Iterative Solution of Saddle-Point Problems

  • Miroslav Rozložník
Part of the Nečas Center Series book series (NECES)


Although sparse direct solvers are very competitive, they can be less efficient for challenging problems due to their storage and computational limitations. If we cannot solve the saddle-point problem directly, in many applications, we have to use some iterative method. Coupled iterative methods applied to the system ( 1.1) take some initial guess Open image in new window and generate approximate solutions Open image in new window for k = 1, … such that they satisfy Open image in new window . The convergence to the exact solution Open image in new window can be also measured using the residual vectors given as Open image in new window , where we eventually have Open image in new window .


  1. 8.
    Z.Z. Bai, G.H. Golub, M.K. Ng, Hermitian and skew-Hermitian splitting methods for non-Hermitian positive definite linear systems. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 24, 603–626 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 10.
    M. Benzi, Preconditioning techniques for large linear systems: a survey. J. Comput. Phys. 182, 418–477 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 11.
    M. Benzi, V. Simoncini, On the eigenvalues of a class of saddle point matrices. Numer. Math. 103, 173–196 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 12.
    M. Benzi, G.H. Golub, J. Liesen, Numerical solution of saddle point problems. Acta Numerica 14, 1–137 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 15.
    D. Braess, R. Sarazin, An efficient smoother for the Stokes problem. Appl. Numer. Math. 23, 3–20 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 16.
    J.H. Bramble, J.E. Pasciak, A preconditioning technique for indefinite systems resulting from mixed approximations of elliptic problems. Math. Comput. 50, 1–17 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 19.
    D. Drzisga, L. John, U. Rüde, B. Wohlmuth, W. Zulehner, On the analysis of block smoothers for saddle point problems. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 39(2), 932–960 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 20.
    C. Durazzi, V. Ruggiero, Indefinitely preconditioned conjugate gradient method for large sparse equality and inequality constrained quadratic problems. Numer. Linear Algebra Appl. 10(8), 673–688 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 21.
    H.C. Elman, Multigrid and Krylov subspace methods for the discrete Stokes equations. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 22, 755–770 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 22.
    H.C. Elman, G.H. Golub, Inexact and preconditioned Uzawa algorithms for saddle point problems. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 31(6), 1645–1661 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 23.
    H.C. Elman, D.J. Silvester, A.J. Wathen, Iterative methods for problems in computational fluid dynamics, in Iterative Methods in Scientific Computing, ed. by R.H. Chan, C.T. Chan, G.H. Golub (Springer, Singapore, 1997), pp. 271–327zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 28.
    V. Faber, T.A. Manteuffel, S.V. Parter, On the theory of equivalent operators and application to the numerical solution of uniformly elliptic partial differential equations. Adv. Appl. Math. 11(2), 109–163 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 30.
    R.W. Freund, N.M. Nachtigal, QMR: a quasi-minimal residual method for non-Hermitian linear systems. Numer. Math. 60, 315–339 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 31.
    R.W. Freund, N.M. Nachtigal, Software for simplified Lanczos and QMR algorithms. Appl. Numer. Math. 19, 319–341 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 32.
    R. Freund, G.H. Golub, N.M. Nachtigal, Iterative solution of linear systems. Acta Numerica 1, 1–44 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 34.
    T. Gergelits, Z. Strakoš, Composite convergence bounds based on Chebyshev polynomials and finite precision conjugate gradient computations. Numer. Algorithms 65(4), 759–782 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 37.
    A. Greenbaum, Iterative Methods for Solving Linear Systems (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 38.
    A. Greenbaum, V. Pták, Z. Strakoš, Any convergence curve is possible for GMRES. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 17, 465–470 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 39.
    M.R. Hestenes, E. Stiefel, Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems. J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stand. 49, 409–436 (1952)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 51.
    J. Liesen, Z. Strakoš, Convergence of GMRES for tridiagonal toeplitz matrices. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 26, 233–251 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 52.
    J. Liesen, Z. Strakoš, GMRES convergence analysis for a convection-diffusion model problem. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 26, 1989–2009 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 53.
    J. Liesen, B. Parlett, On nonsymmetric saddle point matrices that allow conjugate gradient iterations. Numer. Math. 108, 605–624 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 54.
    J. Liesen, Z. Strakoš, Krylov Subspace Methods, Principles and Analysis (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 56.
    J. Málek, Z. Strakoš, Preconditioning and the Conjugate Gradient Method in the Context of Solving PDEs. SIAM Spotlight Series (SIAM, Philadelphia, 2015)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 58.
    J. Maryška, M. Rozložník, M. Tůma, The potential fluid flow problem and the convergence rate of the minimal residual method. Numer. Linear Algebra Appl. 3, 525–542 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 64.
    C.C. Paige, M.A. Saunders, Solution of sparse indefinite systems of linear equations. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 12, 617–629 (1975)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 67.
    J. Pestana, A.J. Wathen, Natural preconditioning and iterative methods for saddle point systems. SIAM Rev. 57, 71–91 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 71.
    M. Rozložník, V. Simoncini, Krylov subspace methods for saddle point problems with indefinite preconditioning. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 24(2), 368–391 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 74.
    Y. Saad, Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear Systems (PWS Pub. Co., Boston, 1996) (2nd edition: SIAM, Philadelphia, 2003)Google Scholar
  30. 75.
    Y. Saad, M.H. Schultz, GMRES: a generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 7, 856–869 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 77.
    J. Stoer, Solution of large linear systems of conjugate gradient type methods, in Mathematical Programming (Springer, Berlin, 1983), pp. 540–565Google Scholar
  32. 78.
    J. Stoer, R. Freund, On the solution of large indefinite systems of linear equations by conjugate gradients algorithm, in Computing Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering V, ed. by R. Glowinski, J.L. Lions (INRIA, North Holland, 1982), pp. 35–53Google Scholar
  33. 79.
    M. Stoll, A. Wathen, Combination preconditioning and the Bramble-Pasciak+ preconditioner. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 30(2), 582–608 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 81.
    A.J. Wathen, Preconditioning. Acta Numerica 24, 329–376 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 82.
    A.J. Wathen, B. Fischer, D.J. Silvester, The convergence rate of the minimal residual method for the Stokes problem. Numer. Math. 71, 121–134 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 83.
    A.J. Wathen, B. Fischer, D.J. Silvester, The convergence of iterative solution methods for symmetric and indefinite linear systems, in Numerical Analysis, ed. by D. Griffiths, D. Higham, A.G. Watson (Longman Scientific, Harlow, 1998), pp. 230–240Google Scholar
  37. 84.
    W. Zulehner, A class of smoothers for saddle point problems. Computing 65, 227–246 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 85.
    W. Zulehner, Analysis of iterative methods for saddle point problems: a unified approach. Math. Comput. 71, 479–505 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miroslav Rozložník
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of MathematicsCzech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations