How to Choose the Shift in the Shifted Laplace Preconditioner for the Helmholtz Equation Combined with Deflation

  • D. LahayeEmail author
  • C. Vuik
Part of the Geosystems Mathematics book series (GSMA)


In recent work we showed that the performance of the complex shifted Laplace preconditioner for the discretized Helmholtz equation can be significantly improved by combining it multiplicatively with a deflation procedure that employs multigrid vectors. In this chapter we argue that in this combination the preconditioner improves the convergence of the outer Krylov acceleration through a new mechanism. This mechanism allows for a much larger damping and facilitates the approximate solve with the preconditioner. The convergence of the outer Krylov acceleration is not significantly delayed and occasionally even accelerated. To provide a basis for these claims, we analyze for a one-dimensional problem a two-level variant of the method in which the preconditioner is applied after deflation and in which both the preconditioner and the coarse grid problem are inverted exactly. We show that in case that the mesh is sufficiently fine to resolve the wave length, the spectrum after deflation consists of a cluster surrounded by two tails that extend in both directions along the real axis. The action of the inverse of the preconditioner is to shrink the length of the tails while at the same time rotating them and shifting the center of the cluster towards the origin. A much larger damping parameter than in algorithms without deflation can be used.


Grid Point Dirichlet Boundary Condition Coarse Grid Helmholtz Equation Krylov Subspace 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to sincerely thank Prof. Ira Livshits and Prof. Martin Gander for numerous discussions that indirectly give raise to material in this paper.


  1. 1.
    Y. A. Erlangga, C. Vuik, and C. W. Oosterlee. On a class of preconditioners for solving the Helmholtz equation. Appl. Numer. Math., 50(3–4):409–425, 2004.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. A. Erlangga, C. W. Oosterlee, and C. Vuik. A novel multigrid based preconditioner for heterogeneous Helmholt problems. SIAM J. Sci. Comput, 27:1471–1492, 2006.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. I. Goldstein A. Bayliss and E. Turkel. An iterative method for the Helmholtz equation. Journal of Computational Physics, 49:443 – 457, 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. A. Laird and M. B. Giles. Preconditioned iterative solution of the 2D Helmholtz equation. Technical report, Comp. Lab. Oxford University UK, 2002. NA-02/12.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. M. M. Made. Incomplete factorization-based preconditionings for solving the Helmholtz equation. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 50:1077–1101, 2001.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. A. Erlangga and R. Nabben. On a multilevel Krylov method for the Helmholtz equation preconditioned by shifted Laplacian. Electronic Transactions on Numerical Analysis, 31:403–424, 2008.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Reps, W. Vanroose, and H. Bin Zubair. On the indefinite Helmholtz equation: Complex stretched absorbing boundary layers, iterative analysis, and preconditioning. J. Comput. Phys., 229:8384–8405, November 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Bollhöfer, M. J. Grote, and O. Schenk. Algebraic multilevel preconditioner for the Helmholtz equation in heterogeneous media. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 31:3781–3805, 2009.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Airaksinen, E. Heikkola, A. Pennanen, and J. Toivanen. An algebraic multigrid based shifted-Laplacian preconditioner for the Helmholtz equation. Journal of Computational Physics, 226:1196 – 1210, 2007.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M.J. Gander, I. G. Graham, and E. A. Spence. Applying GMRES to the Helmholtz equation with shifted Laplacian preconditioning: what is the largest shift for which wavenumber-independent convergence is guaranteed? Numerische Mathematik, pages 1–48, 2015.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Zhu, X. W. Ping, R. S. Chen, Z. H. Fan, and D. Z. Ding. An incomplete factorization preconditioner based on shifted Laplace operators for FEM analysis of microwave structures. Microwave and Optical Technology Letters, 52:1036–1042, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. Airaksinen, A. Pennanen, and J. Toivanen. A damping preconditioner for time-harmonic wave equations in fluid and elastic material. J. Comput. Phys., 228:1466–1479, March 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. D. Riyanti, A. Kononov, Y. A. Erlangga, C. Vuik, C. Oosterlee, R.E. Plessix, and W.A. Mulder. A parallel multigrid-based preconditioner for the 3D heterogeneous high-frequency Helmholtz equation. Journal of Computational Physics, 224:431–448, 2007.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. E. Plessix. A Helmholtz iterative solver for 3D seismic-imaging problems. Geophysics, 72:SM185–SM194, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. E. Plessix. Three-dimensional frequency-domain full-waveform inversion with an iterative solver. Geophysics, 74(6):149–157, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    N. Umetani, S. P. MacLachlan, and C. W. Oosterlee. A multigrid-based shifted Laplacian preconditioner for a fourth-order Helmholtz discretization. Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, 16:603–626, 2009.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Airaksinen and S. Mönkölä. Comparison between the shifted-Laplacian preconditioning and the controllability methods for computational acoustics. J. Comput. Appl. Math., 234:1796–1802, July 2010.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Zepeda-Núnez and L. Demanet. The method of polarized traces for the 2D Helmholtz equation. Journal of Computational Physics, 308:347–388, 2016.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Osei-Kuffuor and Y. Saad. Preconditioning Helmholtz linear systems. Appl. Numer. Math., 60:420–431, April 2010.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    H. Calandra, S. Gratton, R. Lago, X. Pinel, and X. Vasseur. Two-level preconditioned Krylov subspace methods for the solution of three-dimensional heterogeneous Helmholtz problems in seismics. Numerical Analysis and Applications, 5:175–181, 2012.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Y.A. Erlangga. Advances in iterative methods and preconditioners for the Helmholtz equation. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 15:37–66, 2008.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huangxin Chen, Haijun Wu, and Xuejun Xu. Multilevel preconditioner with stable coarse grid corrections for the helmholtz equation. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 37(1):A221–A244, 2015.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. Conen, V. Dolean, Rolf R. Krause, and F. Nataf. A coarse space for heterogeneous helmholtz problems based on the Dirichlet-to-Neumann operator. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 271:83–99, 2014.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Ganesh and C. Morgenstern. An efficient multigrid algorithm for heterogeneous acoustic media sign-indefinite high-order FEM models. Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, 2016.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    I. Livshits. Multiple galerkin adaptive algebraic multigrid algorithm for the helmholtz equations. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 37(5):S195–S215, 2015.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. N. Olson and J. B. Schroder. Smoothed aggregation for helmholtz problems. Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, 17(2-3):361–386, 2010.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. C. Stolk. A dispersion minimizing scheme for the 3-d Helmholtz equation based on ray theory. Journal of Computational Physics, 314:618–646, 2016.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. Poulson, B. Engquist, S. Li, and L. Ying. A parallel sweeping preconditioner for heterogeneous 3d Helmholtz equations. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 35(3):C194–C212, 2013.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Tsuji, B. Engquist, and L. Ying. A sweeping preconditioner for time-harmonic Maxwell equations with finite elements. Journal of Computational Physics, 231(9):3770–3783, 2012.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. Vion and C. Geuzaine. Double sweep preconditioner for optimized schwarz methods applied to the helmholtz problem. Journal of Computational Physics, 266:171–190, 2014.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    AH Sheikh, D Lahaye, L Garcia Ramos, R Nabben, and C Vuik. Accelerating the shifted laplace preconditioner for the helmholtz equation by multilevel deflation. Journal of Computational Physics, 322:473–490, 2016.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. B. van Gijzen, Y. A. Erlangga, and C. Vuik. Spectral analysis of the discrete Helmholtz operator preconditioned with a shifted Laplacian. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 29:1942–1958, 2007.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Cools and W. Vanroose. Local Fourier analysis of the complex shifted Laplacian preconditioner for helmholtz problems. Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, 20(4):575–597, 2013.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Y. A. Erlangga and R. Nabben. Deflation and balancing preconditioners for Krylov subspace methods applied to nonsymmetric matrices. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 30(2):684–699, 2008.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    A. H. Sheikh, D. Lahaye, and C. Vuik. On the convergence of shifted Laplace preconditioner combined with multilevel deflation. Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications, 20(4):645–662, 2013.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Balay, J. Brown, K. Buschelman, V. Eijkhout, W. D. Gropp, D. Kaushik, M. G. Knepley, L. Curfman McInnes, B. F. Smith, and H. Zhang. PETSc users manual. Technical Report ANL-95/11 - Revision 3.4, Argonne National Laboratory, 2013.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. H. Sheikh. Development of the Helmholtz Solver Based On A Shifted Laplace Preconditioner and A Multilevel Deflation Technique. PhD thesis, DIAM, TU Delft, 2014.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    A. Bayliss, C.I. Goldstein, and E. Turkel. On accuracy conditions for the numerical computation of waves. Journal of Computational Physics, 59(3):396 – 404, 1985.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    I. M. Babuska and S. A Sauter. Is the pollution effect of the FEM avoidable for the Helmholtz equation considering high wave numbers? SIAM review, 42(3):451–484, 2000.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    O. G. Ernst and M. J. Gander. Why it is difficult to solve Helmholtz problems with classical iterative methods. In I. G. Graham, T. Y. Hou, O. Lakkis, and R. Scheichl, editors, Numerical Analysis of Multiscale Problems, volume 83 of Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering, pages 325–363. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    M. Gander. Fourier analysis of Helmholtz problems with Robin boundary conditions. Private Communications 2016.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    I. Livshits. Use of shifted laplacian operators for solving indefinite helmholtz equations. Numerical Mathematics: Theory, Methods and Applications, 8(01):136–148, 2015.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    J. M. Tang. Two Level Preconditioned conjugate gradient methods with applications to bubbly flow problems. PhD thesis, DIAM, TU Delft, 2008.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    U. Trottenberg, C. W. Oosterlee, and A. Schüller. Multigrid. Academic Press, London, 2000.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIAMTU DelftDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations