supersymmetric standard model is advertised as a great successful theory in particle physics and cosmology .
the hierarchy problem is completely solved by the presence of superpartners .
a perturbative nature of the model allows us to calculate gauge coupling evolutions in high energy and remarkably the three coupling constants meet at very high energy .
this is a strong indication of supersymmetric grand unification  @xcite . in cosmology ,
the neutralino , the superpartner of the gauge or higgs fields , can account for dark matter of the universe .
the thermal relic abundance of the neutralino is in the right ballpark for masses of order 100  gev .
when we look at actual models of supersymmetry breaking and its mediation , we encounter many unnatural aspects or even inconsistencies . in gravity mediated supersymmetry breaking scenario  @xcite
, there is a serious cosmological difficulty  @xcite as well as problems of flavor changing neutral current ( fcnc ) and cp violating processes .
a supersymmetry breaking sector necessarily requires to contain a gauge singlet field whose vacuum expectation value in the @xmath1-component gives masses to gauginos .
after inflation , the scalar component of the singlet field starts coherent oscillation .
once it dominates over the energy density of the universe , it either spoils the success of big - bang nucleosynthesis ( bbn )  @xcite or overproduces gravitinos  @xcite ( see  @xcite for earlier works ) .
therefore , for the mechanism of thermal relic neutralinos as dark matter to work , we need extra assumptions on the cosmological history so that we can avoid the oscillation to dominate the energy density .
models with anomaly mediation  @xcite can prevent such oscillation since singlet fields are not necessary to generate the gaugino masses . however , the annihilation cross section of the lightest neutralino , the wino in this scenario , is too large for the thermal relic to naturally explain the dark matter abundance .
there seems to be no coherent picture for cosmology of supersymmetric models .
models of gauge mediation  @xcite also suffer from serious difficulties .
the neutralino can not be a stable particle since the gravitino is always the lightest supersymmetric particle ( lsp ) in this scenario .
moreover , enhanced production cross sections of gravitinos bring up a danger of overproduction in the thermal bath  @xcite .
this restricts the reheating temperature of the universe to be low enough , which makes baryogenesis difficult .
there is also a naturalness issue in the electroweak sector , i.e. , the @xmath0-problem .
we need to give a supersymmetric mass term , @xmath0-term , for the higgs fields which needs to be similar size to supersymmetry breaking terms . unlike in gravity mediation models
, we can not relate this @xmath0-term to the gravitino mass via the giudice - masiero mechanism  @xcite because the gravitino mass is too small .
it is possible to assume a direct coupling between the higgs sector and a supersymmetry breaking sector to obtain the @xmath0-term , but it often induces too large @xmath2-term .
@xcite .
we can not say that the minimal supersymmetric standard model ( mssm ) is a successful model without having a consistent picture for supersymmetry breaking / mediation .
it has been more than twenty years since discussions of supersymmetry phenomenology started , and until recently it has served as the most promising candidate of physics beyond the standard model
. however , recent various progress in astrophysical observations and theoretical calculations such as the measurement of the matter density of the universe  @xcite and bbn constraints on the gravitino abundance  @xcite put a threat to many supersymmetric models . at the same time , these are new strong hints which guide us to the true theory . in this paper
, we find that a simple model of gauge mediation actually provides us with a viable and natural scenario for cosmology and phenomenology .    the model we discuss consists of a singlet field @xmath3 and messenger fields @xmath4 and @xmath5 .
the singlet field @xmath3 breaks supersymmetry spontaneously and that is mediated to the mssm sector by loop diagrams of the messenger fields .
the supersymmetry breaking vacuum is stabilized by gravitational effects  @xcite .
this is the entire model . under reasonable assumptions ,
the @xmath3 field starts coherent oscillation in the early universe .
if we ignore interactions of @xmath3 with the messenger fields , decays of the @xmath3 field either destroy bbn or overproduce gravitinos , which is the same problem in gravity mediation scenarios . a renormalizable coupling to the messengers , however , drastically modifies the decay property of @xmath3 .
especially , @xmath3 can decay into the mssm particles well before bbn , and , moreover , the branching fraction to the gravitinos is significantly suppressed . with gaugino masses of @xmath6  gev , gravitinos produced by the @xmath3 decay can be dark matter of the universe when the gravitino mass is @xmath7  mev or @xmath8  mev , which corresponds to the mass of @xmath3 to be @xmath9  gev and @xmath10  gev , respectively .
in fact , this is the most interesting parameter range from the consideration of the @xmath0-problem .
the @xmath0-problem can be solved by the mechanism of @xmath0-term driven supersymmetry breaking scenario  @xcite when @xmath11 .    in the next section ,
we explain the gauge - mediation model we consider .
the concept of @xmath0-term driven supersymmetry breaking is also discussed . in section  [ sec : evolution ] , we discuss cosmological evolutions of the @xmath3 field .
we show that @xmath3 rolls into a preferable ( supersymmetry breaking ) vacuum in generic situations .
the decay property of @xmath3 is discussed in section  [ sec : dark - matter ] . the bbn constraint on parameters and the abundance of non - thermally generated gravitino dark matter
are calculated .
the discussion on the initial condition for the @xmath3 oscillation is given in appendix  [ app : amplitude ] .
the model we study has a very simple structure .
we simply introduce messenger fields to any supersymmetry breaking model of the oraifeartaigh type , i.e. , models in which the superpotential contains a linear term of a gauge - singlet chiral superfield .
the low - energy effective lagrangian is defined by the following k " ahler potential and superpotential : @xmath12 @xmath13 where @xmath3 is a gauge singlet field in the oraifeartaigh model and @xmath4 and @xmath5 are the messenger fields which have quantum numbers of the standard model gauge group .
we introduced an interaction term @xmath14 where @xmath15 is a coupling constant .
the constant term @xmath16 contributes to the cosmological constant through @xmath17 term in a scalar potential .
the non - renormalizable term @xmath18 in the k " ahler potential represents the effect of the massive fields ( in the oraifeartaigh model ) which have been integrated out .
although this model does not break supersymmetry in the limit of the planck scale @xmath19 to infinity , a supersymmetry breaking vacuum appears far away from the origin of @xmath3 after taking into account supergravity effects  @xcite . at the supersymmetry breaking vacuum , @xmath20 and
@xmath21 the messenger particles obtain masses , @xmath22 , in this vacuum .
this vacuum is meta - stable when @xmath23 where @xmath24 is the number of components in @xmath4 , e.g. , @xmath25 for a pair of @xmath4 and @xmath26 in @xmath27 and @xmath28 representation of su(5 ) .
the constant term @xmath16 in the superpotential is chosen so that the cosmological constant is cancelled at the supersymmetry breaking vacuum , i.e. , @xmath29 where the gravitino mass is given by @xmath30 the scalar component of @xmath3 obtains a mass by supersymmetry breaking effects : @xmath31    supersymmetry breaking by @xmath32 induces gaugino masses by one - loop diagrams with messengers @xmath4 and @xmath26 .
it is calculated to be : @xmath33 where @xmath34 is the number of the messenger particles ( @xmath35 for a pair of * 5 * and @xmath28 representation of su(5 ) ) .
the phenomenological requirement that the gaugino mass should be @xmath6  gev determines the ratio @xmath36 .    among three parameters @xmath37 ,
@xmath38 and @xmath15 in this model , low energy physics is not very sensitive to @xmath15 .
it only appears through @xmath39 where @xmath40 is the messenger scale of gauge mediation . with fixed gaugino masses ,
we are left with a single parameter @xmath38 .
there is a particularly interesting scale for @xmath38 from the consideration of uv completions of the theory . among various possible uv completions ( see ref .
@xcite for various possibilities ) , the simplest one is to identify the field @xmath3 with a meson field of a strongly coupled gauge theory .
for example , in an so(5 ) gauge theory with a quark @xmath41 and a superpotential term : @xmath42 the low energy effective theory below the dynamical scale @xmath43 is simply @xmath44 in one of two branches of the theory .
supersymmetry is broken by @xmath45 .
this vacuum is found to be meta - stable recently by intriligator , seiberg and shih  @xcite .
the k " ahler potential is unknown but can be parametrized to be @xmath46 if @xmath47 is positive , this is exactly the same effective theory we discussed in the previous subsection .
the scale @xmath38 is identified with @xmath48 .
the messenger fields couple to @xmath3 through @xmath49 in the superpotential with @xmath50 the coefficient of the operator .
the @xmath15 parameter in eq .
( [ eq : superpotential ] ) is then @xmath51 .    in this model , the @xmath0-term in eq .
( [ eq : mass ] ) can actually be the @xmath0-term for the higgs fields @xmath52 in models with composite higgs fields  @xcite .
the higgs fields @xmath53 and @xmath54 are meson fields @xmath55 and @xmath56 where @xmath57 and @xmath58 carry the standard model quantum numbers . the mass term for @xmath41 in eq .
( [ eq : mass ] ) therefore induces a mass term for mesons .
( for detailed discussion , see  @xcite . ) since @xmath3 and the higgs fields @xmath53 and @xmath54 are strongly coupled , we expect to have terms in the k " ahler potential : @xmath59 with @xmath60 , these terms induce the soft supersymmetry breaking terms @xmath61 independent of the dynamical scale @xmath62 .
this provides a solution to the @xmath0-problem in gauge mediation .
the @xmath0-term is related to the supersymmetry breaking parameters because it is the source of the supersymmetry breaking .    a combination of the gravitational gauge mediation and @xmath0-term driven supersymmetry breaking provides a completely natural scenario for gauge mediation .
the @xmath37 parameter in eq .
( [ eq : superpotential ] ) is @xmath63 in this scenario ( under a reasonable assumption that @xmath64 ) , and it fixes the dynamical scale @xmath65 by the requirement @xmath66  gev from eq .
( [ eq : gaugino ] ) . for having this relation , the factor @xmath67 needs to compensate the one - loop factor @xmath68 , which determines the dynamical scale to be of the order of the gut scale @xmath69  gev .
this is indicating a close connection between dynamics of supersymmetry breaking and spontaneous symmetry breaking in grand unified theories .
in fact , the explicit model in ref .
@xcite is based on a gut model .
a meson field made of @xmath57 and @xmath58 introduced before plays a role of the higgs field which breaks gut symmetry dynamically .
this mechanism simultaneously provides us with a solution to the doublet - triplet splitting problem with sufficiently suppressed dimension five operators for proton decays .    with @xmath70 ,
the mass of scalar component of @xmath3 , @xmath71 , is @xmath72  gev ( see eq .
( [ eq : ms ] ) ) , and the gravitino mass is @xmath73  gev
. we will use @xmath71 and @xmath74 as free parameters instead of @xmath37 and @xmath38 .
relations among them are : @xmath75 @xmath76 the bino mass is expressed in terms of these two by @xmath77 there are no @xmath78 ambiguities in these relations .
as we have seen in the previous section , the @xmath3 field is stabilized at the supersymmetry breaking vacuum by supergravity effects .
however , there is a true and unwanted supersymmetric vacuum at @xmath79 and @xmath80 .
it is thus non - trivial whether @xmath3 can settle to the supersymmetry breaking minimum in the thermal history of the universe .
this question is addressed in ref .
@xcite where it is concluded that thermal effects make the supersymmetric vacuum more attractive once the messenger particles are thermalized . in our scenario , it is possible that the temperature of the universe never exceeds the mass of messenger particles so that thermal effects are not important .
we show in this section that @xmath3 runs into the supersymmetry breaking minimum under reasonable assumptions . it is found to be rather difficult to fall into the supersymmetric minimum @xmath81 because it can be thought of a small hole in the vast @xmath3 space .
the relevant scalar potential of the @xmath3 field in the @xmath82 region is given by @xmath83 the potential for @xmath84 region depends on a uv completion , but it is not important for our discussion .
the logarithmic term is induced at one - loop level due to the interaction with messenger particles . the supersymmetry breaking vacuum given in eq .
( [ eq : vev ] ) is determined by a balance between the mass term and the linear term .
the logarithmic term is important near @xmath81 .
the @xmath3 field , however , feels much stronger force toward the supersymmetry breaking vacuum at most points on the complex @xmath3 plane since it is supported by a quadratic potential . this is why the supersymmetry breaking vacuum is more attractive at a low temperature .
if the value of @xmath3 is not at the origin after inflation , @xmath3 rolls down to the @xmath85 vacuum .
the minimum of the scalar potential during inflation is not at @xmath79 or @xmath86 , but is likely to be around @xmath87 ( see appendix  [ app : amplitude ] for detailed discussion ) .
once inflation starts , @xmath3 is trapped at the minimum @xmath88 and freezes until the end of inflation .
after inflation , the value of @xmath3 remains fixed at @xmath89 for a while until the mass term @xmath71 becomes important compared to the hubble mass term of @xmath90 , and eventually , it starts to oscillate about the supersymmetry breaking minimum .
in general , the initial value @xmath91 is not aligned to the @xmath92 direction , which makes motion of @xmath3 almost confined in a straight line on the complex plane . therefore , @xmath3 never approaches to the supersymmetric minimum .
the amplitude of the oscillation gradually decays due to the cosmic expansion and @xmath3 settles to the supersymmetry breaking minimum .
field ( left ) and time dependence of the amplitude @xmath93 ( right ) for @xmath94gev , @xmath95mev and @xmath96 . ,
title="fig:",height=181 ]   field ( left ) and time dependence of the amplitude @xmath93 ( right ) for @xmath94gev , @xmath95mev and @xmath96 .
, title="fig:",height=181 ]    in fig .
[ fig : oscillation ] , we show a typical evolution of the @xmath3 field for @xmath94gev , @xmath95mev and @xmath97 . here , the initial condition we took is @xmath98 . as we expected @xmath3 oscillates along an almost straight line about the supersymmetry breaking minimum
( see also a closeup in the left panel ) .
we also show time dependence of the amplitude @xmath93 during oscillation in the right panel .
the figure shows that the impact parameter to @xmath79 during the oscillation is of @xmath99 and the amplitude of the oscillation decays gradually .
eventually , @xmath3 settles to the supersymmetry breaking minimum .    in the above analysis , effects of the logarithmic potential in eq .
( [ eq : scalarpot ] ) are not important as long as @xmath100 .
it does attract @xmath3 to the supersymmetric minimum , but the attractive force is only important when @xmath3 approaches very close to the origin . with an impact parameter of @xmath101 ,
the effect is negligible .
the messenger fields have masses , @xmath102 , when @xmath3 is away from the origin . with the large impact parameter of the oscillation of @xmath3 , @xmath4 and @xmath103
are always stabilized at @xmath104 .
although they are always massive , time variation of the masses by the @xmath3 oscillation causes a non - perturbative production of the messenger fields  @xcite .
once they are copiously produced , it gives rise to a force to attract @xmath3 to origin so that the energy density is reduced by minimizing the mass of @xmath4  @xcite .
however , since the variation of @xmath105 is quite adiabatic ( i.e. , @xmath106 ) , the effect is exponentially suppressed .
we need to check here that the messenger particles do not enter thermal equilibrium for the above discussion to hold .
if they are produced in the thermal bath , it induces a thermal mass term to @xmath3 which attracts to @xmath81  @xcite .
however , as long as temperature is always ( including the inflaton oscillation era ) lower than @xmath102 , production of messenger particles is also exponentially suppressed . with the large impact parameter @xmath107 and initial amplitude @xmath108 of this scenario
, the condition can be satisfied in most inflation models .
we now follow the cosmological evolution after the @xmath3 oscillation .
a brief summary of the history is the following .
because of a long lifetime of the @xmath3 field , its oscillation energy density eventually dominates over the universe unless the reheating temperature after inflation is very low .
decays of @xmath3 reheat the universe to a temperature of @xmath109 .
the large entropy production from the @xmath3 decay dilutes preexisting radiation and matter , including thermally produced superparticles , gravitinos and also even baryon asymmetry of the universe .
the main decay channel of the @xmath3 field is into two higgs bosons ( @xmath110 ) or two gluons ( @xmath111 ) depending on @xmath71 .
radiation produced by the @xmath3 decay takes over the energy density of the universe below this decay temperature and therefore standard bbn can happen after temperature drops down to @xmath112 .
decays of @xmath3 produce gravitinos through a rare decay mode @xmath113 .
the produced amount is remarkably consistent with the observed dark matter density of the universe in the parameter regions of our interest .
we start discussion with deriving the interaction lagrangian of @xmath3 , with which we can calculate the decay width of @xmath3 and the branching ratio of the gravitino mode .
we will then discuss the gravitino abundance of the universe .
the @xmath3 field couples to the mssm particles only through loop diagrams with messenger particles @xmath4 and @xmath26 .
the effect is encoded in the @xmath3 dependence of low energy parameters .
the low energy values of the gauge coupling constants depend on @xmath3 through @xmath114 since it changes the scale at which @xmath4 and @xmath26 are integrated out .
the kinetic term of the gauge bosons are @xmath115 where @xmath116 with @xmath117 being the gauge coupling constant at a scale @xmath118 .
the factor @xmath119 is the beta - function coefficient below the messenger scale and @xmath120 is the renormalization scale .
after canonically normalizing the kinetic terms of gauge bosons , we obtain the interaction terms from eq .
( [ eq : gauge ] ) : @xmath121    the interaction terms with gauginos can be obtained in a similar way . from the @xmath3 dependence of the gaugino mass terms : @xmath122 with @xmath123 we obtain @xmath124 comparing with eq .
( [ eq : gauge - int ] ) , this gives larger contribution to the decay width of @xmath3 by a one - loop factor when @xmath125 .
the same conclusion can be obtained for scalar fields .
the soft mass terms are @xmath126 with @xmath127 ^ 2 \cdot 2 c_2 n   \left| \frac{m^2}{s } \right|^2\ .
\label{eq : scalar - mass}\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath128 is the quadratic casimir factor .
we can read off interaction terms as follows : @xmath129 again , this gives larger contribution by a one - loop factor compared to eq .
( [ eq : gauge - int ] ) . for the higgs fields , the scalar masses have two origins , i.e. , one from the gauge mediation and the other from eq .
( [ eq : higgs - kahler ] ) . for the calculation of couplings between @xmath3 and the higgs fields
, we should use the gauge - mediation contribution , i.e. , eq .
( [ eq : scalar - mass ] ) , for @xmath130 in eq .
( [ eq : scalar ] ) .
it is amusing that the @xmath3 field dominantly decays into supersymmetric particles and the higgs fields if it is kinematically allowed .
coupling to gravitinos can be obtained by simply looking at the lagrangian . the largest contribution for
the @xmath3 decay comes from the coupling to the longitudinal mode of the gravitino ( the fermionic component of @xmath3 , @xmath131 ) . from the @xmath132 term in the k " ahler potential ,
we obtain @xmath133 to @xmath134 coupling such as @xmath135 therefore , the decay width is suppressed by @xmath136 compared to the gaugino / scalar modes .
also , there is a suppression of @xmath137 compared to the gauge boson mode .
this effect is important for the gravitino abundance .      in the following we consider two cases ( a ) : @xmath138 , where @xmath3 can decay into two higgs bosons and ( b ) : @xmath139 , where @xmath3 dominantly decays into two gluons .
we find that in both cases gravitinos from the @xmath3 decay in early time naturally explain the dark matter component of the universe .
* case ( a ) * : the @xmath140 decay is open ( @xmath138 ) . + we further assume here that @xmath3 dominantly decays into two higgs bosons . this assumption is valid as long as @xmath141 is smaller than other su(2)@xmath142 or su(3)@xmath143 charged superparticle masses ( except for the higgsino ) . this will be justified later . from the experimental lower bound on the higgs boson mass @xmath144  gev  @xcite ,
we obtain @xmath145  gev .
the decay width of @xmath3 in this case is given by @xmath146 where @xmath147 is a two - loop factor : @xmath148 @xmath149 and @xmath150 are the gauge coupling constants of su(2)@xmath142 and u(1)@xmath151 gauge interactions .
the lifetime of @xmath3 is then @xmath152    with this relatively long lifetime and the large initial amplitude of @xmath3 , it is reasonable that the coherent oscillation of @xmath3 dominates over the energy density of the universe before @xmath3 starts to decay .
although it is possible that @xmath3 domination does not happen by assuming a presence of another long - lived matter density ( such as the inflaton oscillation ) , we do not consider such a case here .
the decay of @xmath3 produces radiation and it reheats the universe .
the reheating temperature after the @xmath3 decay is calculated to be @xmath153 this temperature needs to be larger than @xmath154  mev in order for standard bbn to happen  @xcite .
the baryon asymmetry and the dark matter component of the universe also needs to be generated before bbn .
since primordial radiation and matter are significantly diluted by the entropy production from the @xmath3 decays , it is non - trivial whether we can consistently obtain those two components .
we explain here the dark matter ( gravitino ) production from the @xmath3 decay and we will discuss a possible mechanism for baryogenesis later .    under the assumption that the @xmath3-domination happens , the number density of the gravitinos , @xmath155 , from @xmath3 decays is given by @xmath156 where @xmath157 is the branching fraction into two gravitinos and @xmath158 is the entropy density of the universe .
note here that the number density can be calculated only with the two parameters in the lagrangian , @xmath71 and @xmath74 .
the partial decay width is calculated from eq .
( [ eq : gravitino ] ) : @xmath159 therefore , the branching fraction @xmath160 is given by @xmath161 the energy density is then @xmath162 comparing with the observed dark matter density of the universe , @xmath163 ( 2@xmath164 )  @xcite , we find that the gravitino is a perfect candidate of dark matter in this scenario .
if @xmath3 can decay into two binos and if the bino is the next to lightest supersymmetric particle ( nlsp ) , the produced binos later decay into gravitinos . this possibility is excluded by the bbn constraints on the bino decay  @xcite .
the conclusion is the same for the case where the higgsino is lighter than the bino .
this justifies the assumption that @xmath3 mainly decays into two higgs bosons .
other su(2)@xmath142 or su(3)@xmath143 charged supersymmetric particles are heavier than the bino in gauge mediation .
in fact , if the scalar tau lepton ( stau ) is lighter than the bino , which is possible if there is a large @xmath165-term from the direct coupling between the higgs fields and @xmath3 in the k " ahler potential , a small portion of the @xmath166 region becomes viable .
staus can reduce the number density by the pair annihilation process after the production from @xmath3 decays .
the energy density of the stau before its decay is approximately @xmath167 where @xmath168 is the freezing out temperature , @xmath169 , and @xmath170 is the energy density of the stau obtained by the standard calculation of the thermal relic abundance . in the region of our interest , where the gravitinos from the @xmath3 decay explain dark matter of the universe ,
the above amount is on the border of the bbn constraints . since the viable region appears only in a special circumstance and
also the region is quite small , we do not consider this possibility in the rest of the paper .
* case ( b ) * : the @xmath140 decay is closed ( @xmath139 ) .
+ in this case , the dominant decay channel is into two gluons , @xmath171 .
the decay rate is calculated to be @xmath172 with a one - loop factor @xmath173 from this , the reheating temperature after the @xmath3 decay is given by @xmath174    the branching fraction of the gravitino mode is @xmath175 by using the same formula in eq .
( [ eq : density ] ) , we obtain @xmath176 the dark matter density can be explained by the non - thermally produced gravitinos also in this case .    ) which account for the dark matter component of the universe .
the correct amount of gravitino dark matter can be obtained within the allowed range of parameter space . below the dot - dashed line in the left figure ,
the decay mode of @xmath3 into two higgs boson is closed ( case ( b ) ) .
the constraint from the lower bound on the decay temperature @xmath177  mev is indicated .
the contour of @xmath178  mev is also shown . in the right figure , the decay mode @xmath140 is open above the dot - dashed line ( case ( a ) ) .
the decay mode into two binos is open in the right - lower region .
, title="fig:",height=283 ] ) which account for the dark matter component of the universe .
the correct amount of gravitino dark matter can be obtained within the allowed range of parameter space . below the dot - dashed line in the left figure , the decay mode of @xmath3 into two higgs boson is closed ( case ( b ) ) .
the constraint from the lower bound on the decay temperature @xmath177  mev is indicated .
the contour of @xmath178  mev is also shown . in the right figure , the decay mode @xmath140 is open above the dot - dashed line ( case ( a ) ) .
the decay mode into two binos is open in the right - lower region .
, title="fig:",height=283 ]    we show in fig .
[ fig : region ] the region of the parameter space where the non - thermally produced gravitino explains the dark matter component of the universe .
we took @xmath35 and used @xmath74 and @xmath179 as free parameters of this two - parameter model , and showed contours of @xmath71 ( see eq .
( [ eq : bino ] ) ) as dashed lines .
the values of @xmath180 expressed in terms of those two are @xmath181 respectively .
the right figure corresponds to the case ( a ) where the higgs boson mode is the dominant decay channel ( above the dot - dashed line ) .
the constraint from @xmath177  mev is satisfied in the figure once the higgs mode is open .
the lower bound on the bino mass ( @xmath182  gev ) is obtained from the requirement that the bino mode should be kinematically forbidden .
the gravitinos can explain the dark matter density when @xmath183  gev , which is exactly the preferred values from the @xmath0-term driven supersymmetry breaking scenario and grand unified theories .
another consistent region is found in the left figure , where the gluon mode is the dominant decay channel ( case ( b ) ) .
the constraint from bbn , @xmath177  mev , excludes the lower mass region of @xmath179 in this case .
the correct amount of dark matter can be obtained with @xmath184  gev .
this is also a natural size for the @xmath0-term driven supersymmetry breaking scenario .
for a larger value of @xmath34 , we obtain a larger lower bound on @xmath185 , and the allowed region of @xmath74 is not very sensitive to @xmath34 for case ( a ) and moves to larger values linearly for case ( b ) .
we comment on other possible sources of gravitinos .
thermally produced gravitinos  @xcite are significantly diluted by the entropy production from @xmath3 decays .
it is diluted by a factor of @xmath186 where @xmath187 the temperature at which @xmath3 oscillation starts to dominate ( see discussion in the subsection  [ sec : entropy ] ) .
if @xmath3 oscillation starts during the reheating process after inflation , which is the case in our scenario in order not to thermalize the messenger fields , the amount of thermal gravitinos does not depend on the reheating temperature after inflation .
it is given in terms of the parameters of the model and the initial amplitude @xmath188 by @xmath189 this is sub - dominant when @xmath190 .
thermal relic of nlsps also generates gravitinos through their decays  @xcite .
again entropy production reduces the amount of nlsps by a factor of @xmath191 $ ] , where @xmath192 is the freezing out temperature of pair annihilation processes  @xcite .
the superwimp component of gravitino dark matter is therefore negligible in the parameter regions of our interest
.      since gravitinos are non - thermally produced through the decay of a heavy particle @xmath3 , they are relativistic when produced , but they subsequently slow down as the universe expands .
the gravitinos need to be sufficiently non - relativistic before the structure formation to start .
the free - streaming scale of the dark matter is constrained to be less than @xmath78  mpc by the matter power spectrum inferred from lyman-@xmath193 forest  @xcite .
we estimate the free - streaming scale @xmath194 of the gravitinos .
we find that it is sufficiently small , but interestingly it may be large enough to be distinguished from that of cold dark matter . the free - streaming scale at the time of matter - radiation equality @xmath195 is defined by @xmath196 \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath197 and @xmath198 are scale factors at matter - radiation equality and at the time of @xmath3 decays , respectively .
@xmath199 is the hubble parameter at the current epoch .
up to logarithmic dependence , we obtain @xmath200    for case ( b ) , @xmath201 is in an interesting range for the small - scale structure problem in @xmath38cdm model .
although not conclusive , it has been reported that there are discrepancies between simulations of structure formation in the cold dark matter scenario and observation at a small scale .
the observed number of galactic satellites in the inner region ( @xmath202 ) of halo is an order of magnitude smaller than results of simulations  @xcite .
also , simulation of the structure formation predicts a cuspy profile in the central region of halo  @xcite whereas observations such as studies of gravitational lensing  @xcite and rotation curves  @xcite indicate nearly uniform density core structure .
it has been studied that dark matter with free - streaming scales of @xmath203  mpc may resolve these issues because it can smear out the density fluctuation in small scale  @xcite .
( see also @xcite for recent proposals of particle physics models which realize large @xmath201 via non - thermally produced dark matter . )
a free - streaming scale of @xmath204  kpc means that there is a cut - off in matter power spectrum below that scale . it might be possible to probe this small - scale structure in future experiments by using strong gravitational lensing  @xcite such as in lsst  @xcite and snap  @xcite , and also by observations of 21 cm fluctuations in high red - shift region  @xcite .      in the previous section
, we have assumed that the oscillation energy density dominates over the universe before it decays .
we discuss the amount of entropy production and possible baryogenesis scenarios here .
as we have discussed , the @xmath3 field starts to oscillate when the hubble parameter becomes smaller than @xmath205 .
there are two cases which we need to consider separately .
if the oscillation starts during the reheating process after inflation ( the inflaton oscillation era ) , @xmath3-domination happens when : @xmath206 where @xmath207 is the reheating temperature after inflation .
a different result is obtained if @xmath3 starts to oscillate in a radiation - dominated era ( after reheating ) .
the temperature at which @xmath3 starts to oscillate is given by @xmath208 in this case , @xmath187 is @xmath209 the dilution factor @xmath210 is then @xmath211 the primordial radiation and matter are diluted by this amount .
( @xmath3-domination does not happen if @xmath210 is larger than unity . ) with the low decay temperature @xmath212 , dilution effects are quite large .
for example , if @xmath213 and @xmath214 , the dilution factor is @xmath215 .
this dilutes unwanted relics such as thermally produced neutralinos to a negligible level .
since baryon asymmetry is also diluted , primordial baryon asymmetry needs to be larger such as @xmath216 .
it is a non - trivial task to obtain such a large asymmetry under a condition that the reheating temperature can not be too high in order not to thermally produce the messenger particles ( min@xmath217 \ll \lambda \langle s \rangle$ ] ) .
examples of possible scenarios for baryogenesis are the right - handed sneutrino inflation scenario  @xcite and scenario with right - handed sneutrino dominated universe  @xcite . in those scenarios , baryon asymmetry is generated via leptogenesis  @xcite after the decay of right - handed sneutrinos as follows : @xmath218 where @xmath219 is an effective cp violating phase and @xmath220 corresponds to the heaviest neutrino mass , and @xmath207 denotes the decay temperature of the right handed sneutrino .
after dilution by the @xmath3 decay , it reduces to @xmath221 independent of @xmath222 for @xmath223 .
therefore , the observed baryon asymmetry @xmath224  @xcite can be consistently explained with a slightly suppressed initial amplitude @xmath225 .
note here that if the initial amplitude @xmath91 is suppressed to this level , thermally produced gravitinos can give a non - negligible contribution to the matter density ( see eq .
( [ eq : thermal ] ) ) , and also the decay of thermally produced nlsps during bbn may put constraints on species of the nlsp and/or @xmath222 .
taking into account gravity effects in supersymmetry breaking / mediation models opens up a possibility of very simple gauge mediation .
we have considered the simplest model of gauge mediation , in which we have only two parameters .
one combination of the parameters needs to be fixed so that we obtain the gaugino masses to be @xmath6  gev , and the other has preferable range from a simple solution to the @xmath0-problem and grand unification , i.e. , 10  mev @xmath226  gev .
this is the simplest model of gauge mediation , but amazingly free from problems .
we have shown that @xmath3 rolls into the supersymmetry breaking vacuum with generic initial conditions .
the entropy production by the @xmath3 decay dilutes gravitinos and neutralinos which are thermally ( over)produced .
supersymmetric particles do not cause the fcnc or cp problems as the gravitino mass is small enough .
of the most amazing is the consistency of the dark - matter abundance .
we can calculate the abundance of the non - thermally produced gravitinos from @xmath3 decays in terms of the two parameters in the model . within the parameter region of our interest ,
the calculated amount can account for the dark matter of the universe .
we thank ted baltz and masamune oguri for useful discussion on dark matter .
r.k . would like to thank paddy fox , hitoshi murayama and yasunori nomura for stimulating discussion and jay wacker for discussion on non - perturbative particle production during the @xmath3 oscillation .
this work was supported by the u.s .
department of energy under contract number de - ac02 - 76sf00515 .
as we mentioned in section  [ sec : evolution ] , the minimum of the scalar potential during inflation is likely to be around @xmath227 .
the singlet field @xmath3 may couple to the inflaton sector in the superpotential , @xmath228 where @xmath229 is a coefficient of @xmath230 , and @xmath231 denotes the superpotential of a inflaton sector .
the scalar potential of @xmath3 during inflation is then given by @xmath232 where the first term originates from the khler potential in eq .
( 1 ) and the second term from the superpotential in eq .  ( [ eq : stoinf ] ) . in the above expression
, we have used the hubble equation , @xmath233 assuming that the @xmath1-component of the inflaton dominates the energy density during inflation .
this potential has a minimum at @xmath234 .    in principle
, the @xmath229 parameter can be much larger than @xmath78 depending on a uv completion of the theory .
for example , in a model of ref .
@xcite , the theory above the scale @xmath38 is a strongly coupled conformal field theory , and the @xmath229 parameter is enhanced to be @xmath235 . if this is the case , the second term in eq .
( [ eq : hubblemass ] ) pushes the minimum to the planck scale .
however , the effective theory in terms of @xmath3 does not make sense for @xmath236 , and it is more appropriate to consider the dynamics in terms of the constituent field @xmath41 .
the constituent field @xmath41 , in contrast to @xmath3 , may have a positive hubble mass squared around the symmetry enhancement point at @xmath237 .
this hubble mass term attracts @xmath41 to the origin , and it prevents @xmath238 from going to the planck scale .
therefore , we can expect the actual minimum during inflation does not exceed @xmath239 even if the coefficient @xmath229 is large .      0 s.  dimopoulos and h.  georgi , nucl .
b * 193 * , 150 ( 1981 ) ; s.  dimopoulos , s.  raby and f.  wilczek , phys .
d * 24 * , 1681 ( 1981 ) ; n.  sakai , z.  phys .
c * 11 * , 153 ( 1981 ) .
a.  h.  chamseddine , r.  arnowitt and p.  nath , phys .
lett .   * 49 * , 970 ( 1982 ) ; r.  barbieri , s.  ferrara and c.  a.  savoy , phys .
b * 119 * , 343 ( 1982 ) ; l.  j.  hall , j.  d.  lykken and s.  weinberg , phys .
d * 27 * , 2359 ( 1983 ) .
g.  d.  coughlan , w.  fischler , e.  w.  kolb , s.  raby and g.  g.  ross , phys .
b * 131 * , 59 ( 1983 ) .
t.  banks , d.  b.  kaplan and a.  e.  nelson , phys .
d * 49 * , 779 ( 1994 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9308292 ] .
m.  ibe , y.  shinbara and t.  t.  yanagida , phys .
b * 639 * , 534 ( 2006 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0605252 ] .
m.  dine , w.  fischler and d.  nemeschansky , phys .
b * 136 * , 169 ( 1984 ) .
i.  joichi and m.  yamaguchi , phys .
b * 342 * , 111 ( 1995 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9409266 ] .
l.  randall and r.  sundrum , nucl .
b * 557 * , 79 ( 1999 ) [ arxiv : hep - th/9810155 ] .
g.  f.  giudice , m.  a.  luty , h.  murayama and r.  rattazzi , jhep * 9812 * , 027 ( 1998 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9810442 ] .
m.  dine , w.  fischler and m.  srednicki , nucl .
b * 189 * , 575 ( 1981 ) ; s.  dimopoulos and s.  raby , nucl .
b * 192 * , 353 ( 1981 ) ; m.  dine and w.  fischler , phys .
b * 110 * , 227 ( 1982 ) ; nucl .  phys .
b * 204 * , 346 ( 1982 ) ; c.  r.  nappi and b.  a.  ovrut , phys .
b * 113 * , 175 ( 1982 ) ; l.  alvarez - gaume , m.  claudson and m.  b.  wise , nucl .
b * 207 * , 96 ( 1982 ) ; s.  dimopoulos and s.  raby , nucl .  phys .
b * 219 * , 479 ( 1983 ) .
m.  dine and a.  e.  nelson , phys .
d * 48 * , 1277 ( 1993 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9303230 ] ; m.  dine , a.  e.  nelson , y.  nir and y.  shirman , phys .  rev .
d * 53 * , 2658 ( 1996 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9507378 ] .
m.  dine , a.  e.  nelson and y.  shirman , phys .
d * 51 * , 1362 ( 1995 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9408384 ] .
t.  moroi , h.  murayama and m.  yamaguchi , phys .
b * 303 * , 289 ( 1993 ) .
a.  de gouvea , t.  moroi and h.  murayama , phys .
d * 56 * , 1281 ( 1997 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9701244 ] .
m.  bolz , a.  brandenburg and w.  buchmuller , nucl .
b * 606 * , 518 ( 2001 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0012052 ] .
j.  pradler and f.  d.  steffen , arxiv : hep - ph/0608344 .
g.  f.  giudice and a.  masiero , phys .
b * 206 * , 480 ( 1988 ) .
d.  n.  spergel _ et al .
_ [ wmap collaboration ] , astrophys .
j.  suppl .
* 148 * , 175 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/0302209 ] ; d.  n.  spergel _ et al . _ , arxiv : astro - ph/0603449 . m.  kawasaki , k.  kohri and t.  moroi , phys .
d * 71 * , 083502 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/0408426 ] ; k.  jedamzik , arxiv : hep - ph/0604251 .
r.  kitano , phys .
b * 641 * , 203 ( 2006 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0607090 ] .
r.  kitano , arxiv : hep - ph/0606129 .
k.  intriligator , n.  seiberg and d.  shih , jhep * 0604 * , 021 ( 2006 ) [ arxiv : hep - th/0602239 ] .
n.  j.  craig , p.  j.  fox and j.  g.  wacker , hep - th/0611006 .
l.  kofman , a.  d.  linde and a.  a.  starobinsky , phys .
d * 56 * , 3258 ( 1997 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9704452 ] .
l.  kofman , a.  linde , x.  liu , a.  maloney , l.  mcallister and e.  silverstein , jhep * 0405 * , 030 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - th/0403001 ] .
r.  barate _
[ lep working group for higgs boson searches ] , phys .
b * 565 * , 61 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ex/0306033 ] ; [ lep higgs working group ] , arxiv : hep - ex/0107030 . k.  ichikawa , m.  kawasaki and f.  takahashi , phys .
d * 72 * , 043522 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/0505395 ] .
j.  l.  feng , a.  rajaraman and f.  takayama , phys .
lett .   *
91 * , 011302 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0302215 ] ; j.  l.  feng , s.  f.  su and f.  takayama , phys .
d * 70 * , 063514 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0404198 ] .
w.  buchmuller , k.  hamaguchi , m.  ibe and t.  t.  yanagida , arxiv : hep - ph/0605164 .
v.  k.  narayanan , d.  n.  spergel , r.  dave and c.  p.  ma , arxiv : astro - ph/0005095 ; m.  viel , j.  lesgourgues , m.  g.  haehnelt , s.  matarrese and a.  riotto , phys .
d * 71 * , 063534 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/0501562 ] ; m.  viel , j.  lesgourgues , m.  g.  haehnelt , s.  matarrese and a.  riotto , phys .
lett .   * 97 * , 071301 ( 2006 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/0605706 ] .
a.  a.  klypin , a.  v.  kravtsov , o.  valenzuela and f.  prada , astrophys .
j.   * 522 * , 82 ( 1999 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/9901240 ] ; b.  moore , s.  ghigna , f.  governato , g.  lake , t.  quinn , j.  stadel and p.  tozzi , astrophys .
j.   * 524 * ( 1999 ) l19 .
b.  moore , f.  governato , t.  quinn , j.  stadel and g.  lake , astrophys .
j.   * 499 * , l5 ( 1998 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/9709051 ] . j.  a.  tyson , g.  p.  kochanski and i.  p.  dellantonio , astrophys .
j.   * 498 * , l107 ( 1998 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/9801193 ] .
j.  d.  simon , a.  d.  bolatto , a.  leroy , l.  blitz and e.  l.  gates , astrophys .
j.   * 621 * , 757 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/0412035 ] .
c.  j.  hogan and j.  j.  dalcanton , phys .
d * 62 * , 063511 ( 2000 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/0002330 ] . m.  kaplinghat , phys .  rev .
d * 72 * , 063510 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/0507300 ] .
r.  kitano and i.  low , arxiv : hep - ph/0503112 ; j.  a.  r.  cembranos , j.  l.  feng , a.  rajaraman and f.  takayama , phys .
lett .   * 95 * , 181301 ( 2005 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0507150 ] .
n.  dalal and c.  s.  kochanek , arxiv : astro - ph/0202290 .
lsst , ` http://www.lsst.org/lsst_home.shtml `      a.  loeb and m.  zaldarriaga , phys .
lett .   * 92 * , 211301 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : astro - ph/0312134 ] .
h.  murayama , h.  suzuki , t.  yanagida and j.  yokoyama , phys .
lett .   * 70 * , 1912 ( 1993 ) .
h.  murayama and t.  yanagida , phys .
b * 322 * , 349 ( 1994 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9310297 ] .
m.  fukugita and t.  yanagida , phys .
b * 174 * , 45 ( 1986 ) .


various mathematical problems can be formulated as finding a common fixed point of finitely many firmly nonexpansive mappings .
these include , for instance , the convex feasibility problem  @xcite , which consists of finding a point in the intersection of a finite number of closed convex sets , or the problem of finding a common zero of a finite family of maximal monotone operators  @xcite .
firmly nonexpansive mappings were introduced by bruck  @xcite in order to study sunny nonexpansive retractions onto closed subsets of banach spaces . in hilbert spaces , these mappings
coincide with firmly contractive ones defined by browder  @xcite .
a basic example of firmly nonexpansive mappings is the metric projection onto closed convex subsets of hilbert spaces .
this mapping or finite compositions thereof appear in different iterative methods used in the study of convex minimization problems .
results on the asymptotic behavior of some such methods follow from analyzing compositions of finitely many firmly nonexpansive mappings , as it is the case of the cyclic projection algorithm employed in solving the convex feasibilty problem ( see  @xcite for a deep treatment of this topic ) .
another important example of firmly nonexpansive mappings is the resolvent of a monotone operator which was introduced by minty  @xcite .
since the subdifferential of a proper convex lower semi - continuous function is a maximal monotone operator , some splitting methods which involve resolvents and are used to solve convex minimization problems can be abstracted to compositions of firmly nonexpansive mappings . using this approach , bauschke , combettes and reich @xcite
( see also @xcite ) proved , in particular , that having two proper convex lower semicontinuous functions defined on a hilbert space , one can apply alternatively the two resolvents to obtain weak convergence to a solution ( provided it exists ) of a minimization problem associated to the two functions , see ( [ def - fct - min ] ) .
it is noteworthy that the convex feasibilty problem for two sets can be reformulated as a problem of type ( [ def - fct - min ] ) for both the consistent and the inconsistent case .    the most straightforward way to find a common fixed point or ,
more generally , a fixed point of the composition of finitely many firmly nonexpansive mappings is to iterate the mappings cyclically .
the particular case of just one mapping was considered in hilbert spaces by browder  @xcite who proved that , for any starting point , the picard iterates of a firmly nonexpansive mapping converge weakly to a fixed point , whenever the fixed point set is nonempty . although the class of firmly nonexpansive mappings is not closed under composition , in hilbert spaces firmly nonexpansive mappings are averaged and the composition of averaged mappings is averaged .
thus , results for the general case of finitely many firmly nonexpansive mappings can be deduced from the asymptotic behavior of averaged mappings ( see also @xcite for a more general order of composing the mappings that still preserves weak convergence ) . in banach spaces
not every firmly nonexpansive mappings is averaged and so extensions of such results to this setting are not immediate . bruck and reich  @xcite introduced strongly nonexpansive mappings that generalize firmly nonexpansive ones when the space is uniformly convex .
this class of mappings is closed under composition and so one can analyze compositions of firmly nonexpansive mappings using results on the asymptotic behavior of strongly nonexpansive mappings .
more recently , problems where the study of compositions of firmly nonexpansive mappings plays an important role ( such as minimization problems @xcite or abstract cauchy problems@xcite ) have also been formulated in a nonlinear setting .
since our applications focus on minimizing convex functions in geodesic spaces , we mention some of the work in this direction . the proximal point method and modifications thereof for optimization problems in linear spaces
have been extended to riemanninan manifolds in  @xcite and references therein .
spaces of nonpositive curvature in the sense of alexandrov ( also known as cat@xmath5 spaces ) proved to be an appropriate setting for considering such problems too .
jost studied the concept of resolvents for convex functions to develop the theory of harmonic mappings  @xcite which motivated bak @xcite to extend the proximal point algorithm to this context . in @xcite ,
a proximal splitting algorithm was also approached in this setting ( assuming in addition local compactness ) and applied to the computation of the geometric median and the frchet mean of a finite set of points . regarding the convex feasibility problem ,
results on the asymptotic behavior of the alternating projection method have been obtained in  @xcite .
the minimization problem ( [ def - fct - min ] ) was studied in this setting in @xcite .
the goal of this work is to create a suitable theoretical framework so that previous results can be better understood and in some cases improved . to this end
, we present a systematic study of the asymptotic behavior of compositions of a finite number of firmly nonexpansive mappings in @xmath0-uniformly convex geodesic spaces .
asymptotic regularity is a very important concept used in the study of the asymptotic behavior of sequences and was formally introduced by browder and petryshyn in  @xcite . in section  [ section - as - reg ] we give asymptotic regularity results for sequences obtained by applying a finite number of firmly nonexpansive mappings in a cyclic way .
we assume first that they have a common fixed point , but consider also the case of two mappings which satisfy the weaker condition that their composition is not fixed point free
. moreover , we use techniques which originate from proof mining ( see @xcite for more details ) to provide polynomial rates of asymptotic regularity , thus giving quantitative versions of such results and extending a corresponding result proved in @xcite .
section [ section - conv ] deals with @xmath6-convergence results for these problems . assuming appropriate compactness conditions we obtain strong convergence .
when the mappings have a common fixed point we apply our findings to the cyclic projection method for finitely many sets in cat@xmath1 spaces improving previous results from @xcite .
we show that the results concerning two firmly nonexpansive mappings for which the fixed point set of the composition is nonempty can be used to study the minimization problem ( [ def - fct - min ] ) in cat@xmath5 spaces which partially recovers the main result of @xcite and yields a convergence result for the inconsistent convex feasibility problem for two sets .
let @xmath7 be a metric space .
a _ geodesic path _ that joins two points @xmath8 is a mapping @xmath9\subseteq{\mathbb{r}}\to x$ ] such that @xmath10 , @xmath11 and @xmath12 for all @xmath13 $ ] .
the image @xmath14)$ ] of @xmath15 is called a _ geodesic segment _ from @xmath16 to @xmath17 .
we denote a point @xmath18 belonging to such a geodesic segment by @xmath19 , where @xmath20 .
@xmath7 is a _ ( uniquely ) geodesic space _
iff every two points in @xmath21 are joined by a ( unique ) geodesic path .
a subset @xmath22 of @xmath21 is _ convex _ iff it contains all geodesic segments that join any two points in @xmath22 . for more details on geodesic metric spaces ,
see @xcite .    ball , carlen and lieb introduced in  @xcite the notion of @xmath0-uniform convexity which plays an essential role in banach space theory .
recall that a normed space @xmath23 is said to be _
convex _ for @xmath24 iff there exists a constant @xmath25 such that for any @xmath26 , @xmath27 recently , naor and silberman  @xcite extended this notion to the setting of geodesic spaces in the following way .
fix @xmath28 .
a metric space @xmath7 is called _
convex _ with parameter @xmath29 iff @xmath7 is a geodesic space and for any three points @xmath30 and all @xmath31 $ ] , @xmath32    note that inequality   guarantees that the space @xmath21 is uniquely geodesic ( see  ( * ? ? ?
* lemma  2.2 ) for a proof in the case @xmath33 ) . also , any closed convex subset of a @xmath0-uniformly convex space is again a @xmath0-uniformly convex space with the same parameter .
it is well - known that any @xmath34 space over a measurable space is @xmath0-uniformly convex . in the setting of nonlinear spaces , every @xmath35 space is @xmath36-uniformly convex with parameter @xmath37 .
actually , in this case ( [ eq : p - uc ] ) characterizes @xmath35 spaces . for @xmath38 , any @xmath39 space @xmath21 with @xmath40
is a @xmath36-uniformly convex space with parameter @xmath41 for any @xmath42 , see  @xcite .
a detailed treatment of cat@xmath1 spaces can be found , for example , in @xcite .
we recall next a notion of weak convergence in metric spaces .
let @xmath43 be a bounded sequence in a metric space @xmath7 .
then @xmath44 is called the _
asymptotic radius _ of @xmath43 and the _ asymptotic center _ of @xmath43 is the set @xmath45 an element of @xmath46 will also be referred to as an asymptotic center .
if @xmath21 is a complete @xmath0-uniformly convex space , then any bounded sequence has a unique asymptotic center since @xmath21 admits a modulus of uniform convexity that does not depend on the radius of balls ( see  @xcite ) .
we say that a sequence @xmath43 _ @xmath6-converges _ to @xmath47 iff @xmath16 is the unique asymptotic center of every subsequence of @xmath43 .
in this case we call @xmath16 the _ @xmath6-limit _ of @xmath43 .
this concept was introduced by lim  @xcite .
it is easy to see that in a complete @xmath0-uniformly convex space , any bounded sequence has a @xmath6-convergent subsequence .    in the setting of @xmath35 spaces ,
@xmath6-convergence is equivalent to another concept of weak convergence that uses projections on geodesic segments ( see @xcite ) .
reasoning as in @xcite , one can see that this equivalence also holds for @xmath0-uniformly convex spaces .
let @xmath7 be a metric space
. given @xmath22 a nonempty subset of @xmath21 , the _ distance of a point _
@xmath48 to @xmath22 is @xmath49 if @xmath50 and @xmath22 are nonempty subsets of @xmath21 , we denote @xmath51 . the _ metric projection _ @xmath52 onto @xmath22 is the mapping defined by @xmath53 , for every @xmath47 .
let @xmath21 be a compete cat@xmath1 space ( with @xmath40 for @xmath54 ) and @xmath22 a closed and convex subset of @xmath21 .
then @xmath55 is well - defined and singlevalued ( see ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 2.4 , page 176 ) and ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 3.5 ) ) . if @xmath56 , @xmath52 is also nonexpansive .
for @xmath54 we have that for every @xmath57 , @xmath58 .
moreover , in this case @xmath52 is a uniformly continuous mapping because @xmath21 is bounded and admits a modulus of uniform convexity that does not depend on the radius of balls ( see the reasoning in the proof of ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 4.5 ) ) .
in fact , @xmath52 is a lipschitz mapping ( one can easily derive this from the proof of ( * ? ? ? * theorem 4.1 ) ) .
we will also use the following inequality which originates from the work of reshetnyak ( see , for instance , ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 2.3.1 ) or ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 2.1 ) for a simple proof ) .
let @xmath21 be a @xmath35 space .
then for every @xmath59 @xmath60    we finish this subsection with two simple results that will be used later on .
[ lemma - conv - seq ] let @xmath61 and @xmath62 be two sequences of nonnegative numbers . if for every @xmath63 @xmath64 and @xmath65 , then the sequence @xmath61 is convergent .
[ lemma : real.numbers.inequality ] let @xmath66 and @xmath67 .
then there exists a constant @xmath68 depending only on @xmath69 and @xmath70 such that for all @xmath71 and @xmath72 , @xmath73    when @xmath74 $ ] , clearly @xmath75 . for @xmath76 ,
the result is an immediate consequence of a kaczmarz - steinhaus inequality  @xcite which states that there exists a constant @xmath77 depending only on @xmath69 such that for all @xmath78 , @xmath79}\binom{l}{i } x^i+\alpha{\left\vertx\right\vert}^l.\ ] ]      firmly nonexpansive mappings were first introduced by browder  @xcite , under the name of firmly contractive , in the setting of hilbert spaces , and later by bruck @xcite in the context of banach spaces .
recently bruck s definition was extended to a nonlinear setting in  @xcite ( see also @xcite ) .
we recall this definition using the framework of @xmath0-uniformly convex spaces .
let @xmath22 be a nonempty subset of a @xmath0-uniformly convex space @xmath7 .
we say that a mapping @xmath80 is _ firmly nonexpansive _
iff @xmath81 for all @xmath82 and @xmath83 .    as in the linear case ,
any sunny nonexpansive retraction is firmly nonexpansive . in particular ,
the metric projection onto closed and convex subsets of a complete cat@xmath5 space is firmly nonexpansive .
having @xmath21 a complete cat@xmath5 space and a function @xmath84-\infty,+\infty]$ ] that is convex , lower semi - continuous and proper ( i.e. , not constantly equal to @xmath85 ) , the _ resolvent of @xmath86 _ defined by @xmath87,\ ] ] where @xmath88 , is also firmly nonexpansive . in the subsequent section we will use the following inequality ( for its proof see , for instance , ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 3.2 ) ) : for every @xmath8 , @xmath89    bruck extended in @xcite the notion of strongly nonexpansive mappings and introduced the so - called strongly quasi - nonexpansive ones with the aim of proving convergence of iterations built by applying finitely many such mappings .
we consider in the following a related property which is useful when studying the asymptotic behavior of sequences obtained by applying a finite number of firmly nonexpansive mappings in the setting of @xmath0-uniformly convex spaces ( see also the notion of strongly attracting mappings in @xcite ) .
let @xmath22 be a nonempty subset of a metric space @xmath7 .
a mapping @xmath80 is said to satisfy _
property  _ iff @xmath90 and there exist @xmath91 and @xmath92 such that @xmath93 for all @xmath94 and @xmath95 .
if @xmath21 is @xmath0-uniformly convex with parameter @xmath96 , then every firmly nonexpansive mapping @xmath80 with @xmath90 satisfies   with @xmath97 and @xmath98 .
indeed , given @xmath94 and @xmath95 , for any @xmath99 we have that @xmath100 hence , @xmath101 .
taking limit as @xmath102 , we get the conclusion .
a second example of mappings satisfying   is the metric projection in spaces of curvature bounded above .
let @xmath21 be a complete @xmath39 ( with @xmath103 for @xmath38 ) and @xmath104 closed and convex .
recall that if @xmath54 , then the metric projection @xmath105 need not be nonexpansive .
however , it satisfies   with @xmath106 and @xmath98 . to see this ,
let @xmath47 , @xmath107 and @xmath1080,1[$ ] . then , @xmath109
hence , @xmath110 and we only need to let @xmath102 .
+ given finitely many mappings satisfying @xmath111 one can relate the intersection of their fixed point sets with the fixed point set of their composition .
[ prop - int - fp - set ] let @xmath7 be a metric space and let @xmath112 be a family of mappings with property  .
if @xmath113 , then @xmath114    clearly @xmath115 .
conversely , let @xmath116 . if @xmath117 and @xmath118 , then @xmath119 notice that @xmath120 .
then , by  , @xmath121 .
since @xmath122 has property  , we deduce that @xmath123 , that is , @xmath124 .
hence , @xmath125 and @xmath126 .
continuing in this way we obtain the result .
the following also purely metric condition is more particular than   and is still satisfied by any firmly nonexpansive mapping in cat@xmath5 spaces . in this setting every mapping for which the property below holds is nonexpansive .
note also that in hilbert spaces , this notion coincides with firm nonexpansivity ( see also the remark in @xcite ) .
let @xmath22 be a nonempty subset of a metric space @xmath7 .
a mapping @xmath80 satisfies _
property  _ iff @xmath127 for all @xmath82 .
any mapping that satisfies   and has fixed points also satisfies   with @xmath106 and @xmath128 .
indeed , if @xmath80 satisfies   and @xmath90 , then for all @xmath94 and @xmath95 we have that @xmath129 from where @xmath130 .
however , the converse implication does not hold . to see this
, it suffices to take @xmath131 \to \mathbb{r}$ ] , @xmath132 .
then @xmath133 satisfies   with @xmath106 and @xmath134 , but   fails for @xmath135 and @xmath136 .
note that the metric projection and the resolvent are well - defined in less regular frameworks than complete spaces of curvature bounded above , such as complete uniform busemann nonpositively curved spaces ( see @xcite )
. however , in this setting they may fail to be nonexpansive or satisfy property  . since we derive our results concerning the convex feasibility problem and the minimization problem ( [ def - fct - min ] ) from the asymptotic behavior of mappings satisfying properties   or  , we state these results in the context of spaces of curvature bounded above .
in this section we analyze the asymptotic behavior ( also from a quantitative point of view ) of the sequence generated by applying iteratively a finite number of firmly nonexpansive type mappings in a cyclic way .
we study the case when the considered mappings have a common fixed point , but focus also on the situation when they satisfy the weaker assumption that the fixed point set of their composition is nonempty .
let @xmath7 be a metric space .
a mapping @xmath137 is said to be _ asymptotically regular at @xmath48 _
iff @xmath138 and it is _ asymptotically regular _ iff it is asymptotically regular at every @xmath48 .
likewise , a sequence @xmath139 is _ asymptotically regular _
iff @xmath140 . a rate of convergence of @xmath141 towards @xmath142 will be called a _ rate of asymptotic regularity_. as mentioned in the introductory section , asymptotic regularity is an important tool used in the study of the asymptotic behavior of sequences .    in the sequel , having @xmath143 , @xmath144 , we use the notation @xmath145 .
let @xmath146 , @xmath144 and @xmath147 .
we consider the following cyclic method allowing errors in the evaluation of the values of the mappings @xmath148 : given @xmath149 , define the sequence @xmath43 in @xmath21 by @xmath150 where @xmath151 .
we prove below that the sequence @xmath43 is asymptotically regular provided the mappings used to define it satisfy property   and have a common fixed point .
the result applies , in particular , to firmly nonexpansive mappings in the setting of @xmath0-uniformly convex spaces .
[ thm - as - reg - p1 ] let @xmath7 be a metric space and @xmath152 satisfy property  . if @xmath113 , then given any starting point @xmath153 , the sequence @xmath43 defined by is asymptotically regular .
let @xmath154 and @xmath155 such that @xmath156 for @xmath157 .
because each @xmath148 satisfies we get that for all @xmath158 , @xmath159 where @xmath68 is a constant depending only on @xmath69 and @xmath160 thus , for all @xmath161 , @xmath162 since @xmath163 , we deduce that @xmath164 , so @xmath165 .
this finally yields that @xmath43 is asymptotically regular .
it is easy to see that theorem [ thm - as - reg - p1 ] can be slightly generalized by relaxing property   imposed on the mappings @xmath166 to the condition that they satisfy the inequality used to define   only for one common fixed point instead of all fixed points .
however , we will not focus on such extensions because the final goal of this work is to apply the above result when the mappings are metric projections , which satisfy property   in spaces of curvature bounded above .
let @xmath7 be a metric space and @xmath152 satisfy property  . if @xmath167 then the picard iteration of @xmath168 is asymptotically regular .
note that , for @xmath153 and @xmath169 , @xmath170 , where @xmath43 is defined by ( [ it : inexact ] ) with @xmath171 for every @xmath172 .
hence , for all @xmath173 , @xmath174 which implies , by theorem [ thm - as - reg - p1 ] , that @xmath133 is asymptotically regular .    as a consequence , we have that the sequence obtained by the cyclic projection method for a finite number of sets is asymptotically regular in spaces of curvature bounded above .
[ cor - proj - as - ref ] let @xmath175 .
suppose @xmath21 is a cat@xmath1 space ( with @xmath176 for @xmath54 ) .
let @xmath177 be nonempty closed and convex sets such that @xmath178 .
given any starting point @xmath153 , let @xmath43 be defined by ( [ it : inexact ] ) with @xmath179 , for @xmath180 then the sequence @xmath43 and the mapping @xmath181 are asymptotically regular .
we give next a rate of asymptotic regularity for the sequence @xmath43 generated by ( [ it : inexact ] ) with @xmath171 for every @xmath172 . for simplicity , we prove the theorem for two mappings , but the proof method works equally well in the general case .
the result extends ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 5.2 ) where a quadratic rate of asymptotic regularity in @xmath182 was given for the sequence generated by the alternating projection method for two sets in the context of cat@xmath5 spaces . since
its proof relies on particular properties of the metric projection , the obtained rate of asymptotic regularity is slightly better than the one we give here when restricting to the setting of cat@xmath5 spaces .
however , our result holds not only in a broader framework , but also for more general mappings , namely firmly nonexpansive ones .
[ thm - as - reg - fn - quant ] let @xmath7 be a @xmath0-uniformly convex space with parameter @xmath96 and suppose that @xmath183 are firmly nonexpansive mappings with @xmath184 consider @xmath149 , @xmath185 and @xmath186 such that @xmath187 .
suppose that @xmath43 is defined by   with @xmath171 for every @xmath172 .
then for all @xmath188 and @xmath189 , we have that @xmath190 , where @xmath191 & \mbox{if } { \varepsilon}<2b,\\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise}. \end{array } \right.\ ] ] moreover , for all @xmath188 , @xmath192 and @xmath193 , we have that @xmath194 , where @xmath195    since for all @xmath196 , @xmath197 we can assume that @xmath198 . denote @xmath199 take @xmath200 $ ] . for each @xmath201 , @xmath202 from where @xmath203 hence
, we have that @xmath204 assume that for all @xmath205 , @xmath206 .
then , using  , we deduce that @xmath207 a contradiction .
this means that there exists @xmath208 such that @xmath209 hence , @xmath210 and @xmath211 from where @xmath212 .
this implies that for all @xmath213 @xmath214 by   and the mean value theorem , we have that for all @xmath213 @xmath215 that is , @xmath216 .
hence , for all @xmath217 , @xmath218 and @xmath219 .
thus , for all @xmath220 , @xmath221    it is easy to see that for every @xmath222 and @xmath193 , @xmath223 thus , @xmath224 is a rate of convergence for @xmath225 towards @xmath142 .
the above result also holds if we consider a finite family of firmly nonexpansive mappings @xmath226 with @xmath227 in this case , a rate of asymptotic regularity for @xmath43 , defined by   with @xmath171 for every @xmath172 , is @xmath228 & \mbox{if } { \varepsilon}<2b,\\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise}. \end{array } \right.\ ] ] moreover , for every @xmath229 , @xmath230   + \theta\left(\frac{{\varepsilon}}{2 \lceil r/2 \rceil-1},b , c , p\right)\ ] ] is a rate of convergence for @xmath225 towards @xmath142 .
we prove in the following an asymptotic regularity result for two mappings that satisfy and for which the fixed point set of the composition is nonempty . to simplify the writing , we consider the sequences @xmath43 and @xmath231 defined by @xmath232 where @xmath233 and @xmath234 .
[ thm - as - reg - p2 ] let @xmath7 be a cat@xmath5 space and let @xmath183 satisfy property  . if @xmath235 , then given any @xmath153 , the sequences @xmath43 and @xmath231 defined by   are asymptotically regular .
denote @xmath236 .
then , for every @xmath63 , @xmath237 hence , @xmath238 we also have that for every @xmath239 , @xmath240 this yields , by lemma [ lemma - conv - seq ] , that @xmath241 converges to some @xmath242 .
furthermore , we have that @xmath243 .
suppose @xmath244 .
we prove by induction that @xmath245 for all @xmath246 . for @xmath247
this is clear .
suppose the claim holds true for all @xmath248 .
we show that it also holds for @xmath249 .
since @xmath122 satisfies , we have that @xmath250 likewise , @xmath251 adding the two above inequalities and using ( [ eq : cat(0).four.points ] ) we obtain that @xmath252 dividing by @xmath253 , using the nonexpansivity of @xmath122 , the triangle inequality and the notation @xmath254 , @xmath255 thus , @xmath256 letting @xmath257 above and using the induction hypothesis and ( [ thm - as - reg - eq2 ] ) , we get that @xmath258 which finishes the induction .
thus , @xmath259 is unbounded .
let @xmath260 .
since , by ( [ thm - as - reg - p2-eq1 ] ) , for all @xmath63 , @xmath261 it follows that @xmath262 , which shows that @xmath263 is bounded , a contradiction .
therefore , @xmath264 , that is , @xmath265 which yields , using  , that @xmath266 because @xmath267 at the same time , @xmath268 from where @xmath269 .
[ rmk - as - reg - p2-bound ] note that in the proof of theorem [ thm - as - reg - p2 ] one can replace the condition that @xmath270 by the assumption that one of the sequences @xmath43 or @xmath231 is bounded ( and so the other sequence will be bounded too ) .
we show in the next section ( see theorem [ thm - conv - p2 ] ) that these two conditions are in fact equivalent .
we apply in the sequel the above result to the study of a minimization problem which was considered in hilbert spaces in @xcite and was recently taken up in @xcite in the setting of cat@xmath5 spaces .
let @xmath7 be a cat@xmath5 space and @xmath271-\infty,+\infty]$ ] convex , lower semi - continuous and proper .
let @xmath272-\infty,+\infty]$ ] , @xmath273 where @xmath88 .
we focus on the problem @xmath274 denote by @xmath275 the set of its solutions .
one way to approach this problem is to apply alternatively the two resolvents corresponding to the functions @xmath86 and @xmath276 . in this process
one can also allow errors when computing the values of the resolvents .
thus , given a starting point @xmath153 , one can construct the sequences @xmath43 and @xmath231 defined by ( [ it : two ] ) , when considering @xmath277 and @xmath278 .
note that if @xmath279 , then @xmath280 and @xmath281 , so @xmath282 . at the same time , if @xmath283 , then @xmath284 . to see this ,
denote @xmath280 .
then , by ( [ ineq - res ] ) , for each @xmath48 , @xmath285 and , similarly , for every @xmath286 , @xmath287 adding these two inequalities and applying ( [ eq : cat(0).four.points ] ) we obtain that @xmath279 .    since the resolvents @xmath288 and @xmath289 are firmly nonexpansive mappings
, we can directly apply theorem [ thm - as - reg - p2 ] to obtain that the sequences @xmath43 and @xmath231 are asymptotically regular when @xmath290 .
this property also follows from ( * ? ? ? * theorem 1 ) , where the given proof relies on particular properties of the resolvent and uses , instead of the assumption that @xmath290 , the weaker condition that @xmath291 is bounded below .
in fact , analyzing this proof , one can immediately extract a rate of asymptotic regularity for the sequences @xmath43 and @xmath231 and a rate for the computation of @xmath292-solutions of the minimization problem ( [ def - fct - min ] ) .
[ minpro1 ] let @xmath7 be cat@xmath5 space and suppose that @xmath291 is bounded below by @xmath293 .
consider @xmath149 and @xmath186 such that @xmath294 .
suppose that @xmath43 and @xmath231 are defined by   with @xmath277 , @xmath278 , @xmath171 and @xmath295 for every @xmath172 .
then for all @xmath188 and @xmath296 , we have that @xmath297 where @xmath298 + 1.\ ] ] moreover , if @xmath279 , then for all @xmath299 and @xmath300 , @xmath301    from the proof of ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 1 ) we know that for every @xmath8 and @xmath63 , @xmath302 taking above @xmath303 and @xmath304 we obtain that for @xmath222 , @xmath305 from this , as in the proof of theorem [ thm - as - reg - fn - quant ] , we have that @xmath306 is a rate of asymptotic regularity for @xmath43 .
suppose @xmath279 .
then @xmath307 is decreasing and bounded above by @xmath308 .
letting now @xmath309 and @xmath310 in ( [ cor - minpro - eq1 ] ) and using the fact that , by ( * ? ? ?
* corollary 1 ) , @xmath311 for @xmath222 , it follows that for every @xmath299 and @xmath312 , @xmath313    as already noted in @xcite ( see also @xcite for the hilbert space context ) , the alternating projection method for two nonempty , closed and convex sets @xmath314 and @xmath50 in a complete cat@xmath5 space @xmath21 is a particular case of this minimization problem when taking @xmath315 and @xmath316 , where , for @xmath104 nonempty , closed and convex , @xmath317 , \quad \delta_c(x):=\left\ { \begin{array}{ll } 0 & \mbox{if } x \in c,\\ \infty & \mbox{otherwise } , \end{array } \right.\ ] ] is the indicator function .
clearly , for every @xmath88 , @xmath318 . thus , the sequences @xmath43 and @xmath231 obtained as described before are asymptotically regular with a rate quadratic in @xmath182 that is given by ( [ cor - min - rate - as ] ) with @xmath319 , @xmath320 and @xmath321 .
we point out that , if @xmath322 , one aims to find best approximation pairs with respect to @xmath314 and @xmath50 , that is , find @xmath323 such that @xmath324 . in hilbert spaces ,
this problem was studied , for instance , in @xcite .
using the asymptotic regularity results from the previous section we prove in this section that the sequences generated by ( [ it : inexact ] ) and ( [ it : two ] ) @xmath6-converge .
moreover , if we impose the condition that the image of one of the considered mappings is boundedly compact , then we obtain strong convergence .
the results that we give below find natural applications to projection methods or the minimization problem defined by  ( [ def - fct - min ] ) .
[ thm - conv - p1 ] let @xmath7 be a complete @xmath0-uniformly convex space and suppose that @xmath325 are firmly nonexpansive mappings . if @xmath326 , then given any starting point @xmath153 , the sequence @xmath43 defined by   is @xmath6-convergent to some @xmath327 .
if , in addition , there exists @xmath328 such that @xmath329 is boundedly compact , then @xmath43 converges to @xmath330 .
let @xmath63 and @xmath331 . because @xmath332 we have , by lemma [ lemma - conv - seq ] , that the sequence @xmath333 converges .
let @xmath328 .
for @xmath63 , let @xmath334 with @xmath335 be such that @xmath336 .
then , @xmath337 by theorem [ thm - as - reg - p1 ] , @xmath43 is asymptotically regular , so @xmath338 .
denote by @xmath330 the unique asymptotic center of @xmath43 .
let @xmath339 and assume that its unique asymptotic center is @xmath0 .
then , for every @xmath340 @xmath341 taking limit superior as @xmath342 we conclude that @xmath343 . then , @xmath344 which yields , by uniqueness of asymptotic centers , that @xmath345
thus , @xmath43 @xmath6-converges to @xmath330 .
we may suppose that @xmath346 is boundedly compact .
since @xmath347 is a bounded sequence in @xmath346 it has a convergent subsequence whose limit will be @xmath330 .
since @xmath348 converges , this implies that @xmath43 converges to @xmath330 .    as a straightforward consequence , the sequence generated by the cyclic projection method for a finite number of sets @xmath6-converges in cat@xmath5 spaces .
moreover , if one of the sets is locally compact , then we obtain in fact strong convergence .
this result extends ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 4.1 ) and a corresponding one mentioned in @xcite as an application of a proximal splitting algorithm .
[ cor : projections - convergence ] let @xmath21 be a complete cat@xmath5 space and @xmath177 be nonempty closed and convex sets such that @xmath178 .
given any starting point @xmath153 , let @xmath43 be defined by ( [ it : inexact ] ) with @xmath179 , for @xmath349 .
then @xmath43 @xmath6-converges to some point @xmath350 . moreover , if there exists @xmath229 such that @xmath351 is locally compact , then @xmath43 converges to @xmath330 .
a similar result also holds in spaces of curvature bounded above by some @xmath54 if assuming an appropriate bound on the diameter and local compactness of one of the sets .
let @xmath21 be a complete cat@xmath1 space with @xmath54 and for which @xmath176 .
let @xmath177 be nonempty closed and convex sets such that @xmath178 and there exists @xmath229 such that @xmath351 is locally compact .
given any starting point @xmath153 , let @xmath43 be defined by ( [ it : inexact ] ) with @xmath179 , for @xmath349 .
then @xmath43 converges to some point in @xmath352 .    as in the proof of theorem [ thm - conv - p1 ]
, one has that @xmath333 is convergent for every @xmath353 and @xmath354 for @xmath349 ( here one applies corollary  [ cor - proj - as - ref ] and the fact that @xmath355 is uniformly continuous as mentioned in subsection  [ subsection - geod - sp ] ) .
we can suppose that @xmath356 is locally compact . since @xmath347 is a bounded sequence in @xmath356 it has a convergent subsequence @xmath357 .
suppose its limit is @xmath358 .
taking into account that , for every @xmath328 , @xmath359 , it follows that @xmath360 .
thus , because @xmath348 converges , we have that @xmath361 and we are done .
we focus next on the convergence of the sequences defined by ( [ it : two ] ) when the considered mappings satisfy @xmath362 .
[ thm - conv - p2 ] let @xmath7 be a complete cat@xmath5 space .
suppose @xmath183 satisfy property @xmath362 .
given any starting point @xmath153 , consider the sequences @xmath43 and @xmath231 defined by ( [ it : two ] ) .
the following statements hold true :    * if @xmath363 , then @xmath43 and @xmath231 are unbounded ; * if @xmath364 , then there exists @xmath365 such that @xmath43 and @xmath231 @xmath6-converge to @xmath330 and @xmath366 , respectively . if , in addition , the image of @xmath122 or @xmath367 is boundedly compact , then the convergence is strong .
\(i ) suppose @xmath43 is bounded .
denote @xmath368 .
then , for every @xmath63 and @xmath18 , @xmath369 thus , @xmath370 .
denote by @xmath330 the unique asymptotic center of @xmath371 .
let @xmath372 and assume that its unique asymptotic center is @xmath0 .
then , @xmath373 taking limit superior as @xmath342 and using theorem [ thm - as - reg - p2 ] and remark [ rmk - as - reg - p2-bound ] we conclude that @xmath374 , which shows that @xmath375 .
\(ii ) if @xmath376 , clearly @xmath43 and @xmath231 are bounded and we continue the reasoning from ( i ) . applying ( [ thm - conv - p2-eq1 ] ) with @xmath377 we have , by lemma [ lemma - conv - seq ] , that @xmath378 converges .
this yields that @xmath379 is convergent too .
then , @xmath380 which means that @xmath381 .
thus , @xmath371 @xmath6-converges to @xmath330 , from where @xmath382 @xmath6-converges to @xmath330 too .    in a similar way one
obtains that there exists @xmath383 such that @xmath231 @xmath6-converges to @xmath384 . we need to prove that @xmath385 .
since @xmath386 we have that @xmath387 one can also show that @xmath388 , which implies that @xmath389 .
strong convergence when the image of @xmath122 or @xmath367 is boundedly compact can be obtained as in the proof of theorem [ thm - conv - p1 ] .
it follows immediately that we can recover the convergence result for problem ( [ def - fct - min ] ) that was proved in ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 1 ) .
[ minpro2 ] let @xmath7 be a complete cat@xmath5 space and @xmath271-\infty,\infty]$ ]
convex , lower semi - continuous and proper . suppose ( [ def - fct - min ] ) has a solution .
given @xmath153 , consider the sequences @xmath43 and @xmath231 defined by ( [ it : two ] ) , where @xmath277 and @xmath278 .
then there exists @xmath358 such that @xmath390 is a solution of ( [ def - fct - min ] ) for which @xmath43 and @xmath231 @xmath6-converge to @xmath330 and @xmath391 , respectively .
consequently , one obtains the convergence of the alternating projection method in cat@xmath5 spaces .
let @xmath7 be a complete cat@xmath5 space and @xmath392 nonempty , closed and convex .
suppose that @xmath393 .
given @xmath153 , consider the sequences @xmath43 and @xmath231 defined by ( [ it : two ] ) , when @xmath394 and @xmath395 .
then there exists @xmath396 such that @xmath43 and @xmath231 @xmath6-converge to @xmath397 and @xmath398 , respectively . if , in addition , @xmath314 or @xmath50 are locally compact , then the convergence is strong .    note that in the above result @xmath290 if , for example , one of the sets @xmath314 or @xmath50 is bounded .
we finish this paper by illustrating the behavior of the alternating projection method in the poincar upper half - plane model , see  @xcite . using _
mathematica@xmath399 _ version 9.0 , we developed an elementary program , http://cfne.url.ph/ , where one can observe the behavior of the picard iteration for the composition of projections onto two geodesics . using this program
we obtain figure  [ fig:1 ] which clearly depicts the following possible alternatives : the first one , figure  [ fig:1 ]  ( a ) , corresponds to the situation where the intersection of the two geodesics is nonempty and illustrates strong convergence of the picard iteration to a point in this intersection , see corollay  [ cor : projections - convergence ] ; when the intersection is empty , as in figure  [ fig:1 ]  ( b ) and  ( c ) , the picard iteration either converges to a best approximation pair ( bounded case ) or diverges ( unbounded case ) , as is expected from theorem  [ thm - conv - p2 ] .
in this paper we have primarily focused on providing an appropriate framework and a general method for the study of the convex feasibility problem for a finite number of sets in a nonlinear setting . for this purpose
, it was enough to compose finitely many firmly nonexpansive mappings in a cyclic way .
a question which arises naturally is whether one could take infinitely many firmly nonexpansive mappings .
note that , in this case , theorem [ thm - conv - p1 ] is no longer true without additional assumptions ( it is enough to consider the proximal point algorithm in hilbert spaces where the condition imposed on the stepsize sequence is essential , see @xcite ) .    regarding the minimization problem ( [ def - fct - min ] ) , we have given an explicit rate of asymptotic regularity for the sequences @xmath43 and @xmath231 defined by ( [ it : two ] ) with @xmath277 and @xmath278 .
it would be interesting to give a quantitative version of theorem [ thm - as - reg - p2 ] for mappings that satisfy property   and from where the asymptotic regularity of the sequences @xmath43 and @xmath231 can be deduced .
we have obtained new and more general convergence results to approximate a common fixed point of a finite number of firmly nonexpansive mappings in geodesic spaces .
our results , which are both qualitative and quantitative , can be applied to the cyclic projection method for finitely many sets in geodesic spaces of curvature bounded above or to an abstract minimization problem which allows the study of the alternating projection method for the inconsistent convex feasibility problem for two sets .
david ariza and genaro lpez were supported by dges ( grant mtm2012 - 34847-c02 - 01 ) , junta de andaluca ( grant p08-fqm-03453 ) .
adriana nicolae was supported by a grant of the romanian ministry of education , cncs - uefiscdi , project number pn - ii - ru - pd-2012 - 3 - 0152 .
part of this work was carried out while adriana nicolae was visiting the university of seville .
she would like to thank the department of mathematical analysis and the institute of mathematics of the university of seville ( imus ) for the hospitality .
li , c. , yao , j.c . : variational inequalities for set - valued vector fields on riemannian manifolds : convexity of the solution set and the proximal point algorithm .
siam j. control optim .
* 50 * , 24862514 ( 2012 )