0% found this document useful (0 votes)
44 views12 pages

AIMS2022 Two New Generalized Iteration Methods For Solving AVE Using M-Matrix 2022

The document summarizes two new generalized iteration methods, called Method I and Method II, for solving absolute value equations where the matrix A is an M-matrix. Method I revises the absolute value equation and introduces a parameter λ to generate an iterative scheme. The document proves that under certain conditions on the parameter λ and matrix norms, the sequence generated by Method I converges uniquely to the solution of the absolute value equation. Method II is also introduced but its details are not described in the document. Numerical tests demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

Uploaded by

1915607
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
44 views12 pages

AIMS2022 Two New Generalized Iteration Methods For Solving AVE Using M-Matrix 2022

The document summarizes two new generalized iteration methods, called Method I and Method II, for solving absolute value equations where the matrix A is an M-matrix. Method I revises the absolute value equation and introduces a parameter λ to generate an iterative scheme. The document proves that under certain conditions on the parameter λ and matrix norms, the sequence generated by Method I converges uniquely to the solution of the absolute value equation. Method II is also introduced but its details are not described in the document. Numerical tests demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods.

Uploaded by

1915607
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

AIMS Mathematics, 7(5): 8176–8187.

DOI: 10.3934/math.2022455
Received: 19 October 2021
Revised: 24 January 2022
Accepted: 06 February 2022
http://www.aimspress.com/journal/Math Published: 25 February 2022

Research article
Two new generalized iteration methods for solving absolute value equations
using M-matrix

Rashid Ali1,∗ , Ilyas Khan2 , Asad Ali1 and Abdullah Mohamed3

1 School of Mathematics and Statistics, HNP-LAMA, Central South University, Changsha 410083,
Hunan, China
2 Department of Mathematics, College of Science Al-Zulfi, Majmaah University, Al-Majmaah
11952, Saudi Arabia
3 Research Centre, Future University in Egypt, New Cairo 11745, Egypt

* Correspondence: Email: [email protected].

Abstract: In this paper, we present two new generalized Gauss-Seidel iteration methods for solving
absolute value equations Ax − |x| = b, where A is an M-matrix. Furthermore, we demonstrate their
convergence under specific assumptions. Numerical tests indicate the efficiency of the suggested
methods with suitable parameters.
Keywords: absolute value equations; convergence analysis; M-matrix; numerical tests
Mathematics Subject Classification: 90C30, 65F10

1. Introduction

The standard absolute value equation (AVE) is in the form of

Ax − |x| = b, (1.1)

where A ∈ Rn×n is an M-matrix, |x| represents all the elements of the vector x ∈ Rn by absolute value
and b ∈ Rn . If “|x|” is replaced by “B|x|” in (1.1), then the general AVE is obtained, see [24, 30] . The
AVE has received considerable attention recently, as it is suitable for a wide variety of optimization
problems, e.g., linear programming, linear complementarity problems (LCP) and convex quadratic
programming [1–7, 9–16, 23, 25, 26].
In recent years, a wide variety of procedures have been developed for solving AVE (1.1). For
example, Wu and Li [34] presented a special shift splitting technique for determining the AVE (1.1)
and performed a convergence analysis. Ke and Ma [19] established the SOR-like process to solve the
8177

AVE (1.1). Chen et al. [8] modified the approach of [19] and analyzed the SOR-like approach using
optimal parameters. Fakharzadeh and Shams [12] recommended the mixed-type splitting iterative
scheme for determining (1.1) and established the convergence properties. Hu with Huang [17] have
developed the AVE system as an LCP without any premise and demonstrated the existence and
convexity properties. Caccetta et al. [7] studied a smoothing Newton procedure for solving (1.1) and
established that the procedure is globally convergent when kA−1 k < 1. Ning and Zhou [40] evaluated
improved adaptive differential evolution for AVEs; in this technique, they use local and global search.
Salkuyeh [41] addressed the Picard HSS iteration approach and provided sufficient conditions for its
convergence, while Edalatpour et al. [11] offered a generalization of the Gauss-Seidel (GGS)
approach for AVE (1.1). Cruz et al. [ 39] utilized the inexact non-smooth Newton approach and
designated global linear convergence of the approach. Moosaei et al. [22] proposed two techniques
for determining AVE (1.1), namely, the Newton technique with the Armijo step and the Homotopy
perturbation technique. For more details, see [18, 20, 27–29, 31–38, 43].
In this article, inspired by the work in [11], based on the GGS iteration method, the new generalized
Gauss-Seidel (NGGS) iteration methods are presented to solve the AVE (1.1), and its convergence
conditions are discussed in detail. By using some numerical tests, we demonstrate the efficacy of the
newly developed methods.
The rest of the article is designed as follows: Section 2 discusses some preliminary information.
Section 3 provides details of the proposed methodologies and its convergence conditions. Section 4
reports some tests to indicate the efficiency of the offered methods. Finally, section 5 draws some
conclusions.

2. Preliminaries

Here, we will provide some notations, the description of an M-matrix, as well as some helpful
lemmas for the later research.
Let A = (ai j ) ∈ Rn×n , we represent the absolute value, tridiagonal and infinity norm of A as |A| =
(|ai j |), T rd(A) and k A k∞ , respectively. The matrix A ∈ Rn×n is called an Z-matrix if ai j ≤ 0 for i , j,
and an M-matrix if it is a nonsingular Z-matrix and with A−1 ≥ 0.
Lemma 2.1. [33] The matrix A = (ai j ) ∈ Rn×n is said to be strictly diagonally dominant when

|ai j | < |aii |, i = 1, 2, · · · , n.


Pn
n j=1, j,i

Furthermore, if A is strictly diagonally dominant, then A is invertible.


Lemma 2.2. [33] Consider z, x ∈ Rn . Then k|z| − |x|k∞ ≤ kz − xk∞ .

3. Two NGGS methods

Here, we discuss the two NGGS methods: Method I represents the first method, while Method II
represents the second method.

AIMS Mathematics Volume 7, Issue 5, 8176–8187.


8178

3.1. Method I for AVE


By revising the AVE (1.1)

Ax − |x| = b.

By multiplying λ on both sides, we obtain

λAx − λ|x| = λb. (3.1)

Let
A = DA − L − U = (Ω̄ + DA − L) − (Ω̄ + U) (3.2)
where, DA , L and U respectively, are the diagonal, the strictly lower and upper-triangular parts of A.
Moreover, Ω̄ = Ψ(2 − Ψ)(I − D)−1 , where 0 ≤ Ψ ≤ 2 and I stands for the identity matrix. Using
Eqs (3.1) and (3.2), the Method I is suggested as:

(Ω̄ + DA − λL)x − λ|x| = [(1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U)]x + λb. (3.3)

Using the scheme, so Eq (3.3) can be written as

(Ω̄ + DA − λL)xi+1 − λ|xi+1 | = [(1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U)]xi + λb. (3.4)

Where i = 0, 1, 2, ..., and 0 < λ ≤ 1. Note that if λ = 1 and Ω̄ = 0, then the Eq (3.4) is reduces to
the GGS method [11].
In order to demonstrate the convergence of Method I, we prove the theorem listed below.
Theorem 3.1. Assume that the diagonal elements of matrix A are all greater than one, and the DA −L−I
matrix is a strict row-wise diagonally dominant matrix. If

k(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 [(1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U)]k∞ < 1 − λk(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ . (3.5)

Then the sequence {xi } of Method I converges to the unique solution x? of AVE (1.1).
Proof. We will show first k(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ < 1. Clearly, if we put L = 0, then

k(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ = k(Ω̄ + DA )−1 k∞ < 1.

If we consider that L , 0, we get


0 ≤ |λL|t < (Ω̄ + DA − I)t,
if we take
|λL|t < (Ω̄ + DA − I)t.
Taking both side by (Ω̄ + DA )−1 , we get

(Ω̄ + DA )−1 |λL|t < (Ω̄ + DA )−1 ((Ω̄ + DA ) − I)t,

|λ(Ω̄ + DA )−1 L|t < (I − (Ω̄ + DA )−1 )t,


|λ(Ω̄ + DA )−1 L|t < t − (Ω̄ + DA )−1 t,

AIMS Mathematics Volume 7, Issue 5, 8176–8187.


8179

(Ω̄ + DA )−1 t < t − |λ(Ω̄ + DA )−1 L|t,


(Ω̄ + DA )−1 t < (1 − |Q|)t, (3.6)
where Q = λ(Ω̄ + DA )−1 L and t = (1, 1, ..., 1)T . Also, we have
0 ≤ |(I − Q)−1 | = |I + Q + Q2 + Q3 + ... + Qn−1 |,
≤ (I + |Q| + |Q|2 + |Q|3 + ... + |Q|n−1 ) = (I − |Q|)−1 . (3.7)
Thus, from Eqs (3.6) and (3.7), we get
|(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 |t = |(I − Q)−1 (Ω̄ + DA )−1 |t ≤ |(I − Q)−1 ||(Ω̄ + DA )−1 |t,
< (I − |Q|)−1 (I − |Q|)t = t.
So, we obtain
k(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ < 1.
To show the uniqueness of the solution, let x? and z? be two not the same solutions of the AVE (1.1).
Using Eq (3.4), we get
x? = λ(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 |x? | + (Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 [((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))x? + λb], (3.8)
z? = λ(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 |z? | + (Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 [((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))z? + λb]. (3.9)
From Eqs (3.8) and (3.9), we get
x? − z? =λ(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 (|x? | − |z? |) + (DA − λL)−1 ((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))(x? − z? ).
Using Lemma 2.2 and Eq (3.5), the above equation can be written as
kx? − z? k∞ ≤ λk(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ k|x? | − |z? |k∞
+k(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 ((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))k∞ kx? − z? k∞ ,
< λk(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ kx? − z? k∞ + (1 − λk(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ )kx? − z? k∞ ,
kx? − z? k∞ − λk(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ kx? − z? k∞ < (1 − λk(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ )kx? − z? k∞ ,
(1 − λk(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ )kx? − z? k∞ < (1 − λk(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ )kx? − z? k∞ ,
kx? − z? k∞ < kx? − z? k∞ .
The above results are contradictory. Finally, x? = z? .
In order to verify the convergence, let x? is a unique solution of (1.1). So, from Eq (3.8) and
xi+1 = λ(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 |xi+1 | + (Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 [((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))xi + λb],
we deduce
xi+1 − x? =λ(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 (|xi+1 | − |x? |) + (Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 [((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))(xi − x? )].
Based on Lemma 2.2 and the infinity norm, we get
kxi+1 − x? k∞ − λk(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ kxi+1 − x? k∞
≤ k(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 ((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))k∞ kxi − x? k∞ ,
and since k(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 k∞ < 1 it follows that

AIMS Mathematics Volume 7, Issue 5, 8176–8187.


8180

k(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 ((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))k∞ i


kxi+1 − x? k∞ ≤ kx − x? k∞ .
1 − λk(Ω̄ + DA − λL) k∞
−1

According to this inequality, the convergence of Method I is possible when condition Eq (3.5) is
fulfilled.

3.2. Method II for AVE


Here, we outline Method II of the NGGS method. By using Eqs (3.1) and (3.2), we can formulate
Method II to determine AVE (1.1) as follows:

(Ω̄ + DA − λL)xi+1 − λ|xi+1 | = [(1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U)]xi+1 + λb, i = 0, 1, 2, ....

In order to demonstrate the convergence of Method II, we prove the theorem listed below.
Theorem 3.2. Assume that the diagonal elements of matrix A are all greater than one, and the DA −L−I
matrix is a strict row-wise diagonally dominant matrix. Then the sequence {xi } of Method II converges
to the unique solution x? of AVE (1.1).
Proof. The uniqueness result follows from Theorem 3.1. To demonstrate the convergence, suppose

xi+1 − x? = λ(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 |xi+1 | + (Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 [((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))xi+1 + λb]
−(λ(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 |x? | + (Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 [((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))x? + λb]),

(Ω̄ + DA − λL)(xi+1 − x? ) = λ(|xi+1 | − |x? |) + ((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))(xi+1 − x? ),

λ(DA − L − U)xi+1 − λ|xi+1 | = λ(DA − L − U)x? − λ|x? |,

(DA − L − U)xi+1 − |xi+1 | = (DA − L − U)x? − |x? |. (3.10)


By using Eqs (3.2) and (3.10), we get

Axi+1 − |xi+1 | = Ax? − |x? |,

Axi+1 − |xi+1 | = b.
Therefore, xi+1 solves the AVE (1.1).

4. Numerical tests

The purpose of this section is to present a number of numerical tests that demonstrate the
effectiveness of new approaches from three perspectives: The iteration steps (Itr), computing time
(Time), and norm of absolute residual vectors (RVS). Where, RVS is defined by
kAxi −|xi |−bk2
RVS := kbk2
≤ 10−6 .

All calculations are run on Intel (C) Core (TM) i5-3337U, 4 GB RAM, 1.80 GHz, and MATLAB
(2016a). Furthermore, the zero vector is the initial vector for Example 4.1.

AIMS Mathematics Volume 7, Issue 5, 8176–8187.


8181

Problem 4.1. Let


for j = i,




4,

 j = i + 1, i = 1, 2, ..., n − 1,


 
A=
 
−1, for




  j = i − 1,

 i = 2, ..., n,


0,

otherwise.
Calculate b = Ax? − |x? |, where x? = ((−1)i , (i = 1, 2, .., n))T ∈ Rn . We describe the suggested methods
in comparison with the optimal parameters SOR-like algorithm given in [8] (written as SLM using
ω = 0.825), the special shift splitting algorithm presented in [34] (written as SSM), and the GGS
technique shown in [11]. In Table 1, we examine the results.

Table 1. The outcomes of Problem 4.1 with Ψ = 0.5 and λ = 0.95.


Methods n 1000 2000 3000 4000
SLM Itr 18 18 18 18
Time 3.0156 13.1249 33.9104 65.1345
RVS 6.12e–07 6.13e–07 6.13e–07 6.14e–07
SSM Itr 14 14 14 14
Time 2.8128 9.0954 17.3028 29.1644
RVS 8.91e–07 8.92e–07 8.93e–07 8.93e–07
GGS Itr 9 8 8 8
Time 2.1924 7.5182 15.3273 24.3822
RVS 4.02e–07 7.78e–07 6.35e–07 5.49e–07
Method I Itr 8 8 8 8
Time 2.0704 5.2615 9.3395 17.6224
RVS 9.14e–07 6.46e–07 5.28e–07 4.57e–07
Method II Itr 6 6 6 6
Time 1.5811 2.9428 3.5738 6.3929
RVS 9.60e–07 9.61e–07 9.61e–07 9.61e–07

All methods in Table 1 analyze the solution x? for various values of n, respectively. Clearly, Method
I is more effective than SLM and SSM procedures, and the ‘Time’ of Method I is less than the GGS.
Moreover, Method II demonstrates high computational performance from the perspective of ‘Itr’ and
‘Time’.
Problem 4.2. Let A = M + I ∈ Rn×n and the vector b = Ax? − |x? | ∈ Rn , such that

M = T rd(−1.5In , Hn , −0.5In ) ∈ Rn×n , x? = (1, 2, 1, 2, ..., 1, 2)T ∈ Rn ,


where Hn = T rd(−1.5, 4, −0.5) ∈ Rv×v and n = v2 . Here, use the same initial vector and stopping criteria
described in [12]. We compare the presented techniques with the AOR method [21], the mixed-type
splitting (MT) iterative scheme [12] and the GGS method [11]. Table 2 provides the numerical data.
In Table 2, we present the numeric outcomes of the AOR method, MT method, GGS method,
Method I and Method II, respectively. We can conclude from these outcomes that our proposed
methods are more efficient than AOR and MT and GGS techniques.

AIMS Mathematics Volume 7, Issue 5, 8176–8187.


8182

Problem 4.3. Let A = M + 4I ∈ Rn×n and the vector b = Ax? − |x? | ∈ Rn , such that
M = T rd(−In , Hn , −In ) ∈ Rn×n , xi? = ((−1)i , (i = 1, 2, .., n))T ∈ Rn ,
where Hn = T rd(−1, 4, −1) ∈ Rv×v , I ∈ Rv×v is the unit matrix and n = v2 . In this problem, we use the
same initial vector and stopping criteria described in [12]. We compare the offered procedures with
the AOR method [21], the mixed-type splitting (MT) iterative scheme [12], and the technique
presented in [14] (expressed by SISA). The computational outcomes are listed in Table 3.

All methods in Table 3 analyze the solution x? for various values of n, respectively. Clearly, Method
I is more effective than AOR and MT procedures, and the ‘Time’ of Method I is less than the SISA
method. Moreover, Method II demonstrates high computational performance from the perspective of
‘Itr’ and ‘Time’.
Problem 4.4. Let
A = T rd(−1, 8, −1) ∈ Rn×n , xi? = ((−1)i , (i = 1, 2, ..., n))T ∈ Rn
and b = Ax? − |x? | ∈ Rn . Using the same initial vector and the stopping criteria described in [14]. We
compare the novel approaches with the technique offerd in [14] (expressed by SISA using ω = 1.0455),
the SOR-like method proposed in [19] (written by SOR) and the modulus-based SOR method presented
in [42] (written as MSOR). The outcomes are listed in Table 4.

It is clear from Table 4 that all the tested methods provide a quick calculation of AVE (1.1). We
observe that the ‘Itr’ and ‘Time’ of the recommended methods are less than the existing techniques.
The results of our study indicate that our suggested methods for AVEs are feasible and highly effective.

Table 2. The outcomes of Problem 4.2 with Ψ = 0.7 and λ = 0.98.


Methods n 100 400 900 1600 4900
Itr 97 190 336 706 384
AOR Time 0.4721 2.8203 3.2174 6.3887 9.2344
RVS 9.80e-07 9.61e-07 9.73e-07 9.84e-07 9.36e-07
Itr 88 157 250 386 342
MT Time 0.4041 1.7953 3.0219 5.7626 8.8965
RVS 8.91e-07 9.65e-07 9.18e-07 9.56e-07 9.89e-07
Itr 34 52 67 81 95
GGS Time 0.2207 0.5346 1.0472 1.7328 2.7612
RVS 9.53e-07 8.40e-07 8.42e-07 8.35e-07 9.89e-07
Itr 32 49 63 76 84
Method I Time 0.1971 0.3177 0.9243 1.3922 1.9920
RVS 9.59e-07 8.20e-07 8.40e-07 8.60e-07 7.42e-07
Itr 20 31 41 49 62
Method II Time 0.1329 0.1936 0.8341 1.0271 1.3872
RVS 9.55e-07 8.39e-07 6.22e-07 9.32e-07 8.90e-07

AIMS Mathematics Volume 7, Issue 5, 8176–8187.


8183

Table 3. The outcomes of Problem 4.3 with Ψ = 0.7 and λ = 0.98.


Methods n 64 256 1024 4096
Itr 14 14 15 35
AOR Time 0.3483 1.9788 2.3871 5.8097
RVS 5.21e-07 6.29e-07 6.54e-07 8.74e-07
Itr 14 14 15 25
MT Time 0.3168 1.0952 1.9647 2.2194
RVS 4.31e-07 5.46e-07 5.06e-07 9.38e-07
Itr 12 12 12 12
SISA Time 0.3299 1.8322 2.027 3.446
RVS 5.03e–07 7.58e–07 8.77e–07 9.28e–07
Itr 11 12 12 12
Method I Time 0.1928 0.8374 1.5738 2.0733
RVS 7.30e-07 6.01e-07 7.93e-07 8.88e-07
Itr 5 5 5 5
Method II Time 0.1372 0.3871 0.9622 1.7482
RVS 6.51e-08 6.52e-08 6.23e-08 5.99e-08

Table 4. The outcomes of Problem 4.4 with Ψ = 0.3 and λ = 0.95.


Methods n 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Itr 13 13 14 14 14
SISA Time 3.9928 8.8680 24.4031 51.3946 73.3394
RVS 6.04e–07 8.54e–07 2.33e–07 2.69e–07 3.01e-07
Itr 12 13 13 13 13
SOR Time 1.5136 3.3817 6.1262 7.1715 9.5261
RVS 9.45e–08 2.69e–08 3.29e–08 3.80e–08 4.25e–07
Itr 10 10 10 10 10
MSOR Time 3.9996 9.2833 29.3747 59.3392 82.3477
RVS 4.14e–07 5.86e–07 7.18e–07 8.29e–07 9.27e–07
Itr 9 9 9 9 9
Method I Time 1.2751 2.6184 5.7322 6.8911 7.3618
RVS 5.11e–07 5.12e–07 5.12e–07 5.12e–07 5.78e–07
Itr 6 6 6 6 6
Method II Time 0.2283 0.4829 0.9572 1.4829 2.0038
RVS 3.62e–08 5.12e–08 6.27e–08 7.24e–08 8.01e–08

5. Conclusions

In this work, two NGGS methods (Method I and Method II) are presented to solve the AVEs. The
convergence properties of the strategies are examined. A number of experiments have been conducted
in order to establish the effectiveness of the new approaches.

AIMS Mathematics Volume 7, Issue 5, 8176–8187.


8184

The GGS technique has been successfully extended by two additional parameters when A is an
M-matrix. The cases for more general coefficient matrices are the next issue to be considered.

Appendix

The following is an explanation of how our proposed techniques can be implemented. From Ax −
|x| = b, we have
x = A−1 (|x| + b).
Thus, we can approximate xi+1 as follows,
xi+1 ≈ A−1 (|xi | + b).
This process is known as the Picard technique [31]. Now, we examine the procedure for Method I.
Algorithm for Method I. (1) Choose the parameters, an starting vector x0 ∈ Rn and set i = 0.
(2) Compute yi = xi+1 ≈ A−1 (|xi | + b),
(3) Calculate xi+1 = λ(Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 |yi | + (Ω̄ + DA − λL)−1 [((1 − λ)(Ω̄ + DA ) + λ(Ω̄ + U))xi + λb].
(4) If xi+1 = xi , then stop. Else, apply i = i + 1 and repeat step 2.
For Method II, follow the same steps.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare there is no conflicts of interest.

References

1. J. Feng, S. Liu, An improved generalized Newton method for absolute value equations,
SpringerPlus, 5 (2016), 1042. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2720-5
2. J. Feng, S. Liu, A new two-step iterative method for solving absolute value equations, J. Inequal.
Appl., 2019 (2019), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13660-019-1969-y
3. L. Abdallah, M. Haddou, T. Migot, Solving absolute value equation using
complementarity and smoothing functions, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 327 (2018), 196–207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2017.06.019
4. F. Mezzadri, On the solution of general absolute value equations, Appl. Math. Lett., 107 (2020),
106462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2020.106462
5. I. Ullah, R. Ali, H. Nawab, Abdussatar, I. Uddin, T. Muhammad, et al., Theoretical analysis of
activation energy effect on prandtleyring nanoliquid flow subject to melting condition, J. Non-
Equil. Thermody., 47 (2022), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1515/jnet-2020-0092
6. M. Amin, M. Erfanian, A dynamic model to solve the absolute value equations, J. Comput. Appl.
Math., 333 (2018), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2017.09.032
7. L. Caccetta, B. Qu, G. L. Zhou, A globally and quadratically convergent method for absolute value
equations, Comput. Optim. Appl., 48 (2011), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-009-9242-9

AIMS Mathematics Volume 7, Issue 5, 8176–8187.


8185

8. C. Chen, D. Yu, D. Han, Optimal parameter for the SOR-like iteration method for solving the
system of absolute value equations, arXiv. Available from:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.05781.
9. M. Dehghan, A. Shirilord, Matrix multisplitting Picard-iterative method for solving
generalized absolute value matrix equation, Appl. Numer. Math., 158 (2020), 425–438.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2020.08.001
10. X. Dong, X. H. Shao, H. L. Shen, A new SOR-like method for solving absolute value equations,
Appl. Numer. Math., 156 (2020), 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2020.05.013
11. V. Edalatpour, D. Hezari, D. K. Salkuyeh, A generalization of the Gauss-Seidel iteration
method for solving absolute value equations, Appl. Math. Comput., 293 (2017), 156–167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2016.08.020
12. A. J. Fakharzadeh, N. N. Shams, An efficient algorithm for solving absolute value equations, J.
Math. Ext., 15 (2021), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.30495/JME.2021.1393
13. X. M. Gu, T. Z. Huang, H. B. Li, S. F. Wang, L. Li, Two-CSCS based iteration
methods for solving absolute value equations, J. Appl. Math. Comput., 7 (2017), 1336–1356.
https://doi.org/10.11948/2017082
14. P. Guo, S. L. Wu, C. X. Li, On the SOR-like iteration method for solving absolute value equations,
Appl. Math. Lett., 97 (2019), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2019.03.033
15. F. Hashemi, S. Ketabchi, Numerical comparisons of smoothing functions for optimal correction
of an infeasible system of absolute value equations, Numer. Algebra Control Optim., 10 (2020),
13–21. https://doi.org/10.3934/naco.2019029
16. I. Uddin, I. Ullah, R. Ali, I. Khan, K. S. Nisar, Numerical analysis of nonlinear mixed convective
MHD chemically reacting flow of Prandtl-Eyring nanofluids in the presence of activation energy
and Joule heating, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim., 145 (2021), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-
020-09574-2
17. S. L. Hu, Z. H. Huang, A note on absolute value equations, Optim. Lett., 4 (2010), 417–424.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-009-0169-y
18. S. Ketabchi, H. Moosaei, Minimum norm solution to the absolute value equation in the convex
case, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 154 (2012), 1080–1087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-012-0044-3
19. Y. F. Ke, C. F. Ma, SOR-like iteration method for solving absolute value equations, Appl. Math.
Comput., 311 (2017), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2017.05.035
20. Y. F. Ke, The new iteration algorithm for absolute value equation, Appl. Math. Lett., 99 (2020),
105990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2019.07.021
21. C. X. Li, A preconditioned AOR iterative method for the absolute value equations, Int. J. Comput.
Methods, 14 (2017), 1750016. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219876217500165
22. H. Moosaei, S. Ketabchi, M. A. Noor, J. Iqbal, V. Hooshyarbakhsh, Some techniques
for solving absolute value equations, Appl. Math. Comput., 268 (2015), 696–705.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2015.06.072
23. O. L. Mangasarian, R. R. Meyer, Absolute value equation, Linear Algebra Appl., 419 (2006), 359–
367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.laa.2006.05.004

AIMS Mathematics Volume 7, Issue 5, 8176–8187.


8186

24. O. L. Mangasarian, Absolute value programming, Comput. Optim. Applic., 36 (2007), 43–53.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-006-0395-5
25. O. L. Mangasarian, Absolute value equation solution via concave minimization, Optim. Lett., 1
(2007), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-006-0005-6
26. O. L. Mangasarian, Linear complementarity as absolute value equation solution, Optim. Lett., 8
(2014), 1529–1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-013-0656-z
27. X. H. Miao, J. T. Yang, B. Saheya, J. S. Chen, A smoothing Newton method for absolute
value equation associated with second-order cone, Appl. Numer. Math., 120 (2017), 82–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2017.04.012
28. C. T. Nguyen, B. Saheya, Y. L. Chang, J. S. Chen, Unified smoothing functions for absolute
value equation associated with second-order cone, Appl. Numer. Math., 135 (2019), 206–227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2018.08.019
29. O. A. Prokopyev, On equivalent reformulations for absolute value equations, Comput. Optim. Appl.,
44 (2009), 363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-007-9158-1
30. J. Rohn, A theorem of the alternatives for the equation Ax + B|x| = b, Linear Multilinear Algebra,
52 (2004), 421–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/0308108042000220686
31. J. Rohn, V. Hooshyarbakhsh, R. Farhadsefat, An iterative method for solving absolute value
equations and sufficient conditions for unique solvability, Optim. Lett., 8 (2014), 35–44.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-012-0560-y
32. B. Saheya, C. H. Yu, J. S. Chen, Numerical comparisons based on four smoothing
functions for absolute value equation, J. Appl. Math. Comput., 56 (2018), 131–149.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12190-016-1065-0
33. R. S. Varga, Matrix iterative analysis, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1962.
34. S. L. Wu, C. X. Li, A special shift splitting iteration method for absolute value equation, AIMS
Math., 5 (2020), 5171–5183. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2020332
35. S. L. Wu, The unique solution of a class of the new generalized absolute value equation, Appl.
Math. Lett., 116 (2021), 107029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2021.107029
36. R. Ali, M. R. Khan, A. Abidi, S. Rasheed, A. M. Galal, Application of PEST and PEHF in
magneto-Williamson nanofluid depending on the suction/injection, Case Stud. Therm. Eng., 27
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2021.101329
37. C. X. Li, S. L. Wu, Modified SOR-like iteration method for absolute value equations, Math. Probl.
Eng., 2020 (2020), 9231639. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9231639
38. M. R. Khan, M. X. Li, S. P. Mao, R. Ali, S. Khan, Comparative study on heat transfer and friction
drag in the flow of various hybrid nanofluids efiected by aligned magnetic fleld and nonlinear
radiation, Sci. Rep., 11 (2021), 3691.
39. J. Y. Bello Cruz, O. P. Ferreira, L. F. Prudente, On the global convergence of the inexact semi-
smooth Newton method for absolute value equation, Comput. Optim. Appl., 65 (2016), 93–108.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-016-9837-x

AIMS Mathematics Volume 7, Issue 5, 8176–8187.


8187

40. G. Ning, Y. Zhou, An improved differential evolution algorithm for solving absolute value
equations, In: J. Xie, Z. Chen, C. Douglas, W. Zhang, Y. Chen, High performance
computing and applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 9576 (2016), 38–47.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32557-6
41. D. K. Salkuyeh, The Picard-HSS iteration method for absolute value equations, Optim. Lett., 8
(2014), 2191–2202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-014-0727-9
42. Z. Z. Bai, Modulus-based matrix splitting iteration methods for linear complementarity problems,
Numer. Linear Algebra Appl., 17 (2010), 917–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/nla.680
43. R. Ali, A. Ali, S. Iqbal, Iterative methods for solving absolute value equations, J. Math. Comput.
Sci., 26 (2022), 322–329. https://doi.org/10.22436/jmcs.026.04.01

c 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This


is an open access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

AIMS Mathematics Volume 7, Issue 5, 8176–8187.

You might also like