new

[GMRES2stage.git] / paper.tex

diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex
index 25f1393e95bfd5d65094c8a57eb03211344bb34b..a4c9b268faf6197c47d7c288188adc6bf299b3de 100644 (file)
--- a/paper.tex
+++ b/paper.tex
@@ -439,7 +439,7 @@ GMRES.
 \end{abstract}
 
 \begin{IEEEkeywords}
 \end{abstract}
 
 \begin{IEEEkeywords}

-Iterative Krylov methods; sparse linear systems; residual minimization; PETSc; %à voir... 
+Iterative Krylov methods; sparse linear systems; two stage iteration; least-squares residual minimization; PETSc

 \end{IEEEkeywords}
 
 
 \end{IEEEkeywords}
 
 


@@ -547,38 +547,42 @@ Iterative Krylov methods; sparse linear systems; residual minimization; PETSc; %
 % You must have at least 2 lines in the paragraph with the drop letter
 % (should never be an issue)
 
 % You must have at least 2 lines in the paragraph with the drop letter
 % (should never be an issue)
 

-Iterative methods have recently become more attractive than  direct ones to  solve very large
-sparse  linear systems.  They are more  efficient  in a  parallel
-context,  supporting  thousands  of  cores,  and they require  less  memory  and  arithmetic
-operations than direct  methods. This is why new iterative  methods are frequently 
-proposed or adapted by researchers, and the increasing need to solve very large sparse
-linear  systems  has triggered the  development  of such efficient iterative  techniques
-suitable for parallel processing.
-
-Most of the successful iterative methods currently available are based on so-called ``Krylov
-subspaces''. They  consist in forming a  basis of successive matrix
-powers multiplied by an initial vector, which can be for instance the residual. These methods use vectors orthogonality of the Krylov  subspace  basis in order to solve  linear
-systems.  The  most known iterative  Krylov subspace methods  are conjugate
-gradient and GMRES ones (Generalized Minimal RESidual).
-
-
-However,  iterative  methods suffer  from scalability  problems  on parallel
-computing  platforms  with many  processors, due  to  their need  of  reduction
-operations, and to  collective    communications   to  achieve   matrix-vector
+Iterative methods have recently become more attractive than direct ones to solve
+very large sparse  linear systems\cite{Saad2003}.  They are more  efficient in a
+parallel context,  supporting thousands of  cores, and they require  less memory
+and  arithmetic operations than  direct methods~\cite{bahicontascoutu}.  This is
+why new iterative methods are frequently proposed or adapted by researchers, and
+the increasing need to solve very  large sparse linear systems has triggered the
+development  of  such  efficient  iterative  techniques  suitable  for  parallel
+processing.
+
+Most  of the  successful  iterative  methods currently  available  are based  on
+so-called ``Krylov  subspaces''. They consist  in forming a basis  of successive
+matrix powers  multiplied by an  initial vector, which  can be for  instance the
+residual. These methods  use vectors orthogonality of the  Krylov subspace basis
+in  order to solve  linear systems.   The most  known iterative  Krylov subspace
+methods are conjugate gradient and GMRES ones (Generalized Minimal RESidual).
+
+
+However,  iterative  methods  suffer   from  scalability  problems  on  parallel
+computing  platforms  with many  processors,  due  to  their need  of  reduction
+operations,   and  to   collective  communications   to   achieve  matrix-vector

 multiplications. The  communications on large  clusters with thousands  of cores
 multiplications. The  communications on large  clusters with thousands  of cores

-and  large  sizes of  messages  can  significantly  affect the  performances  of these
-iterative methods. As a consequence, Krylov subspace iteration methods are often used
-with preconditioners in practice, to increase their convergence and accelerate their
-performances.  However, most  of the  good preconditioners  are not  scalable on
-large clusters.
-
-In this research work, a two-stage algorithm based on  two nested iterations
-called inner-outer  iterations is proposed.  This algorithm  consists in solving  the sparse
-linear system iteratively  with a small number of  inner iterations, and restarting
-the outer  step with a  new solution minimizing  some error functions  over some
-previous residuals. This algorithm is iterative and easy to parallelize on large
-clusters. Furthermore,  the   minimization  technique   improves  its   convergence  and
-performances.
+and large sizes  of messages can significantly affect  the performances of these
+iterative methods. As a consequence, Krylov subspace iteration methods are often
+used  with  preconditioners  in  practice,  to increase  their  convergence  and
+accelerate their  performances.  However, most  of the good  preconditioners are
+not scalable on large clusters.
+
+In  this research work,  a two-stage  algorithm based  on two  nested iterations
+called inner-outer  iterations is proposed.  This algorithm  consists in solving
+the sparse  linear system iteratively with  a small number  of inner iterations,
+and  restarting  the  outer step  with  a  new  solution minimizing  some  error
+functions  over some previous  residuals. For  further information  on two-stage
+iteration      methods,     interested      readers      are     invited      to
+consult~\cite{Nichols:1973:CTS}. Two-stage algorithms are easy to parallelize on
+large clusters.  Furthermore,  the least-squares minimization technique improves
+its convergence and performances.

 
 The present  article is  organized as follows.   Related works are  presented in
 Section~\ref{sec:02}. Section~\ref{sec:03} details the two-stage algorithm using
 
 The present  article is  organized as follows.   Related works are  presented in
 Section~\ref{sec:02}. Section~\ref{sec:03} details the two-stage algorithm using


@@ -739,41 +743,59 @@ these operations are easy to implement in PETSc or similar environment.
 
 \section{Convergence results}
 \label{sec:04}
 
 \section{Convergence results}
 \label{sec:04}

-Let us recall the following result, see~\cite{Saad86} for further readings.
-\begin{proposition}
-\label{prop:saad}
-Suppose that $A$ is a positive real matrix with symmetric part $M$. Then the residual norm provided at the $m$-th step of GMRES satisfies:
-\begin{equation}
-||r_m|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}} ||r_0|| ,
-\end{equation}
-where $\alpha = \lambda_{min}(M)^2$ and $\beta = \lambda_{max}(A^T A)$, which proves 
-the convergence of GMRES($m$) for all $m$ under that assumption regarding $A$.
-\end{proposition}

 
 
 We can now claim that,
 \begin{proposition}
 
 
 We can now claim that,
 \begin{proposition}

-If $A$ is a positive real matrix and GMRES($m$) is used as solver, then the TSIRM algorithm is convergent. Furthermore, 
-let $r_k$ be the
+\label{prop:saad}
+If $A$ is either a definite positive or a positive matrix and GMRES($m$) is used as solver, then the TSIRM algorithm is convergent. 
+
+Furthermore, let $r_k$ be the

 $k$-th residue of TSIRM, then
 $k$-th residue of TSIRM, then

-we still have:
+we have the following boundaries:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item when $A$ is positive:

 \begin{equation}
 ||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0|| ,
 \end{equation}
 \begin{equation}
 ||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0|| ,
 \end{equation}

-where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are defined as in Proposition~\ref{prop:saad}.
+where $M$ is the symmetric part of $A$, $\alpha = \lambda_{min}(M)^2$ and $\beta = \lambda_{max}(A^T A)$;
+\item when $A$ is positive definite:
+\begin{equation}
+\|r_k\| \leq \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_0\|.
+\end{equation}
+\end{itemize}
+%In the general case, where A is not positive definite, we have
+%$\|r_n\| \le \inf_{p \in P_n} \|p(A)\| \le \kappa_2(V) \inf_{p \in P_n} \max_{\lambda \in \sigma(A)} |p(\lambda)| \|r_0\|, .$

 \end{proposition}
 
 \begin{proof}
 \end{proposition}
 
 \begin{proof}

-We will prove by a mathematical induction that, for each $k \in \mathbb{N}^\ast$, 
-$||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{mk}{2}} ||r_0||.$
+Let us first recall that the residue is under control when considering the GMRES algorithm on a positive definite matrix, and it is bounded as follows:
+\begin{equation*}
+\|r_k\| \leq \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{k/2} \|r_0\| .
+\end{equation*}
+Additionally, when $A$ is a positive real matrix with symmetric part $M$, then the residual norm provided at the $m$-th step of GMRES satisfies:
+\begin{equation*}
+||r_m|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}} ||r_0|| ,
+\end{equation*}
+where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are defined as in Proposition~\ref{prop:saad}, which proves 
+the convergence of GMRES($m$) for all $m$ under such assumptions regarding $A$.
+These well-known results can be found, \emph{e.g.}, in~\cite{Saad86}.

 
 

-The base case is obvious, as for $k=1$, the TSIRM algorithm simply consists in applying GMRES($m$) once, leading to a new residual $r_1$ which follows the inductive hypothesis due to Proposition~\ref{prop:saad}.
+We will now prove by a mathematical induction that, for each $k \in \mathbb{N}^\ast$, 
+$||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{mk}{2}} ||r_0||$ when $A$ is positive, and $\|r_k\| \leq \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_0\|$ when $A$ is positive definite.

 
 

-Suppose now that the claim holds for all $m=1, 2, \hdots, k-1$, that is, $\forall m \in \{1,2,\hdots, k-1\}$, $||r_m|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||$.
+The base case is obvious, as for $k=1$, the TSIRM algorithm simply consists in applying GMRES($m$) once, leading to a new residual $r_1$ that follows the inductive hypothesis due, to the results recalled above.
+
+Suppose now that the claim holds for all $m=1, 2, \hdots, k-1$, that is, $\forall m \in \{1,2,\hdots, k-1\}$, $||r_m|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||$ in the positive case, and $\|r_k\| \leq \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_0\|$ in the definite positive one.

 We will show that the statement holds too for $r_k$. Two situations can occur:
 \begin{itemize}
 We will show that the statement holds too for $r_k$. Two situations can occur:
 \begin{itemize}

-\item If $k \mod m \neq 0$, then the TSIRM algorithm consists in executing GMRES once. In that case, we obtain $||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}} ||r_{k-1}||\leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||$ by the inductive hypothesis.
-\item Else, the TSIRM algorithm consists in two stages: a first GMRES($m$) execution leads to a temporary $x_k$ whose residue satisfies $||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}} ||r_{k-1}||\leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||$, and a least squares resolution.
+\item If $k \not\equiv 0 ~(\textrm{mod}\ m)$, then the TSIRM algorithm consists in executing GMRES once. In that case and by using the inductive hypothesis, we obtain either $||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}} ||r_{k-1}||\leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||$ if $A$ is positive, or $\|r_k\| \leqslant \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{m/2} \|r_{k-1}\|$ $\leqslant$ $\left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_{0}\|$ in the positive definite case.
+\item Else, the TSIRM algorithm consists in two stages: a first GMRES($m$) execution leads to a temporary $x_k$ whose residue satisfies:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item $||r_k|| \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{m}{2}} ||r_{k-1}||\leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||$ in the positive case, 
+\item $\|r_k\| \leqslant \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{m/2} \|r_{k-1}\|$ $\leqslant$ $\left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_{0}\|$ in the positive definite one,
+\end{itemize}
+and a least squares resolution.

 Let $\operatorname{span}(S) = \left \{ {\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i v_i \Big| k \in \mathbb{N}, v_i \in S, \lambda _i \in \mathbb{R}} \right \}$ be the linear span of a set of real vectors $S$. So,\\
 $\min_{\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^s} ||b-R\alpha ||_2 = \min_{\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^s} ||b-AS\alpha ||_2$
 
 Let $\operatorname{span}(S) = \left \{ {\sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i v_i \Big| k \in \mathbb{N}, v_i \in S, \lambda _i \in \mathbb{R}} \right \}$ be the linear span of a set of real vectors $S$. So,\\
 $\min_{\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^s} ||b-R\alpha ||_2 = \min_{\alpha \in \mathbb{R}^s} ||b-AS\alpha ||_2$
 


@@ -784,14 +806,16 @@ $\begin{array}{ll}
 & \leqslant \min_{\lambda \in \mathbb{R}} ||b-\lambda Ax_{k} ||_2\\
 & \leqslant ||b-Ax_{k}||_2\\
 & = ||r_k||_2\\
 & \leqslant \min_{\lambda \in \mathbb{R}} ||b-\lambda Ax_{k} ||_2\\
 & \leqslant ||b-Ax_{k}||_2\\
 & = ||r_k||_2\\

-& \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||,
+& \leqslant \left(1-\dfrac{\alpha}{\beta}\right)^{\frac{km}{2}} ||r_0||, \textrm{ if $A$ is positive,}\\
+& \leqslant \left( 1-\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}^2(1/2(A^T + A))}{ \lambda_{\mathrm{max}}(A^T A)} \right)^{km/2} \|r_{0}\|, \textrm{ if $A$ is}\\
+& \textrm{positive definite,} 

 \end{array}$
 \end{itemize}
 which concludes the induction and the proof.
 \end{proof}
 
 \end{array}$
 \end{itemize}
 which concludes the induction and the proof.
 \end{proof}
 

-We can remark that, at each iterate, the residue of the TSIRM algorithm is lower 
-than the one of the GMRES method.
+%We can remark that, at each iterate, the residue of the TSIRM algorithm is lower 
+%than the one of the GMRES method.

 
 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************
 
 %%%*********************************************************
 %%%*********************************************************


@@ -799,13 +823,13 @@ than the one of the GMRES method.
 \label{sec:05}
 
 
 \label{sec:05}
 
 

-In order to see the influence of our algorithm with only one processor, we first
-show a comparison with GMRES or FGMRES and our algorithm. In Table~\ref{tab:01},
-we  show the  matrices we  have  used and  some of  them characteristics.  Those
-matrices  are   chosen  from   the  Davis  collection   of  the   University  of
-Florida~\cite{Dav97}. They are matrices arising in real-world applications.  For
-all the  matrices, the name,  the field,  the number of  rows and the  number of
-nonzero elements are given.
+In order to see the behavior of the proposal when considering only one processor, a first
+comparison with GMRES or FGMRES and the new algorithm detailed previously has been experimented. 
+Matrices that have been used with their characteristics (names, fields, rows, and nonzero coefficients) are detailed in 
+Table~\ref{tab:01}.  These latter, which are real-world applications matrices, 
+have been extracted 
+ from   the  Davis  collection,   University  of
+Florida~\cite{Dav97}.

 
 \begin{table}[htbp]
 \begin{center}
 
 \begin{table}[htbp]
 \begin{center}


@@ -825,8 +849,9 @@ torso3             & 2D/3D problem & 259,156 & 4,429,042 \\
 \label{tab:01}
 \end{center}
 \end{table}
 \label{tab:01}
 \end{center}
 \end{table}

-
-The following  parameters have been chosen  for our experiments.   As by default
+Chosen parameters are detailed below.
+%The following  parameters have been chosen  for our experiments.   
+As by default

 the restart  of GMRES is performed every  30 iterations, we have  chosen to stop
 the GMRES every 30 iterations (\emph{i.e.} $max\_iter_{kryl}=30$).  $s$ is set to 8. CGLS is
 chosen  to minimize  the least-squares  problem with  the  following parameters:
 the restart  of GMRES is performed every  30 iterations, we have  chosen to stop
 the GMRES every 30 iterations (\emph{i.e.} $max\_iter_{kryl}=30$).  $s$ is set to 8. CGLS is
 chosen  to minimize  the least-squares  problem with  the  following parameters:


@@ -838,13 +863,14 @@ Core(TM) i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHz with the version 3.5.1 of PETSc.
 In  Table~\ref{tab:02}, some  experiments comparing  the solving  of  the linear
 systems obtained with the previous matrices  with a GMRES variant and with out 2
 stage algorithm are  given. In the second column, it can  be noticed that either
 In  Table~\ref{tab:02}, some  experiments comparing  the solving  of  the linear
 systems obtained with the previous matrices  with a GMRES variant and with out 2
 stage algorithm are  given. In the second column, it can  be noticed that either

-gmres or fgmres is used to  solve the linear system.  According to the matrices,
-different  preconditioner is used.   With TSIRM,  the same  solver and  the same
-preconditionner are used.  This Table shows that TSIRM can drastically reduce the
-number of iterations to reach the  convergence when the number of iterations for
-the normal GMRES is more or less  greater than 500. In fact this also depends on
-tow  parameters: the  number  of iterations  to  stop GMRES  and  the number  of
-iterations to perform the minimization.
+GRMES or  FGMRES (Flexible  GMRES)~\cite{Saad:1993} is used  to solve  the linear
+system.   According to  the matrices,  different preconditioner  is  used.  With
+TSIRM, the same solver and the  same preconditionner are used.  This Table shows
+that  TSIRM  can  drastically reduce  the  number  of  iterations to  reach  the
+convergence when the  number of iterations for the normal GMRES  is more or less
+greater than  500. In fact  this also depends  on tow parameters: the  number of
+iterations  to  stop  GMRES  and   the  number  of  iterations  to  perform  the
+minimization.

 
 
 \begin{table}[htbp]
 
 
 \begin{table}[htbp]


@@ -905,8 +931,16 @@ by core. The Juqueen architecture is composed  of IBM PowerPC A2 at 1.6 GHz with
 speed network.
 
 
 speed network.
 
 

+In  many situations, using  preconditioners is  essential in  order to  find the
+solution of a linear system.  There are many preconditioners available in PETSc.
+For parallel applications all  the preconditioners based on matrix factorization
+are  not  available. In  our  experiments, we  have  tested  different kinds  of
+preconditioners, however  as it is  not the subject  of this paper, we  will not
+present results with many preconditioners. In  practise, we have chosen to use a
+multigrid (mg)  and successive  over-relaxation (sor). For  more details  on the
+preconditioner in PETSc please consult~\cite{petsc-web-page}.
+

 
 

-{\bf Description of preconditioners}\\

 
 \begin{table*}[htbp]
 \begin{center}
 
 \begin{table*}[htbp]
 \begin{center}


@@ -934,8 +968,7 @@ speed network.
 
 Table~\ref{tab:03} shows  the execution  times and the  number of  iterations of
 example ex15  of PETSc on the  Juqueen architecture. Different  numbers of cores
 
 Table~\ref{tab:03} shows  the execution  times and the  number of  iterations of
 example ex15  of PETSc on the  Juqueen architecture. Different  numbers of cores

-are  studied ranging  from  2,048  up-to 16,383.   Two  preconditioners have  been
-tested: {\it mg} and {\it sor}.   For those experiments,  the number  of components  (or unknowns  of the
+are  studied ranging  from  2,048  up-to 16,383 with the two preconditioners {\it mg} and {\it sor}.   For those experiments,  the number  of components  (or unknowns  of the

 problems)  per core  is fixed  to 25,000,  also called  weak  scaling. This
 number can seem relatively small. In fact, for some applications that need a lot
 of  memory, the  number of  components per  processor requires  sometimes  to be
 problems)  per core  is fixed  to 25,000,  also called  weak  scaling. This
 number can seem relatively small. In fact, for some applications that need a lot
 of  memory, the  number of  components per  processor requires  sometimes  to be


@@ -1002,7 +1035,21 @@ the number of iterations. So, the overall benefit of using TSIRM is interesting.
 \end{table*}
 
 
 \end{table*}
 
 

-In Table~\ref{tab:04}, some experiments with example ex54 on the Curie architecture are reported.
+In  Table~\ref{tab:04},  some  experiments   with  example  ex54  on  the  Curie
+architecture are reported.  For this  application, we fixed $\alpha=0.6$.  As it
+can be seen in that Table, the size of the problem has a strong influence on the
+number of iterations to reach the  convergence. That is why we have preferred to
+change the threshold.  If we set  it to $1e-3$ as with the previous application,
+only one iteration is necessray  to reach the convergence. So Table~\ref{tab:04}
+shows the results  of differents executions with differents  number of cores and
+differents thresholds. As  with the previous example, we  can observe that TSIRM
+is faster than FGMRES. The ratio greatly depends on the number of iterations for
+FMGRES to reach the threshold. The greater the number of iterations to reach the
+convergence is, the  better the ratio between our algorithm  and FMGRES is. This
+experiment is  also a  weak scaling with  approximately $25,000$  components per
+core. It can also  be observed that the difference between CGLS  and LSQR is not
+significant. Both can be good but it seems not possible to know in advance which
+one will be the best.

 
 
 \begin{table*}[htbp]
 
 
 \begin{table*}[htbp]