therefore, by putting k1=(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ)(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−1,k2=(∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ)m1 and l=1m1, in (4.7), we receive
(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ)1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1n1−∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ≤[∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)m1−1−(∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ)m1]1m1. | (4.8) |
By comparing the inequalities (4.7) and (4.8), we arrive to the inequality (4.6).
The following corollary improves the Hölder inequality due to Theorem 2.2.
Proposition 4.4. Assume that γ and η are positive functions such that ηm1,γn1, and ηγ are integrable functions and m1∈(0,1), with n1=m1m1−1. If 1m1∈(3,4), then,
∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ−(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ)1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1n1≤|1m1(1m1−1)(1m1−2)|6∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσi−ηm1γ−n1)3|×(3∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσi+ηm1γ−n14)1m1−3dσ+|1m1(1m1−1)|2|(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1m1−2|×∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηm1γ−n1)2|dσ. | (4.9) |
Proof. (i) Consider the function F(σ)=σ1m1, defined on (0,∞). Then, F″(σ)=1m1(1m1−1)σ1m1−2 and |F‴(σ)|″=|1m1(1m1−1)(1m1−2)|(1m1−3)(1m1−4)σ1m1−5. Obviously, F″(σ)>0 and |F‴(σ)|″ <0 for 1m1∈(3,4), which shows the convexity of F(σ)=σ1m1 and concavity of |F‴(σ)|. Therefore, utilizing (2.5) for F(σ)=σ1m1 and ℘(σ)=γn1, Γ(σ)=ηm1γ−n1, we get
∫ρ2ρ1ηγdσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ)1m1(∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1m1≤|1m1(1m1−1)(1m1−2)|6∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηm1γ−n1)3|×(3∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ+ηm1γ−n14)1m1−3dσ+|1m1(1m1−1)|2|(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ)1m1−2|×∫ρ2ρ1|γn1(∫ρ2ρ1ηm1dσ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ−ηm1γ−n1)2|dσ. | (4.10) |
Now, multiplying both sides of the inequality (4.10) by ∫ρ2ρ1γn1dσ, we get inequality (4.9).
The following corollary gives improvement for the Hermite-Hadamard inequality.
Corollary 4.5. Let F:[ℏ1,ℏ2]→R be a thrice differentiable function such that the function |F‴| is an integrable and |F‴| is a convex. Then,
|1ℏ2−ℏ1∫ℏ2ℏ1F(σ)dσ−F(ℏ1+ℏ22)|≤112∫ℏ2ℏ1|(ℏ1+ℏ22−σ)3|(3|F‴(ℏ1+ℏ22)|+|F‴(σ)|2)dσ+|F‴(ℏ1+ℏ22)|2(ℏ2−ℏ1)∫ℏ2ℏ1(ℏ1+ℏ22−σ)2dσ. | (4.11) |
Proof. Since the function |F‴| is convex on the interval [ℏ1,ℏ2]. Therefore, using (2.1) for Γ(σ)=σ and ℘(σ)=1, we get (4.11).
Corollary 4.6. Consider the function F:[ℏ1,ℏ2]→R is thrice differentiable such that |F‴| is an integrable. If |F‴| is a concave, then,
|1ℏ2−ℏ1∫ℏ2ℏ1F(σ)dσ−F(ℏ1+ℏ22)|≤16(ℏ2−ℏ1)∫ℏ2ℏ1|(ℏ1+ℏ22−σ)3||F‴(3(ℏ1+ℏ22)+σ4)|dσ+|F‴(ℏ1+ℏ22)|2(ℏ2−ℏ1)∫ℏ2ℏ1(ℏ1+ℏ22−σ)2dσ. | (4.12) |
Proof. Inequality (4.12) can be obtained by substituting Γ(σ)=σ and ℘(σ)=1 in (2.5).
Definition 5.1. If the two positive integrable functions γ and η in the interval [ρ1,ρ2] with ¯γ=∫ρ2ρ1γ(σ)dσ, then,
Pκ(γ,η)={(1¯γ∫ρ2ρ1γ(σ)ηκ(σ)dσ)1κ,κ≠0exp(∫ρ2ρ1γ(σ)logη(σ)dσ¯γ),κ=0 |
is the power mean of order κ∈R.
Theorem 2.1 enables us to give an inequality for the power mean as follows:
Corollary 5.2. Let γ and η be any two positive functions with ¯γ=∫ρ2ρ1γdσ. In addition, let κ,τ∈R−{0}.
(i) If κ≤3τ or κ≥4τ or κ<0 such that τ>0, then,
Pκκ(γ,η)−Pκτ(γ,η)≤|κτ(κτ−1)(κτ−2)|24¯γ∫ρ2ρ1|γ(Pττ(γ,η)−ητ)3|×(3Pκ−3ττ(γ,η)−(ητ)κτ−3)dσ+|κτ(κτ−1))|2¯γPκ−2ττ(γ,η)×∫ρ2ρ1|γ(Pττ(γ,η)−ητ)2|dσ. | (5.1) |
(ii) If κ≥3τ or κ≤4τ or κ>0 such that τ<0, then (5.1) holds.
Proof. (i) Let the function F(σ)=σκτ, σ>0. Then, F″(σ)=κτ(κτ−1)σκτ−2 and |F‴(σ)|″=|κτ(κτ−1)(κτ−2)|(κτ−3)(κτ−4)σκτ−5. Clearly, both F″ and |F‴(σ)|″ are positive with the given conditions and consequently this confirms the convexity of the function F(σ)=σκτ on (0,∞). Therefore, take F(σ)=σκτ, ℘(σ)=γ and Γ(σ)=ητ in (2.1), we obtain (5.1).
(ii) For the stated circumstances of κ and τ, the function Γ(σ)=σκτ and |F‴(σ)| are convex on (0,∞). Thus, by following the process of (i), we will get (5.1).
Theorem 2.2 allows us to provide an additional inequality for the power mean as follows:
Corollary 5.3. Let γ and η be any two positive functions such that κ,τ∈R−{0} and ¯γ=∫ρ2ρ1γdσ.
(i) If τ>0 with 3τ<κ<4τ, then,
Pκκ(γ,η)−Pκτ(γ,η)≤|κτ(κτ−1)(κτ−2)|24¯γ∫ρ2ρ1|γ(Pττ(γ,η)−ητ)3|×(3Pττ(γ,η)+ητ)dσ+|κτ(κτ−1))|2¯γPκ−2ττ(γ,η)×∫ρ2ρ1|γ(Pττ(γ,η)−ητ)2|dσ. | (5.2) |
(ii) If 4τ<κ<3τ such that τ<0, then (5.2) holds.
Proof. (i) Let F(σ)=σκτ for σ>0. Then, given the values of κ,τ the function F is convex and |F‴|″<0, which shows concave. Thus using (2.5) for F(σ)=σκτ, ℘(σ)=γ and Γ(σ)=ητ, we get (5.2).
(ii) Under the specified parameters for τ and κ, the function Γ(σ)=σκτ is convex and |F‴(σ)| is concave on (0,∞). Therefore, by following the procedure of (i), we receive (5.2).
Theorem 2.1 can be used to create a relation as shown below:
Corollary 5.4. Let γ and η be any two positive functions with ¯γ=∫ρ2ρ1γdσ. Then,
P1(γ,η)P0(γ,η)≤exp[14¯γ∫ρ2ρ1|γ(P1(γ,η)−η)4|×(P−31(γ,η)+η−3)dσ+P−21(γ,η)2¯γ∫ρ2ρ1|γ(P1(γ,η)−η)2|dσ]. | (5.3) |
Proof. Let Γ(σ)=−lnσ be defined on the interval (0,∞). Then, F″(σ)=σ−2 and |F‴(σ)|″=24σ−5. The above expressions clearly indicate that F″>0 and |F‴(σ)|″>0, Which is evidence of convexity. Therefore, using (2.1) by substituting Γ(σ)=−lnσ, ℘(σ)=γ and Γ(σ)=η, we get (5.3).
As a result of Theorem 2.1, the following corollary provides an additional relation for the power means.
Corollary 5.5. Assume Corollary 5.4 meets its criteria. Then,
P1(γ,η)−P0(γ,η)≤124¯γ∫ρ2ρ1|γ(P0(γ,η)η)3|×(3P0(γ,η)+η)dσ+P0(γ,η)2¯γ∫ρ2ρ1|γ(P0(γ,η)η)2|dσ. | (5.4) |
Proof. Consider the function F(σ)=exp(σ),σ∈R, then F″(σ)=exp(σ) and the function |F‴(σ)|″=exp(σ). Clearly, both F(σ)=exp(σ) and |F‴(σ)| are convex functions. Consequently, by using (2.1) for Γ(σ)=lnη, ℘(σ)=γ and F(σ)=exp(σ), we get (5.4).
The quasi-arithmetic mean can be defined in the following manner:
Definition 5.6. If γ(σ) and (g∘η)(σ) are any integrable functions defined on [ρ1,ρ2] with ¯γ=∫ρ2ρ1γ(σ)dσ and γ(σ)>0. Additionally, let g(σ) be continuous and strictly monotonic function on [ρ1,ρ2]. Then,
Qg(γ,η)=g−1(1¯γ∫ρ2ρ1γ(σ)(g∘η)(σ)dσ). |
Theorem 2.1 allows us to state an inequality for the quasi-arithmetic mean as follows:
Corollary 5.7. Consider the two positive functions γ, η and (g∘η)(σ) with ∫ρ2ρ1γdσ=¯γ>0. Moreover, suppose that a function F∘g−1 with |(F∘g−1)‴| is convex and g be a continuous and strictly monotone function. Then the following inequality holds:
|F(Qg(γ,η))−1¯γ∫ρ2ρ1γF(η)dσ|≤124ׯγ∫ρ2ρ1|γ(g(Qg(γ,η))−g(η))3|×(3|(F∘g−1)‴(g(Qg(γ,η)))|+|(F∘g−1)‴g(η)|)dσ+12ׯγ|(F∘g−1)″(g(Qg(γ,η)))|×∫ρ2ρ1|γ(g(Qg(γ,η))−g(η))2|dσ. | (5.5) |
Proof. Since, the function |(F∘g−1)‴| is convex. So, inequality (5.5) can get from (2.1) by setting F→F∘g−1, Γ(σ)→g(η) and ℘(σ)→γ.
Theorem 2.2 provides an inequality for the quasi-arithmetic mean as shown below:
Corollary 5.8. Let us assume that γ,η and (g∘η)(σ) be the following two positive functions with ¯γ=∫ρ2ρ1γdσ>0. Also, assume that g be strictly monotonic and continuous function and the function F∘g−1 such that |(F∘g−1)‴| is concave. Then,
|F(Qg(γ,η))−1¯γ∫ρ2ρ1γF(η)dσ|≤124ׯγ∫ρ2ρ1|γ(g(Qg(γ,η))−g(η))3|×|(F∘g−1)‴(g(Qg(γ,η)))+g(η))|dσ+12ׯγ|(F∘g−1)″(g(Qg(γ,η)))|×∫ρ2ρ1|γ(g(Qg(γ,η))−g(η))2|dσ. | (5.6) |
Proof. Since, the function |(F∘g−1)‴| is concave. Therefore, to deduce inequality (5.6), assume F→F∘g−1, Γ(σ)→g(η) and ℘(σ)→γ in (2.5).
Graphical interpretation for the comparison of left and right hand sides of the inequalities
This part of the section is introduced for the comparison of the left- and right-sides of the inequalities obtained above. For this, first of all the relation (4.1) is considered. In this integral inequality, there are functions, and constants, specify these functions by substituting γ(x)=x12, η(x)=x, m1=2, n1=2, a=ρ1∈[0,4], b=ρ2∈(4,10], such that ρ2>ρ1. Using the above values for an inequality (4.1), we get
L.H.S=√b3−a33√b2−a22−25(b2.5−a2.5) |
and
R.H.S=(825(b2.5−a2.5)2(b2−a2)+12(b5−a5)−1635(b2.5−a2.5)(b3.5−a3.5)(b2−a2))0.5√b2−a22. |
For the examination of the graphical representation, see Figure 2.
Consider inequality (4.11), by substituting F(σ)=σ3, a=ℏ1∈[0,10], and b=ℏ2∈(0,10], we get
L.H.S=|a+b|8(a−b)2 |
and
R.H.S=(a−b)24+(a−b)432. |
For the comparison, see Figure 3.
Now, consider inequality (4.12). By making the same above substitution in (4.12), we get
L.H.S=18(a−b)2|a+b| |
and
R.H.S=(a−b)2(b−a+8)32. |
The graphical representation is shown in Figure 4.
Information theory has found a multitude of applications across various domains, revolutionizing the way we transmit, store, and process data. In telecommunications, it underpins the efficient compression of data for transmission, ensuring minimal bandwidth usage while preserving information integrity. In cryptography, information theory provides the foundation for secure communication and encryption methods that safeguard sensitive information. In machine learning, it guides the design of algorithms for pattern recognition, classification, and clustering. Furthermore, information theory has influenced genetics, aiding in the understanding of DNA sequences and genetic diversity. From the realms of engineering to biology, information theory's applications continue to shape the modern world's technological landscape, enhancing our ability to handle and extract meaning from vast volumes of information. There are few bounds associated with the Bhattacharyya coefficient, Renyi divergence, Csizar divergence, Kullback-Leibler divergence, Zipf-Mandelbrot entropy, and Shannon entropy. Csisár divergence is defined at the beginning of this section.
Definition 6.1. Let g:[ℏ1,ℏ2]→R be a convex function and also assume that the function γ and is an integrable on [ρ1,ρ2] such that η(σ)γ(σ)∈[ℏ1,ℏ2] and γ(σ)>0 for all σ∈[ρ1,ρ2]. Then,
Cd(γ,η)=∫ρ2ρ1γ(σ)g(η(σ)γ(σ))dσ. |
The following corollary estimates the Csiszár divergence using Theorem 2.1.
Theorem 6.2. Let g:[ℏ1,ℏ2]→R be a function such that the function |g‴| is convex as well as integrable. Also, suppose that γ:[ρ1,ρ2]→(0,∞) and η:[ρ1,ρ2]→[ℏ1,ℏ2] are integrable functions such that ∫ρ2ρ1ηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γdσ,ηγ∈[ℏ1,ℏ2]. Then,
|g(∫ρ2ρ1ηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γdσ)∫ρ2ρ1γdσ−Cd(γ,η)|≤124∫ρ2ρ1|γ(∫ρ2ρ1ηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γdσ−ηγ)3|×(3|g‴(∫ρ2ρ1ηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γdσ)|−|g‴(ηγ)|)dσ+|g″(∫ρ2ρ1ηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γdσ)|2∫ρ2ρ1|γ(∫ρ2ρ1ηdσ∫ρ2ρ1γdσ−ηγ)2|dσ. | (6.1) |
Proof. Since the given function |g‴| is convex. Therefore, using Theorem 2.1 for F=g, Γ(σ)=ηγ and ℘(σ)=γ, we obtain (6.1).
Now, we will discuss several related concepts to the Csiszár divergence.
Definition 6.3. Let γ and η be positive probability density functions. Then:
● The Rënyi divergence can be described as
Rd(γ,η)=1c−1log(∫ρ2ρ1γcη1−cdσ),c∈(0,∞),c≠1. |
● As defined by the Shannon entropy:
Se(γ)=−∫ρ2ρ1γlogγdσ. |
● According to the Kullback-Leibler divergence:
Kbl(γ,η)=∫ρ2ρ1ηlog(ηγ)dσ. |
● The Bhattacharyya coefficient is stated below:
Bc(γ,η)=∫ρ2ρ1√γηdσ. |
With the help of Theorem 2.1, a bound for the Rényi divergence is deduced, which is stated in the following corollary.
Corollary 6.4. Let γ and η be probability density function and for any c∈(0,∞),c≠1. Then,
Rd(γ,η)−∫ρ2ρ1γlog(γη)dσ≤124∫ρ2ρ1|γ(∫ρ2ρ1γcη1−cdσ−(γη)c−1)3|×(6|(∫ρ2ρ1γcη1−cdσ)−3c−1|+2|1c−1|(γη)3(1−c))dσ+12|(∫ρ2ρ1γcη1−cdσ)−2c−1|∫ρ2ρ1|γ(∫ρ2ρ1γcη1−cdσ−(γη)c−1)2|dσ. | (6.2) |
Proof. Let us take the function F(σ)=−1c−1lnσ, σ>0, then, F″(σ)=1(c−1)σ2 and |F‴(σ)|″=24(c−1)σ5. This ensures that the function F(σ)=−1c−1lnσ is convex as well as |F‴(σ)| is convex. Therefore, by substituting F(σ)=−1c−1lnσ, ℘(σ)=γ and Γ(σ)=(γη)c−1 in (2.1), we obtain (6.2).
Shannon entropy estimates as an application of Theorem 2.1 is provided in the next corollary.
Corollary 6.5. Let γ be positive probability density function. Then,
log∫ρ2ρ1ηdσ−∫ρ2ρ1γlogηdσ−Se(γ)≤112∫ρ2ρ1|γ(∫ρ2ρ1ηdσ−ηγ)3|(3|∫ρ2ρ1ηdσ|−3−|γη|3)dσ+|∫ρ2ρ1ηdσ|−22∫ρ2ρ1|γ(∫ρ2ρ1ηdσ−ηγ)2|dσ. | (6.3) |
Proof. Let g(σ)=−logx,σ∈(0,∞), then clearly g(σ) is convex as well as |g‴(σ)| is convex on (0,∞). By taking g(σ)=−logx, in (6.1), we get (6.3).
The following corollary explains the impact of Theorem 2.1 on the Kullback-Leibler divergence.
Corollary 6.6. Let γ and η be two positive probability density functions. Then,
Kd(γ,η)≤124∫ρ2ρ1|γ(1−ηγ)3|×(3(1−(γη)2))dσ+12∫ρ2ρ1|γ(1−ηγ)2|dσ. | (6.4) |
Proof. Let g(σ)=σlnσ,x>0, then by differentiating the given function with respect to σ, we acquire g″(x)=1x and |g‴(σ)|″=6σ−4, which admits that both the functions g(x)=xlnσ and |g‴| are convex. So, by putting g(σ)=σlnσ in (6.1), we get (6.4).
The following corollary applies Theorem 2.1 to yield an estimate for the Bhattacharyya coefficient.
Corollary 6.7. If γ and η are probability density functions such that γ,η>0, then,
1−Bc(γ,η)≤164∫ρ2ρ1|γ(1−ηγ)3|×(3−(γη)52)dσ+18∫ρ2ρ1|γ(1−ηγ)2|dσ. | (6.5) |
Proof. Let g(σ)=−√σ,σ∈(0,∞), then, g″(σ)=14σ−32>0, and |g‴|″=10532σ−112>0. It is confirmed that g and |g‴| are convex functions. Therefore, using (6.1) for g(σ)=−√σ, we get (6.5).
In the literature on inequalities for convex functions, the Jensen inequality stands out as the most interesting and dynamic inequality. There are many fascinating characteristics to this inequality. Therefore, it has been applied as a fundamental tool in science, engineering, and other technologies. The purpose of this study is to present new improvements to the Jensen inequality along with its applications. Improvements for the Jensen difference are provided by applying convexity of the thrice differentiable function in absolute sense. Through numerical experiments, the sharpness of the proposed results is discussed. Some consequences of our primary results are highlighted for the Hermite-Hadamard, quasi-arithmetic, power means and Hölder, inequalities. Graphical verification of the derived results is also provided (see Figures 2–4). In addition, we gave some applications of the derived improvements in information theory. These applications provided some bounds for Kullback-Leibler Divergence, Zipf-Mandelbrot entropy, Shannon entropy, Bhattacharyya coefficient, and Rényi divergence.
Asadullah Sohail and Muhammad Adil Khan: Methodology, Writing-original draft; Xiaoye Ding and Mohamed Sharaf: Conceptualization, Writing–review and editing; Muhammad Adil Khan and Mohammed A. El-Meligy: Supervision, Writing–review and editing, Validation. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript for publication.
The authors extend their appreciation to King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, for funding this work through Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2024R704), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The work was supported by the key Scientific Research Projects of Hunan Provincial Department of Education in 2021 (grant number: 21A0526).
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] | Center for Disease ControlGuidance for COVID-19 (2021). Available from: https://cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/guidance.html |
[2] | Centers for Disease ControlCovid-19 data tracker (2021). Available from: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home |
[3] |
Liu Y, Rocklöv J (2021) The reproductive number of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 is far higher compared to the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus. J Travel Med 28: taab124. https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taab124 ![]() |
[4] | Boarman A Omicron in the US' dominant COVID variant for two reasons, 2021 December 28 (2021). Available from: https://vitals.sutterhealth.omg/omicron-is-the-us-dominant-covid-variant-for-two-reasons/ |
[5] | Ramos E Map: See how many adults in the U.S. have not been vaccinated, by state (2021). Available from: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/map-see-how-many-unvaccinated-adults-united |
[6] | The White HouseNational COVID-19 Preparedness Plan (2022). Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/covidplan/#testing-masking |
[7] | Associated PressThe August 2021 AP-NORC center poll (2021). Available from: https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Afghanistan-topline.pdf |
[8] | Binkley C, Fingerhut H School mask, vaccine mandates supported in US: AP-NORC poll (2021). Available from: https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-health-education-coronavirus-pandemic-only-on-ap-0440d83602da918c571d506a3de9f44b |
[9] |
Floyd DL, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW (2000) A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol 30: 407-429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x ![]() |
[10] |
Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol 91: 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803 ![]() |
[11] | Rogers RW, Prentice-Dunn S (1997) Protection motivation theory. Handbook of health and behavior research: Personal and social determinants.Plenum Press 113-132. |
[12] | Shillair R (2020) Protection motivation theory. International encyclopedia of media psychology.John Wiley & Sons Limited. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0188 |
[13] |
Vance A, Siponen M, Pahnila S (2012) Motivating IS security compliance: insights from habit and protection motivation theory. Inform Manag 49: 190-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2012.04.002 ![]() |
[14] |
Ling M, Kothe EJ, Mullan BA (2019) Predicting intention to receive a seasonal influenza vaccination using Protection Motivation Theory. Soc Sci Med 233: 87-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.06.002 ![]() |
[15] |
Williams NL, Nguyen THH, Del Chiappa G, et al. (2022) COVID-19 vaccine confidence and tourism at the early stage of a voluntary mass vaccination campaign: A PMT segmentation analysis. Curr Issues Tour 25: 475-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1963216 ![]() |
[16] | Hovland CI, Janis IL, Kelley HH (1953) Communication and persuasion.Yale University Press. |
[17] |
Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW (1986) Protection motivation theory and preventive health: Beyond the health belief model. Health Educ Res 1: 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/1.3.153 ![]() |
[18] |
Maddux JE, Rogers RW (1983) Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 19: 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9 ![]() |
[19] |
Kowalski RM, Black KJ (2021) Protection motivation and the COVID-19 virus. Health Commun 36: 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1847448 ![]() |
[20] |
Rad RE, Mohseni S, Takhti HK, et al. (2021) Application of the protection motivation theory for predicting COVID-19 preventive behaviors in Hormozgan, Iran: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 21: 466. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10500-w ![]() |
[21] |
Jennings W, Stoker G, Bunting H, et al. (2021) Lack of trust, conspiracy beliefs, and social media use predict COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccines 9: 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9060593 ![]() |
[22] | Newport F The partisan gap in views of the coronavirus (2020). Available from: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/311087/partisan-gap-views-coronavirus.aspx |
[23] |
Newman DA (2014) Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organ Res Methods 17: 372-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114548590 ![]() |
[24] |
Becker TE (2005) Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organ Res Methods 8: 274-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021 ![]() |