Printer Friendly

Numerical experiments with algebraic multilevel preconditioners.

Abstract. This paper numerically compares different algebraic multilevel preconditioners to solve symmetric positive definite linear systems with the preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithm on a set of examples arising mainly from discretization of second order partial differential equations. We compare several different smoothers, influence matrices and interpolation schemes.

Key words. multilevel preconditioner, conjugate gradient.

AMS subject classifications. 65F10, 65F50.

1. Introduction. In this paper we report on numerical experiments using some multilevel preconditioners for solving symmetric positive definite linear systems Ax = b with the Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (PCG) method.

The methods we would like to compare are purely algebraic algorithms that only use the matrix and the right hand side as inputs.

An important issue for solving very large problems on Tflops scale parallel computers is scalability. One would like to have the computer time constant when the problem size per processor is fixed and the number of processors increases, which means that the dimension of the problem is increasing. When using an iterative method like PCG, this implies that the number of iterations must be constant when the problem size is increased. But this is not enough since we also need to have a number of operations per iteration proportional to the problem size. We will see that most multilevel preconditioners considered in this paper lead to algorithms which are almost scalable for some problems arising from discretization of second order partial differential equations.

All these methods use the same design principles as the Algebraic Multigrid algorithm (AMG). The standard AMG is a multigrid-like method that has been firstly defined for M-matrices; see [8], [2]. After some smoothing steps, the equation for the error with the residual as the right hand side is solved recursively on a coarser grid, corresponding to a subset of the unknowns. In AMG the coarse meshes are defined by looking at the entries of the matrix A. This is based on the fact that for M-matrices the largest entries in the inverse (which are positive) are given by the structure of A. Moreover, there is a decrease of the entries of the inverse away from the structure of A; see [5]. The set of dependencies of an unknown (a node) is defined by (a part of) the neighbours of the given node. An influence set is defined for each unknown as the "transpose" of the set of dependencies. The fine and coarse nodes for each level are found on this basis. Then, knowing the fine and coarse nodes, interpolation weights are computed using the entries of A and the equations of the linear system. The restriction R is the transpose of the interpolation (prolongation) matrix P and the coarse matrix is generally defined as Ac = RAP. As we said before, the method also uses a smoothing operator. An iteration (V-cycle) of the recursive algorithm is the following:

1. Do v iterations of smoothing. 2. Restrict the residual r to [r.sub.c] = [R.sub.r]. 3. Recursively solve [A.sub.c][e.sub.c] = [r.sub.c]. 4. Interpolate [e.sub.c] to e = P[e.sub.c]. 5. Add the correction e to the current iterate. 6. Do v iterations of smoothing.

More generally we can introduce a parameter [gamma] and replace step 3 by doing iterations of the same algorithm with one level less. Choosing [gamma] = 1 is the V-cycle just described and having [gamma] = 2 is denoted as a W-cycle.

For the classical (geometric) multigrid method, typically for the Poisson equation in the unit square with finite differences, one uses Gauss-Seidel (or relaxed Jacobi) as a smoother, bilinear interpolation and a coarse mesh defined by taking every other node in each direction in a red-black fashion; see [2]. For discontinuous or anisotropic coefficients problems more sophisticated smoothers and/or interpolations (using the matrix entries) have to be used. This is what we are supposed to get automatically with AMG.

If everything is symmetric (which can be obtained by using symmetric Gauss-Seidel as a smoother) a preconditioner for PCG is given by running one iteration of the previous algorithm starting from [x.sup.0] = 0.

The multilevel preconditioners we are going to compare proceed in the same way as AMG using different definitions of the smoother, the coarsening algorithm and the interpolation.

In the following sections we describe the algorithms in more detail and some numerical results which have been obtained on several elliptic problems as well as more general linear systems.

2. The multilevel preconditioners. We are going to look at the different components of the multilevel algorithm: the smoother, the influence matrix, the coarsening and interpolation algorithms.

2.1. The smoother.

2.1.1. Symmetric Gauss-Seidel. When solving symmetric linear systems with PCG we need a symmetric positive definite preconditioner. One way to extend what is done in classical multigrid is to use a symmetric Gauss-Seidel iteration. The Gauss-Seidel algorithm is done with the given ordering of the unknowns and then another step is done using the reverse ordering. We will denote this smoother by 'gs' in the numerical experiments.

2.1.2. Incomplete Cholesky. Another smoother which has been proposed is the Incomplete Cholesky (IC) decomposition [LD.sup.-1][L.sup.T] (where L is lower triangular and D diagonal) of the matrix. There are many different variants of this algorithm. The most popular one is to use a decomposition whose non zero structure of L is the same as the structure of the lower triangular part of A. However, one can also keep a part of the fill-in either by looking at the size of the entries or by using the levels of fill-in, see [6] for a review and the references therein. In the numerical experiments reported here we will only consider the variant with no fill although to be fair in comparison with the other approximate inverse smoothers we should have retained some fill in for the most difficult problems. This incomplete decomposition is used in a Richardson iteration

[LD.sup.-1][L.sup.T] ([x.sup.k+1] - [x.sup.k]) = b - A[x.sup.k];

when solving Ax = b. We will denote this smoother by 'ic'.

2.1.3. AINV approximate inverse. Here the idea is to use an approximate inverse M from AINV as a smoother in a Richardson iteration defined as

[x.sup.k+1] = [x.sup.k] + M(b - A[x.sup.k]);

when solving Ax = b; see [1], [7]. This preconditioner computes an approximate factorization M = [ZD.sup.-1][Z.sup.T] of the inverse of A and involves a parameter [tau] used to define which elements are dropped during the factorization.

If we first consider a two-grid algorithm using one step of pre-smoothing and one step of post-smoothing starting from [x.sup.0] = 0, we can easily see from [7], that the preconditioner which we denote by [[??].sub.1] is defined as

[[??].sub.1] = M + M(I - AM) + (I - MA)(P[(RAP).sup.-1]R)(I - AM):

The matrix M from AINV is symmetric positive definite. Obviously [[??].sub.1] is symmetric. It has been shown in [7] that [[??].sub.1] is positive definite if we suppose that M is such that [rho](I - AM) < 1. In [7] it was also proven that under the same hypothesis 1 is a multiple eigenvalue of [[??].sub.1]A. Moreover, all the eigenvalues of [[??].sub.1]A are smaller than or equal to 1.

This occurs whatever the choice ofM, R and P as long as M and [[??].sub.1] are symmetric and positive definite. Therefore the convergence rate of PCG using the two-grid preconditioner depends only on the smallest eigenvalue. Moreover, the same results apply if the coarse matrix is obtained by using the same algorithm recursively, that is in the multilevel case.

2.1.4. The approximate inverse of Tang and Wan. This smoother is an approximate inverse suggested by Tang and Wan in [9]. The approximate inverse M for a general matrix A is computed to minimize

[[parallel] I - MA [parallel]].sub.F],

the F norm being the Frobenius norm. This problem is equivalent to solving n [l.sub.2] minimization problems, n being the order of A,

[parallel] [A.sup.T][m.sub.i] - [e.sub.i][parallel]; (2.1)

where [m.sup.T.sub.i] is the ith row of M and [e.sub.i] is the ith column of the identity matrix. Generally the difficult point in deriving approximate inverses of this type is to select the sparsity pattern to be imposed on M. There are sophisticated algorithms to do this adaptively. However, here we are only looking for a smoother. The proposal of Tang and Wan is to use a sparsity pattern corresponding to the neighbours of node i in the graph of A. More specifically, if we define the neighbours of i to be at level 0 and the same plus the neighbours of the neighbours to be at level 1, in the same way we can define the k-level neighbour set for any k > 0.

The smoother is defined by extracting from [A.sup.T] the (k; l) submatrix [A.sup.T.sub.k,l] corresponding to the rows in level k and the columns in level l and then solving the least squares problem (2.1) with the normal equations

[A.sub.k;l][A.sup.T.sub.k;l][m.sub.i] = [A.sub.k,l][e.sub.i].

This gives the ith row of M. Here we shall use l = 1; k = 0 as proposed by Tang and Wan, although this will not be enough for the most difficult problems. Usually this gives small linear systems to solve when the matrix A is sparse. However, the matrix M might not be symmetric, therefore we use 1/2 (M + [M.sup.T]) as the smoother. As with AINV, this is used in a Richardson iteration. We denote this smoother by 'tw'.

2.1.5. Conjugate gradient. A few iterations of the conjugate gradient algorithm have been suggested as a smoother. We will use v = 3 iterations of CG with a diagonal preconditioner and denote this smoother as 'gc'. We use 3 iterations because for most problems this gives the minimum number of operations.

2.1.6. Conjugate gradient with AINV preconditioner. We use 3 iterations of CG preconditioned with AINV with a parameter [tau]. This will be denoted as 'cg'.

2.1.7. A least squares polynomial. This smoother is simply to define M as a least squares polynomial preconditioner [p.sub.k]. We wish to have the polynomial [lambda][p.sub.k]([lambda]) as close as possible to 1 in some sense on [a; b], an interval enclosing the eigenvalues of A. One way of achieving this is to look for the polynomial [p.sub.k] of degree k [member of] [Q.sub.k], the set of polynomials of degree less than or equal to k that minimizes

[[integral].sup.b.sub.a] (1 - [lambda]q[([lambda])).sup.2]w([lambda]) d[lambda]; q [member of] [Q.sub.k];

where w([lambda]) is a positive weight. Usually, one chooses the Jacobi weights,

w([lambda]) = [(b - [lambda]).sup.[alpha]][([lambda] - a).sup.[beta]], [alpha] [greater than or equal to] [beta] [greater than or equal to] - 1/2,

because we know the orthogonal polynomials associated with these weights. The solution of the minimization problem is explicitly known; see [6]. We shall use the Chebyshev weights [alpha] = [beta] = -1/2, and a [greater than or equal to] 0 and b are given by the Gerschgorin bounds for the eigenvalues of A. A stable algorithm for computing z = [P.sub.k](A)r is the following (see [6] for details of the derivation):

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],

and

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

Then,

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],

and

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

Finally,

z = [square root of (2/[pi])] 2/a - b [z.sub.1] + [u.sub.2]:

This preconditioner is also used as a smoother in a Richardson iteration. We denote this smoother by 'po' and k will be the degree of the polynomial.

2.2. The influence matrix. An important part of the algorithm is to decide which unknowns correspond to the fine "nodes" or points and which to the coarse points. Hence, the set N = {1, ... n} of the unknown indices is split into two sets N = F [union] C.

First of all, for each unknown (point or node) i we define the set of dependencies [S.sub.i] and an influence matrix S whose rows are the [S.sub.i]'s padded with zeros. This can be done in many ways. The standard AMG algorithm (see [4], [8], [10], [2]) for an M-matrix defines

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],

where [tau] is a parameter that defines which elements are strongly connected to i. The set of points that i influences is [S.sup.T.sub.i] = {j|i [member of] [S.sub.j]}. This definition can be generalized to any matrix by

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

Since the previous definition uses the matrix A itself we will denote it by 'a' in the numerical experiments. We remark that this influence matrix is local as it is looking only at the neighbours of i in the graph of A.

Rather than using an influence matrix given by the entries of A, it seems natural to measure the influences of the points by the inverse of A since this describes how the unknowns are linked together. However, since we only have (eventually) at our disposal the approximate inverse M from AINV or the Tang and Wan approximate inverse, we can define (see [7])

[S.sup.M.sub.i] = {j [member of] N, j [not equal to] i| [m.sub.i,j] [not equal to] 0}.

This choice will be denoted as 'm'. Generally, we do not want to compute M when using AINV since it is only given in factored form and the solve at every iteration can be done with multiplications with Z and [Z.sup.T]. Thus we will also define the influence matrix as

[S.sup.Z.sub.i] = {j [member of] N, j [not equal to] i| [n.sub.i,j] [not equal to] 0}.

Let Q be a diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are the square roots of those of [D.sup.-1] and [??] = ZQ. Then, the matrix N is defined as N = [??] + [[??].sup.T] - Q. This choice will be denoted as 'z'.

We will see in the numerical experiments that when solving anisotropic problems with AINV the choices 'm' and 'z' can lead us to obtain too many couplings and coarse grids with very few points. Although this is right from the physics of the problem, it does not always allow us to compute the solution as fast as we would like and moreover we will not be able to use every interpolation scheme with these grids. A way to avoid this is to compute the coarse grid and then to check if every F node has at least one C node in its neighbours in the graph of A. If this is not the case, we can choose one of the neighbours and change its status to a C point. One can also filter the matrix [S.sup.Z] by only keeping the largest elements in N.

Another way to obtain coarse grids with more nodes using AINV is to use two approximate inverses, one with a threshold [[tau].sub.1] to compute the coarse grid and another one with a threshold [[tau].sub.2] [less than or equal to] [[tau].sub.1] as a smoother. The first decomposition can be easily obtained from the second one. This would allow us to be able to smooth more on difficult problems without leading to grids which are too coarse.

2.3. The coarsening algorithm. Once [S.sub.i] is fixed by any of the previous methods, there are different ways we can follow to decide which are the F and C points.

2.3.1. Algorithm C1. What we are going to denote as the "standard" ('st') coarsening algorithm is mainly based on two principles:

1. For each i [member of] F, each node j [member of] [S.sub.i] should either be in C or should depend on at least one point in [C.sub.i], which is the set of coarse points which are going to be used for the interpolation of i.

2. C should be (as much as possible) a maximal subset with the property that no C point depends on another C point.

The first criterion tends to increase the number of C points. The second one is used to limit the number of points in the coarse grid. The standard coarsening algorithm is defined by two passes. The first one uses weights [w.sub.i], which are the number of points that depend on i. One step of the algorithm is the following:

1. Choose the first point i with maximal weight as a C point.

2. Assign the points that i influences as F points.

3. Increment by 1 the weights of the points influencing these new F points.

4. Decrease by 1 the weights of the points that depend on i.

This first pass guarantees that each F point has at least one connection to a C point. This is needed for the standard interpolation. It tends sometimes to produce too many F points. A second pass (see [10]) could be added in which some F points are made into C points to enforce the first criterion and to minimize C-C connections. The idea is to test each F point to see if the first criterion is satisfied. The neighbours of i are split into the coarse (interpolatory) points [C.sub.i], the strongly connected non interpolatory points [D.sup.S.sub.i] (those which belong to [S.sub.i]) and the weakly connected non interpolatory points [D.sup.W.sub.i]. If there is a point in [D.sup.S.sub.i] which is not connected to [C.sub.i], it is tentatively flagged as a C point. If the first criterion is verified with this new C point, it is definitely considered as a C point and testing on other F points continues.

For the problems we are going to consider this second pass has not much effect and since it is costly we are going to skip it.

2.3.2. Algorithm C2. There are many other ways to generate the F and C points. Let us look at an algorithm proposed by Cleary, Falgout, V.A. Henson, and Jones [3]. This algorithm was devised to be used on parallel computers. When used in parallel the algorithm first selects a set of independent points and then operates independently on the points of this set, which are the starting points. The weights to be used are the same as in 'st' (although [3] added random numbers to break ties). For our purpose, since we are not looking at the parallelism issue, we just select one point. One step of the algorithm is:

1. Choose a point i of maximal weight as a C point (but check if this does not introduce a C-C connection).

2. For all points j that influence i decrease the weight of j by 1 and remove edge i, j from the graph of S.

3. For all points j that depend on i, remove edge j, i from the graph and for each k that j influences if k depends on i decrease the weight of j by 1, remove the edge k, j from the graph.

4. When the weight of a point is 0 (or 1) flag it as an F point. The original proposal [3] does not refuse C-C connections and flags nodes when their weight is 0. We will denote this algorithm by 'p' and the one with a check and a flag when the weight is 1 by 'p1'.

2.3.3. Algorithm C3. Another possibility is to use the following algorithm. As weights we use the max norms of the columns of M or N scaled to have a unit diagonal. We choose the point with maximal weight as a C point and flag the influences as F points. We find the points that influence the new F points and raise their weights by a percentage of the initial maximum weight. This is followed by the second pass of the standard algorithm. Finally, for interpolation purposes, we check that every F point has at least one C neighbour. This will be denoted as 'm2'.

Finally, we remark that the selection of the coarse grids depends on the matrices on the coarse levels and therefore also on the interpolation scheme which gives P and R and consequently the next coarse matrix. This implies that if we change the interpolation scheme, the number and location of coarse nodes also change.

2.4. The interpolation algorithm. The classical multigrid algorithm uses bilinear interpolation. However, it is well known that this is not satisfactory for general problems.

2.4.1. Algorithm I1. The standard AMG algorithm uses instead an interpolation based on the equations in the linear system. However, some approximations have to be done. Finally, for a point i in F, the interpolation weight with a coarse point j is

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

This will be denoted as 'st' (standard interpolation). It is obtained by writing the equation for Ae = 0 and by doing some approximations; namely writing that [e.sub.j] [approximately equal to] [e.sub.i] for weak connections and using a weighted average for F connections. Note that the given F point needs to have at least one coarse point in its neighbourhood in the graph of A in order to be able to apply this interpolation scheme.

2.4.2. Algorithm I2. We can also use the approximate inverse to generate the interpolation weights; see [7]. Let [C.sub.i] be the set of coarse nodes in [S.sub.i]. For an F point i, the interpolation weights [w.sub.i,j] are defined as

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],

where N = M or [??] + [[??].sup.T] - Q. In fact, in the most general case we use the absolute values of the coefficients. The rationale behind this choice being that the points which are more important for interpolation are the ones with the strongest connections. These choices will be denoted respectively as 'im' and 'iz'.

2.4.3. Algorithm I3. Another possibility is to use the approximate inverse in a different way. Suppose the matrix is permuted to

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],

and we have an approximate inverse M partitioned in the same way. This can be an approximate inverse of the permuted A or the permutation of an approximate inverse (note that this is not the same). Then, we can set the interpolation matrix as

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],

and the restriction is as usual R = [P.sup.T]. The RAP matrix is

RAP = [A.sub.c,c] - [A.sup.T.sub.f,c][M.sub.f,f][A.sub.f,c] - [A.sup.T.sub.f,c][M.sub.f,f] (I - [A.sub.f,f][M.sub.f,f)[A.sub.f,c],

that is an approximate Schur complement plus a correction term which must be small if [M.sub.f,f] is a good approximation of the inverse of [A.sub.f,f]. Strictly speaking, using the equations, we would have to apply a correction on the F unknowns after interpolation, but we neglect this as there was not a clear gain in the numerical experiments for large problems. We will refer to this as 'sc' interpolation.

2.4.4. Algorithm I4. We will also consider briefly other interpolation schemes. One is the energy minimization interpolation described by Wan, Chan, and Smith in the finite element framework; see [12]. Although this is formulated for finite elements, this interpolation can be used in a more general setting. The prolongation operator relates the coarse grid basis functions [[theta].sup.H.sub.i] to the fine grid basis functions [[theta].sup.h.sub.i] by

[[theta].sup.H.sub.1] ... [[theta].sup.H.sub.m] = [[theta].sup.h.sub.1] ... [[theta].sup.h.sub.n] P.

The coarse grid functions can be expressed in the fine grid basis

[[theta].sup.H.sub.i] = [n.summation over (j=1)] [[psi].sup.i.sub.j][[psi.sup.h.sub.j],

and we are looking for coefficients [[psi].sup.i.sub.j] that minimize the A-norm of the coarse grid basis functions satisfying the fact that the interpolation of a constant value is exact. Let

[[psi].sup.i] = [([[psi].sup.i.sub.1] ... [[psi].sup.i.sub.n]).sup.T], [theta] = [([[psi].sup.1] ... [[psi].sup.m]).sup.T].

Then, the minimization problem is min 1/2 [[psi].sup.T] Q[theta]; [B.sup.T] [theta] = 1; where 1 is a vector of all ones, Q is a block diagonal matrix whose diagonal blocks [Q.sub.i] are given by [([Q.sub.i]).sub.k,l] = [a.sub.k,l] if k and l are neighbours of i (in the graph of A) and [[delta].sub.k,l] otherwise. The constraints matrix B is given as [B.sup.T] = ([I.sup.T.sub.1] ... [I.sup.T.sub.m]); with [([I.sub.i]).sub.k,l] = 1 if k = l, i being a neighbour of k and 0 otherwise. The minimization problem is solved using a Lagrange multiplier [LAMBDA]. This gives a linear system

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

This is solved by eliminating [theta] to get ([B.sup.T][Q.sup.-1]B)[LAMBDA] = -1. Fortunately, [Q.sup.-1] is not difficult to obtain, since Q is block diagonal with small blocks. Once we have [theta] and therefore the [[psi].sup.j.sub.s], we set P = ([[psi].sup.1] ... [[psi].sup.m]). This interpolation will be denoted as 'em'.

2.4.5. Algorithm I5. Following the ideas of Wagner [11] we can try to compute an interpolation that minimizes [[parallel](I - P[R.sub.inj])S[parallel].sub.F]; where [R.sub.inj] is the injection and S is the smoothing operator. So, this interpolation does not only involve A but the smoothing operator. Wagner [11] also uses this to determine the fine and coarse points. Here, we assume they are given by the coarsening algorithm. Then, we just have to solve simple constrained quadratic minimization problems. Let [q.sub.i] be vectors such that [([q.sub.i]).sub.k] is 1 if k = i, -[p.sub.i,k] s if k [member of] [P.sub.i], the set of nodes used for the interpolation in i [member of] F, and 0 otherwise. The [p.sub.i,k] s are the entries of P. Then, for all i we have to solve

min [[parallel][S.sup.T] [q.sub.i][parallel].sub.2]; [q.sup.T.sub.i] 1 = 0:

This interpolation is denoted by 'wi'.

2.4.6. Algorithm I6. A last possibility is to use a "local" solve to compute the interpolation weights. Suppose we are considering node i [member of] F. Then i has coarse and fine neighbours. We look only at the coarse neighbours of the fine neighbours (assuming that we will fix a value of zero for the fine neighbours of the fine neighbours). Then from A we extract the matrix corresponding to this set of nodes (i, the neighbours of i and the coarse neighbours of the fine neighbours of i) and we express the fine unknowns as a function of the coarse unknowns in this "small" system. The coefficients expressing i as a function of the coarse nodes give the interpolation weights when normalized for having a sum of 1. If the extracted matrix is

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],

then, we have [x.sub.f] = -[B.sup.-1.sub.f,f][B.sub.f,c][x.sub.c], and this gives the desired solution. This interpolation is denoted by 'wm'. It is a little bit similar to the Schur complement interpolation but operates only locally. Of course, it can be extended to a larger stencil by considering the neighbours of the neighbours of the neighbours and so on.

Numerically, we will only look at these different interpolations for one (discontinuous) problem we are going to describe, since it is almost impossible to test the possible combinations of influence, coarsening, interpolation, and smoother.

2.5. Other possibilities. Variations of the previous algorithms which use the approximate inverse AINV include using a parameter [tau] which varies with the level or using only the q largest elements on each column of Z. Another possibility is to use the regular AINV on the finest level and to truncate on the coarsest levels. This can sometimes save some floating point operations and still give the same number of iterations as the full algorithm. Many other smoothers have been suggested in the literature like block Jacobi or symmetric Gauss-Seidel with multicolor orderings.

3. Numerical experiments. Here we describe the test problems we use and we comment on the results which are given in tables in the next section. In all the experiments in this paper, we stop with a criterion

[parallel][r.sup.k][parallel] [less than or equal to] [epsilon] [parallel][r.sup.0][parallel],

where [r.sup.k] is the residual at iteration k and [epsilon] = [10.sup.-10]. The right hand side b is the same random vector in all experiments of the same dimension and the initial vector is [x.sup.0] = 0.

3.1. The Poisson equation. We solve the Poisson equation with Dirichlet boundary conditions in the unit square with mdiscretization points in each direction (excluding boundaries) with a natural (left to right and bottom to top) ordering. This gives a matrix of order n = [m.sup.2]. It is well known (see for instance [6]) that the condition number of the matrix is proportional to 1/[h.sup.2] where h = 1=(m + 1). This can be computed analytically. Experimentally, we found that [kappa](A) = 0:4 [h.sup.2]. For the dimensions we used (m = 10 : 10 : 60) this gives 48:4; 178:1; 388:8; 680:6; 1053:4; 1506:2; therefore this matrix can be considered as well conditioned.

Let us first look at the AMG algorithm (that is, as a stand alone algorithm not using PCG).We use a Gauss-Seidel smoother, the coarse grids are chosen using 'a', with [tau] = 0:06 (but any value less than 0:25 will give the same results at least for the first coarse level), the standard interpolation 'st' and one step of pre and post smoothing (v = 1). We would like to note that these results are obtained with our own Matlab implementation of this algorithm and it might not be completely comparable to what was defined in [8]. So, we do not claim that our results are representative of what could be obtained with the implementation of Ruge and Stuben. We note also that we could have used all the smoothers, coarsening algorithms and interpolation schemes we are considering in an AMG-like algorithm and not as a preconditioner for CG. AMG has the advantage over PCG of not requiring scalar products.

We give the number of iterations, the reduction factor [rho] (which is computed on the last iterations), the number of floating point operations (excluding the initialization phase). In Table 1 we look at the multigrid results for (our implementation of the) AMG with a maximum of 7 levels (which is enough for the problem sizes we are going to consider). We use a direct solver when the dimension of the matrix is smaller than 10. The coarsening algorithm is used without a second pass. We give the number of operations divided by n and on the last line the number of points in the different grids.

We can see from Table 1 that the number of iterations is constant (at least for these problem sizes) as well as the asymptotic reduction factor. Moreover, the number of operations is almost 1470 n. This means that this method is scalable for this particular problem. However, an iteration of this method cannot be used as a preconditioner for PCG since the corresponding matrix [[??].sub.1] is not symmetric positive definite. As we said before we will have to use a symmetric Gauss-Seidel smoother.

We now start looking at the results for the multilevel preconditioners using PCG. The algorithms are denoted by a tuple: (smoother, influence, coarsening, interpolation). Moreover we can also use different values of v the number of smoothing steps and/or of the cycle parameter [gamma]. In addition to the number of iterations, we give the number of nodes on each grid as well as the total storage for the preconditioner under 'str'. The number of operations is also given (under 'op') as well as the number of operations divided by the problem size. This is used to assess the real (sequential) scalability of the algorithm. Finally, we give the condition number as given by the eigenvalues that can be computed from the PCG coefficients. This might not be very accurate when the number of iterations is too small.

We remark that we cannot test all the combinations of the smoother, the influence matrix, the coarsening and the interpolation. For instance, we cannot use the standard 'st' interpolation if we do not have at least one coarse point in the neighbours of a fine node in the graph of A.

Table 2 gives the results of an algorithm using ('gs', 'a', 'st', 'st'). This algorithm is scalable with an operation count about the same as AMG (with v = 1). The cost of the smoother is larger (since we use symmetric Gauss-Seidel) but the number of iterations is approximately half those of AMG. Of course, the storage is rather low as we do not have to store the smoother for the symmetric Gauss-Seidel method. However, we note that this algorithm is not parallel. To obtain a parallel algorithm the symmetric Gauss-Seidel smoother would have to be used with a multicolor ordering of the unknowns. Finally, we can see that it does not pay to smooth more by using v > 1 since the decrease in the number of iterations is not large enough to compensate the increase for the cost of one iteration. It is interesting to note that the coarse matrices are better and better conditioned when their dimension decreases. For instance, for m = 40 we have [kappa](AC) = 680:6; 170:6; 42:5; 10:6; 2:8. The ratio between successive condition numbers is almost 4. This is also true for other problem sizes.

Table 3 shows the results with an Incomplete Cholesky smoother everything else being the same as in Table 2. The results of Table 3 are a little better than those in Table 2 using a symmetric Gauss-Seidel smoother regarding the number of operations. The storage is larger with the IC smoother since we have to store the preconditioner. The method is scalable but also not parallel although there are some ways to partially parallelize the Incomplete Cholesky factorization.

Table 4 gives results for the AINV smoother everything else being the same as in Table 2. The results in Table 4 show that AINV is a smoother which is not as good (with this value of [tau]) as the symmetric Gauss-Seidel or the Incomplete Cholesky decomposition. The number of iterations is almost twice what it is for IC. However, it must be noted that we do not keep too much fill-in in AINV (using a smaller value of the parameter [tau] will decrease the number of iterations although at the expense of a larger storage). Moreover, AINV is a fully parallel smoother since it only involves matrix-vector multiplies. The number of iterations can be lowered by using a W-cycle ([gamma] = 2). Then for v = 1; 2; 5 we obtain 9; 6; 4 iterations but the number of operations is larger than with [gamma] = 1.

The results for 'tw' are given in Table 5. From these results and comparing with those in Table 4, we see than 'tw' is a better smoother than 'ai'. The number of iterations and the number of operations are approximately the same as for the symmetric Gauss-Seidel smoother 'gs'. However, using 'tw' is fully parallel since the operation to apply the smoother is a matrix-vector product.

Table 6 gives the results for 3 iterations of the conjugate gradient with a diagonal preconditioner as a smoother. This is a good smoother but more expensive than IC. The number of iterations is smaller than for the AINV smoother but the cost is higher.

Table 7 shows that it is not interesting to use PCG with an AINV preconditioner as a smoother for this problem. The number of iterations is the same as with a diagonal preconditioner but, of course, the cost is larger. However, using this smoother is better than smoothing more when using the AINV smoother.

The results for the least squares polynomial are given in Table 8. We use a polynomial of order 1 since it is shown in Table 9 that, although increasing the degree of the polynomial decreases the number of iterations, there is no gain concerning the number of operations. This is because the decrease in the number of iterations is not fast enough to compensate for the larger number of matrix-vector products when we increase the degree.

The polynomial is computed using an interval [a; b], which is usually taken as 0 [less than or equal to] a [less than or equal to] [[lambda].sub.min](A); b [greater than or equal to] [[lambda].sub.max](A). We have tried varying a since one can argue that we do not need to approximate all the eigenvalue spectrum for a smoother. For the Poisson problem, starting with a = [[lambda].sub.min] and increasing a towards b increases slightly the number of iterations by 1 or 2.

In Table 10 we look at the other coarsening algorithms when using 'a' to define the influence matrices and AINV as a smoother. The good news is that the number of iterations is almost insensitive to the coarsening algorithm. The bad news is that there can be very large differences in the number of operations depending on the choices of the coarse grids. For instance, 'p' (as used in this paper) tends to generate coarse grids with too many nodes and the cost is much larger. So, it is of interest to be able to generate coarse grids with as many few nodes as we could while preserving the number of iterations.

We now describe the results with the other interpolation schemes. Table 11 gives the results with the Schur interpolation 'sc'. The results using the Schur interpolation are clearly not scalable. There is a large increase in the number of iterations, the number of operations and the storage. Therefore, we won't use this algorithm anymore for the other problems. However, we note that this kind of interpolation has been used successfully in other papers but with a diagonal approximation to [A.sub.f,f].

Table 12 gives the results for the interpolation scheme using the entries of the factors of the approximate inverse. The results of Table 12 are (almost) scalable. Although the number of iterations is slightly larger than for other smoothers (which shows that AINV is not as good in this respect as IC) the number of operations is scalable. We note that there is a slight increase in the condition number which is about twice what it is for IC. The storage is comparable with IC. We remark that the cost is a little bit higher because, for this problem, there are a few more nodes on the coarse grids than using 'a' but the differences are very small. This can possibly be corrected by using a smaller value of [tau] since we will have less coarse nodes. However, the main reason for the difference in the number of iterations is the smoother.

One way to lower the number of iterations is to keep more fill-in (by using a smaller value of [tau]) at the expense of more operations per iteration or by using a W-cycle ([gamma] = 2) but this also gives a larger number of operations.

If we would have used the standard 'st' interpolation (which is feasible for this problem because every F node has a C node in its neighbours in the graph of A) we would have gotten the same results within one or two iterations. Therefore, our choice of algorithm could depend on our goals: a parallel algorithm, the smallest number of operations or the smallest storage. Unfortunately some of these goals are conflicting.

The conclusion for the Poisson equation is that all these preconditioners are given good results except the one using the Schur interpolation. They are all scalable and it appears that the most important component for this problem is the smoother. However, this equation has constant coefficients, so we must investigate more difficult problems before being able to make choices.

3.2. An anisotropic problem. We now would like to solve a diffusion problem with constant but anisotropic coefficients. The diffusion coefficient is 1 in the x-direction and 100 in the y-direction. This is a tough problem for approximate inverses since the decrease in the elements of the inverse of A is very slow in one direction and therefore approximations of the inverse with only a few non zero entries are not going to be accurate. In fact, the fill-in for the approximate factors in AINV is very sensitive to the threshold parameter.

On the contrary, this is a very nice problem for IC if the unknowns are properly numbered since the approximate factorization is close to the exact one since (with possibly some renumbering) the matrix is almost block diagonal with tridiagonal blocks. In fact a block diagonal smoother will probably do well on this problem.

We symmetrically scale the matrix A to have a unit diagonal (obtaining Ad). However, for this problem, the condition number of the scaled matrix is the same as for the original one. Moreover, the condition number of A is almost the same as for the Poisson problem: 0:4/[h.sup.2]. The scaling is more generally necessary to have a threshold parameter [tau] which is not varying too much with the problem. The condition numbers of AC for m = 40 are 672:3; 171:6; 59:3; 27:3; 14:6; 8:6; 6:1.

Table 13 gives the results of our AMG implementation. The number of iterations is constant and the number of operations is approximately 1670 n. This is almost the same as for the Poisson problem. Therefore we have a scalable algorithm.

Table 14 gives the results using the multilevel preconditioner with the symmetric Gauss-Seidel smoother. The coarse grids are generated by looking at the matrix entries. For this matrix, this automatically gives a semi coarsening with a very regular grid.

Table 15 gives the results for IC as a smoother. They are better than with symmetric Gauss-Seidel because IC is doing well for this problem. However, these two smoothers are not parallel.

Table 16 gives the results using AINV as a smoother. As we said before, this leads to more storage than, for instance using IC, because of the decay properties of the inverse. It does not exist a value of [tau] giving the same storage as for IC. The only way to get a smaller storage will be to truncate the approximate inverse. The number of iterations is constant but the number of operations is slightly increasing. The storage is much higher than with the two previous smoothers.

The results for 'tw' are given in Table 17. This shows again that this is a better smoother than 'ai'.

Table 18 shows that the number of iterations using PCG with a diagonal preconditioner is almost the same as with the symmetric Gauss-Seidel or AINV. However, the cost is larger.

The number of iterations in Table 19 using PCG with AINV preconditioner is smaller but this smoother is more costly. Note that this differs from the Poisson equation.

Table 20 gives the results for the least squares polynomial smoother. Again, this is a good parallel smoother since the results are as good as for symmetric Gauss-Seidel and there is no storage for the smoother.

For the anisotropic problem the results in Table 21 using the 'z' scheme for the influence matrix are not fully scalable, even with the W-cycle although the increase in the number of iterations is quite small. However, we note that the cost is not higher than for the other methods and the storage is smaller (by a factor of 2) than what we get with 'a'. We note that if we use v = 2 with theW-cycle the results are almost scalable even though it is more costly for small problems.

It is likely that these troubles arise because the problem is strongly coupled in one direction and consequently we find a very coarse grid with only one coarse point on every vertical line of the mesh. All the other points on the vertical line are strongly coupled to that point. We would like to generate more points in the coarse grids.

This can be done by using a couple of threshold parameters. Table 22 gives the results with AINV and [tau] = (1; 0:01). This leads to coarse grids with more nodes and approximate inverses with more fill-in since the second parameter is smaller. We see from the results that the number of iterations is almost constant. However, the storage and the number of operations grow with the problem dimension. Moreover, the number of operations is much larger than when using [tau] = 0:1. We note that smoothing more is not enough to obtain a number of iterations independent of the problem dimension. Only putting more nodes (using [tau] = (1; 0:1)) allows to obtain a smaller number of iterations.

There are other ways to obtain grids with more nodes. For instance, we can generate the grid using 'z' and then check if every fine node has a C neighbour in the graph of A. If not, we can add coarse nodes by choosing one of the neighbours. This allows also to have a constant number of iterations. But, as we have seen, it is usually not necessary to have so many coarse nodes.

3.3. A discontinuous problem. Here we are concerned with an isotropic diffusion problem with constant but discontinuous coefficients. The diffusion coefficient is 1 except in the strip [0; 1] x [1=4; 3=4] where its value is 100. In the discretization we were not really cautious about the average of the coefficients; we just took their pointwise values. Therefore, we will have sometimes to use problem dimensions different from those of the previous problems in order not to have to compute the coefficients on the discontinuities.

We symmetrically scale the matrix A to have a unit diagonal. The scaled matrix is an M-matrix but it is not diagonally dominant. The condition number of [A.sub.d] is almost 0:8/[h.sup.2].

Table 23 gives the results of AMG. We can see that the number of iterations is increasing although only slowly. It can be that other values of [tau] could give better results.

Table 24 gives the results using the multilevel preconditioner with the symmetric Gauss-Seidel smoother. The coarse grids are generated by looking at the matrix entries. The number of iterations is constant and the number of operations is proportional to n.

Table 25 gives the results for IC as a smoother. They are comparable to those of the Gauss-Seidel smoother.

Table 26 gives the results using AINV as a smoother. Contrary to the results for the anisotropic problem the number of iterations is about the same as for the other smoothers. The storage and the number of operations are larger. This can be corrected by using other values of [tau].

The results for 'tw' are given in Table 27. We remark that for this problem the number of iterations is larger than with AINV but this smoother is cheaper and the storage is much smaller (which probably explains the number of iterations).

Table 28 shows that PCG with the diagonal preconditioner gives also almost the same results but the number of operations is larger. This is the same with the AINV preconditioner in Table 29.

The results for the least squares polynomial are given in Table 30. The number of operations is a little larger than for 'gs' and 'ic' but the storage is quite low and this smoother is parallel. The number of operations is smaller with 'tw' but the storage is smaller with the polynomial.

For the discontinuous problem, the results in Table 31 using the approximate inverse for coarsening are not scalable for the V-cycle since the number of iterations is slightly increasing with the problem dimension. The increase for the number of iterations is really small for the W-cycle. We note that, nevertheless, for these small problem dimensions the numbers of operations are comparable to those in Table 26 and the storage is smaller by a factor of 2 because the grids are much coarser. The number of iterations can be reduced if we use coarse grids with more points with [tau] = (0:2; 0:06) like in Table 32. It can be further reduce if we smooth a little more using [tau] = (0:2; 0:01) at the expense of a larger storage.

We check that the results are independent from the jumps in the coefficients by doing some computations with larger jumps. Moreover, this is also true for other problems with discontinuous coefficients. For 'z', 'iz' the results are almost independent of the jumps.

Table 33 gives the results using ('ai', 'a','st',-) for different interpolation schemes. The results for the 'st' interpolation are found in Table 26. One can see that there are not that many differences in the numbers of iterations which are almost independent of the size of the problem. There are more differences on the numbers of operations as well as for the storage. We ran out of memory with 'wi' because of the way we coded the algorithm in Matlab. This is not intrinsic to the method. For this problem the best results are given by the standard interpolation 'st'. The other schemes are more costly.

3.4. A problem with rapidly varying coefficients. This problem is isotropic. The diffusion coefficient is 1 + 1000|x - y|. It varies from 1000 on the boundary to 1 on the main diagonal of the mesh. We symmetrically scale the matrix A to have a unit diagonal (obtaining [A.sub.d]). The condition number of Ad is 0:2/[h.sup.2].

Table 34 gives the results for AMG. The number of iterations is slowly increasing and slightly larger than for the Poisson problem.

Tables 35 to 40 show that the results are always in the same range for all smoothers. For the 'z' influence matrix in Table 42 the number of iterations is slowly increasing for [tau] = 1 and almost constant for [gamma] = 2. The number of iterations is better for [tau] = (1; 0:01) but the cost is much larger. Amongst the parallel methods 'tw' gives the best results. However, the polynomial smoother is not far behind and the storage is smaller.

3.5. A random Laplacian. To show that multilevel methods are not only working for M-matrices we consider matrices arising from the Poisson equation as in the first example but with the signs of the non zero non diagonal coefficients chosen at random. This implies that the matrix is an H-matrix.

Table 44 shows that the results of AMG for this problem are even a little better than for the Poisson equation.

This is true also in Tables 45 to 52 for the PCG preconditioners. This shows that all these methods are working nicely for H-matrices.

3.6. Other problems. All the preceding examples except the last one arise from two dimensional diffusion equations on a square domain discretized with a five point scheme. We would like to see how these methods behave on examples coming from other areas of scientific computing. We chose some symmetric matrices from the Harwell-Boeing collection or from the Boeing collection stored in the Tim Davis' collection (http://www.cise.ufl.edu). We had to normalize some of these matrices to be able to use the same values of [tau] as before. Of course, since the order of the matrices are given we cannot check if there is a dependence of the number of iterations on the size of the problem. Moreover, some of the problems are quite small and it can be that for instance AINV is faster than its multilevel counterparts. A solution with a direct method is also much faster. We use the following examples:

1. 1138-bus. An admittance matrix of order 1138 with 4054 non-zeros. This matrix has a small minimum eigenvalue and a condition number of about 8:5 [10.sup.6]. Our AMG implementation does not work on this matrix and the other methods do not give very good results although they are converging. To obtain a meaningful problem we add 0:01 to the diagonal elements of the normalized matrix. This gives a matrix with a condition number of 201.

2. bcsstk01. A stiffness matrix of order 48 with 400 non-zeros. It was normalized. This matrix is not diagonally dominant, nor an M-matrix, but nevertheless positive definite. The condition number of the normalized matrix is 1361.

3. gr3030. A matrix arising from a nine point approximation to the Laplacian on the unit square with a 30 x 30 mesh. It has order 900 and 7744 non-zeros. The condition number of the normalized matrix is 195.

4. bcsstk34. A stiffness matrix of order 588 with 21418 non-zeros. This matrix was normalized. Its condition number is 1:8.

5. bcsstk27. A matrix arising from the buckling analysis of an engine inlet of order 1224 with 56126 non-zeros. The normalized matrix has a condition number of 1024. This problem is quite difficult to solve.

3.6.1. 1138-bus modified. Table 53 gives the results for some of the methods we have studied so far. The smallest number of operations is given by the AINV smoother used with the 'z' influence matrix and 'iz' interpolation which gives a very low storage. The preconditioner 'tw' gives a large number of iterations since for this example the approximate inverse that is produced for the fine level is not positive definite. We note that for this problem the AINV smoother is working quite well since the number of iterations is smaller than for the other smoothers with a storage which is not much larger. The worst results are given by the PCG smoother with a diagonal preconditioner (which has no effect for this problem).

3.6.2. bcsstk01. Table 54 show that the AINV smoother is again working well although 'tw' is cheaper. We note that a degree 1 polynomial does not give good results. The best results are given using the 'a' influence matrix and the 'st' interpolation. However, the results using 'z' and 'iz' (using a different value of [tau] to be able to generate at least two grids) are quite close and the storage is smaller.

3.6.3. gr3030. Table 55 gives the results for the 9 point finite difference matrix. For this problem the best results are given by the IC smoother although the other methods are not too far away.

3.6.4. bcsstk34. Table 56 gives the results for all the methods. A value of [tau] = 0:01 is used to be able to generate grids with enough nodes with 'a'. The best results are given by the IC smoother. Using the 'z' influence matrix gives coarse grids with more nodes and therefore a larger storage. It is likely that using another value of [tau] will be better for 'z'.

3.6.5. bcsstk27. We are not able to solve this problem using IC with no fill-in as well as with low order polynomials. It is likely that we should have to keep more fill-in for the Cholesky decomposition. We can solve the problem with polynomials of order larger than 20. However, the number of operations is much larger than for others methods. Similarly, we note that using 'tw' we got a very large number of iterations. This could have been fixed by extending the stencil. However, it is much easier just to change the value of [tau] in AINV. The problem is efficiently solved using the symmetric Gauss-Seidel smoother but this algorithm is not parallel. Using AINV requires a small value of [tau] to obtain a small number of iterations but then the storage is quite large.

4. Tables of results. In this section we group the results that were analyzed in the previous section. We show the results in this way since whatever we would have been doing using LATEX, the comments would not have been on the same page as the corresponding results.

5. Conclusion. In this paper we have compared several fully algebraic multilevel preconditioners for PCG. We used several different smoothers and ways to define the coarse grids as well as several interpolation schemes. It seems the most important point to obtain good results is the smoother. There is not much difference when changing the way to compute the coarse grids as well as the interpolation scheme as long as the interpolation of a constant is a constant. The symmetric Gauss-Seidel and the incomplete Cholesky decomposition are good smoothers but they are not parallel. The approximate inverses are fully parallel. The Wang and Tan proposal is a better smoother than AINV for most problems (at least when using the same amount of storage) but there is no guarantee to obtain a positive definite preconditioner.

There is no overall best algorithm for our set of examples. Everything depends on what we are looking for: smallest number of iterations, smallest computer time, smallest storage, best performance on a parallel computer, etc... For instance, AINV is not the best smoother but it is fully parallel; the 'z' influence matrix does not give the smallest number of operations but the storage is generally smaller than for the other methods. A very nice thing with AINV is that we just have to adjust one parameter to obtain a better smoother by reducing the value of [tau] although this increases the storage.

Almost all these methods give a constant number of iterations when the problem size is increasing for the partial differential equations we solved and some of them give a number of operations proportional to the problem size. It remains to test some of these methods on parallel computers with much larger problems to see if we still get the scalability we are looking for.

Acknowledgments. The author thanks Michele Benzi for interesting conversations about using AINV.

REFERENCES

[1] M. BENZI, C.D. MEYER AND M. TUMA, A sparse approximate inverse preconditioner for the conjugate gradient method, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 17 (1996), pp. 1135-1149.

[2] W.L. BRIGGS, V.E. HENSON AND S.F. MCCORMICK, A multigrid tutorial, second edition, SIAM, 2000.

[3] A. CLEARY, R. FALGOUT, V.E. HENSON AND J. JONES, Coarse-grid selection for parallel algebraic multigrid, to appear in LLNL report, 1999.

[4] V.E. HENSON, An algebraic multigrid tutorial, MGNET, 1999. Available online from http://www.mgnet.org.

[5] G. MEURANT, A review on the inverse of symmetric tridiagonal and block tridiagonal matrices, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 13 (1992), pp. 707-728.

[6] G. MEURANT, Computer Solution of Large Linear Systems, North-Holland, 1999.

[7] G. MEURANT, A multilevel AINV preconditioner, accepted in Numer. Algorithms (2001).

[8] J.W. RUGE AND K. STUBEN, Algebraic multigrid, in Multigrid methods, S.F. Mc Cormick, ed., pp. 73-130, SIAM, 1987.

[9] W-P. TANG AND W-L. WAN, Sparse approximate inverse smoother for multigrid, to appear.

[10] C. WAGNER, Introduction to algebraic multigrid, Course notes version 1.1, University of Heidelberg, 1998.

[11] C. WAGNER, On the algebraic construction of multilevel transfer operators, Heidelberg University, 1999. Available online from http://www.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de.

[12] W.L. WAN, T.F. CHAN & B. SMITH, An energy minimizing interpolation for robust multigrid methods, SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 21 (2000), pp. 1632-1649.

* Received November 27, 2000. Accepted for publication January 16, 2001. Recommended by R. S. Varga.

GERARD MEURANT ([dagger])

([dagger]) CEA/DIF, DCSA/ED, BP 12, 91680 Bruyeres le Chatel, France. E-mail: gerard.meurant@cea.fr
TABLE 1

AMG for Poisson equation, [tau] = 0.06

 m = 10 m = 20 m = 30

 11 12 12

 [rho] = 0.08 [rho] = 0.12 [rho] = 0.12
op=122941, /n=1221 op=561953, /n=1405 op=1297936, /n=1442
 100-50-14 400-200-51-14 900-450-119-32-13

 m = 40 m = 50 m = 60

 12 12 12

 [rho] = 0.12 [rho] = 0.12 [rho] = 0.12
op=2313029, /n=1446 op=3664272, /n=1466 op=5269951, /n=1464
1600-800-206-53-15 2500-1250-324- 3600-1800-461-
 -84-26-17-13 -119-34-13

TABLE 2

PCG for Poisson equation, [tau] = 0.06, multilevel,
('gs', 'a', 'st', 'st'), [gamma] = 1

m v = 1 v = 2

10 6 5
 op=107129, /n=1071 op=138717, /n=1387
 100-50-14
 str=1297, /n=13
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.02

20 6 5
 op=484856, /n=1212 op=636731, /n=1592
 400-200-51-14
 str=5561, /n=13.9
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.03

30 6 5
 op=1138521, /n=1265 op=1499701, /n=1666
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=12995, /n=14.4
 [kappa] = 1.06 [kappa] = 1.03

40 7 5
 op=2330221, /n=1456 op=2681901, /n=1676
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=23173, /n=14.5
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.03

50 6 5
 op=3222342, /n=1289 op=4248607, /n=1699
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=36744, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.06 [kappa] = 1.03

60 7 5
 op=5319529, /n=1477 op=6126171, /n=1702
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18-13
 str=52943, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.03

m v = 1 v = 5

10 6 4
 op=107129, /n=1071 op=233153, /n=2332
 100-50-14
 str=1297, /n=13
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.005

20 6 4
 op=484856, /n=1212 op=1084798, /n=2712
 400-200-51-14
 str=5561, /n=13.9
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.01

30 6 4
 op=1138521, /n=1265 op=2562353, /n=2847
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=12995, /n=14.4
 [kappa] = 1.06 [kappa] = 1.01

40 7 5
 op=2330221, /n=1456 op=5505957, /n=3441
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=23173, /n=14.5
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.01

50 6 5
 op=3222342, /n=1289 op=8727417, /n=3491
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=36744, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.06 [kappa] = 1.01

60 7 5
 op=5319529, /n=1477 op=12584007, /n=3496
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18-13
 str=52943, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.01

TABLE 3

PCG for Poisson equation, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ic', 'a', 'st', 'st'), [gamma] = 1

m v = 1 v = 2

10 5 4
 op=85197, /n=852 op=114429, /n=1144
 100-50-14
 str=2005, /n=20
 [kappa] = 1.02 [kappa] = 1.007

20 5 4
 op=381911, /n=954.8 op=521019, /n=1302
 400-200-51-14
 str=8584, /n=21.5
 [kappa] = 1.03 [kappa] = 1.01

30 5 4
 op=894202, /n=993.6 op=1223778, /n=1360
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=20009, /n=22.2
 [kappa] = 1.02 [kappa] = 1.01

40 5 5
 op=1598145, /n=998.8 op=2631408, /n=1644
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=35667, /n=22.3
 [kappa] = 1.03 [kappa] = 1.01

50 5 5
 op=2528438, /n=1011 op=4165773, /n=1666
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=56497, /n=22.6
 [kappa] = 1.02 [kappa] = 1.01

60 6 5
 op=4265230, /n=1185 op=6008813, /n=1669
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18-13
 str=81388, /n=22.6
 [kappa] = 1.03 [kappa] = 1.01

m v = 1 v = 5

10 5 3
 op=85197, /n=852 op=196072, /n=1961
 100-50-14
 str=2005, /n=20
 [kappa] = 1.02 [kappa] = 1.002

20 5 4
 op=381911, /n=954.8 op=1132936, /n=2832
 400-200-51-14
 str=8584, /n=21.5
 [kappa] = 1.03 [kappa] = 1.003

30 5 4
 op=894202, /n=993.6 op=2667643, /n=2964
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=20009, /n=22.2
 [kappa] = 1.02 [kappa] = 1.003

40 5 4
 op=1598145, /n=998.8 op=4771293, /n=2982
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=35667, /n=22.3
 [kappa] = 1.03 [kappa] = 1.004

50 5 4
 op=2528438, /n=1011 op=7557527, /n=3023
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=56497, /n=22.6
 [kappa] = 1.02 [kappa] = 1.004

60 6 4
 op=4265230, /n=1185 op=10901958, /n=3028
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18-13
 str=81388, /n=22.6
 [kappa] = 1.03 [kappa] = 1.005

TABLE 4

PCG for Poisson equation, [tau] = 0.06, multilevel,
('ai', 'a', 'st', 'st'), [gamma] = 1

m v = 1 v = 2

10 11 7
 op=167073, /n=1670 op=171069, /n=1711
 100-50-14
 str=1892, /n=18.9
 [kappa] = 1.74 [kappa] = 1.22

20 13 9
 op=834163, /n=2085 op=946283, /n=2366
 400-200-51-14
 str=8179, /n=20.4
 [kappa] = 1.96 [kappa] = 1.32

30 14 9
 op=2077423, /n=2308 op=2214933, /n=2461
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=19044, /n=21.2
 [kappa] = 2.01 [kappa] = 1.34

40 14 10
 op=3723423, /n=2327 op=4381433, /n=2738
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=34278, /n=21.4
 [kappa] = 2.03 [kappa] = 1.35

50 14 10
 op=5897948, /n=2359 op=6949048, /n=2780
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=54255, /n=21.7
 [kappa] = 2.04 [kappa] = 1.35

60 14 10
 op=8515738, /n=2365 op=10041954, /n=2789
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18
 str=78369, /n=21.8
 [kappa] = 2.05 [kappa] = 1.36

m v = 1 v = 5

10 11 4
 op=167073, /n=1670 op=219258, /n=2193
 100-50-14
 str=1892, /n=18.9
 [kappa] = 1.74 [kappa] = 1.02

20 13 5
 op=834163, /n=2085 op=1199387, /n=2998
 400-200-51-14
 str=8179, /n=20.4
 [kappa] = 1.96 [kappa] = 1.03

30 14 6
 op=2077423, /n=2308 op=3299799, /n=3666
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=19044, /n=21.2
 [kappa] = 2.01 [kappa] = 1.04

40 14 6
 op=3723423, /n=2327 op=5944087, /n=3715
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=34278, /n=21.4
 [kappa] = 2.03 [kappa] = 1.04

50 14 6
 op=5897948, /n=2359 op=9437844, /n=3775
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=54255, /n=21.7
 [kappa] = 2.04 [kappa] = 1.04

60 14 6
 op=8515738, /n=2365 op=13648658, /n=3791
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18
 str=78369, /n=21.8
 [kappa] = 2.05 [kappa] = 1.04

TABLE 5

PCG for the Poisson equation,[kappa] [tau] = 0.06, multilevel,
('tw', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m v = 1 v = 2

10 7 5
 op=102165, /n=1022 op=119733, /n=1197
 100-50-14
 str=2221, /n=22.1
 [kappa] = 1.13 [kappa] = 1.03

20 8 6
 op=517790, /n=1294 op=641208, /n=1603
 400-200-51-14
 str=9612, /n=24
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.05

30 7 6
 op=1077525, /n=1197 op=1509661, /n=1677
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=22481, /n=25
 [kappa] = 1.13 [kappa] = 1.04

40 8 6
 op=2172141, /n=1358 op=2702569, /n=1689
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=40139, /n=25.1
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.05

50 8 6
 op=3438494, /n=1375 op=4281980, /n=1713
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=63647, /n=25.5
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.05

60 8 6
 op=4961032, /n=1378 op=6179210, /n=1716
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18
 str=91737, /n=25.5
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.05

m v = 1 v = 5

10 7 4
 op=102165, /n=1022 op=208333, /n=2083
 100-50-14
 str=2221, /n=22.1
 [kappa] = 1.13 [kappa] = 1.01

20 8 5
 op=517790, /n=1294 op=1165859, /n=2915
 400-200-51-14
 str=9612, /n=24
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.02

30 7 5
 op=1077525, /n=1197 op=2754397, /n=3060
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=22481, /n=25
 [kappa] = 1.13 [kappa] = 1.02

40 8 5
 op=2172141, /n=1358 op=4933860, /n=3084
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=40139, /n=25.1
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.02

50 8 5
 op=3438494, /n=1375 op=7823195, /n=3129
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=63647, /n=25.5
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.02

60 8 5
 op=4961032, /n=1378 op=11291359, /n=3136
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18
 str=91737, /n=25.5
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.02

TABLE 6

PCG for the Poisson equation,[kappa] [tau] = 0.06,[kappa] v = 3,
multilevel, ('gc', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 7 3
 op=258997, /n=2590 op=346789, /n=3468
 100-50-14
 str=1297, /n=13
 [kappa] = 1.11 [kappa] = 1.0006

20 7 3
 op=1161445, /n=2904 op=1825181, /n=4563
 400-200-51-14
 str=5561, /n=13.9
 [kappa] = 1.10 [kappa] = 1.0007

30 7 3
 op=2713029, /n=3014 op=4684773, /n=5205
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=12995, /n=14.4
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.0007

40 7 4
 op=4837789, /n=3024 op=10394193, /n=6496
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=23173, /n=14.5
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.0008

50 7 3
 op=7645725, /n=3058 op=13882757, /n=5553
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=36744, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.08 [kappa] = 1.0005

60 7 3
 op=11017285, /n=3060 op=19903005, /n=5529
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18
 str=52943, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.0005

TABLE 7

PCG for the Poisson equation,[kappa] [tau] = 0.06,[kappa] v = 3,
multilevel, ('cg', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 5 3
 op=273117, /n=2731 op=486565, /n=4866
 100-50-14
 str=1892, /n=18.9
 [kappa] = 1.02 [kappa] = 1

20 7 3
 op=1657317, /n=4143 op=2578333, /n=6446
 400-200-51-14
 str=8179, /n=20.4
 [kappa] = 1.12 [kappa] = 1.0002

30 7 3
 op=3832301, /n=4258 op=6072229, /n=6747
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=19044, /n=21.2
 [kappa] = 1.11 [kappa] = 1.0003

40 7 3
 op=6992029, /n=4370 op=11914653, /n=7447
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=34278, /n=21.4
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.0003

50 7 3
 op=11029221, /n=4412 op=18004603, /n=7598
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=54255, /n=21.7
 [kappa] = 1.08 [kappa] = 1.0004

60 7 3
 op=15931997, /n=4426 op=27416989, /n=7616
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18
 str=78369, /n=21.8
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.0003

TABLE 8

PCG for the Poisson equation,[kappa] [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('po', 'a', 'st', 'st'), [kappa] = 1

m v = 1 v = 2

10 6 5
 op=132273, /n=1323 op=193605, /n=1936
 100-50-14
 str=1297, /n=13
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.03

20 7 6
 op=681509, /n=1704 op=1029766, /n=2574
 400-200-51-14
 str=5561, /n=13.9
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.05

30 7 6
 op=1596741, /n=1774 op=2418289, /n=2687
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=12995, /n=14.4
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.04

40 7 6
 op=2852573, /n=1783 op=4321221, /n=2701
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=23173, /n=14.5
 [kappa] = 1.11 [kappa] = 1.06

50 7 6
 op=4513885, /n=1806 op=6841180, /n=2737
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=36744, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.05

60 7 6
 op=6509253, /n=1808 op=9865746, /n=2740
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18
 str=52943, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.10 [kappa] = 1.05

m v = 1 v = 5

10 6 4
 op=132273, /n=1323 op=362233, /n=3622
 100-50-14
 str=1297, /n=13
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.01

20 7 5
 op=681509, /n=1704 op=1998470, /n=4996
 400-200-51-14
 str=5561, /n=13.9
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.02

30 7 5
 op=1596741, /n=1774 op=4701457, /n=5224
 900-450-119-32-13
 str=12995, /n=14.4
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.02

40 7 5
 op=2852573, /n=1783 op=8402409, /n=5251
 1600-800-206-53-15
 str=23173, /n=14.5
 [kappa] = 1.11 [kappa] = 1.03

50 7 5
 op=4513885, /n=1806 op=13307185, /n=5323
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17
 str=36744, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.03

60 7 5
 op=6509253, /n=1808 op=19191079, /n=5331
 3600-1800-461-119-34-18
 str=52943, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.10 [kappa] = 1.02

TABLE 9

PCG for the Poisson problem, m = 20, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('po', 'a', 'st', 'st')

k nb it nb op

1 7 681509 /n=1704

2 6 890800 /n=2227

3 5 1015703 /n=2539

4 5 1268867 /n=3172

5 4 1267188 /n=3168

6 4 1478150 /n=3695

8 4 1900098 /n=4750

10 3 1856225 /n=4640

20 3 3543985 /n=8860

40 2 5187872 /n=12970

TABLE 10

PCG for Poisson equation, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ai', 'a', '-', 'st'), [gamma] = 1

m 'st' 'p'

10 11 11
 op=167073 op=275085
 100-50-14 100-50-38-26-16-10

20 13 13
 op=834163 op=1558845
 400-200-51-14 400-200-148-93-48-32-22

30 14 14
 op=2077423 op=4853923
 900-450-119-32-13 900-450-335-217-113-81-55

40 14 14
 op=3723423 op=10904208
 1600-800-206-53-15 1600-800-593-383-193-141-97

50 14 14
 op=5897948 op=20402348
 2500-1250-324-84-26-17 2500-1250-930-607-308-224-154

m 'p1' 'm2'

10 11 11
 op=167073 op=165441
 100-50-13 100-50-12

20 13 13
 op=837691 op=845195
 400-200-54-13 400-200-50-16

30 14 14
 op=2071768 op=2066158
 900-450-119-29-10 900-450-112-29-11

40 14 14
 op=3731718 op=3729153
 1600-800-209-53-20 1600-800-198-51-14

50 14 14
 op=5892653 op=5884538
 2500-1250-324-84-26-16 2500-1250-313-79-25-12

TABLE 11

PCG for Poisson equation,[kappa] [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ai', 'z', 'st', 'sc'),[kappa] [gamma] = 1

m v = 1 v = 2

10 12 8
 op=256824, /n=2568 op=276114, /n=2761
 100-50-25-12
 str=3196, /n=31.9
 [kappa] = 2.98 [kappa] = 1.87

20 20 14
 op=2498084, /n=6245 op=2793278, /n=6983
 400-200-100-51-23-12
 str=19215, /n=48
 [kappa] = 9.41 [kappa] = 5.33

30 28 21
 op=9571569, /n=10635 op=11377105, /n=12641
 900-450-225-110-60-30-15
 str=54176, /n=60.2
 [kappa] = 19.9 [kappa] = 11.03

40 38 27
 op=26164947, /n=16353 op=29422045, /n=18389
 1600-800-400-204-94-47-26
 str=111615, /n=69.8
 [kappa] = 34.5 [kappa] = 18.9

50 45 33
 op=52278299, /n=20911 op=60515329, /n=24206
 2500-1250-625-307-143-71-35
 str=190351, /n=76.1
 [kappa] = 53.1 [kappa] = 29

60 54 40
 op=101004463, /n=28057 op=117903107, /n=32751
 3600-1800-900-458-215-109-53
 str=310963, /n=86.4
 [kappa] = 75.7 [kappa] = 41.3

m v = 1 v = 5

10 12 5
 op=256824, /n=2568 op=381183, /n=3812
 100-50-25-12
 str=3196, /n=31.9
 [kappa] = 2.98 [kappa] = 1.23

20 20 9
 op=2498084, /n=6245 op=3881723, /n=9704
 400-200-100-51-23-12
 str=19215, /n=48
 [kappa] = 9.41 [kappa] = 2.76

30 28 13
 op=9571569, /n=10635 op=15099181, /n=16777
 900-450-225-110-60-30-15
 str=54176, /n=60.2
 [kappa] = 19.9 [kappa] = 5.4

40 38 18
 op=26164947, /n=16353 op=41625955, /n=26016
 1600-800-400-204-94-47-26
 str=111615, /n=69.8
 [kappa] = 34.5 [kappa] = 9.04

50 45 22
 op=52278299, /n=20911 op=85339095, /n=34136
 2500-1250-625-307-143-71-35
 str=190351, /n=76.1
 [kappa] = 53.1 [kappa] = 13.7

60 54 26
 op=101004463, /n=28057 op=161832391, /n=44953
 3600-1800-900-458-215-109-53
 str=310963, /n=86.4
 [kappa] = 75.7 [kappa] = 19.4

TABLE 12

PCG for Poisson equation,[kappa] [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ai', 'z', 'st', 'iz'),[kappa] [gamma] = 1

m [kappa] = 1 [kappa] = 2

10 12 8
 op=188340, /n=1883 op=207426, /n=2074
 100-50-19-10
 str=2091, /n=20.9
 [kappa] = 1.72 [kappa] = 1.22

20 14 10
 op=987293, /n=2468 op=1161745, /n=2904
 400-200-74-36-17
 str=9433, /n=23.6
 [kappa] = 1.96 [kappa] = 1.35

30 15 10
 op=2448357, /n=2720 op=2709534, /n=3011
 900-450-154-69-31-16
 str=21701, /n=24.1
 [kappa] = 2.02 [kappa] = 1.48

40 15 11
 op=4513421, /n=2821 op=5464389, /n=3415
 1600-800-267-130-61-29-13
 str=39949, /n=24.9
 [kappa] = 2.05 [kappa] = 1.57

50 16 11
 op=7700375, /n=3080 op=8776877, /n=3518
 2500-1250-431-208-97-50-21
 str=64429, /n=25.7
 [kappa] = 2.12 [kappa] = 1.63

60 16 12
 op=11078581, /n=3078 op=13684058, /n=3801
 3600-1800-607-283-136-65-27
 str=92655, /n=25.7
 [kappa] = 2.18 [kappa] = 1.69

m [kappa] = 1 [kappa] = 5

10 12 5
 op=188340, /n=1883 op=292389, /n=2928
 100-50-19-10
 str=2091, /n=20.9
 [kappa] = 1.72 [kappa] = 1.02

20 14 6
 op=987293, /n=2468 op=1575981, /n=3940
 400-200-74-36-17
 str=9433, /n=23.6
 [kappa] = 1.96 [kappa] = 1.11

30 15 7
 op=2448357, /n=2720 op=4216269, /n=4685
 900-450-154-69-31-16
 str=21701, /n=24.1
 [kappa] = 2.02 [kappa] = 1.19

40 15 8
 op=4513421, /n=2821 op=8785665, /n=5491
 1600-800-267-130-61-29-13
 str=39949, /n=24.9
 [kappa] = 2.05 [kappa] = 1.25

50 16 8
 op=7700375, /n=3080 op=14118983, /n=5647
 2500-1250-431-208-97-50-21
 str=64429, /n=25.7
 [kappa] = 2.12 [kappa] = 1.29

60 16 8
 op=11078581, /n=3078 op=20310541, /n=5642
 3600-1800-607-283-136-65-27
 str=92655, /n=25.7
 [kappa] = 2.18 [kappa] = 1.32

TABLE 13

AMG for the anisotropic problem [tau] = 0.1

 m = 10 m = 20 m = 30

 10 11 12

 [rho] = 0.08 [rho] = 0.11 [rho] = 0.12
 op=106889, /n=1069 op=546900,/n=1367 op=1388527, /n=1543
 100-50-20-10 400-200-100- 900-450-210-
 -7000% -150

 m = 40 m = 50 m = 60

 12 12 12

 [rho] = 0.13 [rho] = 0.14 [rho] = 0.14
op=2678135, /n=1674 op=4177997, /n=1671 op=6013795, /n=1670
 1600-800-400- 2500-1250-600- 3600-1800-900-
 -370 -537 -710

TABLE 14

PCG for the anisotropic problem, [tau] = 0.1,
multilevel, ('gs', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 4
 op=104749, /n=1047 op=197753, /n=1977
 100-50-20
 str=1184, /n=11.8
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

20 6 4
 op=530923, /n=1327 op=1570273, /n=3926
 400-200-100-40-20
 str=5789, /n=14.5
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

30 6 4
 op=1252516, /n=1392 op=4589393, /n=5099
 900-450-210-90-45-15
 str=13500, /n=15
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.0002

40 6 4
 op=2537929, /n=1586 op=17283553, /n=10802
 1600-800-400-200-120-80-60
 str=28652, /n=17.9
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

50 6 4
 op=3755860, /n=1502 op=16926673, /n=6771
 2500-1250-600-300-150-75
 str=41320, /n=16.5
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

60 6 4
 op=5479546, /n=1522 op=25057153, /n=6960
 3600-1800-900-420-210-90-75
 str=60866, /n=16.9
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

TABLE 15

PCG for the anisotropic problem, [tau] = 0.1,
multilevel, ('ic', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 3 2
 op=54933, /n=549 op=108510, /n=1085
 100-50-20
 str=1907, /n=19.1
 [kappa] = 1.0005 [kappa] = 1

20 3 2
 op=275557, /n=689 op=851096, /n=2128
 400-200-100-40-20
 str=9258, /n=23.1
 [kappa] = 1.001 [kappa] = 1

30 3 2
 op=647009, /n=719 op=2441542, /n=2713
 900-450-210-90-45-15
 str=21545, /n=23.9
 [kappa] = 1.001 [kappa] = 1

40 3 2
 op=1638579, /n=1024 op=9142266, /n=5714
 1600-800-400-200-120-80-60
 str=45037, /n=28.1
 [kappa] = 1.001 [kappa] = 1

50 3 2
 op=2432286, /n=973 op=9020462, /n=3608
 2500-1250-600-300-150-75
 str=65395, /n=26.2
 [kappa] = 1.001 [kappa] = 1

60 3 2
 op=3547688, /n=985 op=13364557, /n=3712
 3600-1800-900-420-210-90-75
 str=95952, /n=26.6
 [kappa] = 1.001 [kappa] = 1

TABLE 16

PCG for the anisotropic problem, [tau] = 0.1,
multilevel, ('ai', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 5 3
 op=88917, /n=889 op=147557, /n=1475
 100-50-20
 str=2100, /n=21
 [kappa] = 1.03 [kappa] = 1.0006

20 6 4
 op=634271, /n=1586 op=1722753, /n=4307
 400-200-100-40-20
 str=12232, /n=30.6
 [kappa] = 1.04 [kappa] = 1.002

30 6 4
 op=1673230, /n=1859 op=5304033, /n=5893
 900-450-210-90-45-15
 str=31839, /n=35.4
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

40 6 4
 op=3564073, /n=2227 op=18968193, /n=11855
 1600-800-400-200-120-80-60
 str=68886, /n=43.05
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

50 6 4
 op=5672348, /n=2268 op=22715713, /n=9086
 2500-1250-600-300-150-75
 str=107981, /n=43.2
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

60 6 4
 op=8597374, /n=2388 op=35687666, /n=9913
 3600-1800-900-420-210-90-75
 str=163727, /n=45.5
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

TABLE 17

PCG for the anisotropic problem, [tau] = 0.1,
multilevel, ('tw', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 7 4
 op=106173, /n=1062 op=206833, /n=2068
 100-50-20
 str=2175, /n=21.7
 [kappa] = 1.1 [kappa] = 1.005

20 7 4
 op=498941, /n=1247 op=1271233, /n=3178
 400-200-100-40-20
 str=10447, /n=26.1
 [kappa] = 1.1 [kappa] = 1.005

30 7 4
 op=1174365, /n=1305 op=3672033, /n=4080
 900-450-210-90-45-15
 str=24455, /n=27.2
 [kappa] = 1.1 [kappa] = 1.005

40 7 4
 op=2382829, /n=1489 op=14170113, /n=8856
 1600-800-400-200-120-80-60
 str=51642, /n=32.3
 [kappa] = 1.1 [kappa] = 1.005

50 7 4
 op=3534429, /n=1414 op=13844513, /n=5538
 2500-1250-600-300-150-75
 str=74845, /n=29.9
 [kappa] = 1.1 [kappa] = 1.005

60 7 4
 op=5160485, /n=1433 op=20565153, /n=5712
 3600-1800-900-420-210-90-75
 str=109978, /n=30.5
 [kappa] = 1.1 [kappa] = 1.005

TABLE 18

PCG for the anisotropic problem, [tau] = 0.1, v = 3,
multilevel, ('gc,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 7 3
 op=255893, /n=2559 op=343461, /n=3435
 100-50-20
 str=1184, /n=11.8
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.0009

20 7 3
 op=1298749, /n=3247 op=2706781, /n=6767
 400-200-100-40-20
 str=5789, /n=14.5
 [kappa] = 1.13 [kappa] = 1.0007

30 7 3
 op=3038509, /n=3376 op=7705061, /n=8561
 900-450-210-90-45-15
 str=13500, /n=15
 [kappa] = 1.12 [kappa] = 1.0006

40 7 3
 op=6002285, /n=3751 op=25570461, /n=15982
 1600-800-400-200-120-80-60
 str=28652, /n=17.9
 [kappa] = 1.11 [kappa] = 1.0005

50 7 3
 op=89266621, /n=3571 op=26322181, /n=10529
 2500-1250-600-300-150-75
 str=41320, /n=16.5
 [kappa] = 1.12 [kappa] = 1.0004

60 7 3
 op=12989765, /n=3608 op=38772253, /n=10770
 3600-1800-900-420-210-90-75
 str=60866, /n=16.9
 [kappa] = 1.12 [kappa] = 1.0004

TABLE 19

PCG for the anisotropic problem, [tau] = 0.1, v = 3,
multilevel, ('cg,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 2 1
 op=160173, /n=1602 op=277117, /n=2771
 100-50-20
 str=2100, /n=21
 [kappa] = 1 [kappa] = 1

20 3 2
 op=1365989, /n=3415 op=4002850, /n=10007
 400-200-100-40-20
 str=12232, /n=30.6
 [kappa] = 1.0001 [kappa] = 1

30 3 2
 op=3634417, /n=4038 op=12432212, /n=13814
 900-450-210-90-45-15
 str=31839, /n=35.4
 [kappa] = 1.0003 [kappa] = 1

40 3 2
 op=7690141, /n=4806 op=40277673, /n=25174
 1600-800-400-200-120-80-60
 str=68886, /n=43
 [kappa] = 1.0006 [kappa] = 1

50 4 2
 op=15368018, /n=6147 op=50719673, /n=20288
 2500-1250-600-300-150-75
 str=107981, /n=43.2
 [kappa] = 1.001 [kappa] = 1

60 4 2
 op=23328865, /n=6480 op=79925475, /n=22202
 3600-1800-900-420-210-90-75
 str=163727, /n=45.5
 [kappa] = 1.002 [kappa] = 1

TABLE 20

PCG for the anisotropic problem, [tau] = 0.1,
multilevel, ('po', 'a', 'st', 'st') [kappa] = 1

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 4
 op=129781, /n=1298 op=247433, /n=2474
 100-50-20
 str=1184, /n=11.8
 [kappa] = 1.06 [kappa] = 1.002

20 7 4
 op=752509, /n=1881 op=1956033, /n=4890
 400-200-100-40-20
 str=5789, /n=14.5
 [kappa] = 1.08 [kappa] = 1.002

30 7 4
 op=1769517, /n=1966 op=5649793, /n=6277
 900-450-210-90-45-15
 str=13500, /n=15
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.002

40 8 4
 op=4002993, /n=2502 op=20382913, /n=12739
 1600-800-400-200-120-80-60
 str=28652, /n=17.9
 [kappa] = 1.15 [kappa] = 1.002

50 7 4
 op=5272605, /n=2109 op=20345313, /n=8138
 2500-1250-600-300-150-75
 str=41320, /n=16.5
 [kappa] = 1.08 [kappa] = 1.002

60 7 4
 op=7691205, /n=2136 op=30159393, /n=8378
 3600-1800-900-420-210-90-75
 str=60866, /n=16.9
 [kappa] = 1.08 [kappa] = 1.002

TABLE 21

PCG for the anisotropic problem, [tau] = 0.1,
multilevel, ('ai', 'z', 'st', 'iz')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma][kappa] = 2

10 6 4
 op=75272, /n=752 op=97633, /n=976
 100-15
 str=1400, /n=14
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

20 8 5
 op=481448, /n=1204 op=592397, /n=1481
 400-20
 str=6543, /n=16.4
 [kappa] = 1.19 [kappa] = 1.03

30 10 6
 op=1582331, /n=1758 op=1949849, /n=2166
 900-60-11
 str=17618, /n=19.5
 [kappa] = 1.38 [kappa] = 1.08

40 11 7
 op=3365229, /n=2103 op=4415917, /n=2759
 1600-120-14
 str=34749, /n=21.8
 [kappa] = 1.50 [kappa] = 1.12

50 13 8
 op=6393915, /n=2558 op=8188289, /n=3275
 2500-175-26-13
 str=56497, /n=22.6
 [kappa] = 1.81 [kappa] = 1.25

60 14 9
 op=10046068, /n=2791 op=13272893, /n=3687
 3600-210-32-16
 str=82475, /n=22.9
 [kappa] = 2.06 [kappa] = 1.35

TABLE 22

PCG for the anisotropic problem, [tau] = (1; 0.01),
multilevel, ('ai', 'z', 'st', 'iz')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 4 3
 op=90038, /n=900 op=235557, /n=2356
 100-50-24-12
 str=2497, /n=24.9
 [kappa] = 1.008 [kappa] = 1.0001

20 5 3
 op=630197, /n=1575 op=1452157, /n=3630
 400-200-66-33-14
 str=13850, /n=34.6
 [kappa] = 1.03 [kappa] = 1.0008

30 6 4
 op=2305820, /n=2562 op=6502553, /n=7225
 900-450-159-79-38-17
 str=42850, /n=47.6
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

40 6 4
 op=5028431, /n=3143 op=14665673, /n=9166
 1600-800-251-126-58-29-15
 str=92607, /n=57.9
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.002

50 7 4
 op=10738437, /n=4295 op=27527546, /n=11011
 2500-1250-414-207-81-34-15
 str=172056, /n=68.8
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.003

60 7 4
 op=18011516, /n=5003 op=49557238, /n=13766
 3600-1800-616-308-126-63-31
 str=288139, /n=80
 [kappa] = 1.11 [kappa] = 1.003

TABLE 23

AMG for the discontinuous problem [tau] = 0.06

 m = 10 m = 20 m = 30

 11 18 17

 [rho] = 0.09 [rho] = 0.25 [rho] = 0.23
 op=135430, /n=1354 op=828773,/n=2072 op=1892192, /n=2102
 100-50-16-11 400-200-46- 900-450-122-
 -27 -68
 m = 39 m = 50 m = 59

 15 19 20

 [rho] = 0.17 [rho] = 0.27 [rho] = 0.28
op=2867393, /n=1835 op=5838352, /n=2335 op=8616620, /n=2475
 1521-762-204- 2500-1250-324- 3481-1741-446-
 -125 -157 -202

TABLE 24

PCG for the discontinuous problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('gs', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 4
 op=127378, /n=1274 op=302737, /n=3027
 100-50-16-11
 str=1485, /n=14.8
 [kappa] = 1.1 [kappa] = 1.002

20 7 4
 op=556267, /n=1391 op=1185685, /n=2964
 400-200-46-17-10
 str=5448, /n=13.6
 [kappa] = 1.3 [kappa] = 1.004

30 8 4
 op=1507599, /n=1675 op=2938191, /n=3265
 900-450-122-30-21
 str=13311, /n=14.8
 [kappa] = 1.26 [kappa] = 1.002

39 7 4
 op=2344515, /n=1541 op=6702483, /n=4407
 1521-762-204-57-31-21-16
 str=23115, /n=15.2
 [kappa] = 1.21 [kappa] = 1.002

50 8 4
 op=4197072, /n=1679 op=8669991, /n=3468
 2500-1250-324-88-29-21
 str=36892, /n=14.8
 [kappa] = 1.35 [kappa] = 1.005

59 8 4
 op=5931550, /n=1704 op=13191036, /n=3789
 3481-1741-446-122-41-22-17
 str=52033, /n=14.9
 [kappa] = 1.35 [kappa] = 1.004

TABLE 25

PCG for the discontinuous problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ic', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 3
 op=114269, /n=1143 op=211467, /n=2115
 100-50-16-11
 str=2306, /n=23.1
 [kappa] = 1.03 [kappa] = 1.001

20 7 4
 op=510529, /n=1276 op=1061224, /n=2653
 400-200-46-17-10
 str=8491, /n=21.2
 [kappa] = 1.2 [kappa] = 1.003

30 6 4
 op=1062618, /n=1181 op=2599886, /n=2889
 900-450-122-30-21
 str=20515, /n=22.8
 [kappa] = 1.15 [kappa] = 1.001

39 7 4
 op=2126318, /n=1398 op=5851962, /n=3847
 1521-762-204-57-31-21-16
 str=35638, /n=23.4
 [kappa] = 1.15 [kappa] = 1.002

50 7 4
 op=3401485, /n=1361 op=7689215, /n=3076
 2500-1250-324-88-29-21
 str=56811, /n=22.7
 [kappa] = 1.27 [kappa] = 1.004

59 7 4
 op=4799520, /n=1379 op=11619184, /n=3338
 3481-1741-446-122-41-22-17
 str=80096, /n=23
 [kappa] = 1.25 [kappa] = 1.004

TABLE 26

PCG for the discontinuous problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ai', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 4
 op=151474, /n=1515 op=319553, /n=3196
 100-50-16-11
 str=3022, /n=30.2
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

20 8 5
 op=940565, /n=2351 op=1930373, /n=4826
 400-200-46-17-10
 str=13872, /n=34.7
 [kappa] = 1.18 [kappa] = 1.02

30 7 4
 op=2025525, /n=2251 op=4069393, /n=4521
 900-450-122-30-21
 str=33851, /n=37.6
 [kappa] = 1.12 [kappa] = 1.004

39 7 4
 op=3619203, /n=2379 op=8407017, /n=5527
 1521-762-204-57-31-21-16
 str=60219, /n=39.6
 [kappa] = 1.13 [kappa] = 1.004

50 7 4
 op=6042413, /n=2417 op=12772833, /n=5109
 2500-1250-324-88-29-21
 str=100118, /n=40
 [kappa] = 1.26 [kappa] = 1.006

59 7 5
 op=8611390, /n=2474 op=22832594, /n=6559
 3481-1741-446-122-41-22-17
 str=142531, /n=41
 [kappa] = 1.23 [kappa] = 1.005

TABLE 27

PCG for the discontinuous problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('tw', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 7 4
 op=117645, /n=1176 op=238513, /n=2385
 100-50-16-11
 str=2593, /n=26
 [kappa] = 1.12 [kappa] = 1.008

20 8 5
 op=515603, /n=1289 op=1140677, /n=2852
 400-200-46-17-10
 str=9515, /n=23.8
 [kappa] = 1.33 [kappa] = 1.01

30 8 5
 op=1235665, /n=1373 op=2820349, /n=3134
 900-450-122-30-21
 str=23150, /n=25.7
 [kappa] = 1.29 [kappa] = 1.01

39 8 5
 op=2161873, /n=1421 op=6371455, /n=4189
 1521-762-204-57-31-21-16
 str=40325, /n=26.5
 [kappa] = 1.24 [kappa] = 1.01

50 9 5
 op=3843983, /n=1537 op=8341373, /n=3336
 2500-1250-324-88-29-21
 str=64094, /n=25.6
 [kappa] = 1.38 [kappa] = 1.01

59 9 5
 op=5427707, /n=1559 op=12632543, /n=3629
 3481-1741-446-122-41-22-17
 str=90549, /n=26
 [kappa] = 1.39 [kappa] = 1.01

TABLE 28

PCG for the discontinuous problem, [tau] = 0.06, v = 3,
multilevel, ('gc', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 7 4
 op=298349, /n=2983 op=492485, /n=4925
 100-50-16-11
 str=2773, /n=27.7
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.0004

20 8 3
 op=1317701, /n=3294 op=2012061, /n=5030
 400-200-46-17-10
 str=10188, /n=25.5
 [kappa] = 1.19 [kappa] = 1.001

30 8 4
 op=3095461, /n=3439 op=6017793, /n=6686
 900-450-122-30-21
 str=24673, /n=27.4
 [kappa] = 1.17 [kappa] = 1.001

39 7 4
 op=4799875, /n=3156 op=13479577, /n=8862
 1521-762-204-57-31-21-16
 str=42937, /n=28.2
 [kappa] = 1.15 [kappa] = 1.001

50 9 4
 op=9613203, /n=3845 op=17813393, /n=7125
 2500-1250-324-88-29-21
 str=68306, /n=27.3
 [kappa] = 1.3 [kappa] = 1.003

59 8 4
 op=12174245, /n=3497 op=26869257, /n=7719
 3481-1741-446-122-41-22-17
 str=96419, /n=27.7
 [kappa] = 1.24 [kappa] = 1.003

TABLE 29

PCG for the discontinuous problem, [tau] = 0.06, v = 3,
multilevel, ('cg', 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 3 2
 op=320353, /n=3203 op=729321, /n=7293
 100-50-16-11
 str=3022, /n=30.2
 [kappa] = 1.001 [kappa] = 1

20 5 2
 op=2361629, /n=5904 op=3753689, /n=9384
 400-200-46-17-10
 str=13872, /n=34.7
 [kappa] = 1.02 [kappa] = 1

30 6 3
 op=6654437, /n=7394 op=12546853, /n=13941
 900-450-122-30-21
 str=34851, /n=37.6
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.0001

39 5 3
 op=10211191, /n=6713 op=25861259, /n=17003
 1521-762-204-57-31-21-16
 str=60219, /n=39.6
 [kappa] = 1.03 [kappa] = 1.0005

50 6 3
 op=19926938, /n=7971 op=39526405, /n=15811
 2500-1250-324-88-29-21
 str=100118, /n=40
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.001

59 7 4
 op=32473523, /n=9329 op=73592777, /n=21141
 3481-1741-446-122-41-22-17
 str=142531, /n=40.9
 [kappa] = 1.08 [kappa] = 1.002

TABLE 30

PCG for the discontinuous problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('po', 'a', 'st', 'st') [kappa] = 1

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 7 4
 op=176045, /n=1760 op=364913, /n=3649
 100-50-16-11
 str=1485, /n=14.8
 [kappa] = 1.13 [kappa] = 1.002

20 8 4
 op=769349, /n=1923 op=1460913, /n=3652
 400-200-46-17-10
 str=5448, /n=13.6
 [kappa] = 1.39 [kappa] = 1.007

30 8 4
 op=1829485, /n=2033 op=3558513, /n=3954
 900-450-122-30-21
 str=13311, /n=14.8
 [kappa] = 1.34 [kappa] = 1.004

39 8 4
 op=3201265, /n=2105 op=8053817, /n=5295
 1521-762-204-57-31-21-16
 str=23115, /n=15.2
 [kappa] = 1.26 [kappa] = 1.004

50 9 4
 op=5683443, /n=2273 op=10528673, /n=4211
 2500-1250-324-88-29-21
 str=36892, /n=14.8
 [kappa] = 1.41 [kappa] = 1.008

59 9 4
 op=8020647, /n=2304 op=15955017, /n=4583
 3481-1741-446-122-41-22-17
 str=52033, /n=14.9
 [kappa] = 1.45 [kappa] = 1.007

TABLE 31

PCG for the discontinuous problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ai', 'z', 'st', 'iz')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 7 5
 op=111261, /n=1126 op=154989, /n=1550
 100-15
 str=1882, /n=18.8
 [kappa] = 1.18 [kappa] = 1.03

20 11 8
 op=824933, /n=2062 op=1244657, /n=3111
 400-44-13
 str=8782, /n=21.9
 [kappa] = 3.52 [kappa] = 2.04

30 12 9
 op=2137984, /n=2375 op=3505293, /n=3895
 900-100-28-13
 str=21099, /n=23.4
 [kappa] = 3.9 [kappa] = 2.19

39 14 10
 op=4368457, /n=2872 op=7164021, /n=4710
 1521-166-47-21-10
 str=37356, /n=24.5
 [kappa] = 4.99 [kappa] = 2.68

50 16 11
 op=8321810, /n=3329 op=12523013, /n=5009
 2500-271-51-22
 str=62850, /n=25.1
 [kappa] = 6.5 [kappa] = 3.32

59 17 12
 op=12617568, /n=3625 op=20087094, /n=5770
 3481-387-69-21-16
 str=89907, /n=25.8
 [kappa] = 7.9 [kappa] = 3.8

TABLE 32

PCG for the discontinuous problem, [tau] = (0.2; 0.06),
multilevel, ('ai', 'z', 'st', 'iz')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 4
 op=127051, /n=1270 op=218273, /n=2183
 100-40-15
 str=2552, /n=25.5
 [kappa] = 1.15 [kappa] = 1.01

20 10 6
 op=988121, /n=2470 op=1889889, /n=4725
 400-147-53-23-10
 str=11898, /n=29.7
 [kappa] = 2.72 [kappa] = 1.59

30 10 6
 op=2410906, /n=2679 op=6298817, /n=5887
 900-304-117-53-24-12
 str=28896, /n=32.2
 [kappa] = 2.45 [kappa] = 1.22

39 11 6
 op=4742431, /n=3118 op=10171765, /n=6687
 1521-511-214-102-43-17
 str=52274, /n=34.4
 [kappa] = 2.9 [kappa] = 1.31

50 13 7
 op=9484653, /n=3794 op=21897205, /n=8759
 2500-837-356-174-67-31-17
 str=89472, /n=35.8
 [kappa] = 4.01 [kappa] = 1.57

59 13 8
 op=13619971, /n=3913 op=36180434, /n=10390
 3481-1163-510-248-88-40-17
 str=128477, /n=36.9
 [kappa] = 4.31 [kappa] = 1.63

TABLE 33

PCG for the discontinuous problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ai', 'a', 'st', '-'), [gamma] = 1

m 'iz' 'em'

10 7 7
 op=212405, /n=2124 op=165429, /n=1654
 100-50-16 100-50-14
 str=4098, /n=41 str=2956, /n=29.6

20 10 9
 op=1538429, /n=3846 op=987023, /n=2468
 400-200-45-20-12 400-200-65-16
 str=20790, /n=52 str=13329, /n=33.3

30 9 10
 op=3663843, /n=4071 op=2665677, /n=2962
 900-450-111-49-26-14 900-450-113-34-12
 str=54708, /n=60.8 str=32528, /n=36.1

39 10 12
 op=7407583, /n=4870 op=5552781, /n=3651
 1521-762-189-70-36-21-14 1521-762-185-52-15
 str=100955, /n=66.4 str=57033, /n=37.5

50 10 10
 op=12459839, /n=4984 op=8210341, /n=3284
 2500-1250-306-124-86 2500-1250-324-86-25
 str=174490, /n=69.8 str=99116, /n=39.6

59 11 13
 op=19749155, /n=5673 op=14901069, /n=4281
 3481-1741-421-166-105 3481-1741-433-116-30-10
 str=254066, /n=72.9 str=140651, /n=40.4

m 'wi' 'wm'

10 7 6
 op=161885, /n=1619 op=148681, /n=1487
 100-50-16-10 100-50-16
 str=2795, /n=27.9 str=3219, /n=32.2

20 13 9
 op=1276703, /n=3192 op=1058653, /n=2647
 400-200-56-15 400-200-46-24-17
 str=12198, /n=30.5 str=15034, /n=37.6

30 10 7
 op=2552487, /n=2836 op=2539973, /n=2822
 900-450-127-39-14 900-450-122-60-42-33-22
 str=30958, /n=34.4 str=46329, /n=51.5

39 12 8
 op=5294575, /n=3481 op=4795489, /n=3153
 1521-762-210-52-17 1521-762-204-89-63
 str=54142, /n=35.6 str=82054, /n=53.9

50 out 8
 of op=8488763, /n=3395
 memory 2500-1250-324-120-80-58-37
 str=136437, /n=54.6

59 out 9
 of op=12671127, /n=3640
 memory 3481-1741-446-159-94-76
 str=192518, /n=55.3

TABLE 34

AMG for the rapidly varying coefficient problem = 0:06

 m = 10 m = 20 m = 30

 11 13 14
 [rho] = 0:05 [rho] = 0:13 [rho] = 0:16
 op=124376, /n=1243 op=628323, /n=1571 op=1538752, /n=1710
 100-50-14 400-200-52-16 900-450-119-
 -60

 m = 40 m = 50 m = 60

 14 16 17

 [rho] = 0:17 [rho] = 0:22 [rho] = 0:23
 op=2745809, /n=1716 op=4835525, /n=1934 op=7471427, /n=2075
 1600-800-207- 2500-1250-313- 3600-1800-450-
 -91 -101 -180

TABLE 35

PCG for the rapidly varying coefficient problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('gs,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 4
 op=111049, /n=1105 op=209633, /n=2096
 100-50-14
 str=1285, /n=12.8
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.001

20 6 4
 op=509552, /n=1274 op=1158673, /n=2897
 400-200-52-16
 str=5653, /n=14.1
 [kappa] = 1.08 [kappa] = 1.002

30 7 4
 op=1393197, /n=1548 op=3388196, /n=3765
 900-450-119-34-16-10
 str=13243, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.11 [kappa] = 1.001

40 7 4
 op=2453616, /n=1533 op=5916142, /n=3698
 1600-800-207-58-22-11
 str=23650, /n=14.8
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.001

50 7 4
 op=3780647, /n=1512 op=8094016, /n=3238
 2500-1250-313-78-23-15
 str=36322, /n=14.5
 [kappa] = 1.19 [kappa] = 1.002

60 8 4
 op=6217905, /n=1727 op=12594385, /n=3498
 3600-1800-450-116-35-16
 str=52887, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.21 [kappa] = 1.001

TABLE 36

PCG for the rapidly varying coefficient problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ic,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 5 3
 op=85053, /n=850 op=147153, /n=1471
 100-50-14
 str=1993, /n=19.9
 [kappa] = 1.02 [kappa] = 1.0004

20 5 3
 op=385042, /n=963 op=795042, /n=1988
 400-200-52-16
 str=8772, /n=21.8
 [kappa] = 1.04 [kappa] = 1.0004

30 6 3
 op=1067074, /n=1191 op=2288596, /n=2543
 900-450-119-34-16-10
 str=20410, /n=22.7
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.0005

40 6 3
 op=1905715, /n=1191 op=4037610, /n=2524
 1600-800-207-58-22-11
 str=36408, /n=22.7
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.0005

50 7 3
 op=2251529, /n=1341 op=5551952, /n=2221
 2500-1250-313-78-23-15
 str=55886, /n=22.4
 [kappa] = 1.11 [kappa] = 1.0005

60 7 3
 op=4880849, /n=1356 op=8587888, /n=2385
 3600-1800-450-116-35-16
 str=81335, /n=22.6
 [kappa] = 1.12 [kappa] = 1.0004

TABLE 37

PCG for the rapidly varying coefficient problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ai,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 4
 op=131937, /n=1319 op=237753, /n=2377
 100-50-14
 str=2631, /n=26.3
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

20 6 4
 op=674612, /n=1686 op=1406753, /n=3517
 400-200-52-16
 str=13020, /n=32.5
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.004

30 7 4
 op=1918237, /n=2131 op=3991393, /n=4435
 900-450-119-34-16-10
 str=32030, /n=35.6
 [kappa] = 1.08 [kappa] = 1.004

40 7 4
 op=3560860, /n=2225 op=7464513, /n=4665
 1600-800-207-58-22-11
 str=59273, /n=37
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.004

50 7 4
 op=5669381, /n=2268 op=11390673, /n=4556
 2500-1250-313-78-23-15
 str=94133, /n=37.6
 [kappa] = 1.15 [kappa] = 1.005

60 7 4
 op=8365621, /n=2324 op=17532113, /n=4870
 3600-1800-450-116-35-16
 str=138741, /n=38.5
 [kappa] = 1.17 [kappa] = 1.004

TABLE 38

PCG for the rapidly varying coefficient problem, [tau] = 0:06,
multilevel, ('tw,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 7 4
 op=101973, /n=1020 op=164393, /n=1644
 100-50-14
 str=2209, /n=22.1
 [kappa] = 1:14 [kappa] = 1:01

20 8 5
 op=522398, /n=1306 op=1075205, /n=2688
 400-200-52-16
 str=9787, /n=24.5
 [kappa] = 1:15 [kappa] = 1:01

30 8 5
 op=1239904, /n=1378 op=3106333, /n=3451
 900-450-119-34-16-10
 str=22990, /n=25.5
 [kappa] = 1:17 [kappa] = 1:01

40 8 5
 op=2216574, /n=1385 op=5491845, /n=3432
 1600-800-207-58-22-11
 str=41072, /n=25.7
 [kappa] = 1:19 [kappa] = 1:01

50 9 5
 op=3786533, /n=1515 op=7525853, /n=3010
 2500-1250-313-78-23-15
 str=62958, /n=25.2
 [kappa] = 1:25 [kappa] = 1:01

60 9 5
 op=5517123, /n=1532 op=11657317, /n=3238
 3600-1800-450-116-35-16
 str=91732, /n=25.5
 [kappa] = 1:28 [kappa] = 1:01

TABLE 39

PCG for the rapidly varying coefficient problem, [tau] = 0.06, v = 3,
multilevel, ('gc,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 7 3
 op=258805, /n=1580 op=346405, /n=3461
 100-50-14
 str=2373, /n=23.7
 [kappa] = 1.1 [kappa] = 1.0005

20 7 3
 op=1169109, /n=2923 op=1856029, /n=4640
 400-200-52-16
 str=10455, /n=26.1
 [kappa] = 1.10 [kappa] = 1.0008

30 7 3
 op=2766621, /n=3074 op=5330853, /n=5923
 900-450-119-34-16-10
 str=24519, /n=27.2
 [kappa] = 1.13 [kappa] = 1.0007

40 8 3
 op=5547096, /n=3467 op=9357341, /n=5848
 1600-800-207-58-22-11
 str=43770, /n=27.3
 [kappa] = 1.17 [kappa] = 1.0007

50 9 3
 op=9467073, /n=3787 op=12924165, /n=5170
 2500-1250-313-78-23-15
 str=67172, /n=26.8
 [kappa] = 1.32 [kappa] = 1.0006

60 9 3
 op=13777663, /n=3827 op=19955869, /n=5543
 3600-1800-450-116-35-16
 str=97749, /n=27.1
 [kappa] = 1.33 [kappa] = 1.0006

TABLE 40

PCG for the rapidly varying coefficient problem, [tau] = 0.06, v = 3,
multilevel, ('cg,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 3 2
 op=275109, /n=2751 op=541525, /n=5414
 100-50-14
 str=2631, /n=26.3
 [kappa] = 1.0001 [kappa] = 1

20 4 2
 op=1793498, /n=4484 op=3240569, /n=8101
 400-200-52-16
 str=13020, /n=32.6
 [kappa] = 1.004 [kappa] = 1

30 5 2
 op=5382018, /n=5980 op=9227881, /n=10253
 900-450-119-34-16-10
 str=32030, /n=35.6
 [kappa] = 1.01 [kappa] = 1

40 5 2
 op=10007103, /n=6254 op=17271369, /n=10795
 1600-800-207-58-22-11
 str=59272, /n=37
 [kappa] = 1.01 [kappa] = 1

50 5 2
 op=15952841, /n=6381 op=26438009, /n=10575
 2500-1250-313-78-23-15
 str=94133, /n=37.6
 [kappa] = 1.01 [kappa] = 1

60 5 2
 op=23565355, /n=6546 op=40711657, /n=11309
 3600-1800-450-116-35-16
 str=138741, /n=38.5
 [kappa] = 1.02 [kappa] = 1

TABLE 41

PCG for the rapidly varying coefficient problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('po', 'a', 'st', 'st') [kappa] = 1

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 3
 op=132105, /n=1321 op=200037, /n=2004
 100-50-14
 str=1285, /n=12.8
 [kappa] = 1.08 [kappa] = 1.002

20 7 4
 op=687189, /n=1718 op=1359953, /n=3400
 400-200-52-16
 str=5653, /n=14.1
 [kappa] = 1.13 [kappa] = 1.002

30 8 4
 op=1837738, /n=2042 op=3941873, /n=4380
 900-450-119-34-16-10
 str=13243, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.17 [kappa] = 1.002

40 8 4
 op=3279600, /n=2050 op=6942913, /n=4339
 1600-800-207-58-22-11
 str=23650, /n=14.8
 [kappa] = 1.20 [kappa] = 1.002

50 8 4
 op=5029811, /n=2012 op=9504033, /n=3802
 2500-1250-313-78-23-15
 str=36322, /n=14.5
 [kappa] = 1.26 [kappa] = 1.002

60 9 4
 op=8149743, /n=2264 op=14726433, /n=4091
 3600-1800-450-116-35-16
 str=52887, /n=14.7
 [kappa] = 1.29 [kappa] = 1.002

TABLE 42

PCG for the rapidly varying coefficient problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ai', 'z', 'st', 'iz')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 7 4
 op=104509, /n=1045 op=120433, /n=1204
 100-13
 str=1737, /n=17.4
 [kappa] = 1.21 [kappa] = 1.03

20 9 6
 op=655513, /n=1649 op=929041, /n=2322
 400-46-15
 str=8464, /n=21.2
 [kappa] = 1.6 [kappa] = 1.16

30 11 7
 op=1928857, /n=2143 op=2764629, /n=3072
 900-103-29-13
 str=20670, /n=22.9
 [kappa] = 1.8 [kappa] = 1.23

40 12 8
 op=3849758, /n=2406 op=5709825, /n=3568
 1600-180-37-15
 str=38032, /n=23.8
 [kappa] = 2.00 [kappa] = 1.29

50 13 8
 op=6677681, /n=2671 op=9535625, /n=3813
 2500-279-52-23-10
 str=61230, /n=24.5
 [kappa] = 2.15 [kappa] = 1.34

60 14 9
 op=10475023, /n=2910 op=15479973, /n=4300
 3600-402-66-28-12
 str=89631, /n=24.9
 [kappa] = 2.31 [kappa] = 1.39

TABLE 43

PCG for the rapidly varying coefficient problem, [tau] = (1; 0.01),
multilevel, ('ai', 'z', 'st', 'iz')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 4 3
 op=175818, /n=1758 op=403493, /n=4035
 100-50-24-14
 str=4726, /n=47.2
 [kappa] = 1.008 [kappa] = 1.0001

20 5 3
 op=1631519, /n=4079 op=3848317, /n=9621
 400-200-99-53-26-12
 str=35029, /n=87
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

30 6 4
 op=5849563, /n=6499 op=14671353, /n=16302
 900-450-215-111-54-23-10
 str=106604, /n=118
 [kappa] = 1.11 [kappa] = 1.009

40 7 4
 op=14237629, /n=8898 op=31440793, /n=19650
 1600-800-385-199-104-45-22
 str=226485, /n=141
 [kappa] = 1.18 [kappa] = 1.02

50 8 5
 op=27883151, /n=11153 op=65753549, /n=26301
 2500-1250-605-314-157-72-37
 str=393652, /n=157
 [kappa] = 1.30 [kappa] = 1.03

60 8 5
 op=43150516, /n=11986 op=102536912, /n=28482
 3600-1800-875-454-233-108-53
 str=608523, /n=169
 [kappa] = 1.47 [kappa] = 1.05

TABLE 44

AMG for the random Laplacian problem [tau] = 0:06

 m = 10 m = 20 m = 30

 9 10 10

 [rho] = 0:06 [rho] = 0:08 [rho] = 0:08
 op=101687, /n=1017 op=719629, /n=1799 op=2717419, /n=3019
 100-50 400-200 900-450

 m = 40 m = 50 m = 60

 10 11

 [rho] = 0:08 [rho] = 0:14
 op=6817639, /n=4261 op=8259634, /n=3304
 1600-800 2500-1250-382

TABLE 45

PCG for the random Laplacian problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('gs,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 4
 op=101851, /n=1018 op=185873, /n=1859
 100-50-19
 str=1402, /n=14
 [kappa] = 1.05 [kappa] = 1.002

20 6 4
 op=436591, /n=1091 op=813933, /n=2035
 400-200-67
 str=5913, /n=14.8
 [kappa] = 1.06 [kappa] = 1.002

30 6 4
 op=1021775, /n=1135 op=1934273, /n=2149
 900-450-141
 str=13514, /n=15
 [kappa] = 1.06 [kappa] = 1.002

40 6 4
 op=1875813, /n=1172 op=3599433, /n=2250
 1600-800-254
 str=24226, /n=15.1
 [kappa] = 1.10 [kappa] = 1.002

50 6 4
 op=3009093, /n=1204 op=5839113, /n=2336
 2500-1250-383
 str=37734, /n=15.1
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.002

TABLE 46

PCG for the random Laplacian problem,[kappa] [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ic,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 5 3
 op=81665, /n=816 op=138140, /n=1381
 100-50-19
 str=2109, /n=21.1
 [kappa] = 1.03 [kappa] = 1.001

20 6 3
 op=408899, /n=1022 op=604333, /n=1511
 400-200-67
 str=8865, /n=22.2
 [kappa] = 1.04 [kappa] = 1.001

30 6 3
 op=956647, /n=1063 op=1436677, /n=1596
 900-450-141
 str=20204, /n=22.4
 [kappa] = 1.04 [kappa] = 1.001

40 6 3
 op=1759473, /n=1100 op=2682133, /n=1672
 1600-800-254
 str=36234, /n=22.6
 [kappa] = 1.04 [kappa] = 1.001

50 6 3
 op=2823269, /n=1129 op=4354349, /n=1742
 2500-1250-383
 str=56510, /n=22.6
 [kappa] = 1.04 [kappa] = 1.001

TABLE 47

PCG for the random Laplacian problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ai,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 9 6
 op=106723, /n=1067 op=135213, /n=1352
 100-50-19
 str=1730, /n=17.3
 [kappa] = 1.3 [kappa] = 1.06

20 9 6
 op=517643, /n=1294 op=666989, /n=1667
 400-200-67
 str=7322, /n=18.3
 [kappa] = 1.4 [kappa] = 1.08

30 10 6
 op=1489546, /n=1655 op=1763173, /n=1959
 900-450-141
 str=16694, /n=18.5
 [kappa] = 1.39 [kappa] = 1.08

40 10 7
 op=3003385, /n=1877 op=4102413, /n=2564
 1600-800-254
 str=29952, /n=18.7
 [kappa] = 1.44 [kappa] = 1.10

50 10 7
 op=4049613, /n=1620 op=7713653, /n=3085
 2500-1250-383
 str=51968, /n=20.7
 [kappa] = 1.45 [kappa] = 1.10

TABLE 48

PCG for the random Laplacian problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('tw,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 7 4
 op=97477, /n=975 op=153153, /n=1531
 100-50-19
 str=2309, /n=23.1
 [kappa] = 1.10 [kappa] = 1.007

20 7 4
 op=420317, /n=1051 op=677233, /n=1693
 400-200-67
 str=9816, /n=24.5
 [kappa] = 1.11 [kappa] = 1.008

30 7 4
 op=987589, /n=1097 op=1619793, /n=1800
 900-450-141
 str=22420, /n=24.9
 [kappa] = 1.12 [kappa] = 1.007

40 7 4
 op=1822893, /n=1139 op=3039833, /n=1900
 1600-800-254
 str=40282, /n=25.2
 [kappa] = 1.18 [kappa] = 1.008

50 7 4
 op=2932981, /n=1173 op=4954233, /n=1982
 2500-1250-382
 str=62888, /n=25.1
 [kappa] = 1.13 [kappa] = 1.008

TABLE 49

PCG for the random Laplacian problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('gc,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 3
 op=217603, /n=2176 op=326661, /n=3267
 100-50-19
 str=1402, /n=14
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.0004

20 6 3
 op=906403, /n=2266 op=1375261, /n=3438
 400-200-67
 str=5913, /n=14.8
 [kappa] = 1.08 [kappa] = 1.0006

30 6 3
 op=2086895, /n=2319 op=3192357, /n=3547
 900-450-141
 str=13514, /n=15
 [kappa] = 1.09 [kappa] = 1.0007

40 7 3
 op=4313517, /n=2696 op=5804669, /n=3628
 1600-800-254
 str=24226, /n=15.1
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.0007

50 7 3
 op=6842773, /n=2737 op=9266661, /n=3707
 2500-1250-383
 str=37734, /n=15.1
 [kappa] = 1.14 [kappa] = 1.0008

TABLE 50

PCG for the random Laplacian problem, [tau] = 0.06, v = 3,
multilevel, ('cg,' 'a', 'st', 'st')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 4 2
 op=155828, /n=1558 op=180957, /n=1810
 100-50-19
 str=1730, /n=17.3
 [kappa] = 1.001 [kappa] = 1

20 4 2
 op=677228, /n=1695 op=788861, /n=1972
 400-200-67
 str=7322, /n=18.3
 [kappa] = 1.003 [kappa] = 1

30 4 2
 op=1626088, /n=1807 op=4895797, /n=2106
 900-450-141
 str=16694, /n=18.5
 [kappa] = 1.002 [kappa] = 1

40 4 2
 op=3058568, /n=1912 op=3571317, /n=2232
 1600-800-254
 str=29952, /n=18.7
 [kappa] = 1.003 [kappa] = 1

50 4 2
 op=5771853, /n=2309 op=9146465, /n=3659
 2500-1250-383
 str=51698, /n=20.7
 [kappa] = 1.004 [kappa] = 1

TABLE 51

PCG for the random Laplacian problem,[kappa] [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('po', 'a', 'st', 'st') [kappa] = 1

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 6 3
 op=125819, /n=1258 op=185669, /n=1857
 100-50-19
 str=1402, /n=14
 [kappa] = 1.07 [kappa] = 1.002

20 6 3
 op=532379, /n=1331 op=799069, /n=1998
 400-200-67
 str=5913, /n=14.8
 [kappa] = 1.10 [kappa] = 1.002

30 7 3
 op=1418277, /n=1576 op=1883749, /n=2093
 900-450-141
 str=13514, /n=15
 [kappa] = 1.13 [kappa] = 1.002

40 7 4
 op=2589037, /n=1618 op=4352953, /n=2721
 1600-800-254
 str=24226, /n=15.1
 [kappa] = 1.24 [kappa] = 1.006

50 7 3
 op=4138709, /n=1655 op=5611813, /n=2244
 2500-1250-382
 str=37734, /n=15.1
 [kappa] = 1.16 [kappa] = 1.003

TABLE 52

PCG for the random Laplacian problem, [tau] = 0.06,
multilevel, ('ai,' 'z', 'st', 'iz')

m [gamma] = 1 [gamma] = 2

10 9 6
 op=146023, /n=1460 op=335049, /n=3350
 100-50-24-12
 str=2134, /n=21.3
 [kappa] = 1.4 [kappa] = 1.09

20 10 7
 op=731590, /n=1829 op=2729133, /n=6823
 400-200-91-46-23-12
 str=9489, /n=23.7
 [kappa] = 1.4 [kappa] = 1.1

30 11 7
 op=1850653, /n=2056 op=7510421, /n=8345
 900-450-204-96-49-25-13
 str=21533, /n=24.4
 [kappa] = 1.6 [kappa] = 1.15

40 12 8
 op=3624403, /n=2265 op=15291297, /n=9557
 1600-800-381-176-90-40-20
 str=39655, /n=24.8
 [kappa] = 1.9 [kappa] = 1.27

50 12 8
 op=5724579, /n=2290 op=24772913, /n=9909
 2500-1250-595-288-129-65-36
 str=62822, /n=25.1
 [kappa] = 1.8 [kappa] = 1.24

TABLE 53

1138-bus modified, [tau] = 0.06

method

AMG 104 it
 op=12227373
 1138-472-178-80-61
 [rho] = 0.81
 st=24922

('gs', 'a', 'st', 'st') 22 it
 op=3880407
 1138-472-178-80
 st=12533

('ic', 'a', 'st', 'st') 21 it
 op=3351650
 1138-472-178-80
 st=19993

('ai', 'a', 'st', 'st') 14 it
 op=2808576
 1138-472-178-80
 st=24922

('tw', 'a', 'st', 'st') 109 it
 op=14886591
 1138-472-178-80
 st=21849

('gc', 'a', 'st', 'st') 63 it
 op=12546321
 1138-472-178-80
 st=23717

('cg', 'a', 'st', 'st') 13 it
 op=5058207
 1138-472-178-80
 st=24922

('po', 'a', 'st', 'st') 37 it
 op=7645767
 1138-472-178-80
 st=12533

('ai', 'z', 'st', 'iz') 15 it
 op=2402769
 1138-472-178-80
 st=19597

TABLE 54

bcsstk01, [tau] = 0.06

method

AMG 48 it
 op=431347
 48-18
 [rho] = 0.98
 st=1179

('gs', 'a', 'st', 'st') 13 it
 op=110367
 48-18
 st=736

('ic', 'a', 'st', 'st') 11 it
 op=84989
 48-18
 st=1144

('ai', 'a', 'st', 'st') 13 it
 op=106783
 48-18
 st=1179

('tw', 'a', 'st', 'st') 14 it
 op=98654
 48-18
 st=1354

('gc', 'a', 'st', 'st') 48 it
 op=405284
 48-18
 st=1420

('cg', 'a', 'st', 'st') 17 it
 op=237955
 48-18
 st=1179

('po', 'a', 'st', 'st') 32 it
 op=301868
 48-18
 st=736

('ai', 'z', 'st', 'iz') 14 it
[tau] = 0.2 op=92294
 48-10
 st=867

TABLE 55

gr3030, [tau] = 0.06

method

AMG 10 it
 op=1182199
 900-225-49
 [rho] = 0.08
 st=26313

('gs', 'a', 'st', 'st') 6 it
 op=1140515
 900-225-49
 st=12461

('ic', 'a', 'st', 'st') 6 it
 op=1036929
 900-225-49
 st=19199

('ai', 'a', 'st', 'st') 7 it
 op=1600109
 900-225-49
 st=26313

('tw', 'a', 'st', 'st') 7 it
 op=1098301
 900-225-49
 st=22415

('gc', 'a', 'st', 'st') 17 it
 op=3188309
 900-225-49
 st=23589

('cg', 'a', 'st', 'st') 8 it
 op=3362081
 900-225-49
 st=26313

('po', 'a', 'st', 'st') 8 it
 op=1767173
 900-225-49
 st=12461

('ai', 'z', 'st', 'iz') 9 it
 op=1916455
 900-117-33-14
 st=24975

TABLE 56

bcsstk34, [tau] = 0.01

method

AMG 6 it
 op=1343689
 588-66-12
 [rho] = 0.008
 st=32921

('gs', 'a', 'st', 'st') 3 it
 op=1326425
 588-66-12
 st=25393

('ic', 'a', 'st', 'st') 3 it
 op=1146281
 588-66-12
 st=37855

('ai', 'a', 'st', 'st') 5 it
 op=1491137
 588-66-12
 st=32921

('tw', 'a', 'st', 'st') 4 it
 op=1412033
 588-66-12
 st=48319

('gc', 'a', 'st', 'st') 6 it
 op=2151621
 588-66-12
 st=23847

('cg', 'a', 'st', 'st') 5 it
 op=2490353
 588-66-12
 st=32921

('po', 'a', 'st', 'st') 6 it
 op=2717445
 588-66-12
 st=25393

('ai', 'z', 'st', 'iz') 4 it
 op=1982563
 588-233-24
 st=58317

TABLE 57

bcsstk27, = 0:06

method

('gs', 'a', 'st', 'st') 58 it
 op=61447065
 1224-289-34
 st=73840

('ai', 'a', 'st', 'st') 368 it
[tau] = 0:06 op=312558975
 1224-289-1234
 st=110083

('ai', 'a', 'st', 'st') 22 it
 ([tau] = 0:06; 0:01) op=45313063
 1224-289-1234
 st=251107

('ai', 'a', 'st', 'st') 12 it
[tau] = (0:06; 0:005) op=34343127
 1224-289-1234
 st=335578

('tw', 'a', 'st', 'st') 274 it
 op=231271769
 1224-289-34
 st=142813
COPYRIGHT 2001 Institute of Computational Mathematics
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2001 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Meurant, Gerard
Publication:Electronic Transactions on Numerical Analysis
Date:Jan 1, 2001
Words:19301
Previous Article:Special volume on orthogonal polynomials, approximation theory, and harmonic analysis.
Next Article:Gersgorin-type eigenvalue inclusion theorems and their sharpness.


Related Articles
Algebraic coding theory and information theory; proceedings.
Multigrid finite element methods for electromagnetic field modeling.
An additive Schwarz preconditioner for the spectral element ocean model formulation of the shallow water equations.
Efficient solution of symmetric eigenvalue problems using multigrid preconditioners in the locally optimal block conjugate gradient method.
Multilevel preconditioners for Lagrange multipliers in domain imbedding.
Vaidya's preconditioners: implementation and experimental study.
Preconditioners for saddle point linear systems with highly singular (1,1) blocks.
Efficient preconditioning for sequences of parametric complex symmetric linear systems.
Preconditioning of nonsymmetric saddle point systems as arising in modelling of viscoelastic problems.
Preconditioning block Toeplitz matrices.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |