DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparison of Factorization-Free Eigensolvers with Application to Cavity Resonators

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparison of Factorization-Free Eigensolvers with Application to Cavity Resonators A Comparison of Factorization-Free Eigensolvers with Application to Cavity Resonators Peter Arbenz Institute of Scientific Computing, ETH Zentrum, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland [email protected] Abstract. We investigate eigensolvers for the generalized eigenvalue problem Ax = λMx with symmetric A and symmetric positive defi- nite M that do not require matrix factorizations. We compare various variants of Rayleigh quotient minimization and the Jacobi-Davidson al- gorithm by means large-scale finite element problems originating from the design of resonant cavities of particle accelerators. 1 Introduction In this paper we consider the problem of computing a few of the smallest eigen- values and corresponding eigenvectors of the generalized eigenvalue problem Ax = λMx (1) without factorization of neither A nor M. Here, the real n-by-n matrices A and M are symmetric and symmetric positive definite, respectively. It if is feasible the Lanczos algorithm combined with a spectral transfor- mation [1] is the method of choice for solving (1). The spectral transformation requires the solution of a linear system (A σM)x = y, σ Ê,which may be solved by a direct or an iterative system solver.− The factorization∈ of A σM may be impossible due to memory constraints. The system of equations can− be solved iteratively. However, the solution must be computed very accurately, in order that the Lanczos three-term recurrence remains correct. In earlier studies [2, 3] we found that for large eigenvalue problems the Jacobi- Davidson algorithm [4] was superior to the Lanczos algorithm or the restarted Lanczos algorithm as implemented in ARPACK [5]. While the Jacobi-Davidson algorithm retains the high rate of convergence it only poses small accuracy re- quirements on the solution of the so-called correction equation, at least in the initial steps of iterations. In this paper we continue our investigations on eigensolvers and their pre- conditioning. We include block Rayleigh quotient minimization algorithms [6] and the locally optimal block preconditioned conjugate gradient (LOBPCG) al- gorithm by Knyazev [7] in our comparison. We conduct our experiments on an eigenvalue problem originating in the design of the new RF cavity of the 590 MeV ring cyclotron installed at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) in Villigen, Switzerland. P.M.A. Sloot et al. (Eds.): ICCS 2002, LNCS 2331, pp. 295−304, 2002. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002 296 P. Arbenz 2 The application: the cavity eigenvalue problem After separation of time/space variables and after elimination of the magnetic field intensity the Maxwell equations become the eigenvalue problem curl curl e(x)=λe(x), div e =0, x Ω, n e=0, x ∂Ω. (2) ∈ × ∈ where e is the electric field intensity. We assume that Ω,the cavity, is a simply 3 connected, bounded domain in Ê with a polyhedral boundary ∂Ω. Its inside is all in vacuum and its metallic surfaces are perfectly conducting. Following Kikuchi [8] we discretize (2) as Find (λ , e ,p ) Ê N L such that e = 0 and h h h ∈ × h × h h & (a) (curl eh, curl Ψh)+(grad ph, Ψh)=λh(eh,Ψh), Ψh Nh (3) (b) (e , grad q )=0, ∀q ∈L h h ∀ h∈ h 2 3 2 3 where Nh H0(curl; Ω)= v L(Ω) curl v L (Ω) , v n = 0 on ∂Ω and L ⊂H1(Ω). The domain{ ∈Ω is triangulated| ∈by tetrahedrons.× In order to} h ⊂ 0 avoid spurious modes we choose the subspaces Nh and Lh,respectively,tobethe (k) N´ed´elec (or edge) elements Nh of degree k [9–11] and the well-known Lagrange (or node-based) finite elements consisting of piecewise polynomials of degree k. In this paper we exclusively deal with k = 2. In order to employ a multilev≤ el preconditioner we use hierarchical bases and write [11] N (2) = N (1) N¯ (2),L(2) = L(1) L¯(2). (4) h h ⊕ h h h ⊕ h Let Φ n be a basis of N (2) and ϕ m be a basis of L(2). Then (3) defines { i}i=1 h { l}l=1 h (a) (b) Fig. 1. Example of matrices A (a) and M (b) for quadratic edge elements. A Comparison of Factorization-Free Eigensolvers 297 the matrix eigenvalue problem AC x MO x =λ , (5) CTO y OO y $ &) * $ &) * respectively,where A and M are n-by-n and C is n-by-m with elements ai,j =(curl Φi, curl Φj),mi,j =(Φi,Φj),ci,l =(Φi,grad ϕl). The non-zero structures of A and M are depicted in Fig. 1. The block of zero ¯ (2) columns / columns in A corresponds to those curl-free basis functions of Nh ¯(2) that are the gradient of some ϕ Lh . The non-zero block in the upper-left ∈ (1) corner of A corresponding to the basis functions of Nh is rank-deficient. The (1) deficiency equals dim Lh . The reason for approximating the electric field e by N´ed´elec elements and the Lagrange multipliers by Lagrange finite elements is that [9, 5.3] § grad L(k) = v N (k) curl v = 0 . (6) h h ∈ h | h ! "(k) By (3)(b), eh is in the orthogonal complement of grad Lh . On this subspace A in (5) is positive definite. Notice that eh is divergence-free only in a discrete n sense. Because of (6) we can write grad ϕl = j=1 ηjlΦj,whence n , (Φi, grad ϕl)= (Φi, Φj)ηjk or C = MY, (7) j=1 + n m where Y =((η )) Ê × . In a similar way one obtains jk ∈ T T H := C Y = Y MY, hkl =(grad ϕk, grad ϕl). (8) H is the system matrix that is obtained when solving the Poisson equation with (k) the Lagrange finite elements Lh . Notice that Y is very sparse. We have already ¯(2) mentioned that the gradient of a basis function ϕk Lh is an element of the ¯ (2) ∈ first set of basis functions of Nh . So, m1 rows of Y have a single entry 1. The gradient of the piecewise linear basis function corresponding to vertex k,say,is (1) a linear combination (with coefficients 1) of the basis functions of Nh whose corresponding edge has vertex k as one±of its endpoints. Equation (7) means that CT x = 0 is equivalent to requiring x to be M- orthogonal to the eigenspace (A)= (Y)corresponding to the eigenvalue 0. Thus, the solutions of (5) areNpreciselyRthe eigenpairs of Ax = λMx (9) corresponding to the positive eigenvalues. We could therefore compute the de- sired eigenpairs (λj , xj) of (5) by means of (9) alone. The computed eigenvectors corresponding to positive eigenvalues would automatically satisfy the constraint T C xj = 0. This is actually done if the linear systems of the form (A σM)x = y that appear in the eigensolver can be solved by direct methods. Numerical− exper- iments showed however that the high-dimensional zero eigenspace has a negative effect on the convergence rates if preconditioned iterative solvers have to be used. 298 P. Arbenz 3 Positive definite formulations of the eigenvalue problem In this section we present two alternative formulations for the matrix eigenvalue problem (5) that should make its solution easier. The goal is to have generalized eigenvalue problems with both matrices positive definite. 3.1 The nullspace method We can achieve this goal in a straightforward way by performing the computa- tions in the space that is spanned by the eigenvectors corresponding to the pos- T itive eigenvalues. This space is (Y )⊥M = (C)⊥ = (C ), i.e. the nullspace of CT whence its name. FormallyR,wesolve R N A (CT )x = λM (CT )x. (10) |N |N In the iterative solvers, we apply the M-orthogonal projector P (CT ) = I 1 T T N − YH− C onto (C ) whenever a vector is not in this space, i.e. for generat- ing starting vectorsN and after solving with the preconditioner. The eigenvalue problem (10) has dimension n m. However, the vector x (CT ) has n components. − ∈ N 3.2 The approach of Arbenz-Drmaˇc [12] Let P be a permutation matrix and Y1 m m Y = PY = , Y2 Ê × nonsingular. (11) #Y2% ∈ ' ' ' Let ' A A M M C A = P T AP = 11 12 , M = P T MP = 11 12 , C = P T C = 1 . #A21 A22% #M21 M22% #C2% ' ' ( ( ' Then' the n m eigenvalues (of the eigenvalue problem ' − ' ' ( ( ' 1 T A xˆ = λ(M C H− C )xˆ (12) 11 11 − 1 1 are precisely the n m positive eigenvalues of (5). The matrix on the right-hand ' ( ' ' side of (12) must not− be formed explicitely as it is full. 3.3 Discussion These approaches have in common that they require the solution of a system of equations involving the matrix H. In the present application this is the dis- (2) cretized Laplace operator in Wh . The order of H is about the same as the (1) dimension of the ‘coarse’ space Vh . Therefore, we solve systems with H by a direct method. The method of Arbenz-Drmaˇc has the advantage that the order of the eigenvalue problem is smaller by at least 1/8. Thus, less memory space is required. A Comparison of Factorization-Free Eigensolvers 299 4 Solving the matrix eigenvalue problem Factorization-free methods are the most promising for effectively solving very large eigenvalue problems Ax = λMx. (13) The factorization of A or M or a linear combination of them which is needed if a spectral transformation like shift-and-invert is applied requires way too much memory. If the shift-and-invert spectral transformation in a Lanczos type method is solved iteratively then high accuracy is required to establish the three-term recurrence.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Overview of Iterative Linear System Solver Packages
    Overview of Iterative Linear System Solver Packages Victor Eijkhout July, 1998 Abstract Description and comparison of several packages for the iterative solu- tion of linear systems of equations. 1 1 Intro duction There are several freely available packages for the iterative solution of linear systems of equations, typically derived from partial di erential equation prob- lems. In this rep ort I will give a brief description of a numberofpackages, and giveaninventory of their features and de ning characteristics. The most imp ortant features of the packages are which iterative metho ds and preconditioners supply; the most relevant de ning characteristics are the interface they present to the user's data structures, and their implementation language. 2 2 Discussion Iterative metho ds are sub ject to several design decisions that a ect ease of use of the software and the resulting p erformance. In this section I will give a global discussion of the issues involved, and how certain p oints are addressed in the packages under review. 2.1 Preconditioners A go o d preconditioner is necessary for the convergence of iterative metho ds as the problem to b e solved b ecomes more dicult. Go o d preconditioners are hard to design, and this esp ecially holds true in the case of parallel pro cessing. Here is a short inventory of the various kinds of preconditioners found in the packages reviewed. 2.1.1 Ab out incomplete factorisation preconditioners Incomplete factorisations are among the most successful preconditioners devel- op ed for single-pro cessor computers. Unfortunately, since they are implicit in nature, they cannot immediately b e used on parallel architectures.
    [Show full text]
  • Accelerating the LOBPCG Method on Gpus Using a Blocked Sparse Matrix Vector Product
    Accelerating the LOBPCG method on GPUs using a blocked Sparse Matrix Vector Product Hartwig Anzt and Stanimire Tomov and Jack Dongarra Innovative Computing Lab University of Tennessee Knoxville, USA Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract— the computing power of today’s supercomputers, often accel- erated by coprocessors like graphics processing units (GPUs), This paper presents a heterogeneous CPU-GPU algorithm design and optimized implementation for an entire sparse iter- becomes challenging. ative eigensolver – the Locally Optimal Block Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (LOBPCG) – starting from low-level GPU While there exist numerous efforts to adapt iterative lin- data structures and kernels to the higher-level algorithmic choices ear solvers like Krylov subspace methods to coprocessor and overall heterogeneous design. Most notably, the eigensolver technology, sparse eigensolvers have so far remained out- leverages the high-performance of a new GPU kernel developed side the main focus. A possible explanation is that many for the simultaneous multiplication of a sparse matrix and a of those combine sparse and dense linear algebra routines, set of vectors (SpMM). This is a building block that serves which makes porting them to accelerators more difficult. Aside as a backbone for not only block-Krylov, but also for other from the power method, algorithms based on the Krylov methods relying on blocking for acceleration in general. The subspace idea are among the most commonly used general heterogeneous LOBPCG developed here reveals the potential of eigensolvers [1]. When targeting symmetric positive definite this type of eigensolver by highly optimizing all of its components, eigenvalue problems, the recently developed Locally Optimal and can be viewed as a benchmark for other SpMM-dependent applications.
    [Show full text]
  • A Parallel Lanczos Algorithm for Eigensystem Calculation
    A Parallel Lanczos Algorithm for Eigensystem Calculation Hans-Peter Kersken / Uwe Küster Eigenvalue problems arise in many fields of physics and engineering science for example in structural engineering from prediction of dynamic stability of structures or vibrations of a fluid in a closed cavity. Their solution consumes a large amount of memory and CPU time if more than very few (1-5) vibrational modes are desired. Both make the problem a natural candidate for parallel processing. Here we shall present some aspects of the solution of the generalized eigenvalue problem on parallel architectures with distributed memory. The research was carried out as a part of the EC founded project ACTIVATE. This project combines various activities to increase the performance vibro-acoustic software. It brings together end users form space, aviation, and automotive industry with software developers and numerical analysts. Introduction The algorithm we shall describe in the next sections is based on the Lanczos algorithm for solving large sparse eigenvalue problems. It became popular during the past two decades because of its superior convergence properties compared to more traditional methods like inverse vector iteration. Some experiments with an new algorithm described in [Bra97] showed that it is competitive with the Lanczos algorithm only if very few eigenpairs are needed. Therefore we decided to base our implementation on the Lanczos algorithm. However, when implementing the Lanczos algorithm one has to pay attention to some subtle algorithmic details. A state of the art algorithm is described in [Gri94]. On parallel architectures further problems arise concerning the robustness of the algorithm. We implemented the algorithm almost entirely by using numerical libraries.
    [Show full text]
  • Exact Diagonalization of Quantum Lattice Models on Coprocessors
    Exact diagonalization of quantum lattice models on coprocessors T. Siro∗, A. Harju Aalto University School of Science, P.O. Box 14100, 00076 Aalto, Finland Abstract We implement the Lanczos algorithm on an Intel Xeon Phi coprocessor and compare its performance to a multi-core Intel Xeon CPU and an NVIDIA graphics processor. The Xeon and the Xeon Phi are parallelized with OpenMP and the graphics processor is programmed with CUDA. The performance is evaluated by measuring the execution time of a single step in the Lanczos algorithm. We study two quantum lattice models with different particle numbers, and conclude that for small systems, the multi-core CPU is the fastest platform, while for large systems, the graphics processor is the clear winner, reaching speedups of up to 7.6 compared to the CPU. The Xeon Phi outperforms the CPU with sufficiently large particle number, reaching a speedup of 2.5. Keywords: Tight binding, Hubbard model, exact diagonalization, GPU, CUDA, MIC, Xeon Phi 1. Introduction hopping amplitude is denoted by t. The tight-binding model describes free electrons hopping around a lattice, and it gives a In recent years, there has been tremendous interest in utiliz- crude approximation of the electronic properties of a solid. The ing coprocessors in scientific computing, including condensed model can be made more realistic by adding interactions, such matter physics[1, 2, 3, 4]. Most of the work has been done as on-site repulsion, which results in the well-known Hubbard on graphics processing units (GPU), resulting in impressive model[9]. In our basis, however, such interaction terms are di- speedups compared to CPUs in problems that exhibit high data- agonal, rendering their effect on the computational complexity parallelism and benefit from the high throughput of the GPU.
    [Show full text]
  • A Geometric Theory for Preconditioned Inverse Iteration. III: a Short and Sharp Convergence Estimate for Generalized Eigenvalue Problems
    A geometric theory for preconditioned inverse iteration. III: A short and sharp convergence estimate for generalized eigenvalue problems. Andrew V. Knyazev Department of Mathematics, University of Colorado at Denver, P.O. Box 173364, Campus Box 170, Denver, CO 80217-3364 1 Klaus Neymeyr Mathematisches Institut der Universit¨atT¨ubingen,Auf der Morgenstelle 10, 72076 T¨ubingen,Germany 2 Abstract In two previous papers by Neymeyr: A geometric theory for preconditioned inverse iteration I: Extrema of the Rayleigh quotient, LAA 322: (1-3), 61-85, 2001, and A geometric theory for preconditioned inverse iteration II: Convergence estimates, LAA 322: (1-3), 87-104, 2001, a sharp, but cumbersome, convergence rate estimate was proved for a simple preconditioned eigensolver, which computes the smallest eigenvalue together with the corresponding eigenvector of a symmetric positive def- inite matrix, using a preconditioned gradient minimization of the Rayleigh quotient. In the present paper, we discover and prove a much shorter and more elegant, but still sharp in decisive quantities, convergence rate estimate of the same method that also holds for a generalized symmetric definite eigenvalue problem. The new estimate is simple enough to stimulate a search for a more straightforward proof technique that could be helpful to investigate such practically important method as the locally optimal block preconditioned conjugate gradient eigensolver. We demon- strate practical effectiveness of the latter for a model problem, where it compares favorably with two
    [Show full text]
  • 16 Preconditioning
    16 Preconditioning The general idea underlying any preconditioning procedure for iterative solvers is to modify the (ill-conditioned) system Ax = b in such a way that we obtain an equivalent system Aˆxˆ = bˆ for which the iterative method converges faster. A standard approach is to use a nonsingular matrix M, and rewrite the system as M −1Ax = M −1b. The preconditioner M needs to be chosen such that the matrix Aˆ = M −1A is better conditioned for the conjugate gradient method, or has better clustered eigenvalues for the GMRES method. 16.1 Preconditioned Conjugate Gradients We mentioned earlier that the number of iterations required for the conjugate gradient algorithm to converge is proportional to pκ(A). Thus, for poorly conditioned matrices, convergence will be very slow. Thus, clearly we will want to choose M such that κ(Aˆ) < κ(A). This should result in faster convergence. How do we find Aˆ, xˆ, and bˆ? In order to ensure symmetry and positive definiteness of Aˆ we let M −1 = LLT (44) with a nonsingular m × m matrix L. Then we can rewrite Ax = b ⇐⇒ M −1Ax = M −1b ⇐⇒ LT Ax = LT b ⇐⇒ LT AL L−1x = LT b . | {z } | {z } |{z} =Aˆ =xˆ =bˆ The symmetric positive definite matrix M is called splitting matrix or preconditioner, and it can easily be verified that Aˆ is symmetric positive definite, also. One could now formally write down the standard CG algorithm with the new “hat- ted” quantities. However, the algorithm is more efficient if the preconditioning is incorporated directly into the iteration. To see what this means we need to examine every single line in the CG algorithm.
    [Show full text]
  • An Implementation of a Generalized Lanczos Procedure for Structural Dynamic Analysis on Distributed Memory Computers
    NU~IERICAL ANALYSIS PROJECT AUGUST 1992 MANUSCRIPT ,NA-92-09 An Implementation of a Generalized Lanczos Procedure for Structural Dynamic Analysis on Distributed Memory Computers . bY David R. Mackay and Kincho H. Law NUMERICAL ANALYSIS PROJECT COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT STANFORD UNIVERSITY STANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305 An Implementation of a Generalized Lanczos Procedure for Structural Dynamic Analysis on Distributed Memory Computers’ David R. Mackay and Kincho H. Law Department of Civil Engineering Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-4020 Abstract This paper describes a parallel implementation of a generalized Lanczos procedure for struc- tural dynamic analysis on a distributed memory parallel computer. One major cost of the gener- alized Lanczos procedure is the factorization of the (shifted) stiffness matrix and the forward and backward solution of triangular systems. In this paper, we discuss load assignment of a sparse matrix and propose a strategy for inverting the principal block submatrix factors to facilitate the forward and backward solution of triangular systems. We also discuss the different strategies in the implementation of mass matrix-vector multiplication on parallel computer and how they are used in the Lanczos procedure. The Lanczos procedure implemented includes partial and external selective reorthogonalizations and spectral shifts. Experimental results are presented to illustrate the effectiveness of the parallel generalized Lanczos procedure. The issues of balancing the com- putations among the basic steps of the Lanczos procedure on distributed memory computers are discussed. IThis work is sponsored by the National Science Foundation grant number ECS-9003107, and the Army Research Office grant number DAAL-03-91-G-0038. Contents List of Figures ii .
    [Show full text]
  • Lanczos Vectors Versus Singular Vectors for Effective Dimension Reduction Jie Chen and Yousef Saad
    1 Lanczos Vectors versus Singular Vectors for Effective Dimension Reduction Jie Chen and Yousef Saad Abstract— This paper takes an in-depth look at a technique for a) Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI): LSI [3], [4] is an effec- computing filtered matrix-vector (mat-vec) products which are tive information retrieval technique which computes the relevance required in many data analysis applications. In these applications scores for all the documents in a collection in response to a user the data matrix is multiplied by a vector and we wish to perform query. In LSI, a collection of documents is represented as a term- this product accurately in the space spanned by a few of the major singular vectors of the matrix. We examine the use of the document matrix X = [xij] where each column vector represents Lanczos algorithm for this purpose. The goal of the method is a document and xij is the weight of term i in document j. A query identical with that of the truncated singular value decomposition is represented as a pseudo-document in a similar form—a column (SVD), namely to preserve the quality of the resulting mat-vec vector q. By performing dimension reduction, each document xj product in the major singular directions of the matrix. The T T (j-th column of X) becomes Pk xj and the query becomes Pk q Lanczos-based approach achieves this goal by using a small in the reduced-rank representation, where P is the matrix whose number of Lanczos vectors, but it does not explicitly compute k column vectors are the k major left singular vectors of X.
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Linear Algebra Solving Ax = B , an Overview Introduction
    Solving Ax = b, an overview Numerical Linear Algebra ∗ A = A no Good precond. yes flex. precond. yes GCR Improving iterative solvers: ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ yes no no ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ preconditioning, deflation, numerical yes GMRES A > 0 CG software and parallelisation ⇒ ⇓ no ⇓ ⇓ ill cond. yes SYMMLQ str indef no large im eig no Bi-CGSTAB ⇒ ⇒ ⇒ no yes yes ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ MINRES IDR no large im eig BiCGstab(ℓ) ⇐ yes Gerard Sleijpen and Martin van Gijzen a good precond itioner is available ⇓ the precond itioner is flex ible IDRstab November 29, 2017 A + A∗ is strongly indefinite A 1 has large imaginary eigenvalues November 29, 2017 2 National Master Course National Master Course Delft University of Technology Introduction Program We already saw that the performance of iterative methods can Preconditioning be improved by applying a preconditioner. Preconditioners (and • Diagonal scaling, Gauss-Seidel, SOR and SSOR deflation techniques) are a key to successful iterative methods. • Incomplete Choleski and Incomplete LU In general they are very problem dependent. • Deflation Today we will discuss some standard preconditioners and we will • Numerical software explain the idea behind deflation. • Parallelisation We will also discuss some efforts to standardise numerical • software. Shared memory versus distributed memory • Domain decomposition Finally we will discuss how to perform scientific computations on • a parallel computer. November 29, 2017 3 November 29, 2017 4 National Master Course National Master Course Preconditioning Why preconditioners? A preconditioned iterative solver solves the system − − M 1Ax = M 1b. 1 The matrix M is called the preconditioner. 0.8 The preconditioner should satisfy certain requirements: 0.6 Convergence should be (much) faster (in time) for the 0.4 • preconditioned system than for the original system.
    [Show full text]
  • Solving Symmetric Semi-Definite (Ill-Conditioned)
    Solving Symmetric Semi-definite (ill-conditioned) Generalized Eigenvalue Problems Zhaojun Bai University of California, Davis Berkeley, August 19, 2016 Symmetric definite generalized eigenvalue problem I Symmetric definite generalized eigenvalue problem Ax = λBx where AT = A and BT = B > 0 I Eigen-decomposition AX = BXΛ where Λ = diag(λ1; λ2; : : : ; λn) X = (x1; x2; : : : ; xn) XT BX = I: I Assume λ1 ≤ λ2 ≤ · · · ≤ λn LAPACK solvers I LAPACK routines xSYGV, xSYGVD, xSYGVX are based on the following algorithm (Wilkinson'65): 1. compute the Cholesky factorization B = GGT 2. compute C = G−1AG−T 3. compute symmetric eigen-decomposition QT CQ = Λ 4. set X = G−T Q I xSYGV[D,X] could be numerically unstable if B is ill-conditioned: −1 jλbi − λij . p(n)(kB k2kAk2 + cond(B)jλbij) · and −1 1=2 kB k2kAk2(cond(B)) + cond(B)jλbij θ(xbi; xi) . p(n) · specgapi I User's choice between the inversion of ill-conditioned Cholesky decomposition and the QZ algorithm that destroys symmetry Algorithms to address the ill-conditioning 1. Fix-Heiberger'72 (Parlett'80): explicit reduction 2. Chang-Chung Chang'74: SQZ method (QZ by Moler and Stewart'73) 3. Bunse-Gerstner'84: MDR method 4. Chandrasekaran'00: \proper pivoting scheme" 5. Davies-Higham-Tisseur'01: Cholesky+Jacobi 6. Working notes by Kahan'11 and Moler'14 This talk Three approaches: 1. A LAPACK-style implementation of Fix-Heiberger algorithm 2. An algebraic reformulation 3. Locally accelerated block preconditioned steepest descent (LABPSD) This talk Three approaches: 1. A LAPACK-style implementation of Fix-Heiberger algorithm Status: beta-release 2.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Performance and Energy Efficiency of Sparse Linear Algebra on Gpus
    Original Article The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications 1–16 On the performance and energy efficiency Ó The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav of sparse linear algebra on GPUs DOI: 10.1177/1094342016672081 hpc.sagepub.com Hartwig Anzt1, Stanimire Tomov1 and Jack Dongarra1,2,3 Abstract In this paper we unveil some performance and energy efficiency frontiers for sparse computations on GPU-based super- computers. We compare the resource efficiency of different sparse matrix–vector products (SpMV) taken from libraries such as cuSPARSE and MAGMA for GPU and Intel’s MKL for multicore CPUs, and develop a GPU sparse matrix–matrix product (SpMM) implementation that handles the simultaneous multiplication of a sparse matrix with a set of vectors in block-wise fashion. While a typical sparse computation such as the SpMV reaches only a fraction of the peak of current GPUs, we show that the SpMM succeeds in exceeding the memory-bound limitations of the SpMV. We integrate this kernel into a GPU-accelerated Locally Optimal Block Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (LOBPCG) eigensolver. LOBPCG is chosen as a benchmark algorithm for this study as it combines an interesting mix of sparse and dense linear algebra operations that is typical for complex simulation applications, and allows for hardware-aware optimizations. In a detailed analysis we compare the performance and energy efficiency against a multi-threaded CPU counterpart. The reported performance and energy efficiency results are indicative of sparse computations on supercomputers. Keywords sparse eigensolver, LOBPCG, GPU supercomputer, energy efficiency, blocked sparse matrix–vector product 1Introduction GPU-based supercomputers.
    [Show full text]
  • Preconditioned Inverse Iteration and Shift-Invert Arnoldi Method
    Preconditioned inverse iteration and shift-invert Arnoldi method Melina Freitag Department of Mathematical Sciences University of Bath CSC Seminar Max-Planck-Institute for Dynamics of Complex Technical Systems Magdeburg 3rd May 2011 joint work with Alastair Spence (Bath) 1 Introduction 2 Inexact inverse iteration 3 Inexact Shift-invert Arnoldi method 4 Inexact Shift-invert Arnoldi method with implicit restarts 5 Conclusions Outline 1 Introduction 2 Inexact inverse iteration 3 Inexact Shift-invert Arnoldi method 4 Inexact Shift-invert Arnoldi method with implicit restarts 5 Conclusions Problem and iterative methods Find a small number of eigenvalues and eigenvectors of: Ax = λx, λ ∈ C,x ∈ Cn A is large, sparse, nonsymmetric Problem and iterative methods Find a small number of eigenvalues and eigenvectors of: Ax = λx, λ ∈ C,x ∈ Cn A is large, sparse, nonsymmetric Iterative solves Power method Simultaneous iteration Arnoldi method Jacobi-Davidson method repeated application of the matrix A to a vector Generally convergence to largest/outlying eigenvector Problem and iterative methods Find a small number of eigenvalues and eigenvectors of: Ax = λx, λ ∈ C,x ∈ Cn A is large, sparse, nonsymmetric Iterative solves Power method Simultaneous iteration Arnoldi method Jacobi-Davidson method The first three of these involve repeated application of the matrix A to a vector Generally convergence to largest/outlying eigenvector Shift-invert strategy Wish to find a few eigenvalues close to a shift σ σ λλ λ λ λ 3 1 2 4 n Shift-invert strategy Wish to find a few eigenvalues close to a shift σ σ λλ λ λ λ 3 1 2 4 n Problem becomes − 1 (A − σI) 1x = x λ − σ each step of the iterative method involves repeated application of A =(A − σI)−1 to a vector Inner iterative solve: (A − σI)y = x using Krylov method for linear systems.
    [Show full text]