- Boxes
- definitions
- Ellipses
- theorems and lemmas
- Blue border
- the statement of this result is ready to be formalized; all prerequisites are done
- Orange border
- the statement of this result is not ready to be formalized; the blueprint needs more work
- Blue background
- the proof of this result is ready to be formalized; all prerequisites are done
- Green border
- the statement of this result is formalized
- Green background
- the proof of this result is formalized
- Dark green background
- the proof of this result and all its ancestors are formalized
- Purple border
- this is in Mathlib
Let \(S \subset H\) be a closed set, \(\varepsilon {\gt} 0\) and \(x \in H\). We define the set of \(\varepsilon \)-approximate projections as
Given a time discretization \(\{ t_k^n\} _{k=0}^n\) of \([0,T]\) and a sequence \((\varepsilon _k^n)\) of positive numbers, the catching-up algorithm with errors defines a piecewise linear function \(x^n: [0,T] \to H\) with nodes
for all \(k \in \{ 0, \ldots , n-1\} \), with \(x_0^n = x_0\).
Let \(f : H \to \mathbb {R} \cup \{ +\infty \} \) and \(x \in \operatorname {dom} f\). The Clarke subdifferential of \(f\) at \(x\) is
When \(f\) is finite and locally Lipschitz around \(x\), it is characterized by
where \(f^{\circ }(x;\cdot )\) is the generalized directional derivative, and \(f^{\circ }(x;\cdot )\) is the support function of \(\partial f(x)\).
A vector \(h \in H\) belongs to the Clarke tangent cone \(T(S; x)\) when for every sequence \((x_n)\) in \(S\) converging to \(x\) and every sequence of positive numbers \((t_n)\) converging to \(0\), there exists a sequence \((h_n)\) converging to \(h\) such that \(x_n + t_n h_n \in S\) for all \(n \in \mathbb {N}\).
Let \(S \subset H\) be a closed set and \(\rho \in (0, +\infty ]\). The set \(S\) is called \(\rho \)-uniformly prox-regular if for all \(x \in S\) and \(\zeta \in N^P(S; x)\) one has
for all \(x' \in S\).
Let \(S \subset H\) be a closed set and \(x \in S\). A vector \(\zeta \) belongs to the proximal normal cone to \(S\) at \(x\) if there exist \(\sigma \ge 0\) and \(\eta {\gt} 0\) such that
for all \(y \in S\) with \(\| y-x\| {\lt} \eta \).
Let \(f : H \to \mathbb {R} \cup \{ +\infty \} \) be lower semicontinuous and \(x \in \text{dom } f\). An element \(\zeta \) belongs to the proximal subdifferential of \(f\) at \(x\), denoted \(\partial _P f(x)\), if there exist \(\sigma , \eta \geq 0\) such that
for all \(y \in \mathbb {B}(x; \eta )\).
Let \(S \subset H\) be a closed set. We say that \(S\) is subsmooth at \(x_0 \in S\) if for every \(\varepsilon {\gt} 0\) there exists \(\delta {\gt} 0\) such that
whenever \(x_1, x_2 \in B[x_0, \delta ] \cap S\) and \(\xi _i \in N(S; x_i) \cap \mathbb {B}\) for \(i \in \{ 1,2\} \).
Given a Hilbert space \(H\) and a family of closed moving sets \((C(t))_{t\in [0,T]}\), Moreau’s sweeping process is the differential inclusion
Let \(\mathcal{C} = \{ C_n\} _{n\in \mathbb {N}} \cup \{ C\} \) be a family of nonempty, closed, and equi-uniformly subsmooth sets. Under appropriate convergence assumptions, certain stability properties hold for the subdifferentials of distance functions.
Let \(S \subset H\) be a closed set and \(\rho \in ]0, +\infty ]\). The following assertions are equivalent:
\(S\) is \(\rho \)-uniformly prox-regular
For any \(\gamma \in (0,1)\), the projection map \(\text{proj}_S\) is well-defined on \(U_\rho ^\gamma (S)\) and Lipschitz continuous with constant \((1-\gamma )^{-1}\)
For any \(x_i \in S\), \(v_i \in N^P(S; x_i)\) with \(i = 1, 2\):
\[ \langle v_1 - v_2, x_1 - x_2 \rangle \ge -\frac{1}{2\rho } (\| v_1\| + \| v_2\| ) \| x_1 - x_2\| ^2 \]For all \(\gamma \in ]0,1[\), for all \(x \in U_\rho ^\gamma (S)\), for all \(x' \in H\), and for all \(\xi \in \partial _P d_S(x)\),
\[ \langle \xi , x' - x \rangle \le \frac{1}{2\rho (1-\gamma )^2}\| x' - x\| ^2 + d_S(x') - d_S(x). \]
This is the constant-radius specialization of the equivalences proved by Colombo–Thibault for variable radius \(\rho (\cdot )\) (their Theorem 3).
(1) \(\Rightarrow \) (2). If \(S\) is \(\rho \)-uniformly prox-regular, then Theorem 3(f) with \(\rho (\cdot )\equiv \rho \) yields: for each \(\gamma \in (0,1)\), the projection is single-valued on \(U_\rho ^\gamma (S)\) and
Hence (2) holds.
(2) \(\Rightarrow \) (1). Take \(x\in S\), \(v\in N^P(S;x)\) with \(\| v\| \le 1\), and \(t\in (0,\rho )\). To prove \(\rho \)-prox-regularity it is enough to show
Choose \(t{\lt}t'{\lt}\rho \) and set \(\gamma =t'/\rho \in (0,1)\). Then
so \(x+tv\in U_\rho ^\gamma (S)\) and \(\text{proj}_S(x+tv)\) is well-defined by (2). Using the projection/resolvent identification for the proximal normal cone from Theorem 3 (constant-radius case), one gets \(\text{proj}_S(x+tv)=x\). Therefore \(x\in \text{Proj}_S(x+tv)\), i.e. \(S\) is \(\rho \)-uniformly prox-regular. so \(x+tv\in U_\rho ^\gamma (S)\) and \(\text{proj}_S(x+tv)\) is well-defined by (2). Using the projection/resolvent identification for the proximal normal cone from Theorem 3 (constant-radius case), one gets \(\text{proj}_S(x+tv)=x\). Therefore \(x\in \text{Proj}_S(x+tv)\), i.e. \(S\) is \(\rho \)-uniformly prox-regular.
(1) \(\Leftrightarrow \) (3). In Theorem 3, prox-regularity is equivalent to the hypomonotonicity inequality for proximal normals. For constant radius, that inequality becomes exactly
which is (3).
(2) \(\Rightarrow \) (4). Fix \(\gamma \in (0,1)\) and \(x\in U_\rho ^\gamma (S)\), and write \(p=\text{proj}_S(x)\). By (2), \(\text{proj}_S\) is Lipschitz on the tube, which yields \(C^{1,1}\) regularity of \(x\mapsto \frac12 d_S(x)^2\) there, with modulus controlled by \((1-\gamma )^{-1}\). Translating this estimate to \(d_S\) via proximal subgradients gives Fix \(\gamma \in (0,1)\) and \(x\in U_\rho ^\gamma (S)\), and write \(p=\text{proj}_S(x)\). By (2), \(\text{proj}_S\) is Lipschitz on the tube, which yields \(C^{1,1}\) regularity of \(x\mapsto \frac12 d_S(x)^2\) there, with modulus controlled by \((1-\gamma )^{-1}\). Translating this estimate to \(d_S\) via proximal subgradients gives
equivalent to (4).
(4) \(\Rightarrow \) (3). The semiconvexity-type estimate in (4) implies a near-monotonicity inequality for \(\partial _P d_S\). Passing to the limit along proximal normal rays approaching \(S\) recovers the hypomonotonicity inequality for \(N^P(S;\cdot )\) in (3).
Combining the implications,
so all four statements are equivalent.
Let \((C(t))_{t\in [0,T]}\) be a family of uniformly prox-regular sets. Under appropriate assumptions on the discretization and error sequence, the sequence \((x^n)\) generated by the catching-up algorithm converges to the unique solution of the sweeping process.