Arxiv:2011.09194V1 [Math.OC]

Home , Duality (optimization), Duality gap, Perturbation function, Strong duality, Weak duality

arXiv:2011.09194v1 [math.OC] 18 Nov 2020 aswUiest fTcnlg,Fclyo ahmtc an [email protected] E-mail: Mathematics Poland Warsaw, of 00–662 Faculty 75, Technology, Koszykowa of University Warsaw Syga an Ewa.Bednarczu Monika E-mail: Mathematics Poland Warsaw, of 00–662 Faculty 75, Technology, Ne Koszykowa of Sciences, of University Academy Warsaw Polish Institute, Research Systems Bednarczuk M. Ewa Bednarczuk M. Ewa functions convex abstract optimization with nonconvex problems for duality Lagrangian Keywords conve results weakly duality functions, our functions. DC paraconvex which and functions, to prox-bounded functions, are of applied, classes the Among the duality. use we aim Φ this To lems. Abstract date Accepted: / date Received: ocne optimization Nonconvex inpolm ihntefaeoko btatcneiy namely, convexity, abstract of of framework theory the within func problems fun prox-bounded tion for composite and for [31] [30], [34], functions [19], composite functions and DC DC [8], for e.g., optimization Bot¸ [5]. convex Radu by con monograph convex the of dimensio to topic infinite reader the and the of finite the-art refer in state-of recent optimization For convex spaces. in theory consequenc and reaching far methods have dualities conjugate and Lagrangian Introduction 1 rxrglrfunctions Prox-regular wl eisre yteeditor) the by inserted be (will No. manuscript Noname cne ucin.W rvd odtosfrzr ult a n s and gap duality zero for conditions provide We functions. -convex ntepeetpprw netgt arnedaiyfrgeneral for duality Lagrange investigate we paper present the In proble dual of pairs construct to attempts numerous exist There Φ eivsiaeLgaga ult o ocne piiainprob- optimization nonconvex for duality Lagrangian investigate We cneiy h class The -convexity. btatconvexity Abstract · aaovxadwal ovxfunctions convex weakly and Paraconvex · · eodaiygap duality Zero oiaSyga Monika Φ · cneiyter n iia hoe for theorem minimax and theory -convexity Φ iia theorem Minimax cne ucin nopse ovxl.s.c. convex encompasses functions -convex · ekduality Weak esa6 147Warsaw 01–447 6, welska · [email protected] w.edu.pl arninduality Lagrangian nomto cec,ul. Science, Information d ul. Science, Information d · uaedaiywe duality jugate togduality Strong sfrsolution for es functions x si non- in ms ihnthe within in [15]. tions optimiza- a be can ctions trong nal · · 2 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga functions, and, among others, the classes of functions mentioned above. A comprehensive study of Φ-convex functions can be found in the monographs by Pallaschke and Rolewicz [20] and by Rubinow [29]. The set Φ is a set of functions defined on a given space X, called elementary functions. Φ-convex functions are pointwise suprema of elementary minorizing functions ϕ ∈ Φ (e.g. quadratic, quasi-convex). This corresponds to the classical fact that proper lower semicontinuous convex functions are pointwise suprema of affine minorizing functions. Φ-convexity provides a uni- fying framework for dealing with important classes of nonconvex functions, e.g, paraconvex (weakly convex), DC, and prox-bounded functions. In the context of duality theory Φ-convexity is investigated in a large number of papers, e.g. [1], [3], [12], [16], [25]. The underlying concepts of Φ-convexity are Φ-conjugation and Φ-subdifferen- tiation, which mimic the corresponding constructions of convex analysis, i.e., the Φ-conjugate function and the Φ-subdifferential are defined by replacing, in the respective classical definitions, the linear (affine) functions with elementary functions ϕ ∈ Φ which may not be affine, in general. This motivates the name Convexity without linearity, coined for Φ-convexity by Rolewicz [25]. The subject of the present investigation is the Lagrangian duality for optimization problems involving Φ-convex functions. In particular, we investigate Lagrangian duality for problems involving Φlsc-convex functions (see (1)), i.e., proper lower semicontinuous functions defined on a Hilbert space and minorized by quadratic functions.

The class of Φlsc-convex functions embodies many important classes of functions appearing in optimization, e.g. prox-bounded functions [23], DC (diﬀerence of convex) functions [35], weakly convex functions [36], paraconvex functions [27] and lower semicontinuous convex (in the classical sense) functions. Within the framework of Φ-convexity, the Lagrange duality has been al- ready investigated on diﬀerent levels of generality by [9], [14], [21]. Main contributions of the paper are as follows.

(i) Theorem 3 provides necessary and sufficient condition for zero duality gap for the pair of Lagrange dual problems LP and LD with the Lagrangian L satisfying some Φ-convexity assumptions, where Φ is any class of elementary functions. This condition, called the intersection property is defined in Definition 4. See also [32]. (ii) Theorem 6 and Theorem 7 provide conditions for zero duality gap for the pair of Lagrange dual problems LP and LD with the Lagrangian L satisfying some Φlsc-convexity assumptions, where the class Φlsc is defined in Example 1.2. (iii) Theorem 8 provides sufficient conditions for the strong duality for problems, where the optimal value function V (see the formula (14)) is paraconvex (weakly convex), and int domV 6= ∅. Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 3

(iv) Theorem 9 shows that for constrained optimization problems with ﬁ- nite optimal values, Ψlsc-convex perturbation functions and Φlsc-convex Lagrangians, our main condition i.e. intersection property is satisﬁed. The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we recall basic concepts of Φ-convexity. We close Section 2 with a minimax theorem from [32] which is the starting point for our investigations. In Section 3 we introduce the Lagrange function and we discuss the Lagrangian duality for optimization problems involving Φ-convex functions (Theorem 3), we also deliver conditions for the strong duality (Theorem 4). In Section 4 and Section 5 we discuss our duality scheme in the class of Φconv-convex functions nad Φlsc-convex functions, respectively. In Section 6 we discuss our duality scheme for for a particular form of optimization problem.

2 Φ-convexity

Let X be a set. A function f : X → Rˆ := R ∪{−∞}∪{+∞} is proper if its domain dom f = {x ∈ X | f(x) < +∞} 6= ∅ and f(x) > −∞ for any x ∈ X. Let Φ be a set of real-valued functions ϕ : X → R and f : X → Rˆ. The set

suppΦ(f) := {ϕ ∈ Φ : ϕ ≤ f}

is called the support of f with respect to Φ, where, for any g,h : X → Rˆ, g ≤ h ⇔ g(x) ≤ h(x) ∀ x ∈ X. We will use the notation supp(f) whenever the class Φ is clear from the context. Elements of class Φ are called elementary functions.

Deﬁnition 1 ([12], [20], [29]) A function f : X → Rˆ is called Φ-convex on X if f(x) = sup{ϕ(x): ϕ ∈ supp(f)} ∀ x ∈ X. If the set X is clear from the context, we simply say that f is Φ-convex. A function f : X → Rˆ is called Φ-convex at x0 ∈ X if

f(x0) = sup{ϕ(x0): ϕ ∈ supp(f)}.

We have supp(f)= ∅ iﬀ f ≡ −∞. By convention, we consider that the function f ≡ −∞ is Φ-convex (c.f. [29]). A Φ-convex function f : X → Rˆ is proper if supp(f) 6= ∅ and the domain of f is nonempty, i.e.

dom(f) := {x ∈ X : f(x) < +∞}= 6 ∅.

If X is a topological space and a given class Φ consists of functions ϕ : X → R which are lower semicontinuous on X, then Φ-convex functions are lower semicontinuous on X ([37]). Note that Φ-convex functions deﬁned above may admit the value +∞ which allows us to consider indicator functions within the framework of Φ-convexity. 4 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga

Analogously, we say that f : X → R¯ is Φ-concave on X if

f(x) = inf{ϕ(x): ϕ ∈ Φ, f ≤ ϕ}.

Clearly, f is Φ-concave on X iﬀ −f is −Φ-convex on X. The following classes of elementary functions are considered.

Example 1 1.

∗ Φconv := {ϕ : X → R, ϕ(x)= hℓ, xi + c, x ∈ X, ℓ ∈ X , c ∈ R},

where X is a topological vector space, X∗ is the dual space to X. It is a well known fact (see for example Proposition 3.1 of [13]) that a proper convex lower semicontinuous function f : X → R¯ is Φconv-convex. For the analysis of the class Φ which generates all convex functions [32]. 2.

2 ∗ Φlsc := {ϕ : X → R, ϕ(x)= −akxk +hℓ, xi+c, x ∈ X, ℓ ∈ X , a ≥ 0, c ∈ R}, (1) where X is a normed space. If X is a Hilbert space, then f : X → R¯ is Φlsc- convex iﬀ f is lower semicontinuous and minorized by a quadratic function 2 q(x) := −akxk −c on X (e.g. [29], Example 6.2). The class of Φlsc- convex functions encompasses: prox-bounded functions [22] and weakly convex functions [36], known also under the name paraconvex functions [27] and semiconvex functions [11]. 3. + R 2 ∗ R Φlsc := {ϕ : X → , ϕ(x)= akxk +hℓ, xi+c, x ∈ X, ℓ ∈ X , a ≥ 0, c ∈ }, where X is a normed space. If X is a Hilbert space, then f : X → R¯ is + Φlsc-concave iﬀ f is upper semicontinuous and majorized by a quadratic function q(x) := akxk2 − c on X ([29], Example 6.2).

2.1 Φ-Subgradients

Deﬁnition 2 An element ϕ ∈ Φ is called a Φ-subgradient of a function f : X → R¯ atx ¯ ∈ dom f, if the following inequality holds

f(x) − f(¯x) ≥ ϕ(x) − ϕ(¯x) ∀ x ∈ X. (2)

The set of all Φ-subgradients of f atx ¯ is denoted as ∂Φf(¯x). Let ε > 0. An element ϕ ∈ Φ is called a Φ − ε-subgradient of a function f : X → R¯ atx ¯ ∈ dom f, if the following inequality holds

f(x) − f(¯x) ≥ ϕ(x) − ϕ(¯x) − ε ∀ x ∈ X. (3)

ε The set of all Φ − ε-subgradients of f atx ¯ is denoted as ∂Φf(¯x). Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 5

Deﬁnition 2 was introduced in [20] and [29].

Deﬁnition 3 An element (a, v) ∈ R+ × X is called a Φlsc-subgradient of a function f : X → R¯ atx ¯ ∈ dom f, if the following inequality holds f(x) − f(¯x) ≥ hv, x − x¯i− akxk2 + akx¯k2, ∀ x ∈ X. (4)

The set of all Φlsc-subgradients of f atx ¯ is denoted as ∂lscf(¯x). Let ε > 0. An element (a, v) ∈ R+ × X is called a Φlsc − ε-subgradient of a function f : X → R¯ atx ¯ ∈ dom f, if the following inequality holds f(x) − f(¯x) ≥ hv, x − x¯i− akxk2 + akx¯k2 − ε, ∀ x ∈ X. (5)

ε The set of all Φlsc − ε-subgradients of f atx ¯ is denoted as ∂lscf(¯x) ε Remark 1 It is easy to show that ∂lscf(¯x) and ∂lscf(¯x), ε> 0, are convex sets for allx ¯ ∈ dom f. ε Moreover, ∂Φf(¯x) 6= ∅ for anyx ¯ ∈ dom f. Indeed, ifx ¯ ∈ dom f, then, by the Φ-convexity of f, we have f(¯x) = sup{ϕ(¯x), ϕ ∈ supp f}. By the deﬁnition of supremum, for any ε> 0, there existsϕ ¯ ∈ supp f such that ϕ¯(¯x) >f(¯x) − ε

ε and consequently, f(x) − f(¯x) ≥ ϕ¯(x) − ϕ¯(¯x) − ε, i.e.ϕ ¯ ∈ ∂Φf(¯x).

2.2 Φ-conjugation

R¯ ∗ R¯ Let f : X → . The function fΦ : Φ → , ∗ fΦ(ϕ) := sup(ϕ(x) − f(x)) (6) x∈X ∗ is called the Φ-conjugate of f. The function fΦ is Φ-convex (c.f.Proposition 1.2.3 of [20]). Accordingly, the second Φ-conjugate of f is deﬁned as ∗∗ ∗ fΦ (x) := sup(ϕ(x) − fΦ(ϕ)). ϕ∈Φ Theorem 1 ([20] and Theorem 1.2.6, [29], Theorem 7.1) Function f : X → Rˆ is Φ-convex if and only if ∗∗ f(x)= fΦ (x) ∀ x ∈ X. For any function f : X → Rˆ the Young inequality holds. i.e. ∗ f(x)+ fΦ(x) ≥ ϕ(x), ∀ ϕ ∈ Φ, x ∈ X. Moreover we have the following proposition. Proposition 1 ([29], Proposition 7.7, [20], Proposition 1.2.4) Let ϕ ∈ Φ and x ∈ X. The following conditions are equivalent ∗ (i) f(x)+ fΦ(x)= ϕ(x) (ii) ϕ ∈ ∂Φf(x). 6 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga

2.3 Minimax Theorem for Φ-convex functions

Minimax theorems for function a : X × Y → Rˆ such that for each y ∈ Y the function a(·,y): X → Rˆ is Φ-convex are based on the following property introduced in [4] and investigated in [32], [33].

Deﬁnition 4 Let ϕ1, ϕ2 : X → R be any two functions and α ∈ R. We say that ϕ1 and ϕ2 have the intersection property on X at the level α ∈ R iﬀ for every t ∈ [0, 1]

[tϕ1 + (1 − t)ϕ2 < α] ∩ [ϕ1 < α]= ∅ or [tϕ1 + (1 − t)ϕ2 < α] ∩ [ϕ2 < α]= ∅, (7)

where [ϕ < α] := {x ∈ X : ϕ(x) < α}.

Let us note that, by Proposition 4 of [4], in the class Φlsc the condition (7) takes the form [ϕ1 < α] ∩ [ϕ2 < α]= ∅. (8) The following minimax theorem was proved in [32]. Theorem 2 ([32], Theorem 5.1) Let X be a real vector space and Z be a convex subset of a real vector space U. Let a : X × Z → Rˆ be a function such that for any z ∈ Z the function a(·,z): X → Rˆ is Φ-convex on X and for any x ∈ X the function a(x, ·): Z → Rˆ is concave on Z. The following conditions are equivalent:

(i) for every α ∈ R, α < inf sup a(x, z), there exist z1,z2 ∈ Y and ϕ1 ∈ x∈X z∈Z supp a(·,z1), ϕ2 ∈ supp a(·,z2) such that the intersection property holds for ϕ1 and ϕ2 on X at the level α, (ii) sup inf a(x, z) = inf sup a(x, z). z∈Z x∈X x∈X z∈Z

In the class Φlsc the intersection property is related to the following zero subgradient condition (see [33]).

Deﬁnition 5 Let f,g : X → Rˆ be Φlsc-convex functions. We say that f and g satisfy the zero subgradient condition at (x1, x2), where x1 ∈ dom(f), x2 ∈ dom(g) if 0 ∈ co(∂lscf(x1) ∪ ∂lscg(x2)), where co(·) is the standard convex hull of a set. If x1 = x2 =x ¯ we say that f and g satisfy the zero subgradient condition atx ¯.

The following proposition was proved in [33] (Proposition 12), for convenience of the reader we rewrite the proof with ε = 0.

Proposition 2 Let X be a Hilbert space, f,g : X → Rˆ be Φlsc-convex functions, α ∈ R. Assume that x¯ ∈ dom(f) ∩ dom(g) and x¯ ∈ [f ≥ α] ∩ [g ≥ α]. If f and g satisfy the zero subgradient condition at x¯ then, there exist ϕ1 ∈ supp(f), ϕ2 ∈ supp(g) for which the intersection property holds at the level α. Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 7

Proof By Remark 1, we only need to consider the case where (a1, v1) ∈ ∂lscf(¯x) and (a2, v2) ∈ ∂lscg(¯x) are such that λa1 + µa2 = 0, λv1 + µv2 = 0, for some λ, µ ≥ 0, λ + µ = 1 . If λ = 0, then 0 ∈ ∂lscg(¯x) and consequently, g(x) ≥ g(¯x) for all x ∈ X. By assumption, g(¯x) ≥ α, so ϕ1 ≡ α is in the support of g, ϕ1 ∈ supp(g), hence, ϕ1 and any function ϕ2 ∈ supp(f) have the intersection property at the level α, since [ϕ1 < α]= ∅. By analogous reasoning, we get the desired conclusion if µ = 0. Now assume that λ > 0 and µ > 0. This implies that a1 = a2 = 0, since a1,a2 ≥ 0. Let us take ϕ1 ∈ supp(f) and ϕ2 ∈ supp(g).

ϕ1(x) := hv1, x − x¯i + f(¯x) and ϕ2(x) := hv2, x − x¯i + g(¯x)

for all x ∈ X. We show that ϕ1 and ϕ2 have the intersection property at the level α. Let x1 ∈ [ϕ1 < α], we have

ϕ1(x1) < α ⇔ hv1, x1 − x¯i + f(¯x) < α ⇔ hv1, x1 − x¯i < α − f(¯x)

By assumption thatx ¯ ∈ [f ≥ α] ∩ [g ≥ α], we have α − f(¯x) ≤ 0, so

hv1, x1 − x¯i < 0.

Since, x1 is chosen arbitrarily, we get [ϕ1 < α] ⊂ [hv1, ·− x¯i < 0]. By similar calculations we get [ϕ2 < α] ⊂ [hv2, ·− x¯i < 0]. Since λv1 + µv2 = 0 we have

[hv2, ·− x¯i < 0] = [−hv1, ·− x¯i < 0] = [hv1, ·− x¯i > 0]

and consequently [ϕ1 < α] ∩ [ϕ2 < α]= ∅ which completes the proof.

3 Duality for Φ-convex Lagrangian.

Let X be a vector space and let Φ be a class of elementary functions ϕ : X → R. In this section we investigate Lagrange duality for minimization problem

Min f(x) x ∈ X, (P)

where f : X → R¯ is a proper function. We introduce the Lagrange function for problem (P ) by applying perturbation/parametrization approach, see e.g. [2], [7], [34]. Let Y be a vector space. A function p : X × Y → Rˆ satisfying

p(x, y0)= f(x), for some y0 ∈ Y 8 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga

is called a perturbation function to problem (P ). Often we take y0 = 0. Clearly, dom p 6= ∅ since dom f 6= ∅ but, in general, p need not to be proper if f is a proper. By using function p(·, ·), the family of parametric problems (Py) is deﬁned as Min p(x, y), x ∈ X, (Py) where (P ) coincides with (Py0 ). Let Ψ be a class of elementary functions ψ : Y → R. We consider the Lagrangian L : X × Ψ :→ R¯ deﬁned as

∗ L(x, ψ) := ψ(y0) − px(ψ), (9) ∗ R¯ where px : Ψ → , and ∗ px(ψ) = sup{ψ(y) − p(x, y)} y∈Y

is the Ψ-conjugate of the function px(·) := p(x, ·), x ∈ X. When Z1 := Y , Z2 := Ψ, c(y, ψ) := ψ(y), and y0 = 0, Lagrangian defined by (9) coincides with Lagrangian L(x, y) as defined in Proposition 1 of [21]. Also the Lagrangian given by formula 2.1 of [10] coincides with (9). Analogous definitions of Lagrangian have been introduced in convex case e.g. [7], in DC case [34] and in general Φ-convex case [10], [12], [18] and [20], Section 1.7. Consider the Lagrangian primal problem

val(LP ) := inf sup L(x, ψ). (LP ) x∈X ψ∈Ψ

Proposition 3 Problems (P) and (LP ) are equivalent in sense that

inf f(x) = inf sup L(x, ψ), x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψ

if and only if p(x, ·) is Ψ-convex function at y0 ∈ Y for all x ∈ X.

Proof It is enough to observe that the following equality holds

∗ ∗∗ sup L(x, ψ) = sup{ψ(y0) − px(ψ)} = px (y0)= p(x, y0). ψ∈Ψ ψ∈Ψ where the latter equality follows from Theorem 1.

The dual problem to (LP ) is deﬁned as

val(LD) := sup inf L(x, ψ). (LD) ψ∈Ψ x∈X

Problem (LD) is called the Lagrangian dual. The inequality

val(LD) ≤ val(LP ) (10) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 9

always holds. We say that the zero duality gap holds for problems (LP ) and (LD) if the equality val(LP )= val(LD) holds. The following theorem provides suﬃcient and necessary conditions for the zero duality gap, within the framework of Φ-convexity, where Φ is any class of elementary functions. Up to our knowledge, this is the ﬁrst result on this level of generality. We start with some preliminary observations. We have dom L : = {(x, ψ) ∈ X × Ψ | L(x, ψ) < +∞} = {(x, ψ) ∈ X × Ψ | inf {px(y) − ψ(y)} < +∞}. y∈Y

Observe that dom px 6= ∅ for x ∈ dom f and, for any ψ ∈ Ψ, ∗ px(ψ) ≥ ψ(y0) − p(x, y0)= ψ(y0) − f(x), ∗ i.e. px(·) > −∞ for any x ∈ dom f. Since f is proper, dom f 6= ∅ and dom f ⊂ dom L(·, ψ) for any ψ ∈ Ψ. On the other hand, under the assumptions of Proposition 3, since f is proper we have f(x) = sup L(x, ψ) > −∞ for any x ∈ X, i.e. L(x, ψ) > −∞ ψ∈Ψ for some ψ ∈ Ψ which means that among functions L(·, ψ), ψ ∈ Ψ may exist proper functions. In conclusion, dom L(·, ψ) 6= ∅ for every ψ ∈ Ψ and supp L(·, ψ) 6= ∅ for some ψ ∈ Ψ. (11) Moreover, the following fact holds. ¯ ∃x¯∈X ∃ψ¯∈Ψ L(¯x, ψ)=+∞ ⇔ ∀ψ∈Ψ L(¯x, ψ)=+∞. (12) ¯ ¯ ∗ ¯ To see this it is enough to note that the condition L(¯x, ψ)= ψ(y0)−px¯(ψ)= +∞ for somex ¯ ∈ X and ψ¯ ∈ Ψ can be rewritten as infy∈Y {px¯(y) − ψ¯(y)} = +∞ which means that px¯(y) = p(¯x,y)=+∞ for any y ∈ Y i.e. dom px¯ = ∅ and consequently ∀ψ∈Ψ L(¯x, ψ)=+∞. Theorem 3 Let X,U be vector spaces. Let Ψ ⊂ U be a convex set of elementary functions ψ : Y → R and let the function L(·, ψ): X → Rˆ, given by (9), be Φ-convex on X for any ψ ∈ Ψ. Assume that p(x, ·) is Ψ-convex function at y0 ∈ Y for all x ∈ X. The following are equivalent:

(i) for every α < infx∈X supψ∈Ψ L(x, ψ) there exist ψ1, ψ2 ∈ Ψ and ϕ1 ∈ suppL(·, ψ1) and ϕ2 ∈ suppL(·, ψ2) such that functions ϕ1 and ϕ2 have the intersection property at the level α; (ii) inf f(x) = inf sup L(x, ψ) = sup inf L(x, ψ). x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψ ψ∈Ψ x∈X Proof The ﬁrst equality follows from Proposition 3. To prove the second equality we apply Theorem 2, i.e. we need to show that L(x, ·) is a concave function of ψ for all x ∈ X, i.e.

L(x, tψ1 + (1 − t)ψ2) ≥ tL(x, ψ1)+(1 − t)L(x, ψ2) (13) 10 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga

for any t ∈ [0, 1], x ∈ X and any ψ1, ψ2 ∈ Ψ. Take any ψ1, ψ2 ∈ Ψ. L(x, ψ1) and L(x, ψ2) are ﬁnite. Let t ∈ [0, 1]. We have

L(x, tψ1 + (1 − t)ψ2)= = tψ1(y0)+(1 − t)ψ2(y0) − sup{tψ1(y)+(1 − t)ψ2(y) − p(x, y)} y∈Y = tψ1(y0)+(1 − t)ψ2(y0) − sup{tψ1(y)+(1 − t)ψ2(y) − tp(x, y) − (1 − t)p(x, y)} y∈Y ≥ tψ1(y0)+(1 − t)ψ2(y0) − t sup{ψ1(y) − p(x, y)}− (1 − t) sup{ψ2(y) − p(x, y)} y∈Y y∈Y = tL(x, ψ1)+(1 − t)L(x, ψ2).

Hence, L(x, ·) is concave on Ψ. Observe that L(x, ψ1) and L(x, ψ2) can take inﬁnite values.

Remark 2 Assume that p(x, ·) is Ψ-convex function at y0 ∈ Y for all X. By Proposition 3, f(x) = supψ∈Ψ L(x, ψ). Since f is proper, it may only happen that inf f(x) = inf sup L(x, ψ)= −∞ or inf f(x) = inf sup L(x, ψ) is ﬁnite. x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψ x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψ

In the first case, when val(LP ) = −∞, in view of (10), there is nothing to prove and the condition (i) of Theorem 3 is authomatically satisfied. Theorem 3 can also be formulated in terms of the optimal value function of the problems (Py). The optimal value function of (Py), V : Y → R¯ is defined as V (y) := inf p(x, y). (14) x∈X In Proposition 4 below the convexity of elementary function set Ψ is not required.

Proposition 4 Assume that px = p(x, ·) is Ψ-convex function on Y for all x ∈ X. The following are equivalent: (i) inf f(x) = inf sup L(x, ψ) = sup inf L(x, ψ). x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψ ψ∈Ψ x∈X (ii) ∗∗ V (y0)= V (y0),

where y0 ∈ Y and p(x, y0)= f(x), for any x ∈ X. Proof For any ψ ∈ Ψ, we have

∗ ∗ V (ψ) = sup{ψ(y) − inf p(x, y)} = sup sup{ψ(y) − p(x, y)} = sup px(ψ). y∈Y x∈X y∈Y x∈X x∈X (15) On the other hand, for the dual function we have

∗ ∗ inf L(x, ψ) = inf {ψ(y0) − px(ψ)} = ψ(y0) − sup{px(ψ)}. x∈X x∈X x∈X Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 11

By (15), ∗ inf L(x, ψ)= ψ(y0) − V (ψ), x∈X and for the dual (LD) we have

∗ ∗∗ sup inf L(x, ψ) = sup{ψ(y0) − V (ψ)} = V (y0). (16) ψ∈Ψ x∈X ψ∈Ψ

By Proposition 3, when the perturbation function p(x, ·) is Ψ-convex for each x ∈ X then inf sup L(x, ψ)= V (y0) x∈X ψ∈Ψ which completes the proof.

In reﬂexive Banach spaces for some particular coupling functions, conditions ensuring (ii) were proved in Theorem 4.1 and Proposition 4.1 of [10].

Corollary 1 Assume that px = p(x, ·) is Ψ-convex function on Y for all x ∈ X. The following are equivalent: (i) inf f(x) = inf sup L(x, ψ) = sup inf L(x, ψ). x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψ ψ∈Ψ x∈X

(ii) V is Ψ-convex at y0 i.e. V (y0) = sup{ψ(y0), ψ ∈ supp V (y)} (cf. Theorem 1).

Proof Follows directly from Theorem 1 and Proposition 4.

The following corollary shows the relationship between the Φ-convexity of the Lagrangian and the Ψ-convexity of the perturbation function. Corollary 2 Let Ψ be a convex set of elementary functions ψ : Y → R. Assume that px = p(x, ·) is Ψ-convex function on Y for all x ∈ X. Assume that for any ψ ∈ Ψ the function L(·, ψ): X → Rˆ, deﬁned by (9), is Φ-convex on X. The following are equivalent.

(i) For every α< inf sup L(x, ψ) there exist ψ1, ψ2 ∈ Ψ and ϕ1 ∈ supp L(·, ψ1) x∈X ψ∈Ψ and ϕ2 ∈ supp L(·, ψ2) such that functions ϕ1 and ϕ2 have the intersection property at the level α (ii) The optimal value function V is Ψ-convex at y0.

Proof Follows from Theorem 3 and Proposition 4. To see the implication (i) ⇒ (ii) we need to show the following.

(a) If V (y0) = inf f(x)= −∞, then V (y)= −∞ for all y ∈ Y . x∈X (b) If V (y0) is ﬁnite, then supp 6= ∅ and

V (y) = sup{ψ(y) | ψ ∈ supp V }. (17) 12 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga

Ad (a). In this case, supp V = ∅, i.e. V ≡ −∞.

Ad (b). Assume that V (y0) = inf sup L(x, ψ). By (i), in view of Theorem 3 x∈X ψ∈Ψ ∗∗ and Proposition 4, we have V (y0) = sup sup L(x, ψ)= V (y0). By Theorem ψ∈Ψ x∈X 1, V is Ψ-convex at y0.

The following theorem corresponds to the classical fact for convex functions (see i.e. [7], Theorem 2.142 [5], Theorem 1.6). For abstract convex functions this theorem was proved in Theorem 5.2 of [28] (see also Proposition 2.1 of [10]).

We say that an element ψ0 ∈ Ψ is a solution to the Lagrangian dual problem (LD) if

sup inf L(x, ψ) = inf L(x, ψ0). (18) ψ∈Ψ x∈X x∈X

The function q : Ψ → Rˆ deﬁned as

q(ψ) := inf L(x, ψ) x∈X

is called the dual function. With this notation, ψ0 ∈ Ψ solves the Lagrangian dual (LD) iﬀ

q(ψ0) = sup q(ψ). ψ∈Ψ

Theorem 4 The following statements hold:

(i)If ∂Ψ V (y0) 6= ∅, then val(LP ) = val(LD), and the solution set to the Lagrangian dual problem (LD) coincides with ∂Ψ V (y0). (ii) If val(LP ) = val(LD), and both values are ﬁnite, then the (possibly empty) optimal solution set of (LD) coincides with ∂Ψ V (y0).

Proof By Proposition 1, the following equivalence holds

∗ ψ ∈ ∂Ψ V (y0) ⇔ ψ(y0) − V (ψ)= V (y0).

Consequently,

∗ ∗ ∗∗ val(LP )= V (y0)= ψ(y0)−V (ψ) ≤ sup{ψ(y0)−V (ψ)} = V (y0)= val(LD), ψ∈Ψ

which means that val(LP ) = val(LD) if and only if ψ ∈ ∂Ψ V (y0). We have proved (i) and (ii). Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 13

4 Duality for Φconv-Lagrangian

Let X be a Banach space with the dual X∗. In the present section we analyse the Lagrangian duality for the Φconv Lagrangian, where the class Φconv deﬁned in Example 1,

∗ Φconv := {ϕ : X → R, ϕ(x)= hℓ, xi + c, x ∈ X, ℓ ∈ X , c ∈ R}, (19) and in the original problem (P), the minimized function f : X → R¯ is a proper convex and lsc function of the form

f(x) := g(x)+ h(x) (20)

where g,h : X → R¯ are convex proper lsc functions with dom g ∩ dom h 6= ∅. For problem (P) with f given by (20), we consider the perturbation function p : X × X → R¯,

p(x, y) := g(x)+ h(x − y), px(·) := p(x, ·): X → Rˆ. (21)

Clearly, y0 = 0, 0 ∈ dom px(·) ⊂ X for any x ∈ dom f and p is a proper function. Hence, we take Ψconv := Φconv. In the sequel, we identify X and Y (i.e. ∗ X = Y ) and the class Φconv with the Cartesian product X × R. ∗ ∗ R Rˆ For any x ∈ X the conjugate px : X × → , is given by the formula

∗ ∗ ∗ px(ψ) := px(y ,c) = sup{y (y)+ c − g(x) − h(x − y)}. (22) y∈X

This definition of conjugacy coincides with the classical one when c = 0. Clearly, the conjugate function (22), is convex and lsc on X∗ × R. The reason for defining conjugacy in the above (a bit unusual way) way is motivativated by the importance of constant c ∈ R in the intersection property, Definition 4. Let us observe, that the appearance of the constant c above (which amounts to considering affine functionals rather than linear) does not influence the values of the Lagrangian. The Lagrangian L : X × X∗ × R → Rˆ given by (9) takes the form

L(x, ψ)= L(x, y∗,c)= L(x, y∗)= − sup{hy∗,yi− g(x) − h(x − y)} y∈X = g(x)+ hy∗, xi − hy∗, xi− sup{hy∗,yi− h(x − y)} y∈X = g(x)+ h−y∗, xi− sup{h−y∗, −yi + h−y∗, xi− h(x − y)} y∈X = g(x) − hy∗, xi− h∗(−y∗). (23) The Lagrangian L(·,y∗) is lsc and convex for any y∗ ∈ Y and L(x, ·) is usc and concave for any x ∈ X. 14 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga

In particular, when h is the indicator function of a convex set A = {x ∈ X | G(x) ∈ K}, where G : X → Z, Z is a Banach space, K ⊂ Z is closed convex cone in Z, then

∗ ∗ L(x, y ,c)= g(x) − sup{hy ,yi− ind A(x − y)} u := x − y (24) y∈Y ∗ ∗ = g(x) − hy , xi− sup{h−y ,ui− ind A(u)} u∈Y = g(x) − hy∗, xi− sup{h−y∗,ui} u∈A For any (y∗,c) ∈ X∗ × R∗, supp L(·,y∗,c) := {(z∗, d) ∈ X∗ × R | (z∗, d) ≤ L(·,y∗,c)}. Since f is proper, by (11), there exist (y∗,c) ∈ X∗×R such that supp L(·,y∗,c) 6= ∅. Suppose now that our original problem (P) is the classical constrained optimization problem min g(x), (25) x∈A where A := {x ∈ X | gx ≤ 0, i = 1, ..., m}, gi : X → R, i = 1, ..., m and p : X × Rm → Rˆ, f(x) when g (x)+ y ≤ 0, i =1, ..., m p(x, y) := i i +∞ otherwise Hence, f(x) := g(x) + ind K (G(x)), m where K := {y = (y1, ..., ym) ∈ R | yi ≤ 0, i = 1, ..., m}, G(x) := (g1(x),g2(x), ..., gm(x)) and the perturbation function is of the form

m p(x, y)= g(x) + ind K (G(x)+ y), p(y0)= p(0) = f(x), x ∈ X, y ∈ R ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ Rm R with px(y ,c) := sup{hy ,yi + c − g(x) − ind K (G(x)+ y)}, y ∈ , c ∈ . y∈Y ∗ m Note that here Φconv is identiﬁed with X ×R and Ψ is identiﬁed with R ×R. The Lagrangian (9), L : X × Rm × R → Rˆ, takes the form

∗ ∗ L(x, ψ)= L(x, y ,c)= − sup {hy ,yi− g(x) − ind K (G(x)+ y)}. y∈Rm We have

∗ ∗ ∗ L(x, y ,c)= L(x, y )= − sup {hy ,yi− g(x) − ind K (G(x)+ y)} y∈Rm ∗ = g(x) − sup {hy ,yi− ind K (G(x)+ y)} y∈Rm ∗ ∗ ∗ = g(x) − sup {hy ,yi + hy , G(x)i − hy , G(x)i− ind K (G(x)+ y)} y∈Rm ∗ ∗ ∗ = g(x)+ hy , G(x)i− sup {hy ,yi + hy , G(x)i− ind K (G(x)+ y)} y∈Rm ∗ ∗ ∗ = g(x)+ hy , G(x)i− sup {hy ,yi + hy , G(x)i− ind K (G(x)+ y)} y∈Rm Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 15

Observe that ∗ ∗ ∗ 0 when yi ≥ 0 sup {hy ,yi + hy , G(x)i− ind K (G(x)+ y)} = y∈Rm +∞ otherwise Consequently, g(x)+ hy∗, G(x)i when y∗ ≥ 0 L(x, y∗)= −∞ otherwise For problem (20) with perturbation function (21), Theorem 3 takes the following form. Theorem 5 Let X be a Banach space with the dual X∗. Let the function L(x, x∗,c): X × X∗ × R → Rˆ be given by (23). The following are equivalent: ∗ ∗ ∗ (i) for every α< infx∈X sup(x∗,c)∈X∗×R L(x, x ,c) there exist (x1,c1), (x2,c2) ∈ ∗ R ∗ ∗ X × and ϕ1 ∈ suppL(·, x1,c1) and ϕ2 ∈ suppL(·, x2,c2) such that

[ϕ1 < α] ∩ [ϕ2 < α]= ∅; (ii) inf f(x) = inf sup L(x, ψ) = sup inf L(x, ψ). x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψ ψ∈Ψ x∈X Proof The proof follows from Proposition 3 and Theorem 3. Let the function ∗ px : X × R → Rˆ, px(y)= p(x, y), with p is given by (21) be Φconv-convex on ∗ Y . Let the function L(·, x ,c): X → Rˆ, given by (23), be Φconv-convex on X for any (x∗,c) ∈ X∗ × R. Proposition 5 Assume that inf f(x) ﬁnite. The following are equivalent. x∈X (I) Condition (i) of Theorem 5 (the intersection property). ∗ ∗ ∗ R (II) For every ε > 0 there exist (y1 ,c1), (y2 ,c2) ∈ Y × and ϕ1(x) := ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ (z1 , d1) ∈ supp L(·,y1 ,c1), ϕ2(x) := (z2 , d2) ∈ supp L(·,y2 ,c2) such that

(a) t0d1 + (1 − t0)d2 ≥ infx∈X f(x) − ε, ∗ ∗ (26) (b) t0z1 + (1 − t0)z2 =0 are satisﬁed for some t ∈ [0, 1]. Proof Assume that (I) holds. Condition (i) of Theorem 5 reads as follows: for ∗ ∗ ∗ R every ε> 0 one can ﬁnd (y1 ,c1), (y2 ,c2) ∈ Y × and ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ (z1 , d1) ∈ supp L(·,y1 ,c1) and (z2 , d2) ∈ supp L(·,y2 ,c2) (27) satisfying

∗ ∗ [x | hz1 , xi + d1 < inf f(x) − ε] ∩ [x | hz2 , xi + d2 < inf f(x) − ε]= ∅. (28) x∈X x∈X

Equivalently, (see Lemma 4.1 of [32]) there exists t0 ∈ [0, 1] satisfying ∗ ∗ ht0z1 + (1 − t0)z2 , xi + t0d1 + (1 − t0)d2 ≥ inf f(x) − ε for all x ∈ X, (29) x∈X 16 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga

i.e. it must be ∗ ∗ t0z1 + (1 − t0)z2 =0, and consequently

t0d1 + (1 − t0)d2 ≥ inf f(x) − ε for all x ∈ X. (30) x∈X

Assume that (II) holds. Then the following inequality holds

∗ ∗ ht0z1 + (1 − t0)z2 , xi + t0d1 + (1 − t0)d2 ≥ inf f(x) − ε for all x ∈ X. (31) x∈X

Which is equivalent to

t0ϕ1(x)+(1 − t0)ϕ2(x) ≥ inf f(x) − ε for all x ∈ X. x∈X

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ where (z1 , d1) ∈ supp L(·,y1 ,c1) and (z2 , d2) ∈ supp L(·,y2 ,c2). By Lemma 4.1 of [32] functions ϕ1 and ϕ2 have the intersection property at the level infx∈X f(x) − ε. Since ε > 0 was chosen arbitrarily, we get that functions ϕ1 and ϕ2 have the intersection property at every level α< infx∈X f(x).

We close this section with a comparison between the intersection property and two types of optimality conditions which are studied in the literature, namely, the so-called generalized interior point-condition and closedness-type condition. These conditions are thoroughly researched in [6]. The ﬁrst example shows that the generalized interior point-condition fails, but the closedness-type one holds, as was proved in [6]. We show that the intersection property is fulﬁlled.

Example 2 ([6], Example 21 and Example 23) Let (X, k·k) be a real reﬂexive ∗ ∗ R¯ Banach space, x0 ∈ X \{0} and the functions f,g : X → be deﬁned by ∗ ∗ f(·) = indker x0 (·) and g = k·k + indker x0 (·). We have

β = inf sup L(x, y∗) = inf {f(x)+ g(x)} = inf kxk =0 ∗ ∗ ∗ x∈X y ∈X x∈X x∈ker x0

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ R ∗ R and g (y ) = indB∗(0,1)+ x0 (y ). Let y1 = ax0, a ∈ . We have −y1 ∈ R ∗ ∗ ∗ B∗(0, 1)+ x0, and g (−y1) = 0, hence

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 0 − hax0, xi, if x ∈ ker x0, 0, if x ∈ ker x0, L(x, y1 )= f(x)−hax0, xi = ∗ ∗ = ∗ +∞ − hax0, xi if x∈ / ker x0 +∞ if x∈ / ker x0 ∗ ∗ R Let y2 = bx0, b ∈ , b 6= a. Let ϕ1, ϕ2 ∈ Φconv and ϕ1 = ϕ2 ≡ 0, then ϕ1 ∈ ∗ ∗ suppL(·,y1 ) and ϕ2 ∈ suppL(·,y2 ). Functions ϕ1 and ϕ2 have the intersection property at the level 0, hence at every level α< 0. The next example shows that the generalized interior point-condition hold, but closedness-type one fails, as was shown in [6]. We show that the intersection property is fulﬁlled. Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 17

Example 3 ([6], Example 25) Let X = ℓ2(N) and let the set C, S be such that

2 C = {(xn)n∈N ∈ ℓ : x2n−1 + x2n =0 ∀n ∈ N}, and 2 S = {(xn)n∈N ∈ ℓ : x2n + x2n+1 =0 ∀n ∈ N},

2 hence S ∩ C = {0}. Deﬁne the functions f,g : ℓ → R¯ by f(·) = indC(·), g = indS(·), so

β = inf sup L(x, y∗) = inf {f(x)+ g(x)} = {0}. 2 2 x∈ℓ y∗∈ℓ2 x∈∈ℓ

∗ We have g = indS⊥ , where

⊥ 2 S = {(xn)n∈N ∈ ℓ : x1 =0, x2n = x2n+1 ∀n ∈ N}.

∗ Let y1 = (0, 0, ..., 0, ...), then we have

∗ L(x, y1 )= f(x).

∗ ∗ ⊥ Let y2 be such that −y2 ∈ S , then

∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ L(0,y2 )= f(0) − g (−y2) − hy2 , 0i = −g (−y2 )=0.

∗ ∗ Let ϕ1 ∈ suppL(·,y1 ) and ϕ2 ≡ 0, hence ϕ2 ∈ suppL(·,y2 ). Functions ϕ1 and ϕ2 have the intersection property at the level 0, hence at every level α< 0.

5 Duality for Φlsc-convex Lagrangian.

Let X, Y be Hilbert spaces. Let Φlsc and Ψlsc be deﬁned by (1) on X and Y , respectively. In the present section we consider problem (P) of Section 3 with the perturbation function p such that px = p(x, ·): Ψlsc → R¯ is Ψlsc-convex for any x ∈ X and with the Lagrangian L, L(·, ψ): X → R¯, which is Φlsc-convex for any ψ ∈ Ψ. In the considered case the Lagrangian L : X × Ψlsc :→ R¯ deﬁned by (32) takes the form

2 ∗ L(x, ψ)= −aky0k − hv,y0i + c − px(ψ), (32) where ψ(y) := −akyk2 + hv,yi + c and

∗ 2 2 px(ψ) = sup{−akyk +hv,yi+c−p(x, y)} = c+ sup{−akyk +hv,yi−p(x, y)}. y∈Y y∈Y 18 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga

Remark 3 Observe that the right-hand side of (32) is independent of c, i.e. for all functions ψ which diﬀers only be c (i.e. have the same a and v) the right-hand side of (32) is the same. In view of this

2 ∗ L(x, ψ)= L(x, a, v)= −aky0k + hv,y0i− px(a, v), (33) where ∗ 2 px(a, v) = sup{−akyk + hv,yi− p(x, y)}, (34) y∈Y i.e. the Lagrangian L can be equivalently regarded as a function deﬁned on ∗ X × R+ × Y .

According to Proposition 3, problem (P) is equivalent to the Lagrangian primal problem inf f(x) = inf sup L(x, ψ) (35) x]inX x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc provided p(x, ·) is Ψlsc-convex for any x ∈ X. The following theorem is based on Theorem 3.

Theorem 6 Let X, Y be Hilbert spaces. Let p(x, ·) be Ψlsc-convex function at y0 ∈ Y for all x ∈ X. Let L : X × Ψlsc → Rˆ be the Lagrangian deﬁned by (32), i.e. 2 ∗ L(x, ψ)= −aky0k + hv,y0i + c − px(ψ).

Assume that for any ψ ∈ Ψlsc the function L(·, ψ): X → Rˆ is Φlsc-convex on X. The following are equivalent:

(i) for every α< inf sup L(x, ψ) there exist ψ1, ψ2 ∈ Ψ and ϕ1 ∈ suppL(·, ψ1) x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc and ϕ2 ∈ suppL(·, ψ2) such that

[ϕ1 < α] ∩ [ϕ2 < α]= ∅ (ii) inf f(x) = sup inf L(x, ψ) = inf sup L(x, ψ). x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc

Proof Follows from formula (8), Proposition 3 and Theorem 3.

Let β := inf sup L(x, ψ). Since the intersection property follows from x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc the zero subgradient condition (Proposition 2), we can prove the following suﬃcient conditions for zero duality gap.

Theorem 7 Let X, Y be Hilbert spaces. Let p(x, ·) be Ψlsc-convex function at y0 ∈ Y for all x ∈ X. Let L : X × Ψlsc → Rˆ be the Lagrangian deﬁned by (32), i.e. 2 ∗ L(x, ψ)= −aky0k + hv,y0i + c − px(ψ).

Assume that for any ψ ∈ Ψlsc the function L(·, ψ): X → Rˆ is Φlsc-convex on X. Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 19

If there exist ψ1, ψ2 ∈ Ψlsc and x¯ ∈ dom f, x¯ ∈ [L(·, ψ1) ≥ β]∩[L(·, ψ2) ≥ β] such that

0 ∈ co(∂lscL(¯x, ψ1) ∪ ∂lscL(¯x, ψ2)), then inf f(x) = sup inf L(x, ψ) = inf sup L(x, ψ). x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc

Proof Since dom L(·, ψ) ⊃ dom f, for all ψ ∈ Ψlsc, proof follows immediately from Proposition 2, Proposition 3 and Theorem 2.

We say that a function f : Y → R¯ is paraconvex (in the literature paraconvex functions are known also under the name weakly convex [36] and semiconvex [11]) on Y if there exists c> 0 such that f +ck·k2 is convex. Equivalently, a function f : Y → R¯ is called paraconvex on X if there exists C > 0 such that for all x, y ∈ Y and t ∈ [0, 1] the following inequality holds

f(tx + (1 − t)y) ≤ tf(x)+(1 − t)f(y)+ Ckx − yk2, (36)

see e.g. [27]. It was shown in [17] and [26] that (36) is equivalent to

f(tx + (1 − t)y) ≤ tf(x)+(1 − t)f(y)+ Ct(1 − t)kx − yk2. (37)

It was shown in [33], Proposition 3 that every lower semicontinuous paraconvex function is Φlsc-convex. Moreover, by Proposition 5 of [33], if f is proper lsc and paraconvex on Y , then for every y ∈ int dom(f) the subdiﬀerential ∂lscf(y) is nonempty. Proposition 5 of [33] allows to obtain the strong duality theorem for the pair of dual problems problem P with paraconvex optimal value function V deﬁned by (14), i.e. V (y) := inf p(x, y). x∈X

As usual, we say that that the strong duality holds for dual problems LP and LD when the zero duality gap holds and the dual problem LD is solvable. The following strong duality result holds for problems with the paraconvex (weakly convex) optimal value function V and int domV 6= ∅.

Theorem 8 Let X and Y be Hilbert spaces. Assume that the perturbation function p(x, ·) (as a function of y) is Ψlsc-convex at y0 for all x ∈ X. If the optimal value function V (y) of the problem (P ) is proper, lsc, and paraconvex on Y and y0 ∈ int dom(V ), then

inf f(x) = sup inf L(x, ψ) = inf sup L(x, ψ), x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc i.e. infx∈X f(x)= val(LP )= val(LD) and the solution set of the dual problem (LD) is nonempty and coincides with ∂lscV (y0). 20 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga

Proof By Proposition 3,

inf f(x) = inf sup L(x, ψ). x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc

By paraconvexity of the function V and by Proposition 5 of [33], we get ∂lscV (y0) 6= ∅. Hence, by Theorem 4(i) we get

inf sup L(x, ψ) = sup inf L(x, ψ) x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc ψ∈Ψlsc x∈X and the solution set to the dual problem LD is nonempty and coincides with ∂lscV (y0).

Let us note that in the above theorem it is possible to replace the int dom(V ) by the so called quasi-relative interior qri dom(V ) see i.e Corollary 9 in [38]. Theorem 6 and Theorem 7 refer to generic perturbation function p. For some particular choices of p the intersection property is automatically satisﬁed. One such choice is considered below.

6 Special case

In the present section we investigate Lagrangian duality for constrained optimization problems within the framework of Φlsc-convexity. Let X be a Hilbert space. Consider the constrained optimization problem of the form Min f(x) x ∈ A(y0), (38) where, as previously, f : X → R¯ is a proper function in the sense that dom f 6= ∅ and f > −∞, and A : Y ⇒ X is a set-valued mapping. The corresponding family of parametrized/perturbed problems (Py)

Min p(x, y) x ∈ X (39) is based on the perturbation function p : X × Rm → R ∪{+∞} defined as (see [24]) f(x), x ∈ A(y) p(x, y)= , (40) +∞, x/∈ A(y) Problem (38) casts into general form (P) with the minimized function f˜(x) := f(x) + indA(y0)(·), where indA(·) is the indicator function of set A. We adopt the convention that ind A ≡ +∞ whenever A = ∅. Assume that β = inf sup L(x, ψ) is finite. x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc Theorem 9 Let X, Y be Hilbert spaces and let inf f(x) be finite. Let L : x∈X X × Ψlsc → Rˆ be the Lagrangian defined by (32) with y0 =0,

∗ L(x, ψ)= c − px(ψ), (41) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 21 where, as previously, ψ(y) := −akyk2 + hv,yi + c and

∗ 2 2 px(ψ) = sup{−akyk +hv,yi+c−p(x, y)} = c+ sup{−akyk +hv,yi−p(x, y)}. y∈Y y∈Y

If, for any ψ ∈ Ψlsc, the function L(·, ψ): X → Rˆ is Φlsc-convex on X and the perturbation function p(x, ·) is Ψlsc-convex at y0 for all x ∈ X, then

inf f(x) = sup inf L(x, ψ) = inf sup L(x, ψ). x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc x∈X x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc

Proof The ﬁrst equality follows from Proposition 3 applied to function px, px(y)= p(x, y), x ∈ X, y ∈ Y given by (40). In view of Theorem 6, to prove the second equality, we need to show that for every α < inf sup L(x, ψ) there exist ψ1, ψ2 ∈ Ψlsc and ϕ1 ∈ suppL(·, ψ1) and x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc ϕ2 ∈ suppL(·, ψ2) such that

[ϕ1 < α] ∩ [ϕ2 < α]= ∅.

2 Let ψ¯ ∈ Ψlsc, ψ¯(y)= −akyk + c where a> 0 and c ∈ R. Let x ∈ Ay. By (32),

¯ 2 L(x, ψ)= c − supy∈Y {−akyk + c − p(x, y)} 2 = − supy∈Y {−akyk − f(x)} 2 = f(x) − supy∈Y {−akyk } = f(x) ≥ inf(P )= β. If x∈ / A(y), then L(x, ψ¯)=+∞. Hence, for all x ∈ X

L(x, ψ¯) ≥ f(x) ≥ inf(P )= β.

The function ϕ1 ≡ β belongs to the support set of L(·, ψ¯). Let ϕ2 be any func- 2 tion from the set suppL(·, ψ2), for ψ2 ∈ Ψlsc, of the form ψ2(y)= −a2kyk +c2, where a2 > 0 and c2 ∈ R, then ϕ1 and ϕ2 have the intersection property at the level β, hence ϕ1 and ϕ2 have the intersection property at every level α<β.

m Let gi : X → R, i =1, ..., m be given functions. Let A : R ⇒ X be given as A(y) := {x ∈ X : gi(x) ≤ yi,i =1, .., m}, (42) y0 = 0, A := A(0). Consider the problem

Min f(x), x ∈ A. (AP)

Problem (AP) can be equivalently rewritten as

Minx∈X f˜(x) (AP1) where f˜(x) := f(x) + ind A(x) and ind A(·) is the indicator function of the set A. 22 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga

According to (40), the perturbation function p : X × Rm → R ∪{+∞} takes the form (see e.g. [24]) as

f(x), x ∈ A(y) p(x, y)= , (43) +∞, x/∈ A(y)

where A(y) are given by (42). Let ψ(y) = −akyk2 + hv,yi + c. According to (32), the Lagrangian for problem (AP ), L : X × Ψlsc → R¯, with y0 = 0, is of the form

∗ L(x, ψ)= −px(ψ)= 2 = − supy∈Y {−akyk + hv,yi− p(x, y)} 2 = − supy∈Y, y≥g(x){−akyk + hv,yi− f(x)} 2 = f(x) + infy∈Y, y≥g(x){akyk − hv,yi}. It is easy to check that

2 m vi m arg inf {akyk − hv,yi} = (yi)i=1 = (max{gi(x), })i=1 y∈Y, y≥g(x) 2a

where v = (v1, ..., vm) and hence

m v v L(x, ψ)= f(x)+ [−v max{g (x), i } + a(max{g (x), i })2]. (44) i i 2a i 2a Xi=1 Similar Lagrangian is deﬁned in [2] and [24]. As observed above, we can m write L(x, ψ)= L(x, a, v), for (a, v) ∈ R+ × R . vi vi For any x ∈ X, if max{gi(x), 2a } = 2a for i =1, ..., m, then sup L(x, a, v)= f(x). (a,v)∈R+×Rm

Moreover, f(x) whenever g (x) ≤ 0 & v ≥ 0 ∀ i =1, ...m sup L(x, a, v)= i i (a,v)∈R+×Rm +∞ otherwise (45) Let β = inf sup L(x, ψ) be ﬁnite number. By [24] we have the following x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc equality inf(P ) = inf sup L(x, ψ). x∈X ψ∈Ψlsc

Corollary 3 Consider the problem (AP) with the perturbation function given by (43). Assume that the functions f,gi : X → R are Φlsc-convex on X. Then

inf f˜(x) = inf sup L(x, a, v) = sup inf L(x, a, v), x∈X x∈X R Rm R Rm x∈X (a,v)∈ +× + (a,v)∈ +× +

with the Lagrangian L given by (44). Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 23

Proof By (45), sup L(x, a, v) = sup L(x, a, v). R Rm R Rm (a,v)∈ +× (a,v)∈ +× +

In view of Theorem 9 we need to show that the function px is Ψlsc on Y and m the Lagrangian L(·,a,v) given by (44) is Φlsc-convex for all (a, v) ∈ R+ × R . m m To show that the function px : R → R¯ is Ψlsc on R observe that for any m Rm y = (yi)i=1 ∈ and x ∈ X

px(y)= f(x) + ind B(y), where for any ﬁxed x ∈ X we put B := {y ∈ Rm | g(x) ≤ y}, where g(x) := m (gi(x))i=1. Since B is a convex set the function px is convex for any x ∈ X. It is enough to observe that the function max{h(x), const} is Φlsc-convex whenever h is Φlsc. By taking u := −v, the formula (44) can be equivalently rewritten as m −u −u L(x,a,u)= f(x)+ [u max{g (x), i } + a(max{g (x), i })2] (46) i i 2a i 2a Xi=1 which coincides with the formula 1.3 of [24] (see also Example 2b of [2]). In view of Corollary 3, zero duality gap holds for the Lagrangian of [24] for Φlsc-convex problem (P), where the function f,gi, i =1, ..., m are Φlsc-convex. m By the proof of Corollary 3, the perturbation function p(x, ·)= px : R → R¯ deﬁned by (43) is convex. Hence, by Theorem 8 we obtain the following fact. Corollary 4 Let X be a Hilbert space and Y = Rm. If the optimal value function V (y) of the problem (P ) is proper, lsc, and paraconvex on Y and y0 ∈ int dom(V ), then inf f(x) = sup inf L(x, a, v) = inf sup L(x, a, v), x∈X ∗ x∈X x∈X ∗ (a,v)∈R+×Y (a,v)∈R+×Y

i.e. val(LP ) = val(LD) and the solution set of the dual problem (LD) is nonempty and coincides with ∂lscV (y0). Proof Follows directly from Corollary 3 and Theorem 8.

7 Conclusions

In Theorem 4 and Theorem 6 we provide sufficient and necessary conditions for zero duality gap for pairs of dual optimization problems involving Φ-convex and Φlsc-convex functions. In particular, our results apply to optimization problems where the considered Lagrangian, and the function p(·, ·) are paraconvex, or prox-bounded, or DC functions. Let us observe that Theorem 2, provides considerable flexibility in choosing Lagrange function L. Sufficient and necessary conditions of Theorem 4 and Theorem 6 are based on the intersection property (Definition 4), which, in contrast to many existing in the literature conditions, is of purely algebraic character. 24 Ewa M. Bednarczuk, Monika Syga

References

1. A.D. Ioffe, A.R.: Abstract convexity and nonsmooth analysis: Global aspects. Advances in Mathematical Economics 4, 1–23 (2002) 2. Balder, E.: An extension of duality-stability relations to nonconvex optimization problems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization 15 (1977) 3. Bardsley, P.: Duality in contracting. Discussion paper, University of Melbourne (2017) 4. Bednarczuk, E.M., Syga, M.: Minimax theorems for Φ-convex functions with applications. Control and Cybernetics 43(3), 421–437 (2014) 5. Bot¸, R.: Conjugate Duality in Convex Optimization, vol. 637 (2010) 6. Bot¸, R.I., Csetnek, E.R.: Regularity conditions via generalized interiority notions in convex optimization: New achievements and their relation to some classical statements. Optimization 61(1), 35–65 (2012). DOI 10.1080/02331934.2010.505649 7. Bonnans, J.F., Shapiro, A.: Perturbation Analysis of Optimization Problems (2000) 8. Bot¸, R.I., Wanka, G.: Duality for composed convex functions with applications in location theory, pp. 1–18. Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden (2003). DOI 10.1007/978-3-322-81539-2 9. Bui, T.H., Burachik, R., Kruger, A., Yost, D.: Zero duality gap in view of abstract convexity (2019) 10. Burachik, R.S., Rubinov, A.: Abstract convexity and augmented lagrangians. SIAM Journal on Optimization 18(2), 413–436 (2007) 11. Cannarsa, P., Sinestrari, C.: Semiconcave Functions, Hamilton-Jacobi Equations, and Optimal Control, vol. 58. Birkhauser Boston, MA (2004) 12. Dolecki, S., Kurcyusz, S.: On Φ-convexity in extremal problems. SIAM J. Control and Optimization 16, 277–300 (1978) 13. Ekeland, I., Téman, R.: Convex Analysis and Variational Problems. Society for Indus- trial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, USA (1999) 14. Fajardo, M.D., Vidal, J.: A comparison of alternative c-conjugate dual problems in infinite convex optimization. Optimization 66, 705–722 (2017). DOI 10.1080/02331934. 2017.1295046 15. Hare, W., Poliquin, R.: The Quadratic Sub-Lagrangian of a prox-regular function. Non- linear Anal. 47, 1117–1128 (2001). DOI 10.1016/S0362-546X(01)00251-6 16. Jeyakumar, V., Rubinov, A.M., Wu, Z.Y.: Generalized Fenchel’s conjugation formu- las and duality for abstract convex functions. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 132(3), 441–458 (2007) 17. Jourani, A.: Subdifferentiability and subdifferential monotonicity of γ-parconvex functions. Control and Cybernetics 25(4), 721–737 (1996) 18. Kurcyusz, S.: Some remarks on generalized lagrangians. In: J. Cea (ed.) Optimization Techniques Modeling and Optimization in the Service of Man Part 2, pp. 362–388. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg (1976) 19. Mart´ınez-Legaz, J.E., Volle, M.: Duality in D.C. programming: The case of several D.C. constraints. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 237(2), 657 – 671 (1999). DOI https://doi.org/10.1006/jmaa.1999.6496 20. Pallaschke, D., Rolewicz, S.: Foundations of Mathematical Optimization. Kluwer Aca- demic (1997) 21. Penot, J.P., Rubinov, A.M.: Multipliers and general Lagrangians. Optimization 54(4-5), 443–467 (2005) 22. Poliquin, R.A., Rockafellar, R.T.: Prox-regular functions in variational analysis. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 348, 1805–1838 (1996) 23. Rockafellar, R., Wets, R.J.B.: Variational Analysis. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, New York (1998) 24. Rockafellar, R.T.: Augmented lagrange multiplier functions and duality in nonconvex programming. SIAM J. Control 12(2), 268–285 (1974) 25. Rolewicz, S.: Convex analysis without linearity. Control and Cybernetics 23, 247–256 (1994) 26. Rolewicz, S.: On α(·)-paraconvex and strongly α(·)-paraconvex functions. Control and Cybernetics 29, 367–377 (2000) 27. Rolewicz, S.: Paraconvex analysis. Control and Cybernetics 34, 951—-965 (2005) Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 25

28. Rubinov, A., Yang, X.: Lagrange-Type Functions in Constrained Non-Convex Opti- mization, vol. 85 (2003) 29. Rubinov, A.M.: Abstract Convexity and Global Optimization. Kluwer Academic,, Dor- drecht (2000) 30. Sun, X., Long, X.J., Li, M.: Some characterizations of duality for DC optimization with composite functions. Optimization 66(9), 1425–1443 (2017). DOI 10.1080/02331934. 2017.1338289 31. Sun, X.K., Guo, X.L., Zhang, Y.: Fenchel-Lagrange duality for DC programs with composite functions. Journal of Nonlinear and Convex Analysis 16, 1607–1618 (2015) 32. Syga, M.: Minimax theorems for extended real-valued abstract convex–concave functions. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 176(2), 306–318 (2018). DOI 10.1007/s10957-017-1210-4 33. Syga, M.: On global properties of lower semicontinuous quadratically minorized functions (2020) 34. Toland, J.: Duality in nonconvex optimization. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 66, 399–415 (1978) 35. Tuy, H.: D.C. Optimization: Theory, Methods and Algorithms (1995). DOI 10.1007/ 978-1-4615-2025-2 36. Vial, J.P.: Strong and weak convexity of sets and functions. Mathematics of Operations Research 8(2), 231–259 (1983) 37. Z˘alinescu, C.: Convex Analysis in General Vector Spaces. World Scientiﬁc (2002) 38. Z˘alinescu, C.: On the use of the quasi-relative interior in optimization. Optimization 64(8), 1795–1823 (2015). DOI 10.1080/02331934.2015.1032284