 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
A note on solution lower semicontinuity for parametric generalized vector equilibrium problems
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2014, Article number: 325 (2014)
Abstract
By using a density technique, sufficient conditions for lower semicontinuity of strong solutions to a parametric generalized vector equilibrium problem are established, where the monotonicity is not necessary. The obtained results are different from the corresponding ones in the literature (Gong and Yao in J. Optim. Theory Appl. 138:197205, 2008; Gong in J. Optim. Theory Appl. 139:3546, 2008; Chen and Li in Pac. J. Optim. 6:141151, 2010; Li and Fang in J. Optim. Theory Appl. 147:507515, 2010; Gong and Yao in J. Optim. Theory Appl. 138:189196, 2008). Some examples are given to illustrate the results.
MSC:49K40, 90C29, 90C31.
1 Introduction
It is well known that the vector equilibrium problem (VEP, in short) is a very general mathematical model, which embraces the formats of several disciplines, as those for Nash equilibria, those from Game Theory, those from (Vector) Optimization and (Vector) Variational Inequalities, and so on (see [1–4]).
The stability analysis of solution maps for parametric vector equilibrium problems (PVEP, in short) is an important topic in optimization theory and applications. There are some papers discussing the upper and/or lower semicontinuity of solution maps. Cheng and Zhu [5] obtained a result on the lower semicontinuity of the solution set map to a PVEP in finitedimensional spaces by using a scalarization method. Huang et al. [6] used local existence results of the models considered and additional assumptions to establish the lower semicontinuity of solution mappings for parametric implicit vector equilibrium problems. Recently, by virtue of a density result and scalarization technique, Gong and Yao [7] have first discussed the lower semicontinuity of efficient solutions to parametric vector equilibrium problems, which are called generalized systems in their paper. By using the idea of Cheng and Zhu [5], Gong [8] has discussed the continuity of the solution maps to a weak PVEP in Hausdorff topological vector spaces. Kimura and Yao [9] discussed the semicontinuity of solution maps for parametric vector quasiequilibrium problems by virtue of the closedness or openness assumptions for some certain sets. Xu and Li [10] proved the lower semicontinuity for PVEP by using a new proof method, which is different from the one used in Gong and Yao [7]. Chen and Li [11] studied the continuity of solution sets for parametric generalized systems without the uniform compactness assumption, which improves the corresponding results in [8]. We observe that the semicontinuity of solution maps for the PVEP has been discussed under the assumption of Cstrict (strong) monotonicity, which implies that the fsolution set of the PVEP is a singleton for a linear continuous functional f (see [5, 7, 8, 10, 11]). However, it is well known that the fsolution set of (weak) PVEPs should be general, but not a singleton. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, there are few results of semicontinuity have been established for strong solution maps of PVEP in the literature. So, in this paper, by using a density skill, we aim at studying the lower semicontinuity of the strong solution map for a class of parametric generalized vector equilibrium problems (PGVEPs), when the fsolution set is a general set by removing the assumption of Cstrict monotonicity.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce a class of parametric generalized vector equilibrium problem, and recall some concepts and their properties. In Section 3, by the density and scalarization technique, we discuss the lower semicontinuity of strong solution mappings to the PGVEP, and compare our main results with the corresponding ones in the recent literature [7, 8, 10, 11]. We also give some examples to illustrate our results.
2 Preliminaries
Throughout this paper, unless specified otherwise, let X, Y be normed spaces and Z be Banach space. Let {Y}^{\ast} be the topological dual space of Y, and C be a closed convex pointed cone in Y with nonempty topological interior intC.
Let
be the dual cone of C. Denote the quasiinterior of {C}^{\ast} by {C}^{\mathrm{\u266f}}, i.e.,
Let A be a nonempty subset of X and F:A\times A\to Y be a vectorvalued mapping. We consider the following generalized vector equilibrium problem:
where K\cup \{0\} is a convex cone in Y.
When the subset A and the mapping F are perturbed by a parameter \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}, in which Λ is a nonempty subset of Z, we consider the following parametric generalized vector equilibrium problem (PGVEP):
where A:\mathrm{\Lambda}\to {2}^{X}\setminus \{\mathrm{\varnothing}\} is a setvalued mapping, F:B\times B\times \mathrm{\Lambda}\subset X\times X\times Z\to Y is a vectorvalued mapping with A(\mathrm{\Lambda})={\bigcup}_{\mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}}A(\mu )\subset B.
Definition 2.1 [12]
A vector x\in A(\mu ) is called a weak solution to the (PGVEP), iff
The set of the weak solutions to the (PGVEP) is denoted by {V}_{w}(\mu ).
Definition 2.2 A vector x\in A(\mu ) is called a strong solution to the (PGVEP), iff
The set of the strong solutions to the (PGVEP) is denoted by {V}_{s}(\mu ).
Definition 2.3 [7]
Let f\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}. A vector x\in A(\mu ) is called an fsolution to the (PGVEP), iff
The set of the fsolution to the (PGVEP) is denoted by {V}_{f}(\mu ).
Definition 2.4 Let F:X\times X\times \mathrm{\Lambda}\to Y be a vectorvalued mapping.

(i)
F(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ) is called Cmonotone on A(\mu )\times A(\mu )\times \mathrm{\Lambda}, iff for any given \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}, for each x,y\in A(\mu ), F(x,y,\mu )+F(y,x,\mu )\in C.

(ii)
F(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ) is called Cstrictly monotone (i.e., Cstrongly monotone in [13]) on A(\mu )\times A(\mu )\times \mathrm{\Lambda}, iff F is a Cmonotone on A(\mu )\times A(\mu )\times \mathrm{\Lambda}, and for any given \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}, for each x,y\in A(\mu ) with x\ne y, F(x,y,\mu )+F(y,x,\mu )\in intC.

(iii)
F(x,\cdot ,\mu ) is called Cconvex if, for each {x}_{1},{x}_{2}\in A(\mu ) and t\in [0,1], tF(x,{x}_{1},\mu )+(1t)F(x,{x}_{2},\mu )\in F(x,t{x}_{1}+(1t){x}_{2},\mu )+C.

(iv)
F(x,\cdot ,\mu ) is called Clikeconvex on A(\mu ), iff for any {x}_{1},{x}_{2}\in A(\mu ) and any t\in [0,1], there exists {x}_{3}\in A(\mu ) such that tF(x,{x}_{1},\mu )+(1t)F(x,{x}_{2},\mu )\in F(x,{x}_{3},\mu )+C.

(v)
A set D\subset Y is called a Cconvex set, iff D+C is a convex set in Y.
Throughout this paper, we always assume {V}_{w}(\mu )\ne \mathrm{\varnothing} and {V}_{s}(\mu )\ne \mathrm{\varnothing} for all \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}. This paper aims at investigating the semicontinuity of the strong solution mappings to (PGVEP).
Lemma 2.1 [14]
Let F(x,A(\mu ),\mu ) be a Cconvex set for each \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda} and x\in A(\mu ). If intC\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}, then {V}_{w}(\mu )={\bigcup}_{f\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}}{V}_{f}(\mu ).
The notation B(\overline{\lambda},\delta ) denotes the open ball with center \overline{\lambda}\in \mathrm{\Lambda} and radius \delta >0. Let F:\mathrm{\Lambda}\to {2}^{X} be a setvalued mapping, and let there be given \overline{\lambda}\in \mathrm{\Lambda}.
Definition 2.5 [15]

(i)
F is called lower semicontinuous (l.s.c., for short) at \overline{\lambda}, iff for any open set V satisfying V\cap F(\overline{\lambda})\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}, there exists \delta >0, such that for every \lambda \in B(\overline{\lambda},\delta ), V\cap F(\lambda )\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}.

(ii)
F is called upper semicontinuous (u.s.c., for short) at \overline{\lambda}, iff for any open set V satisfying F(\overline{\lambda})\subset V, there exists \delta >0, such that for every \lambda \in B(\overline{\lambda},\delta ), F(\lambda )\subset V.
We say F is l.s.c. (resp. u.s.c.) on Λ, iff it is l.s.c. (resp. u.s.c.) at each \lambda \in \mathrm{\Lambda}. F is said to be continuous on Λ, iff it is both l.s.c. and u.s.c. on Λ.
Proposition 2.1 [15]

(i)
F is l.s.c. at \overline{\lambda} if and only if for any sequence \{{\lambda}_{n}\}\subset \mathrm{\Lambda} with {\lambda}_{n}\to \overline{\lambda} and any \overline{x}\in F(\overline{\lambda}), there exists {x}_{n}\in F({\lambda}_{n}), such that {x}_{n}\to \overline{x}.

(ii)
If F has compact values (i.e., F(\lambda ) is a compact set for each \lambda \in \mathrm{\Lambda}), then F is u.s.c. at \overline{\lambda} if and only if for any sequences \{{\lambda}_{n}\}\subset \mathrm{\Lambda} with {\lambda}_{n}\to \overline{\lambda} and \{{x}_{n}\} with {x}_{n}\in F({\lambda}_{n}), there exist \overline{x}\in F(\overline{\lambda}) and a subsequence \{{x}_{{n}_{k}}\} of \{{x}_{n}\}, such that {x}_{{n}_{k}}\to \overline{x}.
The following lemma plays an important role in the proof of the lower semicontinuity of the solution map {V}_{s}(\mu ).
Lemma 2.2 [[16], Theorem 2, p.114]
The union \mathrm{\Gamma}={\bigcup}_{i\in I}{\mathrm{\Gamma}}_{i} of a family of l.s.c. setvalued mappings {\mathrm{\Gamma}}_{i} from a topological space X into a topological space Y is also an l.s.c. setvalued mapping from X into Y, where I is an index set.
Let Q:X\to {2}^{Y} be a setvalued mapping between two topological spaces. The lower limit of Q is defined as
Proposition 2.2 [17]

(i)
{Liminf}_{x\to {x}_{0}}Q(x) is a closed set.

(ii)
Q is l.s.c. at {x}_{0}\in domQ:=\{xQ(x)\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}\} if and only if Q({x}_{0})\subset {Liminf}_{x\to {x}_{0}}Q(x).
3 Lower semicontinuity of strong solution sets to (PGVEP)
In this section, we discuss the lower semicontinuity of the strong solutions for (PVEP). Firstly, we obtain two important lemmas relevant to the (PVEP) as follows.
Lemma 3.1 Let f\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}. Suppose the following conditions are satisfied:

(i)
A(\cdot ) is continuous with compact convex values on Λ.

(ii)
For each \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}, F(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ) is continuous on B\times B\times \mu.

(iii)
For each \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}, x\in A(\mu )\setminus {V}_{f}(\mu ), there exist y\in {V}_{f}(\mu ) and r>0, such that
F(x,y,\mu )+F(y,x,\mu )+B(0,{d}^{r}(x,y))\subset C.
Then {V}_{f}(\cdot ) is l.s.c. on Λ.
Proof Suppose to the contrary that there exists {\mu}_{0}\in \mathrm{\Lambda}, such that {V}_{f}(\cdot ) is not l.s.c. at {\mu}_{0}. Then there exist a sequence \{{\mu}_{n}\} with {\mu}_{n}\to {\mu}_{0} and {x}_{0}\in {V}_{f}({\mu}_{0}), such that for any {x}_{n}\in {V}_{f}({\mu}_{n}), {x}_{n}\nrightarrow {x}_{0}.
Since A(\cdot ) is l.s.c. at {\mu}_{0}, there exists {\overline{x}}_{n}\in A({\mu}_{n}), such that {\overline{x}}_{n}\to {x}_{0}. Obviously, {\overline{x}}_{n}\in A({\mu}_{n})\setminus {V}_{f}({\mu}_{n}). By (iii), there exists {y}_{n}\in {V}_{f}({\mu}_{n}) such that
For {y}_{n}\in A({\mu}_{n}), because A(\cdot ) is u.s.c. at {\mu}_{0} with compact values, there exist {y}_{0}\in A({\mu}_{0}) and a subsequence \{{y}_{{n}_{k}}\} of \{{y}_{n}\}, such that {y}_{{n}_{k}}\to {y}_{0}. In particular, for (3.1), we have
Taking the limit as {n}_{k}\to +\mathrm{\infty}, we have
Noting that {x}_{0}\in {V}_{f}({\mu}_{0}) and {y}_{0}\in A({\mu}_{0}), we have
Moreover, since {y}_{{n}_{k}}\in {V}_{f}({\mu}_{{n}_{k}}) and {\overline{x}}_{{n}_{k}}\in A({\mu}_{{n}_{k}}), it follows from the continuity of f and F that
By (3.4), (3.5), and the linearity of f, we have
Assume that {x}_{0}\ne {y}_{0}; by (3.3), we obtain F({x}_{0},{y}_{0},{\mu}_{0})+F({y}_{0},{x}_{0},{\mu}_{0})\subset intC. Thus, we have
which contradicts (3.6). Therefore {x}_{0}={y}_{0}, which leads to a contradiction. Hence, for each f\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}, {S}_{f}(\cdot ) is l.s.c. on Λ. □
Lemma 3.2 Let f\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}. Suppose the following conditions are satisfied:

(i)
A is nonempty compact set.

(ii)
F(\cdot ,\cdot ) is continuous on B\times B.

(iii)
For each x\in A\setminus {V}_{f} there exist y\in {V}_{f} and r>0, such that
F(x,y)+F(y,x)+B(0,{d}^{r}(x,y))\subset C.
Let us define the setvalued mapping H:{C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}\to {2}^{A} by
then we see that H(\cdot ) is l.s.c. on {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}.
Proof By using Lemma 3.1 and following a similar way to the proof to Lemma 3.1 of [18], we can obtain the conclusion. □
Now, we discuss the lower semicontinuity of strong solution mappings to (PGVEP).
Theorem 3.1 Let f\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}. Suppose the following conditions are satisfied:

(i)
A(\cdot ) is continuous with compact convex values on Λ.

(ii)
For each \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda} and x\in A(\mu ), F(x,\cdot ,\mu ) is Clikeconvex on A(\mu ).

(iii)
For each \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}, F(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ) is continuous on B\times B\times \mu.

(iv)
For each \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}, x\in A(\mu )\setminus {V}_{f}(\mu ), there exist y\in {V}_{f}(\mu ) and r>0, such that
F(x,y,\mu )+F(y,x,\mu )+B(0,{d}^{r}(x,y))\subset C. 
(v)
F(A(\mu ),A(\mu ),\mu ) are bounded subsets of Y for each \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}.

(vi)
{C}^{\mathrm{\u266f}}\ne \mathrm{\varnothing} and intC\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}.
Then {V}_{s}(\cdot ) is lower semicontinuous on Λ.
Proof We prove the result in the following three steps.
Step 1. We first show that
Since {V}_{f}(\mu )\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}, for each f\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}. Then, by definition, we have
Since for any x\in A(\mu ), F(x,\cdot ,\mu ) is Clikeconvex, then F(x,A(\mu ),\mu )+C is a convex set. From Lemma 2.1, we have
By (3.7) and (3.8), we get
To show that
we first prove
Let us define the setvalued mapping H:{C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}\to {2}^{A} by
By Lemma 3.2, we know that H(\cdot ) is lower semicontinuous on {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}.
Let {x}_{0}\in {\bigcup}_{f\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}}{V}_{f}. Then there exists {f}_{0}\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\} such that
Since {C}^{\mathrm{\u266f}}\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}, let g\in {C}^{\mathrm{\u266f}} and set
Then {f}_{n}\in {C}^{\mathrm{\u266f}}. We show that \{{f}_{n}\} converges to {f}_{0} with respect to the topology \beta ({Y}^{\ast},Y).
For any neighborhood U of 0 with respect to \beta ({Y}^{\ast},Y), there exist bounded subsets {B}_{i}\subset Y (i=1,2,\dots ,m) and \u03f5>0 such that
Since {B}_{i} is bounded and g\in {Y}^{\ast}, g({B}_{i}) is bounded for i=1,\dots ,m. Thus, there exists N such that
Hence (1/n)g\in U, that is, {f}_{n}{f}_{0}\in U. This means that \{{f}_{n}\} converges to {f}_{0} with respect to \beta ({Y}^{\ast},Y).
Since H(f) is l.s.c. at {f}_{0}, for sequence \{{f}_{n}\}\subset {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}, {f}_{n}\to {f}_{0} and {x}_{0}\in H({f}_{0}), there exists {x}_{n}\in H({f}_{n})={V}_{{f}_{n}}\subset {\bigcup}_{f\in {C}^{\mathrm{\u266f}}}{V}_{f}, such that {x}_{n}\to {x}_{0}. This means that
By the arbitrariness of {x}_{0}\in {\bigcup}_{f\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}}{V}_{f}, we have
Then we can obtain the result that for each \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda} (3.11) is valid, and the validity of (3.7) follows readily from (3.10) and (3.11).
Step 2. For each \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}, let \tilde{S}(\mu ):={\bigcup}_{f\in {C}^{\mathrm{\u266f}}}{V}_{f}(\mu ). By a similar argument to the proof of Lemma 3.1, we find for each f\in {C}^{\mathrm{\u266f}}, that {V}_{f}(\cdot ) is l.s.c. on Λ. It follows from Lemma 2.2 that \tilde{S}(\cdot ) is l.s.c. on Λ.
Step 3. Now we show that {V}_{s}(\cdot ) is lower semicontinuous on Λ. From Step 1, we have
Let {\mu}_{0}\in \mathrm{\Lambda} be any fixed point. Because of the lower semicontinuity of \tilde{S}(\cdot ) at {\mu}_{0} and the closedness of the lower limit of \tilde{S} (see Proposition 2.2), together with the above inclusion relation, we have
Hence, {V}_{s}(\cdot ) is l.s.c. at {\mu}_{0}. By the arbitrariness of {\mu}_{0}, {V}_{s}(\cdot ) is l.s.c. on Λ. This completes the proof. □
Remark 3.2 In Theorem 3.1, by using the density technique, we obtain a sufficient condition for the lower semicontinuity of strong solutions to (PGVEP). Our approach is different from the corresponding ones in [7] (see Theorem 2.1 of [7]). Furthermore, the condition of Cstrong (strict) monotonicity is not required, and the Cconvexity of F is generalized to the Clikeconvexity. Thus, Theorem 3.1 improves and extends the corresponding results in the literature [5, 7, 8, 10, 11]. The following example is given to illustrate the case.
Example 3.1 Let X=R, Y={R}^{2}, C={R}_{+}^{2}, \mathrm{\Lambda}=[1,2], A(\mu )=[1,1], and F(x,y,\mu )=(12{\mu}^{2}+y,2\mu x). For any f\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}, it follows from a direct computation that {V}_{f}(\mu )=[0,1]. It is clear that A(\cdot ) is a continuous setvalued mapping with nonempty compact convex values and for each \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}, F(\cdot ,\cdot ,\cdot ) is continuous on A(\mu )\times A(\mu )\times \mu. Therefore, conditions (i)(ii) of Theorem 3.1 are satisfied. For any given \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda} and for any given x\in A(\mu ), we have, for any {y}_{1},{y}_{2}\in A(\mu ), t\in [0,1],
Thus, for any given \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda} and for any given x\in A(\mu ), F(x,\cdot ,\mu ) is {R}_{+}^{2}likeconvex on A(\mu ), that is, condition (iii) of Theorem 3.1 is satisfied.
For any x\in A(\mu )\setminus {V}_{f}(\mu ), there exists y=0\in {V}_{f}(\mu ), such that
Thus, the condition (iv) of Theorem 3.1 is satisfied. It is clear that F(A(\mu ),A(\mu ),\mu ) are bounded subsets of Y for each \mu \in \mathrm{\Lambda}, {({R}_{+}^{2})}^{\mathrm{\u266f}}\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}, and int{R}_{+}^{2}\ne \mathrm{\varnothing}. Consequently, by Theorem 3.1, {V}_{s}(\cdot ) is lower semicontinuous on Λ.
However, the condition of Cstrong monotonicity does not hold. Indeed, for any x\in A(\mu )\setminus {V}_{f}(\mu )=[1,0), there exists y=x\in {V}_{f}(\mu )=[0,1], such that
Obviously, F(\cdot ,\cdot ,\mu ) is not Cstrongly monotone on A(\mu )\times A(\mu ). Then Theorem 2.1 in [7] and Theorem 3.2 in [11] are not applicable, and the corresponding results in references [[8], Theorem 4.2], [[10], Theorem 3.1] are also not applicable.
Finally, we give an example to illustrate that the assumption (iv) of Theorem 3.1 is essential.
Example 3.2 Let X=R, Y={R}^{2}, C={R}_{+}^{2}. Let \mathrm{\Lambda}=[4,5] and
It is clear that A is a continuous setvalued mapping from Λ to X with nonempty compact convex values. Define the mapping F:A(\mu )\times A(\mu )\times \mathrm{\Lambda}\to {R}^{2} by
Obviously, we know that conditions (ii), (iii), (v), and (vi) are satisfied.
We have, for any f\in {C}^{\ast}\setminus \{0\}, 0\in {V}_{f}(\mu ), and
In fact, there exists x=\frac{1}{2}\in A(\mu )\setminus {V}_{f}(\mu ), for y=0\in {V}_{f}(\mu ), we have
Using a similar method, there exists x=\frac{1}{2}\in A(\mu )\setminus {V}_{f}(\mu ), for y=1\in {V}_{f}(\mu ), we have F(x,y,\mu )+F(y,x,\mu )+B(0,{d}^{r}(x,y))\not\subset C. Thus, condition (iv) of Theorem 3.1 is not satisfied.
Now, we show that {V}_{s}(\mu ) is not lower semicontinuous at {\mu}_{0}=4. There exists 0\in {V}_{s}(4) and there exists a neighborhood (\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}) of 0, for any neighborhood U(4) of 4, there exists 4<\tilde{\mu}<5 such that \tilde{\mu}\in U(4) and
Thus,
By virtue of Definition 2.5, we know that {V}_{s}(\mu ) is not lower semicontinuous at {\mu}_{0}=4.
References
Fan K: Extensions of two fixed point theorems of F.E. Browder. Math. Z. 1969, 112: 234240. 10.1007/BF01110225
Fan K: A minimax inequality and applications. III. In Inequality. Edited by: Shihsha O. Academic Press, New York; 1972:103113.
Giannessi F (Ed): Vector Variational Inequalities and Vector Equilibria. Mathematical Theories. Kluwer, Dordrecht; 2000.
Hou SH, Gong XH, Yang XM: Existence and stability of solutions for generalized Ky Fan inequality problems with trifunctions. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2010, 146: 387398. 10.1007/s1095701096567
Cheng YH, Zhu DL: Global stability results for the weak vector variational inequality. J. Glob. Optim. 2005, 32: 543550. 10.1007/s1089800426929
Huang NJ, Li J, Thompson HB: Stability for parametric implicit vector equilibrium problems. Math. Comput. Model. 2006, 43: 12671274. 10.1016/j.mcm.2005.06.010
Gong XH, Yao JC: Lower semicontinuity of the set of efficient solutions for generalized systems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2008, 138: 197205. 10.1007/s1095700893791
Gong XH: Continuity of the solution set to parametric weak vector equilibrium problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2008, 139: 3546. 10.1007/s1095700894298
Kimura K, Yao JC: Sensitivity analysis of solution mappings of parametric vector quasiequilibrium problems. J. Glob. Optim. 2008, 41: 187202. 10.1007/s1089800792109
Xu S, Li SJ: A new proof approach to lower semicontinuity for parametric vector equilibrium problems. Optim. Lett. 2009, 3: 453459. 10.1007/s115900090124y
Chen CR, Li SJ: On the solution continuity of parametric generalized systems. Pac. J. Optim. 2010, 6: 141151.
Gong XH: Efficiency and Henig efficiency for vector equilibrium problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2001, 108: 139154. 10.1023/A:1026418122905
Gong XH, Yao JC: Connectedness of the set of efficient solution for generalized systems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2008, 138: 189196. 10.1007/s1095700893782
Gong XH: Connectedness of the solution sets and scalarization for vector equilibrium problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2007, 133: 151161. 10.1007/s109570079196y
Aubin JP, Ekeland I: Applied Nonlinear Analysis. Wiley, New York; 1984.
Aubin JP, Frankowska H: SetValued Analysis. Birkhäuser, Boston; 1990.
Anh LQ, Khanh PQ: Semicontinuity of the solution sets to parametric quasivariational inclusions with applications to traffic networks I: upper semicontinuities. SetValued Anal. 2008, 16: 267279. 10.1007/s112280080074z
Peng, ZY, Yang, XM: On the connectedness of efficient solutions for generalized Ky Fan inequality problems. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. (accepted)
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 11301571, 11271389, 71201126), the science foundation of Ministry of Education of China (No. 12XJC910001), the Natural Science Foundation Project of ChongQing (No. 2012jjA00016) and the Education Committee Research Foundation of Chongqing (KJ130428).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper. 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.
About this article
Cite this article
Peng, Z.Y., Lin, Z., Yu, K.Z. et al. A note on solution lower semicontinuity for parametric generalized vector equilibrium problems. J Inequal Appl 2014, 325 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2014325
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2014325
Keywords
 stability
 strong solution
 lower semicontinuity
 parametric vector equilibrium problem
 density