Abstract
In this paper, we combine the classical subgradient extragradient method with the Bregman projection method for solving variational inequality problems in reflexive Banach spaces. Specifically, we set two different parameters in the two-step projections, as opposed to consistent parameters in other results. In addition, the application of the inertial technique accelerates the iteration efficiency. Finally, we compare the proposed algorithm with other known results and find that our method effectively improves the convergence process.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The main purpose of this paper is to study the variational inequality problem in Banach spaces. It is well known that the variational inequality problem consists in finding \(p\in \mathcal {C}\) such that
where \(\mathscr {F}:\mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {B}^{*}\) is a nonlinear operator, \(\langle t,s\rangle :\mathscr {B}^{*}\times \mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathbb {R} \) is the duality pairing for \(t\in \mathscr {B}^{*}\) and \(s\in \mathscr {B}\), \(\mathscr {B}\) is a real Banach space with the dual \(\mathscr {B}^{*}\) and \(\mathcal {C}\) is a nonempty closed convex subset of \(\mathscr {B}\). Throughout the paper, to simplify the narrative, we denote the variational inequality problem and its solution set by VIP and \(\mathcal {S}\) respectively.
The theory of variational inequalities can be traced back to the 1960s, when the problem first appeared in the Signorini problem proposed by Antonio Signorini, and then gradually obtained complete results in the research of Fichera, Stampacchia and Lions. With the continuous scientific and technological innovations, many researchers applied this theory to different fields such as mechanics, economics and mathematics. Particularly, in mathematics, the VIP is closely related to saddle-point, equilibrium and fixed-point problems, see for example, Yao et al. (2020), Ceng et al. (2014), Yao et al. (2011), Barbagallo and Di Vincenzo (2015), Lions (1977), Jitpeera and Kumam (2010) and the references therein.
In recent years, many different methods have been developed to solve VIP. One of the simplest of these methods is the projected gradient method (for short, PGM), which can be expressed as follows:
where \(\mathscr {P}_\mathcal {C}\) denotes the metric projection from Hilbert space \(\mathscr {H}\) onto the feasible set \(\mathcal {C}\), the operator \(\mathscr {A}:\mathscr {H}\rightarrow \mathscr {H}\) is strongly monotone. Since the PGM is limited by strong assumptions, this will greatly affect its applicability. Therefore, Korpelevich (1976) proposed the extragradient method (for short, EGM) using the double-projection iteration, thereby weakening this condition and improving the applicability of the iterative method. The EGM is as follows:
where \(\mathscr {P}_\mathcal {C}: \mathscr {H}\rightarrow \mathcal {C}\) denotes the metric projection, \(\mathscr {A}\) is monotone L-Lipschitz continuous operator and \(\tau \in (0,\frac{1}{L})\). Under reasonable assumptions, Korpelevich obtained a weak convergence theorem for the sequence generated by EGM. Since then, the authors have combined various techniques to improve the convergence based on the EGM and have obtained further results, see for example, Jitpeera and Kumam (2010), Hieu et al. (2020), Xie et al. (2021), Dong et al. (2016), Tan et al. (2022) and the references therein.
However, although the EGM weakens the constraints based on the PGM, the projection onto the feasible set \(\mathcal {C}\) must to be computed twice during each iteration of the loop. To reduce the computational effort, Censor et al. (2011) in a later study proposed the following subgradient extragradient method (for short, SEGM):
where \(\mathscr {P}_\mathcal {C}, \mathscr {A}\) and \(\tau \) are the same as defined in EGM. In particular, they constructed a half-space \(T_i:=\{x\in \mathscr {H}:\langle w_i-\tau \mathscr {A}w_i-t_i,x-t_i\rangle \le 0\}\) to replace the feasible set \(\mathcal {C}\) in the second step of the projection process. By the definition of \(T_i\), the projection is easy to calculate. The weak convergence theorem of SEGM in Hilbert spaces has been proved under some appropriate assumptions. At the same time, SEGM has also attracted the interest of many authors, see for instance, Jolaoso et al. (2021), Yao et al. (2022), Yang et al. (2020), Abubakar et al. (2022) and the references therein.
Noting that the above methods all yield the corresponding weak convergence theorems, it is natural to further consider the strong convergence. Kraikaew and Saejung (2014) combined the SEGM with the Halpern method and obtained the following algorithm:
where the metric projection \(\mathscr {P}_\mathcal {C}\), the operator \(\mathscr {A}\), the parameter \(\tau \) and the half-space \(T_i\) are defined in the same way as in the SEGM, \(\{\alpha _{i}\}\) is a sequence in (0,1) satisfying \(\lim _{i\rightarrow \infty }\alpha _i=0\) and \(\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }\alpha _i=\infty \). By choosing appropriate values for the parameters, they obtained a strong convergence theorem for an iterative method for solving VIP in Hilbert space.
On the other hand, it is known that inertial technique can effectively accelerate the iterative process of algorithms. Therefore, authors added inertia term to the algorithm for solving VIP. For example, Thong and Hieu (2018) combined the inertial technique with the SEGM and thus obtained the following approach:
where \(T_i:=\{x\in \mathscr {H}:\langle w_i-\tau \mathscr {A}w_i-t_i, x-t_i\rangle \le 0\}\), \(\{\alpha _i\}\) is non-decreasing sequence and \(0\le \alpha _{i}\le \alpha \le \sqrt{5}-2\), \(\tau L\le \frac{\frac{1}{2}-2\alpha -\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^2-\delta }{\frac{1}{2}-\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^2}\) for some \(0<\delta <\frac{1}{2}-2\alpha -\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^2\). With a suitable choice of parameters, they proved that the sequence generated by the algorithm weakly converges to an element of the solution set \(\mathcal {S}\) and that the operator \(\mathscr {A}\) involved is monotone and L-Lipschitz continuous. Of course, the algorithm proposed by Thong and Hieu (2018) can be combined with the Halpern method, based on the ideas mentioned above, to obtain the corresponding strong convergence theorem.
Since Banach spaces have more general properties than Hilbert spaces, some authors have solved VIP in certain Banach spaces using tools based on existing results in Hilbert spaces. For example, Cai et al. (2018) combined the SEGM with the Halpern method and solved variational inequalities in 2-uniformly convex Banach spaces. The algorithm is iterated as follows:
where \(\Pi _\mathcal {C}:\mathscr {B}^{*}\rightarrow \mathcal {C}\subset \mathscr {B}\) is the generalized projection operator, \(J:\mathscr {B}\rightarrow 2^{\mathscr {B}^{*}}\) is the normalized duality mapping and \(\mathscr {B}\) is a real 2-uniformly convex Banach space with dual \(\mathscr {B}^{*}\). The step size \(\tau \) satisfies \(0< \tau <\frac{1}{\mu L},\) where \(\mu \ge 1\) is the 2-uniform convexity constant of \(\mathscr {B}\) and L is the Lipschitz constant of \(\mathscr {A}\). \(\{\alpha _{i}\}\) is a sequence in (0,1) satisfying \(\lim _{i\rightarrow \infty }\alpha _i=0\) and \(\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }\alpha _i=\infty \). Cai et al. (2018) obtained a strong convergence theorem by choosing the appropriate parameters.
Furthermore, some authors have recently considered solving VIP in reflexive Banach spaces, see for instance, Jolaoso and Shehu (2022), Jolaoso et al. (2022), Oyewole et al. (2022), Reich et al. (2021), Abass et al. (2022) and the references therein. For example, Jolaoso and Shehu (2022) generalized the classical Tseng’s extragradient method proposed by Tseng (2000) to reflexive Banach spaces using Bregman projection, thus obtaining strong and weak convergence theorems under different conditions, respectively. In addition, Jolaoso et al. (2022) combined Popov’s method Popov (1980) with the SEGM to obtain that the sequence generated by the method converges to an element of \(\mathcal {S}\) in reflexive Banach spaces by selecting appropriate parameters with the help of Bregman projection. In Reich et al. (2021), Reich et al. applied the inertial technique to the reflexive Banach space based on the hybrid and shrinking projection method and Tseng’s extragradient method and obtained a strong convergence theorem under reasonable assumptions. These results have a common feature in that they all achieve a generalization of the known results from Hilbert spaces to reflexive Banach spaces.
Motivated by the above works, in this paper, we propose a new inertial Bregman projection method for solving VIP in real reflexive Banach space. The modifications are as follows:
-
Reich et al. (2021) successfully combined the inertial technique with the Tseng’s extragradient method and applied it to reflexive Banach spaces. Based on this, we found that adding inertial terms to the SEGM can also be achieved.
-
In contrast to the above mentioned methods, we obtain a strong convergence theorem in reflexive Banach spaces by Halpern-type iteration and the concepts of Bregman distance and Bregman projection under suitable conditions. It is well known that strong convergence can be used to infer weak convergence, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
-
We modify the step size parameter based on the SEGM. We set two different constant parameters to control the step size, which allows the algorithm to improve the convergence process of the iterative sequence without the restriction that the two parameters must be equal.
2 Preliminaries
This section collects several background material to facilitate the study that follows.
Let \(f:\mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be a proper convex and lower semicontinuous function. For simplicity, dom f denotes the domain of f, \(\text {dom}\;f:=\{s\in \mathscr {B}:f(s)<\infty \}\). If \(s\in \) int(dom f), then
-
(i)
the subdifferential of f at s is the convex set given by
$$\begin{aligned} \partial f(s):=\{s^*\in \mathscr {B}^{*}:f(s)+\langle t-s,s^*\rangle \le f(t),\ \forall t\in \mathscr {B}\}. \end{aligned}$$(2) -
(ii)
the Fenchel conjugate of f is the convex function \(f^*:\mathscr {B}^{*}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) with
$$\begin{aligned} f^*(s^*):=\sup \{\langle s,s^*\rangle -f(s):s\in \mathscr {B}\}. \end{aligned}$$ -
(iii)
the directional derivative of f at s is defined as
$$\begin{aligned} f^{\circ }(s,t):=\lim _{n\rightarrow 0}\dfrac{f(s+nt)-f(s)}{n},\ \forall t\in \mathscr {B}. \end{aligned}$$(3) -
(iv)
f is called G\(\hat{a}\)teaux differentiable at s, if the limit of (3) exists. At this time, the gradient of f at s is the linear function \(\triangledown f(s)\) satisfying
$$\begin{aligned} \langle \nabla f(s),t\rangle :=f^{\circ }(s,t),\ \forall t\in \mathscr {B}. \end{aligned}$$ -
(v)
f is said to Fréchet differentiable at s, if \(n\rightarrow 0\) in (3) is attained uniformly for any \(\Vert t\Vert =1\). f is called uniformly Fréchet differentiable on a subset \(\mathcal {C}\), if \(n\rightarrow 0\) in (3) is attained uniformly for any \(\Vert t\Vert =1\) and \(s\in \mathcal {C}\subset \mathscr {B}\).
The Banach space \(\mathscr {B}\) is said to be reflexive, if \(\mathscr {J}(\mathscr {B})=\mathscr {B}^{**}\), where \(\mathscr {J}:\mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {B}^{**}\) is the standard embedding operator. Simultaneously, f is said to be Legendre if and only if it has the following forms:
-
(P1)
f is G\(\hat{a}\)teaux differentiable, dom\(\nabla f\)=int(dom f), int(dom f)\(\ne \emptyset \),
-
(P2)
\(f^*\) is G\(\hat{a}\)teaux differentiable, dom\(\nabla f^*\)=int(dom \(f^*\)), int(dom \(f^*\))\(\ne \emptyset \).
The reflexivity of \(\mathscr {B}\) yields \((\partial f)^{-1}=\partial f^*\). And combining (P1) and (P2) shows that \( \nabla f=(\nabla f^*)^{-1},\ \text {ran} \nabla f=\text {dom}\nabla f^*=\text {int(dom} f^*),\ \text {ran} \nabla f^*=\text {dom}\nabla f=\text {int(dom} f)\). Moreover, in the interior of their respective domains, f and \(f^*\) are strictly convex and f is Legendre if and only if \(f^*\) is Legendre.
Assume that f is G\(\hat{a}\)teaux differentiable, the Bregman distance associated to f is the function \(\mathcal {D}_f: \)dom\(f\times \)int(domf)\(\rightarrow [0,+\infty )\) given by
One readily observes the following properties concerning to \(\mathcal {D}_f\):
-
(i)
three point identity:
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {D}_f(t,w)+\mathcal {D}_f(w,s)-\mathcal {D}_f(t,s)=\langle \triangledown f(w)-\triangledown f(s),w-t\rangle , \end{aligned}$$ -
(ii)
four point identity:
$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {D}_f(w,x)+\mathcal {D}_f(t,s)-\mathcal {D}_f(w,s)-\mathcal {D}_f(t,x)=\langle \triangledown f(s)-\triangledown f(x),w-t\rangle , \end{aligned}$$for any \(s,t,w,x\in \mathscr {B}\).
We say that a G\(\hat{a}\)teaux differentiable function f belongs to \(\beta \)-strongly convex if
namely,
This gives that
for every \(s\in \) dom f, \(t\in \)int(dom f).
The modulus of total convexity at \(s\in \) int(dom f) denoted \(v_f(s,\cdot ):[0,+\infty )\rightarrow [0,+\infty ]\) is given by
We say that f is totally convex at \(u\in \text {int(dom}\ f)\), if \(v_f(s,w)>0,\; \forall w>0\). Furthermore, the modulus of total convexity of f on nonempty subset \(\mathcal {C}\subset \mathscr {B}\) is given by
For given bounded subset \(\mathcal {C}\) and \(w>0\), the hypothesis of \(v_f(\mathcal {C},w)>0\) yields that f is totally convex. Moreover, strongly convex function can derive totally convexity. Specially, when f is a Legendre function, we know that totally convexity is consistent with uniformly convexity of f. Besides, f belongs to strongly coercive if \(\lim _{\Vert s\Vert \rightarrow \infty } \dfrac{f(s)}{\Vert s\Vert }=+\infty \).
Given a nonempty closed convex subset \(\mathcal {C}\subset \mathscr {B}\), the operator \(\mathscr {F}\) is
-
(i)
monotone on \(\mathcal {C}\), if
$$\begin{aligned} \langle \mathscr {F}s-\mathscr {F}t,s-t\rangle \ge 0,\ \forall \, s,t\in \mathcal {C}. \end{aligned}$$ -
(ii)
pseudomonotone on \(\mathcal {C}\), if
$$\begin{aligned} \langle \mathscr {F}s,t-s\rangle \ge 0 \Rightarrow \langle \mathscr {F}t,t-s\rangle \ge 0, \ \forall \, s,t\in \mathcal {C}. \end{aligned}$$ -
(iii)
L-Lipschitz continuous on \(\mathcal {C}\), if there is an absolute constant L with
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert \mathscr {F}s-\mathscr {F}t\Vert \le L\Vert s-t\Vert , \ \forall \, s,t\in \mathcal {C}. \end{aligned}$$
Assume that \(B_r:=\{t\in \mathscr {B}:\Vert t\Vert <r,r>0\}\), \(S_{\mathscr {B}}:=\{t\in \mathscr {B}:\Vert t\Vert =1\}\) and \(\rho _r:[0,+\infty )\rightarrow [0,+\infty ]\) is the gauge of uniformly convexity of f,
Then \(f:\mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is uniformly convex on bounded subsets of \(\mathscr {B}\) if \(\rho _r(t)>0,\ \forall r,t>0\). It is known that a strongly convex function is uniformly convex.
We will need several lemmas to obtain our main results.
Lemma 1
(Naraghirad and Yao 2013) If f is uniformly convex on bounded subsets of \(\mathscr {B}\), then
for all \(r>0\), \(i,j\in \{0,1,2,\ldots ,k\},t_i\in B_r,\alpha _i \in (0,1)\) with \(\sum _{i=0}^{k}\alpha _i=1\), where \(\rho _r\) is the gauge of uniform convexity of f.
Lemma 2
(Butnariu and Iusem 2000) The function f is totally convex on bounded subsets of \(\mathscr {B}\) if and only if, for \(\{t_i\} \subset \) int(dom f) and \(\{s_i\}\subset \) dom f, such that the first one is bounded,
Lemma 3
(Reich and Sabach 2009) If f is convex, bounded and uniformly Fréchet differentiable on bounded subsets of \(\mathscr {B}\), then \(\nabla f\) is uniformly continuous on bounded subsets of \(\mathscr {B}\) from the strong topology of \(\mathscr {B}\) to the strong topology of \(\mathscr {B}^{*}\).
Lemma 4
(Zâlinescu 2002) If f is convex and bounded on bounded subsets of \(\mathscr {B}\). Then the following are equivalent:
-
1.
f is strongly coercive and uniformly convex on bounded subsets of \(\mathscr {B}\).
-
2.
dom \(f^*=\mathscr {B}^{*}, f^*\) is bounded on bounded subsets and uniformly smooth on bounded subsets of \(\mathscr {B}^{*}\).
-
3.
dom \(f^*=\mathscr {B}^{*}, f^*\) is Fréchet differentiable and \(\nabla f^*\) is uniformly norm-to-norm continuous on bounded subsets of \(\mathscr {B}^{*}\).
Lemma 5
(Butnariu and Iusem 2000) If f is strongly coercive, then
-
1.
\(\nabla f:\mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {B}^{*}\) is one-to-one, onto and norm-to-weak* continuous.
-
2.
\(\{t\in \mathscr {B}:\mathcal {D}_f(t,s)\le r\}\) is bounded for all \(s\in \mathscr {B}\) and \(r>0\).
-
3.
dom\(f^*=\mathscr {B}^{*}, f^*\) is G\(\hat{a}\)teaux differentiable and \(\nabla f^*=(\nabla f)^{-1}\).
Lemma 6
(Martín-Márquez et al. 2013) Let f be G\(\hat{a}\)teaux differentiable on int(dom f) such that \(\nabla f^*\) is bounded on bounded subsets of dom \(f^*\). Let \(t_0\in \mathscr {B}\) and \(\{t_i\}\subset \) int\((\mathscr {B})\), if \(\{\mathcal {D}_f(t_0,t_i)\}\) is bounded, then the sequence \(\{t_i\}\) is bounded too.
Lemma 7
(Butnariu and Iusem 2000) Let \(\mathcal {C}\) be a nonempty closed convex subset of a reflexive Banach space \(\mathscr {B}\). A Bregman projection of \(t\in \text {int(dom}\ f)\) onto \(\mathcal {C}\subset \text {int(dom} \ f)\) is the unique vector \(Proj_\mathcal {C}^f(t)\in \mathcal {C}\) which satisfies
Lemma 8
(Alber 1996; Censor and Lent 1981; Phelps 1993) Let \(\mathcal {C}\) be a nonempty closed convex subset of a reflexive Banach space \(\mathscr {B}\) and \(t\in \mathscr {B}\). Let f be G\(\hat{a}\)teaux differentiable and totally convex function. Then
-
1.
\(p=Proj_\mathcal {C}^f(t) \Leftrightarrow \langle \nabla f(t)-\nabla f(p),s-p\rangle \le 0,\, \forall s\in \mathcal {C}.\)
-
2.
\(\mathcal {D}_f(s,Proj_\mathcal {C}^f(t))+\mathcal {D}_f(Proj_\mathcal {C}^f(t),t)\le \mathcal {D}_f(s,t),\, \forall s\in \mathcal {C}.\)
Define the bifunction \(V_f:\mathscr {B}\times \mathscr {B}^{*}\rightarrow [0,+\infty )\) by
Then
and
In addition, if f is a proper lower semicontinuous function, then \(f^*\) is a proper weak\(^*\) lower semicontinuous and convex function. Hence, \(V_f\) is convex in the second variable. And
for all \(x\in \mathscr {B}\), where \(\{t_i\}_{i=1}^{N}\subset \mathscr {B}\) and \(\{s_i\}_{i=1}^{N}\subset (0,1)\) with \(\sum _{i=1}^{N}s_i=1\).
Lemma 9
(Maingé 2008) Let \(\{w_i\}\) be a sequence of non-negative real number. If there is a subsequence \(\{w_{i_j}\}\) of \(\{w_i\}\) satisfies \(w_{i_j}<w_{i_j+1}\) for all \(j\in \mathbb {N}\), then there exists a non-decreasing sequence \(\{m_k\}\subset \mathbb {N}\) such that \(\lim _{k\rightarrow \infty }m_k=\infty \) and for all (sufficiently large) number \(k\in \mathbb {N}\),
In fact, \(m_k:=\max \{i\le k:w_i<w_{i+1}\}\).
Lemma 10
(Xu 2002) Let \(\{a_i\}, \{b_i\}, \{c_i\}, \{\alpha _{i}\}\) and \( \{\beta _i\}\) be sequences of non-negative real numbers such that \(\{\alpha _{i}\}\subset (0,1), \sum _{i=1}^\infty \alpha _i=\infty , \lim \sup _{i\rightarrow \infty }b_{i}\le 0, \{\beta _i\}\subset [0,\frac{1}{2}], \sum _{i=1}^\infty c_i<\infty \), for \(i\ge 1\),
Then \(\lim _{i\rightarrow \infty }a_i=0\).
Lemma 11
(Mashreghi and Nasri 2010) If the mapping \(h:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathscr {B}^*\) defined as \(h(z)=\mathscr {F}(zs+(1-z)t)\) is continuous for all \(s,t\in \mathcal {C}\), then \(\mathscr {M}(\mathcal {C},\mathscr {F}):=\{s^*\in \mathcal {C}:\langle \mathscr {F}t,t-s^*\rangle , \forall t\in \mathcal {C}\}\subset \mathcal {S}\). Moreover, if \(\mathscr {F}\) is pseudomonotone, then \(\mathscr {M}(\mathcal {C},\mathscr {F})\) is closed, convex and \(\mathscr {M}(\mathcal {C},\mathscr {F})=\mathcal {S}\).
3 Main results
In this section, we propose an inertial subgradient extragradient method with Bregman distance for solving pseudomonotone variational inequality problems in reflexive Banach spaces. First, we give the following assumptions:
- (C1):
-
The feasible set \(\mathcal {C}\) is a nonempty closed convex subset of real reflexive Banach space \(\mathscr {B}\). The proper lower semicontinuous function \(f:\mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) is strongly coercive Legendre which is bounded, uniformly Fréchet differentiable and \(\beta \)-strongly convex on bounded subsets of \(\mathscr {B}\).
- (C2):
-
The operator \(\mathscr {F}:\mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {B}^*\) is pseudomonotone, L-Lipschitz continuous and satisfies the following condition:
$$\begin{aligned} \{q_i\}\subset \mathcal {C}, q_i\rightharpoonup q \Rightarrow \Vert \mathscr {F}q\Vert \le \liminf _{i\rightarrow \infty }\Vert \mathscr {F}q_i\Vert . \end{aligned}$$(8)The solution set \(\mathcal {S}\) is nonempty.
- (C3):
-
Let \(\{\epsilon _i\}\) be a positive sequence such that \(\lim _{i\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\displaystyle \epsilon _i}{\alpha _i} =0\), where \(\{\alpha _i\}\subset (0,1),\,\lim _{i\rightarrow \infty }\alpha _i=0\) and \(\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }\alpha _i=\infty \).
Now, we introduce the following algorithm.
Remark 1
: 1. Note that \(\lim _{i\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\theta _i}{\alpha _i}\Vert w_i-w_{i-1}\Vert =0\). Indeed, for all i we have \(\theta _i\le \frac{\displaystyle \epsilon _i}{\Vert w_i-w_{i-1}\Vert }\), it follows from (C3) that
2. If \(t_i=x_i\), then \(t_i\in \mathcal {S}\). Indeed, the definition of \(\{t_i\}\) and Lemma 8(1) show that
Due to \(t_i=x_i\), we get that
Since \(\tau > 0\), then \(t_i\in \mathcal {S}\). If \(\mathscr {F}t_i=0\), it is easy to see that \(t_i\in \mathcal {S}\).
Lemma 12
Assume that the conditions (C1–C3) hold. Let \(\{t_i\},\{s_i\}\) and \(\{x_i\}\) be the sequences produced by Algorithm 3. Then
for every \(p\in \mathcal {S}\).
Proof
Bearing in mind Lemma 8(1), the definition of \(\{s_i\}\) yields that
Due to \(p\in \mathcal {S}\subset T_i\), we deduce that
namely
In light of the three point identity, we see that
Since \(t_i\in \mathcal {C}\) and \(p\in \mathcal {S}\), we have \(\langle \mathscr {F}p,t_i-p\rangle \ge 0\). The pseudomonotonicity of \(\mathscr {F}\) implies \(\langle \mathscr {F}t_i,t_i-p\rangle \ge 0\). Thus (11) can be transformed into
Next we estimate \(\xi \langle \mathscr {F}t_i, t_i-s_i\rangle \). The three point identity shows that
Applying the definition of \(T_i\) and \(s_i\in T_i\), one readily observes
It follows from (4) and (8) that
Combining (13), (14) and (15), then
Substituting (16) into (12), we obtain
which is the desired inequality. \(\square \)
Lemma 13
Suppose the conditions (C1–C3) hold. The sequence \(\{w_i\}\) produced by Algorithm 3 is bounded.
Proof
As \(\tau \in \left( 0,\frac{\beta }{L}\right) \) and \(\xi \in (0,\tau ]\), we see that
With (18) and Lemma 12 in hand, we get
The definition of \(\{w_i\}\) and (7) show that
Hence, with Lemma 1 in hand, the definition of \(V_f\) and the property of \(\rho _r^*\) yield that
By induction, we conclude that
Consequently, the sequence \(\{w_i\}\) is bounded by Lemma 6.\(\square \)
Lemma 14
Assume that the conditions (C1-C3) hold. Let \(\{x_{i_k}\}\) be a subsequence of \(\{x_i\}\) produced by Algorithm 3 such that \(x_{i_k}\rightharpoonup q\) and \(\lim _{k\rightarrow \infty }\Vert x_{i_k}-t_{i_k}\Vert =0\), then \(q\in \mathcal {S}\).
Proof
Due to \(t_{i_k}:=Proj_ \mathcal {C}^f\big (\nabla f^*(\nabla f(x_{i_k})-\tau \mathscr {F}x_{i_k})\big )\), it follows from Lemma 8(1) that
that is
Hence,
Since \(\lim \limits _{k\rightarrow \infty }\Vert x_{i_k}-t_{i_k}\Vert =0\), Lemma 3 yields that \(\nabla f\) is uniformly continuous, then
Putting \(k\rightarrow \infty \) in (21), \(\tau > 0\) shows that
We then conclude that
Due to \(\lim \limits _{k\rightarrow \infty }\Vert x_{i_k}-t_{i_k}\Vert =0\) and the fact that \(\mathscr {F}\) is Lipschitz continuous, we get
We now proceed to the proof of \(q\in \mathcal {S}\). Given a sequence \(\{\epsilon _k\}\) of positive numbers that decreases and tends to 0, for each k, it follows from (24) that there is the smallest positive integer \(N_{k}\) such that
\(\{\epsilon _k\}\) is decreasing implies that the sequence \(\{N_{k}\} \) is increasing. Besides, for each k, there is a bounded sequence \(\{v_{N_k}\}\subset \mathscr {B}\) such that \(\epsilon _k = \langle \mathscr {F}t_{N_k},\epsilon _k v_{N_k}\rangle \). Thus, we have
The pseudomonotonicity of \(\mathscr {F}\) shows that
which implies that
In light of \(x_{i_k}\rightharpoonup q\) and \(\lim \nolimits _{k\rightarrow \infty } \Vert x_{i_k}-t_{i_k} \Vert =0\), we have \(t_{i_k}\rightharpoonup q\ (k\rightarrow \infty ) \) and thus \(q\in \mathcal {C}\). According to (8),
which implies that \(\lim _{k\rightarrow \infty }\epsilon _k v_{N_k}=0\). Thus, letting \(k\rightarrow \infty \) in (26), the Lipschitz continuity of \(\mathscr {F}\) and the boundedness of \(\{x_{N_k}\} \) and \(\{ v_{N_k}\}\) show that
Hence, for all \(x\in \mathcal {C}\),
By Lemma 11, we see therefore that \(q\in \mathcal {S}\). \(\square \)
Theorem 1
Assume that the conditions (C1–C3) hold. Then the sequence \(\{w_i\}\) produced by Algorithm 3 strongly converges to \(p=Proj_{\mathcal {S}}^f(w_1)\).
Proof
According to the definition of \(\{w_i\}\), the formulas (5), (6) and (7) show that
We now proceed to the proof of \(w_i\rightarrow p\) in two cases:
Case 1: There exists \(N\in \mathbb {N}\) such that \(\{\mathcal {D}_f(p,w_i)\}_{n=N} ^\infty \) is nonincreasing. Thus \(\{\mathcal {D}_f(p,w_i)\}\) is convergent and
Moreover, it follows from Lemmas 12 and 13 that
Namely
for some \(M_1>0\). Due to \(\lim _{i\rightarrow \infty }\alpha _i=0\), combining (30) and (18), we can conclude that
Owing to Lemma 2, we have
which implies that
At the same time, let \(i\rightarrow \infty \), then
for some \(M_2>0\). From Lemma 4, the uniformly norm-to-norm continuity of \(\nabla f^*\) implies that
Therefore, in light of (33) and (34),
Since \(\{w_i\}\) is bounded, there is a subsequence \(\{w_{i_k}\}\subset \{w_i\}\) such that \(w_{i_k}\rightharpoonup q\) and thus \(x_{i_k}\rightharpoonup q\) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \). Owing to Lemma 14, we can conclude that \(q\in \mathcal {S}\). Combining with \(p=Proj_{\mathcal {S}}^f(w_1)\), then
which means that
Combining (29), (37) with Lemma 10, we see therefore that \(\mathcal {D}_f(p,w_i)\rightarrow 0\) as \(i\rightarrow \infty \), that is \(w_i\rightarrow p\) as \(i\rightarrow \infty \).
Case 2: There is a subsequence \(\{\mathcal {D}_f(p,w_{i_j})\}\subset \{\mathcal {D}_f(p,w_{i})\} \) such that \(\mathcal {D}_f(p,w_{i_j})<\mathcal {D}_f(p,w_{i_j+1})\) for all \(j\in \mathbb {N}\). It follows from Lemma 9 that there exists a non-decreasing sequence \(\{i_k\}\subset \mathbb {N}\) tending to infinity such that
In Lemma 13 we obtain
Therefore, the fact \(\lim _{i\rightarrow \infty }\alpha _i=0\) implies
Due to boundedness of \(\{w_{i_k}\}\), there is a subsequence of \(\{w_{i_k}\}\) still denoted by \(\{w_{i_k}\}\) and \(w_{i_k}\rightharpoonup q\). As stated in Case 1, we have
According to (29),
The fact \(\alpha _{i_k}>0\) shows that
Namely,
Hence, \(w_k\rightarrow p \ (k\rightarrow \infty )\), which is the desired result.\(\square \)
Next we apply the above result to Hilbert space. Let \(f(s)=\frac{1}{2}\Vert s\Vert ^2\), we have \(\mathcal {D}_f(s,t):=\dfrac{1}{2}\Vert s-t\Vert ^2,\ \forall s,t\in \mathcal {C}\), then
where \(\mathcal {C}\) is nonempty closed convex subset of Hilbert space \(\mathscr {H}\), \(\mathscr {P}_\mathcal {C}\) is the metric projection of \(\mathscr {H}\) onto \(\mathcal {C}\). In this case, if \(\theta _i=0\), we can obtain the following result.
Corollary 1
Assume that the feasible set \(\mathcal {C}\) is a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space \(\mathscr {H}\), the solution set \(\mathcal {S}\) is nonempty and the operator \(\mathscr {A}:\mathscr {H} \rightarrow \mathscr {H}\) is pseudomonotone, L-Lipschitz continuous and satisfies \(\{q_i\}\subset \mathcal {C}, q_i\rightharpoonup q \Rightarrow \Vert \mathscr {A}q\Vert \le \liminf _{i\rightarrow \infty }\Vert \mathscr {A}q_i\Vert \). Suppose \( \tau \in (0,\frac{1}{L})\), \(\xi \in (0,\tau ]\), \(T_i:=\{x\in \mathscr {H}:\langle x_i-\tau \mathscr {A}x_i-t_i,x-t_i\rangle \le 0\}\), the sequence \(\{\alpha _i\}\subset (0,1)\) satisfies \(\lim _{i\rightarrow \infty }\alpha _i=0\) and \(\sum _{i=1}^{\infty }\alpha _i=\infty \). Then the sequence \(\{x_i\}\) produced by the following algorithm strongly converges to an element \(p=\mathscr {P}_{\mathcal {S}}(x_1)\).
4 Numerical experiments
In this section, we perform two numerical examples to show the behaviors of Algorithm 3, and compare them with other algorithms. In both experiments the parameters are chosen as \(\alpha _i=\frac{1}{i+1}\) and
where \(\epsilon _i=\frac{1}{(i+2)^{1.1}}\).
Example 1
Let \(\mathscr {B}=L^{2}([0,1])\) endowed with norm \(\Vert x\Vert _{\mathscr {B}}=(\int _{0}^{1}|x(t)|^{2}dt)^{\frac{1}{2}}\) and inner product \(\langle x,y \rangle _{\mathscr {B}}=\int _{0}^{1}x(t)y(t)dt\) for all \(x,y\in \mathscr {B}\). Consider \(\mathcal {C}:=\{x \in \mathscr {B}:\Vert x\Vert \le 2\}\). Let \(g: \mathcal {C}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) be defined by
Note that g is \(L_g\)-Lipchitz continuous with \(L_g=\frac{16}{25}\) and \(\frac{1}{5}\le g(s)\le 1,~~\forall s \in \mathcal {C}\). The Volterra integral operator \(V:\mathscr {B}\rightarrow \mathscr {B}\) is given by
Then V is bounded linear monotone operator. Define \(\mathscr {F}:\mathcal {C}\rightarrow \mathscr {B}\) by
We see that \(\mathscr {F}\) is not monotone on \(\mathcal {C}\) but pseudomonotone and L-Lipschitz continuous with \(L = 82/\pi \).
We compare our Algorithm 3 (shortly, OUR) with Algorithm 3.5 in Cai et al. (2018) (shortly, CGIS) and Algorithm 3 in Xie et al. (2023) (shortly, XCD). The parameters are set as follows:
Our Algorithm 3: \(\tau =0.99/L, \xi =0.9/L, \theta =0.63\) and \(\alpha _i=\frac{1}{i+1}\);
Algorithm 3 in Xie et al. (2023): \(\mu =0.9,\, \tau _1=2\) and \(\alpha _i=\frac{1}{i+1}\);
Algorithm 3.5 in Cai et al. (2018): \(a=0.0001\), \(\lambda _i=a + \frac{i(\frac{1}{L}-1)}{i+1}\) and \(\alpha _i=\frac{1}{i+1}\).
Let \(x_{0}=x_{1}=e^{2t}+\sin (3t)\), we observe from Fig. 1 that our Algorithm 3 is better than Algorithm 3.5 in Cai et al. (2018) and Algorithm 3 in Xie et al. (2023).
Example 2
Compare the performance of Algorithm 3 at different Bregman distances. Define the feasible set \(\mathcal {C}\) by
and define \(f:\mathbb {R}^{m}\rightarrow \mathbb {R}\) by
We see that f is strongly convex with \(\beta =1\). Due to \(\mathscr {B}=\mathbb {R}^{m}\), then \(\nabla f^{*}(x)=(\nabla f)^{-1}(x)\). Therefore, for each f,
-
(i)
\(\nabla f(x)=(1+\log (x_{1}),\ldots ,1+\log (x_{m}))^{T}\), \((\nabla f)^{-1}(x)=(\exp (x_{1}-1),\ldots ,\) \(\exp (x_{m}-1))^{T}\),
-
(ii)
\(\nabla f(x)=x\) and \((\nabla f)^{-1}(x)=x\).
The corresponding Bregman distances are given by
-
(i)
\(\mathcal {D}_{f}(x,y)=\sum _{i=1}^{m}(x_{i}\log (\frac{x_{i}}{y_{i}})+y_{i}-x_{i})\) which is the Kullback–Leibler distance (shortly, KLD),
-
(ii)
\(\mathcal {D}_{f}(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}\Vert x-y\Vert ^{2}\) which is the squared Euclidean distance (shortly, SED).
Next we define the operator \(\mathscr {F}\) by \(\mathscr {F}(x) = \max (x,0)\). Clearly, \(\mathscr {F}\) is monotone and \(\mathcal {S}={0}\). We compare the performance of Algorithm 3 using SED and KLD. The initial points are generated randomly for \(m=20,50,80,120\), and \(D_n=\Vert x_{n+1}-x_{n}\Vert <10^{-4}\) is used as stopping criterion. The computation results are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 1. It can be seen that the convergence of the algorithm is different for different Bregman distances. Different functions correspond to different Bregman distances. Therefore, we use the Bregman projection method to obtain better convergence behavior.
Example 3
Let the operator \(\mathscr {F}(x): = M x + q\), where
and B is an \(m\times m\) matrix, G is an \(m\times m\) skew-symmetric matrix, D is an \(m\times m\) diagonal matrix, whose diagonal entries are non-negative (so M is positive semidefinite), q is a vector in \(\mathbb {R}^m\). The feasible set \(\mathcal {C}\subset \mathbb {R}^m\) is a closed and convex subset defined by \(\mathcal {C}: = \{x\in \mathbb {R}^m: Qx\le b\}\), where Q is an \(k\times m\) matrix and b is a non-negative vector. It is clear that \(\mathscr {F}\) is monotone and L-Lipschitz continuous with \(L =\Vert M\Vert \). Let \( q= 0\). Then, the solution set is \(\{0\}\).
In this example, the initial values \(x_0\) and \(x_1\) are both set to \((1,1,\ldots ,1),k=20,m=10,\alpha _{i}=\frac{1}{i+1}\) and \(\theta =0.5\). \(\Vert x_{n+1}-x_n\Vert \) represents the error of the n-th step iteration. For the two key parameters \(\tau \) and \(\xi \) in Algorithm 3, we fix one parameter and change the remaining one. Finally, we get the following two cases, which are respectively shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
-
1.
\(\tau =0.99/L,\ 0.5/L,\ 0.01/L\) and \(\xi =0.01/L\).
-
2.
\(\xi =0.01/L,\ 0.1/L,\ 0.2/L\) and \(\tau =0.2/L\).
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, each parameter will affect the convergence rate of our proposed algorithm, and the result of this effect is not monotonically increasing or decreasing with the parameter value. In particular, the values of \(\tau \) and \(\xi \) are often consistent in other known results, but our algorithm breaks this restriction. We can choose that \(\tau \) and \(\xi \) do not necessarily have to be the same, resulting in a better convergence behavior.
5 Conclusions
In this paper, we introduced an improved subgradient extragradient method with Bregman distance for solving pseudomonotone variational inequality problems. We generalized the classical subgradient extragradient method to reflexive Banach spaces and effectively added an inertia term to speed up the convergence process of the algorithm. In addition, we set two different step size parameters, which help us to choose more appropriate values and thus increase the convergence rate. Under reasonable assumptions, we proved that the sequence generated by the proposed algorithm strongly converges to a solution of variational inequality problems. Finally, we presented numerical experiments to verify that our algorithm is effective in improving the iteration efficiency.
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
Abass HA, Godwin GC, Narain OK, Darvish V (2022) Inertial extragradient method for solving variational inequality and fixed point problems of a Bregman demigeneralized mapping in a reflexive Banach spaces. Numer Funct Anal Optim 43:933–960
Abubakar J, Kumam P, Rehman HU (2022) Self-adaptive inertial subgradient extragradient scheme for pseudomonotone variational inequality problem. Int J Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 23:77–96
Alber YI (1996) Metric and generalized projection operators in Banach spaces: properties and applications. Theory and applications of nonlinear operators of accretive and monotone type, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., vol 178. Dekker, New York, pp 15–50
Barbagallo A, Di Vincenzo R (2015) Evolutionary variational inequality with long-term memory and applications to economic networks. Optim. Methods Softw. 30:253–275
Butnariu D, Iusem AN (2000) Totally convex functions for fixed points computation and infinite dimensional optimization. Applied Optimization, vol 40. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Cai G, Gibali A, Iyiola OS, Shehu Y (2018) A new double-projection method for solving variational inequalities in Banach spaces. J Optim Theory Appl 178:219–239
Ceng LC, Petrusel A, Yao JC (2014) Composite viscosity approximation methods for equilibrium problem, variational inequality and common fixed points. J Nonlinear Convex Anal 15:219–240
Censor Y, Lent A (1981) An iterative row-action method for interval convex programming. J Optim Theory Appl 34:321–353
Censor Y, Gibali A, Reich S (2011) The subgradient extragradient method for solving variational inequalities in Hilbert space. J Optim Theory Appl 148:318–335
Dong QL, Lu YY, Yang J (2016) The extragradient algorithm with inertial effects for solving the variational inequality. Optimization 65:2217–2226
Hieu DV, Cho YJ, Xiao Y, Kumam P (2020) Relaxed extragradient algorithm for solving pseudomonotone variational inequalities in Hilbert spaces. Optimization 69:2279–304
Jitpeera T, Kumam P (2010) An extragradient type method for a system of equilibrium problems, variational inequality problems and fixed points of finitely many nonexpansive mappings. J Nonlinear Anal Optim 1:71–91
Jolaoso LO, Shehu Y (2022) Single Bregman projection method for solving variational inequalities in reflexive Banach spaces. Appl Anal 101:4807–4828
Jolaoso LO, Qin X, Shehu Y, Yao JC (2021) Improved subgradient extragradient methods with self-adaptive stepsizes for variational inequalities in Hilbert spaces. J Nonlinear Convex Anal 22:1591–1614
Jolaoso LO, Oyewole OK, Aremu KO (2022) A Bregman subgradient extragradient method with self-adaptive technique for solving variational inequalities in reflexive Banach spaces. Optimization 71:3835–3860
Korpelevich GM (1976) The extragradient method for finding saddle points and other problems. Ekon Mat Metod 12:747–756
Kraikaew R, Saejung S (2014) Strong convergence of the Halpern subgradient extragradient method for solving variational inequalities in Hilbert spaces. J Optim Theory Appl 163:399–412
Lions JL (1977) Numerical methods for variational inequalities-applications in physics and in control theory. Inf Process 77:917–924
Maingé PE (2008) Strong convergence of projected subgradient methods for nonsmooth and nonstrictly convex minimization. Set-Val Anal 16:899–912
Martín-Márquez V, Reich S, Sabach S (2013) Bregman strongly nonexpansive operators in reflexive Banach spaces. J Math Anal Appl 400:597–614
Mashreghi J, Nasri M (2010) Forcing strong convergence of Korpelevich’s method in Banach spaces with its applications in game theory. Nonlinear Anal 72:2086–2099
Naraghirad E, Yao JC (2013) Bregman weak relatively nonexpansive mappings in Banach spaces. Fixed Point Theory Appl 141:43
Oyewole OK, Jolaoso LO, Aremu KO, Olayiwola MO (2022) Inertial self-adaptive Bregman projection method for finite family of variational inequality problems in reflexive Banach spaces. Comput Appl Math 41:22
Phelps RR (1993) Convex functions, monotone operators and differentiability. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol 1364, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin
Popov LD (1980) A modification of the Arrow-Hurwitz method of search for saddle points. Mat Zamet 28:777–784
Reich S, Sabach S (2009) A strong convergence theorem for a proximal-type algorithm in reflexive Banach spaces. J Nonlinear Convex Anal 10:471–485
Reich S, Tuyen TM, Sunthrayuth P, Cholamjiak P (2021) Two new inertial algorithms for solving variational inequalities in reflexive Banach spaces. Numer Funct Anal Optim 42:1954–1984
Tan B, Liu L, Qin X (2022) Strong convergence of inertial extragradient algorithms for solving variational inequalities and fixed point problems. Fixed Point Theory 23:707–727
Thong DV, Hieu DV (2018) Modified subgradient extragradient method for variational inequality problems. Numer Algorithms 79:597–610
Tseng P (2000) A modified forward-backward splitting method for maximal monotone mappings. SIAM J Control Optim 38:431–446
Xie Z, Cai G, Li X, Dong QL (2021) Strong convergence of the modified inertial extragradient method with line-search process for solving variational inequality problems in Hilbert spaces. J Sci Comput 88:19
Xie Z, Cai G, Dong QL (2023) Strong convergence of Bregman projection method for solving variational inequality problems in reflexive Banach spaces. Numer Algorithms 93:269–294
Xu HK (2002) Iterative algorithms for nonlinear operators. J Lond Math Soc 66:240–256
Yang J, Liu H, Li G (2020) Convergence of a subgradient extragradient algorithm for solving monotone variational inequalities. Numer Algorithms 84:389–405
Yao Y, Liou YC, Yao JC (2011) New relaxed hybrid-extragradient method for fixed point problems, a general system of variational inequality problems and generalized mixed equilibrium problems. Optimization 60:395–412
Yao Y, Postolache M, Yao JC (2020) Strong convergence of an extragradient algorithm for variational inequality and fixed point problems. Politehn Univ Buchar Sci Bull Ser A Appl Math Phys. 82:3–12
Yao Y, Iyiola OS, Shehu Y (2022) Subgradient extragradient method with double inertial steps for variational inequalities. J Sci Comput 90:29
Zâlinescu C (2002) Convex analysis in general vector spaces. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the NSF of China (Grant no. 12171062).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, H., Xie, Z. & Li, M. An improved subgradient extragradient method with two different parameters for solving variational inequalities in reflexive Banach spaces. Comp. Appl. Math. 42, 254 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-023-02394-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-023-02394-8
Keywords
- Banach space
- Bregman projection
- Strong convergence
- Subgradient extragradient method
- Variational inequality