Skip to main content

An iterative method for a common solution of generalized mixed equilibrium problems, variational inequalities, and hierarchical fixed point problems

Abstract

In this paper, we suggest and analyze an iterative method for finding a common solution of a variational inequality, a generalized mixed equilibrium problem, and a hierarchical fixed point problem in the setting of real Hilbert spaces. We prove the strong convergence of the sequence generated by the proposed method to a common solution of a variational inequality, a generalized mixed equilibrium problem, and a hierarchical fixed point problem. Several special cases are also discussed. The results presented in this paper extend and improve some well-known results in the literature.

MSC:49J30, 47H09, 47J20.

1 Introduction

Let H be a real Hilbert space whose inner product and norm are denoted by , and . Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of H. Let F 1 :C×CR be a bifunction, D:CH be a nonlinear mapping, and φ:CR be a function. Recently, Peng and Yao [1] considered the following generalized mixed equilibrium problem (GMEP), which involves finding xC such that

F 1 (x,y)+φ(y)φ(x)+Dx,yx0,yC.
(1.1)

The set of solutions of (1.1) is denoted by GMEP(F,φ,D). The GMEP is very general in the sense that it includes, as special cases, optimization problems, variational inequalities, minimax problems, and Nash equilibrium problems; see, for example, [25]. For instance, we quote reference [6] for a general system of generalized equilibrium problems.

Very recently, based on Yamada’s hybrid steepest-descent method [7] and Colao, Marino, and Xu’s hybrid viscosity approximation method [8], Ceng et al. [5] introduced a hybrid iterative method for finding a common element of the set of solutions of a generalized mixed equilibrium problem and the set of fixed points of finitely many nonexpansive mappings in a real Hilbert space. Under suitable assumptions, they proved the strong iterative algorithm to a common solution of problem (1.1) and the fixed point problem of finitely many nonexpansive mappings. By combining Korpelevič’s extragradient method [9], the hybrid steepest-descent method in [7], the viscosity approximation method, and the averaged mapping approach to the gradient-projection algorithm in [10], Al-Mazrooei et al. [2] proposed implicit and explicit iterative algorithms for finding a common element of the set of solutions of the convex minimization problem, the set of solutions of a finite family of generalized mixed equilibrium problems, and the set of solutions of a finite family of variational inequality problems for inverse strong monotone mappings in a real Hilbert space. Under very mild control conditions, they proved that the sequences generated by the proposed algorithms converge strongly to a common element of three sets, which is the unique solution of a variational inequality defined over the intersection of three sets.

If B=0, then the generalized mixed equilibrium problem (1.1) becomes the following mixed equilibrium problem: Find xC such that

F 1 (x,y)+φ(y)φ(x)0,yC.
(1.2)

Problem (1.2) was studied by Ceng and Yao [11]. The set of solutions of (1.2) is denoted by MEP(F,φ,D).

If φ=0, then the generalized mixed equilibrium problem (1.1) becomes the following generalized equilibrium problem: Find xC such that

F 1 (x,y)+Dx,yx0,yC.
(1.3)

Problem (1.3) was studied by Takahashi and Takahashi [12]. The set of solutions of (1.3) is denoted by GEP(F,D).

If φ=0 and B=0, then the generalized mixed equilibrium problem (1.1) becomes the following equilibrium problem: Find xC such that

F 1 (x,y)0,yC.
(1.4)

The solution set of (1.4) is denoted by EP(F). Numerous problems in physics, optimization, and economics reduce to finding a solution of (1.4), see [13, 14].

Let A be a mapping from C into H. A classical variational inequality problem is to find a vector uC such that

vu,Au0,vC.
(1.5)

The solution set of (1.5) is denoted by VI(C,A). It is easy to observe that

u VI(C,A) u = P C [ u ρ A u ] ,where ρ>0.

We now have a variety of techniques to suggest and analyze various iterative algorithms for solving variational inequalities and related optimization problems; see [141]. The fixed point theory has played an important role in the development of various algorithms for solving variational inequalities. Using the projection operator technique, one usually establishes an equivalence between variational inequalities and fixed point problems. We introduce the following definitions, which are useful in the following analysis.

Definition 1.1 The mapping T:CH is said to be

  1. (a)

    monotone if

    TxTy,xy0,x,yC;
  2. (b)

    strongly monotone if there exists α>0 such that

    TxTy,xyα x y 2 ,x,yC;
  3. (c)

    α-inverse strongly monotone if there exists α>0 such that

    TxTy,xyα T x T y 2 ,x,yC;
  4. (d)

    nonexpansive if

    TxTyxy,x,yC;
  5. (e)

    k-Lipschitz continuous if there exists a constant k>0 such that

    TxTykxy,x,yC;
  6. (f)

    a contraction on C if there exists a constant 0k<1 such that

    TxTykxy,x,yC.

It is easy to observe that every α-inverse strongly monotone T is monotone and Lipschitz continuous. It is well known that every nonexpansive operator T:HH satisfies, for all (x,y)H×H, the inequality

( x T ( x ) ) ( y T ( y ) ) , T ( y ) T ( x ) 1 2 ( T ( x ) x ) ( T ( y ) y ) 2
(1.6)

and therefore, we get, for all (x,y)H×Fix(T),

x T ( x ) , y T ( x ) 1 2 T ( x ) x 2 .
(1.7)

The fixed point problem for the mapping T is to find xC such that

Tx=x.
(1.8)

We denote by F(T) the set of solutions of (1.8). It is well known that F(T) is closed and convex, and P F (T) is well defined.

Let S:CH be a nonexpansive mapping. The following problem is called a hierarchical fixed point problem: Find xF(T) such that

xSx,yx0,yF(T).
(1.9)

It is known that the hierarchical fixed point problem (1.9) links with some monotone variational inequalities and convex programming problems; see [15]. Various methods have been proposed to solve the hierarchical fixed point problem; see [1620]. In 2010, Yao et al. [15] introduced the following strong convergence iterative algorithm to solve problem (1.9):

y n = β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) x n , x n + 1 = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + ( 1 α n ) T y n ] , n 0 ,
(1.10)

where f:CH is a contraction mapping and { α n } and { β n } are two sequences in (0,1). Under some certain restrictions on the parameters, Yao et al. proved that the sequence { x n } generated by (1.10) converges strongly to zF(T), which is the unique solution of the following variational inequality:

( I f ) z , y z 0,yF(T).
(1.11)

In 2011, Ceng et al. [21] investigated the following iterative method:

x n + 1 = P C [ α n ρ U ( x n ) + ( I α n μ F ) ( T ( y n ) ) ] ,n0,
(1.12)

where U is a Lipschitzian mapping, and F is a Lipschitzian and strongly monotone mapping. They proved that under some approximate assumptions on the operators and parameters, the sequence { x n } generated by (1.12) converges strongly to the unique solution of the variational inequality

ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x z 0,xFix(T).

Very recently, Ceng et al. [22] introduced and analyzed hybrid implicit and explicit viscosity iterative algorithms for solving a general system of variational inequalities with hierarchical fixed point problem constraint for a countable family of nonexpansive mappings in a real Banach space, which can be viewed as an extension and improvement of the recent results in the literature.

In this paper, motivated by the work of Ceng et al. [5, 21, 24], Al-Mazrooei et al. [2], Yao et al. [15], Bnouhachem [23] and by the recent work going in this direction, we give an iterative method for finding the approximate element of the common set of solutions of (1.1), (1.5), and (1.9) in a real Hilbert space. We establish a strong convergence theorem based on this method. We would like to mention that our proposed method is quite general and flexible and includes many known results for solving of variational inequality problems, mixed equilibrium problems and hierarchical fixed point problems; see, e.g., [15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25] and relevant references cited therein.

2 Preliminaries

In this section, we list some fundamental lemmas that are useful in the consequent analysis. The first lemma provides some basic properties of projection onto C.

Lemma 2.1 Let P C denote the projection of H onto C. Then we have the following inequalities:

z P C [ z ] , P C [ z ] v 0,zH,vC;
(2.1)
u v , P C [ u ] P C [ v ] P C [ u ] P C [ v ] 2 ,u,vH;
(2.2)
P C [ u ] P C [ v ] uv,u,vH;
(2.3)
u P C [ z ] 2 z u 2 z P C [ z ] 2 ,zH,uC.
(2.4)

Assumption 2.1 [1]

Let F 1 :C×CR be a bifunction and φ:CR be a function satisfying the following assumptions:

(A1) F 1 (x,x)=0, xC;

(A2) F 1 is monotone, i.e., F 1 (x,y)+ F 1 (y,x)0, x,yC;

(A3) for each x,y,zC, lim t 0 F 1 (tz+(1t)x,y) F 1 (x,y);

(A4) for each xC, y F 1 (x,y) is convex and lower semicontinuous;

(B1) for each xH and r>0, there exists a bounded subset K of C and y x Cdom(φ) such that

F 1 (z, y x )+φ( y x )φ(z)+ 1 r y x z,zx<0,zCK;

(B2) C is a bounded set.

Lemma 2.2 [1]

Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of H. Let F 1 :C×CR satisfy (A1)-(A3), and let φ:CR be a proper lower semicontinuous and convex function. Assume that either (B1) or (B2) holds. For r>0 and xH, define a mapping T r :HC as follows:

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

Then the following hold:

  1. (i)

    T r is nonempty and single-valued;

  2. (ii)

    T r is firmly nonexpansive, i.e.,

    T r ( x ) T r ( y ) 2 T r ( x ) T r ( y ) , x y ,x,yH;
  3. (iii)

    F( T r (IrD))=GMEP(F,φ,D);

  4. (iv)

    GMEP(F,φ,D) is closed and convex.

Lemma 2.3 [26]

Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. If T:CC is a nonexpansive mapping with Fix(T), then the mapping IT is demiclosed at  0, i.e., if { x n } is a sequence in C weakly converging to x and if {(IT) x n } converges strongly to 0, then (IT)x=0.

Lemma 2.4 [21]

Let U:CH be a τ-Lipschitzian mapping, and let F:CH be a k-Lipschitzian and η-strongly monotone mapping, then for 0ρτ<μη, μFρU is μηρτ-strongly monotone, i.e.,

( μ F ρ U ) x ( μ F ρ U ) y , x y (μηρτ) x y 2 ,x,yC.

Lemma 2.5 [27]

Suppose that λ(0,1) and μ>0. Let F:CH be a k-Lipschitzian and η-strongly monotone operator. In association with a nonexpansive mapping T:CC, define the mapping T λ :CH by

T λ x=TxλμFT(x),xC.

Then T λ is a contraction provided μ< 2 η k 2 , that is,

T λ x T λ y (1λν)xy,x,yC,

where ν=1 1 μ ( 2 η μ k 2 ) .

Lemma 2.6 [28]

Assume that { a n } is a sequence of nonnegative real numbers such that

a n + 1 (1 υ n ) a n + δ n ,

where { υ n } is a sequence in (0,1) and δ n is a sequence such that

  1. (1)

    n = 1 υ n =;

  2. (2)

    lim sup n δ n / υ n 0 or n = 1 | δ n |<.

Then lim n a n =0.

Lemma 2.7 [29]

Let C be a closed convex subset of H. Let { x n } be a bounded sequence in H. Assume that

  1. (i)

    the weak w-limit set w w ( x n )C, where w w ( x n )={x: x n i x};

  2. (ii)

    for each zC, lim n x n z exists.

Then { x n } is weakly convergent to a point in C.

3 The proposed method and some properties

In this section, we suggest and analyze our method for finding common solutions of the generalized mixed equilibrium problem (1.1), the variational inequality (1.5), and the hierarchical fixed point problem (1.9).

Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. Let D,A:CH be θ,α-inverse strongly monotone mappings, respectively. Let F 1 :C×CR satisfy (A1)-(A4), and let φ:CR be a proper lower semicontinuous and convex function. Let S,T:CC be nonexpansive mappings such that F(T)VI(C,A)GMEP(F,φ,D). Let F:CC be a k-Lipschitzian mapping and be η-strongly monotone, and let U:CC be a τ-Lipschitzian mapping.

Algorithm 3.1 For an arbitrarily given x 0 C, let the iterative sequences { u n }, { x n }, { y n }, and { z n } be generated by

{ F 1 ( u n , y ) + D x n , y u n + φ ( y ) φ ( u n ) + 1 r n y u n , u n x n 0 , y C ; z n = P C [ u n λ n A u n ] ; y n = β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) z n ; x n + 1 = P C [ α n ρ U ( x n ) + γ n x n + ( ( 1 γ n ) I α n μ F ) ( T ( y n ) ) ] , n 0 ,

where λ n (0,2α), { r n }(0,2θ). Suppose that the parameters satisfy 0<μ< 2 η k 2 , 0ρτ<ν, where ν=1 1 μ ( 2 η μ k 2 ) . Also { γ n }, { α n }, and { β n } are sequences in (0,1) satisfying the following conditions:

  1. (a)

    lim n γ n =0, γ n + α n <1,

  2. (b)

    lim n α n =0 and n = 1 α n =,

  3. (c)

    lim n ( β n / α n )=0,

  4. (d)

    n = 1 | α n 1 α n |<, n = 1 | γ n 1 γ n |<, and n = 1 | β n 1 β n |<,

  5. (e)

    lim inf n r n >0 and n = 1 | r n 1 r n |<,

  6. (f)

    lim inf n λ n < lim sup n λ n <2α and n = 1 | λ n 1 λ n |<.

Remark 3.1 Our method can be viewed as an extension and improvement for some well-known results, for example, the following.

  • If γ n =0, the proposed method is an extension and improvement of the method of Bnouhachem [23] and Wang and Xu [30] for finding the approximate element of the common set of solutions of generalized mixed equilibrium and hierarchical fixed point problems in a real Hilbert space.

  • If we have the Lipschitzian mapping U=f, F=I, ρ=μ=1, γ n =0, and A=0, we obtain an extension and improvement of the method of Yao et al.[15] for finding the approximate element of the common set of solutions of generalized mixed equilibrium and hierarchical fixed point problems in a real Hilbert space.

  • The contractive mapping f with a coefficient α[0,1) in other papers [15, 25, 27] is extended to the cases of the Lipschitzian mapping U with a coefficient constant γ[0,).

This shows that Algorithm 3.1 is quite general and unifying.

Lemma 3.1 Let x F(T)VI(C,D)GMEP(F,φ,D). Then { x n }, { u n }, { z n }, and { y n } are bounded.

Proof First, we show that the mapping (I r n D) is nonexpansive. For any x,yC,

( I r n D ) x ( I r n D ) y 2 = ( x y ) r n ( D x D y ) 2 = x y 2 2 r n x y , D x D y + r n 2 D x D y 2 x y 2 r n ( 2 θ r n ) D x D y 2 x y 2 .

Similarly, we can show that the mapping (I λ n A) is nonexpansive. It follows from Lemma 2.2 that u n = T r n ( x n r n D x n ). Let x F(T)VI(C,D)GMEP(F,φ,D), we have x = T r n ( x r n D x ).

u n x 2 = T r n ( x n r n D x n ) T r n ( x r n D x ) 2 ( x n r n D x n ) ( x r n D x ) 2 x n x 2 r n ( 2 θ r n ) D x n D x 2 x n x 2 .
(3.1)

Since the mapping A is α-inverse strongly monotone, we have

z n x 2 = P C [ u n λ n A u n ] P C [ x λ n A x ] 2 u n x λ n ( A u n A x ) 2 u n x 2 λ n ( 2 α λ n ) A u n A x 2 u n x 2 x n x 2 .
(3.2)

We define V n = α n ρU( x n )+ γ n x n +((1 γ n )I α n μF)(T( y n )). Next, we prove that the sequence { x n } is bounded, and without loss of generality we can assume that β n α n for all n1. From (3.1), we have

x n + 1 x = P C [ V n ] P C [ x ] α n ρ U ( x n ) + γ n x n + ( ( 1 γ n ) I α n μ F ) ( T ( y n ) ) x = α n ( ρ U ( x n ) μ F ( x ) ) + γ n ( x n x ) + ( ( 1 γ n ) I α n μ F ) ( T ( y n ) ) ( ( 1 γ n ) I α n μ F ) ( T ( x ) ) α n ρ U ( x n ) μ F ( x ) + γ n x n x + ( 1 γ n ) ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) ( T ( y n ) ) ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) T ( x ) = α n ρ U ( x n ) ρ U ( x ) + ( ρ U μ F ) x + γ n x n x + ( 1 γ n ) ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) ( T ( y n ) ) ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) T ( x ) α n ρ τ x n x + α n ( ρ U μ F ) x + γ n x n x + ( 1 γ n ) ( 1 α n ν 1 γ n ) y n x α n ρ τ x n x + α n ( ρ U μ F ) x + γ n x n x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) z n x α n ρ τ x n x + α n ( ρ U μ F ) x + γ n x n x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( β n S x n S x + β n S x x + ( 1 β n ) z n x ) α n ρ τ x n x + α n ( ρ U μ F ) x + γ n x n x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( β n S x n S x + β n S x x + ( 1 β n ) x n x ) α n ρ τ x n x + α n ( ρ U μ F ) x + γ n x n x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( β n x n x + β n S x x + ( 1 β n ) x n x ) = ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) x n x + α n ( ρ U μ F ) x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n S x x ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) x n x + α n ( ρ U μ F ) x + β n S x x ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) x n x + α n ( ( ρ U μ F ) x + S x x ) = ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) x n x + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ν ρ τ ( ( ρ U μ F ) x + S x x ) max { x n x , 1 ν ρ τ ( ( ρ U μ F ) x + S x x ) } ,

where the third inequality follows from Lemma 2.5. By induction on n, we obtain x n x max{ x 0 x , 1 ν ρ τ ((ρUμF) x +S x x )} for n0 and x 0 C. Hence { x n } is bounded, and consequently, we deduce that { u n }, { z n }, { v n }, { y n }, {S( x n )}, {T( x n )}, {F(T( y n ))}, and {U( x n )} are bounded. □

Lemma 3.2 Let x F(T)VI(C,D)GMEP(F,φ,D) and { x n } be the sequence generated by Algorithm 3.1. Then we have

  1. (a)

    lim n x n + 1 x n =0.

  2. (b)

    The weak w-limit set w w ( x n )F(T) ( w w ( x n )={x: x n i x}).

Proof From the nonexpansivity of the mapping (I λ n A) and P C , we have

z n z n 1 ( u n λ n A u n ) ( u n 1 λ n 1 A u n 1 ) = ( u n u n 1 ) λ n ( A u n A u n 1 ) ( λ n λ n 1 ) A u n 1 ( u n u n 1 ) λ n ( A u n A u n 1 ) + | λ n λ n 1 | A u n 1 u n u n 1 + | λ n λ n 1 | A u n 1 .
(3.3)

Next, we estimate that

y n y n 1 β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) z n ( β n 1 S x n 1 + ( 1 β n 1 ) z n 1 ) = β n ( S x n S x n 1 ) + ( β n β n 1 ) S x n 1 + ( 1 β n ) ( z n z n 1 ) + ( β n 1 β n ) z n 1 β n x n x n 1 + ( 1 β n ) z n z n 1 + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) .
(3.4)

It follows from (3.3) and (3.4) that

y n y n 1 β n x n x n 1 + ( 1 β n ) { u n u n 1 + | λ n λ n 1 | A u n 1 } + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) .
(3.5)

On the other hand, u n = T r n ( x n r n D x n ) and u n 1 = T r n 1 ( x n 1 r n 1 D x n 1 ), we have

F 1 ( u n ,y)+φ(y)φ( u n )+D x n ,y u n + 1 r n y u n , u n x n 0,yC
(3.6)

and

F 1 ( u n 1 , y ) + φ ( y ) φ ( u n 1 ) + D x n 1 , y u n 1 + 1 r n 1 y u n 1 , u n 1 x n 1 0 , y C .
(3.7)

Taking y= u n 1 in (3.6) and y= u n in (3.7), we get

F 1 ( u n , u n 1 )+φ( u n 1 )φ( u n )+D x n , u n 1 u n + 1 r n u n 1 u n , u n x n 0
(3.8)

and

F 1 ( u n 1 , u n ) + φ ( u n ) φ ( u n 1 ) + D x n 1 , u n u n 1 + 1 r n 1 u n u n 1 , u n 1 x n 1 0 .
(3.9)

Adding (3.8) and (3.9) and using the monotonicity of F 1 , we have

D x n 1 D x n , u n u n 1 + u n u n 1 , u n 1 x n 1 r n 1 u n x n r n 0,

which implies that

0 u n u n 1 , r n ( D x n 1 D x n ) + r n r n 1 ( u n 1 x n 1 ) ( u n x n ) = u n 1 u n , u n u n 1 + ( 1 r n r n 1 ) u n 1 + ( x n 1 r n D x n 1 ) ( x n r n D x n ) x n 1 + r n r n 1 x n 1 = u n 1 u n , ( 1 r n r n 1 ) u n 1 + ( x n 1 r n D x n 1 ) ( x n r n D x n ) x n 1 + r n r n 1 x n 1 u n u n 1 2 = u n 1 u n , ( 1 r n r n 1 ) ( u n 1 x n 1 ) + ( x n 1 r n D x n 1 ) ( x n r n D x n ) u n u n 1 2 u n 1 u n { | 1 r n r n 1 | u n 1 x n 1 + ( x n 1 r n D x n 1 ) ( x n r n D x n ) } u n u n 1 2 u n 1 u n { | 1 r n r n 1 | u n 1 x n 1 + x n 1 x n } u n u n 1 2 ,

and then

u n 1 u n | 1 r n r n 1 | u n 1 x n 1 + x n 1 x n .

Without loss of generality, let us assume that there exists a real number μ such that r n >μ>0 for all positive integers n. Then we get

u n 1 u n x n 1 x n + 1 μ | r n 1 r n | u n 1 x n 1 .
(3.10)

It follows from (3.5) and (3.10) that

y n y n 1 β n x n x n 1 + ( 1 β n ) { x n x n 1 + 1 μ | r n r n 1 | u n 1 x n 1 + | λ n λ n 1 | A u n 1 } + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) = x n x n 1 + ( 1 β n ) { 1 μ | r n r n 1 | u n 1 x n 1 + | λ n λ n 1 | A u n 1 } + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) .
(3.11)

Next, we estimate

x n + 1 x n = P C [ V n ] P C [ V n 1 ] α n ρ ( U ( x n ) U ( x n 1 ) ) + ( α n α n 1 ) ρ U ( x n 1 ) + γ n ( x n x n 1 ) + ( γ n γ n 1 ) x n 1 + ( 1 γ n ) [ ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) ( T ( y n ) ) ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) T ( y n 1 ) ] + ( ( 1 γ n ) I α n μ F ) ( T ( y n 1 ) ) ( ( 1 γ n 1 ) I α n 1 μ F ) ( T ( y n 1 ) ) α n ρ τ x n x n 1 + γ n x n x n 1 + ( 1 γ n ) ( 1 α n ν 1 γ n ) y n y n 1 + | γ n γ n 1 | ( x n 1 + T ( y n 1 ) ) + | α n α n 1 | ( ρ U ( x n 1 ) + μ F ( T ( y n 1 ) ) ) ,
(3.12)

where the second inequality follows from Lemma 2.5. From (3.11) and (3.12), we have

x n + 1 x n α n ρ τ x n x n 1 + γ n x n x n 1 + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) { x n x n 1 + 1 μ | r n r n 1 | u n 1 x n 1 + | λ n λ n 1 | A u n 1 } + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) + | γ n γ n 1 | ( x n 1 + T ( y n 1 ) ) + | α n α n 1 | ( ρ U ( x n 1 ) + μ F ( T ( y n 1 ) ) ) ( 1 ( ν ρ τ ) α n ) x n x n 1 + 1 μ | r n r n 1 | u n 1 x n 1 + | λ n λ n 1 | A u n 1 + | β n β n 1 | ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) + | γ n γ n 1 | ( x n 1 + T ( y n 1 ) ) + | α n α n 1 | ( ρ U ( x n 1 ) + μ F ( T ( y n 1 ) ) ) ( 1 ( ν ρ τ ) α n ) x n x n 1 + M ( 1 μ | r n 1 r n | + | λ n λ n 1 | + | β n β n 1 | + | γ n γ n 1 | + | α n α n 1 | ) .
(3.13)

Here

M = max { sup n 1 u n 1 x n 1 , sup n 1 A u n 1 , sup n 1 ( S x n 1 + z n 1 ) , sup n 1 ( x n 1 + T ( y n 1 ) ) , sup n 1 ( ρ U ( x n 1 ) + μ F ( T ( y n 1 ) ) ) } .

It follows by conditions (a)-(e) of Algorithm 3.1 and Lemma 2.6 that

lim n x n + 1 x n =0.

Next, we show that lim n u n x n =0. Since x F(T)VI(C,D)GMEP(F,φ,D), by using (3.1) and (3.2), we obtain

x n + 1 x 2 = P C [ V n ] x , x n + 1 x = P C [ V n ] V n , P C [ V n ] x + V n x , x n + 1 x α n ( ρ U ( x n ) μ F ( x ) ) + γ n ( x n x ) + ( ( 1 γ n ) I α n μ F ) ( T ( y n ) ) ( ( 1 γ n ) I α n μ F ) ( T ( x ) ) , x n + 1 x = α n ρ ( U ( x n ) U ( x ) ) , x n + 1 x + α n ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + γ n ( x n x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n ) ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) ( T ( y n ) ) ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) ( T ( x ) ) , x n + 1 x ( α n ρ τ + γ n ) x n x x n + 1 x + α n ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) y n x x n + 1 x γ n + α n ρ τ 2 ( x n x 2 + x n + 1 x 2 ) + α n ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) 2 ( y n x 2 + x n + 1 x 2 ) ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) 2 x n + 1 x 2 + γ n + α n ρ τ 2 x n x 2 + α n ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) 2 ( β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) z n x 2 ) ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) 2 x n + 1 x 2 + γ n + α n ρ τ 2 x n x 2 + α n ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 2 S x n x 2 + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) 2 { u n x 2 λ n ( 2 α λ n ) A u n A x 2 } ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) 2 x n + 1 x 2 + γ n + α n ρ τ 2 x n x 2 + α n ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 2 S x n x 2 + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) 2 { x n x 2 r n ( 2 θ r n ) D x n D x 2 λ n ( 2 α λ n ) A u n A x 2 } ,
(3.14)

which implies that

x n + 1 x 2 γ n + α n ρ τ 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n x 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) S x n x 2 + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) { x n x 2 r n ( 2 θ r n ) D x n D x 2 λ n ( 2 α λ n ) A u n A x 2 } γ n + α n ρ τ 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n x 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + x n x 2 + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) S x n x 2 ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) { r n ( 2 θ r n ) D x n D x 2 + λ n ( 2 α λ n ) A u n A x 2 } .

Then from the above inequality, we get

( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) { r n ( 2 θ r n ) D x n D x 2 + λ n ( 2 α λ n ) A u n A x 2 } γ n + α n ρ τ 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n x 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + β n S x n x 2 + x n x 2 x n + 1 x 2 γ n + α n ρ τ 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n x 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + β n S x n x 2 + ( x n x + x n + 1 x ) x n + 1 x n .

Since lim inf n λ n lim sup n λ n <2α, { r n }(0,2θ), lim n x n + 1 x n =0, γ n 0, α n 0, and β n 0, we obtain lim n D x n D x =0 and lim n A u n A x =0.

Since T r n is firmly nonexpansive, we have

u n x 2 = T r n ( x n r n D x n ) T r n ( x r n D x ) 2 u n x , ( x n r n D x n ) ( x r n D x ) = 1 2 { u n x 2 + ( x n r n D x n ) ( x r n D x ) 2 u n x [ ( x n r n D x n ) ( x r n D x ) ] 2 } .

Hence, we get

u n x 2 ( x n r n D x n ) ( x r n D x ) 2 u n x n + r n ( D x n D x ) 2 x n x 2 u n x n + r n ( D x n D x ) 2 x n x 2 u n x n 2 + 2 r n u n x n D x n D x .

From (3.14), (3.2), and the above inequality, we have

x n + 1 x 2 ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) 2 x n + 1 x 2 + γ n + α n ρ τ 2 x n x 2 + α n ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) 2 ( β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) z n x 2 ) ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) 2 x n + 1 x 2 + γ n + α n ρ τ 2 x n x 2 + α n ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) 2 ( β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) u n x 2 ) ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) 2 x n + 1 x 2 + γ n + α n ρ τ 2 x n x 2 + α n ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) 2 { β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) ( x n x 2 u n x n 2 + 2 r n u n x n D x n D x ) } ,

which implies that

x n + 1 x 2 γ n + α n ρ τ 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n x 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) S x n x 2 + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) { x n x 2 u n x n 2 + 2 r n u n x n D x n D x } γ n + α n ρ τ 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n x 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) S x n x 2 + x n x 2 + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) × { u n x n 2 + 2 r n u n x n D x n D x } .

Hence

( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) u n x n 2 γ n + α n ρ τ 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n x 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) S x n x 2 + 2 ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) r n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) u n x n D x n D x + x n x 2 x n + 1 x 2 γ n + α n ρ τ 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n x 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) S x n x 2 + 2 ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) r n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) u n x n D x n D x + ( x n x + x n + 1 x ) x n + 1 x n .

Since lim n x n + 1 x n =0, α n 0, β n 0, and lim n D x n D x =0, we obtain

lim n u n x n =0.
(3.15)

From (2.2), we get

z n x 2 = P C [ u n λ n A u n ] P C [ x λ n A x ] 2 z n x , ( u n λ n A u n ) ( x λ n A x ) = 1 2 { z n x 2 + u n x λ n ( A u n A x ) 2 u n x λ n ( A u n A x ) ( z n x ) 2 } 1 2 { z n x 2 + u n x 2 u n z n λ n ( A u n A x ) 2 } 1 2 { z n x 2 + u n x 2 u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n , A u n A x } 1 2 { z n x 2 + u n x 2 u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n A u n A x } .

Hence

z n x 2 u n x 2 u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n A u n A x x n x 2 u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n A u n A x .

From (3.14) and the inequality above, we have

x n + 1 x 2 ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) 2 x n + 1 x 2 + γ n + α n ρ τ 2 x n x 2 + α n ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) 2 ( β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) z n x 2 ) ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) 2 x n + 1 x 2 + γ n + α n ρ τ 2 x n x 2 + α n ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) 2 { β n S x n x 2 + ( 1 β n ) ( x n x 2 u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n A u n A x ) } ,
(3.16)

which implies that

x n + 1 x 2 γ n + α n ρ τ 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n x 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) S x n x 2 + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) { x n x 2 u n z n 2 + 2 λ n u n z n A u n A x } .

Hence

( 1 γ n α n ν ) ( 1 β n ) 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) u n x n 2 γ n + α n ρ τ 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n x 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) S x n x 2 + x n x 2 x n + 1 x 2 + 2 λ n u n z n A u n A x = γ n + α n ρ τ 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n x 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( x ) μ F ( x ) , x n + 1 x + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) S x n x 2 + ( x n x + x n + 1 x ) x n + 1 x n + 2 λ n u n z n A u n A x .

Since lim n x n + 1 x n =0, γ n 0, α n 0, β n 0, and lim n A u n A x =0, we get

lim n u n z n =0.
(3.17)

It follows from (3.15) and (3.17) that

lim n x n z n = 0 , x n T ( y n ) x n x n + 1 + x n + 1 T ( y n ) = x n x n + 1 + P C [ V n ] P C [ T ( y n ) ] x n x n + 1 + α n ( ρ U ( x n ) μ F ( T ( y n ) ) ) + γ n ( x n T ( y n ) ) x n x n + 1 + α n ρ U ( x n ) μ F ( T ( y n ) ) + γ n x n T ( y n ) ,
(3.18)

which implies that

x n T ( y n ) 1 1 γ n x n x n + 1 + α n 1 γ n ρ U ( x n ) μ F ( T ( y n ) ) .

Since lim n x n + 1 x n =0, α n 0, we obtain

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

Since T( x n )C, we have

x n T ( x n ) x n x n + 1 + x n + 1 T ( x n ) = x n x n + 1 + P C [ V n ] P C [ T ( x n ) ] x n x n + 1 + α n ( ρ U ( x n ) μ F ( T ( y n ) ) ) + γ n ( x n T ( y n ) ) + T ( y n ) T ( x n ) x n x n + 1 + α n ρ U ( x n ) μ F ( T ( y n ) ) + γ n x n T ( y n ) + y n x n x n x n + 1 + α n ρ U ( x n ) μ F ( T ( y n ) ) + γ n x n T ( y n ) + β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) z n x n x n x n + 1 + α n ρ U ( x n ) μ F ( T ( y n ) ) + γ n x n T ( y n ) + β n S x n x n + ( 1 β n ) z n x n .

Since lim n x n + 1 x n =0, γ n 0, α n 0, β n 0, lim n x n T( y n )=0, ρU( x n )μF(T( y n )) and S x n x n are bounded and lim n x n z n =0, we obtain

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

Since { x n } is bounded, without loss of generality we can assume that x n x C. It follows from Lemma 2.3 that x F(T). Therefore w w ( x n )F(T). □

Theorem 3.1 The sequence { x n } generated by Algorithm 3.1 converges strongly to z, which is the unique solution of the variational inequality

ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x z 0,xVI(C,A)GMEP(F,φ,D)F(T).
(3.19)

Proof Since { x n } is bounded x n w and from Lemma 3.2, we have wF(T). Next, we show that wGMEP(F,φ,D). Since u n = T r n ( x n r n D x n ), we have

F 1 ( u n ,y)+φ(y)φ( u n )+D x n ,y u n + 1 r n y u n , u n x n 0,yC.

It follows from the monotonicity of F 1 that

φ(y)φ( u n )+D x n ,y u n + 1 r n y u n , u n x n F 1 (y, u n ),yC

and

φ(y)φ( u n k )+D x n k ,y u n k + y u n k , u n k x n k r n k F 1 (y, u n k ),yC.
(3.20)

Since lim n u n x n =0 and x n w, it is easy to observe that u n k w. For any 0<t1 and yC, let y t =ty+(1t)w, and we have y t C. Then from (3.20), we obtain

D y t , y t u n k φ ( u n k ) φ ( y t ) + D y t , y t u n k D x n k , y t u n k y t u n k , u n k x n k r n k + F 1 ( y t , u n k ) = φ ( u n k ) φ ( y t ) + D y t D u n k , y t u n k + D u n k D x n k , y t u n k y t u n k , u n k x n k r n k + F 1 ( y t , u n k ) .
(3.21)

Since D is Lipschitz continuous and lim n u n x n =0, we obtain lim k D u n k D x n k =0. From the monotonicity of D, the weakly lower semicontinuity of φ and u n k w, it follows from (3.21) that

D y t , y t wφ(w)φ( y t )+ F 1 ( y t ,w).
(3.22)

Hence, from assumptions (A1)-(A4) and (3.22), we have

0 = F 1 ( y t , y t ) + φ ( y t ) φ ( y t ) t F 1 ( y t , y ) + ( 1 t ) F 1 ( y t , w ) + t φ ( y ) + ( 1 t ) φ ( w ) φ ( y t ) = t [ F 1 ( y t , y ) + φ ( y ) φ ( y t ) ] + ( 1 t ) [ F 1 ( y t , w ) + φ ( w ) φ ( y t ) ] t [ F 1 ( y t , y ) + φ ( y ) φ ( y t ) ] + ( 1 t ) t D y t , y w ,
(3.23)

which implies that F 1 ( y t ,y)+φ(y)φ( y t )+(1t)D y t ,yw0. Letting t 0 + , we have

F 1 ( y t ,y)+φ(y)φ(w)+Dw,yw0,yC,

which implies that wGMEP(F,φ,D).

Furthermore, we show that w Ω . Let

Tv= { A v + N C v , v C , , otherwise ,

where N C v:={wH:w,vu0,uC} is the normal cone to C at vC. Then T is maximal monotone and 0Tv if and only if v Ω (see [31]). Let G(T) denote the graph of T, and let (v,u)G(T); since uAv N C v and z n C, we have

v z n ,uAv0.
(3.24)

On the other hand, it follows from z n = P C [ u n λ n A u n ] and vC that

v z n , z n ( u n λ n A u n ) 0

and

v z n , z n u n λ n + A u n 0.

Therefore, from (3.24) and the inverse strong monotonicity of A, we have

v z n k , u v z n k , A v v z n k , A v v z n k , z n k u n k λ n k + A u n k v z n k , A v A z n k + v z n k , A z n k A u n k v z n k , z n k u n k λ n k v z n k , A z n k A u n k v z n k , z n k u n k λ n k .

Since lim n u n z n =0 and u n k w, it is easy to observe that z n k w. Hence, we obtain vw,u0. Since T is maximal monotone, we have w T 1 0, and hence wVI(C,A). Thus we have

wVI(C,A)GMEP(F,φ,D)F(T).

Observe that the constants satisfy 0ρτ<ν and

k η k 2 η 2 1 2 μ η + μ 2 k 2 1 2 μ η + μ 2 η 2 1 μ ( 2 η μ k 2 ) 1 μ η μ η 1 1 μ ( 2 η μ k 2 ) μ η ν ;

therefore, from Lemma 2.4, the operator μFρU is μηρτ-strongly monotone, and we get the uniqueness of the solution of the variational inequality (3.19) and denote it by zVI(C,A)GMEP(F,φ,D)F(T).

Next, we claim that lim sup n ρU(z)μF(z), x n z0. Since { x n } is bounded, there exists a subsequence { x n k } of { x n } such that

lim sup n ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x n z = lim sup k ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x n k z = ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , w z 0 .

Next, we show that x n z. We have

x n + 1 z 2 = P C [ V n ] z , x n + 1 z = P C [ V n ] V n , P C [ V n ] z + V n z , x n + 1 z α n ( ρ U ( x n ) μ F ( z ) ) + γ n ( x n z ) + ( 1 γ n ) [ ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) ( T ( y n ) ) ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) ( T ( z ) ) ] , x n + 1 z = α n ρ ( U ( x n ) U ( z ) ) , x n + 1 z + α n ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x n + 1 z + γ n x n z , x n + 1 z + ( 1 γ n ) ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) ( T ( y n ) ) ( I α n μ 1 γ n F ) ( T ( z ) ) , x n + 1 z ( γ n + α n ρ τ ) x n z x n + 1 z + α n ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x n + 1 z + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) y n z x n + 1 z ( γ n + α n ρ τ ) x n z x n + 1 z + α n ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x n + 1 z + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) { β n S x n S z + β n S z z + ( 1 β n ) z n z } × x n + 1 z ( γ n + α n ρ τ ) x n z x n + 1 z + α n ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x n + 1 z + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) { β n x n z + β n S z z + ( 1 β n ) x n z } x n + 1 z = ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) x n z x n + 1 z + α n ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x n + 1 z + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n S z z x n + 1 z 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) 2 ( x n z 2 + x n + 1 z 2 ) + α n ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x n + 1 z + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n S z z x n + 1 z ,

which implies that

x n + 1 z 2 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) x n z 2 + 2 α n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x n + 1 z + 2 ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) S z z x n + 1 z ( 1 α n ( ν ρ τ ) ) x n z 2 + 2 α n ( ν ρ τ ) 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) × { 1 ν ρ τ ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x n + 1 z + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n α n ( ν ρ τ ) S z z x n + 1 z } .

Let υ n = α n (νρτ) and δ n = 2 α n ( ν ρ τ ) 1 + α n ( ν ρ τ ) { 1 ν ρ τ ρU(z)μF(z), x n + 1 z+ ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n α n ( ν ρ τ ) Szz x n + 1 z}.

We have

n = 1 α n =

and

lim sup n { 1 ν ρ τ ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x n + 1 z + ( 1 γ n α n ν ) β n α n ( ν ρ τ ) S z z x n + 1 z } 0.

It follows that

n = 1 υ n =and lim sup n δ n υ n 0.

Thus all the conditions of Lemma 2.6 are satisfied. Hence we deduce that x n z. This completes the proof. □

4 Applications

In this section, we obtain the following results by using a special case of the proposed method for example.

Putting γ n =0 and A=0 in Algorithm 3.1, we obtain the following result which can be viewed as an extension and improvement of the method of Wang and Xu [30] for finding the approximate element of the common set of solutions of a generalized mixed equilibrium problem and a hierarchical fixed point problem in a real Hilbert space.

Corollary 4.1 Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. Let D:CH be a θ-inverse strongly monotone mapping. Let F 1 :C×CR be a bifunction satisfying assumptions (i)-(iv) of Lemma  2.2 and S,T:CC be nonexpansive mappings such that F(T)MEP( F 1 ). Let F:CC be a k-Lipschitzian mapping and η-strongly monotone, and let U:CC be a τ-Lipschitzian mapping. For an arbitrarily given x 0 C, let the iterative sequences { u n }, { x n }, { y n }, and { z n } be generated by

F 1 ( u n , y ) + D x n , y u n + φ ( y ) φ ( u n ) + 1 r n y u n , u n x n 0 , y C ; y n = β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) u n ; x n + 1 = P C [ α n ρ U ( x n ) + ( I α n μ F ) ( T ( y n ) ) ] , n 0 ,

where { r n }(0,2θ), { α n }(0,1), { β n }(0,1). Suppose that the parameters satisfy 0<μ< 2 η k 2 , 0ρτ<ν, where ν=1 1 μ ( 2 η μ k 2 ) . Also { α n }, { β n }, and { r n } are sequences satisfying conditions (b)-(e) of Algorithm 3.1. The sequence { x n } converges strongly to z, which is the unique solution of the variational inequality

ρ U ( z ) μ F ( z ) , x z 0,xMEP( F 1 )F(T).

Putting U=f, F=I, ρ=μ=1, γ n =0, and A=0, we obtain an extension and improvement of the method of Yao et al. [15] for finding the approximate element of the common set of solutions of a generalized mixed equilibrium problem and a hierarchical fixed point problem in a real Hilbert space.

Corollary 4.2 Let C be a nonempty closed convex subset of a real Hilbert space H. Let D:CH be a θ-inverse strongly monotone mapping. Let F 1 :C×CR be a bifunction satisfying assumptions (i)-(iv) of Lemma  2.2 and S,T:CC be nonexpansive mappings such that F(T)MEP( F 1 ). Let f:CC be a τ-Lipschitzian mapping. For an arbitrarily given x 0 C, let the iterative sequences { u n }, { x n }, { y n }, and { z n } be generated by

F 1 ( u n , y ) + D x n , y u n + φ ( y ) φ ( u n ) + 1 r n y u n , u n x n 0 , y C ; y n = β n S x n + ( 1 β n ) u n ; x n + 1 = P C [ α n f ( x n ) + ( 1 α n ) T ( y n ) ] , n 0 ,

where { r n }(0,2θ), { α n }, { β n } are sequences in (0,1) satisfying conditions (b)-(e) of Algorithm 3.1. The sequence { x n } converges strongly to z, which is the unique solution of the variational inequality

f ( z ) z , x z 0,xMEP( F 1 )F(T).

Next, the following example shows that conditions (a)-(f) of Algorithm 3.1 are satisfied.

Example 4.1 Let α n = 1 2 n t , γ n = 1 2 n t , β n = n s (with 0<t<s1), λ n = 1 2 ( n + 1 ) , and r n = n n + 1 .

We have

α n + γ n = 1 n t < 1 , lim n α n = lim n γ n = lim n 1 2 n t = 0

and

n = 1 α n = n = 1 1 2 n t =.

Conditions (a) and (b) are satisfied.

lim n β n α n = lim n 1 2 n s t =0.

Condition (c) is satisfied. We compute

α n 1 α n = 1 2 ( 1 ( n 1 ) t 1 n t ) = 1 2 ( n 1 ) t ( 1 ( 1 1 n ) t ) t 2 n t + 1 .

It is easy to show n = 1 | α n 1 α n |<. Similarly, we can show n = 1 | β n 1 β n |< and n = 1 | γ n 1 γ n |<. The sequences { α n }, { γ n }, and { β n } satisfy condition (d). We have

lim inf n r n = lim inf n n n + 1 =1

and

n = 1 | r n 1 r n | = n = 1 | n 1 n n n + 1 | = n = 1 1 n ( n + 1 ) n = 1 1 n 2 < .

Then the sequence { r n } satisfies condition (e). We compute

n = 1 | λ n 1 λ n | < = n = 1 | 1 2 n 1 2 ( n + 1 ) | = 1 2 .

Then the sequence { λ n } satisfies condition (f).

Remark 4.1 In the hierarchical fixed point problem (1.9), if S=I(ρUμF), then we can get the variational inequality (3.19). In (3.19), if U=0 then we get the variational inequality F(z),xz0, xVI(C,A)GMEP(F,φ,D)F(T), which just is the variational inequality studied by Suzuki [27] extending the common set of solutions of a system of variational inequalities, a generalized mixed equilibrium problem and a hierarchical fixed point problem.

5 Conclusions

In this paper, we suggest and analyze an iterative method for finding the approximate element of the common set of solutions of (1.1), (1.5), and (1.9) in a real Hilbert space, which can be viewed as a refinement and improvement of some existing methods for solving a variational inequality problem, a generalized mixed equilibrium problem, and a hierarchical fixed point problem. Some existing methods (e.g., [15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25]) can be viewed as special cases of Algorithm 3.1. Therefore, the new algorithm is expected to be widely applicable.

References

  1. Peng JW, Yao JC: A new hybrid-extragradient method for generalized mixed equilibrium problems and fixed point problems and variational inequality problems. Taiwan. J. Math. 2008, 12(6):1401–1432.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Mazrooei AE, Latif A, Yao JC: Solving generalized mixed equilibria, variational inequalities,and constrained convex minimization. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014., 2014: Article ID 587865

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ansari QH, Schaible S, Yao JC: The system of generalized vector equilibrium problems with applications. J. Glob. Optim. 2002, 22: 3–16. 10.1023/A:1013857924393

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Ceng LC, Hu HY, Wong MM: Strong and weak convergence theorems for generalized mixed equilibrium problem with perturbation and fixed pointed problem of infinitely many nonexpansive mappings. Taiwan. J. Math. 2011, 15(3):1341–1367.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Ceng LC, Guu SM, Yao JC: Hybrid iterative method for finding common solutions of generalized mixed equilibrium and fixed point problems. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 92

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ceng LC, Ansari QH, Schaible S, Yao JC: Iterative methods for generalized equilibrium problems, systems of general generalized equilibrium problems and fixed point problems for nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert spaces. Fixed Point Theory 2011, 12(2):293–308.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Yamada I: The hybrid steepest-descent method for the variational inequality problems over the intersection of the fixed point sets of nonexpansive mappings. In Inherently Parallel Algorithms in Feasibility and Optimization and Their Applications. Edited by: Batnariu D, Censor Y, Reich S. North-Holland, Amsterdam; 2001:473–504.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Colao V, Marino G, Xu HK: An iterative method for finding common solutions of equilibrium and fixed point problems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 344: 340–352. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.02.041

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Korpelevič GM: An extragradient method for finding saddle points and for other problems. Èkon. Mat. Metody 1976, 12(4):747–756.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Xu HK: Averaged mappings and the gradient-projection algorithm. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 150(2):360–378. 10.1007/s10957-011-9837-z

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Ceng LC, Yao JC: A hybrid iterative scheme for mixed equilibrium problems and fixed point problems. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2008, 214: 186–201. 10.1016/j.cam.2007.02.022

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Takahashi S, Takahashi W: Strong convergence theorem for a generalized equilibrium problem and a nonexpansive mapping in a Hilbert space. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 69: 1025–1033. 10.1016/j.na.2008.02.042

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Chang SS, Joseph Lee HW, Chan CK: A new method for solving equilibrium problem, fixed point problem and variational inequality problem with application to optimization. Nonlinear Anal. 2009, 70: 3307–3319. 10.1016/j.na.2008.04.035

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Qin X, Shang M, Su Y: A general iterative method for equilibrium problem and fixed point problem in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2008, 69: 3897–3909. 10.1016/j.na.2007.10.025

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Yao Y, Cho YJ, Liou YC: Iterative algorithms for hierarchical fixed points problems and variational inequalities. Math. Comput. Model. 2010, 52(9–10):1697–1705. 10.1016/j.mcm.2010.06.038

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Mainge PE, Moudafi A: Strong convergence of an iterative method for hierarchical fixed-point problems. Pac. J. Optim. 2007, 3(3):529–538.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Moudafi A: Krasnoselski-Mann iteration for hierarchical fixed-point problems. Inverse Probl. 2007, 23(4):1635–1640. 10.1088/0266-5611/23/4/015

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Cianciaruso F, Marino G, Muglia L, Yao Y: On a two-step algorithm for hierarchical fixed point problems and variational inequalities. J. Inequal. Appl. 2009., 2009: Article ID 208692

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gu G, Wang S, Cho YJ: Strong convergence algorithms for hierarchical fixed points problems and variational inequalities. J. Appl. Math. 2011., 2011: Article ID 164978

    Google Scholar 

  20. Marino G, Xu HK: Explicit hierarchical fixed point approach to variational inequalities. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 149(1):61–78. 10.1007/s10957-010-9775-1

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Ceng LC, Ansari QH, Yao JC: Some iterative methods for finding fixed points and for solving constrained convex minimization problems. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 5286–5302. 10.1016/j.na.2011.05.005

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Ceng LC, Al-Mezel SA, Latif A: Hybrid viscosity approaches to general systems of variational inequalities with hierarchical fixed point problem constraints in Banach spaces. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2014., 2014: Article ID 945985

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bnouhachem A: A modified projection method for a common solution of a system of variational inequalities, a split equilibrium problem and a hierarchical fixed-point problem. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2014., 2014: Article ID 22

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ceng LC, Ansari QH, Yao JC: Iterative methods for triple hierarchical variational inequalities in Hilbert spaces. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 151: 489–512. 10.1007/s10957-011-9882-7

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Tian M: A general iterative algorithm for nonexpansive mappings in Hilbert spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 73: 689–694. 10.1016/j.na.2010.03.058

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Geobel K, Kirk WA Stud. Adv. Math. 28. In Topics in Metric Fixed Point Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1990.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Suzuki N: Moudafi’s viscosity approximations with Meir-Keeler contractions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 325: 342–352. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2006.01.080

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Xu HK: Iterative algorithms for nonlinear operators. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 2002, 66: 240–256. 10.1112/S0024610702003332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Acedo GL, Xu HK: Iterative methods for strictly pseudo-contractions in Hilbert space. Nonlinear Anal. 2007, 67: 2258–2271. 10.1016/j.na.2006.08.036

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang Y, Xu W: Strong convergence of a modified iterative algorithm for hierarchical fixed point problems and variational inequalities. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 121

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rockafellar RT: On the maximality of sums nonlinear monotone operators. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1970, 149: 75–88. 10.1090/S0002-9947-1970-0282272-5

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Ansari QH, Lalitha CS, Mehta M: Generalized Convexity, Nonsmooth Variational Inequalities and Nonsmooth Optimization. Taylor & Francis, London; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ansari QH, Yao JC: Systems of generalized variational inequalities and their applications. Appl. Anal. 2000, 76: 203–217. 10.1080/00036810008840877

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Ceng LC, Wang CY, Yao JC: Strong convergence theorems by a relaxed extragradient method for a general system of variational inequalities. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 2008, 67: 375–390. 10.1007/s00186-007-0207-4

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Ceng LC, Al-Mezel SA, Ansari QH: Implicit and explicit iterative methods for systems of variational inequalities and zeros of accretive operators. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2013., 2013: Article ID 631382

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cianciaruso F, Marino G, Muglia L, Yao Y: A hybrid projection algorithm for finding solutions of mixed equilibrium problem and variational inequality problem. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2010., 2010: Article ID 383740

    Google Scholar 

  37. Crombez G: A hierarchical presentation of operators with fixed points on Hilbert spaces. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 2006, 27: 259–277. 10.1080/01630560600569957

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Latif A, Ceng LC, Ansari QH: Multi-step hybrid viscosity method for systems of variational inequalities defined over sets of solutions of equilibrium problem and fixed point problems. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 186

    Google Scholar 

  39. Marino G, Muglia L, Yao Y: Viscosity methods for common solutions of equilibrium and variational inequality problems via multi-step iterative algorithms and common fixed points. Nonlinear Anal. 2012, 75: 1787–1798. 10.1016/j.na.2011.09.019

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Peng JW, Yao JC: Strong convergence theorems of iterative scheme based on the extragradient method for mixed equilibrium problems and fixed point problems. Math. Comput. Model. 2009, 49: 1816–1828. 10.1016/j.mcm.2008.11.014

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Verma RU: General convergence analysis for two-step projection methods and applications to variational problems. Appl. Math. Lett. 2005, 18: 1286–1292. 10.1016/j.aml.2005.02.026

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to the referees for their careful reading, comments, and suggestions, which improved the presentation of this article. The first author would like to thank Prof. Xindan Li, Dean of the School of Management and Engineering of Nanjing University, for providing excellent research facilities. The second author was supported by NSFC 71173098.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdellah Bnouhachem.

Additional information

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bnouhachem, A., Chen, Y. An iterative method for a common solution of generalized mixed equilibrium problems, variational inequalities, and hierarchical fixed point problems. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2014, 155 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2014-155

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2014-155

Keywords