Abstract
In this paper, we establish the bounded rationality model M for generalized vector equilibrium problems by using a nonlinear scalarization technique. By using the model M, we introduce a new well-posedness concept for generalized vector equilibrium problems, which unifies its Hadamard and Levitin-Polyak well-posedness. Furthermore, sufficient conditions for the well-posedness for generalized vector equilibrium problems are given. As an application, sufficient conditions on the well-posedness for generalized equilibrium problems are obtained.
MSC: 49K40, 90C31.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
As is well known, the notion of well-posedness can be divided into two different groups: Hadamard type and Tykhonov type [1]. Roughly speaking, Hadamard types of well-posedness for a problem means the continuous dependence of the optimal solution from the data of the problem. Tykhonov types of well-posedness for a problem such as Tykhonov and Levitin-Polyak well-posedness are based on the convergence of approximating solution sequences of the problem. Some researchers have investigated the relations between them for different problems (see [1–4]). The notion of extended well-posedness has been proposed by Zolezzi [5] in the context of scalar optimization. In some sense this notion unifies the ideas of Tykhonov and Hadamard well-posedness. Moreover, the notion of extended well-posedness has been generalized to vector optimization problems by Huang [6–8].
On the other hand, the vector equilibrium problem provides a very general model for a wide range of problems, for example, the vector optimization problem, the vector variational inequality problem, the vector complementarity problem and the vector saddle point problem. In the literature, existence results for various types of vector equilibrium problems have been investigated intensively; see, e.g., [9, 10] and the references therein. The study of well-posedness for vector equilibrium problems is another important topic in vector optimization theory. Recently, Tykhonov types well-posedness for vector optimization problems, vector variational inequality problems and vector equilibrium problems have been intensively studied in the literature, such as [11–17]. Among those papers, we observe that the scalarization technique is an efficient approach to deal with Tykhonov types well-posedness for vector optimization problems. As noted in [12, 16], the notions of well-posedness in the scalar case can be extended to the vector case and, for this end, one needs an appropriate scalarizarion technique. Such a technique is supposed to preserve some well-posedness properties when one passes from the vectorial to the scalar case, and simple examples show that linear scalarization is not useful from this point of view even in the convex case. An effort in this direction was made in the papers (see [11, 12, 16, 18]). Miglierina et al. [11] investigated several types of well-posedness concepts for vectorial optimization problems by using a nonlinear scalarization procedure. Some equivalences between well-posedness of vectorial optimization problems and well-posedness of corresponding scalar optimization problems are given. By virtue of a nonlinear scalarization function, Durea [12] proved the Tykhonov well-posedness of the scalar optimization problems are equivalent to the Tykhonov well-posedness of the original vectorial optimization problems. Very recently, Li and Xia [16] investigated Levitin-Polyak well-posedness for vectorial optimization problems by using a nonlinear scalarization function. They also showed the equivalence relations between the Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of scalar optimization problems and the vectorial optimization problems.
Motivated and inspired by the research work mentioned above, we introduce a new well-posedness concept for generalized vector equilibrium problems (in short (GVEP)), which unifies its Hadamard and Levitin-Polyak well-posedness. The concept of well-posedness for (GVEP) is investigated by using a new method which is different from the ones used in [5–8]. Our method is based on a nonlinear scalarization technique and the bounded rationality model M (see [19–22]). Furthermore, we give some sufficient conditions on various types of well-posedness for (GVEP). Finally, we apply these results to generalized equilibrium problems (in short (GEP)).
2 Preliminaries
Let X be a nonempty subset of the Hausdorff topological space H and Y be a Hausdorff topological vector space. Assume that C denotes a nonempty, closed, convex, and pointed cone in Y with apex at the origin and , where intC denotes the topological interior of C.
Let be a set-valued mapping and be a vector-valued mapping, the problem of interest, called generalized vector equilibrium problems (in short (GVEP)), which consist of finding an element such that and
When and , the generalized vector equilibrium problem becomes the generalized equilibrium problem (in short (GEP)): finding an element such that and
Now we introduce the notion of Levitin-Polyak approximating solution sequence for (GVEP).
Definition 2.1 A sequence is called a Levitin-Polyak approximating solution sequence (in short LP sequence) for (GVEP), if there exists with such that
and
Next, we introduce a nonlinear scalarization function and their related properties.
For fixed , the nonlinear scalarization function is defined by
The nonlinear scalarization function has the following properties:
-
(i)
;
-
(ii)
;
-
(iii)
, for all .
Definition 2.2 Let be a vector-valued mapping.
-
(i)
φ is said to be C-upper semicontinuous at x if for any open neighborhood V of zero element in Y, there is an open neighborhood U at x in X such that for any , ;
-
(ii)
φ is said to be C-upper semicontinuous on X if φ is C-upper semicontinuous on each ;
-
(iii)
φ is said to be C-lower semicontinuous at x if for any open neighborhood V of zero element in Y, there is an open neighborhood U at x in X such that for any , ;
-
(iv)
φ is said to be C-lower semicontinuous on X if φ is C-lower semicontinuous on each .
Remark 2.1 In Definition 2.2, when , , being C-upper semicontinuous reduces to being upper semicontinuous and being C-lower semicontinuous reduces to being lower semicontinuous.
Lemma 2.2 If is C-upper semicontinuous on , then is upper semicontinuous on .
Proof In order to show that is upper semicontinuous on , we must check, for any , the set is closed.
Let and , we have , that is to say, by Lemma 2.1(i), . Next, we only need to prove that , that is, . By way of contradiction, assume that , then there exists an open neighborhood V of zero element in Y such that
Since φ is C-upper semicontinuous at , we have
It contradicts . So L is closed. It shows is upper semicontinuous on . □
Finally, we recall some useful definitions and lemmas.
Let be a set-valued mapping. F is said to be upper semicontinuous at if for any open set , there is an open neighborhood of x such that for each ; F is said to be lower semicontinuous at x if for any open set , there is an open neighborhood of x such that , for each ; F is said to be an usco mapping if F is upper semicontinuous and is nonempty compact for each ; F is said to be closed if is closed, where is the graph of F.
Lemma 2.3 [22]
Let X and Y be two metric spaces. Suppose that is a usco mapping. Then for any and any , there is a subsequence such that .
Lemma 2.4 [24]
If is closed and X is compact, then F is upper semicontinuous on Y.
Let be a metric space. Denote by all nonempty compact subsets of X. For arbitrary , define
where
and
It is obvious that h is a Hausdorff metric on .
Lemma 2.5 [25]
Let be a metric space and h be Hausdorff metric on X. Then is complete if and only if is complete.
3 Bounded rationality model and definition of well-posedness for (GVEP)
Let be a metric space. The problem space Λ of (GVEP) is given by
For any , , define
where h denotes a Hausdorff distance on X. Clearly, is a metric space.
Next, the bounded rationality model for (GVEP) is defined as follows:
-
(i)
Λ and X are two metric spaces;
-
(ii)
the feasible set of the problem is defined by
-
(iii)
the solution set of the problem is defined by
-
(iv)
the rationality function of the problem is defined by
Lemma 3.1
-
(1)
, .
-
(2)
For all , .
-
(3)
For all and , if and only if , . Particularly, if and only if .
Proof (1) If , then . By Lemma 2.1(i), we have
-
(2)
Obvious.
-
(3)
If , , by Lemma 2.1(i), , . Thus, we have .
Conversely, if , then , . By Lemma 2.1(i), we get , . □
Remark 3.1 By Definition 2.1 and Lemma 3.1, for all with , the set of LP approximating solution for the problem λ is defined as
the set of solutions for the problem λ is defined as
Hence, Levitin-Polyak well-posedness for (GVEP) is defined as follows.
Definition 3.1
-
(i)
If , with , there must exist a subsequence such that , then the problem is said to be generalized Levitin-Polyak well-posed (in short GLP-wp);
-
(ii)
If (a singleton), , with , there must have , then the problem is said to be Levitin-Polyak well-posed (in short LP-wp).
Referring to [3], Hadamard well-posedness for (GVEP) is defined as follows.
Definition 3.2
-
(i)
If , , , there must exist a subsequence such that , then the problem is said to be generalized Hadamard well-posed (in short GH-wp);
-
(ii)
If (a singleton), , , , we must have , then the problem is said to be Hadamard well-posed (in short H-wp).
Next, we establish a new well-posedness concept for (GVEP), which unifies its Hadamard and Levitin-Polyak well-posedness.
Definition 3.3
-
(i)
If , , , with , there must exist a subsequence such that , then the problem is said to be generalized well-posed (in short G-wp);
-
(ii)
If (a singleton), , , , with , there must have , then is said to be well-posed (in short wp).
By Definitions 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, it is easy to check the following.
Lemma 3.2
-
(1)
If the problem is G-wp, then λ must be GLP-wp.
-
(2)
If the problem is wp, then λ must be LP-wp.
Lemma 3.3
-
(1)
If the problem is G-wp, then λ must be GH-wp.
-
(2)
If the problem is wp, then λ must be H-wp.
4 Sufficient conditions for well-posedness of (GVEP)
Assume that the bounded rationality model for (GVEP) is given. Now, let be a compact metric space, be a Banach space, and C be a nonempty, closed, convex, and pointed cone in Y with apex at the origin and .
In order to show sufficient conditions for well-posedness of (VEP), we first give the following lemmas.
Lemma 4.1 is a complete metric space.
Proof Let be any Cauchy sequence in Λ, then for any , there is a positive integer N such that for any ,
Then, for any fixed , is a Cauchy sequence in Y, and is a Cauchy sequence in . By Lemma 2.5, is a complete spaces and is also complete spaces. It follows that there exist and such that and . Thus, for all , we have
Next, we will prove that , thus is a complete metric space.
-
(i)
For any open convex neighborhood V of zero element in Y, there is a positive integer such that for all ,
(1)
and
Since , is C-upper semicontinuous on , thus there are an open neighborhood of at x and an open neighborhood of at y such that
By (1), (2), and (3), we have
It shows is C-upper semicontinuous on .
-
(ii)
It is easy to check that , , , is continuous on X and , is a nonempty compact set.
-
(iii)
Since , there exists such that and , . Firstly, we may suppose that , since X is a compact metric space. For all ,
(4)
Note that G is continuous on X, we have
By (4) and (5), we get
Hence, .
Finally, we only need to prove that , . By way of contradiction, assume that there exists such that . It shows that there exists an open convex neighborhood V of zero element in Y such that .
Since , there is a positive integer such that ,
By virtue of , there exists such that . Note that is C-upper semicontinuous on , then there exists a positive integer such that ,
Let , , by (6) and (7), we have
This is a contradiction to , . □
Lemma 4.2 is an usco mapping.
Proof Since X is a compact metric space, by Lemma 2.4, it suffices to show that is closed, where . That is to say, , , , , we need to show that .
In fact, for each , since , then there exists such that . Let with , there must be . Since , there exists such that . By
we get . Note that set-value mapping G is continuous on X, then
By (8) and (9), we get
Since is a nonempty compact subset of X, by (10), we have . It shows that . □
Lemma 4.3 For all , is lower semicontinuous at .
Proof By Lemma 4.1, it is only need to show that , , , , , there exists a positive integer N such that ,
By definition of the least upper bound, there exists such that
Note that and , we have
From (13), there exists such that .
Since , that is to say, there exists a positive integer such that ,
where , , re is an open neighborhood of zero element in Y. Thus, by (14) and Lemma 2.1(ii), we get
By (15) and Lemma 2.1(iii), we get
By Lemma 2.2, is upper semicontinuous on . Then there exists a positive integer such that ,
Let , , by (16), (17), and (12), we get the inequality (11):
□
Next, we give sufficient conditions for G-wp and wp of (VEP).
Theorem 4.1
-
(1)
For all , the problems λ is G-wp.
-
(2)
For all , if (a singleton), then the problem λ is wp.
Proof (1) , , , with , then
and
From (18), there exists such that as . It follows by Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 2.3 that there exists such that . By
we get
By Lemma 4.3 and (19), we have
That is,
By (20) and (21), we have . It shows that λ is G-wp.
-
(2)
By way of contradiction. If the sequence does not converge x, then there exists an open neighborhood O at x and a subsequence of such that . Since (a singleton), by the proof of (1), we get . This is a contradiction to . □
Similarly, by Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3, it is easy to check the following.
Theorem 4.2
-
(1)
For all , the problems λ must be GLP-wp and GH-wp.
-
(2)
For all , if (a singleton), then the problem λ must be LP-wp and H-wp.
Finally, we apply these results to (GEP). Let , , the problem space of (GEP) is defined as
For any , define
It is easy to check that is a complete metric space. Hence, we have the following.
Corollary 4.1
-
(1)
For all , the problem λ is G-wp.
-
(2)
For all , if (a singleton), then the problem λ is wp.
Corollary 4.2
-
(1)
For all , the problem λ must be GLP-wp and GH-wp.
-
(2)
For all , if (a singleton), then the problem λ must be LP-wp and H-wp.
References
Dontchev AL, Zolezzi T 1543. In Well-Posed Optimization Problems. Springer, Berlin; 1993.
Revalski JP, Zhivkov NV: Well-posed constrained optimization problems in metric spaces. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 1993, 76: 145–163. 10.1007/BF00952826
Yang H, Yu J: Unified approaches to well-posedness with some applications. J. Glob. Optim. 2005, 31: 371–381. 10.1007/s10898-004-4275-1
Yu J, Yang H, Yu C: Well-posed Ky Fan’s point, quasi-variational inequality and Nash equilibrium problems. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 2007, 66: 777–790. 10.1016/j.na.2005.10.018
Zolezzi T: Extended well-posedness of optimization problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 1996, 91: 257–266. 10.1007/BF02192292
Huang XX: Extended well-posedness properties of vector optimization problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2000, 106: 165–182. 10.1023/A:1004615325743
Huang XX: Extended and strongly extended well-posedness of set-valued optimization problems. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 2001, 53: 101–116. 10.1007/s001860000100
Huang XX: Pointwise well-posedness of perturbed vector optimization problems in a vector-valued variational principle. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2001, 108: 671–686. 10.1023/A:1017595610700
Giannessi F (Ed): Vector Variational Inequalities and Vector Equilibria: Mathematical Theories. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht; 2000.
Chen GY, Huang XX, Yang XQ: Vector Optimization: Set-Valued and Variational Analysis. Springer, Berlin; 2005.
Miglierina E, Molho E, Rocca M: Well-posedness and scalarization in vector optimization. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2005, 126: 391–409. 10.1007/s10957-005-4723-1
Durea M: Scalarization for pointwise well-posed vectorial problems. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 2007, 66: 409–418. 10.1007/s00186-007-0162-0
Crespi GP, Guerraggio A, Rocca M: Well posedness in vector optimization problems and vector variational inequalities. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2007, 132: 213–226. 10.1007/s10957-006-9144-2
Huang XX, Yang XQ: Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of constrained vector optimization problems. J. Glob. Optim. 2007, 37: 287–304. 10.1007/s10898-006-9050-z
Zui X, Zhu DL, Huang XX: Levitin-Polyak well-posedness in generalized vector variational inequality problem with functional constraints. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 2008, 67: 505–524. 10.1007/s00186-007-0200-y
Li Z, Xia FQ: Scalarization method for Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of vectorial optimization problems. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 2012, 76: 361–375. 10.1007/s00186-012-0410-9
Li SJ, Li MH: Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of vector equilibrium problems. Math. Methods Oper. Res. 2009, 69: 125–140. 10.1007/s00186-008-0214-0
Gerth C, Weidner P: Nonconvex separation theorems and some applications in vector optimization. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 1990, 67: 297–320. 10.1007/BF00940478
Anderlini L, Canning D: Structural stability implies robustness to bounded rationality. J. Econ. Theory 2001, 101: 395–422. 10.1006/jeth.2000.2784
Yu C, Yu J: On structural stability and robustness to bounded rationality. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 2006, 65: 583–592. 10.1016/j.na.2005.09.039
Yu C, Yu J: Bounded rationality in multiobjective games. Nonlinear Anal. TMA 2007, 67: 930–937. 10.1016/j.na.2006.06.050
Yu J, Yang H, Yu C: Structural stability and robustness to bounded rationality for non-compact cases. J. Glob. Optim. 2009, 44: 149–157. 10.1007/s10898-008-9316-8
Luc DT: Theory of Vector Optimization. Springer, Berlin; 1989.
Aliprantis CD, Border KC: Infinite Dimensional Analysis. Springer, Berlin; 1999.
Klein E, Thompson AC: Theory of Correspondences. Wiley, New York; 1984.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by NSFC (Grant Number: 11161008), the Guizhou Provincial Science and Technology Foundation (20132235), (20122289). The authors thank the anonymous referees for their constructive comments which help us to revise the paper.
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 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
Deng, X., Xiang, S. Well-posed generalized vector equilibrium problems. J Inequal Appl 2014, 127 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-127
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029-242X-2014-127