Abstract
Suppose that in a real Hilbert space H, the variational inequality problem with Lipschitzian and pseudomonotone mapping A and the common fixed-point problem of a finite family of nonexpansive mappings and a quasi-nonexpansive mapping with a demiclosedness property are represented by the notations VIP and CFPP, respectively. In this article, we suggest two Mann-type inertial subgradient extragradient iterations for finding a common solution of the VIP and CFPP. Our iterative schemes require only calculating one projection onto the feasible set for every iteration, and the strong convergence theorems are established without the assumption of sequentially weak continuity for A. Finally, in order to support the applicability and implementability of our algorithms, we make use of our main results to solve the VIP and CFPP in two illustrating examples.
Keywords:
Mann-type inertial subgradient extragradient rule; variational inequality problem; pseudomonotone mapping; Nonexpansive and quasi-nonexpansive mappings; common fixed point MSC:
47H09; 47H10; 47J20; 47J25
1. Introduction
In a real Hilbert space (), equipped with the inner product , we assume that C is a nonempty closed convex subset and is the metric projection of H onto C. If is a mapping on C, then we denote by the fixed-point set of S. Moreover, we denote by the set of all real numbers. Given a mapping . Consider the classical variational inequality problem (VIP) of finding such that for all . We denote by VI() the solution set of the VIP.
To the best of our knowledge, one of the most efficient methods to deal with the VIP is the extragradient method invented by Korpelevich [1] in 1976, that is, for any given , is the sequence constructed by
with constant . If , one knows that this method has only weak convergence, and only requires that A is monotone and L-Lipschitzian. The literature on the VIP is vast, and Korpelevich’s extragradient method has received great attention from many authors, who improved it via various approaches so that some new iterative methods happen to solve the VIP and related optimization problems; see, e.g., [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12] and the references therein, to name but a few.
It is worth pointing out that the extragradient method needs to calculate two projections onto the feasible set C per iteration. Without question, once one is hard to calculate the projection onto C, the minimum distance problem has to be solved twice per iteration. This perhaps affects the applicability and implementability of the method. To improve Algorithm 1, one has to reduce the number of projections per iteration. In 2011, Censor et al. [13] first suggested the subgradient extragradient method, in which the second projection onto C is replaced by a projection onto a half-space:
where A is a L-Lipschitzian monotone mapping and .
Since then, various modified extragradient-like iterative methods have been investigated by many researchers; see, e.g., [14,15,16,17,18,19]. In 2014, combining the subgradient extragradient method and Halpern’s iteration method, Kraikaew and Saejung [20] proposed the Halpern subgradient extragradient method for solving the VIP, that is, for any given , is the sequence constructed by
where and . They proved the strong convergence of to .
In 2018, Thong and Hieu [21] first suggested the inertial subgradient extragradient method, that is, for any given , the sequence is generated by
with constant . Under suitable conditions, they proved the weak convergence of to an element of . Later, Thong and Hieu [22] designed two inertial subgradient extragradient algorithms with linesearch process for solving a VIP with monotone and Lipschitz continuous mapping A and a FPP of quasi-nonexpansive mapping T with a demiclosedness property in H. Under appropriate conditions, they established the weak convergence results for the suggested algorithms.
Suppose that the notations VIP and CFPP represent a variational inequality problem with Lipschitzian and pseudomonotone mapping and a common fixed-point problem of finitely many nonexpansive mappings and a quasi-nonexpansive mapping T with a demiclosedness property, respectively. Inspired by the research works above, we design two Mann-type inertial subgradient extragradient iterations for finding a common solution of the VIP and CFPP. Our algorithms require only computing one projection onto the feasible set C per iteration, and the strong convergence theorems are established without the assumption of sequentially weak continuity for A on C. Finally, in order to support the applicability and implementability of our algorithms, we make use of our main results to solve the VIP and CFPP in two illustrating examples.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we recall some definitions and preliminaries for the sequel use. Section 3 deals with the convergence analysis of the proposed algorithms. Finally, in Section 4, in order to support the applicability and implementability of our algorithms, we make use of our main results to find a common solution of the VIP and CFPP in two illustrating examples.
2. Preliminaries
Throughout this paper, we assume that C is a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. If is a sequence in H, then we denote by (respectively, ) the strong (respectively, weak) convergence of to u. A mapping is said to be nonexpansive if . Recall also that is called
- (i)
- L-Lipschitz continuous (or L-Lipschitzian) if such that ;
- (ii)
- monotone if ;
- (iii)
- pseudomonotone if ;
- (iv)
- -strongly monotone if such that ;
- (v)
- quasi-nonexpansive if , and ;
- (vi)
- sequentially weakly continuous on C if for , the relation holds: .
It is clear that every monotone operator is pseudomonotone, but the converse is not true. Next, we provide an example of a quasi-nonexpansive mapping which is not nonexpansive.
Example 1.
Let with the inner product and induced norm . Let be defined as . It is clear that and T is quasi-nonexpansive. However, we claim that T is not nonexpansive. Indeed, putting and , we have .
Definition 1
([23]). Assume that is a nonlinear operator with . Then is said to be demiclosed at zero if for any in H, the implication holds: and .
Very recently, Thong and Hieu gave an example to illustrate that there exists a quasi-nonexpansive mapping T, but is not demiclosed at zero; see ([22], Example 2). For each , we know that there exists a unique nearest point in C, denoted by , such that . is called a metric projection of H onto C.
Lemma 1
([23]). The following hold:
- (i)
- ;
- (ii)
- ;
- (iii)
- ;
- (iv)
- ;
- (v)
- .
Lemma 2
([24]). For all and , the inequalities hold: and .
Lemma 3
([13]). Suppose that is pseudomonotone and continuous. Then is a solution to the VIP , if and only if .
Lemma 4
([25]). Suppose that is a sequence of nonnegative numbers satisfying the conditions: , where and lie in such that (i) and , and (ii) or . Then .
Lemma 5
([23]). Suppose that is a nonexpansive mapping with . Then is demiclosed at zero, that is, if is a sequence in C such that and , then , where I is the identity mapping of H.
Lemma 6
([25]). Suppose that , is a nonexpansive mapping, and the mapping is defined as , where is κ-Lipschitzian and η-strongly monotone. Then is a contraction provided , that is, , where .
Lemma 7
([26]). Suppose that is a sequence of real numbers that does not decrease at infinity in the sense that there exists a subsequence of which satisfies for each integer . Define the sequence of integers as follows:
where integer such that . Then, the following conclusions hold:
- (i)
- and ;
- (ii)
- and .
3. Iterative Algorithms and Convergence Criteria
In this section, let the feasible set C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H, and assume always that the following hold:
is nonexpansive for and is a quasi-nonexpansive mapping such that is demiclosed at zero;
is L-Lipschitz continuous, pseudomonotone on H, and satisfies the condition that for , ;
with ;
is a contraction with constant , and is -strongly monotone and -Lipschitzian such that for ; , and are such that
- (i)
- and ;
- (ii)
- and , i.e., ;
- (iii)
- and .
In addition, we write for integer with the mod function taking values in the set , i.e., if for some integers and , then if and if .
Algorithm 1. Initialization: Let and be arbitrary.
Iterative Steps: Calculate as follows:
Step 1. Given the iterates and , choose such that , where
Step 2. Compute and .
Step 3. Construct the half-space , and compute .
Step 4. Calculate and , and update
Let and return to Step 1.
Remark 1.
It is easy to see that, from (5) we get . Indeed, we have , which together with implies that as .
Lemma 8.
Let be generated by (6). Then is a nonincreasing sequence with , and .
Proof.
First, from (6) it is clear that . Furthermore, observe that
□
Remark 2.
In terms of Lemmas 2 and 8, we claim that if or , then is an element of . Indeed, if or , then . Thus, the assertion is valid.
The following lemmas are quite helpful for the convergence analysis of our algorithms.
Lemma 9.
Let be the sequences generated by Algorithm 1. Then
Proof.
First, by the definition of we claim that
Indeed, if , then inequality (8) holds. Otherwise, from (6) we get (8). Furthermore, observe that for each ,
which hence yields
From , we get . By the pseudomonotonicity of A on C we have . Putting we get . Thus,
Substituting (10) for (9), we obtain
Since , we get , and hence
which together with (8), implies that
Therefore, substituting the last inequality for (11), we infer that inequality (7) holds. □
Lemma 10.
Suppose that , and are bounded sequences generated by Algorithm 1. If , and s.t. , then .
Proof.
Utilizing the similar arguments to those in the proof of Lemma 3.3 of [12], we can derive the desired result. □
Lemma 11.
Assume that are the sequences generated by Algorithm 1. Then they all are bounded.
Proof.
Since and , we may assume, without loss of generality, that
Choose a fixed arbitrarily. Then we obtain and for all , and (7) holds. Noticing , we might assume that for all . So it follows from (7) that for all ,
Furthermore, note that
In terms of Remark 1, one has as . Hence we deduce that s.t.
Using (13)–(15), we obtain that for all ,
Noticing , we have for all . So, using Lemma 6 and (16) we deduce that
and hence
By induction, we obtain . Thus, is bounded, and so are the sequences . □
Theorem 1.
Let the sequence be constructed by Algorithm 1. Then converges strongly to the unique solution of the following VIP:
Proof.
First, it is not difficult to show that is a contraction. In fact, by Lemma 6 and the Banach contraction mapping principle, we obtain that has a unique fixed point. Say , i.e., . Thus, the following VIP has only a solution :
□
We now claim that
for some . In fact, observe that
Using Lemma 6 and the convexity of the function , we have
where for some . From (7) and (17), we have
Again from (16), we obtain
where for some . Using (19) and (20), we get
where . Consequently,
Next we claim that
for some . In fact, it is easy to see that
Using (16), (18), and (22), we get
where for some .
For each , we set
Then (23) can be rewritten as the following formula:
We next show the convergence of to zero by the following two cases:
Case 1.Suppose that there exists an integer such that is non-increasing. Then
From (21), we get
Since and , we have
Using Lemma 1 (v), we deduce from (16) that
which immediately yields
Since , and , we have
Using Lemma 1 (v) again, we have
So it follows from (26) and that
Therefore, from (25)–(27), we conclude that
and
Next, by the boundedness of , we know that s.t.
Further we might assume that . So, from (31) we have
Noticing and , we obtain . Since (due to (25) and (28)–(30)) and , by Lemma 10 we get . So it follows from (17) and (32) that
which hence yields
Since , and
by Lemma 4 we conclude from (23) that .
Case 2.Suppose that s.t. , where is the set of all positive integers. Define the mapping by
Using Lemma 7, we have
Putting and using the same inference as in Case 1, we can obtain
and
Because of and , we conclude from (23) that
and hence
Thus, we have
Using (35), we obtain
Taking into account , we have
It is easy to see from (35) that as . This completes the proof.
Next, we introduce another Mann-type inertial subgradient extragradient algorithm.
Algorithm 2. Initialization: Let and be arbitrary.
Iterative Steps: Calculate as follows:
Step 1. Given the iterates and , choose such that , where
Step 2. Compute and .
Step 3. Construct the half-space , and compute .
Step 4. Calculate and , and update
Let and return to Step 1.
It is worth pointing out that Lemmas 8–11 are still valid for Algorithm 2.
Theorem 2.
Let the sequence be constructed by Algorithm 2. Then converges strongly to the unique solution of the following VIP:
Proof.
Utilizing the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 1, we deduce that there exists a unique solution to the VIP (17). □
We now claim that
for some . In fact, observe that
where . Using the similar arguments to those of (19) and (20), we have
and
where for some and for some . Combining the last inequalities, we obtain
where . This ensures that (39) holds.
Next we claim that
for some . In fact, using the similar arguments to those of (22) and (23), we have
and
where for some .
For each , we set
Then (41) can be rewritten as the following formula:
We next show the convergence of to zero by the following two cases:
Case 3.Suppose that there exists an integer such that is non-increasing. Then
Using the similar arguments to those of (25), we have
Using Lemma 1 (v), we get
which immediately yields
Since and , we have
Note that
Hence, from (44) we have
So, from (43)–(45) we infer that
and
In addition, using the similar arguments to those of (33) and (34), we have
and hence
Consequently, applying Lemma 4 to (41), we have .
Case 4.Suppose that s.t. , where is the set of all positive integers. Define the mapping by In the remainder of the proof, using the same arguments as in Case 2 of the proof of Theorem 1, we obtain the desired assertion. This completes the proof.
It is markable that our results improve and extend the corresponding results of Kraikaew and Saejung [20] and Ceng et al. [11], in the following aspects.
(i) Our problem of finding an element of includes as a special case the problem of finding an element of in [20], where are nonexpansive and is quasi-nonexpansive. It is worth mentioning that Halpern’s subgradient extragradient method for solving the VIP in [20] is extended to develop our Mann-type inertial subgradient extragradient rule for solving the VIP and CFPP, in which A is L-Lipschitz continuous, pseudomonotone on H, but it is not required to be sequentially weakly continuous on C.
(ii) Our problem of finding an element of includes as a special case the problem of finding an element of in [11], where in [11], A is required to be L-Lipschitz continuous, pseudomonotone on H, and sequentially weakly continuous on C. The modified inertial subgradient extragradient method for solving the VIP and CFPP in [11] is extended to develop our Mann-type inertial subgradient extragradient rule for solving the VIP and CFPP, where is nonexpansive for and is quasi-nonexpansive.
4. Applicability and Implementability of Algorithms
In this section, in order to support the applicability and implementability of our Algorithms 1 and 2, we make use of our main results to find a common solution of the VIP and CFPP in two illustrating examples.
Example 2.
Let and with the inner product and induced norm . Let be arbitrary. Put , and
Then we know that and . For , we now present Lipschitz continuous and pseudomonotone mapping A, quasi-nonexpansive mapping T and nonexpansive mapping such that . Indeed, let be defined as and for all . We first show that A is pseudomonotone and L-Lipschitz continuous with . Indeed, it is easy to see that for all ,
and
Furthermore, it is clear that , T is quasi-nonexpansive but not nonexpansive. Meantime, is demiclosed at 0 due to the continuity of T. In addition, it is clear that is nonexpansive and . Therefore, . In this case, Algorithm 1 can be rewritten as follows:
where for each , and are chosen as in Algorithm 1. So, using Theorem 1, we know that converges to . Meanwhile, Algorithm 2 can be rewritten as follows:
where, for each , and are chosen as in Algorithm 2. So, using Theorem 2, we know that converges to .
Example 3.
Let with the inner product and induced norm defined by
respectively. Then is a Hilbert space. Let be the unit closed ball of H. It is known that
Let be arbitrary. Put , and
Then we know that and . For , we now present Lipschitz continuous and pseudomonotone mapping A, quasi-nonexpansive mapping T and nonexpansive mapping such that . Indeed, let be defined as and for all . It can be easily verified (see, e.g., [8,9]) that A is monotone and L-Lipschitz continuous with , and the solution set of the VIP for A is given by
We next show that T and are nonexpansive and . Indeed, it is easy to see that for all ,
Similarly, we get . Moreover, it is clear that . Therefore, . In this case, Algorithm 1 can be rewritten as follows:
where for each , and are chosen as in Algorithm 1. So, using Theorem 1, we know that converges strongly to . Meantime, Algorithm 2 can be rewritten as follows:
where for each , and are chosen as in Algorithm 2. So, using Theorem 2, we know that converges strongly to .
Author Contributions
All the authors contributed equally to this work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
The research of J. C. Yao was partially supported by the Grant MOST 108-2115-M-039-005-MY3.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Korpelevich, G.M. The extragradient method for finding saddle points and other problems. Ekon. Mat. Metod. 1976, 12, 747–756. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, S.Y. A monotone Bregan projection algorithm for fixed point and equilibrium problems in a reflexive Banach space. Filomat 2020, 34, 1487–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, L.V.; Ansari, Q.H.; Qin, X. Weak sharpness and finite convergence for solutions of nonsmooth variational inequalities in Hilbert spaces. Appl. Math. Optim. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, L. A hybrid steepest descent method for solving split feasibility problems involving nonexpansive mappings. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2019, 20, 471–488. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, S.Y. A convergence theorem for generalized mixed equilibrium problems and multivalued asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2000, 21, 1017–1026. [Google Scholar]
- Ceng, L.C.; Shang, M. Generalized Mann viscosity implicit rules for solving systems of variational inequalities with constraints of variational inclusions and fixed point problems. Mathematics 2019, 7, 933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, S.Y.; Bin Dehaish, B.A. Weak convergence of a splitting algorithm in Hilbert spaces. J. Appl. Anal. Comput. 2017, 7, 427–438. [Google Scholar]
- Alakoya, T.O.; Jolaoso, L.O.; Mewomo, O.T. Two modifications of the inertial Tseng extragradient method with self-adaptive step size for solving monotone variational inequality problems. Demonstr. Math. 2020, 53, 208–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gebrie, A.G.; Wangkeeree, R. Strong convergence of an inertial extrapolation method for a split system of minimization problems. Demonstr. Math. 2020, 53, 332–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shehu, Y.; Dong, Q.; Jiang, D. Single projection method for pseudo-monotone variational inequality in Hilbert spaces. Optimization 2019, 68, 385–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceng, L.C.; Petrusel, A.; Qin, X.; Yao, J.C. A modified inertial subgradient extragradient method for solving pseudomonotone variational inequalities and common fixed point problems. Fixed Point Theory 2020, 21, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceng, L.C.; Shang, M.J. Hybrid inertial subgradient extragradient methods for variational inequalities and fixed point problems involving asymptotically nonexpansive mappings. Optimization 2021, 70, 715–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Censor, Y.; Gibali, A.; Reich, S. The subgradient extragradient method for solving variational inequalities in Hilbert space. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 148, 318–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tan, B.; Xu, S.; Li, S. Inertial shrinking proection algorithms for solving hierarchical variational inequality problems. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2020, 21, 871–884. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, J. A subgradient extragradient algorithm with inertial effects for solving strongly pseudomonotone variational inequalities. Optimization 2020, 69, 2199–2215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, X.; Cho, S.Y.; Wang, L. Strong convergence of an iterative algorithm involving nonlinear mappings of nonexpansive and accretive type. Optimization 2018, 67, 1377–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceng, L.C.; Yuan, Q. Composite inertial subgradient extragradient methods for variational inequalities and fixed point problems. J. Inequal. Appl. 2019, 2019, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, L.V.; Qin, X. Some results on strongly pseudomonotone quasi-variational inequalities. Set-Valued Var. Anal. 2020, 28, 239–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceng, L.C.; Postolache, M.; Yao, Y. Iterative algorithms for a system of variational inclusions in Banach spaces. Symmetry 2019, 11, 811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraikaew, R.; Saejung, S. Strong convergence of the Halpern subgradient extragradient method for solving variational inequalities in Hilbert spaces. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2014, 163, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thong, D.V.; Hieu, D.V. Modified subgradient extragradient method for variational inequality problems. Numer. Alg. 2018, 79, 597–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thong, D.V.; Hieu, D.V. Inertial subgradient extragradient algorithms with line-search process for solving variational inequality problems and fixed point problems. Numer. Alg. 2019, 80, 1283–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, H.; Qin, X. Fixed Points of Nonlinear Operators; Iterative Methods; De Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Denisov, S.V.; Semenov, V.V.; Chabak, L.M. Convergence of the modified extragradient method for variational inequalities with non-Lipschitz operators. Cybern. Syst. Anal. 2015, 51, 757–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, H.K.; Kim, T.H. Convergence of hybrid steepest-descent methods for variational inequalities. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2003, 119, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maingé, P.E. Strong convergence of projected subgradient methods for nonsmooth and nonstrictly convex minimization. Set-Valued Anal. 2008, 16, 899–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).