Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 16 – uploaded by Vaishnavi Gujjula

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
FIGURE 15. Interaction relation of a cluster with other clusters for different levels. 4.1. HODLR2D Algorithm. Algorithm 1 provides the initialization routine of the HODLR2D based on quadtree. We start with the subdivision of the box corresponding to each the cluster into four geometrically disjoint boxes and number the resulting smaller boxes as in Figure 13. The Box B C R? is subdivided using a « level balanced quadtree such that all boxes at the leaf level have at most Nmax particles. Then for all the nodes in the Hierarchical tree, we form the set of Edge sharers (Ec) and the Interaction list (Ic). At all levels, we compress and represent the matrices corresponding to the elements in the Jc using ACA. The resulting low-rank approximation of the matrix at different levels using HODLR2D is as in Figure 16.

Figure 15 Interaction relation of a cluster with other clusters for different levels. 4.1. HODLR2D Algorithm. Algorithm 1 provides the initialization routine of the HODLR2D based on quadtree. We start with the subdivision of the box corresponding to each the cluster into four geometrically disjoint boxes and number the resulting smaller boxes as in Figure 13. The Box B C R? is subdivided using a « level balanced quadtree such that all boxes at the leaf level have at most Nmax particles. Then for all the nodes in the Hierarchical tree, we form the set of Edge sharers (Ec) and the Interaction list (Ic). At all levels, we compress and represent the matrices corresponding to the elements in the Jc using ACA. The resulting low-rank approximation of the matrix at different levels using HODLR2D is as in Figure 16.

Related Figures (32)

3. Rank growth of different interactions in 2D Let’s now represent K as a 1 level HOLDR matrix. As mentioned before, HODLR uses a K- D tree, and hence at each level in the hierarchical tree, the box is subdivided into two smaller 2.3. HODLR matrix. We now describe the HODLR [5] matrix. The HODLR matrix approxi- mates the submatrix of interactions between any two disjoint clusters as a low-rank matrix. Typi- cally, the HODLR matrix subdivides the domain using a K-D tree. Following the conventions in [16], the 1-level HODLR representation of the dense matrix A € R‘** is given in Equation (2.2).
3. Rank growth of different interactions in 2D Let’s now represent K as a 1 level HOLDR matrix. As mentioned before, HODLR uses a K- D tree, and hence at each level in the hierarchical tree, the box is subdivided into two smaller 2.3. HODLR matrix. We now describe the HODLR [5] matrix. The HODLR matrix approxi- mates the submatrix of interactions between any two disjoint clusters as a low-rank matrix. Typi- cally, the HODLR matrix subdivides the domain using a K-D tree. Following the conventions in [16], the 1-level HODLR representation of the dense matrix A € R‘** is given in Equation (2.2).
0) ; boxes each containing n particles as shown in Figure 2. Hence, Bi is subdivided into two boxes BY = [-1,0) x [-1,1] and BY = (0, 1] x [—1,1] at level 1. Let the boxes BO BM each contain n =m? particles located at m x m Chebyshev grid, where m € Zt. Let Kz € R"*” represent the interaction of particles in Bw with the particles in Bo. FIGURE 3. Scaling of the rank of the off-diagonal block with the entries defined by log(r) to its size n
0) ; boxes each containing n particles as shown in Figure 2. Hence, Bi is subdivided into two boxes BY = [-1,0) x [-1,1] and BY = (0, 1] x [—1,1] at level 1. Let the boxes BO BM each contain n =m? particles located at m x m Chebyshev grid, where m € Zt. Let Kz € R"*” represent the interaction of particles in Bw with the particles in Bo. FIGURE 3. Scaling of the rank of the off-diagonal block with the entries defined by log(r) to its size n
FIGURE 2. Subdivision of box By” into BY and BY
FIGURE 2. Subdivision of box By” into BY and BY
FIGURE 6. Rank of Far field boxes The proof for this lemma can be found in [13, 27].
FIGURE 6. Rank of Far field boxes The proof for this lemma can be found in [13, 27].
FIGURE 8. Hierarchical subdivision of box B, FIGURE 7. Rank of vertex sharing boxes
FIGURE 8. Hierarchical subdivision of box B, FIGURE 7. Rank of vertex sharing boxes
FIGURE 11. Hierarchical subdivision of box By lying inside B,; are the respective columns of the matrix A and the columns corresponding to the charges lying outside B;,; are zeroes.
FIGURE 11. Hierarchical subdivision of box By lying inside B,; are the respective columns of the matrix A and the columns corresponding to the charges lying outside B;,; are zeroes.
FIGURE 12. Numerical Rank with « = 10~" of different interactions vs size of the off-diagonal block (n)
FIGURE 12. Numerical Rank with « = 10~" of different interactions vs size of the off-diagonal block (n)
FIGURE 13. Subdivision of the box B € R? at different levels and the numbering convention used We subdivide the domain using a quadtree. We begin by subdividing the square box B (the entire domain) into 4 smaller square boxes and number them as in Figure 13 and continue this till « levels. For each smaller box, the following definitions are intended to help us describe algorithms for HODLR2D matrices. Let C denote the cluster corresponding to the node i at level 1, NO as defined in Section 2.
FIGURE 13. Subdivision of the box B € R? at different levels and the numbering convention used We subdivide the domain using a quadtree. We begin by subdividing the square box B (the entire domain) into 4 smaller square boxes and number them as in Figure 13 and continue this till « levels. For each smaller box, the following definitions are intended to help us describe algorithms for HODLR2D matrices. Let C denote the cluster corresponding to the node i at level 1, NO as defined in Section 2.
FIGURE 14. Types of clusters at level 2 for a cluster considered Figure 14 illustrates different clusters for a cluster (coloured red) at level 2.
FIGURE 14. Types of clusters at level 2 for a cluster considered Figure 14 illustrates different clusters for a cluster (coloured red) at level 2.
TABLE 1. Space complexity of HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR for matrix K whose elements are defined by Equation (5.1) To demonstrate the computational performance of HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR, we use ten different input vectors ~) € R‘*!. We obtain the right-hand side vector b € R“*! using explicit matrix-vector product Ky = b. Let K represent the hierarchical low-rank representation of K and let the computed right hand side using the algorithm be b= Ky. Table 2 compares the computational performance of HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR using the average time taken for matrix-vector product on the ten different pair ~ € R‘*! and the error is the maximum relative error €,, 1.€., €- = max . The error reported in Table 2 is the maximum error over the ten u el |b, ‘ right hand sides. All the computations in this section were performed using only a single core of Intel Xeon Gold 6248. 20-ceore. 2.5 GHz processor with memorv of 1929GB.
TABLE 1. Space complexity of HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR for matrix K whose elements are defined by Equation (5.1) To demonstrate the computational performance of HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR, we use ten different input vectors ~) € R‘*!. We obtain the right-hand side vector b € R“*! using explicit matrix-vector product Ky = b. Let K represent the hierarchical low-rank representation of K and let the computed right hand side using the algorithm be b= Ky. Table 2 compares the computational performance of HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR using the average time taken for matrix-vector product on the ten different pair ~ € R‘*! and the error is the maximum relative error €,, 1.€., €- = max . The error reported in Table 2 is the maximum error over the ten u el |b, ‘ right hand sides. All the computations in this section were performed using only a single core of Intel Xeon Gold 6248. 20-ceore. 2.5 GHz processor with memorv of 1929GB.
TABLE 2. Computational performance of HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR for matrix K whose elements are defined by Equation (5.1)
TABLE 2. Computational performance of HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR for matrix K whose elements are defined by Equation (5.1)
5.2. HODLR2D accelerated iterative solver for radial basis function interpolation. All the numerical experiments in this and the next subsection are performed without parallelization on a laptop with a 2.5GHz Intel Core i5 processor and 16GB RAM. a _ -_ = es
5.2. HODLR2D accelerated iterative solver for radial basis function interpolation. All the numerical experiments in this and the next subsection are performed without parallelization on a laptop with a 2.5GHz Intel Core i5 processor and 16GB RAM. a _ -_ = es
TABLE 4. Time taken for the iterative solver Tg to solve Equation (5.2) for ¢1(r)
TABLE 4. Time taken for the iterative solver Tg to solve Equation (5.2) for ¢1(r)
TABLE 5. Space complexity of HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR for ¢2(r)
TABLE 5. Space complexity of HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR for ¢2(r)
FIGURE 18. rm for HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR for both radial basis func- tions
FIGURE 18. rm for HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR for both radial basis func- tions
FIGURE 19. Storage for HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR for both radial basis functions
FIGURE 19. Storage for HODLR2D, H-matrix and HODLR for both radial basis functions
where wo is a vector of values of w(x) at the grid points located in the leaf boxes of the quadtree as done in [28, 29]. As done in [28, 29], we hierarchically subdivide the domain into smaller domains using a level restricted quadtree and represent the unknown function w(x) as polynomials on each of the leaf boxes of the level restricted quadtree. For our numerical experiments, we varied the number of levels in the level restricted quadtree and the number of points in the leaf level of the level restricted quadtree. It is to be noted that the level restricted quadtree mentioned here is in the context of discretizing the domain. The HODLR2D hierarchical low-rank structure still rests on the balanced quadtree as discussed in the previous section.
where wo is a vector of values of w(x) at the grid points located in the leaf boxes of the quadtree as done in [28, 29]. As done in [28, 29], we hierarchically subdivide the domain into smaller domains using a level restricted quadtree and represent the unknown function w(x) as polynomials on each of the leaf boxes of the level restricted quadtree. For our numerical experiments, we varied the number of levels in the level restricted quadtree and the number of points in the leaf level of the level restricted quadtree. It is to be noted that the level restricted quadtree mentioned here is in the context of discretizing the domain. The HODLR2D hierarchical low-rank structure still rests on the balanced quadtree as discussed in the previous section.
Since the right-hand side vector is well defined for this example, we use GMRES with stopping criteria as residual being 10~!° to get an approximate solution vector. The approximate solution vector is again used to generate the right-hand side by explicitly constructing the dense matrix and performing a matrix-vector product. The error reported in Table 8 is the relative forward error in the solution vector w. 5.4. Inferences. The key observation from the Tables 3 through 8 is that the maximum rank reported remains almost constant in the case of H#-matrix and HODLR2D, whereas for HODLR, it increases as a function of the system size. From Figures 17 through 21, it is clear that HODLR2D scales almost linearly in terms of both storage and computational complexity. In all examples considered, HODLR2D performs significantly better in space and computational complexity than HODLR and provides an attractive alternative to H-matrix.
Since the right-hand side vector is well defined for this example, we use GMRES with stopping criteria as residual being 10~!° to get an approximate solution vector. The approximate solution vector is again used to generate the right-hand side by explicitly constructing the dense matrix and performing a matrix-vector product. The error reported in Table 8 is the relative forward error in the solution vector w. 5.4. Inferences. The key observation from the Tables 3 through 8 is that the maximum rank reported remains almost constant in the case of H#-matrix and HODLR2D, whereas for HODLR, it increases as a function of the system size. From Figures 17 through 21, it is clear that HODLR2D scales almost linearly in terms of both storage and computational complexity. In all examples considered, HODLR2D performs significantly better in space and computational complexity than HODLR and provides an attractive alternative to H-matrix.
where n denotes the number of points in the cluster and m; denotes number of points in 7” cluster in I¢ and finally k; denotes number of points in j*” cluster in Ec. Upon estimating the load for each node, we schedule the nodes across the processors by prioritizing the node with largest load first and by maintaining the load per processor almost constant. It is important to note that the scheduling is done apriori and not dynamically, the reason being it suits well for hybrid (multi-core + distributed) architectures. The initialization for HODLR2D does not require communication between the MPI processes. This section will examine the parallel scalability of HODLR2D initialization (Algorithm 1) and the matrix-vector product (Algorithm 2) on distributed memory systems. The existing literature on the parallel scalability of the rank structured matrices (both flat and hierarchical formats) is extensive, and we direct our readers to some seminal work[30, 31, 32, 33]. An important factor in the parallel scalability of an algorithm is how efficiently we can divide the load across the processes. In our case, we perform this by estimating the load of each node in the quadtree using Equation (6.1).
where n denotes the number of points in the cluster and m; denotes number of points in 7” cluster in I¢ and finally k; denotes number of points in j*” cluster in Ec. Upon estimating the load for each node, we schedule the nodes across the processors by prioritizing the node with largest load first and by maintaining the load per processor almost constant. It is important to note that the scheduling is done apriori and not dynamically, the reason being it suits well for hybrid (multi-core + distributed) architectures. The initialization for HODLR2D does not require communication between the MPI processes. This section will examine the parallel scalability of HODLR2D initialization (Algorithm 1) and the matrix-vector product (Algorithm 2) on distributed memory systems. The existing literature on the parallel scalability of the rank structured matrices (both flat and hierarchical formats) is extensive, and we direct our readers to some seminal work[30, 31, 32, 33]. An important factor in the parallel scalability of an algorithm is how efficiently we can divide the load across the processes. In our case, we perform this by estimating the load of each node in the quadtree using Equation (6.1).
TABLE 9. HODLR2D Initialization time (in seconds) for different system sizes (N’ by varying number of processors
TABLE 9. HODLR2D Initialization time (in seconds) for different system sizes (N’ by varying number of processors
FIGURE 22. Speedup of parallel HODLR2D vs number of MPI processor TABLE 10. HODLR2D Mat-Vec time (in seconds) for different system sizes (N) by varying number of processors
FIGURE 22. Speedup of parallel HODLR2D vs number of MPI processor TABLE 10. HODLR2D Mat-Vec time (in seconds) for different system sizes (N) by varying number of processors
Related topics:
MathematicsComputer ScienceComputational Complexity Theory
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved