Skip to main content

Strong convergence of a splitting algorithm for treating monotone operators

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate a splitting algorithm for treating monotone operators. Strong convergence theorems are established in the framework of Hilbert spaces.

1 Introduction and preliminaries

In this article, we always assume that H is a real Hilbert space with inner product , and norm and C is a nonempty, closed, and convex subset of H.

Let S:CC be a mapping. F(S) stands for the fixed point set of S. S is said to be contractive iff there exists a constant α(0,1) such that

SxSyαxy,x,yC.

It is well known that every contractive mapping has a unique fixed point in metric spaces. S is said to be nonexpansive iff

SxSyxy,x,yC.

If C is a bounded, closed, and convex subset of H, then F(S) is not empty, closed, and convex; see [1] and the references therein. S is said to be strictly pseudocontractive iff there exists a constant κ[0,1) such that

S x S y 2 x y 2 +κ x y S x + S y 2 ,x,yC.

The class of strictly pseudocontractive mapping was introduced by Browder and Petryshyn [2]. It is clear that the class of strictly pseudocontractive mappings include the class of nonexpansive mappings as a special case. It is also not hard to see that strictly pseudocontractive mapping is continuous.

Let A:CH be a mapping. Recall that A is said to be monotone iff

AxAy,xy0,x,yC.

A is said to be strongly monotone iff there exists a constant κ>0 such that

AxAy,xyκ x y 2 ,x,yC.

A is said to be inverse-strongly monotone iff there exists a constant κ>0 such that

AxAy,xyκ A x A y 2 ,x,yC.

A is inverse-strongly monotone iff the inverse of A is strongly monotone. It is not hard to see that every inverse-strongly monotone mapping is monotone and continuous. Let I be the identity mapping on H. From [2], we know that IS is inverse-strongly monotone iff S is strictly pseudocontractive; for more details, see [2] and the references therein.

The classical variational inequality problem is formulated as finding a point xC such that

yx,Ax0,yC.

Such a point xC is called a solution of the variational inequality. In this paper, we use VI(C,A) to denote the solution set of the variational inequality. It is known that x is a solution of the variational inequality iff x is a fixed point of the mapping Proj C (IrA), where Proj C is the metric projection from H onto C, I is the identity and r is some positive real number. Recently, many authors studied solutions of inverse-strongly monotone variational inequalities based on the equivalence; see [313].

Recall that a set-valued mapping B:HH is said to be monotone iff, for all x,yH, fBx and gBy imply xy,fg>0. In this paper, we use B 1 (0) to stand for the zero point of B. A monotone mapping B:HH is maximal iff the graph Graph(B) of B is not properly contained in the graph of any other monotone mapping. It is known that a monotone mapping B is maximal if and only if, for any (x,f)H×H, xy,fg0, for all (y,g)Graph(B) implies fBx. For a maximal monotone operator B on H, and r>0, we may define the single-valued resolvent J r :HDom(B), where Dom(B) denote the domain of B. It is known that J r is firmly nonexpansive, and B 1 (0)=F( J r ).

One of the most important techniques for solving zero point problem of monotone operators goes back to the work of Browder [14]. Many important problems have reformulations which require finding zero points, for instance, evolution equations, complementarity problems, mini-max problems, variational inequalities and fixed point problems. It is well known that minimizing a convex function f can be reduced to finding zero points of the subdifferential mapping A=f. One of the basic ideas in the case of a Hilbert space H is reducing the above inclusion problem to a fixed point problem of the operator R A defined by R A = ( I + A ) 1 , which is called the classical resolvent of A. If A has some monotonicity conditions, the classical resolvent of A is with full domain and firmly nonexpansive. The property of the resolvent ensures that the Picard iterative algorithm x n + 1 = R A x n converge weakly to a fixed point of R A , which is necessarily a zero point of A. Rockafellar introduced this iteration method and call it the proximal point algorithm (PPA); for more details, see [15] and [16] and the references therein.

It is known that PPA is only convergent and it was also pointed in [17] that it is often impractical since, in many cases, to solve the fixed point problem exactly is either impossible or of the same difficult as the original zero point problem. Therefore, one of the most interesting and important problems in the theory of monotone operators is to find an efficient iterative algorithm to compute their zero points. In many disciplines, including economics [18], image recovery [19], quantum physics [20], and control theory [21], problems arises in infinite dimension spaces. In such problems, strong convergence (norm convergence) is often much more desirable than weak convergence, for it translates the physically tangible property that the energy x n x of the error between the iterate x n and the solution x eventually becomes arbitrarily small. The important of strong convergence is also underlined in [22], where a convex function f is minimized via the proximal point algorithm: it is shown that the rate of convergence of the value sequence {f( x n )} is better when { x n } converges strongly that it converges weakly. Such properties have a direct impact when the process is executed directly in the underlying infinite dimensional space.

To improve the weak convergence of PPA, many authors considered lots of different modifications; see [2336] the references therein. One of the classic results was established by Solodov and Svaiter [33]. They obtained strong convergence theorems in Hilbert space without any compact assumption but with the aid of the metric projection.

In this paper, we are concerned with the problem of finding an element in the zero point set of the sum of two operators which are inverse-strongly monotone and a maximal monotone and in the fixed point set of a mapping which is strictly pseudocontractive. Strong convergence theorems are established without the aid of the metric projections. The organization of this paper is as follows. In Section 1, we provide an introduction and some necessary preliminaries. In Section 2, a regularization iterative algorithm is investigated. A strong convergence theorem is established without the aid of metric projections. In Section 3, applications of the main results are discussed.

In order to prove our main results, we also need the following lemmas.

Lemma 1.1 [36]

Let A:CH be a mapping, and B:HH a maximal monotone operator. Then F( J r (IrB))= ( A + B ) 1 (0).

Lemma 1.2 [37]

Let E be a Banach space and let A be an m-accretive operator. For λ>0, μ>0, and xE, we have J λ x= J μ ( μ λ x+(1 μ λ ) J λ x), where J λ = ( I + λ A ) 1 and J μ = ( I + μ A ) 1 .

Lemma 1.3 [38]

Let { x n } and { y n } be bounded sequences in a Banach space E, and { β n } be a sequence in (0,1) with 0< lim inf n β n lim sup n β n <1. Suppose that x n + 1 =(1 β n ) y n + β n x n , n1 and

lim sup n ( y n + 1 y n x n + 1 x n ) 0.

Then lim n y n x n =0.

Lemma 1.4 [39]

Let { a n } be a sequence of nonnegative numbers satisfying the condition a n + 1 (1 t n ) a n + t n b n + c n , n0, where { t n } is a number sequence in (0,1) such that lim n t n =0 and n = 0 t n =, { b n } is a number sequence such that lim sup n b n 0, and { c n } is a positive number sequence such that n = 0 c n <. Then lim n a n =0.

Lemma 1.5 [40]

Let S:CC be a strictly pseudocontractive mapping with the constant κ[0,1). Then S is Lipschitz continuous and IS is demiclosed at zero. Define a mapping T:CC by Tx:=ax+(1a)Sx for each xC. Then, as a[κ,1), T is nonexpansive such that F(S)=F(T).

2 Convergence analysis

Theorem 2.1 Let A:CH be an α-inverse-strongly monotone mapping and let B be a maximal monotone operator on H. Let S:CC be a strictly pseudocontractive mapping with the constant κ[0,1) and let f:CC be a contractive mapping with the constant β[0,1). Assume that Dom(B)C and F(S) ( A + B ) 1 (0) is not empty. Let J r n = ( I + r n B ) 1 and let { x n } be a sequence generated in the following process: x 0 C and

{ z n = α n f ( x n ) + ( 1 α n ) x n , y n = J r n ( z n r n A z n + e n ) , x n + 1 = β n x n + ( 1 β n ) ( γ n y n + ( 1 γ n ) S y n ) , n 0 ,

where { α n }, { β n } and { γ n } are real number sequences in (0,1) and { r n } is a positive real number sequence in (0,2α). Assume that the control sequences satisfy the following restrictions:

  1. (a)

    lim n α n =0, n = 0 α n =;

  2. (b)

    0< lim inf n β n lim sup n β n <1;

  3. (c)

    κ γ n a<1, lim n | γ n + 1 γ n |=0;

  4. (d)

    0<b r n c<2α and n = 1 | r n r n 1 |<;

  5. (e)

    n = 0 e n <,

where a, b and c are three real numbers. Then { x n } converges strongly to a point x ¯ F(S) ( A + B ) 1 (0), where x ¯ = Proj F ( S ) ( A + B ) 1 ( 0 ) f( x ¯ ).

Proof First, we show that { x n } is bounded. Notice that I r n A is nonexpansive. Indeed, we have

( I r n A ) x ( I r n A ) y 2 = x y 2 2 r n x y , A x A y + r n 2 A x A y 2 x y 2 r n ( 2 α r n ) A x A y 2 .

In view of the restriction (d), we find that I r n A is nonexpansive. Fixing pF(S) ( A + B ) 1 (0), we find that

z n p α n f ( x n ) p + ( 1 α n ) x n p ( 1 α n ( 1 β ) ) x n p + α n f ( p ) p .

Putting T n x:= γ n x+(1 γ n )Sx for each xC, we see from Lemma 1.5 that T n is nonexpansive with F( T n )=F(S) for each n0. It follows that

x n + 1 p β n x n p + ( 1 β n ) T n J r n ( z n r n A z n + e n ) p β n x n p + ( 1 β n ) z n p + ( 1 β n ) e n β n x n p + ( 1 α n ( 1 β ) ) ( 1 β n ) x n p + α n ( 1 β n ) f ( p ) p + e n ( 1 α n ( 1 β ) ( 1 β n ) ) x n p + α n ( 1 β n ) f ( p ) p + e n max { x n p , f ( p ) p 1 β } + e n max { x n 1 p , f ( p ) p 1 β } + e n 1 + e n max { x 0 p , f ( p ) p 1 β } + i = 0 n e i max { x 0 p , f ( p ) p 1 β } + i = 0 e i < .

This proves that the sequence { x n } is bounded, so are { y n } and { z n }. Notice that

z n z n 1 ( 1 α n ( 1 β ) ) x n x n 1 +| α n α n 1 | f ( x n 1 ) x n 1 .

Putting ρ n = z n r n A z n + e n , we find that

ρ n ρ n 1 z n z n 1 + r n r n 1 A z n 1 + e n + e n 1 ( 1 α n ( 1 β ) ) x n x n 1 + | α n α n 1 | f ( x n 1 ) x n 1 + | r n r n 1 | A z n 1 + e n + e n 1 .

It follows from Lemma 1.2 that

y n y n 1 = J r n 1 ( r n 1 r n ρ n + ( 1 r n 1 r n ) J r n ρ n ) J r n 1 ρ n 1 r n 1 r n ( ρ n ρ n 1 ) + ( 1 r n 1 r n ) ( J r n ρ n ρ n 1 ) ( ρ n ρ n 1 ) + ( 1 r n 1 r n ) ( J r n ρ n ρ n ) ρ n ρ n 1 + | r n r n 1 | b J r n ρ n ρ n ( 1 α n ( 1 β ) ) x n x n 1 + f n x n x n 1 + f n ,

where

f n =| α n α n 1 | f ( x n 1 ) x n 1 +| r n r n 1 | ( A z n 1 + J r n ρ n ρ n b ) + e n + e n 1 .

This implies that

T n y n T n 1 y n 1 T n y n T n y n 1 + T n y n 1 T n 1 y n 1 x n x n 1 + f n + | γ n γ n 1 | S y n 1 y n 1 .

In view of the restrictions (a), (c), (d), and (e), we find that

lim sup n ( T n y n T n 1 y n 1 x n x n 1 ) 0.

It follows from Lemma 1.3 that

lim n T n y n x n =0.
(2.1)

This in turn implies that

lim n x n + 1 x n =0.
(2.2)

Notice that

x n + 1 p 2 β n x n p 2 + ( 1 β n ) T n J r n ρ n p 2 β n x n p 2 + ( 1 β n ) J r n ( z n r n A z n + e n ) p 2 β n x n p 2 + ( 1 β n ) ( z n r n A z n ) ( I r n A ) p 2 + e n ( e n + 2 ( z n r n A z n ) ( I r n A ) p ) β n x n p 2 + ( 1 β n ) z n p 2 r n ( 1 β n ) ( 2 α r n ) A z n A p 2 + e n ( e n + 2 ( z n r n A z n ) ( I r n A ) p ) β n x n p 2 + α n ( 1 β n ) f ( x n ) p 2 + ( 1 β n ) ( 1 α n ) x n p 2 r n ( 1 β n ) ( 2 α r n ) A z n A p 2 + g n ,

where g n = e n ( e n +2( z n r n A z n )(I r n A)p). It follows that

r n ( 1 β n ) ( 2 α r n ) A z n A p 2 x n p 2 x n + 1 p 2 + α n ( 1 β n ) f ( x n ) p 2 + g n ( x n p + x n + 1 p ) x n + 1 x n + α n f ( x n ) p 2 + g n .

In view of the restrictions (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), we find from (2.2) that

lim n A z n Ap=0.
(2.3)

Since J r n is firmly nonexpansive, we find that

J r n ρ n p 2 J r n ρ n p , ( z n r n A z n + e n ) ( p r n A p ) = 1 2 ( J r n ρ n p 2 + ( z n r n A z n + e n ) ( p r n A p ) 2 ( J r n ρ n p ) ( ( z n r n A z n + e n ) ( p r n A p ) ) 2 ) 1 2 ( J r n ρ n p 2 + ( I r n A ) z n ( I r n A ) p 2 + g n J r n ρ n z n e n + r n A z n r n A p 2 ) 1 2 ( J r n ρ n p 2 + z n p 2 + g n J r n ρ n z n e n 2 r n A z n r n A p 2 + 2 r n A z n A p J r n ρ n z n e n ) .

It follows that

J r n ρ n p 2 z n p 2 + g n J r n ρ n z n e n 2 r n A z n r n A p 2 + 2 e n J r n ρ n z n + r n A z n r n A p α n f ( x n ) p 2 + ( 1 α n ) x n p 2 + g n J r n ρ n z n e n 2 + 2 r n A z n A p J r n ρ n z n e n .

This implies that

x n + 1 p 2 β n x n p 2 + ( 1 β n ) T n J r n ρ n p 2 β n x n p 2 + ( 1 β n ) J r n ρ n p 2 x n p 2 + α n f ( x n ) p 2 + g n ( 1 β n ) J r n ρ n z n e n 2 + 2 r n A z n A p J r n ρ n z n e n .

It follows that

( 1 β n ) J r n ρ n z n e n 2 ( x n p + x n + 1 p ) x n x n + 1 + α n f ( x n ) p 2 + g n + 2 r n A z n A p J r n ρ n z n e n .

In view of the restrictions (a), (b), and (e), we find from (2.2) and (2.3) that lim n J r n ρ n z n e n =0. This in turn implies that

lim n J r n ρ n z n =0.
(2.4)

Notice that

y n x n y n z n + z n x n y n z n + α n f ( x n ) x n .

It follows from (2.4) that

lim n y n x n =0.
(2.5)

On the other hand, we have

T n x n x n ( γ n x n + ( 1 γ n ) S x n ) ( γ n y n + ( 1 γ n ) S y n ) + ( γ n y n + ( 1 γ n ) S y n ) x n γ n y n x n + ( 1 γ n ) S y n S x n + T n y n x n .

Since S is Lipschitz continuous, we find from (2.1) and (2.5) that

lim n T n x n x n =0.
(2.6)

Notice that

S y n y n S y n T n y n + T n y n T n x n + T n x n x n + x n y n γ n y n S y n + 2 y n x n + T n x n x n .

That is,

(1 γ n )S y n y n 2 y n x n + T n x n x n .

In view of (2.5) and (2.6), we find from the restriction (c) that

lim n S y n y n =0.
(2.7)

Since Proj F ( S ) ( A + B ) 1 ( 0 ) f is contractive, we see that there exists a unique fixed point, say x ¯ . Next, we show that lim sup n f( x ¯ ) x ¯ , z n x ¯ 0. To show it, we can choose a subsequence { z n i } of { z n } such that

lim sup n f ( x ¯ ) x ¯ , z n x ¯ = lim i f ( x ¯ ) x ¯ , z n i x ¯ .

Since { z n i } is bounded, we can choose a subsequence { z n i j } of { z n i } which converges weakly to some point x. We may assume, without loss of generality, that z n i converges weakly to x. In view of (2.4), we find that y n i also converges weakly to x. It follows from Lemma 1.5 that xF(S).

Now, we are in a position to show that x ( A + B ) 1 (0). Notice that y n = J r n ( z n r n A z n + e n ). It follows that

z n r n A z n + e n (I+ r n B) y n .

That is,

z n y n r n A z n + e n B y n .

Since B is monotone, we get, for any (μ,ν)B,

y n μ , z n y n r n A z n + e n ν 0.

Replacing n by n i and letting i, we obtain from (2.4) that

xμ,Axν0.

This gives AxBx, that is, 0(A+B)(x). This proves that x ( A + B ) 1 (0). This complete the proof that xF(S) ( A + B ) 1 (0). It follows that

lim sup n f ( x ¯ ) x ¯ , z n x ¯ 0.

Finally, we show that x n x ¯ . Notice that

z n x ¯ 2 α n f ( x n ) x ¯ , z n x ¯ + ( 1 α n ) x n x ¯ z n x ¯ α n f ( x n ) f ( x ¯ ) z n x ¯ + α n f ( x ¯ ) x ¯ , z n x ¯ + ( 1 α n ) x n x ¯ z n x ¯ 1 α n ( 1 β ) 2 ( x n x ¯ 2 + z n x ¯ 2 ) + α n f ( x ¯ ) x ¯ , z n x ¯ .

This implies that

z n x ¯ 2 ( 1 α n ( 1 β ) ) x n x ¯ 2 +2 α n f ( x ¯ ) x ¯ , z n x ¯ .

It follows that

y n x ¯ 2 ( z n r n A z n ) ( x ¯ r n A x ¯ ) + e n 2 ( z n r n A z n ) ( x ¯ r n A x ¯ ) 2 + e n 2 + 2 e n ( z n r n A z n ) ( x ¯ r n A x ¯ ) z n x ¯ 2 + h n ( 1 α n ( 1 β ) ) x n x ¯ 2 + 2 α n f ( x ¯ ) x ¯ , z n x ¯ + h n ,
(2.8)

where h n = e n ( e n +2( z n r n A z n )(I r n A) x ¯ ). It follows from (2.8) that

x n + 1 x ¯ 2 β n x n x ¯ 2 + ( 1 β n ) T n y n x ¯ 2 β n x n x ¯ 2 + ( 1 β n ) y n x ¯ 2 ( 1 α n ( 1 β n ) ( 1 β ) ) x n x ¯ 2 + 2 α n ( 1 β n ) f ( x ¯ ) x ¯ , z n x ¯ + h n .

In view of the restriction (a), (b), and (e), we find from Lemma 1.4 that x n x ¯ . This completes the proof. □

If S is nonexpansive and γ n 0, then we have the following result immediately.

Corollary 2.2 Let A:CH be an α-inverse-strongly monotone mapping and let B be a maximal monotone operator on H. Let S:CC be a nonexpansive mapping and let f:CC be a contractive mapping with the constant β[0,1). Assume that Dom(B)C and F(S) ( A + B ) 1 (0) is not empty. Let J r n = ( I + r n B ) 1 and let { x n } be a sequence generated in the following process: x 0 C and

{ y n = α n f ( x n ) + ( 1 α n ) x n , x n + 1 = β n x n + ( 1 β n ) S J r n ( y n r n A y n + e n ) , n 0 ,

where { α n } and { β n } are real number sequences in (0,1) and { r n } is a positive real number sequence in (0,2α). Assume that the control sequences satisfy the following restrictions:

  1. (a)

    lim n α n =0, n = 0 α n =;

  2. (b)

    0< lim inf n β n lim sup n β n <1;

  3. (c)

    0<b r n c<2α and n = 1 | r n r n 1 |<;

  4. (d)

    n = 0 e n <,

where b and c are two real numbers. Then { x n } converges strongly to a point x ¯ F(S) ( A + B ) 1 (0), where x ¯ = Proj F ( S ) ( A + B ) 1 ( 0 ) f( x ¯ ).

3 Applications

Many nonlinear problems arising in applied areas such as image recovery, signal processing, and machine learning are mathematically modeled as a nonlinear operator equation and this operator is decomposed as the sum of two nonlinear operators. The central problem is to iteratively find a zero point of the sum of two monotone operators, that is,

0(A+B)(x).

Many real word problems can be formulated as a problem of the above form. For instance, a stationary solution to the initial value problem of the evolution equation

{ 0 F u + u t , u 0 = u ( 0 )

can be recast as the inclusion problem when the governing maximal monotone F is of the form F=A+B; for more details, see [41] and the references therein.

First, we give the following result.

Theorem 3.1 Let A:CH be an α-inverse-strongly monotone mapping and let B be a maximal monotone operator on H. Let f:CC be a contractive mapping with the constant β[0,1). Assume that Dom(B)C and ( A + B ) 1 (0) is not empty. Let J r n = ( I + r n B ) 1 and let { x n } be a sequence generated in the following process: x 0 C and

{ y n = α n f ( x n ) + ( 1 α n ) x n , x n + 1 = β n x n + ( 1 β n ) J r n ( y n r n A y n + e n ) , n 0 ,

where { α n } and { β n } are real number sequences in (0,1) and { r n } is a positive real number sequence in (0,2α). Assume that the control sequences satisfy the following restrictions:

  1. (a)

    lim n α n =0, n = 0 α n =;

  2. (b)

    0< lim inf n β n lim sup n β n <1;

  3. (c)

    0<b r n c<2α and n = 1 | r n r n 1 |<;

  4. (d)

    n = 0 e n <,

where b and c are two real numbers. Then { x n } converges strongly to a point x ¯ ( A + B ) 1 (0), where x ¯ = Proj ( A + B ) 1 ( 0 ) f( x ¯ ).

Proof Put S=I, the identity on H. The desired conclusion can be obtained immediately.

Let H be a Hilbert space and f:H(,+] a proper convex lower semicontinuous function. Then the subdifferential ∂f of f is defined as follows:

f(x)= { y H : f ( z ) f ( x ) + z x , y , z H } ,xH.

From Rockafellar [16], we know that ∂f is maximal monotone. It is easy to verify that 0f(x) if and only if f(x)= min y H f(y). Let I C be the indicator function of C, i.e.,

I C (x)={ 0 , x C , + , x C .
(3.1)

Since I C is a proper lower semicontinuous convex function on H, we see that the subdifferential I C of I C is a maximal monotone operator. Then y= ( I + λ I C ) 1 xy= Proj C x, xH, yC. □

Theorem 3.2 Let A:CH be an α-inverse-strongly monotone mapping. Let S:CC be a strictly pseudocontractive mapping with the constant κ[0,1) and let f:CC be a contractive mapping with the constant β[0,1). Assume that F(S)VI(C,A) is not empty. Let { x n } be a sequence generated in the following process: x 0 C and

{ z n = α n f ( x n ) + ( 1 α n ) x n , y n = Proj C ( z n r n A z n + e n ) , x n + 1 = β n x n + ( 1 β n ) ( γ n y n + ( 1 γ n ) S y n ) , n 0 ,

where { α n }, { β n } and { γ n } are real number sequences in (0,1) and { r n } is a positive real number sequence in (0,2α). Assume that the control sequences satisfy the following restrictions:

  1. (a)

    lim n α n =0, n = 0 α n =;

  2. (b)

    0< lim inf n β n lim sup n β n <1;

  3. (c)

    κ γ n a<1, lim n | γ n + 1 γ n |=0;

  4. (d)

    0<b r n c<2α and n = 1 | r n r n 1 |<;

  5. (e)

    n = 0 e n <,

where a, b, and c are three real numbers. Then { x n } converges strongly to a point x ¯ F(S) ( A + B ) 1 (0), where x ¯ = Proj F ( S ) ( A + B ) 1 ( 0 ) f( x ¯ ).

Proof Put Bx= I C . Next, we show that VI(C,A)= ( A + I C ) 1 (0). Notice that

x ( A + I C ) 1 ( 0 ) 0 A x + I C x A x I C x A x , y x 0 x V I ( C , A ) .

We can conclude the desired conclusion immediately. □

If S=I, the identity on H, then we find from Theorem 3.1 the following result immediately.

Corollary 3.3 Let A:CH be an α-inverse-strongly monotone mapping. Let S:CC be a strictly pseudocontractive mapping with the constant κ[0,1) and let f:CC be a contractive mapping with the constant β[0,1). Assume that F(S)VI(C,A) is not empty. Let { x n } be a sequence generated in the following process: x 0 C and

{ y n = α n f ( x n ) + ( 1 α n ) x n , x n + 1 = β n x n + ( 1 β n ) Proj C ( y n r n A y n + e n ) , n 0 ,

where { α n } and { β n } are real number sequences in (0,1) and { r n } is a positive real number sequence in (0,2α). Assume that the control sequences satisfy the following restrictions:

  1. (a)

    lim n α n =0, n = 0 α n =;

  2. (b)

    0< lim inf n β n lim sup n β n <1;

  3. (c)

    0<b r n c<2α and n = 1 | r n r n 1 |<;

  4. (d)

    n = 0 e n <,

where b and c are three real numbers. Then { x n } converges strongly to a point x ¯ VI(C,A), where x ¯ = Proj V I ( C , A ) f( x ¯ ).

Let F be a bifunction of C×C into , where denotes the set of real numbers. Recall the following equilibrium problem:

Find xC such that F(x,y)0,yC.
(3.2)

In this paper, we use EP(F) to denote the solution set of the equilibrium problem (3.2).

To study the equilibrium problems (3.2), we may assume that F satisfies the following conditions:

(A1) F(x,x)=0 for all xC;

(A2) F is monotone, i.e., F(x,y)+F(y,x)0 for all x,yC;

(A3) for each x,y,zC,

lim sup t 0 F ( t z + ( 1 t ) x , y ) F(x,y);

(A4) for each xC, yF(x,y) is convex and weakly lower semicontinuous.

Putting F(x,y)=Ax,yx for every x,yC, we see that the equilibrium problem (3.2) is reduced to a variational inequality.

Lemma 3.4 [42, 43]

Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of H and let F:C×CR be a bifunction satisfying (A1)-(A4). Then, for any r>0 and xH, there exists zC such that

F(z,y)+ 1 r yz,zx0,yC.

Further, define

T r x= { z C : F ( z , y ) + 1 r y z , z x 0 , y C }
(3.3)

for all r>0 and xH. Then, the following hold:

  1. (a)

    T r is single-valued;

  2. (b)

    T r is firmly nonexpansive, i.e., for any x,yH,

    T r x T r y 2 T r x T r y,xy;
  3. (c)

    F( T r )=EP(F);

  4. (d)

    EP(F) is closed and convex.

Lemma 3.5 [44]

Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H, F a bifunction from C×C to which satisfies (A1)-(A4) and A F a multivalued mapping of H into itself defined by

A F x={ { z H : F ( x , y ) y x , z , y C } , x C , , x C .
(3.4)

Then A F is a maximal monotone operator with the domain D( A F )C, EP(F)= A F 1 (0) and

T r x= ( I + r A F ) 1 x,xH,r>0,

where T r is defined as in (3.3).

Theorem 3.6 Let A:CH be an α-inverse-strongly monotone mapping and let F B be a bifunction from C×C to which satisfies (A1)-(A4). Let S:CC be a strictly pseudocontractive mapping with the constant κ[0,1) and let f:CC be a contractive mapping with the constant β[0,1). Assume that F(S)EP(F) is not empty. Let { x n } be a sequence generated in the following process: x 0 C and

{ z n = α n f ( x n ) + ( 1 α n ) x n , y n = T r n ( z n r n A z n + e n ) , x n + 1 = β n x n + ( 1 β n ) ( γ n y n + ( 1 γ n ) S y n ) , n 0 ,

where { α n }, { β n }, and { γ n } are real number sequences in (0,1) and { r n } is a positive real number sequence in (0,2α). Assume that the control sequences satisfy the following restrictions:

  1. (a)

    lim n α n =0, n = 0 α n =;

  2. (b)

    0< lim inf n β n lim sup n β n <1;

  3. (c)

    κ γ n a<1, lim n | γ n + 1 γ n |=0;

  4. (d)

    0<b r n c<2α and n = 1 | r n r n 1 |<;

  5. (e)

    n = 0 e n <,

where a, b, and c are three real numbers. Then { x n } converges strongly to a point x ¯ F(S)EP(F), where x ¯ = Proj F ( S ) E P ( F ) f( x ¯ ).

If S=I, the identity on H, then we find from Theorem 3.6 the following result on the equilibrium problem immediately.

Corollary 3.7 Let A:CH be an α-inverse-strongly monotone mapping and let F B be a bifunction from C×C to which satisfies (A1)-(A4). Let f:CC be a contractive mapping with the constant β[0,1). Assume that EP(F) is not empty. Let { x n } be a sequence generated in the following process: x 0 C and

{ y n = α n f ( x n ) + ( 1 α n ) x n , x n + 1 = β n x n + ( 1 β n ) T r n ( y n r n A y n + e n ) , n 0 ,

where { α n } and { β n } are real number sequences in (0,1) and { r n } is a positive real number sequence in (0,2α). Assume that the control sequences satisfy the following restrictions:

  1. (a)

    lim n α n =0, n = 0 α n =;

  2. (b)

    0< lim inf n β n lim sup n β n <1;

  3. (c)

    0<b r n c<2α and n = 1 | r n r n 1 |<;

  4. (d)

    n = 0 e n <,

where b and c are two real numbers. Then { x n } converges strongly to a point x ¯ EP(F), where x ¯ = Proj E P ( F ) f( x ¯ ).

References

  1. Browder FE: Nonlinear operators and nonlinear equations of evolution in Banach spaces. Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 1976, 18: 78–81.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Browder FE, Petryshyn WV: Construction of fixed points of nonlinear mappings in Hilbert spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1967, 20: 197–228. 10.1016/0022-247X(67)90085-6

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Cho SY, Kang SM: Approximation of common solutions of variational inequalities via strict pseudocontractions. Acta Math. Sci. 2011, 32: 1607–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cho SY: Approximation of solutions of a generalized variational inequality problem based on iterative methods. Commun. Korean Math. Soc. 2010, 25: 207–214. 10.4134/CKMS.2010.25.2.207

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Cho SY, Qin X, Kang SM: Iterative processes for common fixed points of two different families of mappings with applications. J. Glob. Optim. 2013, 57: 1429–1446. 10.1007/s10898-012-0017-y

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Cho SY, Kang SM: Approximation of fixed points of pseudocontraction semigroups based on a viscosity iterative process. Appl. Math. Lett. 2011, 24: 224–228. 10.1016/j.aml.2010.09.008

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Luo H, Wang Y: Iterative approximation for the common solutions of a infinite variational inequality system for inverse-strongly accretive mappings. J. Math. Comput. Sci. 2012, 2: 1660–1670.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Cho SY, Li W, Kang SM: Convergence analysis of an iterative algorithm for monotone operators. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 199

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zegeye H, Shahzad N: Strong convergence theorem for a common point of solution of variational inequality and fixed point problem. Adv. Fixed Point Theory 2012, 2: 374–397.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rodjanadid B, Sompong S: A new iterative method for solving a system of generalized equilibrium problems, generalized mixed equilibrium problems and common fixed point problems in Hilbert spaces. Adv. Fixed Point Theory 2013, 3: 675–705.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Qin X, Cho SY, Kang SM: An extragradient-type method for generalized equilibrium problems involving strictly pseudocontractive mappings. J. Glob. Optim. 2011, 49: 679–693. 10.1007/s10898-010-9556-2

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Qin X, Cho SY, Kang SM: Convergence of an iterative algorithm for systems of variational inequalities and nonexpansive mappings with applications. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2009, 233: 231–240. 10.1016/j.cam.2009.07.018

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Qin X, Cho SY, Kang SM: Iterative algorithms for variational inequality and equilibrium problems with applications. J. Glob. Optim. 2010, 48: 423–445. 10.1007/s10898-009-9498-8

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Browder FE: Existence and approximation of solutions of nonlinear variational inequalities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1966, 56: 1080–1086. 10.1073/pnas.56.4.1080

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Rockafellar RT: Augmented Lagrangians and applications of the proximal point algorithm in convex programming. Math. Oper. Res. 1976, 1: 97–116. 10.1287/moor.1.2.97

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Rockafellar RT: Monotone operators and proximal point algorithm. SIAM J. Control Optim. 1976, 14: 877–898. 10.1137/0314056

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Eckstein J: Approximate iterations in Bregman-function-based proximal algorithms. Math. Program. 1998, 83: 113–123.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Khan MA, Yannelis NC: Equilibrium Theory in Infinite Dimensional Spaces. Springer, New York; 1991.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Combettes PL: The convex feasibility problem in image recovery. 95. In Advanced in Imaging and Electron Physcis. Edited by: Hawkes P. Academic Press, New York; 1996:155–270.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dautray R, Lions JL 1. In Mathematical Analysis and Numerical Methods for Science and Technology. Springer, New York; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fattorini HO: Infinite-Dimensional Optimization and Control Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1999.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Güler O: On the convergence of the proximal point algorithm for convex minimization. SIAM J. Control Optim. 1991, 29: 403–409. 10.1137/0329022

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Qin X, Kang SM, Cho YJ: Approximating zeros of monotone operators by proximal point algorithms. J. Glob. Optim. 2010, 46: 75–87. 10.1007/s10898-009-9410-6

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Song J, Chen M: A modified Mann iteration for zero points of accretive operators. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 347

    Google Scholar 

  25. Qing Y, Cho SY: Proximal point algorithms for zero points of nonlinear operators. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 42

    Google Scholar 

  26. Qing Y, Cho SY: A regularization algorithm for zero points of accretive operators. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 341

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cho SY, Kang SM: Zero point theorems for m -accretive operators in a Banach space. Fixed Point Theory 2012, 13: 49–58.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Wu C, Lv S: Bregman projection methods for zeros of monotone operators. J. Fixed Point Theory 2013., 2013: Article ID 7

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang M: Iterative algorithms for common elements in fixed point sets and zero point sets with applications. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 21

    Google Scholar 

  30. Qin X, Su Y: Approximation of a zero point of accretive operator in Banach spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 329: 415–424. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.06.067

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim JK, Anh PN, Nam YM: Strong convergence of an extended extragradient method for equilibrium problems and fixed point problems. J. Korean Math. Soc. 2012, 49: 187–200. 10.4134/JKMS.2012.49.1.187

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Qin X, Cho SY, Wang L: Iterative algorithms with errors for zero points of m -accretive operators. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 148

    Google Scholar 

  33. Solodov MV, Svaiter BF: Forcing strong convergence of proximal point iterations in a Hilbert space. Math. Program. 2000, 87: 189–202.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang M: Strong convergence of a viscosity iterative algorithm in Hilbert spaces. J. Nonlinear Funct. Anal. 2014., 2014: Article ID 1

    Google Scholar 

  35. Qin X, Shang M, Su Y: Strong convergence of a general iterative algorithm for equilibrium problems and variational inequality problems. Math. Comput. Model. 2008, 48: 1033–1046. 10.1016/j.mcm.2007.12.008

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Cho SY: Strong convergence of an iterative algorithm for sums of two monotone operators. J. Fixed Point Theory 2013., 2013: Article ID 6

    Google Scholar 

  37. Barbu V: Nonlinear Semigroups and Differential Equations in Banach Space. Noordhoff, Groningen; 1976.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Suzuki T: Strong convergence of Krasnoselskii and Mann’s type sequences for one-parameter nonexpansive semigroups without Bochner integrals. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2005, 305: 227–239. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2004.11.017

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Xue Z, Zhou H, Cho YJ: Iterative solutions of nonlinear equations for m -accretive operators in Banach spaces. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 2000, 1: 313–320.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhou H: Convergence theorems of fixed points for κ -strict pseudo-contractions in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 69: 456–462. 10.1016/j.na.2007.05.032

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Lions PL, Mercier B: Splitting algorithms for the sum of two nonlinear operators. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 1979, 16: 964–979. 10.1137/0716071

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Blum E, Oettli W: From optimization and variational inequalities to equilibrium problems. Math. Stud. 1994, 63: 123–145.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Fan K: A minimax inequality and applications. III. In Inequality. Edited by: Shisha O. Academic Press, New York; 1972:103–113.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Takahashi S, Takahashi W, Toyoda M: Strong convergence theorems for maximal monotone operators with nonlinear mappings in Hilbert spaces. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2010, 147: 27–41. 10.1007/s10957-010-9713-2

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the referees for useful suggestions which improved the contents of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin Wang.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that there is no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

The main idea of this paper was proposed by SYC. XQ and LW participate the research and performed some steps of the proof in this research. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cho, S.Y., Qin, X. & Wang, L. Strong convergence of a splitting algorithm for treating monotone operators. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2014, 94 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2014-94

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2014-94

Keywords