About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents 
Journal of Applied Mathematics
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 582792, 17 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/582792
Research Article

Well-Posedness of Generalized Vector Quasivariational Inequality Problems

Jian-Wen Peng and Fang Liu

School of Mathematics, Chongqing Normal University, Chongqing 400047, China

Received 28 October 2011; Accepted 14 December 2011

Academic Editor: Yeong-Cheng Liou

Copyright © 2012 Jian-Wen Peng and Fang Liu. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

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 , 𝑑 1 ) be a metric space. Let 𝑋 1 ⊂ 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 i n t 𝐶 , that is, 𝑦 1 ≤ 𝑦 2 if and only if 𝑦 2 − 𝑦 1 ∈ 𝐶 for any 𝑦 1 , 𝑦 2 ∈ 𝑌 . Let 𝐿 ( 𝑋 , 𝑌 ) be the space of all the linear continuous operators from 𝑋 to 𝑌 . Let 𝑇 ∶ 𝑋 1 → 2 𝐿 ( 𝑋 , 𝑌 ) and 𝑆 ∶ 𝑋 1 → 2 𝑋 1 be strict set-valued mappings (i.e., 𝑇 ( 𝑥 ) ≠ ∅ and 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) ≠ ∅ , f o r a l l 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ), and let 𝑔 ∶ 𝑋 1 → 𝑍 be a continuous vector-valued mapping. We denote by ⟨ 𝑧 , 𝑥 ⟩ the value 𝑧 ( 𝑥 ) , where 𝑧 ∈ 𝐿 ( 𝑋 , 𝑌 ) , 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 . Let 𝑋 0 = { 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ∶ 𝑔 ( 𝑥 ) ∈ 𝐾 } be nonempty. We consider the following generalized vector quasi-variational inequality problem with functional constraints and abstract set constraints.

Find 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 0 such that 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) and there exists 𝑧 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 ) satisfying 𝑧 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 ∉ − i n t 𝐶 , ∀ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 𝑥 . ( G V Q V I ) Denote by 𝑋 the solution set of (GVQVI).

Let 𝑍 1 , 𝑍 2 be two normed spaces. A set-valued map 𝐹 from 𝑍 1 to 2 𝑍 2 is

(i) closed, on 𝑍 3 ⊆ 𝑍 1 , if for any sequence { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑍 3 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 ∈ 𝑍 1 , if { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑍 1 , 𝑥 𝑛 → 𝑥 , and 𝑦 ∈ 𝐹 ( 𝑥 ) imply that there exists a sequence { 𝑦 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑍 2 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 𝑍 1 , we say that 𝐹 is l.s.c. on 𝑍 1 ;

(iii) upper semicontinuous (u.s.c. in short) at 𝑥 ∈ 𝑍 1 , if for any neighborhood 𝑉 of 𝐹 ( 𝑥 ) , there exists a neighborhood 𝑈 of 𝑥 such that 𝐹 ( 𝑥 ′ ) ⊆ 𝑉 , f o r a l l 𝑥 ′ ∈ 𝑈 . If 𝐹 is u.s.c. at each point of 𝑍 1 , we say that 𝐹 is u.s.c. on 𝑍 1 .

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

Let ( 𝑃 , 𝑑 ) be a metric space, 𝑃 1 ⊂ 𝑃 , and 𝑥 ∈ 𝑃 . We denote by 𝑑 𝑃 1 ( 𝑥 ) = i n f { 𝑑 ( 𝑥 , 𝑝 ) ∶ 𝑝 ∈ 𝑃 1 } the distance from the point 𝑥 to the set 𝑃 1 . 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 Φ ∗ = 𝜆 ∈ 𝑉 ∗ ∶ 𝜆 ( 𝑥 ) ≥ 0 , ∀ 𝑥 ∈ Φ . ( 2 . 1 )

Let 𝑒 ∈ i n t 𝐶 be fixed. Denote 𝐶 ∗ 0 = 𝜆 ∈ 𝐶 ∗ . ∶ 𝜆 ( 𝑒 ) = 1 ( 2 . 2 )

Definition 2.1. (i) A sequence { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 is called a type I Levitin-Polyak (LP in short) approximating solution sequence if there exist { 𝜖 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝐑 1 + = { 𝑟 ≥ 0 | 𝑟 i s a r e a l n u m b e r } with 𝜖 𝑛 → 0 and 𝑧 𝑛 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) such that 𝑑 𝑋 0 𝑥 𝑛 ≤ 𝜖 𝑛 , 𝑥 ( 2 . 3 ) 𝑛 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 , ( 2 . 4 ) ⟨ 𝑧 𝑛 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 𝑛 ⟩ + 𝜖 𝑛 𝑥 𝑒 ∉ − i n t 𝐶 , ∀ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 . ( 2 . 5 )
(ii) { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 is called a type II LP approximating solution sequence if there exist { 𝜖 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝐑 1 + 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 ⟨ 𝑧 , 𝑤 ( 𝑛 , 𝑧 ) − 𝑥 𝑛 ⟩ − 𝜖 𝑛 𝑒 ∈ − 𝐶 . ( 2 . 6 )
(iii) { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 is called a generalized type I LP approximating solution sequence if there exist { 𝜖 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝐑 1 + with 𝜖 𝑛 → 0 and 𝑧 𝑛 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) such that 𝑑 𝐾 𝑔 𝑥 𝑛 ≤ 𝜖 𝑛 ( 2 . 7 ) and (2.4), (2.5) hold.
(iv) { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 is called a generalized type II LP approximating solution sequence if there exist { 𝜖 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝐑 1 + 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 𝑋 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 { 𝑥 𝑛 𝑗 } of { 𝑥 𝑛 } and 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 such that 𝑥 𝑛 𝑗 → 𝑥 .

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 𝑋 is compact.
(iii) Suppose that 𝑔 is uniformly continuous functions on a set 𝑋 1 𝛿 0 = 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ∶ 𝑑 𝑋 0 ( 𝑥 ) ≤ 𝛿 0 , ( 2 . 8 ) for some 𝛿 0 > 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 = 𝐑 1 , 𝐶 = 𝐑 1 + , 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 = 𝐑 1 , 𝐶 = 𝐑 1 + , 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) = 𝑋 0 for all 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 , 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 ) = 𝑋 0 for all 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 , 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: 𝑥 𝑋 ≠ ∅ a n d f o r a n y t y p e I r e s p . , t y p e I I , g e n e r a l i z e d t y p e I , g e n e r a l i z e d t y p e I I L P a p p r o x i m a t i n g s o l u t i o n s e q u e n c e 𝑛 , w e h a v e 𝑑 𝑋 𝑥 𝑛 . ⟶ 0 ( 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 𝑋 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: m i n 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) s . t . 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ′ 1 𝑔 ( 𝑥 ) ∈ 𝐾 , ( P )

where 𝑋 1 ⊆ 𝑋 1 is nonempty and f ∶ 𝑋 1 → 𝐑 1 ∪ { + ∞ } is proper. The feasible set of (P) is 𝑋 ′ 0 , where 𝑋 0 = { 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ∶ 𝑔 ( 𝑥 ) ∈ 𝐾 } . The optimal set and optimal value of (P) are denoted by 𝑋 and 𝑣 , respectively. Note that if D o m ( 𝑓 ) ∩ 𝑋 0 ≠ ∅ , where D o m ( 𝑓 ) = 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ∶ 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) < + ∞ , ( 2 . 1 0 ) then 𝑣 < + ∞ . In this paper, we always assume that 𝑣 > − ∞ .

Definition 2.5. (i) A sequence { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 is called a type I LP minimizing sequence for (P) if l i m s u p 𝑛 → ∞ 𝑓 𝑥 𝑛 ≤ 𝑑 𝑣 , ( 2 . 1 1 ) 𝑋 ′ 0 𝑥 𝑛 ⟶ 0 . ( 2 . 1 2 )
(ii) { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 is called a type II LP minimizing sequence for (P) if l i m 𝑛 → ∞ 𝑓 𝑥 𝑛 = 𝑣 ( 2 . 1 3 ) and (2.12) hold.
(iii) { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 is called a generalized type I LP minimizing sequence for (P) if 𝑑 𝐾 𝑔 𝑥 𝑛 ⟶ 0 ( 2 . 1 4 ) and (2.11) hold.
(iv) { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 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 𝑋 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 { 𝑥 𝑛 𝑗 } of { 𝑥 𝑛 } and 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 such that 𝑥 𝑛 𝑗 → 𝑥 .
The Auslender gap function for (GVQVI) is defined as follows: 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) = i n f 𝑧 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 ) s u p 𝑥 ′ ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) i n f 𝜆 ∈ 𝐶 ∗ 0 𝜆 𝑧 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 , ∀ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 . ( 2 . 1 5 )
Let 𝑋 2 ⊆ 𝑋 be defined by 𝑋 2 = { 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ∣ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) } . ( 2 . 1 6 )
In the rest of this paper, we set 𝑋 1 in (P) equal to 𝑋 1 ∩ 𝑋 2 . Note that if 𝑆 is closed on 𝑋 1 , then 𝑋 1 is closed.
Recall the following widely used function (see, e.g., [38]) 𝜉 ∶ 𝑌 ⟶ 𝐑 1 ∶ m i n 𝑡 ∈ 𝐑 1 . ∶ 𝑦 − 𝑡 𝑒 ∈ − 𝐶 ( 2 . 1 7 )
It is known that 𝜉 is a continuous, (strictly) monotone (i.e., for any 𝑦 1 , 𝑦 2 ∈ 𝑌 , 𝑦 1 − 𝑦 2 ∈ 𝐶 implies that 𝜉 ( 𝑦 1 ) ≥ 𝜉 ( 𝑦 2 ) and ( 𝑦 1 − 𝑦 2 ∈ i n t 𝐶 implies that 𝜉 ( 𝑦 1 ) > 𝜉 ( 𝑦 2 ) ), subadditive and convex function. Moreover, it holds that 𝜉 ( 𝑡 𝑒 ) = 𝑡 , f o r a l l 𝑡 ∈ 𝐑 1 and 𝜉 ( 𝑦 ) = s u p 𝜆 ∈ 𝐶 ∗ 0 𝜆 ( 𝑦 ) , f o r a l l 𝑦 ∈ 𝑌 .
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 𝑋 1 . Then(i) 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) ≥ 0 , f o r a l l 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 ′ 1 ;(ii)for any 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 0 , 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) = 0 if and only if 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 .

Proof. (i) Let 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 . 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 s u p 𝑥 ′ ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) i n f 𝜆 ∈ 𝐶 ∗ 0 𝜆 𝑧 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 𝛿 ≤ 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) + 2 𝛿 < − 2 < 0 . ( 2 . 1 8 ) Thus, we have i n f 𝜆 ∈ 𝐶 ∗ 0 𝜆 𝑧 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 < 0 , ∀ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) , ( 2 . 1 9 ) which is impossible when 𝑥 = 𝑥 . This proves (i).
(ii) Suppose that 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 0 such that 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) = 0 .
Then, it follows from the definition of 𝑋 0 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 i n f 𝜆 ∈ 𝐶 ∗ 0 𝜆 𝑧 𝑛 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 ≤ 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) + 𝜖 𝑛 = 𝜖 𝑛 , ∀ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) , ( 2 . 2 0 ) that is, 𝜉 𝑧 𝑛 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 ≥ − 𝜖 𝑛 , ∀ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) . ( 2 . 2 1 ) By the compactness of 𝑇 ( 𝑥 ) , there exists a sequence { 𝑧 𝑛 𝑗 } of { 𝑧 𝑛 } and some 𝑧 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 ) such that 𝑧 𝑛 𝑗 ⟶ 𝑧 . ( 2 . 2 2 ) This fact, together with the continuity of 𝜉 and (2.21), implies that 𝜉 𝑧 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 ≥ 0 , ∀ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) . ( 2 . 2 3 ) It follows that 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 .
Conversely, assume that 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 . It follows from the definition of 𝑋 that 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) . Suppose to the contrary that 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) > 0 . Then, for any 𝑧 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 ) , s u p 𝑥 ′ ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) i n f 𝜆 ∈ 𝐶 ∗ 0 𝜆 𝑧 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 > 0 . ( 2 . 2 4 )
Thus, there exist 𝛿 > 0 and 𝑥 0 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) such that i n f 𝜆 ∈ 𝐶 ∗ 0 𝜆 ⟨ 𝑧 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 0 ⟩ ≥ 𝛿 . ( 2 . 2 5 ) It follows that 𝜉 ⟨ 𝑧 , 𝑥 0 − 𝑥 ⟩ ≤ − 𝛿 < 0 . ( 2 . 2 6 ) As a result, we have ⟨ 𝑧 , 𝑥 0 − 𝑥 ⟩ ∈ − i n t 𝐶 . ( 2 . 2 7 ) This contradicts the fact that 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 . 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 𝑋 1 and the set-valued map 𝑆 is l.s.c. on 𝑋 1 . Then 𝑓 is l.s.c. function from 𝑋 1 to 𝐑 1 ∪ { + ∞ } . Further assume that the solution set 𝑋 of (GVQVI) is nonempty, then D o m ( 𝑓 ) ≠ ∅ .

Proof. First we show that 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) > − ∞ , f o r a l l 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 . Suppose to the contrary that there exists 𝑥 0 ∈ 𝑋 1 such that 𝑓 ( 𝑥 0 ) = − ∞ . Then, there exist 𝑧 𝑛 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 0 ) and { 𝑀 𝑛 } ⊂ 𝑅 1 + with 𝑀 𝑛 → + ∞ such that s u p 𝑥 ′ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 0 i n f 𝜆 ∈ 𝐶 ∗ 0 𝜆 𝑧 𝑛 , 𝑥 0 − 𝑥 ≤ − 𝑀 𝑛 . ( 2 . 2 8 ) Thus, 𝜉 𝑧 𝑛 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 0 ≥ 𝑀 𝑛 , ∀ 𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 0 . ( 2 . 2 9 ) By the compactness of 𝑇 ( 𝑥 0 ) , there exist a sequence { 𝑧 𝑛 𝑗 } ⊂ { 𝑧 𝑛 } and some 𝑧 0 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 0 ) such that 𝑧 𝑛 𝑗 → 𝑧 0 . This fact, together with (2.29) and the continuity of 𝜉 on 𝑌 , implies that 𝜉 𝑧 0 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 0 ≥ + ∞ , ∀ 𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 0 ( 2 . 3 0 ) which is impossible, since 𝜉 is a finite function on 𝑌 .
Second, we show that 𝑓 is l.s.c. on 𝑋 1 . Let 𝑎 ∈ 𝐑 1 . Suppose that { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊂ 𝑋 1 satisfies 𝑓 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) ≤ 𝑎 , f o r a l l 𝑛 , and 𝑥 𝑛 → 𝑥 0 ∈ 𝑋 1 . It follows that, for each 𝑛 , there exist 𝑧 𝑛 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) and 0 < 𝛿 𝑛 → 0 such that − 𝜉 ⟨ 𝑧 𝑛 , 𝑦 − 𝑥 𝑛 ⟩ ≤ 𝑎 + 𝛿 𝑛 𝑥 , ∀ 𝑦 ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 . ( 2 . 3 1 )
For any 𝑥 ′ ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 0 ) , by the l.s.c. of 𝑆 , we have a sequence { 𝑦 𝑛 } with { 𝑦 𝑛 } ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) converging to 𝑥 such that − 𝜉 ⟨ 𝑧 𝑛 , 𝑦 𝑛 − 𝑥 𝑛 ⟩ ≤ 𝑎 + 𝛿 𝑛 . ( 2 . 3 2 )
By the u.s.c. of 𝑇 at 𝑥 0 and the compactness of 𝑇 ( 𝑥 0 ) , we obtain a subsequence { 𝑧 𝑛 𝑗 } of { 𝑧 𝑛 } and some 𝑧 0 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 0 ) such that 𝑧 𝑛 𝑗 → 𝑧 0 . Taking the limit in (2.32) (with 𝑛 replaced by 𝑛 𝑗 ), by the continuity of 𝜉 , we have 𝑧 − 𝜉 0 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 0 ≤ 𝑎 , ∀ 𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 0 . ( 2 . 3 3 )
It follows that 𝑓 ( 𝑥 0 ) = i n f 𝑧 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 0 ) s u p 𝑥 ′ ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 0 ) − 𝜉 ( ⟨ 𝑧 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 0 ⟩ ) ≤ 𝑎 . Hence, 𝑓 is l.s.c. on 𝑋 1 . Furthermore, if 𝑋 ≠ ∅ , by Lemma 2.7, we see that D o m ( 𝑓 ) ≠ ∅ .

Lemma 2.9. Let the function 𝑓 be defined by (2.15), and let the set-valued map 𝑇 be compact-valued on 𝑋 1 . Then,(i) { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 is a sequence such that there exist { 𝜖 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝐑 1 + with 𝜖 𝑛 → 0 and 𝑧 𝑛 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) satisfying (2.4) and (2.5) if and only if { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 and (2.11) hold with 𝑣 = 0 ,(ii) { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ X 1 is a sequence such that there exist { 𝜖 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝐑 1 + 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 { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 ′ 1 and (2.13) hold with 𝑣 = 0 .

Proof. (i) Let { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 be any sequence if there exist { 𝜖 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝐑 1 + with 𝜖 𝑛 → 0 and 𝑧 𝑛 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) satisfying (2.4) and (2.5), then we can easily verify that 𝑥 𝑛 ⊆ 𝑋 1 𝑥 , 𝑓 𝑛 ≤ 𝜖 𝑛 . ( 2 . 3 4 ) It follows that (2.11) holds with 𝑣 = 0 .
For the converse, let { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 and (2.11) hold with 𝑣 = 0 . We can see that { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 and (2.4) hold. Furthermore, by (2.11), we have that there exists { 𝜖 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝐑 1 + w i t h 𝜖 𝑛 → 0 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 𝜉 𝑧 𝑛 , 𝑥 ′ − 𝑥 𝑛 ≥ − 𝜖 𝑛 , ∀ 𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 . ( 2 . 3 5 )
It follows that for every 𝑛 there exists 𝑧 𝑛 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) such that (2.5) holds.
(ii) Let { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 be any sequence we can verify that l i m i n f 𝑛 → ∞ 𝑓 𝑥 𝑛 ≥ 0 ( 2 . 3 6 )
holds if and only if there exists { 𝛼 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝐑 1 + with 𝛼 𝑛 → 0 and, for any 𝑧 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) , there exists 𝑤 ( 𝑛 , 𝑧 ) ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) such that ⟨ 𝑧 , 𝑤 ( 𝑛 , 𝑧 ) − 𝑥 𝑛 ⟩ − 𝛼 𝑛 𝑒 ∈ − 𝐶 . ( 2 . 3 7 )
From the proof of (i), we know that l i m s u p 𝑛 → ∞ 𝑓 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) ≤ 0 and { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 hold if and only if { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 such that there exist { 𝛽 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝐑 1 + with 𝛽 𝑛 → 0 𝑧 𝑛 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) satisfying (2.4) and (2.5) (with 𝜖 𝑛 replaced by 𝛽 𝑛 ). Finally, we let 𝜖 𝑛 = m a x { 𝛼 𝑛 , 𝛽 𝑛 } and the conclusion follows.

Proposition 2.10. Assume that 𝑋 ≠ ∅ and 𝑇 is compact-valued on 𝑋 1 . 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 𝑋 ≠ ∅ , it follows from Lemma 2.7 that 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 is a solution of (GVQVI) if and only if 𝑥 is an optimal solution of (5) with 𝑣 = 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) = 0 .(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 𝑋 0 ⊆ 𝑋 0 , 𝑑 𝑋 0 ( 𝑥 ) ≤ 𝑑 𝑋 ′ 0 ( 𝑥 ) 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 𝑠 𝑐 ( 𝑡 , 𝑠 , 𝑟 ) ≥ 0 , ∀ 𝑡 , 𝑠 , 𝑟 , 𝑐 ( 0 , 0 , 0 ) = 0 , 𝑛 ⟶ 0 , 𝑡 𝑛 ≥ 0 , 𝑟 𝑛 𝑡 = 0 , 𝑐 𝑛 , 𝑠 𝑛 , 𝑟 𝑛 ⟶ 0 i m p l y t h a t 𝑡 𝑛 ⟶ 0 , ( 3 . 1 )

Theorem 3.1. Let the set-valued map 𝑇 be compact-valued on 𝑋 1 . 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 | | 𝑓 | | 𝑑 ( 𝑥 ) ≥ 𝑐 𝑋 ( 𝑥 ) , 𝑑 𝑋 0 ( 𝑥 ) , 𝑑 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) ( 𝑥 ) , ∀ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 , ( 3 . 2 ) where 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) is defined by (2.15). Conversely, suppose that 𝑋 is nonempty and compact and (3.2) holds for some 𝑐 satisfying (3.1). Then (GVQVI) is type II LP well-posed.

Proof. Define 𝑐 | | 𝑓 | | ( 𝑡 , 𝑠 , 𝑟 ) = i n f ( 𝑥 ) ∶ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 , 𝑑 𝑋 ( 𝑥 ) = 𝑡 , 𝑑 𝑋 0 ( 𝑥 ) = 𝑠 , 𝑑 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) . ( 𝑥 ) = 𝑟 ( 3 . 3 ) Since 𝑋 ≠ ∅ , 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 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 with 𝑑 𝑋 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) = 𝑡 𝑛 , 𝑑 𝑆 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) = 𝑟 𝑛 = 0 , 𝑑 𝑋 0 𝑥 𝑛 = 𝑠 𝑛 ⟶ 0 , ( 3 . 4 ) such that | | 𝑓 𝑥 𝑛 | | ⟶ 0 . ( 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 | | 𝑓 𝑥 𝑛 | | 𝑑 ≥ 𝑐 𝑋 𝑥 𝑛 , 𝑑 𝑋 0 𝑥 𝑛 , 𝑑 𝑆 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) 𝑥 𝑛 . ( 3 . 6 )
Let 𝑡 𝑛 = 𝑑 𝑋 𝑥 𝑛 , 𝑠 𝑛 = 𝑑 𝑋 0 𝑥 𝑛 , 𝑟 𝑛 = 𝑑 𝑆 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) 𝑥 𝑛 . ( 3 . 7 )
Then 𝑠 𝑛 → 0 and 𝑟 𝑛 = 0 , f o r a l l 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 𝑋 1 . 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 | | 𝑓 | | 𝑑 ( 𝑥 ) ≥ 𝑐 𝑋 ( 𝑥 ) , 𝑑 𝐾 ( 𝑔 ( 𝑥 ) ) , 𝑑 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) ( 𝑥 ) , ∀ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 , ( 3 . 8 ) where 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) is defined by (2.15). Conversely, suppose that 𝑋 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 𝑐 | | 𝑓 | | ( 𝑡 , 𝑠 , 𝑟 ) = i n f ( 𝑥 ) ∶ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 , 𝑑 𝑋 ( 𝑥 ) = 𝑡 , 𝑑 𝐾 ( 𝑔 ( 𝑥 ) ) = 𝑠 , 𝑑 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) . ( 𝑥 ) = 𝑟 ( 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 𝐻 𝜇 ( 𝐻 ) = i n f 𝜖 > 0 ∶ 𝐻 ⊆ 𝑖 𝐻 , d i a m 𝑖 < 𝜖 , 𝑖 = 1 , … , 𝑛 , ( 3 . 1 0 )
where d i a m ( 𝐻 𝑖 ) is the diameter of 𝐻 𝑖 defined by 𝐻 d i a m 𝑖 = s u p ‖ 𝑥 1 − 𝑥 2 ‖ ∶ 𝑥 1 , 𝑥 2 ∈ 𝐻 𝑖 . ( 3 . 1 1 )
Given two nonempty subsets A and B of a Banach space ( 𝑋 , ‖ ⋅ ‖ ) , the Hausdorff distance between A and B is defined by ℎ 𝑑 ( 𝐴 , 𝐵 ) = m a x s u p 𝐵 𝑑 ( 𝑎 ) ∶ 𝑎 ∈ 𝐴 , s u p 𝐴 ( 𝑏 ) ∶ 𝑏 ∈ 𝐵 . ( 3 . 1 2 )
For any 𝜖 ≥ 0 , two types of approximating solution sets for (GVQVI) are defined, respectively, by Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) = 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ∶ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) , 𝑑 𝑋 0 ( 𝑥 ) ≤ 𝜖 , ∃ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 ) , s . t . 𝑧 , 𝑥 ′ − 𝑥 + 𝜖 𝑒 ∉ − i n t 𝐶 , ∀ 𝑥 , Ω ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) 2 ( 𝜖 ) = 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ∶ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) , 𝑑 𝐾 ( 𝑔 ( 𝑥 ) ) ≤ 𝜖 , ∃ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 ) , s . t . 𝑧 , 𝑥 ′ − 𝑥 + 𝜖 𝑒 ∉ − i n t 𝐶 , ∀ 𝑥 . ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) ( 3 . 1 3 )

Theorem 3.3. Assume that 𝑇 is u.s.c. and compact-valued on 𝑋 1 and 𝑆 is l.s.c. and closed on 𝑋 1 . Then
(a) (GVQVI) is type I LP well-posed if and only if l i m 𝜖 → 0 𝜇 Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) = 0 , ( 3 . 1 4 )
(b) (GVQVI) is generalized type I LP well-posed if and only if l i m 𝜖 → 0 𝜇 Ω 2 ( 𝜖 ) = 0 . ( 3 . 1 5 )

Proof. (a) First we show that, for every 𝜖 > 0 , Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) is closed. In fact, let 𝑥 𝑛 ∈ Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) and 𝑥 𝑛 → 𝑥 0 . Then (2.4) and the following formula hold: 𝑑 𝑋 0 𝑥 𝑛 ≤ 𝜖 , ∃ 𝑧 𝑛 𝑥 ∈ 𝑇 𝑛 𝑧 , s . t . 𝑛 , 𝑥 ′ − 𝑥 𝑛 + 𝜖 𝑒 ∉ − i n t 𝐶 , ∀ 𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 . ( 3 . 1 6 ) Since 𝑥 𝑛 → 𝑥 0 , by the closedness of 𝑆 and (2.4), we have 𝑥 0 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 0 ) . From (3.16), we get 𝑑 𝑋 0 𝑥 0 ≤ 𝜖 , ( 3 . 1 7 ) ∃ 𝑧 𝑛 𝑥 ∈ 𝑇 𝑛 𝑧 , s . t . 𝜉 𝑛 , 𝑥 ′ − 𝑥 𝑛 ≥ − 𝜖 , ∀ 𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 𝑛 . ( 3 . 1 8 ) For any 𝑣 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 0 ) , by the lower semi-continuity of 𝑆 and (3.18), we can find 𝑣 𝑛 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) with 𝑣 𝑛 → 𝑣 such that 𝜉 ⟨ 𝑧 𝑛 , 𝑣 𝑛 − 𝑥 𝑛 ⟩ ≥ − 𝜖 . ( 3 . 1 9 )
By the u.s.c. of 𝑇 at 𝑥 0 and the compactness of 𝑇 ( 𝑥 0 ) , there exist a subsequence { 𝑧 𝑛 𝑗 } ⊂ { 𝑧 𝑛 } and some 𝑧 0 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 0 ) such that 𝑧 𝑛 𝑗 ⟶ 𝑧 0 . ( 3 . 2 0 )
This fact, together with the continuity of 𝜉 and (3.19), implies that 𝜉 ⟨ 𝑧 0 , 𝑣 − 𝑥 0 ⟩ 𝑥 ≥ − 𝜖 ∀ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑆 0 . ( 3 . 2 1 )
It follows that ⟨ 𝑧 0 , 𝑣 − 𝑥 0 𝑥 ⟩ + 𝜖 𝑒 ∉ − i n t 𝐶 ∀ 𝑣 ∈ 𝑆 0 . ( 3 . 2 2 ) Hence, 𝑥 0 ∈ Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) .
Second, we show that ⋂ 𝑋 = 𝜖 > 0 Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) . It is obvious that ⋂ 𝑋 ⊆ 𝜖 > 0 Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) . Now suppose that 𝜖 𝑛 > 0 with 𝜖 𝑛 → 0 and 𝑥 ∗ ∈ ⋂ 𝜖 > 0 Ω 1 ( 𝜖 𝑛 ) . Then 𝑑 𝑋 0 𝑥 ∗ ≤ 𝜖 𝑛 𝑥 , ∀ 𝑛 , ( 3 . 2 3 ) ∗ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ∗ , 𝑥 ( 3 . 2 4 ) ∃ 𝑧 ∈ 𝑇 ∗ , s . t . 𝑧 , 𝑥 ′ − 𝑥 ∗ + 𝜖 𝑛 𝑒 ∉ − i n t 𝐶 , ∀ 𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ∗ . ( 3 . 2 5 ) From (3.23), we have 𝑥 ∗ ∈ 𝑋 0 . ( 3 . 2 6 ) From (3.25), we have 𝑧 , 𝑥 − 𝑥 ∗ ∉ − i n t 𝐶 , ∀ 𝑥 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ∗ , ( 3 . 2 7 )
that is 𝑥 ∗ ∈ 𝑋 . Hence, ⋂ 𝑋 = 𝜖 > 0 Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) .
Now we assume that (GVQVI) is type I LP well-posed. By Remark 2.3, we know that the solution 𝑋 is nonempty and compact. For every positive real number 𝜖 , since 𝑋 ∈ Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) , one gets Ω 1 Ω ( 𝜖 ) ≠ ∅ , ℎ 1 ( 𝜖 ) , 𝑋 = m a x s u p 𝑢 ∈ Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) 𝑑 𝑋 ( 𝑢 ) , s u p 𝑣 ∈ 𝑋 𝑑 Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) ( 𝑣 ) = s u p 𝑢 ∈ Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) 𝑑 𝑋 ( 𝑢 ) . ( 3 . 2 8 )
For every 𝑛 ∈ 𝑁 , the following relations hold: 𝜇 Ω 1 Ω ( 𝜖 ) ≤ 2 ℎ 1 ( 𝜖 ) , 𝑋 + 𝜇 𝑋 Ω = 2 ℎ 1 ( 𝜖 ) , 𝑋 , ( 3 . 2 9 ) where 𝜇 ( 𝑋 ) = 0 since 𝑋 is compact. Hence, in order to prove that l i m 𝜖 → 0 𝜇 ( Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) ) = 0 , we only need to prove that l i m 𝜖 → 0 ℎ Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) , 𝑋 = l i m 𝜖 → 0 s u p 𝑢 ∈ Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) 𝑑 𝑋 ( 𝑢 ) = 0 . ( 3 . 3 0 )
Suppose that this is not true, then there exist 𝛽 > 0 , 𝜖 𝑛 → 0 , and sequence { 𝑢 𝑛 } , 𝑢 𝑛 ∈ Ω 1 ( 𝜖 𝑛 ) , such that 𝑑 𝑋 𝑢 𝑛 > 𝛽 , ( 3 . 3 1 ) for 𝑛 sufficiently large.
Since { 𝑢 𝑛 } is type I LP approximating sequence for (GVQVI), it contains a subsequence { 𝑢 𝑛 𝑘 } conversing to a point of 𝑋 , which contradicts (3.31).
For the converse, we know that, for every 𝜖 > 0 , the set Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) is closed, ⋂ 𝑋 = 𝜖 > 0 Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) , and l i m 𝜖 → 0 𝜇 ( Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) ) = 0 . The theorem on Page. 412 in [40, 41] can be applied, and one concludes that the set 𝑋 is nonempty, compact, and l i m 𝜖 → 0 ℎ Ω 1 ( 𝜖 ) , 𝑋 = 0 . ( 3 . 3 2 )
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 ∈ Ω 1 ( 𝜖 𝑛 ) , for every 𝑛 ∈ 𝑁 . Since 𝑋 is compact and l i m 𝑛 → + ∞ 𝑑 𝑋 𝑥 𝑛 ≤ l i m 𝑛 → + ∞ ℎ Ω 1 𝜖 𝑛 , 𝑋 = 0 , ( 3 . 3 3 ) 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 𝑍 1 ⊆ 𝑍 be nonempty. Suppose that ℎ ∶ 𝑍 → 𝑅 1 ∪ { + ∞ } is an extended real-valued function. ℎ is said to be level-compact on 𝑍 1 if, for any 𝑠 ∈ 𝐑 1 , the subset { 𝑧 ∈ 𝑍 1 ∶ ℎ ( 𝑧 ) ≤ 𝑠 } is compact.
(ii) Let 𝑋 be a finite-dimensional normed space, and let 𝑍 1 ⊂ 𝑍 be nonempty. A function ℎ ∶ 𝑍 → 𝐑 1 ∪ { + ∞ } is said to be level-bounded on 𝑍 1 if 𝑍 1 is bounded or l i m 𝑧 ∈ 𝑍 1 , ‖ 𝑧 ‖ → + ∞ ℎ ( 𝑧 ) = + ∞ . ( 3 . 3 4 )
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 𝑋 of (GVQVI) is nonempty and set-valued map 𝑆 is l.s.c. and closed on 𝑋 1 , the set-valued map T is u.s.c. and compact-valued on 𝑋 1 . Suppose that one of the following conditions holds:
(i) there exists 0 < 𝛿 1 ≤ 𝛿 0 such that 𝑋 1 ( 𝛿 1 ) is compact, where 𝑋 1 𝛿 1 = 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ∩ 𝑋 2 ∶ 𝑑 𝑋 0 ( 𝑥 ) ≤ 𝛿 1 ; ( 3 . 3 5 )
(ii) the function 𝑓 defined by (2.15) is level-compact on 𝑋 1 ∩ 𝑋 2 ;
(iii) 𝑋 is finite-dimensional and l i m 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ∩ 𝑋 2 , ‖ 𝑥 ‖ → + ∞ 𝑓 m a x ( 𝑥 ) , 𝑑 𝑋 0 ( 𝑥 ) = + ∞ , ( 3 . 3 6 )
where 𝑓 is defined by (2.15);
(iv) there exists 0 < 𝛿 1 ≤ 𝛿 0 such that 𝑓 is level-compact on 𝑋 1 ( 𝛿 1 ) 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 ∈ 𝐑 1 , the set 𝐴 = 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 𝛿 1 ∶ 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) ≤ 𝑡 ( 3 . 3 7 ) is bounded since 𝑋 is finite-dimensional space and the function 𝑓 defined by (2.15) is l.s.c. on 𝑋 1 and thus 𝐴 is closed. Suppose to the contrary that there exists 𝑡 ∈ 𝐑 1 and { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 ( 𝛿 1 ) such that ‖ 𝑥 𝑛 ‖ → + ∞ and 𝑓 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) ≤ 𝑡 . From { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 ( 𝛿 1 ) , we have 𝑑 𝑋 0 ( 𝑥 𝑛 ) ≤ 𝛿 1 .
Thus, 𝑓 𝑥 m a x 𝑛 , 𝑑 𝑋 0 𝑥 𝑛 ≤ m a x 𝑡 , 𝛿 1 , ( 3 . 3 8 ) 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 { 𝜖 𝑛 } ⊆ 𝐑 1 + 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 } ⊆ 𝑋 1 ( 𝛿 1 ) . By Lemma 2.9, we can assume without loss of generality that { 𝑥 𝑛 } ⊆ { 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ( 𝛿 1 ) ∶ 𝑓 ( 𝑥 ) ≤ 1 } . By the level-compactness of 𝑓 on 𝑋 1 ( 𝛿 1 ) , we can find a subsequence { 𝑥 𝑛 𝑗 } of { 𝑥 𝑛 } and 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ( 𝛿 1 ) such that 𝑥 𝑛 𝑗 → 𝑥 . Taking the limit in (2.3) (with 𝑥 𝑛 replaced by 𝑥 𝑛 𝑗 ), we have 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 0 . Since 𝑆 is closed and (2.4) holds, we also have 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 ( 𝑥 ) .
Furthermore, from the u . s . c . of 𝑇 at 𝑥 and the compactness of 𝑇 ( 𝑥 ) , we deduce that there exist a subsequence { 𝑧 𝑛 𝑗 } of { 𝑧 𝑛 } and some 𝑧 ∈ 𝑇 ( 𝑥 ) such that 𝑧 𝑛 𝑗 → 𝑧 . From this fact, together with (2.5), we have 𝑧 , 𝑥 ′ − 𝑥 ∉ − i n t 𝐶 , ∀ 𝑥 ∈ 𝑆 𝑥 . ( 3 . 3 9 ) Thus, 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 .
The next proposition can be proved similarly.

Proposition 3.6. Suppose that the solution set 𝑋 of (GVQVI) is nonempty and set-valued map 𝑆 is l.s.c. and closed on 𝑋 1 , the set-valued map T is u.s.c. and compact-valued on 𝑋 1 . Suppose that one of the following conditions holds:
(i) there exists 0 < 𝛿 1 ≤ 𝛿 0 such that 𝑋 2 ( 𝛿 1 ) is compact, where 𝑋 2 𝛿 1 = 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ∩ 𝑋 2 ∶ 𝑑 𝐾 ( 𝑔 ( 𝑥 ) ) ≤ 𝛿 1 ; ( 3 . 4 0 )
(ii) the function 𝑓 defined by (2.15) is level-compact on 𝑋 1 ∩ 𝑋 2 ;
(iii) 𝑋 is finite-dimension and l i m 𝑥 ∈ 𝑋 1 ∩ X 2 , ‖ 𝑥 ‖ → + ∞ 𝑓 m a x ( 𝑥 ) , 𝑑 𝐾 𝑔 ( 𝑥 ) = + ∞ , ( 3 . 4 1 )
where 𝑓 is defined by (2.15),
(iv) there exists 0 < 𝛿 1 ≤ 𝛿 0 such that 𝑓 is level-compact on 𝑋 2 ( 𝛿 1 ) 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. F. Giannessi, “Theorems of alternative, quadratic programs and complementarity problems,” in Variational Inequalities and Complementarity Problems, R. W. Cottle, F. Giannessi, and J. L. Lions, Eds., pp. 151–186, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1980. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  2. G. Y. Chen and G. M. Cheng, “Vector variational inequalities and vector optimization,” in Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 285, pp. 408–456, 1987.
  3. G. Y. Chen, “Existence of solutions for a vector variational inequality: an extension of the Hartmann-Stampacchia theorem,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 445–456, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  4. G. Y. Chen and X. Q. Yang, “The vector complementary problem and its equivalences with the weak minimal element in ordered spaces,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 153, no. 1, pp. 136–158, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  5. G.-Y. Chen and B. D. Craven, “Approximate dual and approximate vector variational inequality for multiobjective optimization,” Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society A, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 418–423, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  6. G.-Y. Chen and B. D. Craven, “A vector variational inequality and optimization over an efficient set,” Zeitschrift für Operations Research. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 1990. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  7. A. H. Siddiqi, Q. H. Ansari, and A. Khaliq, “On vector variational inequalities,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 171–180, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  8. X. Q. Yang, “Vector complementarity and minimal element problems,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 483–495, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  9. X. Q. Yang, “Vector variational inequality and its duality,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications A, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 869–877, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  10. X. Q. Yang, “Generalized convex functions and vector variational inequalities,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 563–580, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  11. S. J. Yu and J. C. Yao, “On vector variational inequalities,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 749–769, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  12. G. M. Lee, D. S. Kim, B. S. Lee, and S. J. Cho, “Generalized vector variational inequality and fuzzy extension,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 47–51, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  13. G. M. Lee, D. S. Kim, and B. S. Lee, “Generalized vector variational inequality,” Applied Mathematics Letters, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 39–42, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  14. K. L. Lin, D.-P. Yang, and J. C. Yao, “Generalized vector variational inequalities,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 117–125, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  15. I. V. Konnov and J. C. Yao, “On the generalized vector variational inequality problem,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 206, no. 1, pp. 42–58, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  16. A. Daniilidis and N. Hadjisavvas, “Existence theorems for vector variational inequalities,” Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 473–481, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  17. X. Q. Yang and J. C. Yao, “Gap functions and existence of solutions to set-valued vector variational inequalities,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 407–417, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  18. W. Oettli and D. Schläger, “Existence of equilibria for monotone multivalued mappings,” Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 219–228, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  19. G. Y. Chen and S. J. Li, “Existence of solutions for a generalized vector quasivariational inequality,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 321–334, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  20. G. M. Lee, B. S. Lee, and S.-S. Chang, “On vector quasivariational inequalities,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 203, no. 3, pp. 626–638, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  21. A. N. Tykhonov, “On the stability of the functional optimization problem,” Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, vol. 6, pp. 28–33, 1966. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  22. E. S. Levitin and B. T. Polyak, “Convergence of minimizing sequences in conditional extremum problem,” Soviet Mathematics Doklady, vol. 7, pp. 764–767, 1966.
  23. A. S. Konsulova and J. P. Revalski, “Constrained convex optimization problems—well-posedness and stability,” Numerical Functional Analysis and Optimization, vol. 15, no. 7-8, pp. 889–907, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  24. X. X. Huang and X. Q. Yang, “Generalized Levitin-Polyak well-posedness in constrained optimization,” SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 243–258, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  25. X. X. Huang and X. Q. Yang, “Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of constrained vector optimization problems,” Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 287–304, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  26. X. X. Huang, X. Q. Yang, and D. L. Zhu, “Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of variational inequality problems with functional constraints,” Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 159–174, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  27. X. X. Huang and X. Q. Yang, “Levitin-Polyak well-posedness in generalized variational inequality problems with functional constraints,” Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 671–684, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  28. B. Jiang, J. Zhang, and X. X. Huang, “Levitin-Polyak well-posedness of generalized quasivariational inequalities with functional constraints,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications A, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 1492–1503, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  29. Z. Xu, D. L. Zhu, and X. X. Huang, “Levitin-Polyak well-posedness in generalized vector variational inequality problem with functional constraints,” Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 505–524, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  30. J. Zhang, B. Jiang, and X. X. Huang, “Levitin-Polyak well-posedness in vector quasivariational inequality problems with functional constraints,” Fixed Point Theory and Applications, vol. 2010, Article ID 984074, 16 pages, 2010. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  31. Y.-P. Fang, N.-J. Huang, and J.-C. Yao, “Well-posedness by perturbations of mixed variational inequalities in Banach spaces,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 201, no. 3, pp. 682–692, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  32. L. Q. Anh, P. Q. Khanh, D. T. M. Van, and J.-C. Yao, “Well-posedness for vector quasiequilibria,” Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 713–737, 2009. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  33. L. C. Ceng, N. Hadjisavvas, S. Schaible, and J. C. Yao, “Well-posedness for mixed quasivariational-like inequalities,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 139, no. 1, pp. 109–125, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  34. L.-H. Peng, C. Li, and J.-C. Yao, “Well-posedness of a class of perturbed optimization problems in Banach spaces,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, vol. 346, no. 2, pp. 384–394, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  35. L. C. Ceng and J. C. Yao, “Well-posedness of generalized mixed variational inequalities, inclusion problems and fixed-point problems,” Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications A, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 4585–4603, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH
  36. Y.-P. Fang, N.-J. Huang, and J.-C. Yao, “Well-posedness of mixed variational inequalities, inclusion problems and fixed point problems,” Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 117–133, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at MathSciNet
  37. A. Petruşel, I. A. Rus, and J.-C. Yao, “Well-posedness in the generalized sense of the fixed point problems for multivalued operators,” Taiwanese Journal of Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 903–914, 2007. View at Zentralblatt MATH
  38. D. T. Luc, Theory of Vector Optimization, vol. 319 of Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1989.
  39. M. Furi and A. Vignoli, “About well-posed minimization problems for functionals in metric space,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, vol. 5, pp. 225–229, 1970. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  40. K. Kuratowski, Topology, vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1966.
  41. K. Kuratowski, Topology, vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1968.