1. Introduction
Throughout this paper, we assume that
is the metric projection of
H onto
C, with
and
denoting the inner product and induced norm of real Hilbert space
H and
C being a convex and closed set satisfying
. Given nonlinear mapping
, let the
and
indicate the fixed-point set of
S and the real-number set, respectively. In the fixed point theory, we recall an important class of mappings. A self-mapping
S on
C is known as being asymptotically nonexpansive iff
s.t.
and
In particular, whenever
,
S is said to be nonexpansive. In the past several decades, the fixed point theory has played a key role in solving real-world problems such as the time-fractional biological population model [
1], fractional multi-dimensional system of boundary value problems on the methylpropane graph [
2], traumatic avoidance learning model [
3], and so forth.
Given a self-mapping
A on
H, we consider the classical variational inequality problem (VIP) of finding
s.t.
. Its solution set is written as VI(
). To the best of our awareness, one of the most effective techniques for treating the VIP is the extragradient one put forward by Korpelevich [
4] in 1976, i.e., for any starting point
,
is fabricated below
where
and
L is Lipschitz constant of
A. Whenever
, the sequence
converges weakly to a point in
. At present, the vast literature on Korpelevich’s extragradient technique shows that many authors have paid great attention to it and enhanced this technique in different manners; for details, refer to [
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25,
26,
27,
28] and references therein, to name but a few.
Very recently, Xie et al. [
9] suggested the amended inertial extragradient approach with a line-search process for solving the pseudomonotone VIP in
H. Let
be a contraction with constant
and assume that
. Given the sequences
such that
and
. Their approach is formulated by Algorithm 1 below:
Algorithm 1 Modified inertial extragradient approach (see [9]) |
Initial Step: Let , given any starting points in H. Iterations: Given the iterates , compute below: Step 1. Set . Step 2. Calculate and , where and is the smallest nonnegative integer m such that
If or , then stop and is an element of . Otherwise, go to Step 3. Step 3. Calculate . If , then . Again, set and go to Step 1. |
Under appropriate assumptions, they showed the strong convergence of
to the solution
provided
. In the extragradient technique, two projections onto
C have to be calculated per one iteration. In 2018, Thong and Hieu [
22] first proposed the inertial subgradient extragradient method, and then proved the weak convergence of this method to an element of
under mild assumptions. In 2019, Thong and Hieu [
17] proposed the inertial-type subgradient extragradient method with a linear-search process for settling the VIP with monotone and Lipschitzian operator
A and the fixed-point problem (FPP) of a quasi-nonexpansive operator
S with the demiclosedness in
H. Assume that
. Given the sequences
and
. Their method is formulated by Algorithm 2 below:
Algorithm 2 Inertial-type subgradient extragradient method (see [17]) |
Initial Step: Let , given any starting points in H. Iterations: Compute below: Step 1. Put and calculate , where is picked to be the largest s.t.
Step 2. Calculate with . Step 3. Calculate . If , then . Again, set and go to Step 1. |
Under suitable assumptions, it was proven in [
17] that
converges weakly to a point in
. Subsequently, Ceng and Shang [
25] proposed the hybrid inertial subgradient extragradient rule with a linear-search process for settling the VIP with Lipschitzian pseudomonotonicity operator
A and the common fixed-point problem (CFPP) of finite nonexpansive operators
and asymptotically nonexpansive operator
S on
H. Assume that
with
. Given a
-contractive map
with
, and an operator
of both
-strong monotonicity and
-Lipschitz continuity, fulfilling
with
. Let
and
s.t.
. In addition, one writes
for each
, where the mod function takes values in
, that is, whenever
for some integers
and
, one has that
in the case of
and
in the case of
. Their rule is formulated by Algorithm 3 below:
Algorithm 3 Hybrid inertial subgradient extragradient rule (see [25]) |
Initial Step: Let , given any starting points in H. Iterations: Compute below: Step 1. Put and calculate , with being picked to be the largest s.t.
Step 2. Calculate with . Step 3. Calculate . Again, set and go to Step 1. |
Under appropriate assumptions, it was proven in [
25] that, if
, then
converges strongly to
if and only if
and
as
, with
being only a solution to the hierarchical fixed point problem (HFPP):
.
In the rest of this paper, we always assume that the CFPP and HFPP denote the common fixed-point problem of countable nonexpansivity operators and asymptotical nonexpansivity operator and hierarchical fixed-point problem, respectively. With the help of the Mann iteration method, a subgradient extragradient approach with a linear-search process, and hybrid deepest-descent technique, we construct two amended Mann-type subgradient extragradient rules with a linear-search process for finding a common solution of the CFPP of and the VIP for pseudomonotone operator A. Via suitable conditions, we show the strong convergence of the proposed rules to a point in , which is only a solution of a certain HFPP. In the end, using the main results, we deal with the CFPP and VIP in an illustrated example.
The architecture of this paper is arranged as follows: In
Section 2, we recollect certain concepts and basic tools for subsequent applications. In
Section 3, we prove the strong convergence of the proposed rules. Finally, in
Section 4, the main theorems are exploited to settle the CFPP and VIP in a demonstrated instance. Our rules are more general and more subtle than the above algorithms because they implicate settling the VIP for pseudomonotone operator and the CFPP for countable nonexpansive operators and an asymptotically nonexpansive operator. Our theorems ameliorate and develop the associated theorems pronounced in Xie et al. [
9], Ceng and Shang [
25], and Thong and Hieu [
17].
3. Criteria of Strong Convergence
In what follows, let us suppose that the conditions are valid below.
is a sequence of nonexpansive operators on H and S is asymptotically nonexpansive operator on H with .
is the W-operator constructed by and , with for certain .
A is of both pseudomonotonicity and L-Lipschitz continuity on H, s.t. for each with .
g is a -contractive map on H with , and F is of -strong monotonicity and -Lipschitz continuity on H s.t. with .
where .
and with , s.t.
- (i)
and ;
- (ii)
and ;
- (iii)
;
- (iv)
.
Lemma 8. The linear-search process (6) in the following Algorithm 4 is well formulated, and the relation holds: . Proof. Note that
. Then, (
6) is valid for each
and
is well defined. Clearly,
. When
, the conclusion is true. When
, from (
6), one obtains
, which immediately yields
. Thus, the conclusion is true. □
Lemma 9. Suppose that the sequences are constructed in Algorithm 4. Then, Algorithm 4 The 1st modified Mann-type subgradient extragradient rule |
Initial Steps: Let , given any starting points in H. Iterations: Calculate below: Step 1. Set and , and calculate , with being picked to be the largest s.t.
Step 2. Calculate with . Put and return to Step 1. |
Proof. It is clear that
. Observe that
,
Thanks to
where
, one obtains
. Using the pseudomonotonicity of
A, from (
8) and (
6), we deduce that
Owing to
, one has
Consequently, this, together with (
9), ensures that inequality (
5) is true. □
Lemma 10. Suppose that are boundedness sequences constructed in Algorithm 4. Assume that and . Then, , where .
Proof. Take a fixed
arbitrarily. Then,
s.t.
. Thanks to
, we know that
s.t.
. In what follows, we claim
. In fact, by Lemma 9, we obtain that, for each
,
Since
and
, from boundedness of
, we deduce that
Clearly, one has
(due to
). Hence, we have
Noticing
, we obtain
, which immediately yields
Since
and
are of boundedness, one obtains
We claim
. Indeed, using the asymptotical nonexpansivity of
S, one deduces that
Since
,
and
, we obtain
In addition, let us show that
. In fact, note that
where
. Using Proposition 2, from (
10), we obtain
□
In what follows, we claim . Indeed, noticing and , we have . In addition, noticing and , by the convexity and closedness of C, one obtains . Next, we discuss two situations. When , it is readily known that (due to ).
Let
. Since
as
, using the hypothesis on
A, one obtains
. Hence, one might assume
. Moreover, using
, one has
, and hence
Since
A is uniform continuous,
is of boundedness (by Lemma 1). Noticing the boundedness of
, by Lemma 8 and (
13), one obtains
. In addition, it is readily known that
. Note that
and
A is uniform continuous. Thus, one obtains
. This hence arrives at
.
In order to demonstrate
, one chooses
s.t.
. For each
l, one denotes by
the smallest natural number satisfying
Note that
is of decreasement. Thus, it is readily known that
is an increasing. Using
(owing to
), we set
, and obtain
. Thus, from (
14), one obtains
. In addition, by the pseudomonotonicity of
A, one has
. This immediately arrives at
We show that . In fact, from and , we obtain . Note that and . Thus, one deduces that . Therefore, one obtains . Note that A is uniformly continuous, the sequences are of boundedness, and . Consequently, letting , one concludes that . By Lemma 3, one has .
Next, we show that
. In fact, since (
11) guarantees
, by Lemma 5, we obtain the demiclosedness of
at zero. Thus, from
, one obtains
, that is,
. In addition, we claim
. Conversely, we suppose that
, that is,
. Using Lemma 2 and Proposition 1 (c), we obtain
which together with (
12) yields
, which leads to a contradiction. Thus, one has
. Consequently,
, that is,
.
Theorem 1. Suppose that is the sequence constructed in Algorithm 4. Then,with being only a solution of the HFPP: . Proof. Because
and
, we might suppose that
and
for all
n. Let us show that
is the contractive map on
H. Indeed, using Lemma 7, one has
This ensures that
is a contractive map. Thus, it is readily known that there exists
, which is only a fixed point of
, that is,
. That is, there exists
, which is only a solution to the following VIP:
We first show the necessity of the theorem. In fact, when
, we know that
and
Since
, one has
This immediately yields .
In what follows, we claim the sufficiency of the theorem. To the goal, under the assumption with , we divide the remainder of the proof into several claims. □
Claim 1. One claims the boundedness of
. In fact, picking a
arbitrarily, one has that
,
, and (
5) leads to
which hence yields
By the formulation of
, one obtains
Noticing
and
, one obtains
, which guarantees that
s.t.
From (
18)–(
20), one obtains
In addition, observe that
which, together with (
9) and (
21), yields
Thus, using (
23) and
, from Lemma 7, we obtain
which immediately arrives at
Therefore, one obtains the boundedness of . This ensures that , and are bounded.
Claim 2. One claims that
for certain
. In fact, one has
Using the convex property of
, one obtains
(because of
), with
for certain
. Combining (
17) and (
24), one obtains
In addition, from (
23), we have
where
for certain
. From (
25) and (
26), one obtains
where
for certain
. Consequently,
Claim 3. One claims that
for some
. In fact, one has
Using (
23), (
24) and (
28), one obtains
with
for certain
.
Claim 4. One claims that
, which is only a solution to the HFPP:
. In fact, using (
29) with
, one obtains
Putting , one demonstrates in both aspects below.
Aspect 1. Suppose that ∃ (integer)
s.t.
is non-increasing. It is clear that the limit
and
. Setting
, by (
27) and
one obtains
Noticing
,
and
, one has
Noticing
and
, we obtain
Since
,
and
, using (
31), one has
Moreover, noticing
, we obtain from (
23) that
Since
,
and
, from the boundedness of
, we infer that
Since
is bounded, we know that
s.t.
Noticing the reflexivity of
H and boundedness of
, one might suppose that
. Hence, using (
35), we obtain
Note that
(due to
). Thus, we obtain
Noticing
and
, from Lemma 10, one obtains
. Thus, using (
36) and (
16), one has
which, together with (
34), yields
Since
, and
by the application of Lemma 4 to (
30), one has
.
Aspect 2. Suppose that
s.t.
, with
being the set of all natural numbers. The self-mapping
on
is formulated as
Using Lemma 6, one obtains
Putting
, from (
27), we have
which immediately yields
Using the similar arguments to those of Aspect 1, one obtains
and
On the other hand, by (
30), one has
Thus,
. In addition, note that
Owing to
, one obtains
This means that as .
In particular, when S is a nonexpansive operator, it is also asymptotically nonexpansive. In this case, the power in Algorithm 4 can be simplified into S. In this way, we can obtain the following Theorem 2.
Theorem 2. Suppose that S is of nonexpansivity on H and is constructed in the modification of Algorithm 4, i.e., for any starting points in H,with and being picked as in Algorithm 4. Then, , with being only a solution of the HFPP: . Proof. We first pick a arbitrarily. Obviously, the necessity holds. Next, it is sufficient to demonstrate the sufficiency. To this goal, under the condition , one divides the remainder of the proof into several claims. □
Claim 1. One claims the boundedness of . In fact, using the similar inferences to those of Claim 1 in the proof of the above theorem, one obtains the claim.
Claim 2. One claims that
for some
. In fact, using the similar inferences to those of Step 2 in the proof of the above theorem, one obtains the claim.
Claim 3. One claims that
for some
. In fact, using the similar inferences to those of Claim 3 in the proof of the above theorem, one obtains the claim.
Claim 4. One claims that
, which is only a solution to the HFPP:
. In fact, setting
, by Claim 3, one obtains
Setting , one demonstrates in both aspects below.
Aspect 1. Suppose that ∃ (integer)
s.t.
is non-increasing. Then, the limit
and
. Using the similar inferences to those of Aspect 1 of Claim 4 in the proof of the above theorem, one obtains
From (
4) and (
23), one has
Since
,
and
, from the boundedness of
, we infer that
Again utilizing the similar inferences to those of Aspect 1 of Claim 4 in the proof of the above theorem, one obtains .
Aspect 2. Suppose that
s.t.
, with
being the set of all natural numbers. The self-mapping
on
is formulated as
From Lemma 6, one obtains
Finally, by the similar inferences to those of Aspect 2 of Claim 4 in the proof of the above theorem, one can obtain the claim.
On the other hand, we put forward another modification of a Mann-type subgradient extragradient rule.
It is worth mentioning that (
9) and Lemmas 8–10 remain true for Algorithm 5:
Algorithm 5 The 2nd modified Mann-type subgradient extragradient rule |
Initial Step: Let , given any starting points in H. Iterations: Compute below: Step 1. Set and , and calculate , with being picked to be the largest s.t.
Step 2. Calculate , where . Put and return to Step 1. |
Theorem 3. Suppose that is the sequence constructed in Algorithm 5. Then,with being only a solution of the HFPP: . Proof. By the similar inferences to those in the proof of the first theorem, one obtains that , which is only a solution of the HFPP: . Obviously, the necessity holds.
In what follows, one claims the sufficiency. To the goal, under the assumption with , one divides the claim of the sufficiency into several claims. □
Claim 1. One claims the boundedness of
. In fact, using the similar inferences to those of Claim 1 in the proof of the first theorem, one has that (
19) and (
20) hold. It is easy to see from (
9) that
Hence, using
, Lemma 7, and (
49), we obtain
which immediately yields
Therefore, we show the boundedness of . This ensures that the sequences are bounded.
Claim 2. One claims that
for some
—in fact, since
Using the same inferences as those of (
24), one has
with
for certain
. In addition, using (
19) and (
20), one obtains
with
for certain
. Moreover, using (
49), we deduce that
which, together with (
9) and (
50), leads to
where
for certain
. Thus, we obtain
Claim 3. One claims that
for certain
. In fact, one has
and hence
From (
49), (
50) and (
53), one obtains
where
for certain
.
Claim 4. One claims that
, which is only a solution to the HFPP:
. In fact, using (
54) with
, one obtains
Setting , one demonstrates in both aspects below.
Aspect 1. Suppose that ∃ (integer)
s.t.
is non-increasing. Then, the limit
and
. Using (
52) with
and
, one obtains
Noticing
,
and
, one has
Since
and
, we obtain
Moreover, noticing
, we obtain from (
49) that
Since
,
and
, from the boundedness of
, we infer that
Thus, it follows from Algorithm 5 that
Utilizing the same inferences as those of (
38), one obtains
Since
, and
Therefore, by the application of Lemma 4 to (
55), one has
.
Aspect 2. Suppose that
s.t.
, with
being the set of all natural numbers. The self-mapping
on
is formulated as
From Lemma 6, one obtains
Finally, by the similar inferences to those of Aspect 2 of Claim 4 in the proof of the first theorem, one can derive the claim.
In particular, when S is a nonexpansive operator, it is also asymptotically nonexpansive. In this case, the power in Algorithm 5 can be simplified into S. In this way, we can obtain the following Theorem 3.
Theorem 4. Suppose that S is of nonexpansivity on H and is constructed in the modification of Algorithm 5, i.e., for any starting points in H,with and being picked as in Algorithm 5. Then, , with being only a solution of the HFPP: . Proof. We first pick a arbitrarily. Obviously, the necessity holds. Next, it is sufficient to demonstrate the sufficiency. To the goal, under the condition , one divides the surplus of the proof into several claims. □
Claim 1. One claims the boundedness of . In fact, using the similar inferences to those of Claim 1 in the proof of the third theorem, one obtains the claim.
Claim 2. One claims that
for certain
. In fact, using the similar inferences to those of Claim 2 in the proof of the third theorem, one obtains the claim.
Claim 3. One claims that
for certain
. In fact, using the similar inferences to those of Claim 3 in the proof of the third theorem, one obtains the claim.
Claim 4. One claims that
, which is only a solution to the HFPP:
. In fact, setting
, by Claim 3, one obtains
Putting , one shows in both aspects below.
Aspect 1. Suppose that ∃ (integer)
s.t.
is non-increasing. Then, the limit
and
. Using the similar inferences to those of Aspect 1 of Claim 4 in the proof of the third theorem, one obtains
From (
4) and (
49), one has
which immediately yields
Since
,
and
, from the boundedness of
, we infer that
Again utilizing the similar inferences to those of Aspect 1 of Claim 4 in the proof of the third theorem, one obtains .
Aspect 2. Suppose that
s.t.
, with
being the set of all natural numbers. The self-mapping
on
is formulated as
Using Lemma 6, one obtains
Finally, by the similar inferences to those of Aspect 2 of Claim 4 in the proof of the third theorem, one can obtain the claim.
It is remarkable that, in comparison with the associated theorems in Xie et al. [
9], Ceng and Shang [
25], and Thong and Hieu [
17], our theorems ameliorate and develop them in the aspects below.
- (i)
The issue for one to find a point in
(see [
9]) is developed into the issue for us to find a point in
with both each
being of nonexpansivity and
being of asymptotical nonexpansivity. The modified inertial extragradient rule with a linear-search process for settling the VIP in [
9] is developed into our modified Mann-type subgradient extragradient rule with a linear-search process for settling the CFPP and VIP, which is on the basis of the Mann iteration method, subgradient extragradient approach with a linear-search process, and the hybrid deepest-descent technique.
- (ii)
The issue for ones to find a point in
with a quasi-nonexpansive operator
S in [
17] is developed into the issue for us to find a point in
with both
being of nonexpansivity and
being of asymptotical nonexpansivity. The inertial subgradient extragradient rule with a linear-search process for settling the VIP and FPP in [
17] is developed into our modified Mann-type subgradient extragradient rule with a linear-search process for settling the CFPP and VIP, which is on the basis of the Mann iteration method, subgradient extragradient approach with a linear-search process, and the hybrid deepest-descent technique.
- (iii)
The issue for one to find a point in
with finite nonexpansive operators
(see [
25]) is developed into the issue for us to find a point in
with countable nonexpansive operators
. The hybrid inertial subgradient extragradient rule with a linear-search process in [
25] is developed into our modified Mann-type subgradient extragradient rule with a linear-search process, e.g., the original inertial step
is developed into the modified Mann iteration step:
and
. In addition, it was shown in [
25] that, under the condition
, the relation holds:
In this paper, using Lemma 6, we show that, under the condition
, the relation holds:
4. Implementability and Applicability of Rules
In what follows, we provide an illustrated instance to demonstrate the implementability and applicability of proposed rules. Put
and
. First, we construct an example of
with
, where
is of both pseudomonotonicity and Lipschitz continuity,
is of asymptotical nonexpansivity and each
is of nonexpansivity. We put
and use the
and
to denote its inner product and induced norm, respectively. Moreover, we set
. The starting points
are arbitrarily picked in
. Let
with
Let
and
be formulated by
,
and
, respectively. We now claim that
A is pseudomonotone and Lipschitz continuous. In fact, one has
This means that
A is of Lipschitz continuity. In addition, one shows that
A is of pseudomonotonicity. It can be readily seen that
Meanwhile, it is easily known that
S is of asymptotical nonexpansivity with
, such that
as
. Indeed, we observe that
and
It is clear that
and
In addition, it is easy to see that is of nonexpansivity and . Thus, .
Example 1. Noticing and , we rewrite Algorithm 4 as follows:with and being picked as in Algorithm 4 for every n. Hence, using Theorem 1, one has that if and only if . Example 2. From the nonexpansivity of , one obtains the following modification of Algorithm 4:with and being picked in the above way. Thus, using Theorem 2, one knows that if and only if . Example 3. Noticing and , we rewrite Algorithm 5 as follows:with and being picked as in Algorithm 5 for every n. Hence, using Theorem 3, one has that if and only if . Example 4. From the nonexpansivity of , one obtains the following modification of Algorithm 5:with and being picked in the above way. Thus, using Theorem 4, one knows that if and only if . It is noteworthy that the above two modified Mann-type subgradient extragradient algorithms with a linear-search process (i.e., Algorithms 4 and 5) are both applied for finding a point in the common solution set
with countable nonexpansive operators
and asymptotically nonexpansive operator
S. Under the same conditions imposed on the parameter sequences, we show the strong convergence of these two different algorithms to an element
, which is also a unique solution of the HFPP:
; see Theorems 1 and 3 for more details. Note that Algorithm 4 is very similar to Algorithm 5 because these two different algorithms belong to the same class of modified Mann-type subgradient extragradient rules with a linear-search process. It is not difficult to find that Algorithm 4 is extended to develop Algorithm 5, e.g., (i) the original Mann iterative step
in Algorithm 4 is developed into the modified Mann iterative step
in Algorithm 5, and (ii) the original viscosity hybrid deepest-descent step
in Algorithm 4 is developed into the modified viscosity hybrid deepest-descent step
in Algorithm 5. In the above Examples 1 and 3, the iterative schemes (
66) and (
68) are numerical examples of Algorithms 4 and 5, respectively, and both are applied for finding
. Compared with scheme (
66), the scheme (
68) improves and develops it in the following aspects:
- (i)
The original Mann iterative step
in (
66) is developed into the modified Mann iterative step
in (
68);
- (ii)
The original viscosity hybrid deepest-descent step
in (
66) is developed into the modified viscosity hybrid deepest-descent step
in (
68).
Finally, applying Theorems 1 and 3 to schemes (
66) and (
68), respectively, we obtain that
if and only if
.