- Research
- Open Access
- Published:
Strong convergence of iterative algorithms for the split equality problem
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2014, Article number: 478 (2014)
Abstract
Let , , be real Hilbert spaces, , be two nonempty closed convex sets, and let , be two bounded linear operators. The split equality problem (SEP) is finding , such that . Recently, Moudafi has presented the ACQA algorithm and the RACQA algorithm to solve SEP. However, the two algorithms are weakly convergent. It is therefore the aim of this paper to construct new algorithms for SEP so that strong convergence is guaranteed. Firstly, we define the concept of the minimal norm solution of SEP. Using Tychonov regularization, we introduce two methods to get such a minimal norm solution. And then, we introduce two algorithms which are viewed as modifications of Moudafi’s ACQA, RACQA algorithms and KM-CQ algorithm, respectively, and converge strongly to a solution of SEP. More importantly, the modifications of Moudafi’s ACQA, RACQA algorithms converge strongly to the minimal norm solution of SEP. At last, we introduce some other algorithms which converge strongly to a solution of SEP.
1 Introduction and preliminaries
Let C and Q be nonempty closed convex subsets of real Hilbert spaces and , respectively, and let be a bounded linear operator. The split feasibility problem (SFP) is to find a point x satisfying the property
if such a point exists. SFP was first introduced by Censor and Elfving [1], which has attracted many authors’ attention due to its application in signal processing [1]. Various algorithms have been invented to solve it (see [2–7]).
Recently, Moudafi [8] proposed a new split equality problem (SEP): Let , , be real Hilbert spaces, , be two nonempty closed convex sets, and let , be two bounded linear operators. Find , satisfying
When , SEP reduces to the well-known SFP. In the paper [8], Moudafi gave the following iterative algorithms for solving the split equality problem.
Alternating CQ-algorithm (ACQA):
Relaxed alternating CQ-algorithm (RACQA):
However, the above algorithms converge weakly to a solution of SEP.
It is therefore the aim of this paper to construct a new algorithm for SEP so that strong convergence is guaranteed. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we define the concept of the minimal norm solution of SEP (1.1). Using Tychonov regularization, we obtain a net of solutions for some minimization problem approximating such minimal norm solutions (see Theorem 2.4). In Section 3, we introduce an algorithm which is viewed as a modification of Moudafi’s ACQA and RACQA algorithms; and we prove the strong convergence of the algorithm, more importantly, its limit is the minimum-norm solution of SEP (1.1) (see Theorem 3.2). In Section 4, we introduce a KM-CQ-like iterative algorithm which converges strongly to a solution of SEP (1.1) (see Theorem 4.3). In Section 5, we introduce some other iterative algorithms which converge strongly to a solution of SEP (1.1).
Throughout the rest of this paper, I denotes the identity operator on a Hilbert space H, is the set of the fixed points of an operator T and ∇f is the gradient of the functional . An operator T on a Hilbert space H is nonexpansive if, for each x and y in H, . T is said to be averaged if there exists and a nonexpansive operator N such that .
Let denote the projection from H onto a nonempty closed convex subset S of H; that is,
It is well known that is characterized by the inequality
and is nonexpansive and averaged.
We now collect some elementary facts which will be used in the proofs of our main results.
Let X be a Banach space, C be a closed convex subset of X, and be a nonexpansive mapping with . If is a sequence in C weakly converging to x and if converges strongly to y, then .
Lemma 1.2 [11]
Let be a sequence of nonnegative real numbers, be a sequence of real numbers in with , be a sequence of nonnegative real numbers with , and be a sequence of real numbers with . Suppose that
Then .
Lemma 1.3 [12]
Let , be bounded sequences in a Banach space, and let be a sequence in which satisfies the following condition:
Suppose that and , then .
Lemma 1.4 [13]
Let f be a convex and differentiable functional, and let C be a closed convex subset of H. Then is a solution of the problem
if and only if satisfies the following optimality condition:
Moreover, if f is, in addition, strictly convex and coercive, then the minimization problem has a unique solution.
Lemma 1.5 [3]
Let A and B be averaged operators and suppose that is nonempty. Then .
2 Minimum-norm solution of SEP
In this section, we define the concept of the minimal norm solution of SEP (1.1). Using Tychonov regularization, we obtain a net of solutions for some minimization problem approximating such minimal norm solutions.
We use Γ to denote the solution set of SEP, i.e.,
and assume the consistency of SEP so that Γ is closed, convex and nonempty.
Let in , define by , then has the matrix form
The original problem can now be reformulated as finding with , or, more generally, minimizing the function over . Therefore solving SEP (1.1) is equivalent to solving the following minimization problem:
which is in general ill-posed. A classical way to deal with such a possibly ill-posed problem is the well-known Tychonov regularization, which approximates a solution of problem (2.1) by the unique minimizer of the regularized problem:
where is the regularization parameter. Denote by the unique solution of (2.2).
Proposition 2.1 For any , the solution of (2.2) is uniquely defined. Moreover, is characterized by the inequality
i.e.,
and
Proof It is well known that is convex and differentiable with gradient , . We can get that is strictly convex, coercive, and differentiable with gradient
It follows from Lemma 1.4 that is characterized by the inequality
Note that , , adding up (2.3), we can get that
and
□
Definition 2.2 An element is said to be the minimal norm solution of SEP (1.1) if .
The next result collects some useful properties of , the unique solution of (2.2).
Proposition 2.3 Let be given as the unique solution of (2.2). Then the following assertions hold.
-
(i)
is decreasing for .
-
(ii)
defines a continuous curve from to H.
Proof Let ; since and are the unique minimizers of and , respectively, we can get that
Hence we can obtain that . That is to say, is decreasing for .
By Proposition 2.1, we have
and
It follows that
Hence
It turns out that
Thus defines a continuous curve from to H. □
Theorem 2.4 Let be given as the unique solution of (2.2). Then converges strongly as to the minimum-norm solution of SEP (1.1).
Proof For any , is given as (2.2), it follows that
Since is a solution for SEP, we get
Hence, for all . That is to say, is a bounded net in .
For any sequence such that , let be abbreviated as . All we need to prove is that contains a subsequence converging strongly to .
Indeed is bounded and S is bounded convex. By passing to a subsequence if necessary, we may assume that converges weakly to a point . By Proposition 2.1, we get that
It follows that
Since , it turns out that
Using , we can get that
Furthermore, note that converges weakly to a point , then converges weakly to . It follows that , i.e., .
At last, we prove that and this finishes the proof.
Since converges weakly to and , we can get that
This shows that is also a point in Γ which assumes a minimum norm. Due to the uniqueness of a minimum-norm element, we obtain . □
Finally, we introduce another method to get the minimum-norm solution of SEP.
Lemma 2.5 Let , where with being the spectral radius of the self-adjoint operator on H. Then we have the following:
-
(1)
(i.e., T is nonexpansive) and averaged;
-
(2)
, ;
-
(3)
if and only if w is a solution of the variational inequality , .
Proof (1) It is easily proved that , we only prove that is averaged. Indeed, choose such that , then , where is a nonexpansive mapping. That is to say, T is averaged.
(2) If , it is obvious that . Conversely, assume that , we have , hence , then , we get that . This leads to .
Now we prove . By , is obvious. On the other hand, since , and both and T are averaged, from Lemma 1.5, we have .
-
(3)
□
Remark 2.6 Take a constant γ such that with being the spectral radius of the self-adjoint operator . For , we define a mapping
It is easy to check that is contractive. So, has a unique fixed point denoted by , that is,
Theorem 2.7 Let be given as (2.4). Then converges strongly as to the minimum-norm solution of SEP (1.1).
Proof Let be a point in Γ. Since , is nonexpansive. It follows that
Hence,
Then is bounded.
From (2.4), we have
Next we show that is relatively norm compact as . In fact, assume that is such that as . Put , we have the following:
By the property of the projection, we deduce that
Therefore,
In particular,
Since is bounded, there exists a subsequence of which converges weakly to a point . Without loss of generality, we may assume that converges weakly to . Notice that
and by Lemma 1.1 we can get that .
By
we have
Consequently, converges weakly to actually implies that converges strongly to . That is to say, is relatively norm compact as .
On the other hand, by
let , we have
This implies that
which is equivalent to
It follows that . Therefore, each cluster point of equals . So () the minimum-norm solution of SEP. □
3 Modification of Moudafi’s ACQA and RACQA algorithms
In this section, we introduce the following algorithm which is viewed as a modification of Moudafi’s ACQA and RACQA algorithms. The purpose for such a modification lies in the hope of strong convergence.
Algorithm 3.1 For an arbitrary point , the sequence is generated by the iterative algorithm
i.e.,
where is a sequence in such that
-
(i)
;
-
(ii)
;
-
(iii)
or .
Now, we prove the strong convergence of the iterative algorithm.
Theorem 3.2 The sequence generated by algorithm (3.1) converges strongly to the minimum-norm solution of SEP (1.1).
Proof Let and R be defined by
where . By Lemma 2.5 it is easy to see that is a contraction with contractive constant ; and algorithm (3.1) can be written as .
For any , we have
Hence,
It follows that . So is bounded.
Next we prove that .
Indeed,
Notice that
Hence,
By virtue of assumptions (1)-(3) and Lemma 1.2, we have
Therefore,
The demiclosedness principle ensures that each weak limit point of is a fixed point of the nonexpansive mapping , that is, a point of the solution set Γ of SEP (1.1).
At last, we will prove that .
Choose such that , then , where is a nonexpansive mapping. Taking , we deduce that
Then
Note that , it follows that .
Take a subsequence of such that .
By virtue of the boundedness of , we may further assume, with no loss of generality, that converges weakly to a point . Since , using the demiclosedness principle, we know that . Noticing that is the projection of the origin onto Γ, we get that
Finally, we compute
Since , , we know that . By Lemma 1.2, we conclude that . This completes the proof. □
Remark 3.3 When , the iteration algorithm (3.1) becomes
By Theorem 3.2, we can get the following result.
Corollary 3.4 For an arbitrary point , the sequence is generated by the iterative algorithm
where is a sequence in such that
-
(i)
;
-
(ii)
;
-
(iii)
or .
Then converges strongly to the minimum-norm solution of SFP.
4 KM-CQ-like iterative algorithm for SEP
In this section, we establish a KM-CQ-like algorithm converging strongly to a solution of SEP.
Algorithm 4.1 For an arbitrary initial point , the sequence is generated by the iteration
i.e.,
where is a sequence in such that
-
(i)
, ;
-
(ii)
;
-
(iii)
.
Lemma 4.2 If , then for any w we have , where β and V are the same as in Lemma 2.5(1).
Proof According to Lemma 2.5(1), we know that , where and V is nonexpansive. It is easy to check that , and
□
Theorem 4.3 The sequence generated by algorithm (4.1) converges strongly to a solution of SEP (1.1).
Proof For any solution of SEP , according to Lemma 2.5, , where , and
By induction,
Hence, is bounded and so is . Moreover,
Since is bounded, we have that , and are also bounded.
Let , and such that . We observe that
Hence,
Since and , we obtain that
and
Using Lemma 1.3, we get that
Therefore,
Let and R be defined by
We find
So, we have
By assumption, we have
On the other hand, is bounded, there exists a subsequence of which converges weakly to a point . Without loss of generality, we may assume that converges weakly to . Since , using the demiclosedness principle we know that .
At last, we will prove that . To do this, we calculate
By Lemma 1.2, we only need to prove that
By Lemma 2.5, T is averaged, that is, , where and V is nonexpansive. Then, for , we have
By Lemma 4.2, we can get
Let such that for all n, then we have
Hence,
Since , we can get that
Therefore,
It follows that
Since converges weakly to , it follows that
□
Similar to the proof of Theorem 4.3, we can get that the following iterative algorithm converges strongly to a solution of SEP also. Since the proof is similar to Theorem 4.3, we omit it.
Algorithm 4.4 For an arbitrary initial point , the sequence is generated by the iteration
i.e.,
where is a sequence in such that
-
(i)
, ;
-
(ii)
;
-
(iii)
.
5 Other iterative methods
In this section, we introduce some other iterative algorithms which converge strongly to a solution of SEP.
According to Lemma 2.5, we know that belongs to the solution set Γ of SEP (1.1) if and only if . Moreover, is a nonexpansive mapping. That is to say, the essence of SEP is to find a fixed point for the nonexpansive mapping .
For the fixed point of a nonexpansive mapping, the following results have been obtained.
In 1974, Ishikawa [14] gave the Ishikawa iteration as follows:
where is an arbitrary (but fixed) element in C, and , are two sequences in . He proved that if , , , then converges strongly to a fixed point of T.
In 2004, Xu [15] gave the viscosity iteration for nonexpansive mappings. He considered the iteration process
where f is a contraction on C and is an arbitrary (but fixed) element in C. He proved that if , , either or , then converges strongly to a fixed point of T.
Halpern’s iteration is as follows:
where is an arbitrary (but fixed) element in C.
Mann’s iteration method that produces a sequence via the recursive manner is as follows:
where the initial guess is chosen arbitrarily. However, this scheme has only weak convergence even in a Hilbert space.
In 2005, Kim and Xu [16] modified Mann’s iteration scheme and the modified iteration method still works in a Banach space. Let C be a closed convex subset of a Banach space and be a nonexpansive mapping such that . Define in the following way:
where is an arbitrary (but fixed) element in C, and , are two sequences in . They proved that if , , , and , , then converges strongly to a fixed point of T.
Therefore, we have the following iterative algorithms which converge strongly to a solution of SEP.
Algorithm 5.1
particulars:
where is an arbitrary (but fixed) element in H, and , are two sequences in . If , , , then converges strongly to a solution of SEP.
Algorithm 5.2
particulars:
where f is a contraction on and is an arbitrary (but fixed) element in H, and . If , , either or , then converges strongly to a solution of SEP.
Algorithm 5.3
particulars:
where u, are arbitrary (but fixed) elements in H, , and , are two sequences in . They proved that if , , , and , , then converges strongly to a solution of SEP.
References
Censor Y, Elfving T: A multiprojection algorithm using Bregman projections in a product space. Numer. Algorithms 1994,8(2–4):221–239.
Byrne C: Iterative oblique projection onto convex sets and the split feasibility problem. Inverse Problems 2002,18(2):441–453. 10.1088/0266-5611/18/2/310
Byrne C: A unified treatment of some iterative algorithms in signal processing and image reconstruction. Inverse Problems 2004,20(1):103–120. 10.1088/0266-5611/20/1/006
Qu B, Xiu N: A note on the CQ algorithm for the split feasibility problem. Inverse Problems 2005,21(5):1655–1665. 10.1088/0266-5611/21/5/009
Xu H-K: A variable Krasnosel’skii-Mann algorithm and the multiple-set split feasibility problem. Inverse Problems 2006,22(6):2021–2034. 10.1088/0266-5611/22/6/007
Yang Q: The relaxed CQ algorithm solving the split feasibility problem. Inverse Problems 2004,20(4):1261–1266. 10.1088/0266-5611/20/4/014
Yang Q, Zhao J: Generalized KM theorems and their applications. Inverse Problems 2006,22(3):833–844. 10.1088/0266-5611/22/3/006
Moudafi A: A relaxed alternating CQ-algorithms for convex feasibility problems. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 2013, 79: 117–121.
Geobel K, Kirk WA Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 28. In Topics in Metric Fixed Point Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1990.
Geobel K, Reich S: Uniform Convexity, Nonexpansive Mappings, and Hyperbolic Geometry. Dekker, New York; 1984.
Aoyama K, Kimura Y, Takahashi W, Toyoda M: Approximation of common fixed points of a countable family of nonexpansive mappings in a Banach space. Nonlinear Anal., Theory Methods Appl. 2007,67(8):2350–2360. 10.1016/j.na.2006.08.032
Suzuki T: Strong convergence theorems for infinite families of nonexpansive mappings in general Banach space. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2005, 1: 103–123.
Engl HW, Hanke M, Neubauer A Mathematics and Its Applications 375. In Regularization of Inverse Problems. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; 1996.
Ishikawa S: Fixed points by a new iteration method. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1974, 44: 147–150. 10.1090/S0002-9939-1974-0336469-5
Xu H-K: Viscosity approximation methods for nonexpansive mappings. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2004, 298: 279–291. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2004.04.059
Kim TH, Xu H-K: Strong convergence of modified Mann iterations. Nonlinear Anal. 2005, 61: 51–60. 10.1016/j.na.2004.11.011
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by NSFC Grants No:11071279; No:11226125; No:11301379.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
The main idea of this paper was proposed by LS, RC and YW prepared the manuscript initially and performed all the steps of the proofs in this research. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, 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 licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Shi, L.Y., Chen, R. & Wu, Y. Strong convergence of iterative algorithms for the split equality problem. J Inequal Appl 2014, 478 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-478
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-478
Keywords
- split equality problem
- iterative algorithms
- converge strongly