1 Introduction
The multiple-sets split feasibility problem, abbreviated as MSFP, is to find a point closest to the intersection of a family of some closed and convex sets in one space, such that its image under a linear operator is closest to the intersection of another family of some closed and convex sets in the image space. More specifically, the MSFP consists in finding a point \(x^{*}\) such that
where \(C_{i} \subset R^{m}\) (\(i=1,2,\ldots, s\)) and \(Q_{j} \subset R ^{n} \) (\(j=1,2,\ldots, t\)) are nonempty, closed, and convex sets in a Euclidean space, \(A \in R^{n \times m}\) is a given matrix.
$$ x^{*} \in \bigcap_{i=1}^{s} C_{i} \quad \text{and} \quad Ax^{*} \in \bigcap ^{t}_{j=1} Q_{j}, $$
(1.1)
The problem finds applications in such fields as image reconstruction and signal processing [1], and it was intensively considered by researchers [2‐11]. For this problem, numerous efficient iterative methods were proposed, see [12‐23] and the references therein.
Advertisement
To solve the problem, based on the multidistance idea, Censor and Elfving [1] established an iterative algorithm which involves the inverse of the underlying matrix at each iteration and hence is much more time-consuming. To overcome this drawback, Byrne [24] presented a projection-type algorithm, called CQ method, for solving the split feasibility problem. The algorithm is efficient when the orthogonal projections can be easily calculated. To make the projection method more efficient when the projection is difficult to compute, Yang [25] established a relaxed CQ algorithm by modifying the projection region. For this method, to make the objection function have sufficient decrease at each iteration, Qu and Xiu [26] presented a revised CQ method by introducing an Armijo-like stepsize rule into the iterative frame. In order to accelerate the speed of the algorithm, Zhang and Wang [27] made a further modification to the method by adopting a new searching direction for the split feasibility problem.
Inspired by the work in [1] and the alternating proximal penalization algorithm in [28], we present a two-block alternating proximal penalization algorithm for this problem in this paper. Under mild conditions, we first show that the sequences generated by our algorithm are summable, which guarantees that the distance between two adjacent iterates converges to zero, and then we establish the global convergence of the algorithm provided that the penalty parameter tends to zero.
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we first present some definitions and then recall some existing conclusions which will be used in the subsequent analysis.
Advertisement
First, we give some definitions on the continuous function \(f: R^{n} \to R\).
Definition 2.1
([29])
Let \(f:\Omega (\subset R^{n}) \to \Omega \) be a continuous function. Then
(1)
f is called monotone on Ω if
$$ ( u-v)^{T} \bigl(f(u)-f(v) \bigr) \ge 0, \quad \forall u ,v \in \Omega ; $$
(2)
f is called ν-inverse strongly monotone on Ω if there exists a constant \(\nu > 0\) such that
$$ ( u-v)^{T} \bigl(f(u)-f(v) \bigr)\ge \nu \bigl\Vert f(u)-f(v) \bigr\Vert ^{2} , \quad \forall u ,v \in \Omega ; $$
(3)
f is called Lipschitz continuous on Ω if there exists a constant \(L > 0\) such that
$$ \bigl\Vert f(u)-f(v) \bigr\Vert \le L \Vert u-v \Vert , \quad \forall u, v \in \Omega ; $$
(4)
The subgradient set of f at x is given by
$$ \partial f(x):= \bigl\{ \xi \in R^{n} : f(y) \ge f(x) + \xi^{T} (y-x ), \forall y \in R^{n} \bigr\} . $$
Lemma 2.1
([30])
For functions
\(f(x)= \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i = 1}^{s} a_{i} \Vert x -P _{C_{i}}(x) \Vert ^{2}\)
and
\(g(y)=\frac{1}{2} \sum_{j=1}^{t} b_{j} \Vert y -P_{Q_{j}}(y) \Vert ^{2}\), it holds that
\(\nabla f(x)\)
and
\(\nabla g(y)\)
are both inverse strongly monotone and Lipschitz continuous on X and Y, where
\(P_{C_{i}}(x)\)
denotes the projection of
x
onto
\(C_{i}\), i.e., \(P_{C_{i}}(x)=\arg \min \{ \Vert y-x \Vert \mid y \in C_{i}\}\).
To proceed, we give some conclusions which play the heart role in the next section.
Lemma 2.2
[28] Let
\(\{a_{n} \}\)
and
\(\{ \epsilon_{n} \}\)
be two real sequences such that
\(\{a_{n} \}\)
is minorized, \(\{ \epsilon_{n} \} \in l^{1}\), and
\(a_{n+1} \le a_{n} + \epsilon_{n} \)
for any
\(n \in N\). Then sequence
\(\{a_{n}\}\)
converges.
Lemma 2.3
(Opial lemma [31])
Let
\(\{\lambda_{k} \} \)
be a nonsummable sequence of positive real numbers, and
\(\{ x^{k} \}\)
be any sequence in a Hilbert space
H, with the weighted averages
\(\{ z ^{k} \} \). Assume that there exists a nonempty closed convex subset
F
of
H
such that
Then
\(\{ z ^{k} \} \)
converges weakly to an element of F.
(1)
weak subsequential limits of
\(\{ z^{k} \}\)
lie in
F,
(2)
\(\lim_{k \to \infty } \Vert x^{k} - f \Vert \)
exists for all
\(f \in F \).
To end this section, we define the following operators which will be used in the following sections.
Let \(V:= \{(x,y) : x \in X, y \in Y, Ax=y \}\). Define monotone operators F̂ and Ĝ as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}& \hat{F}(x,y)= \bigl(f(x),g(y) \bigr), \\& \hat{G}(x,y)= \partial \hat{F}(x,y)+N_{V}(x,y)= \textstyle\begin{cases} \partial \hat{F}(x,y)+V^{\bot },&\text{if } (x,y) \in V , \\ \emptyset ,& \text{if } (x,y) \notin V. \end{cases}\displaystyle \end{aligned}$$
Further, we define bounded linear operators ϒ and Ψ as follows:
$$ \Upsilon : \quad \begin{gathered} X \times Y \mapsto Z , \\ (x,y) \mapsto Ax-y, \end{gathered}\quad\text{and}\quad \Psi :\quad \begin{gathered} X \times Y \mapsto R, \\ (x,y) \mapsto \frac{1}{2} \Vert Ax-y \Vert ^{2}. \end{gathered} $$
Let Ω be a nonempty closed convex subset of \(R^{n}\). Then the normal cone operator of Ω at x is defined as
$$ N_{\Omega }(x) := \bigl\{ x^{*} : \bigl( x^{*} \bigr)^{T} (y-x ) \le 0, \forall y \in \Omega \bigr\} . $$
For the function \(\Psi : X \times Y \mapsto R \), the Fenchel conjugate \(\Psi^{*} \) of the map Ψ at \(p \in X \times Y \) is given by
$$ \Psi^{*} (p): = \sup \bigl\{ p^{T} q - \Psi (q) : q \in X \times Y \bigr\} . $$
3 Algorithm and the convergence analysis
In [30], Zhang et al. proposed an alternating direction method to solve problem (1.1) based on the Lagrange function. Different from it, in this paper, we propose the following alternating proximal penalization algorithm: Given the current iterate \((x^{k},y ^{k})\) and positive parameters α and β, the new point \((x^{k+1},y^{k+1})\) is generated by
Note that the penalty parameter sequence satisfies \(\{ \gamma_{k} \} \in l^{2}/l^{1}\).
$$ \begin{gathered} x^{k+1}= \operatorname{argmin} \biggl\{ \gamma_{k+1}f(x)+ \frac{1}{2} \bigl\Vert Ax-y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \frac{\alpha }{2} \bigl\Vert x -x^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} : x \in X \biggr\} , \\ y^{k+1}= \operatorname{argmin} \biggl\{ \gamma_{k+1}g(y)+ \frac{1}{2} \bigl\Vert Ax^{k+1}-y \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \frac{\beta }{2} \bigl\Vert y -y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} : y \in Y \biggr\} . \end{gathered} $$
(3.1)
In order to investigate the convergence of the algorithm, we define the following estimation function:
for \((x,y) \in X \times Y \).
$$ h_{k}(x,y)= \alpha \bigl\Vert x^{k} -x \bigr\Vert ^{2} +(\beta +1) \bigl\Vert y^{k}-y \bigr\Vert ^{2} $$
Lemma 3.1
Let
\((x,y) \in X \times Y\)
and
\((\xi , \eta ) \in \hat{G}(x,y)\). Then there exists
\((p,q) \in (X \times Y)^{\bot }\)
such that
$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned}[b] & h_{k+1}(x,y) - h_{k}(x,y) + 2 \gamma_{k+1} \bigl[ \xi^{T} \bigl(x^{k+1}-x \bigr) + \eta^{T} \bigl(y^{k+1}-y \bigr) \bigr] \\ &\quad{} +\alpha \bigl\Vert x^{k+1}-x^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \beta \bigl\Vert y^{k+1}- y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2}+ \bigl\Vert Ax^{k+1}-y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \le 2 \gamma_{k+1 }^{2} \Psi^{*}(p,q). \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(3.2)
Proof
From (3.1), one has
On the other hand, since \((\xi , \eta ) \in \hat{G}(x,y)\), there exists \((p,q) \in (X \times Y)^{\bot }\) such that
which implies that \(p - \xi = -\nabla f(x)\). Combining this with (3.3) and using the monotonicity of \(\nabla f(x)\), one as
$$ \frac{\alpha }{\gamma_{k+1}} \bigl(x^{k+1}-x^{k} \bigr) + \frac{1}{\gamma_{k+1}}A ^{T} \bigl(Ax^{k+1}-y^{k} \bigr) = - \nabla f \bigl(x^{k+1} \bigr). $$
(3.3)
$$ \xi = \nabla f(x) + p \quad \text{and} \quad \eta = \nabla g(y) + q , $$
$$ \frac{\alpha }{\gamma_{k+1}} \bigl( x ^{k+1} - x^{k} \bigr)^{T} \bigl(x ^{k+1} - x \bigr) + \frac{1}{\gamma_{k+1}} \bigl( A^{T} \bigl(Ax^{k+1}-y^{k} \bigr) \bigr)^{T} \bigl( x^{k+1}-x \bigr) \le ( p-\xi )^{T} \bigl( x^{k+1}-x \bigr). $$
Rearranging the item of the inequality yields
Similarly, one has
Note that \(Ax =y \) implies
Then (3.4) and (3.5) yield
where we use the fact that
for \((x,y) \in X \times Y\) and \((p,q) \in (X \times Y)^{\bot }\).
$$ \begin{aligned}[b] \alpha \bigl\Vert x^{k+1}-x \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \alpha \bigl\Vert x^{k+1}-x^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} &\le \alpha \bigl\Vert x^{k}-x \bigr\Vert ^{2} -2 \bigl( Ax^{k+1}-y^{k} \bigr)^{T}\bigl(Ax^{k+1}-Ax \bigr) \\ &\quad{} +2 \gamma_{k+1} p^{T} \bigl(x^{k+1}-x \bigr)- 2\gamma_{k+1} \xi^{T}\bigl( x^{k+1}-x \bigr). \end{aligned} $$
(3.4)
$$ \begin{aligned}[b] \beta \bigl\Vert y^{k+1}-y \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \beta \bigl\Vert y^{k+1}-y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} &\le \beta \bigl\Vert y^{k}-y \bigr\Vert ^{2} -2 \bigl( y^{k+1}-Ax^{k+1} \bigr)^{T}\bigl(y^{k+1} -y \bigr) \\ &\quad{} +2 \gamma_{k+1} q^{T}\bigl(y^{k+1}-y \bigr)- 2\gamma_{k+1} \eta^{T} \bigl( y^{k+1}-y \bigr). \end{aligned} $$
(3.5)
$$\begin{aligned}& 2 \bigl( Ax^{k+1}-y^{k} \bigr)^{T} \bigl( Ax^{k+1}-Ax \bigr)+2 \bigl( y^{k+1} -Ax^{k+1} \bigr)^{T} \bigl(y ^{k+1} -y \bigr) \\& \quad = \bigl\Vert y^{k+1}-y \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \bigl\Vert Ax^{k+1} -y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \bigl\Vert Ax^{k+1}- y^{k+1} \bigr\Vert ^{2} - \bigl\Vert y^{k} - y \bigr\Vert ^{2}. \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}& h_{k+1}(x,y) - h_{k}(x,y) + 2 \gamma_{k+1} \bigl[ \xi^{T} \bigl(x^{k+1}-x \bigr) + \eta^{T} \bigl( y^{k+1}-y \bigr) \bigr] +\alpha \bigl\Vert x^{k+1}-x^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \\& \quad\quad{} + \beta \bigl\Vert y^{k+1}- y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \bigl\Vert Ax^{k+1}-y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \\& \quad \le 2\gamma_{k+1}(p,q)^{T} \bigl(x^{k+1},y^{k+1} \bigr) - \bigl\Vert Ax^{k+1}-y^{k+1} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \\& \quad = 2 \bigl[\gamma_{k+1}(p,q)^{T} \bigl(x^{k+1},y^{k+1} \bigr) - \Psi \bigl(x^{k+1},y^{k+1} \bigr) \bigr] \\& \quad \le 2 \sup \bigl\{ \gamma_{k+1}(p,q)^{T} \bigl(x^{k+1},y^{k+1} \bigr) - \Psi \bigl(x^{k+1},y ^{k+1} \bigr) \bigr\} , \end{aligned}$$
(3.6)
$$ p^{T} \bigl(x^{k+1}-x \bigr) + q^{T} \bigl(y^{k+1}-y \bigr) = p^{T} \bigl( x^{k+1} \bigr) + q^{T} \bigl( y ^{k+1} \bigr) =(p,q)^{T} \bigl(x^{k+1},y^{k+1} \bigr) $$
By the definition of \(\Psi^{*}\), one has
Substituting it into (3.6), we obtain inequality (3.2) and this completes the proof. □
$$ \sup \bigl\{ \gamma_{k+1}(p,q)^{T} \bigl(x^{k+1},y^{k+1} \bigr) - \Psi \bigl(x^{k+1},y^{k+1} \bigr) \bigr\} = \Psi^{*} \bigl(\gamma_{k+1}(p,q) \bigr)= \gamma_{k+1}^{2} \Psi^{*}(p,q). $$
Since the closeness of \(R(\Upsilon )\) is equivalent to the closeness of \(R(\Upsilon^{*})\), one has \((X \times Y)^{\bot }=\operatorname{Ker} ( \Upsilon )^{\bot } = R (\Upsilon^{*})\), which means that \((X \times Y)^{\bot } \subset \operatorname{dom}\Psi^{*} = R(\Upsilon^{*})\). Thus, \(\Psi^{*}(p,q) < +\infty \), \(\forall (p,q) \in (X \times Y) ^{\bot } \).
Lemma 3.2
For the function ϒ defined at the end of Sect. 2
and
\((x^{*}, y^{*}) \in \Omega \), then
In particular,
and each cluster point of the sequence
\(\{ (x^{k}, y^{k} ) \} \)
lies in
\(X \times Y\).
(1)
\(\lim_{k \to +\infty } h_{k} (x^{*}, y^{*}) \)
exists, and the sequence
\(\{ (x^{k},y^{k}) \} \)
is bounded;
(2)
sequences
\(\{ \Vert x^{k+1}-x^{k} \Vert ^{2} \}\), \(\{ \Vert y^{k+1}-y ^{k} \Vert ^{2} \}\), and
\(\{ \Vert Ax^{k }-y^{k} \Vert ^{2} \}\)
are summable.
$$ \lim_{k \to +\infty } \bigl\Vert x^{k+1}-x^{k} \bigr\Vert = \lim_{k \to +\infty } \bigl\Vert y^{k+1}-y^{k} \bigr\Vert = \lim_{k \to + \infty } \bigl\Vert Ax^{k }-y^{k} \bigr\Vert =0, $$
Proof
(1) Setting \((\xi , \eta ) = (0,0)\) in (3.2) and taking \(h_{k} = h_{k}(x^{*}, y^{*})\), one has
Hence, \(h_{k+1}- h_{k} \le 2 \gamma_{k+1 }^{2} \Psi^{*}(p,q)\). The closedness of \(R (\Upsilon )\) and Lemma 2.2 imply that the sequence \(\{ h_{k} \}\) converges, which means that \(\lim_{k \to +\infty } h_{k} (x^{*}, y^{*})\) exists and the sequence \(\{ (x^{k},y^{k}) \} \) is bounded.
$$\begin{aligned} h_{k+1}- h_{k} + \alpha \bigl\Vert x^{k+1}-x^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \beta \bigl\Vert y^{k+1}- y ^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \bigl\Vert Ax^{k+1}-y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \le 2 \gamma_{k+1 }^{2} \Psi ^{*}(p,q). \end{aligned}$$
(3.7)
(2) Summing inequality (3.7) for \(k= 1,2,\ldots,n \), one has
Since \(R (\Upsilon )\) is closed, passing onto the limit on both sides of (3.8), one has that sequences
are all summable.
$$\begin{aligned} &h_{n+1}- h_{1} + \alpha \sum _{k=1}^{n} \bigl\Vert x^{k+1}-x^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \beta \sum_{k=1}^{n} \bigl\Vert y^{k+1}- y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} + \sum_{k=1}^{n} \bigl\Vert Ax^{k+1}-y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \\ &\quad \le 2 \sum_{k=1}^{n} \gamma_{k+1 }^{2} \Psi^{*}(p,q). \end{aligned}$$
(3.8)
$$ \bigl\{ \bigl\Vert x^{k+1}-x^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \bigr\} , \quad\quad \bigl\{ \bigl\Vert y^{k+1}-y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \bigr\} , \quad \text{and} \quad \bigl\{ \bigl\Vert Ax^{k+1 }-y^{k} \bigr\Vert ^{2} \bigr\} $$
Since \(\Vert Ax^{k} -y^{k} \Vert ^{2} \le 2 \Vert Ax^{k+1}-y^{k} \Vert ^{2}+ 2 \Vert A x ^{k+1}-Ax^{k} \Vert ^{2}\), \(\{ \Vert Ax^{k} -y^{k} \Vert ^{2} \}\) is summable. Further, since the function Ψ is weak lower-semicontinuous, \(\lim_{k\to + \infty } \Vert Ax^{k} -y^{k} \Vert = 0\) implies that every cluster point of the sequence \(\{ (x^{k}, y^{k} ) \} \) lies in \(X \times Y\). □
In order to prove the convergence of the algorithm, we need the following notations.
Setting \(\tau_{k} = \sum_{n=1}^{k} \gamma_{n}\), define the averages of the sequences \(\{x^{k} \}\) and \(\{ y^{k} \}\) as
$$ \hat{x}^{k} = \frac{1}{\tau_{k}} \sum_{n=1}^{k} \gamma_{n} x ^{n} \quad \text{and} \quad \hat{y}^{k} = \frac{1}{\tau_{k}} \sum_{n=1} ^{k} \gamma_{n} y ^{n} . $$
Now we are in a position to prove the convergence of the algorithm.
Theorem 3.1
Let the space
\(R (\Upsilon )\)
be closed and Ω be nonempty. Then the sequence
\(\{ (\hat{x}^{k},\hat{y}^{k}) \}\)
defined above converges to a point in Ω.
Proof
We break up the proof into two parts.
First, we prove that every cluster point of the sequence \(\{ (\hat{x} ^{k},\hat{y}^{k}) \}\) lies in Ω.
In fact, for any \((\xi , \eta ) \in \hat{G}(x,y)\), summing inequality (3.2) in Lemma 3.1 for \(k =0,1,\ldots, {n-1}\), one has
Let \((\hat{x}^{*},\hat{y}^{*}) \) be a cluster point of \(\{(\hat{x} ^{k},\hat{y}^{k}) \}\). Since \(R (\Upsilon )\) is closed, passing onto the limit on both sides of (3.9), one has
where we use the fact that \(\lim_{k \to + \infty } \sum_{n=1}^{k} \gamma_{n}^{2}\) exists, and \(\tau_{k} =\sum_{n=1}^{k} \gamma_{n} \to +\infty \) as \(n \to +\infty \). From the arbitrariness of \((\xi , \eta )\), one obtains that \((\hat{x}^{*}, \hat{y}^{*}) \in \Omega \).
$$\begin{aligned} \xi^{T} \bigl(\hat{x}^{k}-x \bigr) + \eta^{T} \bigl(\hat{y}^{k} -y \bigr) \le \frac{1}{2\tau _{k}} \Biggl[ h_{0}(x,y)+2\Psi^{*}(p,q) \sum _{n=1}^{k} \gamma_{n} ^{2} \Biggr]. \end{aligned}$$
(3.9)
$$ \xi^{T} \bigl( \hat{x}^{*}-x \bigr) + \eta^{T} \bigl( \hat{y}^{*}-y \bigr) \le 0, $$
Second, we prove that the sequence \(\{ (\hat{x}^{k},\hat{y}^{k}) \}\) has at most one cluster point.
Let \((\hat{x}_{1}^{*},\hat{y}_{1}^{*}) \ne (\hat{x}_{2}^{*},\hat{y} _{2}^{*}) \) be the two cluster points of the sequence \(\{ (\hat{x} ^{k},\hat{y}^{k}) \}\). Define the function
From (1) in Lemma 3.2, one has that \(\lim_{k \to \infty } H( \hat{x}^{k}-x^{*}_{1}, \hat{y}^{k}-y^{*}_{1})\) and \(\lim_{k \to \infty } H(\hat{x}^{k}-x^{*}_{2}, \hat{y}^{k}-y^{*} _{2})\) exist.
$$ H(u,v)= \alpha \Vert u \Vert ^{2}+ \beta \Vert v \Vert ^{2}, \quad \forall (u,v) \in X \times Y. $$
On the other hand, since
the definition of \((\hat{x}_{2}^{*},\hat{y}_{2}^{*}) \) yields
For the same reason, one has
Then (3.10) and (3.11) imply that \(H(x^{*}_{1}-x^{*}_{2}, y^{*}_{1}-y^{*}_{2})=0 \), which means that \((\hat{x}_{1}^{*},\hat{y} _{1}^{*}) = (\hat{x}_{2}^{*},\hat{y}_{2}^{*}) \). This contradicts \((\hat{x}_{1}^{*},\hat{y}_{1}^{*}) \ne (\hat{x}_{2}^{*},\hat{y}_{2} ^{*})\), and thus the sequence \(\{ (\hat{x}^{k},\hat{y}^{k}) \}\) has at most one cluster point and the proof is completed. □
$$\begin{aligned} H \bigl(\hat{x}^{k}-x^{*}_{1}, \hat{y}^{k}-y^{*}_{1} \bigr)&= H \bigl( \hat{x}^{k}-x ^{*}_{2}, \hat{y}^{k}-y^{*}_{2} \bigr) + H \bigl(x^{*}_{1}-x^{*}_{2}, y^{*}_{1}-y ^{*}_{2} \bigr) \\ &\quad{} +2 \alpha \bigl\langle \hat{x}^{k}- x^{*}_{2} ,x^{*}_{2} - x ^{*}_{1} \bigr\rangle + 2 \beta \bigl\langle \hat{y}^{k}- y^{*}_{2} ,y^{*}_{2} - y ^{*} _{1} \bigr\rangle , \end{aligned}$$
$$ \lim_{k \to \infty } H \bigl(\hat{x}^{k}-x^{*}_{1}, \hat{y}^{k}-y ^{*}_{1} \bigr) = \lim _{k \to \infty } H \bigl(\hat{x}^{k}-x^{*}_{2}, \hat{y}^{k}-y^{*}_{2} \bigr)+ H \bigl(x^{*}_{1}-x^{*}_{2}, y^{*}_{1}-y^{*}_{2} \bigr). $$
(3.10)
$$ \lim_{k \to \infty } H \bigl(\hat{x}^{k}-x^{*}_{2}, \hat{y}^{k}-y ^{*}_{2} \bigr)= \lim _{k \to \infty } H \bigl(\hat{x}^{k}-x^{*}_{1}, \hat{y}^{k}-y^{*}_{1} \bigr)+ H \bigl(x^{*}_{1}-x^{*}_{2}, y^{*}_{1}-y^{*}_{2} \bigr). $$
(3.11)
4 Conclusion
In this paper, we presented an extended alternating proximal penalization algorithm for the modified multiple-sets feasibility problem. For the method, we first showed that the sequences generated by the algorithm are summable, which guarantees that the distance between two adjacent iterates converges to zero, and then we established the global convergence of the algorithm provided that the penalty parameter tends to zero.
Acknowledgements
The author is indebted to the anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions and helpful comments which helped improve the paper significantly. This research was done during XW’s postdoctoral period in Qufu Normal University. This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (11671228).
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no competing interests.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.