# Semistrict *G*-preinvexity and its application

- Zai Yun Peng
^{1, 2}Email author

**2012**:198

https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2012-198

© Peng; licensee Springer. 2012

**Received: **4 April 2012

**Accepted: **6 August 2012

**Published: **7 September 2012

## Abstract

In this paper, a class of semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions introduced by Luo and Wu (J. Comput. Appl. Math. 222:372-380, 2008) is further considered. Some properties of semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions are obtained, especially those containing an interesting gradient property. Then, some optimality results, which extend the corresponding results in the literature (Yang and Li in J. Math. Anal. Appl. 256:229-241, 2001; Yang and Li in J. Math. Anal. Appl. 258:287-308, 2001; Antczak in J. Glob. Optim. 43:97-109, 2009; Luo and Wu in J. Comput. Appl. Math. 222:372-380, 2008), are derived in multiobjective optimization problems.

### Keywords

*G*-preinvex function semistrictly

*G*-preinvex function optimality multiobjective optimization

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that convexity and generalized convexity have been playing a central role in mathematical programming, economics, engineering and optimization theory. The research on characterizations and generalizations of convexity and generalized convexity is one of the most important aspects in mathematical programming and optimization theory in [1–4]. Various kinds of generalized convexity have been introduced by many authors. In 1981, Hanson [5] introduced the concept of invexity which is an extension of differentiable convex functions and proved the sufficiency of Kuhn-Tucker condition. Later, Weir and Mond [6] and Weir and Jeyakumar [7] introduced preinvex functions, and they also studied how and where preinvex functions can replace convex functions in an optimization problem. Then, Yang and Li [8] obtained some properties of a preinvex function in 2001. Yang and Li [9] also introduced the concept of semistrictly preinvex functions and investigated the relationships between semistrictly preinvex functions and preinvex functions. It is worth mentioning that many properties of invex functions and (semistrictly) preinvex functions and their applications in mathematical programming are discussed in some existing literature (see [6–11]).

On the other hand, Avriel *et al*. [12] introduced the definition of *G*-convex functions, which is another generalization of convex functions, where *G* is a continuous real-valued increasing function. As a generalization of *G*-convex functions and invex functions, Antczak [13] introduced the concept of *G*-invex functions and derived some optimality conditions for constrained optimization problems under the assumption of *G*-invexity. Antczak [14] introduced a class of *G*-preinvex functions, which is a generalization of *G*-invex [13], preinvex functions [6, 8] and *r*-preinvex functions [15]. Then, Luo and Wu [16] introduced the concept of semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions, which includes semistrictly preinvex functions [9] as a special case, and investigated the relations between semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions and *G*-preinvex functions.

However, to the best of our knowledge, it appears that there are no results on the properties and applications of semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions in literature. So, in this paper we study some properties of semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions and applications in a multiobjective optimization problem. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall some definitions and give some examples to show that semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions are different from preinvex functions, *G*-invex functions, *G*-preinvex functions and strictly *G*-preinvex functions. In Section 3, we obtain some properties of semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions, especially those containing an interesting gradient property. Finally, optimality results for multiobjective optimization problems are obtained in Section 4. Our results extend and generalize the corresponding ones in [8, 9, 13, 14, 16].

## 2 Preliminaries

Throughout this paper, let *K* be a nonempty subset of ${R}^{n}$. Let $f:K\to R$ be a real-valued function and $\eta :K\times K\to {R}^{n}$ be a vector-valued function. And let ${I}_{f}(K)$ be the range of *f*, *i.e*., the image of *K* under *f*, and ${f}^{-1}$ be the inverse of *f*.

Now we recall some definitions.

**Definition 2.1** ([5])

*K*is said to be invex at

*y*with respect to

*η*if for all $x\in K$, $\lambda \in [0,1]$ such that

The set *K* is said to be invex with respect to *η* if *K* is invex at each $y\in K$.

**Definition 2.2** ([6])

*η*. The function

*f*is said to be preinvex on

*K*with respect to

*η*iff

**Remark 2.1** Any convex function is a preinvex function with $\eta (x,y)=x-y$. But the converse is not true.

**Definition 2.3** ([9])

*η*. The function

*f*is said to be semistrictly preinvex on

*K*with respect to

*η*if, for all $x,y\in K$, $f(x)\ne f(y)$, we have

**Remark 2.2** Any semistrictly (or strong) convex function is a semistrictly preinvex function with $\eta (x,y)=x-y$. But the converse is not true.

**Definition 2.4** ([14])

*η*. The function

*f*is said to be

*G*-preinvex on

*K*with respect to

*η*if there exists a continuous real-valued increasing function $G:{I}_{f}(K)\to R$ such that for all $x,y\in K$ and $\lambda \in [0,1]$, we have

$f:K\to R$ is said to be strictly *G*-preinvex on *K*, if the inequality (2.1) is strict for all $x,y\in K$, $x\ne y$ and $\lambda \in (0,1)$.

**Definition 2.5** ([16])

*η*. The function

*f*is said to be semistrictly

*G*-preinvex on

*K*with respect to

*η*if there exists a continuous real-valued increasing function $G:{I}_{f}(K)\to R$ such that for all $x,y\in K$, $f(x)\ne f(y)$ and $\lambda \in (0,1)$,

**Remark 2.3** It is clear that the semistrictly *G*-preinvex function is a generalization of semistrictly preinvex function.

**Example 2.1**This example illustrates that a semistrictly

*G*-preinvex function is not necessarily a (strictly)

*G*-preinvex function with respect to the same

*η*. Let

*f*is a semistrictly

*G*-preinvex function with respect to

*η*, where $G(t)={e}^{t}$. However, by letting $x=2$, $y=-\frac{3}{2}$ ($x\ne y$), $\lambda =\frac{1}{2}$, we have

Thus, *f* is not a *G*-preinvex function with respect to the same *η*, and it is also not a strictly *G*-preinvex function with respect to the same *η*.

**Example 2.2**This example illustrates that a semistrictly

*G*-preinvex function is not necessarily a

*G*-invex function. Let

Then, by [16], Example 2], *f* is a semistrictly *G*-preinvex function with respect to *η*, where $G(t)={e}^{t}$. It can be easily noticed that *f* is not differentiable at $x=0$. Thus, *f* is not a *G*-invex function (see [13]) with respect to *η*.

**Example 2.3**Seeing the function

*f*and

*η*in Example 2.1, it is obvious that

*f*is a semistrictly

*G*-preinvex function with respect to

*η*, where $G(t)={e}^{t}$. However, by letting $x=4$, $y=-3$, $\lambda =\frac{1}{2}$, we have

Thus, *f* is not a preinvex function with respect to the same *η*.

**Remark 2.4** From Examples 2.1-2.3, we know that semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions are different from *G*-preinvex functions, strictly *G*-preinvex functions, *G*-invex functions and preinvex functions with respect to the same *η*.

In order to discuss the properties of semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions, we recall the definition of Condition C as follows.

In the sequel, we will use the following lemma.

**Lemma 2.1** ([14])

${G}^{-1}$ *is* (*strictly*) *increasing if and only if* *G* *is* (*strictly*) *increasing*.

The next lemma can be easily proved by Lemma 2.1 and the definitions of a concave function and a convex function, so we omit it.

**Lemma 2.2** *If* *G* *is increasing and concave*, *then* ${G}^{-1}$ *is convex*.

## 3 Some properties of semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions

In this section, we derive some interesting properties of semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions.

**Theorem 3.1** *Let* *K* *be a nonempty invex set with respect to* *η*, *where* *η* *satisfies Condition * C, *and let* ${f}_{i}:K\to R$ ($i\in I$) *be a finite or infinite collection of both semistrictly* *G*-*preinvex and* *G*-*preinvex functions for the same* *η* *on* *K*. *Define* $f(x)=sup\{{f}_{i}(x),i\in I\}$, *for every* $x\in K$. *Assume that for every* $x\in K$, *there exists an* ${i}_{0}:=i(x)\in I$ *such that* $f(x)={f}_{{i}_{0}}(x)$. *Then* *f* *is both a semistrictly* *G*-*preinvex and* *G*-*preinvex function with respect to the same* *η* *on* *K*.

*Proof*By Proposition 12 in [14], we know that

*f*is

*G*-preinvex on

*K*. We need to show that

*f*is a semistrictly

*G*-preinvex function on

*K*. Assume that

*f*is not a semistrictly

*G*-preinvex function. Then, there exist $x,y\in K$ with $f(x)\ne f(y)$ and $\alpha \in (0,1)$ such that

*G*-preinvexity of

*f*, we have

- (i)If ${f}_{{i}_{0}}(x)\ne {f}_{{i}_{0}}(y)$, then by the semistrict
*G*-preinvexity of ${f}_{{i}_{0}}$,${f}_{{i}_{0}}(z)<{G}^{-1}(\alpha G({f}_{{i}_{0}}(x))+(1-\alpha )G({f}_{{i}_{0}}(y))).$(3.3)

- (ii)If ${f}_{{i}_{0}}(x)={f}_{{i}_{0}}(y)$, then by the
*G*-preinvexity of ${f}_{{i}_{0}}$,${f}_{{i}_{0}}(z)\le {G}^{-1}(\alpha G({f}_{{i}_{0}}(x))+(1-\alpha )G({f}_{{i}_{0}}(y))).$(3.4)

*G*, we obtain

which contradicts (3.2). This completes the proof. □

**Remark 3.1** Theorem 3.1 generalizes Theorem 3.8 [9] from a semistrictly preinvex case to a semistrictly *G*-preinvex case.

Next, we will establish an important gradient property of semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions. Before showing the property in Theorem 3.3, we first derive a result of *G*-preinvex functions.

**Theorem 3.2**

*Let*

*K*

*be a nonempty invex set in*${R}^{n}$

*with respect to*$\eta :K\times K\to {R}^{n}$,

*and*

*f*

*be a*

*G*-

*preinvex function with respect to the same*

*η*

*on*

*K*.

*Assume that*

*η*

*satisfies Condition*C.

*For any*$x,y\in K$

*and*$\lambda \in [0,1]$,

*let*$g(\lambda )=G(f(x+\lambda \eta (y,x)))$.

*Then*

*or equivalently*,

*Proof*For $0<\alpha <\beta \le 1$, let ${z}_{\alpha}=x+\alpha \eta (y,x)$, ${z}_{\beta}=x+\beta \eta (y,x)$, $u=1-\frac{\alpha}{\beta}$. By Condition C,

This completes the proof. □

From Definitions 2.4 and 2.5, we can obtain the following lemma.

**Lemma 3.1** *Let* *K* *be a nonempty invex set with respect to* *η*, *where* *η* *satisfies Condition * C. *Let* $f:K\to R$ *be continuous and semistrictly* *G*-*preinvex with respect to* *η* *on* *K*, *and satisfy* $f(y+\eta (x,y))\le f(x)$ ($\mathrm{\forall}x\in K$). *Then* *f* *is a* *G*-*preinvex function on* *K*.

**Theorem 3.3**

*Let*

*K*

*be a nonempty invex set with respect to*

*η*,

*where*

*η*

*satisfies Condition*C.

*Assume that*$f:K\to R$

*is differentiable and semistrictly*

*G*-

*preinvex with respect to*

*η*

*on*

*K*,

*and satisfies*$f(y+\eta (x,y))\le f(x)$ ($\mathrm{\forall}x\in K$),

*where*

*G*

*is a differentiable function*.

*Then for any*$x,y\in K$

*with*$f(x)\ne f(y)$,

*we have*

- (i)
$G(f(y))>G(f(x))+{G}^{\mathrm{\prime}}(f(x))\eta {(y,x)}^{T}\mathrm{\nabla}f(x)$,

- (ii)
${G}^{\mathrm{\prime}}(f(x))\eta {(y,x)}^{T}\mathrm{\nabla}f(x)+{G}^{\mathrm{\prime}}(f(y))\eta {(x,y)}^{T}\mathrm{\nabla}f(y)<0$.

*Proof*(i) Suppose that

*f*is a semistrictly

*G*-preinvex function on

*K*. By Definition 2.4, for any $x,y\in K$ with $f(x)\ne f(y)$, we have

- (ii)Since
*f*is a semistrictly*G*-preinvex function on*K*, for $x,y\in K$ with $f(x)\ne f(y)$, it follows form the above results that$G(f(y))>G(f(x))+{G}^{\mathrm{\prime}}(f(x))\eta {(y,x)}^{T}\mathrm{\nabla}f(x).$(3.5)

This completes the proof. □

**Remark 3.2** As a matter of fact, the assumption of continuity for *f* can be extended to lower semicontinuity in Lemma 3.1.

## 4 Semistrict *G*-preinvexity and optimality

In the section, we consider a class of multiobjective optimization problems and obtain an important optimality result under semistrict *G*-preinvexity.

From now on, we suppose that $f=({f}_{1},\dots ,{f}_{n}):X\to {R}^{n}$ is a vector-valued mapping, where *X* is an invex subset of ${R}^{n}$ endowed with the Euclidean norm $\parallel \cdot \parallel $.

- (i)
$f(x)<f(y)\u27fa{f}_{i}(x)<{f}_{i}(y)$ for every $i=1,2,\dots ,n$;

- (ii)
$f(x)\nless f(y)$ is the negation of $f(x)<f(y)$.

**Definition 4.1**Let $m\ge 1$ be an integer. A point $\overline{x}\in X$ is said to be a strictly local minimizer of order

*m*for (MOP) if there exist an $\epsilon >0$ and a vector $c\in int{R}_{+}^{n}$ such that

where $N(\overline{x},\epsilon )$ is an *ε* neighbor of $\overline{x}$.

Now, we give the notion of a strict minimizer in the global sense if the neighbor $N(\overline{x},\epsilon )$ is replaced by the whole space ${R}^{n}$.

**Definition 4.2**Let $m\ge 1$ be an integer. A point $\overline{x}\in X$ is said to be a strictly global minimizer of order

*m*for (MOP) if there exists a vector $c\in int{R}_{+}^{n}$ such that

**Remark 4.1** If $\eta (x,y)=x-y$, then Definitions 4.1-4.2 reduce to Definitions 4.2-4.3 introduced by Bhatia [17], respectively.

**Remark 4.2** From Definitions 4.1 and 4.2, we know that the concepts of a strictly local minimizer of order *m* and a strictly global minimizer of order *m* for (MOP) are stronger than the concepts of a strictly local minimizer and a strictly global minimizer for (MOP), respectively.

It is clear that any strictly global minimizer of order *m* is a strictly global minimizer. But the converse may not be true. We can see the case in the following example.

**Example 4.1**Let $f:R\to {R}^{3}$ be defined as

$\overline{x}=0$ is a strictly global minimizer but is not a strictly global minimizer of order *m*, because for any $m>0$, $c=({c}_{1},{c}_{2},{c}_{3})\in int{R}_{+}^{3}$ and $x>0$ sufficiently small, we have $f(x)<c{x}^{m}$, where $\eta (x,y)=x-y$ or $\eta (x,y)=x+y$.

**Theorem 4.1**

*Let*

*X*

*be an invex set with respect to*

*η*.

*Suppose the following conditions are satisfied*:

- (i)
*Let**G**be increasing and concave on*${I}_{f}(X)$; - (ii)
$\eta :X\times X\to {R}^{n}$

*satisfies Condition*C; - (iii)
$\overline{x}\in X$

*is a strictly local minimizer of order**m**for*(*MOP*).

*If* ${f}_{i}:X\to R$, $i=1,2,\dots ,n$, *are semistrictly* *G*-*preinvex on* *X* *with respect to* *η*, *then* $\overline{x}$ *is a strictly global minimizer of order* *m* *for* (*MOP*).

*Proof*Let $\overline{x}\in X$ be a strictly local minimizer of order

*m*for (MOP). Then there exist an

*ε*neighborhood $N(\overline{x},\epsilon )$ of $\overline{x}$ and a vector $c\in int{R}_{+}^{n}$ such that

where $c=({c}_{1},{c}_{2},\dots ,{c}_{n})$.

*m*for (VP), then there exists ${x}^{\ast}\in X$ with $f({x}^{\ast})\ne f(\overline{x})$ such that

*X*is an invex set with respect to

*η*,

*G*-preinvex on

*X*with respect to

*η*,

*G*is increasing on ${I}_{f}$ and ${G}^{-1}$ is convex, it follows that for any $\lambda \in (0,1)$

where Lemma 2.2 is used in the second inequality.

which implies that $\overline{x}$ is not a strictly local minimizer of order *m*. It is a contradiction. Hence, $\overline{x}$ is a strict minimizer of order *m* for (MOP). □

Now, we give an example of an optimization problem to illustrate Theorem 4.1.

**Example 4.2**Let $f:R\to {R}^{3}$ be defined as

From Definition 2.5, we can verify that ${f}_{i}$ ($i=1,2,3$) are semistrictly *G*-preinvex functions with respect to *η*, where $G(t)={e}^{t}$. $\overline{x}=1$ is a strictly local minimizer of order *m* for (MOP). From Theorem 4.1, we can get $\overline{x}=1$ is also a strictly global minimizer of order *m* for (MOP), and $f(\overline{x})=(0,0,0)$ is a global minimal value of (MOP).

## Declarations

### Acknowledgements

The author is very grateful to the three anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions which helped to improve the paper. This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11271389, 11201509, 71271226), the Natural Science Foundation Project of Chongqing (No. CSTC, 2011AC6104.2012jjA00016) and the Education Committee Project Research Foundation of Chongqing (No. KJ100711).

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Mangasarin OL:
*Nonlinear Programming*. Mcgraw-Hill, New York; 1969.Google Scholar - Bazaraa MS, Sherali HD, Shetty CM:
*Nonlinear Programming Theory and Algorithms*. Wiley, New York; 1979.MATHGoogle Scholar - Schaible S, Ziemba WT:
*Generalized Concavity in Optimization and Economics*. Academic Press, London; 1981.MATHGoogle Scholar - Ward DE: Characterizations of strict local minima and necessary conditions for weak sharp minima.
*J. Optim. Theory Appl.*1994, 80: 551–571. 10.1007/BF02207780MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Hanson MA: On sufficiency of Kuhn-Tucker conditions.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*1981, 80: 545–550. 10.1016/0022-247X(81)90123-2MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Weir T, Mond B: Pre-invex functions in multiple objective optimization.
*J. Optim. Theory Appl.*1988, 136: 29–38.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - Weir T, Jeyakumar V: A class of nonconvex functions and mathematical programming.
*Bull. Aust. Math. Soc.*1988, 38: 177–189. 10.1017/S0004972700027441MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Yang XM, Li D: On properties of preinvex functions.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*2001, 256: 229–241. 10.1006/jmaa.2000.7310MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Yang XM, Li D: Semistrictly preinvex functions.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*2001, 258: 287–308. 10.1006/jmaa.2000.7382MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Yang XM, Yang XQ, Teo KL: Characterizations and applications of prequasi-invex functions.
*J. Optim. Theory Appl.*2001, 110: 645–668. 10.1023/A:1017544513305MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Peng JW, Yang XM: Two properties of strictly preinvex functions.
*Oper. Res. Trans.*2005, 9: 37–42.Google Scholar - Avriel M, Diewert WE, Schaible S, Zang I:
*Generalized Concavity*. Plenum, New York; 1975.MATHGoogle Scholar - Antczak T: On
*G*-invex multiobjective programming. I. Optimality.*J. Glob. Optim.*2009, 43: 97–109. 10.1007/s10898-008-9299-5MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Antczak T:
*G*-preinvex functions in mathematical programming.*J. Comput. Appl. Math.*2008, 217: 212–226. 10.1016/j.cam.2007.06.026MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Antczak T:
*r*-preinvexity and*r*-invexity in mathematical programming.*Comput. Math. Appl.*2005, 50: 551–566. 10.1016/j.camwa.2005.01.024MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Luo HZ, Wu HX: On the relationships between
*G*-preinvex functions and semistrictly*G*-preinvex functions.*J. Comput. Appl. Math.*2008, 222: 372–380. 10.1016/j.cam.2007.11.006MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Bhatia G: Optimality and mixed saddle point criteria in multiobjective optimization.
*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*2008, 342: 135–145. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.11.042MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

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.