The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
The search session has expired. Please query the service again.
We analyze the convergence of the prox-regularization algorithms introduced in [1], to solve generalized fractional programs, without assuming that the optimal solutions set of the considered problem is nonempty, and since the objective functions are variable with respect to the iterations in the auxiliary problems generated by Dinkelbach-type algorithms DT1 and DT2, we consider that the regularizing parameter is also variable. On the other hand we study the convergence when the iterates are only...
We analyze the convergence of the prox-regularization algorithms
introduced in [1], to solve generalized fractional programs,
without assuming that the optimal solutions set of the considered
problem is nonempty, and since the objective functions are
variable with respect to the iterations in the auxiliary problems
generated by Dinkelbach-type algorithms DT1 and DT2, we consider
that the regularizing parameter is also variable. On the other
hand we study the convergence when the iterates are only
-minimizers...
Download Results (CSV)