1 / 24

Solving Large-scale Eigenvalue Problems in SciDAC Applications

Solving Large-scale Eigenvalue Problems in SciDAC Applications. Chao Yang Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory June 27, 2005. People Involved. LBNL: W. Gao, P. Husbands, X. S. Li, E. Ng, C. Yang (TOPS) J. Meza, L. W. Wang, C. Yang (Nano-science) SLAC: L. Lee, K. Ko Stanford: G. Golub

taite
Download Presentation

Solving Large-scale Eigenvalue Problems in SciDAC Applications

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Solving Large-scale Eigenvalue Problems in SciDAC Applications Chao Yang Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory June 27, 2005

  2. People Involved • LBNL: • W. Gao, P. Husbands, X. S. Li, E. Ng, C. Yang (TOPS) • J. Meza, L. W. Wang, C. Yang (Nano-science) • SLAC: • L. Lee, K. Ko • Stanford: • G. Golub • UC-Davis • Z. Bai

  3. SciDAC Applications • Accelerator Modeling • Nano-science

  4. Algorithms • Krylov Subspace Method • Alternatives • Optimization based approach • non-linear solver based approach • Multi-level Sub-structuring • Non-linear Eigenvalue Problems • Structure preserving methods • Optimization based method

  5. Krylov Subspace Method • Widely used, relatively well understood (Polynomial approximation theory): • Convergence of KSM: • Well separated, large eigenvalues converge rapidly • the starting vector

  6. Acceleration Techniques • Implicit Restart • Spectral transformation ARPACK filter out unwanted spectral components from v0

  7. Using KSM in accelerator modeling • the spectrum of the problem • Example: H60VG3 structure, linear element, N=30M, nnz=484M • 1024 CPUs, 738GB • Ordering time: 4143s • Numerical Factorization: 133s • Total: 5068s for 12 eigenvalues • Software: PARPACK (implicit restart) + SuperLU, WSMP (spectral transformation)

  8. Limitations of the KSM • High degree polynomial needed for computing small clustered eigenvalues • many matrix vector multiplications • Spectral transformation can be expensive • memory limitation • scalability • Not easy to introduce a preconditioner • eigenvectors of P-1A are different from eigenvectors of A

  9. Alternative algorithms • Optimization based approach • Minimizing Rayleigh Quotient • Minimizing Residual (Wood & Zunger 85, Jia 97) • Nonlinear equation solver based approach (Jacobi-Davidson) • Newton correction • Preconditioner • stopping criteria for the inner iteration (Notay 2002, Stathopoulos 2005) Allows us to solve problems with more than 90M DOF

  10. Multi-level Sub-structuring (for computing many eigenpairs) • Domain Decomposition concept • Multi-level extension of the Component Mode Synthesis (CMS) method (Bennighof 92) • Decomposition can be done algebraically (Lehoucq & Bennighof 2002) • Success story in structure engineering.... • Error analysis • Extend to accelerator modeling

  11. Matrix Partition Block elimination Sub-structure calculation (mode selection) Subspace assembling Single-level Sub-structuring

  12. Mode Selection

  13. Implementation & cost • Cost: • Flops: more than a single sparse Cholesky factorization • Storage: Block Cholesky factor + Projected matrix + some other stuff • NO triangular solves (involving the original K and M), NO orthogonalization attractive when: 1) the problem is large enough 2) a large number of eigenvalues are needed

  14. AMLS vs. Shift-invert Lanczos (SIL) DOF=65K, 3 levels of partition

  15. Waveguide BC Waveguide BC Open Cavity Waveguide BC With Cavity with External Coupling • Vector wave equation with waveguide boundary conditions can be modeled by a non-linear eigenvalue problem

  16. Quadratic Eigenvalue Problem • Consider only one mode propagating in the waveguides • Algorithms • Linearize then solve by KSM (does not preserve the structure of the problem) • Second Order Arnoldi Iteration (Bai & Su 2005) project the QEP into 2nd order Krylov Subspace

  17. Second-Order Krylov Space (Bai)

  18. SOAR is faster and more accurate (than linearization) • Accelerating cavity model for international linear collider (ILC) • 9-cell superconducting cavity coupled to one input coupler and two Higher-Order-Mode couplers. • NDOFs=3.2million, NCPUs=768, Memory=300GB • 18 eigenpairs in 2634 seconds (linearization took more than 1 hour)

  19. wave function n – real space grid size, e.g. 323~32000 k – number of occupied states, 1~10% of n Charge density Electronic Structure Calculation Etotal(X) = Ekinetic + Eionic + EHartree + Exc • Ekinetic = • Eionic = • EHartree= • Exc =

  20. Non-linear Eigenvalue Problem • Total energy minimization • KKT condition

  21. The Self Consistent Field Iteration • Input: initial guess and • Output: • Major steps • For i=1,2,…,until converged • Form • Compute k smallest eigpairs of

  22. Direct Constrained Minimization (DCM) • For i=1,2,… until convergence • Form • Compute • If (i>1) then • set • else • set • Solve • If (i>1) then • set • else • set

  23. DCM vs. SCF • Atomic system: SiH4 • Discretization: spectral method with plane wave basis: n=323 in real space, N=2103 (# of basis functions) in frequency space • Number of occupied states: k = 4 • PETOT version of SCF uses 10 PCG steps (inner iterations) per outer iteration • DCM: 3 inner iterations

  24. Concluding Remarks • Krylov Subspace Method (with appropriate acceleration strategies) continues to play an important role in solving SciDAC eigenvalue problems • Steady progress has been made in alternative approaches that can make better use of preconditioners • Multi-level sub-structuring is promising for computing many eigenpairs • Significant progress made in solving QEP • Non-linear eigenvalue problems remain challenging

More Related