Convergence Analysis of General Version of Gauss-Type Proximal Point Method for Metrically Regular Mappings ()
Received 7 January 2016; accepted 17 July 2016; published 20 July 2016

1. Introduction
We are concerned in this study with the problem of finding a point
satisfying
(1)
Martinet [1] proposed the following algorithm for the first time for applying it to convex optimization by considering a sequence of scalars
, which are different from zero:
(2)
Rockafellar [2] thoroughly explored the method (2) in the general framework of maximal monotone inclu- sions. In particular, Rockafellar ( [2] , Theorem 1) shows that when
is an approximate solution of (2) and T is maximal monotone, then for a sequence of positive scalars
the iteration (2) generates a sequence
which is weakly convergent to a solution of (1) for any starting point
. In [3] , Aragón Artacho et al. have been presented the general version of the proximal point algorithm (GPPA) (see Algorithm 1), for the case of nonmonotone mappings, for solving the inclusion (1).
Let
. The subset of X, denoted by
, is defined by
(3)
Thus we have the following algorithms which have been presented by Aragón Artacho et al. [3] :
Note that, for a starting point near to a solution, the sequences generated by Algorithm 1 are not uniquely defined and not every sequence is convergent. The results obtained in [3] guarantee the existence of one sequence, which is convergent. Therefore, from the viewpoint of numerical computation, we can assume that these kinds of methods are not suitable in practical application. This drawback motivates us to introduce a method “so- called” general version of Gauss-type proximal point algorithm (GG-PPA). The difference between Algorithm 1 and our proposed Algorithm 2 is that the GG-PPA generates sequences, whose every sequence is convergent, but this does not happen for Algorithm 1. Thus we propose here the GG-PPA as follows:
We observe, from Algorithm 2, that
1) if
and then we assume
a Hilbert space, this algorithm reduces to the classical pro- ximal point algorithm defined by (2).
2) if
, Algorithm 2 is equivalent to the classical Gauss-type proximal point method, which has been introduced by Rashid et al. [4] .
A large number of authors have been studied on proximal point algorithm and have also found applications of this method to specific variational problems. Most of the study on this subject have been concentrated on various versions of the algorithm for solving inclusions involving monotone mappings, and specially, on monotone variational inequalities (see in [5] - [8] ). Spingarn [9] has been studied first weaker form of monotonicity and for details see in [10] .
There have a large study on local convergence analysis about Algorithm 1 (cf. [3] [11] [12] ), but there is no semilocal analysis for Algorithm 1. A huge number of contributions have been studied on semilocal analysis for the Gauss-Newton method (cf. [4] [13] - [16] ). In [4] , Rashid et al. have given a semilocal convergence analysis for the classical Gauss-type proximal point method. As our best knowledge, there is no study on semilocal analysis for Algorithm 2. Therefore we conclude that the contributions presented in this study are seems new.
In the present paper, our aim is to study the semilocal convergence for the GG-PPA defined by Algorithm 2. The metric regularity property and Lipschitz-like property for set-valued mappings are mainly used in our study. The main results are convergence analysis, established in section 3, which based on the attraction region around the initial point and provide some sufficient conditions ensuring the convergence to a solution of any sequence generated by Algorithm 2. As a consequence, local convergence results for GG-PPA are obtained.
This paper is arranged as follows. In Section 2, some necessary notations, notions and preliminary results are presented. In Section 3, we consider the GG-PPA which is introduced in Section 1 and by using the concept of metric regularity property for the set valued mapping T, we will show the existence and present the convergence of the sequence generated by Algorithm 2. In Section 4, we present a numerical experiment to validate the semilocal convergence of Algorithm 2. In the last Section, we will give a summary of the major results to close our paper.
2. Notations and Preliminary Results
In the whole paper, we assume that X and Y are Banach spaces. Let F be a set-valued mapping from X into the subsets of Y, denoted by
. Let
and
. The closed ball centered at x with radius r is denoted by
. The domain
, the inverse
and the graph
of F are respectively defined by
![]()
![]()
and
![]()
All the norms are denoted by
. Let
and
. The distance from x to A is defined by
![]()
while the excess from the set C to the set A is defined by
![]()
From [4] , we recall the following definition of metric regularity for set-valued mapping.
Definition 1 Let
be a set-valued mapping and let
. Let
and
. Then F is said to be
1) metrically regular at
on
with constant
if
(4)
2) metrically regular at
if there exist constants
and
such that F is metrically regular at
on
with constant
.
The infimum of the set of values
for which (4) holds is the modulus of metric regularity, denoted by
. The absence of metric regularity at
for
corresponds to
. The inequality (4) has direct use in providing an estimate for how far a point x is from being a solution to the generalized equation
and the expression
measures the residual when
.
Recall the definition of Lipschitz-like continuity for set-valued mapping from [17] . This notion was introduced by Aubin in [18] and has been studied extensively.
Definition 2 Let
be a set-valued mapping and let
. Let
and
. Then
is said to be Lipchitz-like at
on
with constant M if the following inequqlity hold:
(5)
The following result establish the equivalence relation between metric regularity of a mapping F at
and the Lipschitz-like continuity of the inverse
at
, which is obtained from the idea in [19] [20] .
Lemma 1 Let
be a set valued mapping and
. Let
, then F is metrically regular at
on
if and only if its inverse
is Lipschitz-like at
on
with constant
such that
![]()
We recall the following statement of Lyusternik-Graves theorem for metrically regular mapping from [21] . This theorem plays an important role in the theory of metric regularity and proves the stability of metric regularity of a generalized equation under perturbations. For its statement, we use that a set
is locally closed at
if there exists
such that the set
is closed.
Lemma 2 Consider a mapping
and any
at which
is locally closed. Let F be metrically regular at
for
with constant
. Consider also a function
which is Lipschitz continuous at
with Lipschitz constant
such that
. Then the mapping
is metric-
ally regular at
for
with constant
.
We finished this section with the following lemma, which is known as Banach fixed point theorem proved in [22] .
Lemma 3 Let
be a set-valued mapping. Let
,
and
be such that
(6)
and
(7)
Then
has a fixed point in
, that is, there exists
such that
. If
is additionally single-valued, then the fixed point of
in
is unique.
3. Convergence Analysis of GG-PPA
In this section, we assume that
is a set-valued mapping with locally closed graph at
such that T is metrically regular at
with constant
. Let
be a (single-valued) function such that
, which is Lipschitz continuous in a neighborhood O of 0 with a Lipschitz constant
Let
and define a mapping
by
(8)
Then we obtain the following equivalence
(9)
In particular,
(10)
Let
and let
. Since
is Lipschitz continuous on
, app- lying the Lyusternik-Graves theorem (see Lemma 2) we assume that the mapping
is metrically regular at
with constant
, that is, by Lemma 1 we have the following inequality
(11)
Write
(12)
Then
(13)
The following lemma plays an important role for convergence analysis of the GG-PPA, which is due to [23] .
Lemma 4 Suppose that
is metrically regular at
on
with constant
such that (12) and (13) are satisfied. Let
and
. Then
is Lipschitz-like at
on
with constant
, that is,
![]()
For our convenience, we consider a sequence of functions
with
which are Lipschitz continuous in a neighbourhood O of 0, the same for all k, with Lipschitz constants
satisfying
(14)
We rewrite the mapping
in (8) by substituting
instead of g as follows:
(15)
Since
by (14), then by Lyusternik-Graves theorem (see Lemma 2) and Lemma 1 we obtain that the mapping
is Lipschitz-like at
on
with constant
satisfying (11) and hence we have
(16)
Furthermore, we define, for each
, the mapping
by
(17)
and the set-valued mapping
by
(18)
Then
(19)
The main result of this study given as follows, which provides some sufficient conditions ensuring the convergence of the GG-PPA with initial point
.
Theorem 1 Suppose
and that
is metrically regular at
on
with constant
, and let
be defined in (12). Let
and
be such that
a)
,
b)
,
c)
.
Suppose that
(20)
Then there exists some
such that any sequence
generated by Algorithm 2 with initial point in
converges to a solution
of (1), that is,
satisfies that
.
Proof. Let
(21)
Then by assumption (b), (21) gives us
(22)
Assumption (c) and (20) allow us to take
so that
(23)
We will proceed by mathematical induction and show that Algorithm 2 generates at least one sequence and any sequence
generated by Algorithm 2 satisfies the following assertions
(24)
and
(25)
for each
. Define
(26)
Since
, by assumption (b) and (c), we have
(27)
It is trivial that (24) is true for
. For showing that (25) is true for
, we need to prove that
exists, that is,
. We will prove
by applying Lemma 3 to the mapping
with
. Let us check that both assertions (6) and (7) of Lemma 3 are hold with
and
. Noting that
by (10). Then by the mapping
in (18) and the definition of excess e, we have
(28)
(noting that
). Now, by the choice of
, we have
(29)
Since
, by the fact
in assumption (a) and
in assumption (c), for each
, (29) implies that
(30)
that is, for each
,
. In particular,
(31)
Hence by using (31) and Lemma 1 for Lipschitz-like property in (28), we have
![]()
This shows that assertion (6) of Lemma 3 is satisfied. Now, we show that the assertion (7) of Lemma 3 is satisfied. Let
. Then by assumption (a) and (27), we have ![]()
and
by (30). By assumed Lipschitz-like property of
, we have
(32)
Applying (19) in (32), we obtain
(33)
Then by (14), (33) reduces to
![]()
This implies that the assertion (7) of Lemma 3 is also satisfied. Since both assertions (6) and (7) of Lemma 3 are fulfilled, we can deduce there exists a fixed point
such that
, which translates to
, that is,
and hence
.
Now, we show that (25) is hold for
.
Note that
by assumption (a). Then (13) is valid for (14). Since
is Lipschitz-like at
on
, it follows from Lemma 4 that the mapping
is Lipschitz-like at
on
with constant
for each
. In particular,
is Lipschitz-like at
on
with constant
as
by assumption (a) and the choice of
. Furthermore, assumptions (a) and (c) imply that
(34)
It seems that
. Then by Lemma 1 we can say that the mapping
is metrically regular on
relative to
with constant
. Thus by applying Lemma 1, we have
(35)
and (23) implies that
(36)
Then from (16) and using (36), we obtain that
(37)
From Algorithm 2 and using (21) and (37), we obtain that
(38)
This implies that (25) is hold for
.
Suppose that the points
have been obtained, and (24) and (25) are true for
. We will show that there exists a point
such that (24) and (25) also hold for
. Since (24) and (25) are true for each
, we have the following inequality
(39)
This reflects that (24) holds for
. Now with almost the same argument as we did for the case when
, we can find that the mapping
is also Lipschitz-like at
on
with
constant
. Then by applying again Algorithm 2, we have
(40)
This shows that (25) holds for
. Therefore, the proof is completed.
In the particular case, when
is a solution of (1), that is,
, Theorem 1 is reduced to the following corollary, which gives the local convergence of the sequence generated by the GG-PPA defined by Algorithm 2.
Corollary 1 Suppose that
and that
satisfies
and that
is metrically regular at
with constant
. Let
be such that
and suppose that
(41)
Then there exists some
such that any sequence
generated by Algorithm 2 with initial point in
converges to a solution
of (1), that is,
satisfies that
.
Proof. Since
is metrically regular at
, there exist constants
,
and
such that
is metrically regular at
on
with constant
. Then, for each
, one has that
(42)
Let
be such that
. Choose
such that
and
Then
(43)
and
(44)
Thus we can choose
such that
(45)
Now it is routine to check that inequalities (a)-(c) of Theorem 1 are hold. Thus Theorem 1 is applicable to complete the proof of the corollary.
4. Numerical Experiment
We will provide, in this section, a numerical example to validate the semilocal convergence results of GG-PPA.
Example 1 Let
. Define a set-valued mapping T on
by
. Consider a sequence of Lipschitz continuous function
with
, which is
defined by
. Then Algorithm 2 generates a sequence which is converges to
.
It is obvious from the statement that T is metrically regular at
and
is Lipschitz continuous on the neighborhood of 0 with Lipschitz constant
. Consider
. Then from (3), we have that
![]()
On the other hand, if
we obtain that
![]()
Thus from (40), we obtain that
![]()
For the given values of
, we see that
. Thus, this implies that the sequence generated
by Algorithm 2 converges linearly. Then the following Table 1, obtained by using Mat lab program, indicates that the solution of the generalized equation is 0.5 when
.
Moreover, in the case when
, we can sketch the following Figure 1:
5. Conclusions
In this study, we have established semi-local and local convergence results for the general version of Gauss-type proximal point algorithm for solving generalized equation under the assumptions that
, a sequence of functions
with
which is Lipschitz continuous in a neighbourhood O of the origin
![]()
Table 1. Finding a solution of generalized equation.
and T is metrically regular. Moreover, we have presented a numerical experiment to validate the semilocal convergence result for Algorithm 2. For the case where
, the question, whether the results are true for GG-PPA, is a little bit complicated. However, from the proof of the main theorem, one sees that all the results obtained in the present paper remain true provided that, for any
, the following implication holds:
![]()
To see the detail proof of the above implication, one can refer to [17] .
Acknowledgements
We thank the editor and the referees for their comments. Research of this work is funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Bangladesh, grant No. 39.009.002.01.00.053.2014-2015/EAS-19. This support is greatly appreciated.