% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@INPROCEEDINGS{DiNapoli:21584,
author = {Di Napoli, E.},
title = {{B}lock {I}terative {S}olvers and {S}equences of
{E}igenproblems arising in {E}lectronic {S}tructure
{C}alculations},
reportid = {PreJuSER-21584},
year = {2012},
note = {Record converted from VDB: 12.11.2012},
comment = {The 12th Copper Mountain Conference on Iterative Methods},
booktitle = {The 12th Copper Mountain Conference on
Iterative Methods},
abstract = {Research in several branches of chemistry and materials
science relies on large ab initio numerical simulations. The
majority of these simulations are based on computational
methods developed within the framework of Density Functional
Theory (DFT). DFT provides the means to solve a
high-dimensional quantum mechanical problem by transforming
it into a large set of coupled one-dimensional equations,
which is ultimately represented as a non-linear generalized
eigenvalue problem. The latter is solved self-consistently
through a series of successive iteration cycles: the
solution computed at the end of one cycle is used to
generate the input in the next until the distance between
two successive solutions is negligible. Typically a
simulations requires tens of cycles before reaching
convergence. After the discretization -- intended in the
general sense of reducing a continuous problem to one with a
finite number of unknowns -- each cycle comprises dozens of
large generalized eigenproblems $P^{(i)}_{\bf k}:
A^{(i)}_{\bf k} x - \lambda B^{(i)}_{\bf k} x$ where $A$ is
hermitian and $B$ hermitian positive definite. Within every
cycle the eigenproblems are parametrized by the reciprocal
lattice vector ${\bf k}$ while the iteration index $i$
denotes the iteration cycle. The size of each problem ranges
from 10 to 40 thousand and the interest lays in the
eigenpairs corresponding to the lower 10-20\\% part of the
spectrum. Due to the dense nature of the eigenproblems and
the large portion of the spectrum requested, iterative
solvers are generally not competitive; as a consequence,
current simulation codes uniquely use direct methods.
Generally, the eigenproblem $P^{(i+1)}_{\bf k}$ is solved in
complete isolation from all $P^{(i)}$s. This is surprising
in light of the fact that each $P^{(i+1)}_{\bf k}$ is
constructed by manipulating the solutions of all the
problems at iteration $i$. In a recent study, the author
harnessed this last observation by considering every
simulation as made of dozens of sequences $\{P_{\bf k}\}$,
where each sequence groups together eigenproblems with equal
{\bf k}-vector and increasing iteration index $i$. It was
then demonstrated that successive eigenproblems in a
sequence are strongly correlated to one another. In
particular, by tracking the evolution over iterations of the
angle between eigenvectors $x^{(i)}$ and $x^{(i+1)}$, it was
shown the angles decrease noticeably after the first few
iterations. Even though the overall simulation has not yet
converged, the eigenvectors of $P^{(i)}_{\bf k}$ and
$P^{(i+1)}_{\bf k}$ are close to collinear. This result
suggests we could use the eigenvectors of $P^{(i)}$ as an
educated guess for the eigenvectors of the successive
problem $P^{(i+1)}$. The key element is to exploit the
collinearity between vectors of adjacent problems in order
to improve the performance of the solver. While implementing
this strategy naturally leads to the use of iterative
solvers, not all the methods are well suited to the task at
hand. In light of these considerations, exploiting the
evolution of eigenvectors depends on two distinct key
properties of the iterative method of choice: 1) the ability
to receive as input a sizable set of approximate
eigenvectors and exploit them to efficiently compute the
required eigenpairs, and 2) the capacity to solve
simultaneously for a substantial portion of eigenpairs. The
first property implies the solver achieves a
moderate-to-substantial reduction in the number of
matrix-vector operations as well as an improved convergence.
The second characteristic results in a solver capable of
filtering away as efficiently as possible the unwanted
components of the approximate eigenvectors. In accord to
these requirements, the class of block iterative methods
constitutes the natural choice in order to satisfy property
1); by accepting a variable set of multiple starting
vectors, these methods have a faster convergence rate and
avoid stalling when facing small clusters of eigenvalues.
When block methods are augmented with polynomial
accelerators they also satisfy property 2) and their
performance is further improved. In this study we present
preliminary results that would eventually open the way to a
widespread use of iterative solvers in ab initio electronic
structure codes. We provide numerical examples where
opportunely selected iterative solvers benefit from the
re-use of eigenvectors when applied to sequences of
eigenproblems extracted from simulations of real-world
materials. At first we experimented with a block method
(block Krylov-Schur) satisfying only property 1). At a later
stage we selected a solver satisfying both properties (block
Chebyshev-Davidson) and performed similar experiments. In
our investigation we vary several parameters in order to
address how the solvers behave under different conditions.
We selected different size for the sequence of eigenproblems
as well as an increasing number of eigenpairs to be
computed. We also vary the block size in relation with the
fraction of eigenpairs sought after and analyze its
influence on the performance of the solver. In most cases
our study shows that, when the solvers are fed approximated
eigenvectors as opposed to random vectors, they obtain a
substantial speed-up. The increase in performance changes
with the variation of the parameters but strongly indicates
that iterative solvers could become a valid alternative to
direct methods. The pivotal element allowing the achievement
of such a result resides in the transposition of the
``matrix'' of eigenproblems emerging from electronic
structure calculations; while the computational physicist
solves many rows of {\bf k}-eigenproblems (one for each
cycle) we look at the entire computation as made of {\bf
k}-sequences. This shift in focus enables one to harness the
inherent essence of the iterative cycles and translate it to
an efficient use of opportunely tailored iterative solvers.
In the long term such a result will positively impact a
large community of computational scientists working on
DFT-based methods.},
month = {Mar},
date = {2012-03-25},
organization = {Copper Mountain, Colorado, USA, 25 Mar
2012},
cin = {JSC},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)JSC-20090406},
pnm = {Scientific Computing / Simulation and Data Laboratory
Quantum Materials (SDLQM) (SDLQM)},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK411 / G:(DE-Juel1)SDLQM},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)6},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/21584},
}