Monotone Relations in Hadamard Spaces
Ali Moslemipour, Mehdi Roohi

TL;DR
This paper introduces the concept of $\
Contribution
It defines the $\
Findings
Characterizes flat Hadamard spaces via the $\
paper_type":"theoretical"}}}# Answer {
contribution
Abstract
In this paper, the notion of -property for subsets of is introduced and investigated, where is an Hadamard space and is its linear dual space. It is shown that an Hadamard space is flat if and only if has -property. Moreover, the notion of monotone relation from an Hadamard space to its linear dual space is introduced. Finally, a characterization result for monotone relations with -property (and hence in flat Hadamard spaces) is proved.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Monotone Relations in Hadamard Spaces
Ali Moslemipour [email protected]
Mehdi Roohi [email protected] Department of Mathematics, Science and Research Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences,
Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran
Abstract
In this paper, the notion of -property for subsets of X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} is introduced and investigated, where is an Hadamard space and X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} is its linear dual space. It is shown that an Hadamard space is flat if and only if X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} has -property. Moreover, the notion of monotone relation from an Hadamard space to its linear dual space is introduced. A characterization result for monotone relations with -property (and hence in flat Hadamard spaces) is given. Finally, a type of Debrunner-Flor Lemma concerning extension of monotone relations in Hadamard spaces is proved.
1 Introduction and Preliminaries
Let be a metric space. We say that a mapping is a geodesic path from to if , and for each . The image of is said to be a geodesic segment joining and . A metric space is called a geodesic space if there is a geodesic path between every two points of . Also, a geodesic space is called uniquely geodesic space if for each there exists a unique geodesic path from to . From now on, in a uniquely geodesic space, we denote the set by and for each , we write , where . In this case, we say that is a convex combination of and . Hence, . More details can be found in Bacak2014 ; BridsonHaefliger .
Definition 1.1
(DhompongsaKaewkhaoPanyanak2012, , Definition 2.2)* *Let be a geodesic space, be points in and be such that . We define convex combination of inductively as following:
[TABLE]
Note that for every , we have d\big{(}x,\scalebox{1.5}{\oplus}^{n}_{i=1}\lambda_{i}v_{i}\big{)}\leq\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_{i}d(x,v_{i}).
According to (Bacak2014, , Definition 1.2.1), a geodesic space is a * space*, if the following condition, so-called CN-inequality, holds:
[TABLE]
One can show that (for instance see (Bacak2014, , Theorem 1.3.3)) spaces are uniquely geodesic spaces. An Hadamard space is a complete space.
Let be an Hadamard space. For each , the ordered pair is called a bound vector and is denoted by . Indeed, . For each , we apply as zero bound vector at and as the bound vector . The bound vectors and are called admissible if . Therefore the sum of two admissible bound vectors and is defined by . Ahmadi Kakavandi and Amini in KakavandiAmini have introduced the dual space of an Hadamard space, by using the concept of quasilinearization of abstract metric spaces presented by Berg and Nikolaev in BergNikolaev . The quasilinearization map is defined as following:
[TABLE]
Let , we define the mapping by ; for each . We will see that possess attractive properties that simplify some calculations. We observe that (3) can be rewritten as following:
[TABLE]
The metric space satisfies the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality if
[TABLE]
This inequality characterizes spaces. Indeed, it follows from (BergNikolaev, , Corollary 3) that a geodesic space is a space if and only if it satisfies in the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. For an Hadamard space , consider the mapping
[TABLE]
where denotes the space of all continuous real-valued functions on . It follows from Cauchy-Schwarz inequality that is a Lipschitz function with Lipschitz semi-norm
[TABLE]
where the Lipschitz semi-norm for any function is defined by
[TABLE]
A pseudometric on induced by the Lipschitz semi-norm (4), is defined by
[TABLE]
For an Hadamard space , the pseudometric space can be considered as a subspace of the pseudometric space of all real-valued Lipschitz functions Lip. Note that, in view of (KakavandiAmini, , Lemma 2.1), . Thus, induces an equivalence relation on , where the equivalence class of is
[TABLE]
The dual space of an Hadamard space , denoted by , is the set of all equivalence classes where , with the metric . Clearly, the definition of equivalence classes implies that for all . The zero element of is , where and are arbitrary. It is easy to see that the evaluation vanishes for any bound vectors in . Note that in general acts on by
[TABLE]
The following notation will be used throughout this paper.
[TABLE]
For an Hadamard space , Chaipunya and Kumam in (ChaipunyaKumam, ), defined the linear dual space of by
[TABLE]
Therefore, X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}={\mathrm{span}}\,X^{*}. It is easy to see that X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} is a normed space with the norm \|x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\|_{{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}}=L(x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}) for all x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}. Indeed:
Lemma 1.2
(ZamaniRaeisi, , Proposition 3.5)* Let be an Hadamard space with linear dual space X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}. Then*
[TABLE]
is a norm on X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}. In particular, \|[t\overrightarrow{ab}]\|_{{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}}=|t|d(a,b).
2 Flat Hadamard Spaces and -property
Let be a relation from to X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}; i.e., M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}. The domain and range of are defined, respectively, by
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Definition 2.1
Let be an Hadamard space with linear dual space X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}. We say that M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} satisfies* -property *if there exists such that the following holds: **
[TABLE]
Proposition 2.2
Let be an Hadamard space with linear dual space X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} and let M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}. Then the following statements are equivalent:
(i)
M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}* satisfies the -property for some .*
(ii)
M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}* satisfies the -property for any .*
(iii)
For any ,
[TABLE]
(iv)
For some , holds.
Proof 2.3**.**
(i) (ii):
Let be any arbitrary element of , , x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in\mathrm{Range}(M), and . Then
[TABLE]
as required.
(ii) (iii):
We proceed by induction on . By Definition 2.1 the claim is true for . Now assume that () is true. In view of equation (1),
[TABLE]
(iii) (iv):
Clear.
(iv) (i):
Take in .
We are done.
Remark 2.4**.**
It should be noticed that Proposition 2.2 implies that -property is independent of the choice of the element .
Definition 2.5**.**
(MovahediBehmardiSoleimani-Damaneh, , Definition 3.1) An Hadamard space is said to be flat if equality holds in the CN-inequality, i.e., for each and , the following holds:
[TABLE]
Proposition 2.6**.**
Let be an Hadamard space. The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
* is a flat Hadamard space.*
(ii)
, for all and all .
(iii)
X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}* has -property.*
(iv)
Any subset of X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} has -property.
(v)
For each , the mapping is convex.
(vi)
For each , the mapping is affine, in the sense that:
[TABLE]
Proof 2.7**.**
(i) (ii):
(MovahediBehmardiSoleimani-Damaneh*, *, Theorem 3.2)**.
(ii) (iii):
Let , and (x,x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\in X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}. Then x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}=\sum^{n}_{i=1}\alpha_{i}[t_{i}\overrightarrow{a_{i}b_{i}}]\in X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}, and hence by using (ii) we get:
[TABLE]
Therefore X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} has -property.
(iii) (iv):
Straightforward.
(iv) (v):
Let and , then
[TABLE]
Therefore, is convex.
(v) (vi):
It is easy.
(vi) (iii):
Let , and x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}=\sum^{n}_{i=1}\alpha_{i}[t_{i}\overrightarrow{p_{i}z_{i}}]\in X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} be given. Then
[TABLE]
i.e., X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} has -property.
(iii) (ii):
For and , we have:
[TABLE]
where x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}=[\overrightarrow{ab}]\in X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}. Since X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} has -property, one can deduce that:
[TABLE]
Hence, by interchanging the role of and in (5), we obtain:
[TABLE]
Finally, (5) and (6) yield:
[TABLE]
We are done.
The next example shows that there exists a relation M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} in the non-flat Hadamard spaces which doesn’t have the -property.
Example 2.8**.**
Consider the following equivalence relation on :
[TABLE]
Set and let be defined by
[TABLE]
The geodesic joining to is defined as follows:
[TABLE]
whenever and vacuously . It is known that (see (Kakavandi, , Example 4.7)) is an -tree space. It follows from (Bacak2014, , Example 1.2.10), that any -tree space is an Hadamard space. Let , , , and . Then and
[TABLE]
Now, Proposition 2.6(ii) implies that is not a flat Hadamard space. For each , set and . Now, we define
[TABLE]
Take , and . Clearly, and \big{\langle}[\overrightarrow{y_{5}y_{4}}],\overrightarrow{p\tilde{x}}\big{\rangle}=\frac{1}{24}, while,
[TABLE]
Therefore, doesn’t have the -property.
3 Monotone Relations
Ahmadi Kakavandi and Amini KakavandiAmini introduced the notion of monotone operators in Hadamard spaces. In KhatibzadehRanjbar2017 , Khatibzadeh and Ranjbar, investigated some properties of monotone operators and their resolvents and also proximal point algorithm in Hadamard spaces. Chaipunya and Kumam ChaipunyaKumam studied the general proximal point method for finding a zero point of a maximal monotone set-valued vector field defined on Hadamard spaces. They proved the relation between the maximality and Minty’s surjectivity condition. Zamani Eskandani and Raeisi ZamaniRaeisi , by using products of finitely many resolvents of monotone operators, proposed an iterative algorithm for finding a common zero of a finite family of monotone operators and a common fixed point of an infinitely countable family of non-expansive mappings in Hadamard spaces. In this section, we will characterize the notation of monotone relations in Hadamard spaces based on characterization of monotone sets in Banach spaces CoodeySimons1996 ; Simons1998 ; Zalinescu .
Definition 3.1**.**
Let be an Hadamard space with linear dual space X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}. The set M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} is called monotone if \langle x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}-y^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}},\overrightarrow{yx}\rangle\geq 0, for all (x,x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}),(y,y^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}) in .
Example 3.2**.**
Let , and be the same as in Example 2.8. Let (u,u^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}),(v,v^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\in M. There exists such that , u^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}:=[\overrightarrow{y_{n+1}y_{n}}], and v^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}:=[\overrightarrow{y_{m+1}y_{m}}]. Then
[TABLE]
Therefore, \langle u^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}-v^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}},\overrightarrow{vu}\rangle\geq 0 which shows that, is a monotone relation.
In the sequel, we need the following notations. Let be an Hadamard space and . Put
[TABLE]
where . Clearly, for each , . It is obvious that is a convex subset of . Moreover, if , then . Suppose be fixed. Define by
[TABLE]
Let M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} and . Then where \lambda_{i}=\eta(x_{i},x_{i}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}),~{}\text{for each}~{}1\leq i\leq n. Let be fixed. Define \alpha:\varsigma_{X\times X^{{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}}}\rightarrow X resp. \beta:\varsigma_{X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}}\rightarrow X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} and \theta_{p}:\varsigma_{X\times X^{{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}) by
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.3**.**
Let be an Hadamard space, M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} and . Set
[TABLE]
Then for any .
Proof 3.4**.**
It is enough to show that . Let be such that where \lambda_{i}=\eta(x_{i},x_{i}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}),~{}\text{for each}~{}1\leq i\leq n. Then
[TABLE]
Therefore, , i.e., .
According to Proposition 3.3, for each M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}, the set is independent of the choice of the element and hence we denote the set by .
Theorem 3.5**.**
Let be an Hadamard space and M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} satisfies the -property. Then is a monotone set if and only if .
Proof 3.6**.**
Let be a monotone set. In view of (7), it is enough to show that . Let be such that where \lambda_{i}=\eta(x_{i},x_{i}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}),~{}\text{for each}~{}1\leq i\leq n. By using Proposition 2.2, we obtain:
[TABLE]
Then and hence . For the converse, let (x,x^{{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}}),(y,y^{{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}})\in M and set \eta:=\frac{1}{2}\delta_{(x,x^{{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}})}+\frac{1}{2}\delta_{(y,y^{{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}})}\in\varsigma_{M}. By using -property, we get:
[TABLE]
Therefore, is monotone.
Corollary 3.7**.**
Let be a flat Hadamard space and M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}. Then is a monotone set if and only if .
Proof 3.8**.**
Since is flat, Proposition 2.6 implies that M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} satisfies the -property. Then the conclusion follows immediately from Theorem 3.5.
A fundamental result concerning monotone operators is the extension theorem of Debrunner-Flor (for a proof see (BurachikIusem2008, , Theorem 4.3.1) or (Zeidler1986, , Proposition 2.17)). In the sequel, we prove a type of this result for monotone relations from an Hadamard space to its linear dual space. First, we recall some notions and results.
Definition 3.9**.**
(KakavandiAmini, , Definition 2.4) Let be a sequence in an Hadamard space . The sequence is said to be weakly convergent to , denoted by , if , for all .
One can easily see that convergence in the metric implies weak convergence.
Lemma 3.10**.**
(ZamaniRaeisi, , Proposition 3.6)* Let be a bounded sequence in an Hadamard space with linear dual space X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} and let \{x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}_{n}\} be a sequence in X^{{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}}. If is weakly convergent to and x^{{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}}_{n}\xrightarrow{\|\cdot\|_{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}}x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}, then \langle x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}_{n},\overrightarrow{x_{n}z}\rangle\rightarrow\langle x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}},\overrightarrow{xz}\rangle, for all .*
Theorem 3.11**.**
Let be an Hadamard space and M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} be a monotone relation satisfies the -property. Let C\subseteq X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} be a compact and convex set, and be a continuous function. Then there exists z^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in C such that \{(\varphi(z^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}),z^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\}\cup M is monotone.
Proof 3.12**.**
Let , u^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}},v^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} be arbitrary and fixed element. Consider the function defined by
[TABLE]
Let \{x_{n}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\}\subseteq C be such that x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}_{n}\xrightarrow{\|\cdot\|_{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}}x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}, for some x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in C. By Lemma 3.10,
[TABLE]
Thus \tau(x_{n}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\rightarrow\tau(x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}). Hence is continuous. For every (y,y^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\in M, set
[TABLE]
Continuity of implies that U(y,y^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}) is an open subset of . Suppose that the conclusion fails. Then for each u^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in C there exists (y,y^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\in M such that u^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in U(y,y^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}). This means that the family of open sets \{U(y,y^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\}_{(y,y^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\in M} is an open cover of . Using the compactness of , we obtain that C=\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}U(y_{i},y_{i}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}). In addition, (Zeidler1986, , Page 756) implies that there exists a partition of unity associated with this finite subcover. Hence, there are continuous functions \psi_{i}:X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}~{}(1\leq i\leq n) satisfying
- (i)
\sum_{i=1}^{n}\psi_{i}(x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})=1, for all x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in C. 2. (ii)
\psi_{i}(x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\geq 0, for all x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in C and all . 3. (iii)
\{x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in C:\psi_{i}(x^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})>0\}\subseteq U_{i}:=U(y_{i},y_{i}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})* for all .*
Set K:=\mathrm{co}(\{y_{1}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}},\ldots,y_{n}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\})\subseteq C and define
[TABLE]
Let \{u_{m}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\}\subseteq K be such that u_{m}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\rightarrow u^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}},
[TABLE]
By continuity of , letting , then \psi_{i}(u_{m}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\rightarrow\psi_{i}(u^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}) and this implies that \iota(u_{m}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\rightarrow\iota(u^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}) and so is continuous. One can identify with a finite-dimensional convex and compact set. By using Brouwer fixed point theorem (Zeidler1986, , Proposition 2.6), there exists w^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in K such that \iota(w^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})=w^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}. Moreover, by using Proposition 2.2 we get:
[TABLE]
Set a_{ij}=\langle y_{i}^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}-w^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}},\overrightarrow{\varphi(w^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})y_{j}}\rangle. It follows from monotonicity of that
[TABLE]
i.e.,
[TABLE]
Applying (8) and (9), we obtain:
[TABLE]
Set I(w^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}):=\big{\{}i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}:w^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in U_{i}\big{\}}. Applying property (iii) of the partition of unity in (11) we get:
[TABLE]
By using property (iii) of the partition of unity and the definition of , one deduce that all terms in the right-hand side of (12) are nonpositive. So all of \psi_{i}(w^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})’s must be vanish, which contradicts with (i).
Corollary 3.13**.**
Let be a flat Hadamard space and M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} be a monotone set. Let C\subseteq X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} be a compact and convex set, and be a continuous function. Then there exists z^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}\in C such that \{(\varphi(z^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}}),z^{\scalebox{0.5}{\lozenge}})\}\cup M is monotone.
Proof 3.14**.**
Since is flat, it follows from Proposition 2.6 that M\subseteq X\times X^{\scalebox{0.55}{\lozenge}} has -property. The inclusion follows from Theorem 3.11.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1(1) B. Ahmadi Kakavandi, Weak topologies in complete CAT ( 0 ) CAT 0 \mathrm{CAT}(0) metric spaces , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 141 (2013), 1029–1039.
- 2(2) B. Ahmadi Kakavandi and M. Amini, Duality and subdifferential for convex functions on complete CAT ( 0 ) CAT 0 \mathrm{CAT}(0) metric spaces , Nonlinear Anal. 73 (2010), 3450–3455.
- 3(3) M. Bačák, Convex Analysis and Optimization in Hadamard Spaces, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, (2014).
- 4(4) I. D. Berg and I. G. Nikolaev, Quasilinearization and curvature of Aleksanderov spaces , Geom. Dedicata. 133 (2008), 195–218.
- 5(5) M. Bridson and A. Haefliger, Metric Spaces of Nonpositive Curvature, Grundelhern Math. Wiss., Springer, (1999).
- 6(6) R. S. Burachik and A. N. Iusem, Set-Valued Mappings and Enlargements of Monotone Operators, Springer, (2008).
- 7(7) P. Chaipunya and P. Kumam, On the proximal point method in Hadamard spaces , Optimization 66 (2017), 1647–1665.
- 8(8) M. Coodey and S. Simons, The convex function determined by a multifunction , J. Aust. Math. Soc. 54 (1996), 87–97.
