Stability analysis for parametric generalized vector quasi-variational-like inequality problems

Ravi P Agarwal; Jia-wei Chen; Yeol Je Cho; Zhongping Wan

doi:10.1186/1029-242X-2012-57

Research
Open Access

Stability analysis for parametric generalized vector quasi-variational-like inequality problems

Ravi P Agarwal¹,
Jia-wei Chen²Email author,
Yeol Je Cho³Email author and
Zhongping Wan²

Journal of Inequalities and Applications20122012:57

https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2012-57

Received: 21 October 2011
Accepted: 7 March 2012
Published: 7 March 2012

Abstract

In this article, we consider a class of parametric generalized vector quasi-variational-like inequality problem (for short, (PGVQVLIP)) in Hausdorff topological vector spaces, where the constraint set K and a set-valued mapping T are perturbed by different parameters, and establish the nonemptiness and upper semicontinuity of the solution mapping S for (PGVQVLIP) under some suitable conditions. By virtue of the gap function, sufficient conditions for the H-continuity and B-continuity of the solution mapping S of (PGVQVLIP) are also derived. Moreover, examples are provided for illustrating the presented results.

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 49J40; 90C33.

Keywords

upper semicontinuity
Hausdorff continuity
KKM mapping
gap function
parametric generalized vector quasi-variational-like inequality

1 Introduction

In 1980, Giannessi [1] first introduced vector variational inequality problems in finite dimensional Euclidean spaces. Since Giannessi, vector variational inequalities were investigated by many authors in abstract spaces and widely applied to transportation, finance, and economics, mathematical physics, engineering sciences and many others (see, for instance, [2–18] and the reference therein).

The stability analysis of solution mappings for vector variational inequality problems is an important topic in optimization theory and applications. Especially, some authors have tried to discuss the upper and lower semi-continuity of solution mappings (see, for instance, [19–28] and the reference therein). Khanh and Luu [29] studied a parametric multi-valued quasi-variational inequalities and obtained the semi-continuity of the solution sets and approximate solution sets. Zhong and Huang [30] studied the solution stability of parametric weak vector variational inequalities in reflexive Banach spaces and obtained the lower semi-continuity of the solution mapping for the parametric weak vector variational inequalities with strictly C-pseudo-mapping and also proved the lower semi-continuity of the solution mapping by degree-theoretic method. Aussel and Cotrina [31] discussed the continuity properties of the strict and star solution mapping of a scalar quasi-variational inequality in Banach spaces. Zhao [32] obtained a sufficient and necessary condition (H 1) for the Hausdorff lower semi-continuity of the solution mapping to a parametric optimization problems. Under mild assumptions, Kien [33] also obtained the sufficient and necessary condition (H 1) for the Hausdorff lower semi-continuity of the solution mapping to a parametric optimization problems. By using a condition (Hg) similar to it given in [32], Li and Chen [21] proved that (Hg) is also sufficient for the Hausdorff lower semi-continuity of the solution mapping to a class of weak vector variational inequality.

Very recently, Chen et al. [34] further studied the Hausdorff lower semi-continuity of the solution mapping to the parametric weak vector quasi-variational inequality in Hausdorff topological vector spaces. Zhong and Huang [35] also derived a sufficient and necessary condition (Hg)' for the Hausdorff lower semi-continuity and Hausdorff continuity of the solution mapping to a parametric weak vector variational inequalities in reflexive Banach spaces. Lalitha and Bhatia [36] presented various sufficient conditions for the upper and lower semi-continuity of solution sets as well as the approximate solution sets to a parametric quasi-variational inequality of the Minty type.

Motivated and inspired by the studies reported in [29–37], the aim of this article is to investigate a class of (PGVQVLIP) in Hausdorff topological vector spaces, where the constraint set K and a set-valued mapping T are perturbed by different parameters. We establish the nonemptiness and upper semi-continuity of the solution mapping for (PGVQVLIP) under some suitable conditions. By virtue of the gap function, sufficient conditions for the H-continuity and B-continuity of the solution mapping of the (PGVQVLIP) are also derived. Moreover, some examples are provided for illustrating the presented results. The results presented in this article develop, extend and improve the some main results given in [29–35, 37].

This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the problem (PGVQVLIP), recall some basic definitions and some of their properties. In Section 3, we investigate the sufficient conditions for the upper semi-continuity nonemptiness and continuity of the solution mapping for (PGVQVLIP) in Hausdorff topological vector spaces.

2 Preliminaries

Throughout this article, let ∨ and ∧ (the spaces of parameters) be two Hausdorff topological vector spaces and X, Y be two locally convex Hausdorff topological vector spaces. Let L(X, Y) be the set of all linear continuous operators from X into Y, denoted 〈t, x〉 by the value of a linear operator t ∈ L(X, Y) at x ∈ X, and C : X → 2^Ybe a set-valued mapping such that C(x) is a proper closed convex cone for all x ∈ X with $int C (x) \neq \emptyset$ . Let T : X × ∨ → 2^L(X,Y)and K : ∧ → 2^Xbe two set-valued mappings, η : X × X → X and ϕ : X × X → Y be two vector-valued mappings. We always assume that 〈⋅,⋅〉 is continuous and 2^Xdenotes the family of all nonempty subsets of X.

We consider the following parametric generalized vector quasi-variational-like inequality problem (for short, (PGVQVLIP)): Find x ∈ K (λ) such that

⟨ T (x, μ), η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) ⊈ - int C (x), \forall y \in K (λ),

(2.1)

where 〈T(x, μ), η (y, x)〉 + ϕ(y, x) = ∪_ξ∈T(x,μ)〈ξ, η(y, x)〉 + ϕ(y, x).

It is easy to see that (PGVQVLIP) is equivalent to find x ∈ K (λ) and ξ ∈ T(x, μ) such that

⟨ ξ, η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) \notin - int C (x), \forall y \in K (λ) .

(2.2)

Special cases of the problem (2.1) are as follows:

(I)

If T is a single-valued mapping, then the problem (2.1) is reduced to the following parametric vector quasi-variational-like inequality problem (for short, (PVQVLIP)): Find x ∈ K(λ) such that
$⟨ t (x, μ), η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) \notin - int C (x), \forall y \in K (λ),$

(2.3)

where t : X × ∨ → L(X, Y) is a vector-valued mapping.

(II)

If, for each pair of parameters (λ, μ) ∈ ∧ × ∨, η (y, x) = y - x, T(x, μ) = T(x) and ϕ(y, x) = 0 for all x, y ∈ K (λ) = K, then the problem (2.1) is reduced to the following vector quasi-variational inequality problem: Find x ∈ K such that
$⟨ T (x), y - x ⟩ ⊈ - int C (x), \forall y \in K,$

(2.4)

where K is a nonempty subset of X, T : X → 2^L(X,Y), which has been studied by Ansari et al. [4].

(III)

If, for each pair of parameters (λ, μ) ∈ ∧ × ∨, C(x) = C, η(y, x) = y - x and ϕ(y, x) = 0 for all x, y ∈ K (λ), where C is a proper closed convex cone, then the problem (2.1) is reduced to the following vector quasi-variational inequality problem: Find x ∈ K (λ) such that
$⟨ T (x, μ), y - x ⟩ ⊈ - int C, \forall y \in K (λ),$

(2.5)

which has been studied by Zhong and Huang [30].

(IV)

If, for each pair of parameters (λ, μ) ∈ ∨ × ∧, η(y, x) = 0 for all x, y ∈ K(λ), then the problem (2.1) is reduced to the following vector equilibrium problem: Find x ∈ K(λ) such that
$ϕ (y, x) \notin - int C (x), \forall y \in K (λ) .$

(2.6)
(V)

If, for each pair of parameters (λ, μ) ∈ ∨ × ∧, η (y, x) = 0 and ϕ(y, x) = f(y)-f(x) for all x, y ∈ K (λ), where f : X → Y, then the problem (2.1) is reduced to the following vector optimization problem:
$min_{y \in K (λ)} f (y) .$

(2.7)

For each pair of parameters (λ, μ) ∈ ∧ × ∨, we denote the solutions set of the problem (2.1) by S(λ, μ), i.e.,

S (λ, μ) = {x \in K (λ) : ⟨ T (x, μ), η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) ⊈ - int C (x), \forall y \in K (λ)} .

So, S : ∧ × ∨ → 2^Xis a set-valued mapping, which is called the solution mapping of the problem (2.1).

We first recall some definitions and lemmas which are needed in our main results.

Definition 2.1 [9, 10]. The nonlinear scalarization function ξ_e: X × Y → R is defined by

ξ_{e} (x, y) = inf {z \in R : y \in z e (x) - C (x)}, \forall (x, y) \in X \times Y,

where e : X → Y is a vector-valued mapping and e(x) ∈ intC(x) for all x ∈ X.

Example 2.1 [34]. If Y = Rⁿ, e(x) = e and $C (x) = R_{+}^{n}$ for any x ∈ X, where $e = {(1, 1, . . ., 1)}^{T} \in int R_{+}^{n}$ , then the function ξ_e(x,y) = max_1≤i≤n{y_i} is a nonlinear scalarization function for all x ∈ X, y = (y₁, y₂,...,y_n)^T∈ Y.

Definition 2.2 [34, 35]. Let Γ be a Hausdorff topological space and X be a locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space. A set-valued mapping F : Γ → 2^Xis said to be:

(1)

upper semi-continuous in the sense of Berge (for short, (B-u.s.c)) at γ₀ ∈ Γ if, for each open set V with F(γ₀) ⊂ V, there exists δ > 0 such that
$F (γ) \subset V, \forall γ \in B (γ_{0}, δ);$
(2)

lower semi-continuous in the sense of Berge (for short, (B-l.s.c)) at γ₀ ∈ Γ if, for each open set V with $F (γ_{0}) \cap V \neq \emptyset$ , there exists δ > 0 such that
$F (γ) \cap V \neq \emptyset, \forall γ \in B (γ_{0}, δ);$
(3)

upper semi-continuous in the sense of Hausdorff (for short, (H-u.s.c)) at γ₀ ∈ Γ if, for each ϵ > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that
$F (γ) \subset U (F (γ_{0}), ε), \forall γ \in B (γ_{0}, δ);$
(4)

lower semi-continuous in the sense of Hausdorff (for short, (H-l.s.c)) at γ₀ ∈ Γ if, for each ϵ > 0, there exists δ > 0 such that
$F (γ_{0}) \subset U (F (γ), ε), \forall γ \in B (γ_{0}, δ);$
(5)

closed if the graph of F is closed, i.e., the set G(F) = {(γ, x) ∈ Γ × X : x ∈ F(γ)} is closed in Γ × X.

We say that F is H-l.s.c (resp., H-u.s.c, B-l.s.c, B-u.s.c) on Γ if it is H-l.s.c (resp., H-u.s.c, B-l.s.c, B-u.s.c) at each γ ∈ Γ. F is called continuous (resp., H-continuous) on Γ if it is both B-l.s.c (resp., H-l.s.c) and B-u.s.c (resp., H-u.s.c) on Γ.

By [9, Theorem 2.1], [34, Propositions 2.2 and 2.3], and [35, Lemma 2.3], the nonlinear scalarization function ξ_e(⋅,⋅) has the following properties.

Proposition 2.1. Let e : X → Y be a continuous selection from the set-valued mapping intC(⋅). For any x ∈ X, y ∈ Y, and r ∈ R, the following hold:

(1)

If the mappings C(⋅) and Y \ intC(⋅) are B-u.s.c on X, then ξ_e(⋅,⋅) is continuous onX × Y;
(2)

The mapping ξ_e(x, ⋅) : Y → R is convex;
(3)

ξ_e(x, y) < r ⇔ y ∈ re(x)-intC(x);
(4)

ξ_e(x, y) ≥ r ⇔ y ∉ re(x)-intC(x);
(5)

ξ_e(x, re(x)) = r, especially, ξ_e(x, 0) = 0.

Proposition 2.2 [9]. Let X, Y be two locally convex Hausdorff topological vector spaces and C : X → 2^Ybe a set-valued mapping such that, for each x ∈ X, C(x) is a proper closed convex cone in Y with

int C (x) \neq \emptyset

. Let e : X → Y be a continuous selection from the set-valued mapping intC(⋅). Define a set-valued mapping V : X → 2^Yby V(x) = Y \ intC(x) for all x ∈ X. Then the following hold:

(1)

if V(⋅) is B-u.s.c on X, then ξ_e(⋅,⋅) is upper semicontinuous on X × Y;
(2)

if C(⋅) is B-u.s.c on X, then ξ_e(⋅,⋅) is lower semicontinuous on X × Y.

Definition 2.3 [38]. A set B ⊂ X is said to be balanced if ρB ⊂ B for any ρ ∈ R with |ρ| ≤ 1.

Definition 2.4. Let t : X × ∨ → L(X, Y) be a vector-valued mapping and T : X × ∨ → 2^L(X,Y)be a set-valued mapping.

(1)

The mapping t is called a selection of T on X × ∨ if
$t (x, μ) \in T (x, μ), \forall (x, μ) \in X \times \lor;$
(2)

The mapping t is called a continuous selection of T on X × ∨ if t is a selection of T and continuous on X × ∨.

Definition 2.5. For any pair (λ, μ) ∈ ∨ × ∧ of parameters and x ∈ K (λ), the set-valued mapping T : X × ∨ → 2^L(X,Y)is said to be:

(1)

weakly (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping on K (λ) if, for any y ∈ K (λ) and ξ' ∈ T(x, μ), ξ" ∈ T(y, μ),
$⟨ ξ^{'}, η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) \notin - int C (x) \Rightarrow ⟨ ξ^{″}, η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) \notin - int C (x);$
(2)

(η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping on K (λ) if, for any y ∈ K (λ) and ξ' ∈ T(x, μ), ξ" ∈ T(y, μ),
$⟨ ξ^{'}, η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) \notin - int C (x) \Rightarrow ⟨ ξ^{″}, η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) \in C (x);$
(3)

strictly (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping on K(λ) if, for any y ∈ K(λ) and ξ' ∈ T(x, μ), ξ" ∈ T(y, μ),
$⟨ ξ^{'}, η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) \notin - int C (x) \Rightarrow ⟨ ξ^{″}, η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) \in int C (x) .$

Remark 2.1. If η (y, x) = y - x, C(x) = C, and ϕ (y, x) = 0 for all x, y ∈ K (λ), then (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping (resp., strictly (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping) is reduced to C-pseudo-mapping (resp., strictly C- pseudo-mapping) in [30].

Remark 2.2. It is easy to see that every strictly (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping is an (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping and weakly (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping. Moreover, every (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping is also a weakly (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping.

Definition 2.6. Let K be a nonempty subset of a Hausdorff topological vector space X. A set-valued mapping F : K → 2^Xis called a KKM mapping if, for each finite subset {x₁, x₂,...,x_m} of $K, co {x_{1}, x_{2}, . . ., x_{m}} \subseteq \cup_{i = 1}^{m} F (x_{i})$ , where co denotes the convex hull.

Definition 2.7. Let η : X × X → X and ϕ : X × X → Y be two vector-valued mapping.

(1)

η (x, y) is said to be affine with respect to the first argument if, for any y ∈ X,
$η (ι x_{1} + (1 - ι) x_{2}, y) = ι η (x_{1}, y) + (1 - ι) η (x_{2}, y), \forall x_{1}, x_{2} \in X, ι \in R;$
(2)

ϕ (x, y) is said to be C(x)-convex with respect to the first argument if, for any y ∈ X,
$ϕ (ι x_{1} + (1 - ι) x_{2}, y) \in ι ϕ (x_{1}, y) + (1 - ι) ϕ (x_{2}, y) - C (y), \forall x_{1}, x_{2} \in X, ι \in [0, 1] .$

Lemma 2.1 [37]. Let K be a nonempty subset of a Hausdorff topological vector space X and F : K → 2^Xbe a KKM mapping such that, for all y ∈ K, F(y) is closed and F(y*) is compact for some y* ∈ K. Then $\cap_{y \in K} F (y) \neq \emptyset$ .

Lemma 2.2 [38]. For each neighborhood V of 0_X, there exists a balanced open neighborhood ⊔ of 0_Xsuch that ⊔ + ⊔ + ⊔ ⊂ V.

Lemma 2.3 [39]. Let Γ be a Hausdorff topological space, X be a locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space and F : Γ → 2^Xbe a set-valued mapping. Then the following hold:

(1)

F is B-l.s.c at γ₀ ∈ Γ if and only if, for any net {γ_α} ⊆ Γ with γ_α→ γ₀ and x₀ ∈ F(γ₀), there exists a net {x_α} ⊆ X with x_α∈ F(γ_α) for all α such that x_α→ x₀;
(2)

If F is compact-valued, then F is B-u.s.c at γ₀ ∈ Γ if and only if, for any net {γ_α} ⊆ Γ with γ_α→ γ₀ and {x_α} ⊆ X with x_α∈ F(γ_α) for all α, there exists x₀ ∈ F(γ₀) and a subnet {x_β} of {x_α} such that x_β→ x₀;
(3)

If F is B-u.s.c and closed-valued, then F is closed. Conversely, if F is closed and X is compact, then F is B-u.s.c.

Lemma 2.4 [40]. Let Γ be a Hausdorff topological space, X be a locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space, F : Γ → 2^Xbe a set-valued mapping and γ₀ ∈ Γ be a given point. Then the following hold:

(1)

If F is B-u.s.c at γ₀, then F is H-u.s.c at γ₀. Conversely, if F is H-u.s.c at γ₀ and F(γ₀) is compact, then F is B-u.s.c at γ₀;
(2)

If F is H-l.s.c at γ₀, then F is B-l.s.c at γ₀. Conversely, if F is B-l.s.c at γ₀ and cl(F(γ₀)) is compact, then F is H-l.s.c at γ₀.

3 Main results

In this section, we investigate the stability of solutions of (PGVQVLIP), that is, the upper and lower semi-continuity of the solution mapping S(λ, μ) for (PGVQVLIP) corresponding to a pair (λ, μ) of parameters in Hausdorff topological vector spaces.

Theorem 3.1. Let T : X × ∨ → 2^L(X,Y)be a set-valued mapping with nonempty values, C : X → 2^Ybe a set-valued mapping such that, for each x ∈ X, C(x) is a pointed closed and convex cone in Y and

int C (x) \neq \emptyset, η : X \times X \to X

and ϕ : X × X → Y be two vector-valued mappings. Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:

(a)

η (x, x) = 0 and ϕ(x, x) = 0 for all x ∈ X;
(b)

η (x, y) is continuous and affine with respect to the first argument;
(c)

ϕ (x, y) is continuous and C(x)-convex with respect to the first argument;
(d)

T (x, μ) is weakly (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping with respect to the first argument and B-u.s.c with compact-values on X × ∨;
(e)

there is a continuous selection t of T on X × ∨;
(f)

the mapping W (⋅) = Y\ -intC(⋅) such that the graph Gr(W) of W is weakly closed in X × Y;
(g)

K : ∧ → 2^Xis B-u.s.c and B-l.s.c with weakly compact and convex-values.

Then the following hold:

(1)

The solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is nonempty and closed on ∧ × ∨;
(2)

The solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is B-u.s.c on ∧ × ∨.

Proof. For any (λ, μ) ∈ ∧ × ∨, we first show that S(λ, μ) is nonempty. Since T has a continuous selection t and T(x, μ) is weakly (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping with respect to the first argument on X × ∨, we know that t(x, μ) is also weakly (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping with respect to the first argument on X × ∨.

Now, we define two set-valued mappings ϒ₁, ϒ₂ : K(λ) → 2^K(λ)as follows: for all y ∈ K(λ),

ϒ_{1} (y) = {x \in K (λ) : ⟨ t (x, μ), η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) \notin - int C (x)}

and

ϒ_{2} (y) = {x \in K (λ) : ⟨ t (y, μ), η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x) \notin - int C (x)} .

Since η(x, x) = 0 and ϕ (x, x) = 0 for all x ∈ X, we have y ∈ ϒ₁(y) and y ∈ ϒ₂(y) and so ϒ₁(y) and ϒ₂(y) are nonempty for any y ∈ K(λ). By virtue of the weakly (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping of t(x, μ) with respect to the first argument, we have

ϒ_{1} (y) \subseteq ϒ_{2} (y), \forall y \in K (λ) .

(3.1)

First, we assert that ϒ₁ is a KKM mapping. Suppose that there exists a finite subset {y₁, y₂,...,y_m} ⊆ K(λ) such that

co {y_{1}, y_{2}, . . ., y_{m}} ⊈ ⋃_{i = 1}^{m} ϒ_{1} (y_{i}) .

Then there exists

ȳ \in co {y_{1}, y_{2}, . . ., y_{m}}

, i.e.,

ȳ = \sum_{i = 1}^{m} ι_{i} y_{i} \in K (λ)

for some nonnegative real number ι_iwith 1 ≤ i ≤ m and

\sum_{i = 1}^{m} ι_{i} = 1

such that

ȳ \notin ⋂_{i = 1}^{m} ϒ_{1} (y_{i})

. Moreover,

ȳ \notin ϒ_{1} (y_{i})

for 1 ≤ i ≤ m. This yields that

⟨ t (ȳ, μ), η (y_{i}, ȳ) ⟩ + ϕ (y_{i}, ȳ) \in - int C (ȳ)

and so

\sum_{i = 1}^{n} ι_{i} (⟨ t (ȳ, μ), η (y_{i}, ȳ) ⟩ + ϕ (y_{i}, ȳ)) \in - int C (ȳ) .

Taking into account (b) and (c) that

⟨t (ȳ, μ), η (\sum_{i = 1}^{m} ι_{i} y_{i}, ȳ)⟩ + ϕ (\sum_{i = 1}^{m} ι_{i} y_{i}, ȳ) = ⟨ t (ȳ, μ), η (ȳ, ȳ) ⟩ + ϕ (ȳ, ȳ) \in - int C (ȳ) .

(3.2)

Again, from (a) together with (3.2), we have $0 \in - int C (ȳ)$ , which is a contradiction. Hence ϒ₁ is a KKM mapping. It follows from (3.1) that ϒ₂ is also a KKM mapping.

Second, we show that

⋂_{y \in K (λ)} ϒ_{2} (y) \neq \emptyset

. Taking any net {x_β} of ϒ₂(y) such that {x_β} is weakly convergent to a point

\tilde{x} \in K (λ)

. Then, for each β, one has

⟨ t (y, μ), η (y, x_{β}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x_{β}) \notin - int C (x_{β}) .

From (b)-(e), it follows that

(x_{β}, ⟨ t (y, μ), η (y, x_{β}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x_{β})) \to (\tilde{x}, ⟨ t (y, μ), η (y, \tilde{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \tilde{x})) \in Gr (W) .

Consequently, we get

⟨ t (y, μ), η (y, \tilde{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \tilde{x}) \in Y \ (- int C (\tilde{x})),

that is,

⟨ t (y, μ), η (y, \tilde{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \tilde{x}) \notin - int C (\tilde{x}) .

Therefore,

\tilde{x} \in ϒ_{2} (y)

and so ϒ₂(y) is weakly closed set for any y ∈ K(λ). By the compactness of K(λ), ϒ₂(y) is weakly compact subset of K(λ). From Lemma 2.1, it follows that

⋂_{y \in K (λ)} ϒ_{2} (y) \neq \emptyset,

i.e., there exists

\bar{x} \in K (λ)

such that

⟨ t (y, μ), η (y, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \bar{x}) \notin - int C (\bar{x}), \forall y \in K (λ) .

(3.3)

Third, we prove that $\bar{x} \in ⋂_{y \in K (λ)} ϒ_{1} (y)$ . For any y ∈ K(λ), set $x_{r} = (1 - r) \bar{x} + r y$ for all r ∈ (0,1).

Then x_r∈ K(λ). So, from (3.3), we have

⟨ t (x_{r}, μ), η (x_{r}, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (x_{r}, \bar{x}) \notin - int C (\bar{x}), \forall y \in K (λ) .

(3.4)

Note that

\begin{align} ⟨ t (x_{r}, μ), η (x_{r}, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (x_{r}, \bar{x}) - r (⟨ t (x_{r}, μ), η (y, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \bar{x})) \\ = ⟨ t (x_{r}, μ), η (x_{r}, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (x_{r}, \bar{x}) - r (⟨ t (x_{r}, μ), η (y, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \bar{x})) \\ - (1 - r) (⟨ t (x_{r}, μ), η (\bar{x}, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (\bar{x}, \bar{x})) \\ \in - int C (\bar{x}) . \end{align}

It follows from (3.4) that

r (⟨ t (x_{r}, μ), η (y, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \bar{x})) \notin - int C (\bar{x}), \forall y \in K (λ),

and so

⟨ t (x_{r}, μ), η (y, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \bar{x}) \notin - int C (\bar{x}), \forall y \in K (λ) .

Since t is continuous, we have

(x_{r}, ⟨ t (x_{r}, μ), η (y, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \bar{x})) \to (\bar{x}, ⟨ t (\bar{x}, μ), η (y, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \bar{x})) \in Gr (W)

as r → 0. Therefore, by the weak closedness of Gr (W), we have

⟨ t (\bar{x}, μ), η (y, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \bar{x}) \in Y \ (- int C (\bar{x})),

that is,

⟨ t (\bar{x}, μ), η (y, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \bar{x}) \notin - int C (\bar{x}), \forall y \in K (λ) .

(3.5)

By the condition (e) and (3.5), there exist

\bar{x} \in K (λ)

and

ξ \in T (\bar{x}, μ)

such that

⟨ ξ, η (y, \bar{x}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, \bar{x}) \notin - int C (\bar{x}), \forall y \in K (λ)

(3.6)

and so S(λ, μ) is nonempty for any (λ, μ) ∈ ∧ × ∨.

Fourth, we show that the solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is B-u.s.c on ∧ × ∨. Suppose that there exist (λ₀, μ₀) ∈ ∧ × ∨ such that S(⋅,⋅) is not B-u.s.c at (λ₀, μ₀). Then there exist an open set V with S(λ₀, μ₀) ⊂ V, a net {(λ_α, μ_α)} and x_α ∈ S (λ_α, μ_α) such that (λ_α, μ_α) → (λ₀, μ₀) and x_α ∉ V for all α. Since x_α ∈ S(λ_α, μ_α), it follows that x_α ∈ K(λ_α). By the condition (g), K(⋅) is B-u.s.c with compact-values at λ₀. Then there exists x₀ ∈ K(λ₀) such that x_α → x₀ (here we may take a subnet {x_β} of {x_α} if necessary). Suppose that x₀ ∉ S(λ₀, μ₀), that is, for any

\bar{ξ} \in T (x_{0}, μ_{0})

, there exists

ȳ \in K (λ_{0})

such that

⟨ \bar{ξ}, η (ȳ, x_{0}) ⟩ + ϕ (ȳ, x_{0}) \in - int C (x_{0}) .

(3.7)

Since x_α ∈ S (λ_α, μ_α), there exist

ξ_{α}^{'} \in T (x_{α}, μ_{α})

such that

⟨ ξ_{α}^{'}, η (z_{α}, x_{α}) ⟩ + ϕ (z_{α}, x_{α}) \notin - int C (x_{α}), \forall z_{α} \in K (λ_{α}) .

Since K is B-l.s.c at λ₀, it follows that, for any net {λ_α} ⊆ ∧ with λ_α→ λ₀ and z₀ ∈ K(λ₀), there exists z_α∈ K(λ_α) such that z_α→ z₀. Again, from the condition (d), T is B-u.s.c with compact-values at (x₀, μ₀) and, for any net {(x_α, μ_α)} ⊆ X × ∨ with (x_α, μ_α) → (x₀, μ₀), there exists ξ₀ ∈ T(z₀, μ₀) such that $ξ_{α}^{'} \to ξ_{0}$ .

Therefore, from (b), (c) and (f), we have

(x_{α}, ⟨ ξ_{α}^{'}, η (z_{α}, x_{α}) ⟩ + ϕ (z_{α}, x_{α})) \to (x_{0}, ⟨ ξ_{0}, η (z_{0}, x_{0}) ⟩ + ϕ (z_{0}, x_{0})) \in Gr (W) .

Furthermore, we have

⟨ ξ_{0}, η (z_{0}, x_{0}) ⟩ + ϕ (z_{0}, x_{0}) \notin - int C (x_{0}), \forall z_{0} \in K (λ_{0}),

which contradicts (3.7). So, x₀ ∈ S (λ₀, μ₀) ⊂ V, which is a contradiction. Since x_α∉ V for all α, it follows that x_α→ x₀ and V is open. Consequently, the solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is B-u.s.c at any (λ₀, μ₀) ∈ ∧ × ∨.

Finally, we show that S(⋅,⋅) is closed at any (λ₀, μ₀) ∈ ∧ × ∨. Taking x_α∈ S(λ_α, μ_α) with (λ_α, μ_α) → (λ₀, μ₀) and x_α→ x₀. Then x_α∈ K(λ_α). By (g), x₀ ∈ K(λ₀). By the same proof as above, we have x₀ ∈ S (λ₀, μ₀), which implies that the solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is closed on ⋀ × M. This completes the proof.

Remark 3.1. From Lemma 2.4, we know that, if all the conditions of Theorem 3.1 are satisfied, then the solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is H-u.s.c on ∧ × ∨.

From Theorem 3.1, we can conclude the following:

Corollary 3.2. Let (λ₀, μ₀) ∈ ∧ × ∨ be a point, K(λ₀) be a compact set, T : X × ∨ → 2^L(X,Y)be a set-valued mapping with nonempty values, C : X → 2^Ybe a set-valued mapping such that, for each x ∈ X, C(x) is a pointed closed and convex cone in Y and $int C (x) \neq \emptyset, η : X \times X \to X$ and ϕ :X × X → Y be two vector-valued mappings. Assume that the conditions (a)-(c) and (f) in Theorem 3.1 and the following conditions are satisfied:

(d)' T(x, μ) is weakly (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping with respect to the first argument and B-u.s.c with compact-values on X × {μ₀};

(e)' there is a continuous selection t of T on X × {μ₀}.

Then the following hold:

(1)

The solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is nonempty and weakly compact at (λ₀, μ₀);
(2)

The solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is B-u.s.c at (λ₀, μ₀).

If the set-valued mapping K : ∧ → 2^Xis unbounded-values, then we have the following:

Theorem 3.3. Let T : X × ∨ → 2^L(X,Y)be a set-valued mapping with nonempty values, C : X → 2^Ybe a set-valued mapping such that, for each x ∈ X, C(x) is a pointed closed and convex cone in Y and $int C (x) \neq \emptyset, η : X \times X \to X$ and ϕ : X × X → Y be two vector-valued mappings. Assume that conditions (a)-(f) in Theorem 3.1 and the following conditions are satisfied:

(g)' K : ∧ → 2^Xis B-u.s.c and B-l.s.c with closed and convex-values;

(h)

for any (λ,μ) ∈ ∧ × ∨, there exists a weakly compact subset Δ(λ) of X and z₀ ∈ Δ(λ) ⋂ K(λ) such that
$⟨ t (z_{0}, μ), η (z_{0}, x) ⟩ + ϕ (z_{0}, x) \in - int C (x), \forall x \in K (λ) \ Δ (λ) .$

Then the following hold:

(1)

The solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is nonempty and closed on ∧ × ∨;
(2)

The solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is B-u.s.c on ∧ × ∨.

Proof. By the proof of Theorem 3.1, we only need to prove that ϒ₂(z₀) is weakly compact. Since ϒ₂(z₀) ⊆ Δ(λ) and ϒ₂(z₀) is closed, it follows that ϒ₂(z₀) is weakly compact and S(λ, μ) ⊆ Δ(λ) for each (λ, μ) ∈ ∧ × ∨. This completes the proof.

Remark 3.2. In Theorems 3.1 and 3.3, if the condition (d) is replaced by the condition that T(x, μ) is (strictly) (η, ϕ, C(x))-pseudo-mapping with respect to the first argument and B-u.s.c with compact-values on X × ∨, then Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 still hold.

Inspired the results in Chen et al. [34], we introduce the following function by the nonlinear scalarization function ξ_e. Suppose that K(λ) is a compact set for any λ ∈ ∧, T(x, μ) is also a compact set for any (x, μ) ∈ X × ∨, η (x, x) = ϕ (x, x) = 0 for all x ∈ X, V(⋅) =: Y\ intC(⋅) and C(⋅) are B-u.s.c on X. We define a function g: X × ∧ × ∨ → R as follows:

g (x, λ, μ) = : max_{ζ \in T (x, μ)} min_{y \in K (λ)} ξ_{e} (x, ⟨ ζ, η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x)), \forall x \in K (λ) .

(3.8)

Since K(λ) and T(x, μ) are compact sets and ξ_e(⋅,⋅) is continuous, g(x, λ, μ) is well-defined. Forward, we use the function g(x, λ, μ) to discuss the continuity of the solution mapping of (PGVQVLIP).

First, we discuss the relations between g(⋅,⋅,⋅) and the solution mapping S(⋅,⋅).

Lemma 3.1. (1) g(x₀, λ₀, μ₀) = 0 if and only if x₀ ∈ S (λ₀, μ₀);

(2)

g(x, λ, μ) ≤ 0 for all x ∈ K(λ).

Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of Proposition 4.1 [34] and so the proof is omitted.

Remark 3.3. We say that the function g is a parametric gap function for (PGVQVLIP) if and only if (1) and (2) of Lemma 3.1 are satisfied. In fact, the gap functions are widely applied in optimization problems, equation problems, variational inequalities problems and others. The minimization of the gap function is an effectively approach for solving variational inequalities. Many authors have investigated the gap functions and applied to construct some algorithms for variational inequalities and equilibrium problems (see, for instance, [8, 14, 41]).

Lemma 3.2. Let K(λ) be nonempty compact for any λ ∈ ∧. Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:

(a)

T(⋅,⋅) is B-l.s.c with compact-values on X × ∨;
(b)

C(⋅) is B-u.s.c on X, and e(⋅) ∈ intC(⋅) is continuous on X.

Then g(⋅,⋅,⋅) is a lower semi-continuous function.

Proof. The proof is similar to the proof of Lemma 4.2 [34] and so the proof is omitted.

If the conditions of Lemma 3.2 are strengthened, then we can get the continuity of g.

Lemma 3.3. Let K(λ) be nonempty compact for any λ ∈ ∧. Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:

(a)

T(⋅,⋅) is B-continuous with compact-values on X × ∨;
(b)

C(⋅) and V(⋅) = Y\ intC(⋅) are B-u.s.c on X and e(⋅) ∈ intC(⋅) is continuous on X.

Then g(⋅,⋅,⋅) is continuous.

Proof. By Lemma 3.2, we only need to prove that g is upper semi-continuous. We can show that -g is lower semi-continuous. The proof method of the lower semi-continuity of -g is similar to that of the upper semi-continuity of g and so the proof is omitted.

Motivated by the hypothesis (H₁) of [32, 33], (Hg) of [21, 34] and (Hg)' of [35], by virtue of the parametric gap function g, we also introduce the following key assumption:

(Hg)" For any (λ₀, μ₀) ∈ ∧ × ∨ and ϵ > 0, there exist ϱ > 0 and δ > 0 such that, for any (λ, μ) ∈ B((λ₀, μ₀), δ) and x ∈ Δ(λ, μ, ϵ) = K(λ) \ U(S(λ, μ), ϵ),

g (λ, μ, x) \leq - ϱ .

Remark 3.4. It is easy to see that, if ∧ and ∨ are the same spaces and ∧ is a metric space, C(x) ≡ C for all x ∈ X and μ = λ, then the hypothesis (Hg)" is reduced to the hypothesis (Hg)' of [35].

Remark 3.5. As pointed in [21, 32, 34, 35], the hypothesis (Hg)" can be explained by the geometric properties that, for any small positive number ϵ, one can take two small positive real number ϱ and δ such that, for all problems in the δ-neighborhood of a pair parameters (λ₀, μ₀), if a feasible point x is away from the solution set by a distance of at least ϵ, then a "gap" by an amount of at least -ϱ will be generated. As mentioned out in [32], the above hypothesis (Hg)" is characterized by a common theme used in mathematical analysis. Such a theme interprets a proposition associated with a set in terms of other propositions related with the complement set. Instead of looking for restrictions within the solution set, the hypothesis (Hg)" puts restrictions on the behavior of the parametric gap function on the complement of solution set. As showed in [34], the hypothesis (Hg)" seems to be reasonable in establishing the Hausdorff continuity of S(⋅,⋅) because of the complexity of the problem structure.

Theorem 3.4. Assume that (Hg)" and all the conditions of Theorem 3.1 holds and the following conditions are satisfied:

(a)

T(⋅,⋅) is B-continuous mapping with compact-values on X × ∨;
(b)

C(⋅) is B-u.s.c on X and e(⋅) ∈ intC(⋅) is continuous on X.

Then the following hold:

(1)

The solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is nonempty and closed on ∧ × ∨;
(2)

The solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is H-continuous on ∧ × ∨.

Proof. By Theorem 3.1 and Lemma 2.2, we know that the solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is nonempty closed and H-u.s.c on ∧ × ∨.

Now, we only need to prove that the solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is H-l.s.c on ∧ × ∨. Suppose that there exists (λ₀, μ₀) ∈ ∧ × ∨ such that the solution mapping S is not H-l.s.c at (λ₀, μ₀). Then there exist a neighborhood V of 0_X, nets {(λ_α, μ_α)} ⊂ ∧ × ∨ with (λ_α, μ_α) → (λ₀, μ₀) and {x_α} such that

x_{α} \in S (λ_{0}, μ_{0}) \ (S (λ_{α}, μ_{α}) + V) .

(3.9)

By Corollary 3.2, S(λ₀, μ₀) is a compact set. Without loss of generality, assume that x_α→ x₀ ∈ S(λ₀, μ₀). For V and any ϵ > 0, there exists a balanced open neighborhood V(ϵ) of 0_Xsuch that V (ϵ)+ V (ϵ)+ V (ϵ) ⊂ V. It is easy to see that, for all ϵ > 0,

(x_{0} + V (ε)) \cap K (λ_{0}) \neq \emptyset .

Since K (⋅) is B-l.s.c at λ₀, there exists β₁ such that

(x_{0} + V (ε)) \cap K (λ_{β}) \neq \emptyset, \forall β \geq β_{1} .

For any ϵ ∈ (0,1], assume that y_β∈ (x₀ + V(ϵ))⋂K(λ_β). Then y_β→ x₀. We assert that y_β∉ S(λ_β, μ_β)+V(ϵ). Suppose that y_β∈ S(λ_β, μ_β) + V(ϵ). Then there exists z_β∈ S(λ_β, μ_β) such that y_β- z_β∈ V(ϵ). Note that x_α→ x₀ ∈ S(λ₀, μ₀). Without loss of generality, we may assume that x_β- x₀ ∈ V(ϵ). Therefore, one has

x_{β} - z_{β} = (x_{β} - x_{0}) + (x_{0} - y_{β}) + (y_{β} - z_{β}) \in V (ε) + V (ε) + V (ε) \subset V .

This yields that x_β∈ S(λ_β, μ_β) + V, which contradicts (3.9). Thus y_β∉ S(λ_β, μ_β) + V(ϵ). In the light of (Hg)", there exist two positive real numbers ϱ > 0 and δ > 0 such that, for any (λ_β, μ_β) ∈ B((λ₀, μ₀), δ) and y_β∉ S(λ_β, μ_β) + V(ϵ),

g (y_{β}, λ_{β}, μ_{β}) \leq - ϱ .

(3.10)

By Lemma 3.2, g is lower semi-continuous. So, it follows that, for any real number σ > 0,

g (y_{β}, λ_{β}, μ_{β}) \geq g (x_{0}, λ_{0}, μ_{0}) - σ .

(3.11)

Without loss of generality, assume that σ < ϱ. Then, from (3.10) and (3.11), it follows that

g (x_{0}, λ_{0}, μ_{0}) \leq σ - ϱ < 0,

that is,

g (x_{0}, λ_{0}, μ_{0}) = max_{ζ \in T (x_{0}, μ_{0})} min_{y \in K (λ_{0})} ξ_{e} (x_{0}, ⟨ ζ, η (y, x_{0}) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x_{0})) < 0 .

Hence there exist

ŷ_{0} \in K (λ_{0})

and ζ₀ ∈ T(x₀, μ₀) such that

ξ_{e} (x_{0}, ⟨ ζ_{0}, η (ŷ_{0}, x_{0}) ⟩ + ϕ (ŷ_{0}, x_{0})) < 0 .

From Proposition 2.1, it follows that

⟨ ζ_{0}, η (ŷ_{0}, x_{0}) ⟩ + ϕ (ŷ_{0}, x_{0}) \in - int C (y_{0}),

which contradicts x₀ ∈ S(λ₀, μ₀). Therefore, the solution mapping S is H-l.s.c on ∧ × ∨. This completes the proof.

Now, we give two examples to validate Theorems 3.1 and 3.4.

Example 3.1. Let ∧ = ∨ = (-1,1),X = R,Y = R² and let

C (x) = R_{+}^{2}

and

e (x) = {(1, 1)}^{T} \in int R_{+}^{2}

for all x ∈ X. Define the set-valued mappings K : ∧ → 2^Xand T : X × ∨ → 2^Yas follows: for any x ∈ X, μ ∈ ∨ and λ ∈ ∧,

K (λ) = : [- \frac{λ}{2}, |λ|], T (x, μ) = : {{(0, ℓ)}^{T} : 1 \leq ℓ \leq + μ^{2}} .

It is easy to see that the conditions (a)-(g) of Theorem 3.1 and the conditions (a) and (b) of Theorem 3.4 are satisfied. From simple computation, we get $S (λ, μ) = K (λ) = [- \frac{λ}{2}, |λ|]$ for all (λ, μ) ∈ ∧ × ∨. Therefore, S(⋅,⋅) is H-continuous on ∧ × ∨.

The following example illustrate the assumption (Hg)" in Theorem 3.4 is essential.

Example 3.2. Let ∧ = ∨ = [0,1], X = R, Y = R² and let η (y, x) = y - x, ϕ (y, x) = 0 and

C (x) = R_{+}^{2}

for all x, y ∈ X. Define the set-valued mappings K : ∧ → 2^Xand T : X × ∨ → 2^Yby

K (λ) = : [- 1, 1], T (x, λ) = : {{(4, x^{2} + λ)}^{T}}, \forall x \in X, λ \in \land .

It is easy to see that the conditions (a)-(g) of Theorem 3.1 and the conditions (a) and (b) of Theorem 3.4 are satisfied. From simple computation, one has

S (λ) = \{\begin{matrix} {- 1, 0}, & if λ = 0, \\ {- 1}, & otherwise . \end{matrix}

Therefore, S(⋅,⋅) is not H-continuous at λ = 0. Let us show that the assumption (Hg)" is not satisfied at 0. Put

e (x) = {(1, 1)}^{T} \in int R_{+}^{2}

. Then, from Example 2.1,

\begin{align} g (x, λ) & = max_{ζ \in T (x, λ)} min_{y \in K (λ)} ξ_{e} (x, ⟨ ζ, η (y, x) ⟩ + ϕ (y, x)) \\ = min_{y \in K (λ)} max {4 (y - x), (x^{2} + λ) (y - x)} \\ = (x^{2} + λ) (- 1 - x) . \end{align}

It is easy to see that g is a parametric gap function for (PGVQVLIP). Take ϵ ∈ (0,1) and, for any ϱ > 0, set λ_n→ 0 with 0 < λ_n< ϱ and x_n= 0 ∈ Δ(λ_n, ϵ) = K(λ_n) \ U(S(λ_n),ϵ) for all n ≥ 1. Then we have

g (x_{n}, λ_{n}) = - λ_{n} > - ϱ .

Hence the assumption (Hg)" fails to hold at 0.

From Lemma 2.4, Remark 3.1 and Theorems 3.1 and 3.4, we can get the following:

Corollary 3.5. Assume that all the conditions of Theorem 3.4 are satisfied. Then the solution mapping S(⋅,⋅) is B-continuous.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (Grant Number: 2011-0021821), the Natural Science Foundation of China (71171150), the Academic Award for Excellent Ph.D. Candidates Funded by Wuhan University and the Fundamental Research Fund for the Central Universities.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)

Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University - Kingsville, Kingsville, TX 78363, USA

(2)

School of Mathematics and Statistics, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430072, P.R. China

(3)

Department of Mathematics Education and the RINS, Gyeongsang National University, Chinju, 660-701, Korea

References

Giannessi F: Theorems of alterative, quadratic programs and complementary problems. In Variational Inequality and Complementary Problems. Edited by: Cottle, RW, Giannessi, F, Lions, JC. Wiley, New York; 1980.Google Scholar
Giannessi F: On Minty variational principle. In New Trends in Mathematical Programming. Edited by: Giannessi, F, Komloski, S, Tapcsack, T. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrech, Holland; 1998:93–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Giannessi F: Vector Variational Inequalities and Vector Equilibria: Mathematical Theories. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; 2000.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Ansari QH, Rezaie M, Zafarani J: Generalized vector variational-like inequalities and vector optimization. J Glob Optim 2011.Google Scholar
Facchinei F, Pang JS: Finite Dimensional Variational Inequalities and Complementarity Problems. Volume I and II. Springer, New York; 2003.Google Scholar
Chai YF, Cho YJ, Li J: Some characterizations of ideal point in vector optimization problems. J Inequal Appl 2008: 10. Article ID 231845Google Scholar
Chen GY: Existence of solutions for a vector variational inequality: an extension of the Hartman-Stampacchia theorem. J Optim Theory Appl 1992, 74: 445–456. 10.1007/BF00940320MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Chen GY, Goh CJ, Yang XQ: On gap functions for vector variational inequalities. In Vector Variational Inequalities and Vector Equilibria. Edited by: Giannessi, F. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; 2000:55–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Chen GY, Yang XQ, Yu H: A nonlinear scalarization function and generalized quasi-vector equilibrium problems. J Glob Optim 2005, 32: 451–466. 10.1007/s10898-003-2683-2MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Chen GY, Huang XX, Yang XQ: Vector Optimization: Set-Valued and Variational Analysis, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Volume 285. Springer, Berlin; 2005:408–416.Google Scholar
Chen B, Huang NJ, Cho YJ: Symmetric strong vector quasiequilibrium problems in Hausdorff locally convex spaces. J Inequal Appl 2011, 2011: 56. 10.1186/1029-242X-2011-56MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Zhong RY, Huang NJ, Cho YJ: Boundedness and nonemptiness of solution sets for set-valued vector equilibrium problems with an application. J Inequal Appl 2011, 15. Article ID 936428Google Scholar
Yang XQ: Vector variational inequality and its duality. Nonlinear Anal 1993, 21: 729–734.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Yang XQ, Yao JC: Gap functions and existence of solutions to set-valued vector variational inequalities. J Optim Theory Appl 2002, 115: 407–417. 10.1023/A:1020844423345MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Chen JW, Zou YZ: Existence of solutions of F-implicit variational inequality problems with extended projection operators. Acta Math Sinica, Chinese Seri 2010, 53: 375–384.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
Chen JW, Wan Z: Existence of solutions and convergence analysis for a system of quasi-variational inclusions in Banach spaces. J Inequal Appl 2011, 2011: 49. 10.1186/1029-242X-2011-49MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Huang NJ, Gao CJ: Some generalized vector variational inequalities and and complementarity problems for multivalued mappings. Appl Math Lett 2003, 16: 1003–1010. 10.1016/S0893-9659(03)90087-5MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Kien BT, Wong NC, Yao JC: On the solution existence of generalized quasi-variational inequalities with discontinuous multi-functions. J Optim Theory Appl 2007, 135: 515–530. 10.1007/s10957-007-9239-4MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Li J, Huang NJ, Yang XQ: Weak sharp minima for set-valued vector variational inequalities with an application. European. J Oper Res 2010, 205: 262–272. 10.1016/j.ejor.2010.01.004MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Zhong RY, Huang NJ: Stability analysis for minty mixed variational inequalities in reflexive Banach spaces. J Optim Theory Appl 2010, 147: 454–472. 10.1007/s10957-010-9732-zMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Li SJ, Chen CR: Stability of weak vector variational inequality. Nonlinear Anal 2009, 70: 1528–1535. 10.1016/j.na.2008.02.032MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Barbagallo A, Cojocaru MG: Continuity of solutions for parametric variational inequalities in Banach space. J Math Anal Appl 2009, 351: 707–720. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.10.052MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Cheng YH, Zhu DL: Global stability results for the weak vector variational inequality. J Glob Optim 2005, 32: 543–550. 10.1007/s10898-004-2692-9MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Yen ND: Hölder continuity of solutions to a parametric variational inequality. Appl Math Optim 1995, 31: 245–255. 10.1007/BF01215992MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Huang NJ, Li J, Thompson BH: Stability for parametric implicit vector equilibrium problems. Math Comput Model 2006, 43: 1267–1274. 10.1016/j.mcm.2005.06.010MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Li SJ, Chen GY, Teo KL: On the stability of generalized vector quasivariational inequality problems. J Optim Theory Appl 2002, 113: 283–295. 10.1023/A:1014830925232MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Robinson SM: Solution continuity affine variational inequalities. SIAM J Optim 2007, 18: 1046–1060. 10.1137/060658576MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Wong MM: Lower semicontinuity of the solution map to a parametric vector variational inequality. J Glob Optim 2010, 46: 435–446. 10.1007/s10898-009-9447-6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Khanh PQ, Luu LM: Lower semicontinuity and upper semicontinuity of the solution sets and approximate solution sets of parametric multivalued quasivariational inequalities. J Optim Theory Appl 2007, 133: 329–339. 10.1007/s10957-007-9190-4MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Zhong RY, Huang NJ: Lower semicontinuity for parametric weak vector variational inequalities in reflexive Banach spaces. J Optim Theory Appl 2011, 149: 564–579. 10.1007/s10957-011-9805-7MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Aussel D, Cotrina J: Semicontinuity of the solution map of quasivariational inequalities. J Glob Optim 2011, 50: 93–105. 10.1007/s10898-011-9652-yMathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Zhao J: The lower semicontinuity of optimal solution sets. J Math Anal Appl 1997, 207: 240–254. 10.1006/jmaa.1997.5288MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Kien BT: On the lower semicontinuity of optimal solution sets. Optim 2005, 54: 123–130. 10.1080/02331930412331330379MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Chen CR, Li SJ, Fang ZM: On the solution semicontinuity to a parametric generalized vector quasi-variational inequality. Comput Math Appl 2010, 60: 2417–2425. 10.1016/j.camwa.2010.08.036MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Zhong RY, Huang NJ: Lower semicontinuity for parametric weak vector variational inequalities in reflexive Banach spaces. J Optim Theory ApplGoogle Scholar
Lalitha CS, Bhatia G: Stability of parametric quasivariational inequality of the Minty type. J Optim Theory Appl 2011, 148: 281–300. 10.1007/s10957-010-9755-5MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fan K: A generalization of Tychonoff's fixed point theorem. Math Ann 1961, 142: 305–310. 10.1007/BF01353421MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
Berge C: Topological Spaces. Oliver and Boyd, London; 1963.Google Scholar
Aubin JP, Ekeland I: Applied Nonlinear Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York; 1984.Google Scholar
Bank B, Guddat J, Klatte D, Kummer B, Tammer K: Nonlinear Parametric Optimization. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin; 1982.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Li SJ, Teo KL, Yang XQ, Wu SY: Gap functions and existence of solutions to generalized vector quasi-equilibrium problems. J Glob Optim 2006, 34: 427–440. 10.1007/s10898-005-2193-5MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle 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.