We introduce several types of the Levitin-Polyak well-posedness for a generalized vector quasivariational inequality problem with both abstract set constraints and functional constraints. Criteria and characterizations of these types of the Levitin-Polyak well-posednesses with or without gap functions of generalized vector quasivariational inequality problem are given. The results in this paper unify, generalize, and extend some known results in the literature.

1. Introduction

The vector variational inequality in a finite-dimensional Euclidean space has been introduced in [1] and applications have been given. Chen and Cheng [2] studied the vector variational inequality in infinite-dimensional space and applied it to vector optimization problem. Since then, many authors [3–11] have intensively studied the vector variational inequality on different assumptions in infinite-dimensional spaces. Lee et al. [12, 13], Lin et al. [14], Konnov and Yao [15], Daniilidis and Hadjisavvas [16], Yang and Yao [17], and Oettli and Schläger [18] studied the generalized vector variational inequality and obtained some existence results. Chen and Li [19] and Lee et al. [20] introduced and studied the generalized vector quasi-variational inequality and established some existence theorems.

On the other hand, it is well known that the well-posedness is very important for both optimization theory and numerical methods of optimization problems, which guarantees that, for approximating solution sequences, there is a subsequence which converges to a solution. The study of well-posedness originates from Tykhonov [21] in dealing with unconstrained optimization problems. Its extension to the constrained case was developed by Levitin and Polyak [22]. The study of generalized Levitin-Polyak well-posedness for convex scalar optimization problems with functional constraints originates from Konsulova and Revalski [23]. Recently, this research was extended to nonconvex optimization problems with abstract set constraints and functional constraints (see [24]), nonconvex vector optimization problem with abstract set constraints and functional constraints (see [25]), variational inequality problems with abstract set constraints and functional constraints (see [26]), generalized inequality problems with abstract set constraints and functional constraints [27], generalized quasi-inequality problems with abstract set constraints and functional constraints [28], generalized vector inequality problems with abstract set constraints and functional constraints [29], and vector quasivariational inequality problems with abstract set constraints and functional constraints [30]. For more details on well-posedness on optimizations and related problems, please also see [31–37] and the references therein. It is worthy noting that there is no study on the Levitin-Polyak well-posedness for a generalized vector quasi-variational inequality problem.

In this paper, we will introduce four types of Levitin-Polyak well-posedness for a generalized vector quasivariational inequality problem with an abstract set constraint and a functional constraint. In Section 2, by virtue of a nonlinear scalarization function and a gap function for generalized vector quasi-varitional inequality problems, we show equivalent relations between the Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of the optimization problem and the Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of generalized vector quasi-varitional inequality problems. In Section 3, we derive some various criteria and characterizations for the (generalized) Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of the generalized vector quasi-variational inequality problems. The results in this paper unify, generalize, and extend some known results in [26–30].

2. Preliminaries

Throughout this paper, unless otherwise specified, we use the following notations and assumptions.

Let (X, ∥·∥) be a normed space equipped with norm topology, and let (Z, d₁) be a metric space. Let X₁ ⊂ X, K ⊂ Z be nonempty and closed sets. Let Y be a locally convex space ordered by a nontrivial closed and convex cone C with nonempty interior int C, that is, y₁ ≤ y₂ if and only if y₂ − y₁ ∈ C for any y₁, y₂ ∈ Y. Let L(X, Y) be the space of all the linear continuous operators from X to Y. Let T : X₁ → 2^L(X,Y) and be strict set-valued mappings (i.e., T(x) ≠ ∅ and S(x) ≠ ∅, for all x ∈ X₁), and let g : X₁ → Z be a continuous vector-valued mapping. We denote by 〈z, x〉 the value z(x), where z ∈ L(X, Y), x ∈ X₁. Let X₀ = {x ∈ X₁ : g(x) ∈ K} be nonempty. We consider the following generalized vector quasi-variational inequality problem with functional constraints and abstract set constraints.

Find

such that

and there exists

satisfying

(GVQVI)

Denote by

the solution set of (GVQVI).

Let Z₁, Z₂ be two normed spaces. A set-valued map F from Z₁ to is

(i) closed, on Z₃⊆Z₁, if for any sequence {x_n}⊆Z₃ with x_n → x and y_n ∈ F(x_n) with y_n → y, one has y ∈ F(x);

(ii) lower semicontinuous (l.s.c. in short) at x ∈ Z₁, if {x_n}⊆Z₁, x_n → x, and y ∈ F(x) imply that there exists a sequence {y_n}⊆Z₂ satisfying y_n → y such that y_n ∈ F(x_n) for n sufficiently large. If F is l.s.c. at each point of Z₁, we say that F is l.s.c. on Z₁;

(iii) upper semicontinuous (u.s.c. in short) at x ∈ Z₁, if for any neighborhood V of F(x), there exists a neighborhood U of x such that F(x^′)⊆V, for all x^′ ∈ U. If F is u.s.c. at each point of Z₁, we say that F is u.s.c. on Z₁.

It is obvious that any u.s.c. nonempty closed-valued map F is closed.

Let (P, d) be a metric space, P₁ ⊂ P, and x ∈ P. We denote by

the distance from the point x to the set P₁. For a topological vector space V, we denote by V^* its dual space. For any set Φ ⊂ V, we denote the positive polar cone of Φ by

(2.1)

Let e ∈ int C be fixed. Denote

(2.2)

Definition 2.1. (i) A sequence {x_n}⊆X₁ is called a type I Levitin-Polyak (LP in short) approximating solution sequence if there exist with ϵ_n → 0 and z_n ∈ T(x_n) such that

(2.3)

(2.4)

(2.5)

(ii) {x_n}⊆X₁ is called a type II LP approximating solution sequence if there exist with ϵ_n → 0 and z_n ∈ T(x_n) such that (2.3)–(2.5) hold, and, for any z ∈ T(x_n), there exists w(n, z) ∈ S(x_n) satisfying

(2.6)

(iii) {x_n}⊆X₁ is called a generalized type I LP approximating solution sequence if there exist with ϵ_n → 0 and z_n ∈ T(x_n) such that

(2.7)

and (2.4), (2.5) hold.

(iv) {x_n}⊆X₁ is called a generalized type II LP approximating solution sequence if there exist with ϵ_n → 0, z_n ∈ T(x_n) such that (2.4), (2.5), and (2.7) hold, and, for any z ∈ T(x_n), there exists w(n, z) ∈ S(x_n) such that (2.6) holds.

Definition 2.2. (GVQVI) is said to be type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posed if the solution set of (GVQVI) is nonempty, and, for any type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP approximating solution sequence {x_n}, there exists a subsequence of {x_n} and such that .

Remark 2.3. (i) It is clear that any (generalized) type II LP approximating solution sequence is a (generalized) type I LP approximating solution sequence. Thus, (generalized) type I LP well-posedness implies (generalized) type II LP well-posedness.

(ii) Each type of LP well-posedness of (GVQVI) implies that the solution set is compact.

(iii) Suppose that g is uniformly continuous functions on a set

(2.8)

for some δ₀ > 0. Then generalized type I (resp., generalized type II) LP well-posedness of (GVQVI) implies its type I (resp., type II) LP well-posedness.

(iv) If Y = R¹, , then type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posedness of (GVQVI) reduces to type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posedness of the generalized quasi-variational inequality problem defined by Jiang et al. [28]. If Y = R¹, , S(x) = X₀ for all x ∈ X₁, then type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posedness of (GVQVI) reduces to type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posedness of the generalized variational inequality problem defined by Huang, and Yang [27] which contains as special cases for the type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posedness of the variational inequality problem in [26].

(v) If S(x) = X₀ for all x ∈ X₁, then type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posedness of (GVQVI) reduces to type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posedness of the generalized vector variational inequality problem defined by Xu et al. [29].

(vi) If the set-valued map T is replaced by a single-valued map F, then type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posedness of (GVQVI) reduces to type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posedness of the vector quasivariational inequality problems defined by Zhang et al. [30].

Consider the following statement:

(2.9)

Proposition 2.4. If (GVQVI) is type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posed, then (2.9) holds. Conversely if (2.9) holds and is compact, then (1) is type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posed.

The proof of Proposition 2.4 is elementary and thus omitted.

To see the various LP well-posednesses of (1) are adaptations of the corresponding LP well-posednesses in minimizing problems by using the Auslender gap function, we consider the following general constrained optimization problem:

(P)

where

is nonempty and f : X₁ → R¹ ∪ {+∞} is proper. The feasible set of (P) is

, where

. The optimal set and optimal value of (P) are denoted by

and

, respectively. Note that if

, where

(2.10)

then

. In this paper, we always assume that

Definition 2.5. (i) A sequence is called a type I LP minimizing sequence for (P) if

(2.11)

(2.12)

(ii) is called a type II LP minimizing sequence for (P) if

(2.13)

and (2.12) hold.

(iii) is called a generalized type I LP minimizing sequence for (P) if

(2.14)

and (2.11) hold.

(iv) is called a generalized type II LP minimizing sequence for (P) if (2.13) and (2.14) hold.

Definition 2.6. (P) is said to be type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP well-posed if the solution set of (P) is nonempty, and for any type I (resp., type II, generalized type I, generalized type II) LP minimizing sequence {x_n}, there exists a subsequence of {x_n} and such that .

The Auslender gap function for (GVQVI) is defined as follows:

(2.15)

Let X₂⊆X be defined by

(2.16)

In the rest of this paper, we set in (P) equal to X₁∩X₂. Note that if S is closed on X₁, then is closed.

Recall the following widely used function (see, e.g., [38])

(2.17)

It is known that ξ is a continuous, (strictly) monotone (i.e., for any y₁, y₂ ∈ Y, y₁ − y₂ ∈ C implies that ξ(y₁) ≥ ξ(y₂) and (y₁ − y₂ ∈ int C implies that ξ(y₁) > ξ(y₂)), subadditive and convex function. Moreover, it holds that ξ(te) = t, for all t ∈ R¹ and .

Now we given some properties for the function f defined by (2.15).

Lemma 2.7. Let the function f be defined by (2.15), and let the set-valued map T be compact-valued on X₁. Then

(i)
;
(ii)
for any , f(x) = 0 if and only if .

Proof. (i) Let . Suppose to the contrary that f(x) < 0. Then, there exists a δ > 0 such that f(x)<−δ. By definition, for δ/2 > 0, there exists a z ∈ T(x), such that

(2.18)

Thus, we have

(2.19)

which is impossible when x^′ = x. This proves (i).

(ii) Suppose that such that f(x) = 0.

Then, it follows from the definition of that x ∈ S(x). And from the definition of f(x) we know that there exist z_n ∈ T(x) and 0 < ϵ_n → 0 such that

(2.20)

that is,

(2.21)

By the compactness of T(x), there exists a sequence

of {z_n} and some z ∈ T(x) such that

(2.22)

This fact, together with the continuity of ξ and (2.21), implies that

(2.23)

It follows that

Conversely, assume that . It follows from the definition of that x ∈ S(x). Suppose to the contrary that f(x) > 0. Then, for any z ∈ T(x),

(2.24)

Thus, there exist δ > 0 and x₀ ∈ S(x) such that

(2.25)

It follows that

(2.26)

As a result, we have

(2.27)

This contradicts the fact that

. So, f(x) = 0. This completes the proof.

Lemma 2.8. Let f be defined by (2.15). Assume that the set-valued map T is compact-valued and u.s.c. on X₁ and the set-valued map S is l.s.c. on X₁. Then f is l.s.c. function from X₁ to R¹ ∪ {+∞}. Further assume that the solution set of (GVQVI) is nonempty, then Dom (f) ≠ ∅.

Proof. First we show that f(x)>−∞, for all x ∈ X₁. Suppose to the contrary that there exists x₀ ∈ X₁ such that f(x₀) = −∞. Then, there exist z_n ∈ T(x₀) and with M_n → +∞ such that

(2.28)

Thus,

(2.29)

By the compactness of T(x₀), there exist a sequence

and some z₀ ∈ T(x₀) such that

. This fact, together with (2.29) and the continuity of ξ on Y, implies that

(2.30)

which is impossible, since ξ is a finite function on Y.

Second, we show that f is l.s.c. on X₁. Let a ∈ R¹. Suppose that {x_n} ⊂ X₁ satisfies f(x_n) ≤ a, for all n, and x_n → x₀ ∈ X₁. It follows that, for each n, there exist z_n ∈ T(x_n) and 0 < δ_n → 0 such that

(2.31)

For any x^′ ∈ S(x₀), by the l.s.c. of S, we have a sequence {y_n} with {y_n} ∈ S(x_n) converging to x^′ such that

(2.32)

By the u.s.c. of T at x₀ and the compactness of T(x₀), we obtain a subsequence of {z_n} and some z₀ ∈ T(x₀) such that . Taking the limit in (2.32) (with n replaced by n_j), by the continuity of ξ, we have

(2.33)

It follows that . Hence, f is l.s.c. on X₁. Furthermore, if , by Lemma 2.7, we see that Dom (f) ≠ ∅.

Lemma 2.9. Let the function f be defined by (2.15), and let the set-valued map T be compact-valued on X₁. Then,

(i)
{x_n}⊆X₁ is a sequence such that there exist with ϵ_n → 0 and z_n ∈ T(x_n) satisfying (2.4) and (2.5) if and only if and (2.11) hold with ,
(ii)
{x_n}⊆X₁ is a sequence such that there exist with ϵ_n → 0 and z_n ∈ T(x_n) satisfying (2.4) and (2.5), and for any z ∈ T(x_n), there exists w(n, z) ∈ S(x_n) satisfying (2.6) if and only if and (2.13) hold with .

Proof. (i) Let {x_n}⊆X₁ be any sequence if there exist with ϵ_n → 0 and z_n ∈ T(x_n) satisfying (2.4) and (2.5), then we can easily verify that

(2.34)

It follows that (2.11) holds with

For the converse, let and (2.11) hold with . We can see that {x_n}⊆X₁ and (2.4) hold. Furthermore, by (2.11), we have that there exists such that f(x_n) ≤ ϵ_n. By the compactness of T(x_n), we see that for every n there exists z_n ∈ T(x_n) such that

(2.35)

It follows that for every n there exists z_n ∈ T(x_n) such that (2.5) holds.

(ii) Let {x_n}⊆X₁ be any sequence we can verify that

(2.36)

holds if and only if there exists with α_n → 0 and, for any z ∈ T(x_n), there exists w(n, z) ∈ S(x_n) such that

(2.37)

From the proof of (i), we know that limsup _n→∞f(x_n) ≤ 0 and hold if and only if {x_n}⊆X₁ such that there exist with β_n → 0z_n ∈ T(x_n) satisfying (2.4) and (2.5) (with ϵ_n replaced by β_n). Finally, we let ϵ_n = max {α_n, β_n} and the conclusion follows.

Proposition 2.10. Assume that and T is compact-valued on X₁. Then

(i)
(GVQVI) is generalized type I (resp., generalized type II) LP well-posed if and only if (P) is generalized type I (resp., generalized type II) LP well-posed with f(x) defined by (2.15).
(ii)
If (GVQVI) is type I (resp., type II) LP well-posed, then (P) is type I (resp., type II) LP well-posed with f(x) defined by (2.15).

Proof. Let f(x) be defined by (2.15). Since , it follows from Lemma 2.7 that is a solution of (GVQVI) if and only if is an optimal solution of (5) with .

(i)
Similar to the proof of Lemma 2.9, it is also routine to check that a sequence {x_n} is a generalized type I (resp., generalized type II) LP approximating solution sequence if and only if it is a generalized type I (resp., generalized type II) LP minimizing sequence of (P). So (GVQVI) is generalized type I (resp., generalized type II) LP well-posed if and only if (P) is generalized type I (resp., generalized type II) LP well-posed with f(x) defined by (2.15).
(ii)
Since for any x. This fact together with Lemma 2.9 implies that a type I (resp., type II) LP minimizing sequence of (P) is a type I (resp., type II) LP approximating solution sequence. So the type I (resp., type II) LP well-posedness of (GVQVI) implies the type I (resp., type II) LP well-posedness of (P) with f(x) defined by (2.15).

3. Criteria and Characterizations for Generalized LP Well-Posedness of (GVQVI)

In this section, we shall present some necessary and/or sufficient conditions for the various types of (generalized) LP well-posedness of (GVQVI) defined in Section 2.

Now consider a real-valued function c = c(t, s, r) defined for t, s, r ≥ 0 sufficiently small, such that

(3.1)

Theorem 3.1. Let the set-valued map T be compact-valued on X₁. If (GVQVI) is type II LP well-posed, the set-valued map S is closed-valued, then there exist a function c satisfying (3.1) such that

(3.2)

where f(x) is defined by (2.15). Conversely, suppose that

is nonempty and compact and (3.2) holds for some c satisfying (3.1). Then (GVQVI) is type II LP well-posed.

Proof. Define

(3.3)

Since

, it is obvious that c(0,0, 0) = 0. Moreover, if s_n → 0, t_n ≥ 0, r_n = 0, and c(t_n, s_n, r_n) → 0, then there exists a sequence {x_n}⊆X₁ with

(3.4)

such that

(3.5)

Since S is closed-valued, x_n ∈ S(x_n) for any n. This fact, combined with (3.4) and (3.5) and Lemma 2.9 (ii) implies that {x_n} is a type II LP approximating solution sequence of (GVQVI). By Proposition 2.4, we have that t_n → 0.

Conversely, let {x_n} be a type II LP approximating solution sequence of (GVQVI). Then, by (3.2), we have

(3.6)

Let

(3.7)

Then s_n → 0 and r_n = 0, for all n ∈ N. Moreover, by Lemma 2.9, we have that |f(x)| → 0. Then, c(t_n, s_n, r_n) → 0. These facts together with the properties of the function c imply that t_n → 0. By Proposition 2.4, we see that (GVQVI) is type II LP well-posed.

Theorem 3.2. Let the set-valued map T be compact-valued on X₁. If (GVQVI) is generalized type II LP well-posed, the set-valued map S is closed, then there exist a function c satisfying (3.1) such that

(3.8)

where f(x) is defined by (2.15). Conversely, suppose that

is nonempty and compact and (3.8) holds for some c satisfying (3.4) and (3.5). Then, (GVQVI) is generalized type II LP well-posed.

Proof. The proof is almost the same as that of Theorem 3.1. The only difference lies in the proof of the first part of Theorem 3.1. Here we define

(3.9)

Next we give the Furi-Vignoli-type characterizations [39] for the (generalized) type I LP well-posedness of (GVQVI).

Let (X, ∥·∥) be a Banach space. Recall that the Kuratowski measure of noncompactness for a subset H of X is defined as

(3.10)

where diam (H_i) is the diameter of H_i defined by

(3.11)

Given two nonempty subsets A and B of a Banach space (X, ∥·∥), the Hausdorff distance between A and B is defined by

(3.12)

For any ϵ ≥ 0, two types of approximating solution sets for (GVQVI) are defined, respectively, by

(3.13)

Theorem 3.3. Assume that T is u.s.c. and compact-valued on X₁and S is l.s.c. and closed on X₁. Then

(a) (GVQVI) is type I LP well-posed if and only if

(3.14)

(b) (GVQVI) is generalized type I LP well-posed if and only if

(3.15)

Proof. (a) First we show that, for every ϵ > 0, Ω₁(ϵ) is closed. In fact, let x_n ∈ Ω₁(ϵ) and x_n → x₀. Then (2.4) and the following formula hold:

(3.16)

Since x_n → x₀, by the closedness of S and (2.4), we have x₀ ∈ S(x₀). From (3.16), we get

(3.17)

(3.18)

For any v ∈ S(x₀), by the lower semi-continuity of S and (3.18), we can find v_n ∈ S(x_n) with v_n → v such that

(3.19)

By the u.s.c. of T at x₀ and the compactness of T(x₀), there exist a subsequence and some z₀ ∈ T(x₀) such that

(3.20)

This fact, together with the continuity of ξ and (3.19), implies that

(3.21)

It follows that

(3.22)

Hence, x₀ ∈ Ω₁(ϵ).

Second, we show that . It is obvious that . Now suppose that ϵ_n > 0 with ϵ_n → 0 and x^* ∈ ⋂_ϵ>0Ω₁(ϵ_n). Then

(3.23)

(3.24)

(3.25)

From (3.23), we have

(3.26)

From (3.25), we have

(3.27)

that is . Hence, .

Now we assume that (GVQVI) is type I LP well-posed. By Remark 2.3, we know that the solution is nonempty and compact. For every positive real number ϵ, since , one gets

(3.28)

For every n ∈ N, the following relations hold:

(3.29)

where

since

is compact. Hence, in order to prove that lim _ϵ→0μ(Ω₁(ϵ)) = 0, we only need to prove that

(3.30)

Suppose that this is not true, then there exist β > 0, ϵ_n → 0, and sequence {u_n}, u_n ∈ Ω₁(ϵ_n), such that

(3.31)

for n sufficiently large.

Since {u_n} is type I LP approximating sequence for (GVQVI), it contains a subsequence conversing to a point of , which contradicts (3.31).

For the converse, we know that, for every ϵ > 0, the set Ω₁(ϵ) is closed, , and . The theorem on Page. 412 in [40, 41] can be applied, and one concludes that the set is nonempty, compact, and

(3.32)

If {x_n} is type I LP approximating sequence for (GVQVI), then there exists a sequence {ϵ_n} of positive real numbers decreasing to 0 such that x_n ∈ Ω₁(ϵ_n), for every n ∈ N. Since is compact and

(3.33)

by Proposition 2.4, (GVQVI) is type I LP well-posed.

(b) The proof is Similar to that of (a), and it is omitted here. This completes the proof.

Definition 3.4. (i) Let Z be a topological space, and let Z₁⊆Z be nonempty. Suppose that h : Z → R¹ ∪ {+∞} is an extended real-valued function. h is said to be level-compact on Z₁ if, for any s ∈ R¹, the subset {z ∈ Z₁ : h(z) ≤ s} is compact.

(ii) Let X be a finite-dimensional normed space, and let Z₁ ⊂ Z be nonempty. A function h : Z → R¹ ∪ {+∞} is said to be level-bounded on Z₁ if Z₁ is bounded or

(3.34)

Now we establish some sufficient conditions for type I (resp., generalized I type) LP well-posedness of (GVQVI).

Proposition 3.5. Suppose that the solution set of (GVQVI) is nonempty and set-valued map S is l.s.c. and closed on X₁, the set-valued map T is u.s.c. and compact-valued on X₁. Suppose that one of the following conditions holds:

(i) there exists 0 < δ₁ ≤ δ₀ such that X₁(δ₁) is compact, where

(3.35)

(ii) the function f defined by (2.15) is level-compact on X₁∩X₂;

(iii) X is finite-dimensional and

(3.36)

where f is defined by (2.15);

(iv) there exists 0 < δ₁ ≤ δ₀ such that f is level-compact on X₁(δ₁) defined by (3.35). Then (GVQVI) is type I LP well-posed.

Proof. First, we show that each of (i), (ii), and (iii) implies (iv). Clearly, either of (i) and (ii) implies (iv). Now we show that (iii) implies (iv). Indeed, we need only to show that, for any t ∈ R¹, the set

(3.37)

is bounded since X is finite-dimensional space and the function f defined by (2.15) is l.s.c. on X₁ and thus A is closed. Suppose to the contrary that there exists t ∈ R¹ and

such that

and

. From

, we have

Thus,

(3.38)

which contradicts (3.36).

Therefore, we only need to we show that if (iv) holds, then (GVQVI) is type I LP well-posed. Let {x_n} be a type I LP approximating solution sequence for (GVQVI). Then, there exist with ϵ_n → 0 and z_n ∈ T(x_n) such that (2.3), (2.4), and (2.5) hold. From (2.3) and (2.4), we can assume without loss of generality that {x_n}⊆X₁(δ₁). By Lemma 2.9, we can assume without loss of generality that {x_n}⊆{x ∈ X₁(δ₁) : f(x) ≤ 1}. By the level-compactness of f on X₁(δ₁), we can find a subsequence of {x_n} and such that . Taking the limit in (2.3) (with x_n replaced by ), we have . Since S is closed and (2.4) holds, we also have .

Furthermore, from the u.s.c. of T at and the compactness of , we deduce that there exist a subsequence of {z_n} and some such that . From this fact, together with (2.5), we have

(3.39)

Thus,

The next proposition can be proved similarly.

Proposition 3.6. Suppose that the solution set of (GVQVI) is nonempty and set-valued map S is l.s.c. and closed on X₁, the set-valued map T is u.s.c. and compact-valued on X₁. Suppose that one of the following conditions holds:

(i) there exists 0 < δ₁ ≤ δ₀ such that X₂(δ₁) is compact, where

(3.40)

(ii) the function f defined by (2.15) is level-compact on X₁∩X₂;

(iii) X is finite-dimension and

(3.41)

where f is defined by (2.15),

(iv) there exists 0 < δ₁ ≤ δ₀ such that f is level-compact on X₂(δ₁) defined by (3.40). Then (GVQVI) is generalized type II LP well-posed.

Remark 3.7. If X is finite-dimensional, then the “level-compactness” condition in Propositions 3.1 and 3.6 can be replaced by “level boundedness” condition.

Remark 3.8. It is easy to see that the results in this paper unify, generalize and extend the main results in [26–30] and the references therein.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 11171363 and Grant no. 10831009), the Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (Grant No. CSTC, 2009BB8240) and the special fund of Chongqing Key Laboratory (CSTC 2011KLORSE01).

References

1 Giannessi F., R. W. Cottle, F. Giannessi, and J. L. Lions, Theorems of alternative, quadratic programs and complementarity problems, Variational Inequalities and Complementarity Problems, 1980, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 151–186, 578747, ZBL0484.90081.
Google Scholar
2 Chen G. Y. and Cheng G. M., Vector variational inequalities and vector optimization, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 1987, 285, 408–456.
Google Scholar
3 Chen G. Y., Existence of solutions for a vector variational inequality: an extension of the Hartmann-Stampacchia theorem, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. (1992) 74, no. 3, 445–456, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00940320, 1181845, ZBL0795.49010.
10.1007/BF00940320
Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Chen G. Y. and Yang X. Q., The vector complementary problem and its equivalences with the weak minimal element in ordered spaces, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. (1990) 153, no. 1, 136–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022%2D247X(90)90270%2DP, 1080123, ZBL0712.90083.
10.1016/0022-247X(90)90270-P
Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Chen G.-Y. and Craven B. D., Approximate dual and approximate vector variational inequality for multiobjective optimization, Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society A. (1989) 47, no. 3, 418–423, 1018968, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1446788700033139, ZBL0693.90089.
10.1017/S1446788700033139
Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Chen G.-Y. and Craven B. D., A vector variational inequality and optimization over an efficient set, Zeitschrift für Operations Research. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research. (1990) 34, no. 1, 1–12, 1035684, ZBL0693.90091.
10.1007/BF01415945
Google Scholar
7 Siddiqi A. H., Ansari Q. H., and Khaliq A., On vector variational inequalities, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. (1995) 84, no. 1, 171–180, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02191741, 1312968, ZBL0827.47050.
10.1007/BF02191741
Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Yang X. Q., Vector complementarity and minimal element problems, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. (1993) 77, no. 3, 483–495, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00940446, 1233298, ZBL0796.49014.
10.1007/BF00940446
Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Yang X. Q., Vector variational inequality and its duality, Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications A. (1993) 21, no. 11, 869–877, https://doi.org/10.1016/0362%2D546X(93)90052%2DT, 1249666, ZBL0809.49009.
10.1016/0362-546X(93)90052-T
Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Yang X. Q., Generalized convex functions and vector variational inequalities, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. (1993) 79, no. 3, 563–580, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00940559, 1255287, ZBL0797.90085.
10.1007/BF00940559
Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Yu S. J. and Yao J. C., On vector variational inequalities, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. (1996) 89, no. 3, 749–769, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02275358, 1393372, ZBL0848.49012.
10.1007/BF02275358
Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Lee G. M., Kim D. S., Lee B. S., and Cho S. J., Generalized vector variational inequality and fuzzy extension, Applied Mathematics Letters. (1993) 6, no. 6, 47–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/0893%2D9659(93)90077%2DZ, 1348465, ZBL0804.49004.
10.1016/0893-9659(93)90077-Z
Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Lee G. M., Kim D. S., and Lee B. S., Generalized vector variational inequality, Applied Mathematics Letters. (1996) 9, no. 1, 39–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/0893%2D9659(95)00099%2D2, 1389595, ZBL0862.49014.
10.1016/0893-9659(95)00099-2
Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 Lin K. L., Yang D.-P., and Yao J. C., Generalized vector variational inequalities, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. (1997) 92, no. 1, 117–125, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022640130410, 1428131, ZBL0886.90157.
10.1023/A:1022640130410
Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Konnov I. V. and Yao J. C., On the generalized vector variational inequality problem, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. (1997) 206, no. 1, 42–58, https://doi.org/10.1006/jmaa.1997.5192, 1429278, ZBL0878.49006.
10.1006/jmaa.1997.5192
Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Daniilidis A. and Hadjisavvas N., Existence theorems for vector variational inequalities, Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society. (1996) 54, no. 3, 473–481, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0004972700021882, 1419610, ZBL0887.49004.
10.1017/S0004972700021882
Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Yang X. Q. and Yao J. C., Gap functions and existence of solutions to set-valued vector variational inequalities, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. (2002) 115, no. 2, 407–417, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020844423345, 1950701, ZBL1027.49003.
10.1023/A:1020844423345
Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Oettli W. and Schläger D., Existence of equilibria for monotone multivalued mappings, Mathematical Methods of Operations Research. (1998) 48, no. 2, 219–228, https://doi.org/10.1007/s001860050024, 1662824, ZBL0930.90077.
10.1007/s001860050024
Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Chen G. Y. and Li S. J., Existence of solutions for a generalized vector quasivariational inequality, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. (1996) 90, no. 2, 321–334, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02190001, 1399437, ZBL0869.49005.
10.1007/BF02190001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Lee G. M., Lee B. S., and Chang S.-S., On vector quasivariational inequalities, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. (1996) 203, no. 3, 626–638, https://doi.org/10.1006/jmaa.1996.0401, 1417119, ZBL0866.49016.
10.1006/jmaa.1996.0401
Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Tykhonov A. N., On the stability of the functional optimization problem, Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics. (1966) 6, 28–33, https://doi.org/10.1016/0041%2D5553(66)90003%2D6.
10.1016/0041-5553(66)90003-6
Google Scholar
22 Levitin E. S. and Polyak B. T., Convergence of minimizing sequences in conditional extremum problem, Soviet Mathematics Doklady. (1966) 7, 764–767.
Google Scholar
23 Konsulova A. S. and Revalski J. P., Constrained convex optimization problems—well-posedness and stability, Numerical Functional Analysis and Optimization. (1994) 15, no. 7-8, 889–907, https://doi.org/10.1080/01630569408816598, 1305578, ZBL0830.90119.
10.1080/01630569408816598
Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Huang X. X. and Yang X. Q., Generalized Levitin-Polyak well-posedness in constrained optimization, SIAM Journal on Optimization. (2006) 17, no. 1, 243–258, https://doi.org/10.1137/040614943, 2219152, ZBL1137.49024.
10.1137/040614943
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Huang X. X. and Yang X. Q., Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of constrained vector optimization problems, Journal of Global Optimization. (2007) 37, no. 2, 287–304, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898%2D006%2D9050%2Dz, 2288865, ZBL1149.90133.
10.1007/s10898-006-9050-z
Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Huang X. X., Yang X. Q., and Zhu D. L., Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of variational inequality problems with functional constraints, Journal of Global Optimization. (2009) 44, no. 2, 159–174, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898%2D008%2D9310%2D1, 2506669, ZBL1191.90083.
10.1007/s10898-008-9310-1
Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Huang X. X. and Yang X. Q., Levitin-Polyak well-posedness in generalized variational inequality problems with functional constraints, Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization. (2007) 3, no. 4, 671–684, https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2007.3.671, 2379875, ZBL1137.49025.
10.3934/jimo.2007.3.671
Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Jiang B., Zhang J., and Huang X. X., Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of generalized quasivariational inequalities with functional constraints, Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications A. (2009) 70, no. 4, 1492–1503, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2008.02.029, 2483573, ZBL1158.49013.
10.1016/j.na.2008.02.029
Web of Science® Google Scholar
29 Xu Z., Zhu D. L., and Huang X. X., Levitin-Polyak well-posedness in generalized vector variational inequality problem with functional constraints, Mathematical Methods of Operations Research. (2008) 67, no. 3, 505–524, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00186%2D007%2D0200%2Dy, 2403722, ZBL1147.49018.
10.1007/s00186-007-0200-y
Web of Science® Google Scholar
30 Zhang J., Jiang B., and Huang X. X., Levitin-Polyak well-posedness in vector quasivariational inequality problems with functional constraints, Fixed Point Theory and Applications. (2010) 2010, 16, 984074, 2720915, ZBL1197.49009.
10.1155/2010/984074
Google Scholar
31 Fang Y.-P., Huang N.-J., and Yao J.-C., Well-posedness by perturbations of mixed variational inequalities in Banach spaces, European Journal of Operational Research. (2010) 201, no. 3, 682–692, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.04.001, 2552486, ZBL1177.49018.
10.1016/j.ejor.2009.04.001
Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Anh L. Q., Khanh P. Q., Van D. T. M., and Yao J.-C., Well-posedness for vector quasiequilibria, Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics. (2009) 13, no. 2, 713–737, 2510823, ZBL1176.49030.
10.11650/twjm/1500405398
Web of Science® Google Scholar
33 Ceng L. C., Hadjisavvas N., Schaible S., and Yao J. C., Well-posedness for mixed quasivariational-like inequalities, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. (2008) 139, no. 1, 109–125, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957%2D008%2D9428%2D9, 2438597, ZBL1157.49033.
10.1007/s10957-008-9428-9
Web of Science® Google Scholar
34 Peng L.-H., Li C., and Yao J.-C., Well-posedness of a class of perturbed optimization problems in Banach spaces, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. (2008) 346, no. 2, 384–394, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.05.069, 2431534.
10.1016/j.jmaa.2008.05.069
Web of Science® Google Scholar
35 Ceng L. C. and Yao J. C., Well-posedness of generalized mixed variational inequalities, inclusion problems and fixed-point problems, Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications A. (2008) 69, no. 12, 4585–4603, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2007.11.015, 2467256, ZBL1153.49024.
10.1016/j.na.2007.11.015
Web of Science® Google Scholar
36 Fang Y.-P., Huang N.-J., and Yao J.-C., Well-posedness of mixed variational inequalities, inclusion problems and fixed point problems, Journal of Global Optimization. (2008) 41, no. 1, 117–133, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10898%2D007%2D9169%2D6, 2386599, ZBL1149.49009.
10.1007/s10898-007-9169-6
Web of Science® Google Scholar
37 Petruşel A., Rus I. A., and Yao J.-C., Well-posedness in the generalized sense of the fixed point problems for multivalued operators, Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics. (2007) 11, no. 3, 903–914, 2340170, ZBL1149.54022.
10.11650/twjm/1500404764
Web of Science® Google Scholar
38 Luc D. T., Theory of Vector Optimization, 1989, 319, Springer, Berlin, Germany, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 1116766.
10.1007/978-3-642-50280-4
Google Scholar
39 Furi M. and Vignoli A., About well-posed minimization problems for functionals in metric space, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications. (1970) 5, 225–229, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00927717.
10.1007/BF00927717
Google Scholar
40 Kuratowski K., Topology, 1966, 1, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.
Web of Science® Google Scholar
41 Kuratowski K., Topology, 1968, 2, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.
Google Scholar

All articles

Well-Posedness of Generalized Vector Quasivariational Inequality Problems

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Preliminaries

3. Criteria and Characterizations for Generalized LP Well-Posedness of (GVQVI)

Acknowledgments

References

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Well-Posedness of Generalized Vector Quasivariational Inequality Problems

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Preliminaries

3. Criteria and Characterizations for Generalized LP Well-Posedness of (GVQVI)

Acknowledgments

References

References

Related

Information