[petsc-users] Incorrect Eigenvalues when Setting KSP and PC types

Fri Sep 29 10:33:07 CDT 2017

Taking both suggestions, how about

2) Tests:
a) complex build && ftype==CHOLESKY:
  if (mat->hermitian) throw an "not supported" error

b) all builds:
  if (!mat->sbaij && (CHOLESKY || ICC))
    if (!mat->symmetric) //user does not indicate mat is symmetric
#PETSC_USE_DEBUG
      call  MatIsSymmetric(mat,0.0,&symm)
      if (!symm) throw an error
#else
     throw an error
#endif

Hong

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>
>   No I don't want you to actually check if the matrix is symmetric (too
> expensive) just throw an error if the user has not indicated the
> appropriate properties of the matrix
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 2017, at 8:19 AM, Hong <hzhang at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for all the input. I can do following:
> > 1) Move test to MatGetFactor()
> >     - If there is sufficient requests from user, we are able to add
> Hermitian support to petsc sequential Cholesky.
> >
> > 2) Tests:
> > a) complex build && ftype==CHOLESKY:
> >   if (mat->hermitian) throw an "not supported" error
> >
> > b) all builds:
> >   if (!sbaij && (CHOLESKY || ICC))
> >     if (!mat->symmetric)
> >       call  MatIsSymmetric(mat,0.0,&symm)
> >       if (!symm) throw an error
> >
> > Hong
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Greg Meyer <gregory.meyer at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > FYI my perspective as a user--something that really tricked me was that
> after setting the solver to Hermitian problem, the algorithm returned real
> eigenvalues so they seemed OK. When I turned off Hermitian as I was trying
> to debug, the eigenvalues were not at all just real, and thus it was clear
> that they were wrong. So I think the check at least when Hermitian is set
> is very important, since by construction real eigenvalues are returned.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 7:37 AM Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> >
> >   1) The test is definitely in the wrong place. If we are testing and
> erroring if using Cholesky and mat is not marked as symmetric or hermitian
> the test should be in MatGetFactor() not in a particular implementation.
> >
> >  2) It is a tough call if we should do this check or not.  There are
> good arguments in both directions.
> >
> >    One thing we could do is if the matrix is not marked as
> symmetric/hermitian is we could just check at that point (but expensive) or
> we could just check in debug mode.
> >
> >  But I think we should require the user to set the flag (note for SBAIJ
> the flag for symmetric (or hermitian? which one) should be automatically
> set at creation).
> >
> >   Hong can you move the test up to the MatGetFactor() level?
> >
> >   Thanks
> >     Barry
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 28, 2017, at 11:35 PM, Stefano Zampini <
> stefano.zampini at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hong,
> > >
> > > I personally believe that commit https://bitbucket.org/petsc/
> petsc/commits/966c94c9cf4fa13d455726ec36800a577e00b171 should be reverted.
> > > I agree on the fact that when the user sets an option (the hermitian
> one in this case) and that feature is not supported we should throw an
> error (https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/
> 8f21f52c465b775a76cda90fe9c51d0c742078c7) , but I don't like the fact
> that the user is forced to set on option to use a feature that he already
> requested (as in https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/
> 966c94c9cf4fa13d455726ec36800a577e00b171).
> > >
> > > Barry, what do you think?
> > >
> > > 2017-09-29 5:28 GMT+03:00 Hong <hzhang at mcs.anl.gov>:
> > > Greg:
> > > Thanks so much for the detailed response. I am glad to know the reason
> behind it--hopefully we eventually figure out why the solvers have this
> behavior! Hong, I really appreciate you working on a patch to throw an
> error in this case. It definitely bit me and some people using my code...
> Hopefully it doesn't happen to anyone else! :)
> > >
> > > I added an error flag for using MUMPS Cholesky factorization on
> Hermitian matrix. See branch hzhang/mumps-HermitianCholesky-errflag
> > > https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/
> 8f21f52c465b775a76cda90fe9c51d0c742078c7
> > >
> > > Jose,
> > > PETSc does not support Cholesky for Hermitian matrix.
> > >
> > > The linear solver table probably needs to be updated. I have tried
> several Cholesky solvers. With mkl_pardiso I get an explicit error message
> that it does not support Cholesky with complex scalars. The rest (PETSc,
> MUMPS, CHOLMOD) give a wrong answer (without error message). The problem is
> not related to your matrix, nor to shift-and-invert in SLEPc. I tried with
> ex1.c under PETSC_DIR/src/ksp/ksp/examples/tutorials. The example works
> in complex scalars, but the matrix is real. As soon as you add complex
> entries Cholesky fails, for instance adding this:
> > >   ierr = MatSetValue(A,0,1,1.0+PETSC_i,INSERT_VALUES);CHKERRQ(ierr);
> > >   ierr = MatSetValue(A,1,0,1.0-PETSC_i,INSERT_VALUES);CHKERRQ(ierr);
> > >
> > > In this case, you must call
> > > MatSetOption(A,MAT_HERMITIAN,PETSC_TRUE);
> > >
> > > Then, petsc will throw an error for '-pc_type cholesky'.
> > >
> > > I don't know if it is a bug or that the algorithm cannot support
> complex Hermitian matrices. Maybe Hong can confirm any of these. In the
> latter case, I agree that all packages should give an error message, as
> mkl_pardiso does.
> > >
> > > I also add an error flag for Cholesky/ICC if user does not set
> > > MatSetOption(A,MAT_SYMMETRIC,PETSC_TRUE) for aij matrix.
> > > See https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/
> 966c94c9cf4fa13d455726ec36800a577e00b171
> > >
> > > Let me know if you have any comments about this fix.
> > >
> > > Hong
> > >
> > > > El 25 sept 2017, a las 7:17, Greg Meyer <gregory.meyer at gmail.com>
> escribió:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Hong--looking at your link, there may be no special algorithm for
> Hermitian matrices in MUMPS, but that doesn't mean it can't solve them like
> it would any matrix. Furthermore it appears that Cholesky of complex
> matrices is supported from this link: https://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/
> documentation/linearsolvertable.html
> > > >
> > > > So do you or anyone have any idea why I get incorrect eigenvalues?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Greg
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:51 PM Greg Meyer <gregory.meyer at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > Ok, thanks. It seems that PETSc clearly should throw an error in
> this case instead of just giving incorrect answers? I am surprised that it
> does not throw an error...
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 5:24 PM Hong <hzhang at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > > > Greg :
> > > > Yes, they are Hermitian.
> > > >
> > > > PETSc does not support  Cholesky factorization for Hermitian.
> > > > It seems mumps does not support Hermitian either
> > > > https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/htdig/petsc-users/
> 2015-November/027541.html
> > > >
> > > > Hong
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:43 PM Hong <hzhang at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > > > Greg:
> > > >
> > > > OK, the difference is whether LU or Cholesky factorization is used.
> But I would hope that neither one should give incorrect eigenvalues, and
> when I run with the latter it does!
> > > > Are your matrices symmetric/Hermitian?
> > > > Hong
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:05 PM Hong <hzhang at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > > > Gregory :
> > > > Use '-eps_view' for both runs to check the algorithms being used.
> > > > Hong
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I'm using shift-invert with EPS to solve for eigenvalues. I find
> that if I do only
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >   ierr = EPSGetST(eps,&st);CHKERRQ(ierr);
> > > >   ierr = STSetType(st,STSINVERT);CHKERRQ(ierr);
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > in my code I get correct eigenvalues. But if I do
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >   ierr = EPSGetST(eps,&st);CHKERRQ(ierr);
> > > >   ierr = STSetType(st,STSINVERT);CHKERRQ(ierr);
> > > >   ierr = STGetKSP(st,&ksp);CHKERRQ(ierr);
> > > >   ierr = KSPGetPC(ksp,&pc);CHKERRQ(ierr);
> > > >   ierr = KSPSetType(ksp,KSPPREONLY);CHKERRQ(ierr);
> > > >   ierr = PCSetType(pc,PCCHOLESKY);CHKERRQ(ierr);
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > the eigenvalues found by EPS are completely wrong! Somehow I thought
> I was supposed to do the latter, from the examples etc, but I guess that
> was not correct? I attach the full piece of test code and a test matrix.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Greg
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Stefano
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20170929/4910a415/attachment.html>