Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Erratum to: Comput Optim Appl (2014) 59:321–351 DOI 10.1007/s10589-014-9656-x
The original version of this article unfortunately contained an error in Lemma 1. However, the main theorems of the paper are still true. The corrections of Lemma 1 and the corresponding statements are given below:
The proof of Lemma 1 in [1] is not correct since it uses a wrong formula of Taylor’s theorem. Thus, we first modify it. Let \(h: R \rightarrow R\) be defined by
where f is the objective function and \(d^k(\nu )\) is a search direction. Then Taylor’s theorem on h is written as
Using the formula, the equations on page 326, lines 4–5 from below become
Moreover, the last equation in the proof (page 327, line 2) becomes
Then Lemma 1 on page 326 is modified as follows.
Lemma 1
It holds that
Next we modify proofs of Lemmas 2, 3, 5, 10 and 19 that directly follow from Lemma 1. These modifications are summarized as follows.
1.1 Statement and proof of Lemma 2
The fist inequality in the proof of Lemma 2 (page 327, lines 9–11) is based on Lemma 1. Thus it should be modified as
Modifying the corresponding terms in the subsequent inequalities, we have the following correct statement of Lemma 2.
Lemma 2
Suppose that Assumption 1 holds. Then,
1.2 Proof of Lemma 3
The proof of Lemma 3 is based on Lemma 2, which is modified as above. Thus the equation on page 328, line 3 is now
Moreover, the next inequality on page 328, line 5 should be
We do not change the statement of Lemma 3.
1.3 Proof of Lemma 5
The first inequality in the proof of Lemma 5 (page 329, line 1 from below) is based on Lemma 1. Thus it should be
We do not have to change the subsequent inequalities and the statement of Lemma 5 because we have \(- \int _0^1 L_g \mathrm {d}\tau =- 2\int _0^1 L_g (1-\tau )\mathrm {d}\tau .\)
1.4 Proofs of Lemmas 10 and 19
The first inequality and equality in the proof of Lemma 10 (page 333) is based on Lemma 2, and hence they should be
Note that we may get a slightly better result if we do not use the last inequality. The last inequality is derived just because we do not want to change the statement of Lemma 10. The same modifications are necessary for the proof of Lemma 19 on page 345.
Note that since the statements of Lemmas 3, 5, 10 and 19 are not changed, the above modifications do not affect the main results.
Reference
Ueda, K., Yamashita, N.: A regularized Newton method without line search for unconstrained optimization. Comput. Optim. Appl. 59, 321–351 (2014)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s10589-014-9656-x.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ueda, K., Yamashita, N. Erratum to: A regularized Newton method without line search for unconstrained optimization. Comput Optim Appl 66, 219–222 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-016-9859-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10589-016-9859-4