Solving positive (semi)definite linear systems by preconditioned iterative methods

  • Y. Notay
Submitted Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mathematics book series (LNM, volume 1457)


The use of preconditionings obtained by so called modified incomplete factorizations has become quite popular for the PCG solution of regular systems arising from the discretization of elliptic PDE's. Our purpose here is to review their recent extension to the singular case. Because such conditionings may themselves be singular, we first review the extension of the general theory of polynomial acceleration to the case of singular preconditionings. We emphasize that all results can be formulated in such a way that they cover both the regular and singular cases. Examples of application are given, displaying the superiority of the recently developed factorization strategies.

Key Words

Iterative methods for linear systems acceleration of convergence preconditioning 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    O. Axelsson, Solution of linear equations: iterative methods, in: Sparse Matrix Techniques (V.A. Barker, Editor), Lectures Notes in Mathematics No. 572, Springer-Verlag, 1977.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    —, On the eigenvalue distribution of relaxed incomplete factorization methods and the rate of convergence of conjugate gradient methods, Technical Report, Departement of Mathematics, Catholic UniversityNijmegen, The Netherlands, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    O. Axelsson and V. Barker, Finite Element Solution of Boundary Value Problems. Theory and Computation, Academic Press, New York, 1984.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    O. Axelsson and G. Lindskog, On the eigenvalue distribution of a class of preconditioning methods, Numer. Math., 48 (1986), pp. 479–498.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    —, On the rate of convergence of the preconditioned conjugate gradient method, Numer. Math., 48 (1986), pp. 499–523.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. Beauwens, Upper eigenvalue bounds for pencils of matrices, Lin. Alg. Appl., 62 (1984), pp. 87–104.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    —, On Axelsson's perturbations, Lin. Alg. Appl., 68 (1985), pp. 221–242.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    —, Lower eigenvalue bounds for pencils of matrices, Lin. Alg. Appl., 85 (1987), pp. 101–119.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    —, Approximate factorizations with S/P consistently ordered M-factors, BIT, 29 (1989), pp. 658–681.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    —, Modified incomplete factorizations strategies, submitted for publication in PCG Conference Proceedings, (1990).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Beauwens and L. Quenon, Existence criteria for partial matrix factorizations in iterative methods, Siam J. Numer. Anal., 13 (1976), pp. 615–643.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. Beauwens and R. Wilmet, Conditioning analysis of positive definite matrices by approximate factorizations, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 26 (1989), pp. 257–269.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    A. Ben Israel and T. Greville, Generalized Inverses: theory and applications, J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1974.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Berman and R. Plemmons, Nonnegative Matrices in the Mathematical Sciences, Academic Press, New York, 1979.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. George and J. Liu, Computer Solution of Large Sparse Positive Definite Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1981.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    I. Gustafsson, Modified incomplete Cholesky (MIC) methods, in: Preconditioning Methods, Theory and Applications (D.J. Evans, Editor), Gordon and Breach Science, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    L. Hageman and D. Young, Applied Iterative Methods, Academic Press, New York, 1981.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    F. Harary, Graph Theory, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1969.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    E. Kaasschieter, Preconditioned conjugate gradients for solving singular systems, J. Comp. Appl. Math., 24 (1988), pp. 265–275.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    V. Lebedev and S. Finogenov, Utilisation of ordered Chebyshev parameters in iterative methods, URSS Comput. Math. Math. Phys., 16 (1976), pp. 70–83.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    M. Magolu, Lower eigenvalue bounds for singular pencils of matrices, in preparation.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Y. Notay, Sur le conditionnement de matrices de Stieltjes par factorisations approchées, Mémoire. Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    —, Polynomial acceleration of iterative schemes associated with subproper splittings, J. Comp. Appl. Math., 24 (1988), pp. 153–167.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    —, Incomplete factorizations of singular linear systems, BIT, 29 (1989), pp. 682–702.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    —, Conditioning of Stieltjes matrices by S/P consistently ordered approximate factorizations, submitted for publication, (1990).Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    A. van der Sluis and H. van der Vorst, The rate of convergence of conjugate gradients, Numer. Math., 48 (1986), pp. 543–560.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    R. Varga, Matrix iterative analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1962.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. Notay
    • 1
  1. 1.Service de Métrologie Nucléaire,50, av. F.D. RooseveltUniversité Libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations