Next Article in Journal
Highly Efficient Numerical Algorithm for Nonlinear Space Variable-Order Fractional Reaction–Diffusion Models
Next Article in Special Issue
Solving a Nonlinear Fractional Differential Equation Using Fixed Point Results in Orthogonal Metric Spaces
Previous Article in Journal
Fractal Quasi-Coulomb Crystals in Ion Trap with Cantor Dust Electrode Configuration
Previous Article in Special Issue
A New Technique to Achieve Torsional Anchor of Fractional Torsion Equation Using Conservation Laws
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Hermite–Hadamard-Type Inequalities via Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Integral for h-Godunova–Levin and (h1, h2)-Convex Functions

1
Department of Mathematics, University of Gujrat, Gujrat 50700, Pakistan
2
Department of Mathematics, Government College University Lahore (GCUL), Lahore 54000, Pakistan
3
Department of Medical Research, China Medical University, Taichung 406040, Taiwan
4
Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Pretoria, Lynnwood Road, Pretoria 0002, South Africa
5
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
6
Institute of Research and Development of Processes, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Campus of Leioa, 48940 Leioa, Bizkaia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fractal Fract. 2023, 7(9), 687; https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7090687
Submission received: 23 August 2023 / Revised: 9 September 2023 / Accepted: 14 September 2023 / Published: 15 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nonlinear Fractional Differential Equation and Fixed-Point Theory)

Abstract

:
This note generalizes several existing results related to Hermite–Hadamard inequality using h-Godunova–Levin and ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex functions using a fractional integral operator associated with the Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative. This study uses a non-singular kernel and constructs some new theorems associated with fractional order integrals. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the obtained results are a generalization of the existing ones. To demonstrate the correctness of these results, we developed a few interesting non-trivial examples. Finally, we discuss some applications of our findings associated with special means.

1. Introduction

Fractional calculus has grown exponentially in popularity, which enables the definition of fractional derivatives and fractional integrals in a variety of ways. It is worth noting that Leibniz and L’Hospital proposed the first fractional calculus idea in 1695. The origins and principles of fractional calculus have recently been the subject of intense research, particularly in light of the shortcomings of conventional calculus. The study of fractional order integrals and derivatives, as well as their applications in real and complex domains, is the focus of fractional calculus. Classical analysis arithmetic is required to generate more realistic results with fractional analysis. A variety of mathematical models can be solved using fractional differential equations and integral equations. Because they are special instances of fractional order mathematical models, mathematical models with fractional order have more broad and accurate conclusions than conventional mathematical models. In contrast to integer orders, fractional theory allows for the handling of any number of orders, real or integer, making it a more suitable method. We can calculate the precise stability and uniqueness of fractional differential equations using fractional integral inequalities. In today’s world, almost no field of nonlinear disciplines or research is unaffected by fractional methods and instruments. Various fields of engineering have numerous applications, such as electrical engineering, control theory, mechanical engineering, viscoelasticity, rheology, optics, and physics; see Refs. [1,2,3,4].
A variety of methods and creative concepts are employed by researchers to generalize and extend the theory of convexity. There have been many developments, generalizations, and extensions of convexity in recent years, enabling us to solve problems arising both with concrete and applied sciences. In recent years, the study of convexity has been increasingly broadened by its relation to inequalities. There are numerous such inequalities reported in the literature as a result of applications of convexity in both pure and applied sciences. As a result of its many applications in mathematics, convexity is often used as the basis for estimating error bounds for a wide variety of problems; see Ref. [5]. An example of this is when the trapezoidal formula for numerical integration is used to estimate errors due to convexity; see Ref. [6]. Among others, nonlinear programming problems can be applied to special means; see Ref. [7]. As a result of Jensen’s discovery of the first convex inequality, a long history of research has been conducted on convex inequalities. Convex inequalities have found applications in solving problems, optimizing, and theorizing probability. On the other hand, generalized convexity mapping can address a wide range of issues in both pure and nonlinear analysis. Consequently, it is possible to compare the Hermite–Hadamard inequality to a convex function that satisfies generalised convexity. Various inequalities are constructed by using related classes of convexity, such as Simpson, Ostrowski, Opial, Bullen, and the famous Hermite–Hadamard, which has been extended to various classes. There are a wide variety of convex classes and integral operators used in the construction of these inequality, including the standard Riemann integral, Caputo–Fabrizio, Riemann–Liouville, and k-fractional operators. Caputo fractional derivatives were first introduced by Michele Caputo in 1967; see Ref. [8]. As the kernel in the Caputo operator is not singular, it can be transformed into an integral using the Laplace transformation. The Caputo derivatives and integrals are generally used when physical models are presented because the physical interpretation is too clear and precise. The integral operator has recently been associated with integral inequalities, and several authors have utilized this notion and developed different inequalities using related classes of convexity. Butt et al. [9] have developed various inequalities using the Caputo–Fabrizio operater via exponetially convex mappings. As a result of the Caputo operator, Kemali et al. [10] proved some modified version of the famous double inequality for s-convex functions. A generalized form of these inequalities was provided by Abbasi and his colleagues for s-convex functions using a Caputo–Fabrizio integral operator, as well as bounds for the inequalities; see Ref. [11]. Gurbuz et al. [12] used convex mappings to create Hermite–Hadamard inequalities. Sahoo et al. [13,14] developed Hermite–Hadamard and midpoint inequalities via Caputo–Fabrizio operator. Nwaeze et al. [15] established these inequalities using strongly convex mappings. Utilizing h-convexity, Cortez et al. [16] created Hermite–Hadamard Mercer-type inequalities using the Caputo–Fabrizio operator. Tariq et al. [17] developed some new integral inequalities of the Hermite–Hadamard and Pachpatte types that incorporate the concept of preinvexity and Caputo–Fabrizio fractional integral operators. Nosheen et al. [18] developed several new integral inequalities involving the digamma function and special means for ( s , m ) -convex functions using Caputo fractional derivatives. Zhang et al. [19] presents a generalization of the Hermite–Hadamard-type inequalities for ( p , h ) -convex functions via the Caputo–Fabrizio fractional integral operator. Nasir et al. [20] developed bounds and novel connections for Hermite–Hadamard type inequalities for differentiable maps whose derivatives at certain powers are s-convex via the Caputo–Fabrizio operator. For some recent developments related to developed inequalities; see Refs. [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37].
Using the Riemann integral operator, Afzal and his colleagues developed Jensen and Hermite–Hadamard type inequalities using h-Godunova–Levin and ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex functions; see Refs. [38,39].
Theorem 1
(see [38]). Let h : ( 0 , 1 ) R + and h 1 2 0 . Let S : I = [ u , v ] R I + be an CR interval-valued h-Godunova–Levin function defined on [ u , v ] and S L 1 [ u , v ] ; then, one has
h 1 2 2 S u + v 2 CR 1 v u u v S ( i ) d i CR ( S ( u ) + S ( v ) ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) .
Theorem 2
(see [39]). Let h 1 , h 2 : ( 0 , 1 ) R + and H 1 2 , 1 2 0 . Let S : I = [ u , v ] R I + be an CR interval-valued ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex function defined on [ u , v ] and S L 1 [ u , v ] ; then, one has
1 2 H 1 2 , 1 2 S u + v 2 CR 1 v u u v S ( i ) d i CR ( S ( u ) + S ( v ) ) 0 1 H ( c , 1 c ) d c .
As a result of studying the Strong literature and specific articles [12,39,40], we reformulated the above two results based on Caputo–Fabrizio fractional integral operators.
This work is significant and novel because it is the first time we have developed these inequalities using Caputo–Fabrizio fractional integral operators for h-Godunova–Levin and ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex functions. These two classes of convexties are remarkable for the fact that they generalize several other related classes of convexities by setting some suitable parameters. In addition, we provide some remarks to show how our results generalize several existing findings. Moreover, we know that Godunova–Levin functions are extremely interesting; in that class, we have non-negative monotone and non-negative convex functions that are rarely used compared with classical convexity, so we hope these results will inspire readers to apply them to other approaches in the future. Furthermore, here are some other interesting properties that relate to the Godunova–Levin functions; see Refs. [41,42,43,44].
The paper structure consists of the following components: In Section 2, we begin with some known definitions and results that assist in proving the main findings of the paper. As discussed in Section 3, we developed some new variants of the Hermite–Hadamard type of inequalities involving h-Godunova–Levin functions. In Section 4, we introduced a more generalized type of convexity called ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex functions. We used these functions to develop some variants of Hermite–Hadamard inequality involving Caputo–Fabrizio fractional operators. The purpose of Section 5 is to link our above results developed by the h-Godunova–Levin class of convexity to some applications to special means. In Section 6, we summarize our main findings and their applications. We also discuss future directions based on these new results. This structured organization presents an in-depth analysis of the introduced operators, establishes new inequalities, shows applications, and explores interesting results.

2. Preliminaries

The purpose of this section is to present some known definitions and results that can assist in proving the main findings of the article.
Definition 1
(see [38]). (Convex function). Let S : υ R defined on convex set υ R n ; then, S is called to be convex if
S ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) c S ( u ) + ( 1 c ) S ( v ) ,
holds for all u , v υ and c ( 0 , 1 ) .
Definition 2
(see [38]). (h-convex function).Consider two non-negative functions h , S such that h : υ R R and S : I R R ; then, S is called to be h-convex if
S ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) h ( c ) S ( u ) + h ( 1 c ) S ( v ) ,
holds for all u , v υ and c [ 0 , 1 ] .
Definition 3
(see [38]). (h-Godunova–Levin function).Consider two non-negative functions h , S such that h : υ R R and S : I R R ; then, S is known as h-Godunova–Levin if
S ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) S ( u ) h ( c ) + S ( v ) h ( 1 c ) ,
holds for all u , v υ and c ( 0 , 1 ) .
If inequality (3) is altered, then mapping is considered to be in concave sense. The family of all convex (concave) h-Godunova–Levin functions are represented by S G X ( h , υ ) , S G V ( h , υ ) , respectively.
Definition 4
(see [39]). ( ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex function). Consider non-negative functions h 1 , h 2 , S such that h 1 , h 2 : υ R R and S : I R R ; then, S is called to be ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex if
S ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) h 1 ( c ) h 2 ( 1 c ) S ( u ) + h 1 ( 1 c ) h 2 ( c ) S ( v ) ,
holds for all u , v υ and c [ 0 , 1 ] .
Definition 5
(see [12]). (Caputo–Fabrizio fractional time derivative). The Caputo derivative of order ε for any arbitrary function S can be defined as
D t ε S ( t ) = 1 Γ ( 1 ε ) u t S ( i ) ( t i ) ε d i ,
and u [ , t ) , S H 1 ( u , v ) , u < v . H 1 ( u , v ) is class of first order differentiable function with ε ( 0 , 1 ) . By changing this factor 1 Γ ( 1 ε ) with B ( ε ) 1 ε and kernel ( t i ) ε with the following exponential function e ε ( t i ) ε 1 ε , where B ( ε ) > 0 is a normalization function that is equally spaced with B ( 0 ) = B ( 1 ) = 1 , we obtained modified version of fractional time derivative
( D t ε S ) ( t ) = B ( ε ) 1 ε u t S ( i ) e ε ( t i ) ε 1 ε d i ,
Definition 6
(see [12]). Let S H 1 ( u , v ) , u < v , ε ( 0 , 1 ) ; then, the left version of Caputo–Fabrizio derivative is defined as follows:
u C F C D ε S ( t ) = B ( ε ) 1 ε u k S ( i ) e ε ( t i ) ε 1 ε d i ,
As a result, the integral associated with this fractional derivative is
u C F I ε S ( t ) = 1 ε B ( ε ) S ( t ) + ε B ( ε ) u t S ( i ) d i .
We have now defined the right Caputo–Fabrizio fractional derivative as follows:
C F C D v ε S ( t ) = B ( ε ) 1 ε t v S ( i ) e ε ( i t ) ε 1 ε d i ,
and the integral associated with this fractional derivative is
C F I v ε S ( t ) = 1 ε B ( ε ) S ( t ) + ε B ( ε ) k v S ( i ) d i .
There have been recent attempts to generalize existing kernels using fractional derivative operators and integral operators. By extending a Caputo–Fabrizio fractional integral operator, we will generalize the kernel that Dragomir and Agarwal proposed; see Ref. [45].
Lemma 1.
Let S : υ ˚ R R be a differentiable mapping on υ ˚ and u , v υ with u < v . If S L 1 [ u , v ] and c ( 0 , 1 ) ; then, we have
S ( u ) + S ( v ) 2 1 v u u v S i d i = v u 2 0 1 ( 1 2 c ) S ( c u ( 1 c ) v ) d c .
Lemma 2
(see [12]). Let S : υ ˚ R R be a differentiable mapping on υ ˚ and u , v υ with u < v . If S L 1 [ u , v ] and ε ( 0 , 1 ) ; then, we have
v u 2 0 1 ( 1 2 c ) S ( c u ( 1 c ) v ) d c 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S ( k ) = S ( u ) + S ( v ) 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) .
where k [ u , v ] and B ( ε ) > 0 is a normalization function.
Theorem 3
(Hölder inequality see [46]). Let p > 1 and 1 / p + 1 / q = 1 . If S and G are real-valued mappings defined on [ u , v ] with S p , G q are integrable functions on [ u , v ] , then
u v S ( x ) G ( x ) d x u v S ( x ) p d x 1 / p u v G ( x ) q d x 1 / q .

3. Hermite–Hadamard Inequality via H-Godunova–Levin Functions Involving Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Operator

As part of this section, we used a concept of Godunova–Levin mappings and developed some new variants of Hermite–Hadamard inequalities using Caputo–Fabrizio fractional operators.
Theorem 4.
Let S : I = [ u , v ] R be an h-Godunova–Levin function defined on [ u , v ] and S L 1 [ u , v ] . If ε ( 0 , 1 ) , then we have
h 1 2 2 S u + v 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S ( k ) ( S ( u ) + S ( v ) ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) ,
where k [ u , v ] and B ( ε ) > 0 is a normalization function.
Proof. 
The Hermite–Hadamard inequality for h-Godunova–Levin function is as follows:
h 1 2 2 S u + v 2 1 v u u v S ( i ) d i ( S ( u ) + S ( v ) ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) .
Since S is h-Godunova–Levin function on [ u , v ] , we have
2 h 1 2 2 S u + v 2 2 v u u v S ( i ) d i = 2 v u u k S ( i ) d i + k v S ( i ) d i .
Multiplying both sides of (15) by ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) and adding 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S ( k ) , we get
2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S ( k ) + ε ( v u ) B ( ε ) h 1 2 2 S u + v 2 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S ( k ) + ε B ( ε ) u k S ( i ) d i + k v S ( i ) d i = ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S ( k ) + ε B ( ε ) u k S ( i ) d i + ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S ( k ) + ε B ( ε ) k v S ( i ) d i = u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) .
We obtain the first part after appropriately rearranging (16). Let us prove the right side of required result. The Hermite–Hadamard inequality for h-Godunova–Levin function is
2 v u u v S ( i ) d i 2 ( S ( u ) + S ( v ) ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) , 2 v u u k S ( i ) d i + k v S ( i ) d i 2 ( S ( u ) + S ( v ) ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) .
We have achieved this by employing the same operator as with (15) in (17); we have
u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S ( k ) + ε ( v u ) B ( ε ) S ( u ) + S ( v ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) .
As a result of rearranging (18), we obtain the required output that is
h 1 2 2 S u + v 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S ( k ) ( S ( u ) + S ( v ) ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) .
Example 1.
Consider [ u , v ] = [ 0 , 1 ] , h ( c ) = 1 c with B ( ε ) = 1 and for all c ( 0 , 1 ) . If S : [ u , v ] R + is defined as
S ( c ) = c 2
then
h 1 2 2 S u + v 2 = 1 4 , B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S ( k ) = 1 3 , ( S ( u ) + S ( v ) ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) = 1 2 .
Consequently,
1 4 1 3 1 2 .
This verifies above Theorem.
The following remark proves that our result is a generalization of an existing result.
Remark 1.
(i) 
Taking h ( c ) = 1 c in above result, we obtain [12] [Theorem 2].
(ii) 
Taking h ( c ) = c s in above result with ε = 1 , we obtain [47] [Theorem 2.1].
(iii) 
Taking h ( c ) = 1 in above result with ε = 1 , we obtain [48] [Theorem 1].
Theorem 5.
Let S 1 , S 2 : I R R be two h-Godunova–Levin functions on I . If S 1 S 2 L 1 ( [ u , v ] ) ; then, we have the following inequality:
2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) 2 0 1 d c ( h ( c ) ) 2 M ( u , v ) + 2 0 1 d c h ( c ) h ( 1 c ) N ( u , v ) ,
where
M ( u , v ) = S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( u ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( v ) ,
and
N ( u , v ) = S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( v ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( u ) .
Proof. 
By definition of h-Godunova–Levin, we have
S 1 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) S 1 ( u ) h ( c ) + S 1 ( v ) h ( 1 c ) , c ( 0 , 1 ) , u , v I ,
and
S 2 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) S 2 ( u ) h ( c ) + S 2 ( v ) h ( 1 c ) , c ( 0 , 1 ) , u , v I .
Multiplying both sides of (21) and (22), we have
S 1 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) S 2 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( u ) h ( c ) 2 + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( v ) h ( 1 c ) 2 + S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( v ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( u ) h ( c ) h 1 c .
Integrating (23) and changing variables, we obtain
1 v u u v S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( u ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) 2 + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( v ) 0 1 d c h ( 1 c ) 2 + S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( v ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( u ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) h 1 c ,
which implies
2 v u u k S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i + k v S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i 2 0 1 d c h ( c ) 2 S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( u ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( v ) + 0 1 d c h ( c ) h 1 c S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( v ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( u ) 2 0 1 d c h ( c ) 2 M ( u , v ) + 0 1 d c h ( c ) h 1 c N ( u , v ) .
Multiplying both sides of (24) by ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) and adding 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) , we obtain
ε B ( ε ) u k S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i + k v S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i + 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) ε ( v u ) B ( ε ) 2 0 1 d c h ( c ) 2 M ( u , v ) + 2 0 1 d c h ( c ) h 1 c N ( u , v ) + 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) .
Thus,
u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) ε ( v u ) B ( ε ) 2 0 1 d c h ( c ) 2 M ( u , v ) + 2 0 1 d c h ( c ) h 1 c N ( u , v ) + 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) .
As a result of rearranging (26), we obtain the required output that is
2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) 2 0 1 d c ( h ( c ) ) 2 M ( u , v ) + 2 0 1 d c h ( c ) h ( 1 c ) N ( u , v ) .
Example 2.
Consider [ u , v ] = [ 0 , 1 ] , h ( c ) = 1 c with B ( ε ) = 1 and for all c ( 0 , 1 ) . If S 1 , S 2 : [ u , v ] R + are defined as
S 1 ( c ) = c 2 and S 2 ( c ) = 2 c 2 + 1 ,
then
2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) = 22 15 , 2 0 1 d c ( h ( c ) ) 2 M ( u , v ) + 2 0 1 d c h ( c ) h ( 1 c ) N ( u , v ) = 7 3 .
Consequently,
22 15 7 3 .
This verifies above Theorem.
Theorem 6.
Let S 1 , S 2 : J R R be two h-Godunova–Levin functions on J. If S 1 S 2 L 1 ( [ u , v ] ) , then we have the following inequality:
h ( 1 2 ) 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) M ( u , v ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) h 1 c + 1 2 N ( u , v ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) 2 + h ( 1 c ) 2 ,
Proof. 
By definition of h-Godunova–Levin, we have
S 1 u + v 2 S 1 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) h 1 2 + S 1 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) h 1 2 ,
and
S 2 u + v 2 S 2 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) h 1 2 + S 2 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) h 1 2 .
Multiplying both sides of (29) and (30), we have
S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 1 h 1 2 2 [ S 1 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) S 2 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) + S 1 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) S 2 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) + S 1 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) S 2 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) + S 1 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) S 2 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) ] 1 h 1 2 2 S 1 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) S 2 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) + S 1 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) S 2 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) + 2 h ( c ) h ( 1 c ) S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( u ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( v ) + S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( v ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( u ) ( h ( c ) ) 2 + ( h ( 1 c ) ) 2 .
Integrating (31) and changing variables, we have
S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 1 h 1 2 2 2 v u u v S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i + 2 M ( u , v ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) h ( 1 c ) + N ( u , v ) 0 1 d c ( h ( c ) ) 2 + ( h ( 1 c ) ) 2 .
Multiplying both sides of (32) by ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) and subtracting 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) , we obtain
ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) h 1 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) ε B ( ε ) u v S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i + ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) 2 M ( u , v ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) h 1 c + N ( u , v ) 0 1 d c ( h ( c ) ) 2 + ( h ( 1 c ) ) 2 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) .
Thus,
ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) h 1 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) ε B ( ε ) u k S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i + k v S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) 2 M ( u , v ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) h 1 c + N ( u , v ) 0 1 d c ( h ( c ) ) 2 + ( h ( 1 c ) ) 2 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) .
This implies that
ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) h 1 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) 2 M ( u , v ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) h 1 c + N ( u , v ) 0 1 d c ( h ( c ) ) 2 + ( h ( 1 c ) ) 2 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) .
Multiplying (35) by 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) , we obtained the required output that is
h ( 1 2 ) 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) M ( u , v ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) h 1 c + 1 2 N ( u , v ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) 2 + h ( 1 c ) 2 .
Example 3.
Consider [ u , v ] = [ 0 , 1 ] , h ( c ) = c with B ( ε ) = 1 and for all c ( 0 , 1 ) . If S 1 , S 2 : [ u , v ] R + are defined as
S 1 ( c ) = c 2 and S 2 ( c ) = 2 c 2 + 1 ,
then
h ( 1 2 ) 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) = 23 30 , M ( u , v ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) h 1 c + 1 2 N ( u , v ) 0 1 d c h ( c ) 2 + h ( 1 c ) 2 = 13 4 .
Consequently,
23 30 13 4 .
This verifies above Theorem.

4. Hermite–Hadamard Inequality via ( H 1 , H 2 ) -Convex Functions Involving Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Operator

In this section, we used a concept of ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex mappings and developed some new variants of Hermite–Hadamard inequalities involving Caputo–Fabrizio fractional operators.
Theorem 7.
Let S : I = [ u , v ] R be an ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex function defined on [ u , v ] and S L 1 [ u , v ] . If ε ( 0 , 1 ) , then we have
1 2 H 1 2 , 1 2 S u + v 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S ( k ) ( S ( u ) + S ( v ) ) 0 1 H ( c , 1 c ) d c ,
where k [ u , v ] and B ( ε ) > 0 is a normalization function.
Proof. 
The proof is based on the same technique as the Theorem 4 and the result by Saeed et al. [39] [Theorem 4]. □
Example 4.
Consider [ u , v ] = [ 1 , 2 ] , h 1 ( c ) = c , h 2 ( c ) = 1 with B ( ε ) = 1 and for all c ( 0 , 1 ) . If S : [ u , v ] R + is defined as
S ( c ) = c 2 + 2 ,
then
1 2 H 1 2 , 1 2 S u + v 2 = 17 4 , B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S ( k ) = 13 3 , ( S ( u ) + S ( v ) ) 0 1 H ( c , 1 c ) d c = 9 2 .
Consequently,
17 4 13 3 9 2 .
This verifies above Theorem.
Theorem 8.
Let S 1 , S 2 : I R R be ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex functions on I . If S 1 S 2 L 1 ( [ u , v ] ) ; then, the following inequality holds:
2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) 2 0 1 H 2 ( c , 1 c ) d c M ( u , v ) + 2 0 1 H ( c , c ) H ( 1 c , 1 c ) d c N ( u , v ) ,
where
M ( u , v ) = S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( u ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( v ) ,
and
N ( u , v ) = S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( v ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( u ) .
Proof. 
The proof is based on the same technique as the Theorem 5 and the result by Saeed et al. [39] [Theorem 5]. □
Example 5.
Consider [ u , v ] = [ 0 , 1 ] , h 1 ( c ) = c , h 2 ( c ) = 1 with B ( ε ) = 1 and for all c ( 0 , 1 ) . If S 1 , S 2 : [ u , v ] R + are defined as
S 1 ( c ) = c 2 + 2 and S 2 ( c ) = 2 c 2 + 3 ,
then
2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) = 262 15 , 2 0 1 H 2 ( c , 1 c ) d c M ( u , v ) + 2 0 1 H ( c , c ) H ( 1 c , 1 c ) d c N ( u , v ) = 109 3 .
Consequently,
262 15 109 3 .
This verifies above Theorem.
Remark 2.
Taking h 1 ( c ) = c , h 2 ( c ) = 1 in above Theorem, we obtain [12] [Theorem 3].
Theorem 9.
Let S 1 , S 2 : J R R are two ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex functions on J. If S 1 S 2 L 1 ( [ u , v ] ) , then we have the following inequality:
1 2 H 1 2 , 1 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) M ( u , v ) 0 1 H ( c , c ) H ( 1 c , 1 c ) d c + 1 2 N ( u , v ) 0 1 H 2 ( c , 1 c ) d c ,
Proof. 
By definition of ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex function, we have
S 1 u + v 2 H 1 2 , 1 2 S 1 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) + H 1 2 , 1 2 S 1 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) ,
and
S 2 u + v 2 H 1 2 , 1 2 S 2 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) + H 1 2 , 1 2 S 2 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) .
Multiplying (40) and (41), we obtain
S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 H 1 2 , 1 2 2 [ S 1 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) S 2 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) + S 1 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) S 2 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) + S 1 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) S 2 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) + S 1 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) S 2 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) ]
H 1 2 , 1 2 2 [ S 1 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) S 2 ( ( 1 c ) u + c v ) + S 1 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) S 2 ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) + 2 H ( c , c ) H ( 1 c , 1 c ) S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( u ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( v ) + H 2 ( c , 1 c ) + H 2 ( 1 c , c ) S 1 ( u ) S 2 ( v ) + S 1 ( v ) S 2 ( u ) ] .
Integrating (42) and changing variables, we have
S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 H 1 2 , 1 2 2 2 v u u v S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i + 2 M ( u , v ) 0 1 H ( c , c ) H ( 1 c , 1 c ) d c + N ( u , v ) 0 1 H 2 ( c , 1 c ) d c .
Multiplying both sides of (43) with ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) and subtracting 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) , we obtain
ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) H 1 2 , 1 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) ε B ( ε ) u v S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i + ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) 2 M ( u , v ) 0 1 H ( c , c ) H ( 1 c , 1 c ) d c + N ( u , v ) 0 1 H 2 ( c , 1 c ) d c 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) .
Thus,
ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) H 1 2 , 1 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) ε B ( ε ) u k S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i + k v S 1 ( i ) S 2 ( i ) d i ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) [ 2 M ( u , v ) 0 1 H ( c , c ) H ( 1 c , 1 c ) d c + N ( u , v ) 0 1 H 2 ( c , 1 c ) d c ] 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) .
This implies that
ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) H 1 2 , 1 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) ε ( v u ) 2 B ( ε ) [ 2 M ( u , v ) 0 1 H ( c , c ) H ( 1 c , 1 c ) d c + N ( u , v ) 0 1 H 2 ( c , 1 c ) d c ] 2 ( 1 ε ) B ( ε ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) .
Multiplying (46) by 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) , we obtained the required output that is
1 2 H 1 2 , 1 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) M ( u , v ) 0 1 H ( c , c ) H ( 1 c , 1 c ) d c + 1 2 N ( u , v ) 0 1 H 2 ( c , 1 c ) d c .
Example 6.
Consider [ u , v ] = [ 0 , 1 ] , h 1 ( c ) = c , h 2 ( c ) = 1 with B ( ε ) = 1 and for all c ( 0 , 1 ) . If S 1 , S 2 : [ u , v ] R + are defined as
S 1 ( c ) = c 2 + 2 and S 2 ( c ) = 2 c 2 + 3 ,
then
1 2 H 1 2 , 1 2 2 S 1 u + v 2 S 2 u + v 2 B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + C F I v ε S 1 S 2 ( k ) + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S 1 ( k ) S 2 ( k ) = 63 64 , M ( u , v ) 0 1 H ( c , c ) H ( 1 c , 1 c ) d c + 1 2 N ( u , v ) 0 1 H 2 ( c , 1 c ) d c = 70 6 .
Consequently,
63 64 70 6 .
This verifies above Theorem.
Remark 3.
Taking h 1 ( c ) = c , h 2 ( c ) = 1 in above Theorem, we obtain [12] [Theorem 4].

5. Results Concerning Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Operator

In the following theorem, we present an inequality concerning Caputo–Fabrizio fractional operator in the setting of h-Godunova–Levin function.
Theorem 10.
Let S : I R R be a differentiable positive mapping on I o and S be h-Godunova–Levin on [ u , v ] where u , v I with u < v . If S L 1 [ u , v ] and ε ( 0 , 1 ) , then we have
S ( u ) + S ( v ) 2 + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S ( k ) B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) v u 2 E 1 S ( u ) + E 2 S ( v ) ,
where
E 1 = 0 1 2 1 2 c d c h ( c ) + 1 2 1 2 c 1 d c h ( c ) ,
E 2 = 0 1 2 1 2 c h ( 1 c ) d c + 1 2 1 2 c 1 d c h ( 1 c ) ,
where k [ u , v ] and B ( ε ) > 0 is a normalization function.
Proof. 
As a result of Lemma 2, and since ψ is h-Godunova–Levin, we have
S ( u ) + S ( v ) 2 + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S ( k ) B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) v u 2 0 1 1 2 c S ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) d c v u 2 0 1 1 2 c S ( u ) h ( c ) + S ( v ) h ( 1 c ) d c = v u 2 0 1 2 1 2 c S ( u ) h ( c ) + S ( v ) h ( 1 c ) d c + 1 2 1 2 c 1 S ( u ) h ( c ) + S ( v ) h ( 1 c ) d c = v u 2 S ( u ) 0 1 2 1 2 c d c h ( c ) + 1 2 1 2 c 1 d c h ( c ) + S ( v ) 0 1 2 1 2 c d c h ( 1 c ) + 1 2 1 2 c 1 d c h ( 1 c ) = v u 2 E 1 S ( u ) + E 2 S ( v ) .
This concludes the proof. □
Example 7.
Consider [ u , v ] = [ 0 , 1 ] , h ( c ) = 1 c with B ( ε ) = 1 and for all c ( 0 , 1 ) . If S : [ u , v ] R + is defined as
S ( c ) = c 2 ,
then
S ( u ) + S ( v ) 2 + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S ( k ) B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) = 1 6 ,
E 1 = 0 1 2 1 2 c d c h ( c ) + 1 2 1 2 c 1 d c h ( c ) = 1 4 ,
E 2 = 0 1 2 1 2 c h ( 1 c ) d c + 1 2 1 2 c 1 d c h ( 1 c ) = 1 4 ,
v u 2 E 1 S ( u ) + E 2 S ( v ) = 1 4 .
Consequently,
1 6 1 4 .
This verifies above Theorem.
Remark 4.
Taking h ( c ) = 1 c in above Theorem, we obtain [12] [Theorem 5].
Theorem 11.
Let S : I R R be a differentiable positive mapping on I o and S be h-Godunova–Levin on [ u , v ] where u , v I with u < v , q > 1 , 1 p + 1 q = 1 . If S L 1 [ u , v ] , and ε ( 0 , 1 ) , we have
S ( u ) + S ( v ) 2 + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S ( k ) B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) v u 2 1 p + 1 1 p S ( u ) q 0 1 d c h ( c ) + S ( v ) q 0 1 d c h ( 1 c ) 1 q ,
where k [ u , v ] and B ( ε ) > 0 is a normalization function.
Proof. 
As a result of Hölder’s inequality, Lemma 2 and the fact that S q is h-Godunova–Levin function, we have
S ( u ) + S ( v ) 2 + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S ( k ) B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) v u 2 0 1 1 2 c S ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) d c
v u 2 0 1 1 2 c p d c 1 p 0 1 S ( c u + ( 1 c ) v ) q d c 1 q = v u 2 1 p + 1 1 p S ( u ) q 0 1 d c h ( c ) + S ( v ) q 0 1 d c h ( 1 c ) 1 q .
which completes the proof. □
Example 8.
Consider [ u , v ] = [ 0 , 1 ] , h ( c ) = 1 c , p = q = 2 with B ( ε ) = 1 and for all c ( 0 , 1 ) . If S : [ u , v ] R + is defined as
S ( c ) = c 2 ,
then
S ( u ) + S ( v ) 2 + 2 ( 1 ε ) ε ( v u ) S ( k ) B ( ε ) ε ( v u ) u C F I ε S ( k ) + C F I v ε S ( k ) = 1 6 ,
v u 2 1 p + 1 1 p S ( u ) q 0 1 d c h ( c ) + S ( v ) q 0 1 d c h ( 1 c ) 1 q = 2 2 3
Consequently,
1 6 2 2 3 .
This verifies above Theorem.
Remark 5.
Taking h ( c ) = 1 c in above Theorem, we obtain [12] [Theorem 6].

Application to Means

Means play an important role in both pure and applied mathematics, especially when it comes to verifying the accuracy of results using special means for real numbers u , v such that u v . They are in the following order:
H G L I A
The arithmetic mean of any two arbitrary positive numbers, u > 0 , v > 0 is defined as
A ( u , v ) = u + v 2 , u , v R
The generalized form of logarithmic mean, is defined as follows:
L = L p p ( u , v ) = v p + 1 u p + 1 ( p + 1 ) ( v u ) ,
where
p R [ 1 , 0 ] , u , v R , u v .
Proposition 1.
Let u , v [ 0 , ) , ( u < v ) ; one has
A ( e u , e v ) L ( e u , e v ) ( v u ) 2 E 1 e u + E 2 e v .
where
E 1 = 0 1 2 1 2 c d c h ( c ) + 1 2 1 2 c 1 d c h ( c ) ,
E 2 = 0 1 2 1 2 c h ( 1 c ) d c + 1 2 1 2 c 1 d c h ( 1 c ) ,
Proof. 
In Theorem 10, if we consider S ( i ) = e x with ε = 1 and B ( ε ) = B ( 1 ) = 1 , we obtain the required output. □
Remark 6.
Taking h ( c ) = 1 c in above result, we obtain [12] [Proposition 2].
Proposition 2.
Let u , v [ 0 , ) with u < v ; one has
A ( u 2 , v 2 ) L 2 2 ( u , v ) ( v u ) E 1 u + E 2 v .
Proof. 
In Theorem 10, if we consider S ( i ) = x 2 with ε = 1 and B ( ε ) = B ( 1 ) = 1 , we obtain the required output. □
Remark 7.
Taking h ( c ) = 1 c in above result, we obtain [12] [Proposition 1].
Proposition 3.
Let u , v R + , u < v ; then, one has
A ( u n , v n ) L n n ( u , v ) n ( v u ) 2 E 1 u n 1 + E 2 v n 1 .
Proof. 
In Theorem 10, if we consider S ( i ) = x n , where n is an even number, ε = 1 and B ( ε ) = B ( 1 ) = 1 , we obtain the required output. □
Remark 8.
Taking h ( c ) = 1 c in above result, we get [12] [Proposition 3].

6. Conclusions

This paper provides some novel inequalities of the Hermite–Hadamard types based on h-Godunova–Levin and ( h 1 , h 2 ) -convex functions using Caputo–Fabrizio fractional integral operators. As mentioned in the remarks, many existing results in the literature become particular cases for these results. To demonstrate the reliability of our findings, we use examples to demonstrate their accuracy. In addition, the results associated with h-Godunova–Levin functions have some applications to special means. It would be interesting if people constructed these results using the Mittag–Leffler function as a kernel and generalized them as well as other similar results in the future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.A. and M.A.; investigation, W.A., W.H., M.D.l.S. and W.A.; methodology, W.A. and M.A.; validation, A.M.M., M.A., W.A. and W.H.; visualization, M.D.l.S., W.A. and A.M.M.; writing—original draft, W.A., M.D.l.S. and M.A.; writing—review and editing, W.A. and M.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research work was funded by the Basque Government, Grant IT 1555-22.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tarasov, V. On History of Mathematical Economics: Application of Fractional Calculus. Mathematics 2019, 7, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mainardi, F. Why the Mittag-Leffler Function Can Be Considered the Queen Function of the Fractional Calculus? Entropy 2020, 22, 1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mainardi, F. Fractional Calculus: Theory and Applications. Mathematics 2018, 6, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dianavinnarasi, J.; Raja, R.; Alzabut, J.; Niezabitowski, M.; Selvam, G.; Bagdasar, O. An LMI Approach-Based Mathematical Model to Control Aedes Aegypti Mosquitoes Population via Biological Control. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021, 2021, 5565949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Robinson, S.M. An application of error bounds for convex programming in a linear space. SIAM J. Control 1975, 13, 271–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pearce, C.E.; Pecaric, J. Inequalities for differentiable mappings with application to special means and quadrature formulae. Appl. Math. Lett. 2000, 13, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kılıçman, A.; Saleh, W. Generalized preinvex functions and their applications. Symmetry 2018, 10, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Caputo, M. Linear Models of Dissipation Whose Q Is Almost Frequency Independent–II. Geophys. J. Int. 1967, 13, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Butt, S.I.; Nadeem, M.; Farid, G. On Caputo fractional derivatives via exponential s-convex functions. Turk. J. Sci. 2020, 5, 140–146. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kemali, S.; Sezer Evcan, S.; Yesilce Isik, I.; Adilov, G. Some Integral Inequalities for the Product of S-Convex Functions in the Fourth Sense. IJNAA 2022, 13, 103–116. [Google Scholar]
  11. Abbasi, A.M.K.; Anwar, M. Hermite–Hadamard inequality involving Caputo–Fabrizio fractional integrals and related inequalities via s-convex functions in the second sense. AIMS Math. 2022, 7, 18565–18575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gurbuz, M.; Akdemir, A.O.; Rashid, S.; Set, E. Hermite–Hadamard Inequality for Fractional Integrals of Caputo–Fabrizio Type and Related Inequalities. J. Inequal. Appl. 2020, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sahoo, S.K.; Hamed, Y.S.; Mohammed, P.O.; Kodamasingh, B.; Nonlaopon, K. New Midpoint Type Hermite–Hadamard-Mercer Inequalities Pertaining to Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Operators. Alex. Eng. J. 2023, 65, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sahoo, S.K.; Mohammed, P.O.; Kodamasingh, B.; Tariq, M.; Hamed, Y.S. New Fractional Integral Inequalities for Convex Functions Pertaining to Caputo–Fabrizio Operator. Fractal Fract. 2022, 6, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nwaeze, E.R.; Kermausuor, S. Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Hermite–Hadamard Type and Associated Results for Strongly Convex Functions. J. Anal. 2021, 29, 1351–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vivas-Cortez, M.; Saleem, M.S.; Sajid, S.; Zahoor, M.S.; Kashuri, A. Hermite–Jensen–Mercer-Type Inequalities via Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Integral for h-Convex Function. Fractal Fract. 2021, 5, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tariq, M.; Ahmad, H.; Shaikh, A.G.; Sahoo, S.K.; Khedher, K.M.; Gia, T.N. New fractional integral inequalities for preinvex functions involving caputo fabrizio operator. AIMS Math. 2022, 7, 3440–3455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nosheen, A.; Tariq, M.; Khan, K.A.; Shah, N.A.; Chung, J.D. On Caputo Fractional Derivatives and Caputo–Fabrizio Integral Operators via (s,m)-Convex Functions. Fractal Fract. 2023, 7, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, D.; Saleem, M.S.; Botmart, T.; Zahoor, M.S.; Bano, R. Hermite–Hadamard-Type Inequalities for Generalized Convex Functions via the Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Integral Operator. J. Funct. Spaces 2021, 2021, 5640822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nasira, J.; Qaisarb, S.; Qayyumc, A.; Budakd, H. New results on Hermite–Hadamard type inequalities via Caputo–Fabrizio fractional integral for s-convex function. Filomat 2023, 2023, 4943–4957. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tariq, M.; Ntouyas, S.K.; Shaikh, A.A. A Comprehensive Review of the Hermite–Hadamard Inequality Pertaining to Fractional Integral Operators. Mathematics 2023, 11, 1953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Afzal, W.; Prosviryakov, E.Y.; El-Deeb, S.M.; Almalki, Y. Some New Estimates of Hermite–Hadamard, Ostrowski and Jensen-Type Inclusions for h-Convex Stochastic Process via Interval-Valued Functions. Symmetry 2023, 15, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vivas-Cortez, M.; Awan, M.U.; Javed, M.Z.; Noor, M.A.; Noor, K.I. A Study of Uniform Harmonic χ -Convex Functions with Respect to Hermite–Hadamard’s Inequality and Its Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Analogue and Applications. J. Funct. Spaces 2021, 2021, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Afzal, W.; Shabbir, K.; Botmart, T.; Treanţă, S.; Afzal, W.; Shabbir, K.; Botmart, T.; Treanţă, S. Some New Estimates of Well Known Inequalities for (h1, h2)-Godunova–Levin Functions by Means of Center-Radius Order Relation. AIMS Math 2023, 8, 3101–3119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Samraiz, M.; Perveen, Z.; Rahman, G.; Adil Khan, M.; Nisar, K.S. Hermite–Hadamard Fractional Inequalities for Differentiable Functions. Fractal Fract. 2022, 6, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chinchane, V.L.; Nale, A.B.; Panchal, S.K.; Chesneau, C. Certain Weighted Fractional Inequalities via the Caputo–Fabrizio Approach. Fractal Fract. 2022, 6, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Afzal, W.; Eldin, S.M.; Nazeer, W.; Galal, A.M.; Afzal, W.; Eldin, S.M.; Nazeer, W.; Galal, A.M. Some integral inequalities for harmonical cr-h-Godunova–Levin stochastic processes. AIMS Math 2023, 8, 13473–13491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Afzal, W.; Shabbir, K.; Arshad, M.; Asamoah, J.K.K.; Galal, A.M. Some Novel Estimates of Integral Inequalities for a Generalized Class of Harmonical Convex Mappings by Means of Center-Radius Order Relation. J. Math. 2023, 2023, 8865992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Afzal, W.; Alb Lupaş, A.; Shabbir, K. Hermite–Hadamard and Jensen-Type Inequalities for Harmonical (h1, h2)-Godunova–Levin Interval-Valued Functions. Mathematics 2022, 10, 2970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Saeed, T.; Afzal, W.; Abbas, M.; Treanţă, S.; De la Sen, M. Some New Generalizations of Integral Inequalities for Harmonical cr-(h1, h2)-Godunova–Levin Functions and Applications. Mathematics 2022, 10, 4540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Afzal, W.; Nazeer, W.; Botmart, T.; Treanţă, S. Some properties and inequalities for generalized class of harmonical Godunova–Levin function via center radius order relation. AIMS Math. 2022, 8, 1696–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tınaztepe, G.; Işık, I.Y.; Kemali, S.; Adilov, G. Certain inequalities for s-convex functions via Caputo fractional derivative and Caputo–Fabrizio integral operator. J. Math. Ext. 2021, 15. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tariq, M.; Alsalami, O.M.; Shaikh, A.A.; Nonlaopon, K.; Ntouyas, S.K. New Fractional Integral Inequalities Pertaining to Caputo–Fabrizio and Generalized Riemann–Liouville Fractional Integral Operators. Axioms 2022, 11, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Afzal, W.; Botmart, T.; Afzal, W.; Botmart, T. Some Novel Estimates of Jensen and Hermite-Hadamard Inequalities for h-Godunova–Levin Stochastic Processes. AIMS Math 2023, 8, 7277–7291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Atangana, A.; Alqahtani, R.T. Numerical Approximation of the Space-Time Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Derivative and Application to Groundwater Pollution Equation. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2016, 2016, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, X.; Saleem, M.S.; Aslam, K.N.; Wu, X.; Zhou, T. On Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Integral Inequalities of Hermite–Hadamard Type for Modified h-Convex Functions. J. Math. 2020, 2020, 8829140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Abbas, M.; Afzal, W.; Botmart, T.; Galal, A.M.; Abbas, M.; Afzal, W.; Botmart, T.; Galal, A.M. Jensen, Ostrowski and Hermite–Hadamard Type Inequalities for h-Convex Stochastic Processes by Means of Center-Radius Order Relation. AIMS Math 2023, 8, 16013–16030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Afzal, W.; Abbas, M.; Macías-Díaz, J.E.; Treanţă, S. Some H-Godunova–Levin Function Inequalities Using Center Radius (Cr) Order Relation. Fractal Fract. 2022, 6, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Saeed, T.; Afzal, W.; Shabbir, K.; Treanţă, S.; De La Sen, M. Some Novel Estimates of Hermite–Hadamard and Jensen Type Inequalities for (h1, h2)-Convex Functions Pertaining to Total Order Relation. Mathematics 2022, 10, 4777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, X.; Shabbir, K.; Afzal, W.; Xiao, H.; Lin, D. Hermite–Hadamard and Jensen-Type Inequalities via Riemann Integral Operator for a Generalized Class of Godunova–Levin Functions. J. Math. 2022, 2022, e3830324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dragomir, S.S. Double Integral Inequalities of Hermite–Hadamard Type for h-Convex Functions on Linear Spaces. Analysis 2017, 37, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Afzal, W.; Shabbir, K.; Botmart, T. Generalized version of Jensen and Hermite-Hadamard inequalities for interval-valued (h1, h2)-Godunova–Levin functions. AIMS Math. 2022, 7, 19372–19387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Özdemir, M.E. Some Inequalities for the s-Godunova–Levin type functions. Math. Sci. 2015, 9, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Afzal, W.; Abbas, M.; Eldin, S.M.; Khan, Z.A.; Afzal, W.; Abbas, M.; Eldin, S.M.; Khan, Z.A. Some Well Known Inequalities for (h1, h2)-Convex Stochastic Process via Interval Set Inclusion Relation. AIMS Math 2023, 8, 19913–19932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dragomir, S.S.; Agarwal, R. Two inequalities for differentiable mappings and applications to special means of real numbers and to trapezoidal formula. Appl. Math. Lett. 1198, 11, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mitrinović, D.S.; Pečarić, J.E.; Fink, A.M. Classical and New Inequalities in Analysis; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  47. Dragomir, S.S.; Fitzpatrick, S. The Hadamard inequalities for s-convex functions in the second sense. Demonstr. Math. 1999, 32, 687–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dragomir, S.S.; Pecaric, J.; Persson, L.E. Some inequalities of Hadamard type. Soochow J. Math. 1995, 21, 335–341. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Afzal, W.; Abbas, M.; Hamali, W.; Mahnashi, A.M.; Sen, M.D.l. Hermite–Hadamard-Type Inequalities via Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Integral for h-Godunova–Levin and (h1, h2)-Convex Functions. Fractal Fract. 2023, 7, 687. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7090687

AMA Style

Afzal W, Abbas M, Hamali W, Mahnashi AM, Sen MDl. Hermite–Hadamard-Type Inequalities via Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Integral for h-Godunova–Levin and (h1, h2)-Convex Functions. Fractal and Fractional. 2023; 7(9):687. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7090687

Chicago/Turabian Style

Afzal, Waqar, Mujahid Abbas, Waleed Hamali, Ali M. Mahnashi, and M. De la Sen. 2023. "Hermite–Hadamard-Type Inequalities via Caputo–Fabrizio Fractional Integral for h-Godunova–Levin and (h1, h2)-Convex Functions" Fractal and Fractional 7, no. 9: 687. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7090687

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop