Union Averaged Operators with Applications to Proximal Algorithms for Min-Convex Functions

  • Minh N. Dao
  • Matthew K. TamEmail author


In this paper, we introduce and study a class of structured set-valued operators, which we call union averaged nonexpansive. At each point in their domain, the value of such an operator can be expressed as a finite union of single-valued averaged nonexpansive operators. We investigate various structural properties of the class and show, in particular, that is closed under taking unions, convex combinations, and compositions, and that their fixed point iterations are locally convergent around strong fixed points. We then systematically apply our results to analyze proximal algorithms in situations, where union averaged nonexpansive operators naturally arise. In particular, we consider the problem of minimizing the sum two functions, where the first is convex and the second can be expressed as the minimum of finitely many convex functions.


Admissible control Averaged operator Fixed point iteration Local convergence Proximal algorithms Set-valued map 

Mathematics Subject Classification

90C26 7H10 47H04 



The authors are thankful to the anonymous referee for their constructive comments and suggestions. MND was partially supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project DP160101537 and by the Priority Research Centre for Computer-Assisted Research Mathematics and its Applications (CARMA) at the University of Newcastle. He wishes to acknowledge the hospitality and the support of D. Russell Luke during his visit to the Universität Göttingen. MKT was partially supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


  1. 1.
    Cegielski, A.: Iterative Methods for Fixed Point Problems in Hilbert Spaces. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Opial, Z.: Weak convergence of the sequence of successive approximation for nonexpansive mappings. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 73(4), 591–597 (1967)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauschke, H.H., Combettes, P.L.: Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, 2nd edn. Springer, Cham (2017)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baillon, J.B., Bruck, R.E., Reich, S.: On the asymptotic behavior of nonexpansive mappings and semigroups in Banach spaces. Houst. J. Math. 4(1), 1–9 (1978)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tam, M.K.: Algorithms based on unions of nonexpansive maps. Optim. Lett. 12(5), 1019–1027 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bauschke, H.H., Noll, D.: On the local convergence of the Douglas–Rachford algorithm. Arch. Math. 102(6), 589–600 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elsner, L., Koltracht, I., Neumann, M.: Convergence of sequential and asynchronous nonlinear paracontractions. Numer. Math. 62(3), 305–319 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Combettes, P.L., Yamada, I.: Compositions and convex combinations of averaged nonexpansive operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 425(1), 55–70 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dontchev, A.L., Rockafellar, R.T.: Implicit Functions and Solution Mappings, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bauschke, H.H., Lucet, Y., Phan, H.: On the convexity of piecewise-defined functions. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 22(3), 728–742 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eberhard, A., Roshchina, V., Sang, T.: Outer limits of subdifferentials for min–max type functions. Optimization (2017).
  12. 12.
    Mordukhovich, B.S., Nam, N.M.: Exact calculus for proximal subgradients with applications to optimization. ESAIM Proc. 17, 80–95 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clarke, F.: Functional Analysis, Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control. Springer, London (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dao, M.N., Phan, H.M.: Linear convergence of projection algorithms. Math. Oper. Res. (2018).
  15. 15.
    Dao, M.N., Phan, H.M.: Linear convergence of the generalized Douglas-Rachford algorithm for feasibility problems. J. Glob. Optim. 72(3), 443–474 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luke, D.R.: Finding best approximation pairs relative to a convex and prox-regular set in a Hilbert space. SIAM J. Optim. 19(2), 714–739 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Borwein, J.M., Tam, M.K.: A cyclic Douglas–Rachford iteration scheme. J. Optim. Theory 160(1), 1–29 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Borwein, J.M., Tam, M.K.: The cyclic Douglas–Rachford method for inconsistent feasibility problems. J. Nonlinear Convex Anal. 16(4), 537–587 (2015)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bauschke, H.H., Noll, D., Phan, H.: Linear and strong convergence of algorithms involving averaged nonexpansive operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 421(1), 1–20 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bauschke, H.H., Dao, M.N.: On the finite convergence of the Douglas–Rachford algorithm for solving (not necessarily convex) feasibility problems in Euclidean spaces. SIAM J. Optim. 27(1), 507–537 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hesse, R., Luke, D.R., Neumann, P.: Alternating projections and Douglas–Rachford for sparse affine feasibility. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 62(18), 4868–4881 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CARMAUniversity of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia
  2. 2.Institut für Numerische und Angewandte MathematikUniversität GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations