- Open Access
Variational relation problems: existence of solutions and fixed points of contraction mappings
© Latif and Luc; licensee Springer. 2013
Received: 29 July 2013
Accepted: 29 October 2013
Published: 25 November 2013
We propose a new approach to study variational relation problems. Namely, we apply Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s fixed point theorem of contraction mappings and an error bound of a system of linear inequalities to establish existence conditions for a variational relation problem in which the variational relation linearly depends on the decision variable. Then we develop an algorithm to compute a solution of a linear variational relation problem.
is a fixed point of S, that is, ,
holds for every ,
where X and Y are nonempty sets, S is a set-valued mapping from X to itself, T is a set-valued mapping from X to Y, and is a relation linking and . In an abstract setting, the relation R is represented by a subset of the product space so that holds if and only if the point belongs to that set. In practice, however, R is often given by equality/inequality of real-valued functions, or by inclusion/intersection of set-valued mappings on . For instance, given a real-valued function ϕ on , a variational relation can be defined by any of the following equality and inequalities: , , or . When two set-valued mappings and are given on with values in a nonempty set Z, a variational relation can be defined by any of the following inclusions and intersections: , , or . A mixture of the above relations is also possible.
The variational relation problem was introduced in  and studied in a number of recent works [2–13]. It encompasses a large class of problems of applied mathematics including optimization problems, variational inequalities, variational inclusions, equilibrium problems etc., and offers a unifying treatment of problems that come from different areas and have a similar structure. Existence conditions of solutions to variational relation problems were analyzed in great generality, the stability of solutions of a parametric variational relation was also studied with respect to the continuity of set-valued mappings, and very recently a numerical method was developed to solve variational relation problems when the data are linear . As far as we know, all conditions established for existence of solutions of variational relation problems in the above cited papers utilize intersection theorems or fixed point theorems involving the KKM property of set-valued mappings in one or another form . In the present paper, we wish to give existence conditions by exploiting Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s fixed point theorem for contraction mappings and propose an algorithm to compute solutions to (VRP), which seems to be new in the theory of variational relations. Actually, we shall study a particular model of (VRP) in which R linearly depends on the decision variable x. Throughout we assume
X and Y are nonempty closed sets in the finite dimensional Euclidean spaces and , respectively,
for every ,
holds if and only if with A a matrix, g a vector function from Y to .
then the (VRP) above is equivalent to the fixed point problem: find such that . Essentially we shall exploit this equivalent formulation of (VRP) to establish existence conditions and to develop a solving method.
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we present two preliminary results which constitute major tools of our study: a fixed point theorem by Mizoguchi and Takahashi , which generalizes the Nadler fixed point principle , and an error bound or Hoffman’s constant for a system of linear inequalities (see [17, 19, 23–28]). Section 3 is devoted to sufficient conditions for existence of solutions of (VRP). In the last section, we propose an algorithm to compute a solution of (VRP) and illustrate it by some numerical examples.
The famous Banach contraction principle states that if is a complete metric space and if f is a real contraction function on X, then f has a fixed point. This principle was generalized to the case of set-valued mappings by Nadler  and Markin  with the help of the Hausdorff distance. Since then a lot of investigation has been made in order to weaken the contraction hypothesis (see [21, 30–34] and many references given in these). In the present paper, we are particularly interested in a theorem by Mizoguchi and Takahashi , which can elegantly be applied to our model. Let us recall it in details and make a discussion on its generalization.
there exists a function such that for each ;
for every , one has .
Further developments of this result can be found in [30, 35–38]. In particular the following theorem by Ciric (Theorem 2.2 ) is quite general: if F has closed values and if there exists a real function for some such that
for every ;
for every , there is satisfying
then F admits a fixed point.
It is unfortunate that this theorem does not fully generalize Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s theorem because in the latter theorem it is not requested that the function ϕ takes its values bigger than a strictly positive number a. Another observation we can make is the fact that Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s theorem remains valid with the same argument even when F has closed values that are not necessarily bounded.
Error bound for a linear system
I is nonempty and the family of rows , of the matrix A is linearly independent,
there is some such that I is contained in the active index set at y, that is, , ; is the submatrix of A consisting of the rows , , and is its transpose.
whenever both P and are nonempty.
3 Existence conditions
In this section we establish some sufficient conditions for existence of solutions to the variational problem (VRP) introduced in the beginning of Section 2. Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s fixed point theorem and the error bound (2.1) are the main tools we use for this purpose. Given a real function on X, we define a value function (called also a marginal function) of u by . Stability and sensitivity of this function is one of the indispensable parts of the theory of optimization. We refer the interested reader to the books [17, 19, 25] for greater details. The next result will be needed in the sequel.
Switching the roles of x and y in the above inequality and taking into account the fact that ϵ is arbitrarily chosen, we obtain as requested. □
In the remaining part of this section, we assume that for every , the values , , are finite and that the system , is consistent. The vector whose components are , , is denoted .
for and ;
for all .
Then (VRP) admits a solution.
Consider the real function for every . Then the hypotheses of Mizoguchi and Takahashi’s theorem are satisfied for the set-valued mapping Γ, by which it admits a fixed point. Consequently, (VRP) has a solution. □
When the mapping T and the function g are Lipschitz, we derive the following result.
Corollary 3.1 Assume that T is κ-Lipschitz and is ℓ-Lipschitz with . Then (VRP) has a solution.
Proof Set and for and and apply Theorem 3.1. □
Let us now consider the case when the function g is affine, that is, , where C is a matrix, c is a k vector, and the graph of T is a convex polyhedral set, that is, if and only if x and y solve a linear system , where P is a matrix, Q is a matrix and q is a k vector. (VRP) with such linear data is called a linear variational relation problem. It was studied in  in which a numerical algorithm based on Delauney’s triangulations is proposed for solving it. It is known that a linear variational problem may have no solutions (see Example 4.1). We wish to apply Theorem 3.1 to derive an existence condition for this model. The rows of the matrix C are denoted , while the components of the vector c are denoted . The best error bound for the system is denoted .
Then (VRP) has a solution.
It remains to apply Theorem 3.1 to conclude that (VRP) has a solution. □
4 An algorithm
In this section, we consider a linear (VRP) as mentioned in the preceding section, namely we wish to find such that for every y solution to the system . As we have already noticed, this problem may have no solutions. Here is an example.
For every , if and only if . With , it is clear that does not hold, which means that (VRP) has no solutions.
Let us now describe an algorithm to solve (VRP).
Step 0. Choose any , a small tolerance level . Set .
Let be the vector whose components are optimal values of the above programs.
Let z be an optimal solution of this program.
Step 3. Check . If yes, stop. The optimal solution z is considered as a solution of (VRP). Otherwise, set , and return to Step 1.
We have the following convergence property of the algorithm.
Proposition 4.1 Assume that the hypothesis of Corollary 3.2 holds. Then, for any , the algorithm terminates after a finite number of iterations. If at some iteration the optimal value of the program in Step 2 is zero, then is a solution of (VRP). If not, with ϵ tending to 0, the sequence of obtained in Step 3 converges to a solution of (VRP).
Proof It is clear that . If, for some r, the optimal value of the program in Step 2 is zero, then which means that is a fixed point of Γ, and hence a solution of (VRP). Moreover, since under the hypothesis of Corollary 3.2 the mapping Γ is a contraction, the sequence converges to a fixed point of Γ, which is also a solution of (VRP). By this the algorithm terminates after a finite number of iterations when ϵ is strictly positive. □
Below we give two examples to show how to perform the algorithm. In the first example, the algorithm terminates after two iterations and produces an exact solution. In the second example, we can obtain an approximate solution with any given strictly positive tolerance level.
The three functions to minimize are respectively , 0 and 2, which implies that . In the next step, we minimize over the set , . The optimal solution is . As , it is not a solution of (VRP).
Iteration 2. We set and return to Step 1 to solve the three above mentioned functions over the set . The same optimal solutions are obtained and . In Step 2, we minimize over the set , and obtain the optimal solution . Since , the algorithm terminates and is a solution of (VRP). It is easy to see that Γ is a (1/2)-contraction mapping, that is, for every .
Iteration 1. We start the algorithm with . The feasible set of the programs in Step 1 is given by the system and consists of one element . Hence the vector is equal to . In the next step, we minimize over the set , . The optimal solution is . As , it is not a solution of (VRP).
Iteration 2. We set and return to Step 1 to solve three programs whose feasible set is given by . We obtain . In Step 2, we minimize over the set , and obtain the optimal solution . Since , the point is not a solution of (VRP). If we choose a priori a tolerance level , then we may stop the algorithm and consider as an approximate solution of (VRP) because . If not, we continue it with for restarting the procedure. It can be seen that the algorithm generates the sequence converging to , which is the unique solution of (VRP).
This work was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, under grant No. 130-030-D1434. The authors, therefore, acknowledge with thanks DSR technical and financial support. The authors thank the referees for the valuable comments and appreciation.
- Luc DT: An abstract problem in variational analysis. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2008, 138: 65–76. 10.1007/s10957-008-9371-9MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Agarwal RP, Balaj M, O’Regan D: Variational relation problems in locally convex spaces. Dyn. Contin. Discrete Impuls. Syst., Ser. A Math. Anal. 2011, 18: 501–512.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Agarwal RP, Balaj M, O’Regan D: A unifying approach to variational relation problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2012. 10.1007/s10957-012-0090-xGoogle Scholar
- Balaj M: A fixed point-equilibrium theorem with applications. Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin 2010, 17: 919–928.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Balaj M, Lin LJ: Equivalent forms of a generalized KKM theorem and their applications. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73: 673–682. 10.1016/j.na.2010.03.055MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Balaj M, Lin LJ: Generalized variational relation problems with applications. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 148: 1–13. 10.1007/s10957-010-9741-yMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Balaj M, Luc DT: On mixed variational relation problems. Comput. Math. Appl. 2010, 60: 2712–2722. 10.1016/j.camwa.2010.09.026MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Khanh PQ, Luc DT: Stability of solution sets in variational relation problems. Set-Valued Anal. 2008, 16: 1015–1035. 10.1007/s11228-008-0101-0MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lin LJ, Ansari QH: Systems of quasi-variational relations with applications. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 72: 1210–1220. 10.1016/j.na.2009.08.005MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Luc DT, Sarabi E, Soubeyran A: Existence of solutions in variational relation problems without convexity. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2010, 364: 544–555. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2009.10.040MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pu YJ, Yang Z: Stability of solutions for variational relation problems with applications. Nonlinear Anal. 2012, 75: 1758–1767. 10.1016/j.na.2011.09.007MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pu YJ, Yang Z: Variational relation problems without the KKM property with applications. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2012, 393: 256–264. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2012.04.015MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Sach PH, Tuan LA, Minh NB: Approximate duality for vector quasi-equilibrium problems and applications. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 72: 3994–4004. 10.1016/j.na.2010.01.031MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dhara, A, Luc, DT: A solution method for linear variational relation problems. J. Glob. Optim. (2013, in press)Google Scholar
- Granas A, Dugundji J: Fixed Point Theory. Springer, New York; 2003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Al-Homidan S, Ansari QH: Systems of quasi-equilibrium problems with lower and upper bounds. Appl. Math. Lett. 2007, 20: 323–328. 10.1016/j.aml.2006.04.016MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mordukhovich B: Variational Analysis and Generalized Differentiation. I. Basic Theory and II: Applications. Springer, Berlin; 2006.Google Scholar
- Noor MA, Al-Said E: Iterative methods for solving general quasi-variational inequalities. Optim. Lett. 2010, 4: 513–530. 10.1007/s11590-010-0180-3MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rockafellar RT, Wets RJ-B Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften 317. In Variational Analysis. Springer, Berlin; 1997.Google Scholar
- Strodiot JJ, Nguyen TTV, Nguyen VH: A new class of hybrid extragradient algorithms for solving quasi-equilibrium problems. J. Glob. Optim. 2011. 10.1007/s10898-011-9814-yGoogle Scholar
- Mizoguchi N, Takahashi W: Fixed point theorems for multivalued mappings on complete metric spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1989, 141: 177–188. 10.1016/0022-247X(89)90214-XMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nadler SB: Multi-valued contraction mappings. Pac. J. Math. 1969, 30: 475–488. 10.2140/pjm.1969.30.475MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Aze D, Corvellec J-N: On the sensitivity analysis of Hoffman constants for systems of linear inequalities. SIAM J. Optim. 2002, 12: 913–927. 10.1137/S1052623400375853MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bergthaller C, Singer I: The distance to a polyhedron. Linear Algebra Appl. 1992, 169: 111–129.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bonnans JF, Shapiro A: Perturbation Analysis of Optimization Problems. Springer, New York; 2000.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hoffman AJ: On approximate solutions of systems of linear inequalities. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. 1952, 49: 263–265. 10.6028/jres.049.027View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Li W: Sharp Lipschitz constants for basic optimal solutions and basic feasible solutions of linear programs. SIAM J. Control Optim. 1994, 32: 140–153. 10.1137/S036301299222723XMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Zalinescu C: Sharp estimation for Hoffman’s constant for systems of linear inequalities and equalities. SIAM J. Optim. 2003, 14: 517–533. 10.1137/S1052623402403505MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Markin JT: A fixed point theorem for set-valued mappings. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1968, 74: 475–488.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ciric L: Multi-valued nonlinear contraction mappings. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 71: 2716–2723. 10.1016/j.na.2009.01.116MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Feng Y, Liu S: Fixed point theorems for multi-valued contractive mappings and multi-valued Caristi type mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2006, 317: 103–112. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2005.12.004MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Klim D, Wardowski D: Fixed point theorems for set-valued contractions in complete metric spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 334: 132–139. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.12.012MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Latif A, Abdou AAN: Multivalued generalized nonlinear contractive maps and fixed points. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 1436–1444. 10.1016/j.na.2010.10.017MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Latif A, Tweddle I: Some results on coincidence points. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 1999, 59: 111–117. 10.1017/S0004972700032652MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chang TH: Fixed point theorems for multivalued mappings. Math. Jpn. 1995, 41: 311–320.Google Scholar
- Daffer PZ, Kaneko H: Fixed points of generalized contractive multi-valued mapping. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1995, 192: 655–666. 10.1006/jmaa.1995.1194MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jachymski JR: On Reich’s question concerning fixed points of multimaps. Boll. Unione Mat. Ital., A (7) 1995, 9: 453–460.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- Suzuki T: Mizoguchi-Takahashi’s fixed point theorem is a real generalization of Nadlers. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 340: 752–755. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.08.022MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Seeger A: Eigenvalue analysis of equilibrium processes defined by linear complementarity conditions. Linear Algebra Appl. 1999, 292: 1–14. 10.1016/S0024-3795(99)00004-XMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.