# American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

October  2018, 14(4): 1595-1615. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018023

## The modified inertial relaxed CQ algorithm for solving the split feasibility problems

 1 Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand 2 School of Science, University of Phayao, Phayao 56000, Thailand

∗ Corresponding author: prasitch2008@yahoo.com (P. Cholamjiak)

Received  April 2017 Revised  August 2017 Published  January 2018

In this work, we propose a new version of inertial relaxed CQ algorithms for solving the split feasibility problems in the frameworks of Hilbert spaces. We then prove its strong convergence by using a viscosity approximation method under some weakened assumptions. To be more precisely, the computation on the norm of operators and the metric projections is relaxed. Finally, we provide numerical experiments to illustrate the convergence behavior and to show the effectiveness of the sequences constructed by the inertial technique.

Citation: Suthep Suantai, Nattawut Pholasa, Prasit Cholamjiak. The modified inertial relaxed CQ algorithm for solving the split feasibility problems. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2018, 14 (4) : 1595-1615. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2018023
##### References:

show all references

##### References:
Comparison of the iterations of Choice 1 in Example 1
Comparison of the iterations of Choice 2 in Example 1
Comparison of the iterations of Choice 3 in Example 1
Comparison of the iterations of Choice 4 in Example 1
Comparison of the iterations of Choice 1 in Example 2
Comparison of the iterations of Choice 2 in Example 2
Comparison of the iterations of Choice 3 in Example 2
Comparison of the iterations of Choice 4 in Example 2
Error ploting of Choice 1 in Example 1
Error ploting of Choice 2 in Example 1
Error ploting of Choice 3 in Example 1
Error ploting of Choice 4 in Example 1
Algorithm 3.1 with different cases of $\rho_n$ and different choices of $x_0$ and $x_1$
 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Choice 1 No. of Iter. 11 8 5 4 cpu (Time) $0.003553$ $0.002377$ $0.002195$ $0.002075$ Choice 2 No. of Iter. 7 6 4 4 cpu (Time) $0.002799$ $0.002769$ $0.002357$ $0.002184$ Choice 3 No. of Iter. 12 9 6 4 cpu (Time) $0.003828$ $0.002602$ $0.002401$ $0.002142$ Choice 4 No. of Iter. 27 17 11 9 cpu (Time) $0.007181$ $0.00343$ $0.002612$ $0.002431$ The numerical experiments for each case of $\rho_{n}$ are shown in Figure 1-4, respectively.
 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Choice 1 No. of Iter. 11 8 5 4 cpu (Time) $0.003553$ $0.002377$ $0.002195$ $0.002075$ Choice 2 No. of Iter. 7 6 4 4 cpu (Time) $0.002799$ $0.002769$ $0.002357$ $0.002184$ Choice 3 No. of Iter. 12 9 6 4 cpu (Time) $0.003828$ $0.002602$ $0.002401$ $0.002142$ Choice 4 No. of Iter. 27 17 11 9 cpu (Time) $0.007181$ $0.00343$ $0.002612$ $0.002431$ The numerical experiments for each case of $\rho_{n}$ are shown in Figure 1-4, respectively.
Algorithm 3.1 with different cases of $\rho_n$ and different choices of $x_0$ and $x_1$
 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Choice 1 No. of Iter. 19 10 5 5 cpu (Time) $0.005632$ $0.003408$ $0.003223$ $0.002791$ Choice 2 No. of Iter. 18 10 6 6 cpu (Time) $0.00391$ $0.002683$ $0.002447$ $0.002381$ Choice 3 No. of Iter. 19 10 6 6 cpu (Time) $0.004233$ $0.003016$ $0.002601$ $0.002575$ Choice 4 No. of Iter. 13 7 6 6 cpu (Time) $0.004812$ $0.003559$ $0.002922$ $0.002412$ The numerical experiments are shown in Figure 5-8, respectively.
 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Choice 1 No. of Iter. 19 10 5 5 cpu (Time) $0.005632$ $0.003408$ $0.003223$ $0.002791$ Choice 2 No. of Iter. 18 10 6 6 cpu (Time) $0.00391$ $0.002683$ $0.002447$ $0.002381$ Choice 3 No. of Iter. 19 10 6 6 cpu (Time) $0.004233$ $0.003016$ $0.002601$ $0.002575$ Choice 4 No. of Iter. 13 7 6 6 cpu (Time) $0.004812$ $0.003559$ $0.002922$ $0.002412$ The numerical experiments are shown in Figure 5-8, respectively.
Comparison of MIner-R-Iter, Iner-R-Iter and H-R-Iter in Example 1
 MIner-R-Iter Iner-R-Iter H-R-Iter Choice 1 $u=(0, -1, -5)^T$ No. of Iter. 6 33 223 $x_{0}=(2, 6, -3)^T$ cpu (Time) 0.000737 0.007677 0.064889 $x_{1}=(-2, -1, 8)^T$ Choice 2 $u=(2, 1, 0)^T$ No. of Iter. 4 26 378 $x_{0}=(3, 4, -1)^T$ cpu (Time) 0.000522 0.004861 0.137471 $x_{1}=(-5, -2, 1)^T$ Choice 3 $u=(5, -3, -1)^T$ No. of Iter. 9 29 140 $x_{0}=(2, 1, -1)^T$ cpu (Time) 0.001458 0.005175 0.026824 $x_{1}=(-5, 3, 5)^T$ Choice 4 $u=(-2, -1, 4)^T$ No. of Iter. 9 34 763 $x_{0}=(7.35, 1.75, -3.24)^T$ cpu (Time) 0.001481 0.008058 0.687214 $x_{1}=(-6.34, 0.42, 7.36)^T$ The error plotting of $E_n$ of MIner-R-Iter, Iner-R-Iter and H-R-Iter for each choice in Table 3 is shown in the following figures, respectively.
 MIner-R-Iter Iner-R-Iter H-R-Iter Choice 1 $u=(0, -1, -5)^T$ No. of Iter. 6 33 223 $x_{0}=(2, 6, -3)^T$ cpu (Time) 0.000737 0.007677 0.064889 $x_{1}=(-2, -1, 8)^T$ Choice 2 $u=(2, 1, 0)^T$ No. of Iter. 4 26 378 $x_{0}=(3, 4, -1)^T$ cpu (Time) 0.000522 0.004861 0.137471 $x_{1}=(-5, -2, 1)^T$ Choice 3 $u=(5, -3, -1)^T$ No. of Iter. 9 29 140 $x_{0}=(2, 1, -1)^T$ cpu (Time) 0.001458 0.005175 0.026824 $x_{1}=(-5, 3, 5)^T$ Choice 4 $u=(-2, -1, 4)^T$ No. of Iter. 9 34 763 $x_{0}=(7.35, 1.75, -3.24)^T$ cpu (Time) 0.001481 0.008058 0.687214 $x_{1}=(-6.34, 0.42, 7.36)^T$ The error plotting of $E_n$ of MIner-R-Iter, Iner-R-Iter and H-R-Iter for each choice in Table 3 is shown in the following figures, respectively.
 [1] Mostafa Mbekhta. Representation and approximation of the polar factor of an operator on a Hilbert space. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020463 [2] Marion Darbas, Jérémy Heleine, Stephanie Lohrengel. Numerical resolution by the quasi-reversibility method of a data completion problem for Maxwell's equations. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2020, 14 (6) : 1107-1133. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020056 [3] Gang Bao, Mingming Zhang, Bin Hu, Peijun Li. An adaptive finite element DtN method for the three-dimensional acoustic scattering problem. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020351 [4] Li-Bin Liu, Ying Liang, Jian Zhang, Xiaobing Bao. A robust adaptive grid method for singularly perturbed Burger-Huxley equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1439-1457. doi: 10.3934/era.2020076 [5] Zexuan Liu, Zhiyuan Sun, Jerry Zhijian Yang. A numerical study of superconvergence of the discontinuous Galerkin method by patch reconstruction. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1487-1501. doi: 10.3934/era.2020078 [6] Yuxia Guo, Shaolong Peng. A direct method of moving planes for fully nonlinear nonlocal operators and applications. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020462 [7] Noah Stevenson, Ian Tice. A truncated real interpolation method and characterizations of screened Sobolev spaces. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5509-5566. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020250 [8] Leilei Wei, Yinnian He. A fully discrete local discontinuous Galerkin method with the generalized numerical flux to solve the tempered fractional reaction-diffusion equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020319 [9] Zuliang Lu, Fei Huang, Xiankui Wu, Lin Li, Shang Liu. Convergence and quasi-optimality of $L^2-$norms based an adaptive finite element method for nonlinear optimal control problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1459-1486. doi: 10.3934/era.2020077 [10] Yifan Chen, Thomas Y. Hou. Function approximation via the subsampled Poincaré inequality. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 169-199. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020296 [11] Hirokazu Ninomiya. Entire solutions of the Allen–Cahn–Nagumo equation in a multi-dimensional space. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2021, 41 (1) : 395-412. doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020364 [12] Min Chen, Olivier Goubet, Shenghao Li. Mathematical analysis of bump to bucket problem. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5567-5580. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020251 [13] Qingfang Wang, Hua Yang. Solutions of nonlocal problem with critical exponent. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5591-5608. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020253 [14] Stefano Bianchini, Paolo Bonicatto. Forward untangling and applications to the uniqueness problem for the continuity equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcds.2020384 [15] Marco Ghimenti, Anna Maria Micheletti. Compactness results for linearly perturbed Yamabe problem on manifolds with boundary. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020453 [16] Alberto Bressan, Sondre Tesdal Galtung. A 2-dimensional shape optimization problem for tree branches. Networks & Heterogeneous Media, 2020  doi: 10.3934/nhm.2020031 [17] Fioralba Cakoni, Pu-Zhao Kow, Jenn-Nan Wang. The interior transmission eigenvalue problem for elastic waves in media with obstacles. Inverse Problems & Imaging, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020075 [18] Shenglan Xie, Maoan Han, Peng Zhu. A posteriori error estimate of weak Galerkin fem for second order elliptic problem with mixed boundary condition. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020340 [19] Zhilei Liang, Jiangyu Shuai. Existence of strong solution for the Cauchy problem of fully compressible Navier-Stokes equations in two dimensions. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020  doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020348 [20] Mehdi Badsi. Collisional sheath solutions of a bi-species Vlasov-Poisson-Boltzmann boundary value problem. Kinetic & Related Models, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/krm.2020052

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366