1. Introduction
Resolvents for a convex function play an important role to consider convex optimization problems. On a complete CAT(0) space
X, Jost [
1] and Mayer [
2] proposed the resolvent for a proper lower semicontinuous convex function
f of
X into
by
for each
. It is known that
is metrically nonspreading, that is,
for all
. For more details regarding metrical nonspreadingness, see [
3].
On the other hand, on an admissible complete CAT(1) space
X, two kinds of resolvents for a proper lower semicontinuous convex function were defined. The first one was proposed by Kimura and Kohsaka [
4] as follows:
for each
. They also defined a spherically nonspreading mapping of product type and showed that the resolvent
satisfies it, that is,
for all
. The second one was proposed by the Kajimura and Kimura [
5] as follows:
for each
. Motivated by the spherical nonspreadingness of product type, they proposed the concept of spherical nonspreadingness of sum type and showed that
satisfies this property, that is,
for all
. The spherical nonspreadingness of sum type implies the spherical nonspreadingness of product type by using the arithmetic–geometric mean inequality. Therefore, we know that
is also the spherically nonspreading of product type. However, we do not know whether
is a spherically nonspreading of sum type or not.
On a complete CAT(
) space
X, motivated by the definition of the resolvent
, Kajimura and Kimura [
6] proposed the resolvent for a proper lower semicontinuous convex function
f by
for each
. They also showed its hyperbolical nonspreadingness, that is,
for all
.
Resolvent operators are applied to generate approximate sequences which converge to a minimizer of given functions; for instance, see [
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12] for Banach spaces, [
13,
14,
15,
16] for the Riemannian manifold with nonpositive sectional curvature, [
17,
18] for CAT(
) spaces, and the references therein.
In this paper, we propose new resolvents for a convex function on a CAT(1) space and a CAT() space, respectively. We also show that those resolvents satisfy the -nonspreadingness, which contains the class of metrically nonspreading mapping, spherically nonspreading mapping of sum type, and hyperbolically nonspreading mapping.
2. Preliminaries
Let
X be a metric space.
X is called a uniquely geodesic space if for each
, there exists a unique mapping
such that
,
and
for all
. The mapping
is called a geodesic joining
x and
y. For
, a metric space
X is called a
D-uniquely geodesic space if for each
with
, there exists the unique geodesic joining
x and
y. Let
X be a
D-uniquely geodesic space such that
for all
. For each
, the convex combination between
x and
y is defined by
for all
. A function
f of
X into
is said to be the following:
Proper if , where ;
Lower semicontinuous if the set is closed for all ;
Convex if for all and .
For
, the two-dimensional model space
is defined by
where
is the two-dimensional unit sphere on
, and
is the two-dimensional hyperbolic space. The diameter of
is denoted by
, that is,
for
and
for
.
For , let X be a -uniquely geodesic space and such that . The set is called a geodesic triangle. Its comparison triangle on is defined by the set satisfying , , and . A point is called a comparison point of if one of the following conditions holds:
If , then and ;
If , then and ;
If , then and .
A
-uniquely geodesic space
X is called a CAT(
) space if
for all
. If
, then every CAT(
) space is a CAT(
) space. For more details regarding CAT(
) space, see [
19].
A CAT() space X is said to be admissible if for all . Notice that every CAT() space is admissible if , since for such a case. In a CAT() space, the following inequality, which is called a CN-inequality, is well known.
Lemma 1. For , let X be a CAT space and , satisfying . Then, the following inequalities hold:
By using the properties of the functions cosine and hyperbolic cosine, we obtain the following corollaries.
Corollary 1. For , let X be a CAT space and , satisfying . Then, the following inequalities hold:
Corollary 2. For , let X be an admissible CAT space and . Then, the following inequalities hold:
Corollary 2 shows the concavity or the convexity of each function.
The following theorem is directly obtained by [
20] [Theorem 4.1].
Theorem 1. For , let X be an admissible CAT space and f a convex function of X into . Then, the following properties hold:
On a CAT(1)
space, if is a singleton for each , thenfor all , where is an increasing function of class and for all ; On a CAT(0)
space, if is a singleton for each , thenfor all , where is an increasing function of class and for all ; On a CAT(
)
space, if is a singleton for each , thenfor all , where is an increasing function of class and for all .
3. A Resolvent on a CAT(1) Space
In this section, we show that the resolvent for a convex function on admissible CAT(1) spaces is well defined as a single valued mapping. Furthermore, we show its spherical nonspreadingness of sum type.
Lemma 2 ([
4])
. Let X be an admissible complete CAT(1)
space, f be a proper lower semicontinuous convex function of X into , and p be an element of X. If whenever is a sequence of X with , then f has a minimizer. Furthermore, iffor with , then the minimizer of f is unique. Lemma 3 ([
5])
. Let X be an admissible complete CAT(1)
space, f be a proper lower semicontinuous convex function of X into , and p be an element of X. Then, the functionsatisfies the following properties:g is a proper lower semicontinuous convex function;
whenever is a sequence of X with ;
For with ,
Theorem 2. Let X be an admissible complete CAT(1)
space, f be a proper lower semicontinuous convex function of X into , and p be an element of X. Then,consists of one point. Proof. By Corollary 2 and 3, we know that is a convex function. Moreover, it is also a proper lower semicontinuous function of . Since is bounded for , Lemma 3 implies that whenever is a sequence of X with . Therefore, by Lemma 2, it has a minimizer.
We next show its uniqueness. Let
with
. It follows from Corollary 1 and Lemma 3 that
By Lemma 2, we obtain the conclusion. □
From the theorem above,
is well defined as a single-valued mapping of
X into itself, where
X is an admissible complete CAT(1) space, and
f is a proper lower semicontinuous convex function of
X into
. We define a resolvent of
f on
X by
.
Theorem 3. Let X be an admissible complete CAT(1)
space, f be a proper lower semicontinuous convex function of X into , and be a resolvent of f. Then, is a spherically nonspreading of sum type, that is,for all . Proof. Put
for all
. By the definition of
, we can express
for
, where
for
. Since
is an increasing function of class
, it follows from Theorem 1 that
and hence,
for all
. Since
for
, we obtain
Thus we obtain the conclusion. □
5. A Resolvent on a CAT() Space
For , it is known that is an admissible CAT() space if and only if is an admissible CAT(1) space. Similarly, for , it is also known that is a CAT() space if and only if is a CAT() space.
In this section, we unify the three kinds of resolvents
,
, and
by using the function
of
into
, which is defined as follows:
We know that the function
is increasing, strictly convex, continuous,
, and
as
for each
. These conditions play an important role to define a resolvent for a convex function.
Using the results in this paper, the following resolvent
is well defined as a single-valued mapping for each
, where
X is an admissible CAT(
) space for
. It is easy to show
, where
is an indicator function for some nonempty closed convex subset
C of
X. In fact, we have
for all
. We also know that
; for more details, see [
4].
We also use the function
defined by
for all
. It is a convex and increasing function, with
. For more details, see [
20]. Using this function, we define
-nonspreadingness of a mapping of a metric space
X into itself.
Let
X be a metric space with
for
. A mapping
T of
X into itself is said to be
-nonspreading if
for all
. Then 0-nonspreadingness, 1-nonspreadingness, and (
)-nonspreadingness naturally coincide with metrical nonspreadingness [
3], spherical nonspreading of sum type [
5], and hyperbolical nonspreadingness [
6], respectively. We directly obtain the following theorem.
Theorem 6. Let κ be a real number, be an admissible CAT(
)
space with the metric d, f be a proper lower semicontinuous convex function of X into , and be the resolvent of f. Then, is κ-nonspreading, that is,for all . Proof. If
, it obviously holds. We first show the case of
. Let
, and put
. Then, we know that
is an admissible CAT(1) space. Thus, we obtain
and hence,
This is the desired result.
For
, let
, and put
. Since
is a CAT(
) space, we have
and hence,
Thus, we obtain the conclusion. □
6. Comparison with Known Resolvents
In the previous section, we unified two definitions of the resolvent operators by using the function
defined by the power series including
. Namely, we proposed the resolvent
defined by
Using the same technique, we can unify several known resolvents as follows:
We first discuss the well definedness of these resolvents. As mentioned in the previous section, for any , the newly proposed resolvent is well defined as a single-valued mapping for every proper lower semicontinuous convex function f. The operator is also well defined for any and f. On the other hand, is not well defined for some f if is negative. Indeed, we have the following example.
Example 1. Let with the metric defined by for . Then, we know that X is an admissible complete CAT
space for any . Fix and define byfor . Then, sincewe haveThis fact implies that is empty, and therefore, is not well defined as a single-valued mapping. We do not know whether the operator is well defined or not in general. Indeed, if , the perturbation function is not coercive, that is, the assumption for some does not imply . Therefore, we cannot apply Lemma 2 for this function, and thus, the well definedness of is unknown.
Next, we discuss the properties of the resolvent operators. Theorem 6 shows the
-nonspreadingness of
for any
. Moreover, we can see that
and
also have this property from the facts shown in the Introduction. However, we only know that the resolvent
is
-nonspreading for
. If
, then
is a spherically nonspreading of product type in the sense that
for any
, and we do not know whether this property implies the
-nonspreadingness or not.
The facts described above are summarized in
Table 1. From these observations, we conclude that the proposed resolvent operator
has sufficiently good properties compared to the others.