# Parallel Detection of Subsystems in Linear Systems Arising in the MESHFREE Finite Pointset Method

- 1 Citations
- 308 Downloads

## Abstract

The Finite Pointset Method (FPM) is a meshfree method for simulations in the field of fluid dynamics and continuum mechanics (Tiwari and Kuhnert, Finite pointset method based on the projection method for simulations of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. Springer, Berlin, 2003). The key idea in FPM is to discretize the necessary differential operators by using stencils generated by a least squares approach on a pointcloud that is moving in every time step.

Applying Algebraic Multigrid Methods (AMG) to the linear systems arising in FPM comes with various challenges, see our previous work Metsch et al. (Comput Vis Sci, reviewed) and Nick et al. (Linear solvers for the finite pointset method. In: Schäfer, M., Behr, M., Mehl, M., Wohlmuth, B. (eds.) Recent advances in computational engineering. Springer, Cham, 2018). In Nick et al. (Linear solvers for the finite pointset method. In: Schäfer, M., Behr, M., Mehl, M., Wohlmuth, B. (eds.) Recent advances in computational engineering. Springer, Cham, 2018) we limited ourselves to essentially irreducible matrices, saying that if a matrix arising from FPM is not essentially irreducible, we can employ a parallel algorithm in order to detect those subsystems that are essentially irreducible. This paper introduces the algorithm that we use in order to detect independent parts of the FPM pointcloud, which we call *components*. The algorithm that we propose has a theoretical complexity of \(\mathcal {O}(|V|)\) in the average case, where |*V* | is the number of points in the pointcloud. Our experiments with a real world model however show that in practice the complexity is much better.

The experiments also show that in order to guarantee a stable convergence of the arising linear systems, detecting components is essential, as singular components can occur in certain situations.

Finally, we give an outlook on how our handling of the components could be improved in the future.

## References

- 1.A. Donev, Connected components of a graph. http://computation.pa.msu.edu/NO/ConnCompPresentation.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2018
- 2.J.A. Edwards, U. Vishkin, Better speedups using simpler parallel programming for graph connectivity and biconnectivity, in
*Proceedings of the 2012 International Workshop on Programming Models and Applications for Multicores and Manycores*(ACM, New York, 2012), pp. 103–114Google Scholar - 3.L.K. Fleischer, B. Hendrickson, A. Pınar, On identifying strongly connected components in parallel, in
*International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium*(Springer, Berlin, 2000), pp. 505–511Google Scholar - 4.D.S. Hirschberg, A.K. Chandra, D.V. Sarwate, Computing connected components on parallel computers. Commun. ACM
**22**(8), 461–464 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.S. Hong, N.C. Rodia, K.Olukotun, On fast parallel detection of strongly connected components (SCC) in small-world graphs, in
*Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis*(ACM, New York, 2013), p. 92Google Scholar - 6.J. Iverson, C. Kamath, G. Karypis, Evaluation of connected-component labeling algorithms for distributed-memory systems. Parallel Comput.
**44**, 53–68 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.V. Kumar, V. Nageshwara Rao, Parallel depth first search. Part II. Analysis. Int. J. Parallel Program.
**16**(6), 501–519 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 8.L. Lovasz, B. Szegedy, Limits of dense graph sequences. J. Comb. Theory Ser. B
**96**(6), 933–957 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.R. McColl, O. Green, D.A. Bader, A new parallel algorithm for connected components in dynamic graphs, in
*20th Annual International Conference on High Performance Computing*(IEEE, Piscataway, 2013), pp. 246–255Google Scholar - 10.W. McLendon III, B. Hendrickson, S.J. Plimpton, L. Rauchwerger, Finding strongly connected components in distributed graphs. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput.
**65**(8), 901–910 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 11.B. Metsch, F. Nick, J. Kuhnert, Algebraic multigrid for the finite pointset method. Comput. Vis. Sci. (reviewed)Google Scholar
- 12.F. Nick, B. Metsch, H.-J. Plum, Linear solvers for the finite pointset method, in
*Recent Advances in Computational Engineering*, ed. by M. Schäfer, M. Behr, M. Mehl, B. Wohlmuth (Springer, Cham, 2018), pp. 89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.G.L.G. Sleijpen, D.R. Fokkema, Bicgstab(l) for linear equations involving unsymmetric matrices with complex spectrum. Electron. Trans. Numer. Anal.
**1**, 11–32 (1993)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 14.G.M. Slota, S. Rajamanickam, K. Madduri, Bfs and coloring-based parallel algorithms for strongly connected components and related problems, in
*IPDPS ‘14 Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 28th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium*(IEEE, Piscataway, 2014), pp. 550–559Google Scholar - 15.K. Stüben, An introduction to algebraic multigrid, in
*Multigrid*(Academic, London, 2000)Google Scholar - 16.P. Suchde, Conservation and accuracy in meshfree generalized finite difference methods, Ph.D. thesis, University of Kaiserslautern, 2017Google Scholar
- 17.P. Suchde, J. Kuhnert, S. Tiwari, On meshfree GFDM solvers for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. Comput. Fluids
**165**, 1–12 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 18.R. Tarjan, Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J. Comput.
**1**(2), 146–160 (1972)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.R. Tarjan, Finding dominators in directed graphs. SIAM J. Comput.
**3**(1), 62–89 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.S. Tiwari, J. Kuhnert, Finite pointset method based on the projection method for simulations of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations, in
*3rd International Workshop on Meshfree Methods for Partial Differential Equations*(Springer, Berlin, 2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar