Abstract
Very recently, Moudafi (Alternating CQ-algorithms for convex feasibility and split fixed-point problems, J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. ) introduced an alternating CQ-algorithm with weak convergence for the following split common fixed-point problem. Let , , be real Hilbert spaces, let , be two bounded linear operators.
where and are two firmly quasi-nonexpansive operators with nonempty fixed-point sets and . Note that by taking and , we recover the split common fixed-point problem originally introduced in Censor and Segal (J. Convex Anal. 16:587-600, 2009) and used to model many significant real-world inverse problems in sensor net-works and radiation therapy treatment planning. In this paper, we will continue to consider the split common fixed-point problem (1) governed by the general class of quasi-nonexpansive operators. We introduce two alternating Mann iterative algorithms and prove the weak convergence of algorithms. At last, we provide some applications. Our results improve and extend the corresponding results announced by many others.
MSC:47H09, 47H10, 47J05, 54H25.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
Throughout this paper, we always assume that H is a real Hilbert space with the inner product and the norm . Let I denote the identity operator on H. Let C and Q be nonempty closed convex subset of real Hilbert spaces and , respectively. The split feasibility problem (SFP) is to find a point
where is a bounded linear operator. The SFP in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces was first introduced by Censor and Elfving [1] for modeling inverse problems which arise from phase retrievals and in medical image reconstruction [2]. The SFP attracts many authors’ attention due to its application in signal processing. Various algorithms have been invented to solve it (see [3–12] and references therein).
Note that if the split feasibility problem (1.1) is consistent (i.e., (1.1) has a solution), then (1.1) can be formulated as a fixed point equation by using the fact
That is, solves the SFP (1.1) if and only if solves the fixed point equation (1.2) (see [13] for the details). This implies that we can use fixed point algorithms (see [6, 13–15]) to solve SFP. A popular algorithm that solves the SFP (1.1) is due to Byrne’s CQ algorithm [2], which is found to be a gradient-projection method (GPM) in convex minimization. Subsequently, Byrne [3] applied KM iteration to the CQ algorithm and Zhao [16] applied KM iteration to the perturbed CQ algorithm to solve the SFP.
Recently, Moudafi [17] introduced a new convex feasibility problem (CFP). Let , , be real Hilbert spaces, let , be two nonempty closed convex sets, let , be two bounded linear operators. The convex feasibility problem in [17] is to find
which allows asymmetric and partial relations between the variables x and y. The interest is to cover many situations, for instance, in decomposition methods for PDEs, applications in game theory and in intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). In decision sciences, this allows to consider agents who interplay only via some components of their decision variables (see [18]). In (IMRT), this amounts to envisaging a weak coupling between the vector of doses absorbed in all voxels and that of the radiation intensity (see [19]). If and , then the convex feasibility problem (1.3) reduces to the split feasibility problem (1.1).
For solving the CFP (1.3), Moudafi [17] studied the fixed point formulation of the solutions of the CFP (1.3). Assuming that the CFP (1.3) is consistent (i.e., (1.3) has a solution), if solves (1.3), then it solves the following fixed point equation system
where are any positive constants. Moudafi [17] introduced the following alternating CQ algorithm
where , and are the spectral radiuses of and , respectively.
The split common fixed-point problem (SCFP) is a generalization of the split feasibility problem (SFP) and the convex feasibility problem (CFP); see [20]. SCFP is in itself at the core of the modeling of many inverse problems in various areas of mathematics and physical sciences and has been used to model significant real-world inverse problems in sensor net-works, in radiation therapy treatment planning, in resolution enhancement, in wavelet-based denoising, in antenna design, in computerized tomography, in materials science, in watermarking, in data compression, in magnetic resonance imaging, in holography, in color imaging, in optics and neural networks, in graph matching… (see [21]). Censor and Segal consider the following problem:
where is a bounded linear operator, and are two nonexpansive operators with nonempty fixed-point sets and and denote the solution set of the two-operator SCFP by
To solve (1.6), Censor and Segal [20] proposed and proved, in finite-dimensional spaces, the convergence of the following algorithm:
where , with λ being the largest eigenvalue of the matrix ( stands for matrix transposition). For solving SCFP of quasi-nonexpansive operators, Moudafi [22] introduced the following relaxed algorithm:
where , , and , with λ being the spectral radius of the operator . Moudafi proved weak convergence result of the algorithm in Hilbert spaces.
In [17], Moudafi introduced the following SCFP
and considered the following alternating SCFP-algorithm
for firmly quasi-nonexpansive operators U and T. Moudafi [17] obtained the following result.
Theorem 1.1 Let , , be real Hilbert spaces, let , be two firmly quasi-nonexpansive operators such that , are demiclosed at 0. Let , be two bounded linear operators. Assume that the solution set Γ is nonempty, is a positive non-decreasing sequence such that , where , stand for the spectral radiuses of and , respectively. Then the sequence generated by (1.9) weakly converges to a solution of (1.8). Moreover, , , and as .
In this paper, inspired and motivated by the works mentioned above, firstly, we introduce the following alternating Mann iterative algorithm for solving the SCFP (1.8) for the general class of quasi-nonexpansive operators.
Algorithm 1.1 Let , be arbitrary.
By taking , we recover (1.8) clearly the classical SCFP (1.6). In addition, if and in Algorithm 1.1, we have and . Thus, Algorithm 1.1 reduces to and , which is algorithm (1.7) proposed by Moudafi [22].
The CQ algorithm is a special case of the K-M algorithm. Due to the fixed point formulation (1.4) of the CFP (1.3), we can apply the K-M algorithm to obtain the following other alterative Mann iterative sequence for solving the SCFP (1.8) for quasi-nonexpansive operators.
Algorithm 1.2 Let , be arbitrary.
The organization of this paper is as follows. Some useful definitions and results are listed for the convergence analysis of the iterative algorithm in Section 2. In Section 3, we prove the weak convergence of the alternating Mann iterative Algorithms 1.1 and 1.2. At last, we provide some applications of Algorithms 1.1 and 1.2.
2 Preliminaries
Let be a mapping. A point is said to be a fixed point of T provided . In this paper, we use to denote the fixed point set and use → and ⇀ to denote the strong convergence and weak convergence, respectively. We use stand for the weak ω-limit set of and use Γ stand for the solution set of the SCFP (1.8).
-
A mapping belongs to the general class of (possibly discontinuous) quasi-nonexpansive mappings if
-
A mapping belongs to the set of nonexpansive mappings if
-
A mapping belongs to the set of firmly nonexpansive mappings if
-
A mapping belongs to the set of firmly quasi-nonexpansive mappings if
It is easily observed that and that . Furthermore, is well known to include resolvents and projection operators, while contains subgradient projection operators (see, for instance, [23] and the reference therein).
A mapping is called demiclosed at the origin if, for any sequence which weakly converges to x, and if the sequence strongly converges to 0, then .
In real Hilbert space, we easily get the following equality:
In what follows, we give some key properties of the relaxed operator which will be needed in the convergence analysis of our algorithms.
Lemma 2.1 ([22])
Let H be a real Hilbert space, and let be a quasi-nonexpansive mapping. Set for . Then the following properties are reached for all :
-
(i)
and ;
-
(ii)
;
-
(iii)
.
Remark 2.2 Let , where is a quasi-nonexpansive mapping and . We have and . It follows from (ii) of Lemma 2.1 that , which implies that is firmly quasi-nonexpansive when . On the other hand, if is a firmly quasi-nonexpansive mapping, we can obtain , where T is quasi-nonexpansive. This is proved by the following inequalities.
For all and ,
where is firmly quasi-nonexpansive.
Lemma 2.3 ([24])
Let H be a real Hilbert space. Then for all and ,
3 Convergence of the alternating Mann iterative Algorithms 1.1 and 1.2
Theorem 3.1 Let , , be real Hilbert spaces. Given two bounded linear operators , , let and be quasi-nonexpansive mappings with nonempty fixed point set and . Assume that , are demiclosed at origin, and the solution set Γ of (1.8) is nonempty. Let be a positive non-decreasing sequence such that , where , stand for the spectral radiuses of and , respectively, and ε is small enough. Then, the sequence generated by Algorithm 1.1 weakly converges to a solution of (1.8), provided that and for small enough . Moreover, , and as .
Proof Taking , i.e., ; and . We have
From the definition of , it follows that
Using equality (2.1), we have
By (3.1)-(3.3), we obtain
Similarly, by Algorithm 1.1, we have
By adding the two last inequalities, and by taking into account assumptions on and the fact that , we obtain
Using the fact that U and T are quasi-nonexpansive mappings, it follows from the property (ii) of Lemma 2.1 that
and
So, by (3.6), we have
Now, by setting , we obtain the following inequality:
On the other hand, noting that
we have
The sequence being decreasing and lower bounded by 0, consequently it converges to some finite limit, says . Again from (3.8), we have , and hence
by the assumption on . Similarly, by the conditions on , and , we obtain
Since
and is bounded, we have . It follows from that . So,
as , which infers that is asymptotically regular, namely . Similarly, , and is asymptotically regular, too. Now, relation (3.9) and the assumption on imply that
which ensures that both sequences and are bounded thanks to the fact that converges to a finite limit.
Taking and , from and , we have and . Combined with the demiclosednesses of and at 0,
yields and . So, and . On the other hand, and lower semicontinuity of the norm imply that
hence .
Next, we will show the uniqueness of the weak cluster points of and . Indeed, let , be other weak cluster points of and , respectively, then . From the definition of , we have
Without loss of generality, we may assume that , and because of the boundedness of the sequence . By passing to the limit in relation (3.10), we obtain
Reversing the role of and , we also have
By adding the two last equalities, and having in mind that is a non-decreasing sequence satisfying , we obtain
Hence and , this implies that the whole sequence weakly converges to a solution of problem (1.8), which completes the proof. □
Remark 3.2 Taking in Algorithm 1.1, it follows from Remark 2.2 that Theorem 3.1 becomes Theorem 1.1, which is proved by Moudafi [17].
Theorem 3.3 Let , , be real Hilbert spaces. Given two bounded linear operators , , let and be quasi-nonexpansive mappings with nonempty fixed point set and . Assume that , are demiclosed at origin, and the solution set Γ of (1.8) is nonempty. Let be a positive non-decreasing sequence such that , where , stand for the spectral radiuses of and , respectively, and ε is small enough. Then the sequence generated by Algorithm 1.2 weakly converges to a solution of (1.8), provided that is an non-increasing sequence such that for small enough . Moreover, , and as .
Proof Taking , i.e., ; and . By repeating the proof of Theorem 3.1, we have that (3.6) is true.
Using the fact that U and T are quasi-nonexpansive mappings, it follows from Lemma 2.3 that
and
So, by (3.6) and the assumption on , we have
Now, by setting , we obtain the following inequality:
Following the lines of the proof of Theorem 3.1, by the conditions on and , we have that the sequence converges to some finite limit, say . Furthermore, we obtain
Since
and is bounded, we have . It follows from
that is asymptotically regular. Similarly, and is asymptotically regular, too.
The rest of the proof is analogous to that of Theorem 3.1. □
4 Applications
We now turn our attention to providing some applications relying on some convex and nonlinear analysis notions, see, for example, [25].
4.1 Convex feasibility problem (1.3)
Taking and , we have the following alterative Mann iterative algorithms for CFP (1.3).
Algorithm 4.1 Let , be arbitrary.
Algorithm 4.2 Let , be arbitrary.
4.2 Variational problems via resolvent mappings
Given a maximal monotone operator , it is well known that its associated resolvent mapping, , is quasi-nonexpansive and . In other words, zeroes of M are exactly fixed-points of its resolvent mapping. By taking , , where is another maximal monotone operator, the problem under consideration is nothing but
and the algorithms take the following equivalent form.
Algorithm 4.3 Let , be arbitrary.
Algorithm 4.4 Let , be arbitrary.
References
Censor Y, Elfving T: A multiprojection algorithm using Bregman projections in a product space. Numer. Algorithms 1994, 8: 221–239. 10.1007/BF02142692
Byrne C: Iterative oblique projection onto convex subsets and the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2002, 18: 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 Probl. 2004, 20: 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 Probl. 2005, 21: 1655–1665. 10.1088/0266-5611/21/5/009
Thakur BS, Dewangan R, Postolache M: Strong convergence of new iteration process for a strongly continuous semigroup of asymptotically pseudocontractive mappings. Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. 2013. 10.1080/01630563.2013.808667
Xu HK: A variable Krasnosel’skiĭ-Mann algorithm and the multiple-set split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2006, 22: 2021–2034. 10.1088/0266-5611/22/6/007
Yang Q: The relaxed CQ algorithm solving the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2004, 20: 1261–1266. 10.1088/0266-5611/20/4/014
Yang Q, Zhao J: Generalized KM theorems and their applications. Inverse Probl. 2006, 22: 833–844. 10.1088/0266-5611/22/3/006
Yao Y, Postolache M, Liou YC: Strong convergence of a self-adaptive method for the split feasibility problem. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 201
Yao Y, Postolache M, Liou YC: Variant extragradient-type method for monotone variational inequalities. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 185
Yao Y, Postolache M, Liou YC: Coupling Ishikawa algorithms with hybrid techniques for pseudocontractive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 221 10.1186/1687-1812-2013-211(2013)
Yao Y, Postolache M: Iterative methods for pseudomonotone variational inequalities and fixed point problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2012, 155(1):273–287. 10.1007/s10957-012-0055-0
Xu HK: Iterative methods for the split feasibility problem in infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Inverse Probl. 2010., 26(10): Article ID 105018
Bauschke HH, Borwein JM: On projection algorithms for solving convex feasibility problems. SIAM Rev. 1996, 38(3):367–426. 10.1137/S0036144593251710
Yao Y, Wu J, Liou YC: Regularized methods for the split feasibility problem. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 140679
Zhao J, Yang Q: Several solution methods for the split feasibility problem. Inverse Probl. 2005, 21: 1791–1799. 10.1088/0266-5611/21/5/017
Moudafi, A: Alternating CQ-algorithm for convex feasibility and split fixed-point problems. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. (submitted for publication)
Attouch H, Bolte J, Redont P, Soubeyran A: Alternating proximal algorithms for weakly coupled minimization problems. Applications to dynamical games and PDEs. J. Convex Anal. 2008, 15: 485–506.
Censor Y, Bortfeld T, Martin B, Trofimov A: A unified approach for inversion problems in intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 2006, 51: 2353–2365. 10.1088/0031-9155/51/10/001
Censor Y, Segal A: The split common fixed point problem for directed operators. J. Convex Anal. 2009, 16: 587–600.
Censor Y, Gibali A, Reich S: Algorithms for the split variational inequality problem. Numer. Algorithms 2012, 59: 301–323. 10.1007/s11075-011-9490-5
Moudafi A: A note on the split common fixed-point problem for quasi-nonexpansive operators. Nonlinear Anal. 2011, 74: 4083–4087. 10.1016/j.na.2011.03.041
Maruster S, Popirlan C: On the Mann-type iteration and convex feasibility problem. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 2008, 212: 390–396. 10.1016/j.cam.2006.12.012
Matinez-Yanes C, Xu HK: Strong convergence of the CQ method for fixed point processes. Nonlinear Anal. 2006, 64: 2400–2411. 10.1016/j.na.2005.08.018
Rockafellar RT, Wets R Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften 317. In Variational Analysis. Springer, Berlin; 1998.
Acknowledgements
The research was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Program No. 3122013k004), it was also supported by the science research foundation program in the Civil Aviation University of China (2012KYM04). The authors would also like to thank the referees for careful reading of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors carried out the algorithm design and drafted the manuscript. The authors completed the proof. 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 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, J., He, S. Alternating mann iterative algorithms for the split common fixed-point problem of quasi-nonexpansive mappings. Fixed Point Theory Appl 2013, 288 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-288
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-1812-2013-288