Fill Reduction Algorithm Using Diagonal Markowitz Scheme with Local Symmetrization

1. Fill Reduction Algorithm Using Diagonal Markowitz Scheme with Local Symmetrization Patrick Amestoy ENSEEIHT-IRIT, France Xiaoye S. Li Esmond Ng Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

2. Contents • Motivation • Graph models for Gaussian elimination • Minimum priority metrics • Experimental results • Summary • Add: Runtime and space complexity

3. Motivation -- New Sparse LU Factorization Algorithms • Inexpensive pre/post-processing • Equilibration (or scaling) • Pre-permute rows or columns of A to maximize its diagonal • Find a matching with maximum weight for bipartite graph of A • Example: MC64 [Duff/Koster ‘99] • Iterative refinement • GESP (static pivoting) [Li/Demmel ‘98, SuperLU_DIST] • Pivots are chosen from the diagonal • Allow half-precision perturbation of small diagonals • Unsymmetrized multifrontal [Amestoy/Puglisi ‘00, MA41_NEW] • Prefer diagonal pivoting, but threshold pivoting is possible • Allow unsymmetric fronts, but dependency graph is still a tree • Diagonal is (almost) good • Struct(L’)  Struct(U)

4. Existing Ordering Strategies to Preserve Sparsity • Symmetric ordering algorithms on A’+A • Greedy algorithms • e.g., minimum degree, minimum deficiency, etc. • Graph partitioning • Hybrid • Problem: unsymmetric structure is not respected!

5. i i j k j k 1 1 i i Eliminate 1 j j k k • Undirected graph • After a vertex is eliminated, all its neighbors become a clique • The edges of the clique are the potential fills (upper bound !) 1 i i j j Eliminate 1 k k Structural Gaussian Elimination -- Symmetric Case

6. c1 c2 c3 c1 c2 c3 1 1 r1 r1 Eliminate 1 Eliminate 1 r2 r2 • Bipartite graph • After a vertex is eliminated, all the row & column vertices adjacent to • it become fully connected – “bi-clique” (assuming diagonal pivot) • The edges of the bi-clique are the potential fills (upper bound!) r1 r1 1 c1 c1 1 c2 c2 r2 r2 c3 c3 Structural Gaussian Elimination -- Unsymmetric Case

7. Ordering Algorithms Revisit • Markowitz [1957] for unsymmetric matrices • At step k, pick pivot in the trailing submatrix so that: • It has minimum, and • It is bounded by a numerical threshold • Bound the size of the rank-1 update matrix • Expensive to implement because it is mixed with numerical consideration • Examples: MA48 (HSL), etc. • “Restricted” Markowitz -- only look ahead a few candidate columns (rows) with the lowest degrees [Zlatev ‘80] • Minimum degree [Tinney/Walker ‘67] • Special case of Markowitz for SPD systems • Efficient implementation, because: • Diagonal is stable as numerical pivot • Use quotient graph as a compact representation without regard of numerical values

8. Simulation Result • Order(A) vs. Order(A’+A) (Markowitz vs. min degree) • Diagonal pivoting • 88 unsymmetric matrices • Mean fill ratio 0.90 • Mean flops ratio 0.79 • 54 very unsymmetric (symmetry <= 0.5) • Mean fill ratio 0.85 • Mean flops ratio 0.56

9. Current pivot p: x e1 . element list = {e1, e2} . variable list e2 x x x p If variable v adjacent to e1, it will be adjacent to p  e1 can be absorbed by p  p is representative of conn. comp. {e1, e2, p} v Quotient Graph – Symmetric Case • Elements -- representative nodes of the connected components in the eliminated subgraph • Variables -- uneliminated nodes

10. Quotient Graph -- Unsymmetric Case Current pivot p: e1 x x x e2 p v Difficulty: Path length may be greater than 2 !

11. Quotient Graph -- “Local Symmetrization” Current pivot p: e1 x x x e2 s p s s v Advantage: - Path length bounded by 2 ! Disadvantage: - Lose some asymmetry - More fill

12. Cost of Implementation • Elimination models can be implemented using standard graphs or quotient graphs, with different cost in time & space.

13. Minimum Priority Metrics • Metrics are based on “approximate degree” in the sense of AMD, can be implemented efficiently • Almost the same cost using various metrics: • Based on row & column counts: • PRODUCT (a.k.a. Markowitz), SUM, MIN, MAX, etc. • Minimum fill : areas associated with the existing cliques are deducted • …...

14. Preliminary Results with Local Symmetrization • Matrices: 98 unsymmetric in structure • Metrics : based on row/column counts or fill • Solvers: • MA41_NEW : unsymmetrized multifrontal • Local symmetrization ordering is ideal for this solver • SuperLU_DIST : GESP

15. Compare Different Metrics • Solver: MA41_NEW • Average fill ratio using various metrics with respect to Markowitz (product of row & col counts)

16. Compare with AMD(A’+A) using Min Fill -- All Unsymmetric • MA41_NEW • SuperLU_DIST

17. Compare with AMD(A’+A) using Min Fill -- Very Unsymmetric • MA41_NEW • SuperLU_DIST

18. Summary • First implementation based on BQG model • Features: supervariable, element absorption, mass elimination • Using approximate degree (degree upper bound) • Tried various metrics on large collection of matrices • PRODUCT, SUM, MIN-FILL, etc. • Not a single one is universally best, MIN-FILL is often better • Local symmetrization • Cheaper to implement, harder to understand behavior • Especially suitable for unsymmetrized multifrontal, also benefit GESP • Respectable gain for very unsymmetric matrices

19. Summary (con’d) • Results for very unsymmetric matrices • Future work • Work underway for a fully unsymmetric version • Extend to graph partitioning strategy

20. The End

21. 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 Example G(A) A 1 x 2 x x x 3 x 4 x 5 x x x 6 x x 7 column row