arXiv:2006.00462v2 [math.OC] 14 Nov 2020 aclsrslsaenwee nfiiedmnin,tedvlpdcalc developed the finite-dimensions, in even new co are under constructions results differential calculus re generalized the metric the of conventional data) ensures more initial structure the subamenability that the weaker that much is of that class condition new a to paid is corresponding the in attention ieetal rs respectively. arcs, differentiable o h iiHdmr ietoa eiaie r the are derivative) directional Dini-Hadamard the (or emtial soitdwt the with associated geometrically sg fprubto,apoiain n ec iiigprocedur limiting hence and finit approximation, both perturbation, in of analysis usage variational modern of feature characteristic A Introduction 1 (2000) Classification Subject Mathematics programming. semidefinite programming, infinite ietoa eiaie n udffrnil fthe of subdifferentials and derivatives directional iin,tewaetqaicto odtosue odrv the derive to used conditions qualification weakest appropriate the under sitions, but sets and functions classica spaces the incomplete of the problems in remarkable controls mention we examples, important iesoa piiainpolm,wihaentrlyfruae in formulated naturally are which o problems, heart optimization o to the dimensional applications at their with are differentiation principle) generalized of variational rules Ekeland calculus powerful most the principles extremal hsato a loprl upre yteAsrla Rese Australian the by supported partly also was author this sthe as osrie piiain oto h bandrslsare prob results nonconvex Keywords. for obtained conditions the optimality of necessary refined Most t and optimization. assumptions constrained compactness rules normal calculus restrictive usag develop we imposing the way with this In type subregularity. Dini-Hadamard metric the s of procedures. normed subdifferentials limiting incomplete and and in completeness work on to based us techniques allows that analysis tional 887 n yteUAArFreOc fSinicRsac un Research Scientific of Office Force Air USA the by and 1808978 dev theoretical of majority the in as However, considered therein. references app and development the in role crucial a plays that question in space oerbs osrcin ihaeut aclsrlsbsdo v on based rules calculus spaces. adequate complete with constructions robust more hoyi nt-iesoa n aahsaefaeok;se e see, frameworks; space in Banach used and been have finite-dimensional notions in These theory discussions. and definitions the for 27 , ∗ ‡ † 30 h aitoa nlssdvlpdi hsppri h omdsaes space normed the in paper this in developed analysis variational The nteohrhn,teeeitbsdsasrc piiainmod optimization abstract exist—besides there hand, other the On Abstract. u oe prahhr sqiedffrn.W iwtecontingent/ the view We different. quite is here approach novel Our eateto ahmtc,WyeSaeUiest,Detroi University, State Wayne Mathematics, of Department eateto ahmtc,WyeSaeUiest,Detroi University, State Wayne Mathematics, of Department hsrsac fwsprl upre yteUANtoa Sci National USA the by supported partly was of research This n h eeecsteen nifiiedmnin hs procedu these dimensions infinite In therein. references the and ] ao ones major aitoa nlss osrie piiain general optimization, constrained analysis, Variational ihApiain oCntandOptimization Constrained to Applications with preliminary/elementary hsppri eoe odvlpn n plctoso gen a of applications and developing to devoted is paper This ete fsc principles such of Neither ihu hi usqetrbs euaiain hl xmn the examine while regularization, robust subsequent their without , SKNMOHAMMADI ASHKAN fvrainlaayi.I a enwl eonzdta uhprinc such that recognized well been has It analysis. variational of aitoa nlssi omdSpaces Normed in Analysis Variational subamenable udffrnilnra cone subdifferential/normal C agn/otnetcone tangent/contingent 1 [ ,b a, ucin n es hc r lorltdt h ercsubregular metric the to related also are which sets, and functions bet ihtesbeun asg otelmti re ocreate to order in limit the to passage subsequent the with objects and ] qualification sue nwa follows. what in used is C † 95,4J3 04,90C34 90C48, 49J53, 49J52, 2 robustness [ n OI .MORDUKHOVICH S. BORIS and ,b a, iiHdmr type Dini-Hadamard fcniuul ieetal n wc continuously twice and differentiable continuously of ] 1 rhCucludrDsoeyPoetDP-190100555. Project Discovery under Council arch fgnrlzddffrnito nnre pcswithout spaces normed in differentiation generalized of eso eiifiieadsmdfiieprogramming. semidefinite and semi-infinite of lems and ,M 80,UA([email protected]). USA 48202, MI t, h anatnini adt eeaie derivatives generalized to paid is attention main The Abadie ,M 80,UA([email protected] of Research ([email protected]). USA 48202, MI t, elk n hnapyte ognrlpolm of problems general to them apply then and like he e rn #15RT04. grant der e vni nt iesos ial,w derive we Finally, dimensions. finite in even new ae,wtotepoigcnetoa variational conventional employing without paces, fml ulfiaincniin eovdaround revolved conditions qualification mild of e saiiywt epc oprubtoso the of perturbations to respect with (stability ost yBuiadadSvr;seSection see Severi; and Bouligand by sets to aclsfrteDn-aaadconstructions Dini-Hadamard the for calculus neFudto ne rnsDS1186 DMS- DMS-1512846, grants under Foundation ence regularity zddffrnito,mti urglrt,semi- subregularity, metric differentiation, ized qaiytp hi rule chain equality-type and sdrto.Wiems fteobtained the of most While nsideration. n nnt iesosi systematic a is dimensions infinite and e lpet n plctoste were they applications and elopments s e,eg,tebos[ books the e.g., see, es; g,[ .g., rainladetea rnilsin principles extremal and ariational aitoa nlssadoptimization and analysis variational ercsubregularity metric uaiy ti hw,i particular, in shown, is It gularity. aclso aitosadoptimal and variations of calculus l odtos o h aeo compo- of case the For conditions. e eur the require res aitoa ehiust derive to techniques variational f tmzto n oto problems. control and ptimization iain fmajor of lications o osot ucin htare that functions nonsmooth for lsrlsi infinite-dimensional in rules ulus 3 rlzddffrnilter fvaria- of theory differential eralized , incomplete l—pcfi lse finfinite- of classes els—specific 6 iiHdmr constructions Dini-Hadamard , 18 tigepot generalized exploits etting , 20 , 24 ‡ omdsae.As spaces. normed , completeness pe i particular, (in iples 25 o o general for not m for , 3 ns special A ones. aitoa and variational 27 , ∗ 5 subderivatives , , 10 30 , n the and ] 18 , 24 fthe of , 25 ity 2 , normed spaces do not impose any normal compactness and the like assumptions, which are difficult to check. Recall that the latter assumptions play a crucial role in generalized differential calculus and appli- cations of the major limiting subdifferentials, normal cones, and coderivatives in Banach spaces that are robust in much more general settings; see [18, 24, 27] with the commentaries and bibliographies therein. In this paper we focus on developing generalized differential calculus in normed spaces with the subsequent applications to general problems of constrained optimization as well as to smooth nonlinear problems of semi-infinite and semidefinite programming in finite dimensions. Further applications to the aforementioned problems of the calculus of variations and optimal control in incomplete spaced will be given in a separate paper to follow. We also plan to extend these lines of research to second-order variational analysis and its applications in normed spaces. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents basic definitions and some prelimi- nary results of variational analysis that are broadly employed in the formulations and proofs od the main results. In Section 3 we define the major qualification conditions used in the paper and establish relation- ships between them. Section 4 is devoted to obtaining calculus rules for generalized directional derivatives (subderivatives) under consideration with imposing the weakest qualification conditions. In Section 5 we turn to the corresponding subdifferential calculus in normed spaces with deriving the equality-type results under the refined notion of Dini-Hadamard regularity. Section 6 mainly deals with subamenable sets, which are defined via the metric subregularity qualification condition, and develops rather surprising properties of the tangent and normal cones under consideration for this remarkable class of sets. In Sections 7 and 8 we present applications of the obtained calculus results to deriving necessary opti- mality conditions for some classes of constrained optimization problems. Section 7 concerns general class of optimization problems with the constraints described by f(x) ∈ Θ via a smooth mapping f : X → Y between general normed spaces and a closed set Θ ⊂ Y. We derive here two kinds of necessary optimality conditions for local minimizers: the primal and dual ones. The primal conditions are expressed in terms of the tangent cone to Θ and the (directional) subderivative of a continuous cost function under the Abadie constraint qualification, which is a bit weaker than metric subregularity. The dual necessary op- timality conditions are derived via the subdifferential of locally Lipschitzian and Dini-Hadamard regular cost functions and the normal cone to the convex set Θ under the metric subregularity constraint qualifi- cation. In contrast to known results in this direction obtained in terms of some robust normal cones and subdifferentials, we add to the obtained multiplier rule a new multiplier boundedness condition with the bound expressed via the Lipschitz constant of the cost function multiplied by the constant taken from the imposed metric subregularity constraint qualification. Section 8 is devoted to the application of the general necessary optimality conditions obtained in Section 7 to the two highly important classes that are well recognized in constrained optimization: semi- infinite and semidefinite programsin finite dimensions. The concluding Section 9 summarizes the main achievements of the paper and discusses some direction of the future research. Throughout the entire paper we mostly use the standard notation of variational analysis and gener- alized differentiation; see, e.g., [18, 24, 30]. Unless otherwise stated, all the spaces under consideration are arbitrary normed spaces endowed with the generic norm k·k. Given such a space X, the symbol hx, x∗i signifies the canonical pairing between X and it topological dual X∗ with the indexes ‘w’ and ‘w∗’ signifying the weak and weak∗ topology on X and X∗, respectively. For a nonempty set Ω ⊂ X, Ω the notation x → x¯ indicates that x → x¯ with x ∈ Ω, while co Ω and cone Ω stand for the convex and conic hulls of Ω, respectively. The indicator function δΩ of a set Ω is defined by δΩ(x) := 0 for x ∈ Ω and δΩ(x) := ∞ otherwise, while the distance between x ∈ X and Ω is denoted by dist(x;Ω). We write X R kxk R R x = o(t) with x ∈ and t ∈ + indicating that t ↓ 0 as t ↓ 0, where + (resp. −) means the collection of nonnegative (resp. nonpositive) real numbers. Recall also that IN := {1, 2,...}. We distinguish in notation between a single-valued f : X → Y and set-valued F : X → Y mappings. Given a Fr´echet differentiable mapping f : X → Y atx ¯, its derivative (or Jacobian matrix in finite dimensions) is denoted by ∇f(¯x). In some results we also use the less restrictive notion of Gˆateaux differentiability and keep the same notation ∇f(¯x), while mentioning this in such cases. If f : X → Y is twice differentiable atx ¯, the second derivative of f, which is a linear operator from X to the collections L(X, Y) of linear bounded operators between X and Y, can be identified with a continuous bilinear mapping ∇2f(¯x): X×X → Y. If either f is twice continuously differentiable aroundx ¯, or both X and Y are finite-dimensional, then the bilinear mapping ∇2f(¯x)(·, ·) is symmetric, i.e., ∇2f(¯x)(u, v)= ∇2f(¯x)(v,u)
2 for all u, v ∈ X. In the latter case we have by [30, Theorem 13.2] the representation 1 f(¯x + h)= f(¯x)+ h∇f(¯x),hi + ∇2f(¯x)(h,h)+ o(khk2). 2 If X = Rn and Y = Rm and if f is twice differentiable atx ¯, then
2 2 2 n ∇ f(¯x)(w, v)= h∇ f1(¯x)w, vi,..., h∇ fm(¯x)w, vi for all v, w ∈ R , 2 where f = (f1,...,fm) and ∇ fi(¯x) stands for the Hessian matrix of fi atx ¯. 2 Basic Definitions and Preliminaries We begin with recalling well-known tools of variational analysis and generalized differentiation utilized throughout the paper. The reader is referred to the books [5, 10, 18, 24, 27, 30] for more details and alternative terminologies in finite-dimensional and Banach spaces. Given a parameterized family (Ωt)t>0 of nonempty subsets of X, define the (Painlev´e-Kuratowski) outer limit and inner limit of Ωt as t ↓ 0 by, respectively, X Lim sup Ωt := x ∈ ∃ tk ↓ 0, ∃ xk → x with xk ∈ Ωtk as k ∈ IN , X Lim inf Ωt := x ∈ ∀ tk ↓ 0, ∃ xk → x, ∃ k0 ∈ IN with xk ∈ Ωtk as k ≥ k0 . The parameterized family of sets Ωt converges to Ω as t ↓ 0, i.e., Ωt → Ω, if
Lim sup Ωt = Lim inf Ωt = Ω := Lim Ωt. t↓0 t↓0 t↓0
The (Bouligand-Severi) tangent/contingent cone TΩ(¯x)toΩatx ¯ ∈ Ω is defined by
TΩ(¯x) := u ∈ X ∃ tk ↓ 0, ∃ uk → u as k → ∞ withx ¯ + tkuk ∈ Ω . (2.1) We say that a tangent vector u ∈ T Ω(¯x) is derivable if there exists ξ : [0,ε] → Ω with ε> 0, ξ(0) =x ¯, and ′ ′ ξ+(0) = u, where ξ+ signifies the classical right derivative of ξ at 0. The set Ω is geometrically derivable atx ¯ if every tangent vector u to Ω atx ¯ is derivable. The geometric derivability can be equivalently Ω−x¯ described by saying that the outer and inner limits of the parameterized family of sets ( t )t>0 agree as Ω−x¯ t ↓ 0; in the other words, Limt↓0 t = TΩ(¯x). Note that the contingent cone (2.1) may be nonconvex in simple situations (e.g., for the graph Ω := gph |x|⊂ R2 atx ¯ = (0, 0)), but the polar/dual to it defined by − ∗ X∗ NΩ (¯x) := TΩ(¯x) = v ∈ hv,ui≤ 0 for all u ∈ TΩ(¯x) (2.2) and known as the (Dini-Hadamard) subnormal cone , is always convex. This cone is generally larger than the (Fr´echet) regular normal cone
∗ ∗ ∗ hx , x − x¯i NΩ(¯x) := x ∈ X lim sup ≤ 0 , (2.3) n Ω kx − xkk o x→x¯ b which is also convex and can be equivalently described, if the space X is reflexive, in the dual scheme w (2.2) with the replacement of the contingent cone (2.1) by its weak contingent counterpart TΩ (¯x) defined w in form (2.1) while using the weak convergence uk → u instead of the strong one. Thus the cones (2.1) and (2.3) agree in finite dimensions and the outer limit of them gives us in this case the (Mordukhovich) limiting normal cone that is defined in generality via the sequential outer limit
∗ L ∗ X∗ Ω ∗ w ∗ ∗ NΩ (¯x) := x ∈ ∃ xk → x,¯ ∃ xk → x with xk ∈ NΩ(xk), k ∈ IN . (2.4) Despite the nonconvexity of (2.4), it enjoys—together with the associatedb constructions for nonsmooth functions and set-valued mappings—comprehensive calculus rules in the framework of Asplund spaces, i.e., such Banach spaces where each separable subspace has a separable dual. If X is Asplund and Ω is closed, ∗ ∗ L then the convex weak closure of (2.4) agrees with the convexified normal cone N Ω(¯x; Ω) = cl co NΩ (¯x) by Clarke, which is defined in Banach spaces by the duality scheme (2.2) via his tangent cone to Ω atx ¯.
3 If the set Ω is convex, then all the normal cones above reduce to the classical normal cone of convex analysis denoted by NΩ(¯x), but for general nonconvex sets in normed spaces our major construction here is the subnormal one (2.2). We aim at developing strong and useful calculus rules for it and related subderivative and subdifferential notions for functions under appropriate qualification conditions without performing any limiting procedure as in (2.4). Recall next the notion of a generalized directional derivative for functions, which is closely related to (in fact generated by) the contingent cone (2.1). Let ϕ: X → R := (−∞, ∞] be an extended-real-valued function on a normed space with the associated domain and epigraph sets
dom ϕ := x ∈ X ϕ(x) < ∞ and epi ϕ := (x, α) ∈ X × R α ≥ ϕ(x) . Then ϕ is said to be proper if dom ϕ 6= ∅. The (Dini-Hadamard) subderivative of ϕ atx ¯ ∈ dom ϕ is the function dϕ(¯x): X → [−∞, ∞] with the finite and infinite values ±∞ defined by ϕ(¯x + tu) − ϕ(¯x) dϕ(¯x)(¯u) := lim inf , u¯ ∈ X. (2.5) t↓0 t u→u¯ The subderivative construction (2.5) is geometrically determined by the contingent cone (2.1) via the relationship Tepi ϕ(¯x, ϕ(¯x)) = epi dϕ(¯x). This clearly implies that the subderivative function is lower semicontinuous and positive homogeneous of degree 1. Further, the function ϕ is called epi-differentiable atx ¯ if the family of sets epi ∆tϕ(¯x)(·) with ϕ(¯x + tu) − ϕ(¯x) ∆ ϕ(¯x)(u) := , u ∈ X, (2.6) t t converges to epi dϕ(¯x) in the above sense of set convergence. If in addition dϕ(¯x) is a proper function, then ϕ is properly epi-differentiable atx ¯. It is easy to see that the epi-differentiability of ϕ atx ¯ agrees with the geometric derivability of epi ϕ at (¯x, ϕ(¯x)). Observe also that if ϕ is epi-differentiable atx ¯, then its domain dom ϕ is geometrically derivable atx ¯. Next we consider the subdifferential notions for extended-real-valued functions that are generated by the corresponding notions of normals to sets discussed above. Given ϕ: X → R on a normed space X, the Dini-Hadamard subdifferential of ϕ atx ¯ ∈ dom ϕ is − X∗ − ∂ ϕ(¯x) := v ∈ (v, −1) ∈ Nepi ϕ x,¯ ϕ(¯x) (2.7) via the subnormal cone (2.2) to the epigraph of ϕ. Note that (2.7) is a standard geometric scheme to define subdifferentials via normal cones, and all the normal cones mentioned above generate the corresponding subdifferentials (collections of subgradients). On the other hand, we can get normal cones to sets from subdifferentials of the set indicator function that reads in the case of (2.2) and (2.7) as
− − NΩ (¯x)= ∂ δΩ(¯x) wheneverx ¯ ∈ Ω. (2.8) It follows from the above discussions that we always have the inclusions
∂ϕ(¯x) ⊂ ∂−ϕ(¯x) ⊂ ∂ϕ(¯x) (2.9) between (2.7) and the (convex) regular/Fr´echetb and convexified/Clarke subdifferentials, where the first inclusion (but not the second one) holds as equality in finite dimensions. Thus
∂Lϕ(¯x) = Lim sup ∂−ϕ(x) for allx ¯ ∈ dom ϕ (2.10) ϕ x→x¯ ϕ for the (nonconvex) limiting/Mordukhovich subdifferential of ϕ in X = Rn, where the symbol x → x¯ means that x → x¯ with ϕ(x) → ϕ(¯x). As well known, the first inclusion in (2.9) and the representation (2.10) fail in infinite dimensions; see, e.g., ϕ(x) := −kxk withx ¯ = 0 in the standard space C[0, 1] of continuous functions, where ∂ϕ(¯x)= ∂Lϕ(¯x)= ∅ while ∂−ϕ(0) 6= ∅. Observe further that, by taking into account that T (¯x, ϕ(¯x)) = epi dϕ(¯x), there exists an equivalent b epi ϕ representation of this subdifferential via the (Dini-Hadamard) subderivative (2.5):
∂−ϕ(¯x)= v ∈ X∗ hv,ui≤ dϕ(¯x)(u) for all u ∈ X , x¯ ∈ dom ϕ, (2.11)
4 which can be used as the subdifferential definition in this case. Finally in this section, we recall the two well-posedness properties of set-valued mappings, which have been well recognized in variational analysis and optimization. Given F : X → Y with dom F := x ∈ X F (x) 6= ∅ and gph F := (x, y) ∈ X × Y y ∈ F (x) , it is said that F is metrically regular around (¯x, y¯) ∈ gph F if there exist κ> 0 and neighborhoods U of x¯ and V ofy ¯ such that the distance estimate
dist x; F −1(y) ≤ κ dist y; F (x) for all (x, y) ∈ U × V (2.12) fulfills. If y =y ¯ in (2.12), the mapping F is said to be metrically subregular at (¯x, y¯). These and related properties have been broadly studied in variational analysis with numerous applications to optimization; see, e.g., the books [5, 11, 18, 24, 25, 27, 30] and the references therein. 3 Qualification Conditions In this section we define and investigate the qualification conditions used in the paper for the study and applications of the compositions given by
ϕ(x) := θ ◦ f (x), x ∈ X, (3.1) where f : X → Y is a single-valued mapping between normed spaces, and where θ : Y → R. The next proposition formulates these qualification conditions and establishes relationships between them. Proposition 3.1 (relationships between qualification conditions). Dealing with composition (3.1) in normed spaces, assume that f : X → Y is continuously differentiable around x¯ ∈ X, and that θ : Y → R is a continuous relative to its domain with θ(f(¯x)) ∈ dom θ. Consider the following assertions: (i) The mapping H : X × R → Y × R defined by H(x, α) := (f(x), α) − epi θ is metrically regular at (¯x,θ(f(¯x))), (0, 0) . (ii) The mapping H from (i) is metrically subregular at this point. (iii) The mapping G: X → Y defined by G(x) := f(x) − dom θ is metrically subregular at (¯x, 0). (iv) The Abadie qualification condition (AQC) holds at x¯, i.e.,
Tdom ϕ(¯x)= u ∈ X ∇f(¯x)u ∈ Tdom θ f(¯x) . (3.2) (v) The limiting Guignard qualification condition holds at x¯, i.e.,
∗ − ∗ − Ndom ϕ(¯x)= ∇f(¯x) Ndom θ f(¯x) , (3.3) where the bar∗ signifies the set closure in the weak∗ topology of Y∗. Then we always get that (i) =⇒ (ii) =⇒ (iii) =⇒ (iv). If in addition the domain set dom θ is convex, then we also have that (iv) =⇒ (v). Proof. Implication (i) =⇒ (ii) is obvious. Although implication (ii) =⇒ (iii) was verified [21, Propo- sition 3.1] in finite dimension, a close look on the proof reveals that it works for any normed space. Applications (iii) =⇒ (iv) directly follows from the subderivative chain rule in Theorem 4.3(ii) with replacing therein the function θ by the indicator function δdom θ. It remains to justify the last implication (iv) =⇒ (v) provided that dom θ is convex. Assuming (iv), pick v ∈ Ndom θ(f(¯x)) and u ∈ Tdom ϕ(¯x). Then we get ∇f(¯x)u ∈ Tdom θ(¯x), which implies in turn that
∇f(¯x)∗v,u = v, ∇f(¯x)u ≤ 0.
∗ − Since the latter holds for any u ∈ Tdom ϕ(¯x), it yields ∇f(¯x) v ∈ Ndom ϕ(¯x). This tells us that
∗ ∗ − ∗ − − ∇f(¯x) Ndom θ f(¯x) ⊂ Ndom ϕ(¯x)=⇒ ∇f(¯x) Ndom θ f(¯x) ⊂ Ndom ϕ(¯x). − To verify the opposite inclusion in (3.3), pick any v ∈ Ndom ϕ(¯x) and then get by (2.2) that hv,ui≤ 0 for all u ∈ Tdom ϕ(¯x). Hence we deduce from (v) that
hv,ui≤ 0 for all u ∈ X with ∇f(¯x)u ∈ Tdom θ f(¯x) . (3.4) 5 ∗ ∗ ∗ − ∗ − To show that v ∈ ∇f(¯x) Ndom θ f(¯x) , assume the contrary and observe that the set ∇f(¯x) Ndom θ f(¯x) is weak∗ closed and convex in X ∗. Applying the strict convex separation theorem to the latter set and {v} in the weak∗ topology of X∗ gives us ξ ∈ X \{0} and ε> 0 such that
∗ ∇f(¯x)ξ,y = ξ, ∇f(¯x) y ≤ hξ, vi− ε for all y ∈ Ndom θ f(¯x) . Since Ndom θ(f(¯x)) is a cone, it implies that 0 ≤ hξ, vi− ε and hence
∇f(¯x)ξ,y ≤ 0 whenever y ∈ Ndom θ f(¯x) . Using now the full duality between the tangent and normal cones to convex sets, we conclude that ∇f(¯x)ξ ∈ Tdom θ(f(¯x)). Thus it follows from (3.4) that hv, ξi≤ 0, which contradicts the above assertion ε ≤ hv, ξi and completes the proof of the proposition. It is well known (see, e.g., [3, Theorem 2.84 and Proposition 2.89]) that, in the case where both spaces X and Y are Banach, the metric regularity of the mapping G in Propositions 3.1(iii) is equivalent to the fulfillment of the Robinson constraint qualification
0 ∈ int f(¯x)+ ∇f(¯x)X − dom θ , (3.5) which is broadly used in optimization. Hence the metric subregularity qualification condition from Propo- sitions 3.1(iii) is much weaker than the conventional one (3.5). The next example describes a finite-dimensional setting, where the Abadie qualification condition (3.2) is strictly weaker than the metric subregularity one from Proposition 3.1(iii) for compositions (3.1) with closed and convex domain sets dom θ. It shows furthermore that the closure operation in (3.3) cannot be generally removed even in finite dimensions. Example 3.2 (specifying relationships between qualification conditions in finite dimensions). Let Θ ⊂ Rm be closed convex cone, let A be a n × m matrix such that the set AΘ is not closed in Rn, ∗ ∗ and let θ := δΘ∗ and f(x) := A x in (3.1), where the -symbol indicates for the dual/polar cone for Θ and the adjoint/transpose matrix for A. Such a pair (A, Θ) exists and yields the followings properties: (i) The Abadie qualification condition (3.2) holds at x¯ =0. ∗ (ii) The set ∇f(¯x) Ndom θ(f(¯x)) is not closed. (iii) The set-valued mapping x 7→ f(x) − dom θ is not metrically subregular at x¯ =0. Proof. First we verify all the conclusions in this example under the imposed assumptions and then construct a specific pair (A, Θ) satisfying these assumptions. ∗ Observe that ∇f(0) = A , and that TΘ∗ (f(0)) = TΘ∗ (0) = Θ. To verify (i), define the set Ω := dom ϕ = {x ∈ Rn | A∗x ∈ Θ∗}, which is clearly a closed and convex cone. Thus we have
n TΩ(0)=Ω= x ∈ R ∇f(0)x ∈ TΘ∗ (0) while showing that AQC (3.2) is satisfied atx ¯ = 0 for the composition under consideration. To check further that the set in (ii) is not closed, observe that NΘ∗ (0) = Θ, and hence
∗ ∇f(0) Ndom θ f(0) = ANΘ∗ (0) = AΘ, (3.6) which verifies (ii) since the set AΘ is assumed to be nonclosed in Rn. Turning finally to (iii), recall that the metric subregularity of the mapping x 7→ f(x) − Θ∗ atx ¯ = 0 ensures the normal cone calculus rule
∗ NΩ(0) = ∇f(0) Ndom θ f(0) , (3.7) which is obtained in variational analysis even in more general settings; see, e.g., [13, Lemma 2.1] and Theorem 6.5 below for the proofs and discussions. Thus the set on the right-hand side of (3.7) is closed that contradicts (3.6) by the assumption on AΘ. This verifies (iii). To complete our consideration in this example, it remains to construct a closed convex cone Θ and a matrix A satisfying the imposed assumptions. We do it in two stages. First note that there exist closed 3 convex cones Θ1, Θ2 ⊂ R such that their sum Θ1 +Θ2 is not closed. Indeed, take
2 3 Θ1 := (x, r) ∈ R × R kxk≤ r and Θ2 := t(1, 0, −1) ∈ R t ≥ 0 .
6 The sum of these cones is not closed, since it does not contain (0, 1, 0) while containing
∈Θ1 ∈Θ2 −1 −2 −3 −1 −2 −3 −1 t +2t + t −1 t +2t + t z(−t, 1+ t ,t + }| {)+ (t, 0, −t)= 0, 1+ t , 2 z }| { 2 for all t> 0. Define now the linear mapping T : R3 × R3 → R3 by T (x, y) := x + y and observe that the 3 3 set Θ1 × Θ2 is closed in R × R , but its image T (Θ1 × Θ2)=Θ1 +Θ2 is not closed. This clearly gives us the pair (A, Θ) satisfying the assumptions made. It is shown in Section 6 that the replacement of the Abadie qualification condition (3.2) by the stronger metric subregularity one excludes the situation like in Example 3.2 and brings us to the normal cone chain rule without the closure operation as in (3.3) even in fairly general infinite-dimensional settings. This is the basis for deriving pointwise optimal conditions of the KKT type in contrast to asymptotic ones generated by chain rules with closures. Finally, we formalize the major qualification condition, which is a constraint qualification in optimiza- tion problems, that is broadly used in this paper. Definition 3.3 (metric subregularity qualification condition). Let ϕ := θ ◦ f be a composition generated by a mapping f : X → Y between normed spaces and an extended-real-valued function θ : Y → R. We say that the metric subregularity qualification condition (MSQC) holds for ϕ at x¯ ∈ dom ϕ with modulus κ> 0 if the mapping x 7→ f(x) − dom θ is metrically subregular at (¯x, 0) with this constant. Using the notion of metric subregularity in (2.12) with y =y ¯ = 0 therein, we reformulate Definition 3.3 as follows: there exist a neighborhood U ofx ¯ and a constant κ> 0 such that the distance estimate
dist(x; Ω) ≤ κ dist f(x); dom θ with Ω := x ∈ X f(x) ∈ dom θ (3.8) holds for all x ∈ U. Note that MSQC (3.8) has been used in variational analysis and constrained optimization, mainly in more recent publications in finite-dimensional settings; see, e.g., [12–14,17,19,21] and the references therein. Here we systematically employ it in infinite dimensions. 4 Calculus of Subderivatives in Normed Spaces This section is devoted to deriving chain and sum rules of the equality type for subderivatives (2.5) in normed spaces. The main result is a chain rule for compositions (3.1) obtained in the two general settings: under the MSQC from Definition 3.3 and under AQC (3.2) combined with the epi-differentiability of the outer function in (3.1). We start with the following characterization of proper epi-differentiability for arbitrary extended-real-valued functions that is of its own interest. Lemma 4.1 (characterization of proper epi-differentiability). Let ϕ: X → R with x¯ ∈ dom ϕ, and let ψ : X → R be a proper extended-real-valued function ψ : X → R such that ψ(u) ≤ dϕ(¯x)(u) for all u ∈ X. Then ϕ is properly epi-differentiable at x¯ with ψ(·) = dϕ(¯x)(·) if and only if for every u ∈ X there exists a path u: [0,ε] → X (not necessarily continuous) with the properties limt↓0 u(t)= u(0) = u and
e ϕ x¯ + tu(t) − ϕ(¯x) e e ψ(u) = lim , u ∈ X. (4.1) t↓0 t e Proof. Assume first that ϕ is epi-differentiable atx ¯ with the subderivative function ψ(·) = dϕ(¯x)(·). If u ∈ X is such that ψ(u) = ∞, set u(t) := u for all t ≥ 0 and observe that (4.1) obviously holds. Suppose further that ψ(u) is a finite number and then get (u, ψ(u)) ∈ Tepi ϕ(¯x, ϕ(¯x)) by the definition of epi-differentiability. Moreover, thee latter ensures that the pair (u, ψ(u)) is a derivable tangent in Tepi ϕ(¯x, ϕ(¯x)). This tells us that there exists a path ξ : [0,ε] → epi ϕ with the components ξ(t) = ′ (ξ1(t), ξ2(t)) for all t ∈ [0,ε] satisfying the conditions ξ(0) = (¯x, ϕ(¯x)) and ξ+(0) = (u, ψ(u)). Setting now ξ1(t)−x¯ u(t) := t for all t ∈ (0,ε] with u(0) := u, we deduce from the inclusion ξ(t) ∈ epi ϕ on [0,ε] that e ϕ x¯ + tu(t)e − ϕ(¯x) ξ (t) − ϕ(¯x) ≤ 2 for all t ∈ (0,ε]. t t e ξ2(t)−ϕ(¯x) This clearly implies that t → ψ(u) = dϕ(¯x)(u) as t ↓ 0 and shows that the limit of the quotient on the left-hand side above exists and is equal to ψ(u).
7 To verify the opposite implication, suppose that (4.1) holds and observe that it yields ψ(·) ≥ dϕ(¯x)(·). Invoking the imposed assumption on ψ(·) ≤ dϕ(¯x)(·), this tells us that ψ(·) = dϕ(¯x)(·) and hence epi ψ = Tepi ϕ(¯x, ϕ(¯x)). We need to show that every vector in Tepi ϕ(¯x, ϕ(¯x)) is a derivable tangent. To this end, pick any pair (u, α) ∈ Tepi ϕ(¯x, ϕ(¯x)) = epi ψ and let u: [0,ε] → X be the path taken from (4.1). By setting finally ξ : [0,ε] → X × R with e ξ(t) := x¯ + tu(t), ϕ(¯x + tu(t)) + t(α − ψ(u)) , t ∈ [0,ε],