arxiv: v1 [math.na] 7 Mar 2019

Transcription

1 Local Fourier analysis for mixed finite-element metods for te Stokes equations Yunui He a,, Scott P. MacLaclan a a Department of Matematics and Statistics, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Jon s, NL A1C 5S7, Canada arxiv: v1 [mat.na] 7 Mar 019 Abstract In tis paper, we develop a local Fourier analysis of multigrid metods based on block-structured relaxation scemes for stable and stabilized mixed finite-element discretizations of te Stokes equations, to analyze teir convergence beavior. Tree relaxation scemes are considered: distributive, Braess-Sarazin, and Uzawa relaxation. From tis analysis, parameters tat minimize te local Fourier analysis smooting factor are proposed for te stabilized metods wit distributive and Braess-Sarazin relaxation. Considering te failure of te local Fourier analysis smooting factor in predicting te true two-grid convergence factor for te stable discretization, we numerically optimize te two-grid convergence predicted by local Fourier analysis in tis case. We also compare te efficiency of te presented algoritms wit variants using inexact solvers. Finally, some numerical experiments are presented to validate te two-grid and multigrid convergence factors. Keywords: Monolitic multigrid, Block-structured relaxation, local Fourier analysis, mixed finite-element metods, Stokes Equations 000 MSC: 65N55, 65F10, 65F0, 76M10 1. Introduction In recent years, substantial researc as been devoted to efficient numerical solution of te Stokes and Navier-Stokes equations, due bot to teir utility as models of (viscous) fluids and teir commonalities wit many oter pysical problems tat lead to saddle-point systems (see, for example [1], and many of te oter references cited ere). In te linear (or linearized) case, solution of te resulting matrix equations is seen to be difficult, due to indefiniteness and te usual ill-conditioning of discretized PDEs. In te literature, block preconditioners (cf. [1] and te references terein) are widely used, due to teir easy construction from standard multigrid algoritms for scalar elliptic PDEs, suc as algebraic multigrid []. However, monolitic multigrid approaces [3, 4, 5, 6, 7] ave been sown to outperform tese preconditioners wen algoritmic parameters are properly cosen [, 9]. Te focus of tis work is on te analysis of suc monolitic multigrid metods in te case of stable and stabilized finite-element discretizations of te Stokes equations. Corresponding autor: Yunui He. address: yunui.e@mun.ca. addresses: yunui.e@mun.ca (Yunui He), smaclaclan@mun.ca (Scott P. MacLaclan) Preprint submitted to Elsevier Marc, 019

2 Local Fourier analysis (LFA) [10, 11] as been widely used to predict te convergence beavior of multigrid metods, to elp design relaxation scemes and coose algoritmic parameters. In general, te LFA smooting factor provides a sarp prediction of actual multigrid convergence, see [10], under te assumption of an ideal coarse-grid correction sceme (CGC) tat anniilates low-frequency error components and leaves ig-frequency components uncanged. In practice, te LFA smooting and two-grid convergence factors often exactly matc te true convergence factor of multigrid applied to a problem wit periodic boundary conditions [1, 13, 10]. Recently, te validity of LFA as been furter analysed [14], extending tis exact prediction to a wider class of problems. However, te LFA smooting factor is also known to lose its predictivity of te true convergence in some cases [15, 16, 17]. In particular, te smooting factor of LFA overestimates te two-grid convergence factor for te Taylor-Hood (Q Q 1 ) discretization of te Stokes equations wit Vanka relaxation [16]. Even for te scalar Laplace operator, te LFA smooting factor fails to predict te observed multigrid convergence factor for iger-order finite-element metods [15]. Two main questions interest us ere. First, we look to extend te study of [16] to consider LFA of block-structured relaxation scemes for finite-element discretizations of te Stokes equations. Secondly, we consider if te LFA smooting factor can predict te convergence factors for tese relaxation scemes. Recently, LFA for multigrid based on block-structured relaxation scemes applied to te marker-and-cell (MAC) finite-difference discretization of te Stokes equations was sown to give a good prediction of convergence [1], in contrast to te results of [16]. Tus, a natural question to investigate is weter te contrasting results between [1] and [16] is due to te differences in discretization or tose in te relaxation scemes considered. Here, we apply te relaxation scemes of [1] to te Q Q 1 discretization from [16], as well as an intermediate discretization using stabilized Q 1 Q 1 approaces. In recent decades, many block relaxation scemes ave been studied and applied to many problems, including Braess-Sarazin-type relaxation scemes [3, 19, 0, 4, 1], Vanka-type relaxation scemes [3,, 4, 16, 3, 4, 7], Uzawa-type relaxation scemes [5, 6, 7, 6, ], distributive relaxation scemes [9, 5, 30, 31, 3] and oter types of metods [33, 34]. Even toug LFA as been applied to distributive relaxation [35, 11], Vanka relaxation [16, 4, 36, 37], and Uzawa-type scemes [6] for te Stokes equations, most of te existing LFA as been for relaxation scemes using (symmetric) Gauss-Seidel (GS) approaces, and for simple finite-difference and finite-element discretizations. Considering modern multicore and accelerated parallel arcitectures, we focus on scemes based on weigted Jacobi relaxation wit distributive, Braess- Sarazin, and Uzawa relaxation for common finite-element discretizations of te Stokes equations. Some key conclusions of tis analysis are as follows. First, wile te LFA smooting factor gives a good prediction of te true convergence factor for te stabilized discretizations wit distributive weigted Jacobi and Braess-Sarazin relaxation, it does not for te Uzawa relaxation (in contrast to wat is seen for te MAC discretization [1, 35]). For no cases does te LFA smooting factor offer a good prediction of te true convergence beaviour for te (stable) Q Q 1 discretization, suggesting tat te discretization is responsible for te lack of predictivity, consistent wit te results in [15, 16]. For bot stable and stabilized discretizations, we see tat standard distributive weigted Jacobi relaxation loses some of its ig efficiency, in contrast to wat is seen for te MAC sceme [1, 35] but tat robustness can be restored wit an additional relaxation sweep. Exact Braess-Sarazin relaxation is also igly effective, wit LFA-predicted W(1, 1) convergence factors of 1 9 in te stabilized cases and 1 4 in te stable case. To realize tese rates wit inexact cycles, owever, requires nested W-cycles to solve te approximate Scur complement equation accurately enoug in te stabilized case, altoug simple weigted Ja-

3 cobi on te approximate Scur complement is observed to be sufficient in te stable case. For Uzawa-type relaxation, we see a notable gap between predicted convergence wit exact inversion of te resulting Scur complement, versus inexact inversion, altoug some improvement is seen wen replacing te approximate Scur complement wit a mass matrix approximation, as is commonly used in block-diagonal preconditioners [3, 39, 40]. Overall, owever, we see tat distributive weigted Jacobi (DWJ) (wit sweeps of Jacobi relaxation on te pressure equation) outperforms bot Braess-Sarazin relaxation (BSR) and Uzawa relaxation, for te stabilized discretizations, wile DWJ and inexact BSR offer comparable performance for te stable discretization. We organize tis paper as follows. In Section, we introduce two stabilized Q 1 Q 1 and te stable Q Q 1 mixed finite-element discretizations of te Stokes equations in two dimensions (D). In Section 3, we first review te LFA approac, ten discuss te Fourier representation for tese discretizations. In Section 4, LFA is developed for DWJ, BSR, and Uzawa-type relaxation, and optimal LFA smooting factors are derived for te two stabilized Q 1 Q 1 metods wit DWJ and BSR. Multigrid performance is presented to validate te teoretical results. Section 5 exibits optimized LFA two-grid convergence factors and measured multigrid convergence factors for te Q Q 1 discretization. Furtermore, a comparison of te cost and effectiveness of te relaxation scemes is given. Conclusions are presented in Section 6.. Discretizations In tis paper, we consider te Stokes equations, u + p = f, (1) u = 0, were u is te velocity vector, p is te (scalar) pressure of a viscous fluid, and f represents a (known) forcing term, togeter wit suitable boundary conditions. Because of te nature of LFA, we validate our predictions against te problem wit periodic boundary conditions on bot u and p. Discretizations of (1) typically lead to a linear system of te following form: ( ( ) ( A B T U f Kx = = = b, () B βc) p 0) were A corresponds to te discretized vector Laplacian, and B is te negative of te discrete divergence operator. If te discretization is naturally unstable, ten C 0 is te stabilization matrix, oterwise C = 0. In tis paper, we discuss two stabilized Q 1 Q 1 and te stable Q Q 1 finite-element discretizations. Te natural finite-element approximation of Problem (1) is: Find u X and p H suc tat a( u, v ) + b(p, v ) + b(q, u ) = g( v ), for all v X 0 and q H, (3) were a( u, v ) = g( v ) = Ω Ω u : v, b(p, v ) = p v, Ω f v, 3

4 and X H 1 (Ω), H L (Ω) are finite-element spaces. Here, X 0 X satisfies omogeneous Diriclet boundary conditions in place of any non-omogenous essential boundary conditions on X. Problem (3) as a unique solution only wen X and H satisfy an inf-sup condition (see [1, 41, 4, 43])..1. Stabilized Q 1 Q 1 discretizations Te standard equal-order approximation of (3) is well-known to be unstable [4, 1]. To circumvent tis, a scaled pressure Laplacian term can be added to (3); for a uniform mes wit square elements of size, we subtract c(p, q ) = β ( p, q ), for β > 0. Wit tis, te resulting linear system is given by ( ) ( ) ( A B T U f B β = = b, A p p 0) were A p is te Q 1 Laplacian operator for te pressure. Denote S = BA 1 B T, and S β = BA 1 B T + βc, were C = A p. From [1], te red-black unstable mode p = ±1, can be moved from a zero eigenvalue to a unit eigenvalue ( giving stability witout loss of accuracy) by coosing β so tat p T S β p p T Qp = β pt Cp p T = 1, (4) Qp were Q is te mass matrix. Substituting te bilinear stiffness and mass matrices into (4), we find β = 1 4. We refer to tis metod as te Poisson-stabilized discretization (PoSD). An L projection to stabilize te Q 1 Q 1 discretization, proposed in [43], stabilizes wit C(p, q ) = (p Π 0 p, q Π 0 q ), (5) were Π 0 is te L projection from H into te space of piecewise constant functions on te mes. We refer to tis metod as te projection stabilized discretization (PrSD). Te 4 4 element matrix C 4 of (5) is given by C 4 = Q 4 qq T, were Q 4 is te 4 4 element mass matrix for te bilinear discretization and q = [ T ]. In te projection stabilized metod, we can write C = Q P, were P is given by te 9-point stencil P = Applying (4) to C = Q P, we find tat β = 1 is te optimal coice.. 4

5 .. Stable Q Q 1 discretizations In order to guarantee te well-posedness of te discrete system () wit C = 0, te discretization of te velocity and pressure unknowns sould satisfy an inf-sup condition, inf sup b(q, v ) Γ > 0, q 0 v v 0 1 q 0 were Γ is a constant. Taylor-Hood (Q Q 1 ) elements are well known to be stable [41, 1], were te basis functions associated wit tese elements are biquadratic for eac component of te velocity field and bilinear for te pressure. 3. LFA preliminaries 3.1. Definitions and notations In many cases, te LFA smooting factor offers a good prediction of multigrid performance. Tus, we will explore te LFA smooting factor and true (measured) multigrid convergence for te tree types of relaxations considered ere. We first introduce some terminology of LFA, following [10, 11]. We consider te following two-dimensional infinite uniform grids, G j = { x j := (x j 1, x j ) = (k 1, k ) + δ j, (k 1, k ) Z }, wit (0, 0) if j = 1, δ j (0, /) if j =, = (/, 0) if j = 3, (/, /) if j = 4. Te coarse grids, G j, are defined similarly. Figure 1: At left, te mes used for Q 1 discretization. At rigt, te mes used for Q discretization. Points marked by correspond to G 1, tose marked by correspond to G, tose marked by correspond to G3 and tose marked by 9 correspond to G 4. 5

6 Let L be a scalar Toeplitz operator defined by its stencil acting on G j as follows: L = [sκ ] (κ = (κ 1, κ ) V); L w (x j ) = s κ w (x j + κ), (6) wit constant coefficients s κ R (or C), were w (x j ) is a function in l (G j ). Here, V Z is a finite index set. Because L is formally diagonalized by te Fourier modes ϕ(θ, x j ) = e iθ x j / = e iθ 1x j 1 / e iθ x j /, were θ = (θ 1, θ ) and i = 1, we use ϕ(θ, x j ) as a Fourier basis wit θ [ π, 3π ). Hig and low frequencies for standard coarsening (as considered ere) are given by [ θ T low = π, π ) [, θ T ig = π, 3π ) [ π, π ). Definition 3.1. If, for all functions ϕ(θ, x j ), L ϕ(θ, x j ) = L (θ)ϕ(θ, x j ), we call L (θ) = s κ e iθκ te symbol of L. κ V In wat follows, we consider (3 3) linear systems of operators, wic read L 1,1 L 1, L 1,3 0 ( x ) L = L,1 L, L,3 L 3,1 L 3, L 3,3 = 0 ( y ) ( x ) ( y ) L 3,3, (7) were L 3,3 depends on wic discretization we use. For te stabilized Q 1 Q 1 approximations, te degrees of freedom for bot velocity and pressure are only located on G 1 as pictured at left of Figure 1. In tis setting, te Lk,l (k, l = 1,, 3) in (7) are scalar Toeplitz operators. Denote L as te symbol of L. Eac entry in L is computed as te (scalar) symbol of te corresponding block of L k,l, following Definition 3.1. Tus, L is a 3 3 matrix. All blocks in L are diagonalized by te same transformation on a collocated mes. However, for te Q Q 1 discretization, te degrees of freedom for velocity are located on G = 4 j=1 G j, containing four types of mespoints as sown at rigt of Figure 1. Te Laplace operator in (7) is defined by extending (6), wit V taken to be a finite index set of values, V = V N VX VY VC wit V N Z, V X { (z x + 1, z y) (z x, z y ) Z }, V Y { (z x, z y + 1 ) (z x, z y ) Z }, and V C { (z x + 1, z y + 1 ) (z x, z y ) Z }. Wit tis, te (scalar) Q Laplace operator is naturally treated as a block operator, and te Fourier representation of eac block can be calculated based on Definition 3.1, wit te Fourier bases adapted to account for te staggering of te mes points. Tus, te symbols of L 1,1 and L, are 4 4 matrices. For more details of LFA for te Laplace operator using iger-order finite-element metods, refer to [15]. Similarly to te Laplace operator, bot terms in te gradient, ( x ) and ( y ), can be treated as (4 1)-block operators. Ten, te symbols of L 1,3 and L,3 are 4 1 matrices, calculated based on Definition 3.1 adapted for te mes staggering. Te symbols of L 3,1 and L 3, are te conjugate transposes of tose of L 1,3 and L,3, respectively. Finally, L3,3 = 0. Accordingly, L is a 9 9 matrix for te Q Q 1 discretization. 6 κ V

7 Definition 3.. Te error-propagation symbol, S (θ), for a block smooter S on te infinite grid G satisfies S ϕ(θ, x) = S [ ϕ(θ, x), θ π, 3π ), for all ϕ(θ, x), and te corresponding smooting factor for S is given by were λ is an eigenvalue of S (θ). µ loc = µ loc (S ) = max θ T ig { λ( S (θ)) }, In Definition 3., G = G 1 for te stabilized case (and S (θ) is a 3 3 matrix) and G = 4j=1 G j for te stable case (were S (θ) is a 9 9 matrix). Te error-propagation symbol for a relaxation sceme, represented by matrix M, applied to eiter te stabilized or stable sceme is written as S (p, ω, θ) = I ω M 1 (θ) L (θ), were p represents parameters witin M, te block approximation to L, ω is an overall weigting factor, and M and L are te symbols for M and L, respectively. Note tat µ loc is a function of some parameters in Definition 3.. In tis paper, we focus on minimizing µ loc wit respect to tese parameters, to obtain te optimal LFA smooting factor. Definition 3.3. Let D be te set of allowable parameters and define te optimal smooting factor over D as µ opt = min µ loc. D If te standard LFA assumption of an ideal CGC olds, ten te two-grid convergence factor can be estimated by te smooting factor, wic is easy to compute. However, as expected, we will see tat tis idealized CGC does not lead to a good prediction for some cases we consider below. Wen te LFA smooting factor fails to predict te true two-grid convergence factor, te LFA two-grid convergence factor can still be used. Tus, we give a brief introduction to te LFA two-grid convergence factor in te following. Let α = (α 1, α ) { (0, 0), (1, 0), (0, 1), (1, 1) }, θ α = (θ α 1 1, θα ) = θ + π α, θ := θ00 T low. We use te ordering of α = (0, 0), (1, 0), (0, 1), (1, 1) for te four armonics. To apply LFA to te two-grid operator, M TGM = S ν MCGC S ν 1, () we require te representation of te CGC operator, M CGC = I P (L ) 1 R L, were P is te multigrid interpolation operator and R is te restriction operator. Te coarse-grid operator, L, can be eiter te Galerkin or rediscretization operator. 7

8 Inserting te representations of S, L, L, P, R into (), we obtain te Fourier representation of two-grid error-propagation operator as were M TGM (θ) = S ν (θ) ( I P (θ)( L (θ)) 1 R (θ) L (θ) ) S ν 1 (θ), L (θ) = diag { L (θ 00 ), L (θ 10 ), L (θ 01 ), L (θ 11 ) }, S (θ) = diag { S (θ 00 ), S (θ 10 ), S (θ 01 ), S (θ 11 ) }, P (θ) = ( P (θ 00 ); P (θ 10 ); P (θ 01 ); P (θ 11 ) ), R (θ) = ( R (θ 00 ), R (θ 10 ), R (θ 01 ), R (θ 11 ) ), in wic diag{t 1, T, T 3, T 4 } stands for te block diagonal matrix wit diagonal blocks, T 1, T, T 3, and T 4. Here, we use te standard finite-element interpolation operators and teir transposes for restriction. For Q 1, te symbol is well-known [10] wile, for te nodal basis for Q, te symbol is given in [15]. Definition 3.4. Te asymptotic two-grid convergence factor, ρ asp, is defined as ρ asp = sup{ρ( M (θ) TGM ) : θ T low }. In wat follows, we consider a discrete form of ρ asp, denoted by ρ, resulting from sampling ρ asp over only a finite set of frequencies. For simplicity, we drop te subscript trougout te rest of tis paper, unless necessary for clarity. 3.. Fourier representation of discretization operators Fourier representation of te stabilized Q 1 Q 1 discretization By standard calculation, te symbols of te Q 1 stiffness and mass stencils are à Q1 (θ 1, θ ) = 3 (4 cos θ 1 cos θ cos θ 1 cos θ ), M Q1 (θ 1, θ ) = 9 (4 + cos θ 1 + cos θ + cos θ 1 cos θ ), respectively. Te stencils of te partial derivative operators ( x ) and ( y ) are B T x = , BT y = , respectively, and te corresponding symbols are B T x (θ 1, θ ) = i 3 sin θ 1( + cos θ ), B T y (θ 1, θ ) = i 3 ( + cos θ 1) sin θ, were T denotes te conjugate transpose. Tus, te symbols of te stabilized finite-element discretizations of te Stokes equations are given by à Q1 0 B T x a 0 b 1 L(θ 1, θ ) = 0 à Q1 B T y := 0 a b. B x B y L 3,3 b 1 b c

9 For te Poisson-stabilized discretization, te symbol of L 3,3 is c = c 1 = aβ. For te projection stabilized metod, following (5), te symbol of L 3,3 is ( 4 + cos θ1 + cos θ + cos θ 1 cos θ c = (1 + cos θ 1)(1 + cos θ ) ). (9) 9 4 For convenience, we write C for te last block of Equation (), and its symbol as c in te rest of tis paper Fourier representation of stable Q Q 1 discretizations Te symbols of te stiffness and mass stencils for te Q discretization using nodal basis functions in 1D are à Q (θ) = 1 3 ( ) 14 + cos θ 16 cos θ 16 cos θ, M 16 Q (θ) = 30 ( ) cos θ 4 cos θ 4 cos θ, 16 respectively [15]. Here, we note tat te (1, 1) entries correspond to te symbols associated wit basis functions at te nodes of te mes, wile te (, ) entries correspond to te symbols associated wit cell-centre (bubble) basis functions. Te off-diagonal entries express te interaction between te two types of basis functions. Ten, te Fourier representation of in D can be written as a tensor product, à (θ 1, θ ) = à Q (θ ) M Q (θ 1 ) + M Q (θ ) à Q (θ 1 ). Te tensor product preserves block structuring; tat is, à (θ 1, θ ) is a 4 4 matrix, ordered as mes nodes, x-edge midpoints, y-edge midpoints, and cell centres. Eac row of à (θ 1, θ ) reflects te connections between one of te four types of degrees of freedom wit eac of tese four types. Similarly, tere are four types of stencils for ( x ) and ( y ). Te stencils and te symbols of ( x ) for te nodal, x-edge, y-edge, and cell-centre degrees of freedom are B N = , B N (θ 1, θ ) = i sin θ 1, B X = B Y = B C = , 0 0 [ ] [ ] B X (θ 1, θ ) = i 9 sin θ 1,, B Y (θ 1, θ ) = i 9 sin θ 1 cos θ,, B C (θ 1, θ ) = i 9 sin θ 1 cos θ, respectively. Denote B Q,x(θ 1, θ ) T = [ B N ; B X ; B Y ; B C ]. Similarly to B Q,x(θ 1, θ ) T, te symbol of te stencil of ( y ) can be written as B Q,y(θ 1, θ ) T = [ B N (θ, θ 1 ); B Y (θ, θ 1 ); B X (θ, θ 1 ); B C (θ, θ 1 )]. 9

10 Tus, te Fourier representation of te Q Q 1 finite-element discretization of te Stokes equations can be written as à (θ 1, θ ) 0 B Q,x(θ 1, θ ) T L (θ 1, θ ) = 0 à (θ 1, θ ) B Q,y(θ 1, θ ) T. (10) B Q,x(θ 1, θ ) B Q,y(θ 1, θ ) 0 Note tat te Fourier symbol for te Q Q 1 discretization is a 9 9 matrix, and tat te LFA smooting factor for te Q approximation generally fails to predict te true two-grid convergence factor [15, 16]. Te same beavior is seen for te relaxation scemes considered ere. Terefore, we do not present smooting factor analysis for tis case and only optimize two-grid LFA predictions numerically. 4. Relaxation for Q 1 Q 1 discretizations 4.1. DWJ relaxation Distributive GS (DGS) relaxation [5, 3] is well known to be igly efficient for te MAC finite-difference discretization [10], and oter discretizations [33, 44]. Its sequential nature is often seen as a significant drawback. However, Distributive weigted Jacobi (DWJ) relaxation was recently sown to acieve good performance for te MAC discretization [1]. Tus, we consider DWJ relaxation for te finite-element discretizations considered ere. Te discretized distribution operator can be represented by te preconditioner I 0 ( x ) P = 0 I ( y ). 0 0 Ten, we apply blockwise weigted-jacobi relaxation to te distributed operator 0 0 LP L = 0 0 ( x ) ( y ) ( x ) ( y) +, (11) L3,3 were we note tat te operators ( x ) and ( y) are formed by taking products of te discrete derivative operators and, tus, do not satisfy te identity ( x ) + ( y) =. Te discrete matrix form of P is ( ) I B T P =, 0 A p were A p is te Laplacian operator discretized at te pressure points. For standard distributive weigted-jacobi relaxation (wit weigts α 1, α ), we need to solve a system of te form ( ) ( ) ( ) α1 diag(a) 0 δû ru M D δ ˆx = B α =, (1) I δ ˆp r p ten distribute te updates as δx = Pδ ˆx. We use in te (, ) block of (1), because te diagonal entries of te (, ) block will be of te form of a constant times (up to boundary 10

11 conditions), for bot stabilization terms. Te error propagation operator for te sceme is, ten, I ωpmd 1L. Te symbol of te blockwise weigted-jacobi operator, M D, is 3 α M D (θ 1, θ ) = 0 3 α 1 0. b 1 b α By standard calculation, te eigenvalues of te error-propagation symbol, SD (α 1, α, ω, θ) = I ω P M D 1 L, are 1 ω y 1, 1 ω y 1, 1 ω y, (13) α 1 α 1 α were y 1 = 3a and y = b 1 b +ac. Noting tat y 1 = 3a is very simple, we first consider a lower bound on te optimal LFA smooting factor corresponding to y 1. Lemma 4.1. and tis value is acieved if and only if ω α 1 = 9. { 1 µ := min max ω } y 1 = 1 (α 1,ω) θ T ig α 1 3, Proof. It is easy to ceck tat a = (4 cos θ 1 cos θ cos θ 1 cos θ ) 3 [, 4] for θ T ig. Te minimum of y 1 is y 1,min = 3 4 wit (cos θ 1, cos θ ) = (0, 1) or (1, 0) and te maximum is y 1,max = 3 wit (cos θ 1, cos θ ) = (1, 1) or ( 1, 1). Tus, µ = y 1,max+y 1,min y 1,max y 1,min = 1 3 under te condition ω α 1 = y 1,min +y 1,max = 9. Remark 4.1. Te optimal smooting factor for damped Jacobi relaxation for te Q 1 finiteelement discretization of te Laplacian is 1 3 wit ω α = 9. Tus, tis offers an intuitive lower bound on te possible performance of block relaxation scemes tat include tis as a piece of te overall relaxation. From (13), we see tat te only difference between te eigenvalues of DWJ relaxation for te Poisson-stabilized and projection stabilized metods is in te tird eigenvalue, wic depends on y and, consequently, on te stabilization term Poisson-stabilized discretization wit DWJ relaxation For te Poisson-stabilized case, y = b 1 b +ac wit c = βα and β = 1 4. By standard calculation, y,min = 7, wit ( ) cos θ 1, cos θ = ( 1, 1), and y,max = wit ( ) cos θ 1, cos θ = ( 17, 0) or (0, 17 ). Teorem 4.1. Te optimal smooting factor for te Poisson-stabilized discretization wit DWJ relaxation is 55 9, tat is, { λ( µ opt = min max SD (α 1, α, ω, θ)) } = 55 (α 1,ω,α ) θ T ig , and is acieved if and only if ω α = , ω α (14) 11

12 = y,max y,min y,max + y,min = 55 9 wit te condition tat ω α = y,max +y,min = { 1 Proof. min max ω } y (α,ω) θ T ig α Because 9 > 1 3, we need to require 1 ω α 1 y for all y 1 to acieve tis factor. It follows tat ω α Projection stabilized discretization wit DWJ relaxation For te projection stabilized discretization, y depends on c given in (9), and standard calculation gives y,min = 7 wit ( ) cos θ 1, cos θ = ( 1, 1) and y,max = 3 wit (cos θ 1, cos θ ) = ( 1, 1) or (1, 1 ). Teorem 4.. Te optimal smooting factor for te projection stabilized discretization wit DWJ relaxation is 65 97, tat is, { λ( µ opt = min max SD (α 1, α, ω, θ)) } = 65 (α 1,ω,α ) θ T ig , and is acieved if and only if ω α = 10 97, 1 91 ω α (15) { 1 Proof. min max ω } y (α,ω) θ T ig α Since 97 > 1 3, we need to require 1 ω α 1 y for all y 1 to acieve tis factor, wic leads to 1 91 ω α = y,max y,min y,max + y,min = wit te condition tat ω α = y,max +y,min = Comparing te Poisson-stabilized and projection stabilized discretizations using DWJ, we see tat te optimal LFA smooting factor for te Poisson-stabilized discretization sligtly outperforms tat of te projection stabilized discretization. In bot cases, a stronger relaxation on te (3, 3) block of (11) would be needed in order to improve performance to matc te lower bound on te convergence factor of 1 3. A natural approac is to using more iterations to solve te pressure equation in DWJ. We explore te LFA predictions for tis case in te following Stabilized discretization wit sweeps of Jacobi for DWJ relaxation Denote te (3, 3) block of (11) as G. We consider applying two sweeps of weigted-jacobi relaxation wit equal weigts, ω J, on te pressure equation. As before, we note tat G as a constant diagonal entry proportional to, so we write weigted Jacobi relaxation on G as I G 1 J G for G J = ω J I. Tus, we can represent tis relaxation sceme as solving were Ĝ = ( G 1 J ( ) ( ) α1 diag(a) 0 δû M D,J δ ˆx = = B Ĝ δ ˆp ) 1. G 1 J GG 1 J Te symbol of MD,J, is 3 α M D,J (θ 1, θ ) = 0 3 α 1 0 b 1 b 1 ω J ω J y ( ) ru, (16) r p.

13 By standard calculation, te eigenvalues of te error-propagation symbol, S D,J (α 1, ω J, ω, θ) = I ω P M 1 D,J L, are 1 ω α 1 y 1, 1 ω α 1 y 1, 1 ωy 3, (17) were y 3 = ω J y ( ω J y ), were te symbol of G is y, wit y defined as in (13). Note tat SD,J as te same eigenvalue, 1 ω α 1 y 1 as tat of S D. A natural question is weter { 1 min max } ωy3 = 1, wic is sown in te following teorems. (α 1,ω J,ω) θ T ig 3 Teorem 4.3. Te optimal smooting factor for te Poisson-stabilized discretization wit sweeps of Jacobi for DWJ relaxation is 1 3, tat is, { λ( µ opt = min max SD,J (α 1, ω J, ω, θ)) } = 1 (α 1,ω J,ω) θ T ig 3, and is acieved if and only if ω α 1 or = 9 and eiter ω J (1 + 3 ( ω J( ω J) ) ω 4 3, 7 (1 ) ω J , 3 ( 7 ω J( 7 ω J) ) ω 4 3. ), Proof. Recall tat y 3 = ω J y ( ω J y ) := ξ( ξ), were ξ = ω J y. Let { 1 µ = min max } ωy3. (1) (α 1,ω J,ω) θ T ig We first sow tat µ 1 3 under some conditions on te parameters, ω J and ω. Let y 3,min and y 3,max be te maximum and minimum of y 3 (ξ) = ξ( ξ), respectively. If µ 1 3, ten it must be tat 4 ω. (19) 3y 3,min 3y 3,max Next, we need to find wat y 3,min and y 3,max are. As discussed earlier, y [ 7, ]. Tus, ξ [ 7 ω J, ω J], were ω J > 0. Note tat y 3 (ξ) = ξ( ξ) = (ξ 1) +1 is a quadratic function wit te axis of symmetric, ξ = 1. Tus, te extreme values of y 3 (ξ) are acieved at te points 7 ω J, ω J or 1. Based on ω J 1 and ω J 1, we consider two cases. 1. If ω J 1, we ave y 3,min = 7 ω J ( ) 7 ω J, y 3,max = 64 ( 51 ω J 64 ) 51 ω J. (0) Note tat (19) indicates tat y 3,max y 3,min. Combining wit (0) leads to ω J 373 However, ω J < Tus, tere is no ω J suc tat µ 1 3 in tis case

14 . To guarantee tat 1 ωy 3 = 1 ωξ( ξ) < 1, we require tat 0 < ξ <. Assume tat ω J <. It follows tat 7 ω J < ω J. Recall tat y 3 (ξ) = ξ( ξ) = (ξ 1) +1. If ( ω J 1) (1 7 ω J), we ave Ten, te extreme values of y 3 (ξ) are y 3,min = ω J Substituting () in to (19), we ave ω J < (1) ( ω J ), y 3,max = y 3 (1) = 1. () 3 ( ω J( ω J) ) ω 4 3. (3) To guarantee (3) makes sense, in combination wit (1) gives ω J (1 + ). (4) Recall tat tere is anoter eigenvalue, 1 ω α 1 y 1, of S D,J. In order to obtain µ opt = 1 3, we tus require ω J (1 + ), 3 ( ω J( ω J) ) ω 4 3, ω α 1 = A similar argument olds if ( ω J 1) (1 7 ω J), leading to te second set of conditions. 9. Note tat te set of parameters values defined in Teorem 4.3 is not empty, wit parameters α 1 = 3, ω = 4 3 and ω J = 1 in te set. Teorem 4.4. Te optimal smooting factor for te projection stabilized discretization wit two sweeps of Jacobi for DWJ relaxation is 1 3, tat is, { λ( µ opt = min max S(α1, α, ω, θ)) } = 1 (α 1,ω,α ) θ T ig 3, and is acieved if and only if ω α 1 = 9 and eiter ω J 3 (1 + 3 ( 3 ω J( 3 ω J) ) ω 4 3, 14 ),

15 or 7 (1 ) ω J 10 97, 3 ( 7 ω J( 7 ω J) ) ω 4 3. Proof. Te proof is similar to tat of Teorem 4.3. Remark 4.. Teorems 4.3 and 4.4 tell us tat two sweeps of weigted-jacobi relaxation on te pressure equation in DWJ are required to acieve optimal performance. Tis is different tan te case of DWJ for te MAC discretization [1], were te optimal convergence factor of 3 5 is attained wit one sweep of relaxation on te pressure equation. Remark 4.3. Red-black Gauss-Seidel relaxation [10] is an attractive tool for parallel computation as it typically offers better relaxation properties wile retaining parallelism. However, due to te added coupling of te finite-element operators considered ere, four-colour or nine-colour relaxation would be needed to decouple te updates. Tus, we restrict ourselves to weigted Jacobi relaxation. 4.. Braess-Sarazin relaxation Altoug DWJ relaxation is efficient, we see clearly in te above tat it underperforms in relation to weigted Jacobi relaxation for te scalar Poisson problem unless additional work is done on te pressure equation. Furtermore, proper construction of te preconditioner, P, is not always possible or straigtforward, especially for oter types of saddle-point problems. Considering tese obstacles, we also analyse oter block-structured relaxation scemes. Braess- Sarazin-type algoritms were originally developed as a relaxation sceme for te Stokes equations [19], requiring te solution of a greatly simplified but global saddle-point system. Te (exact) BSR approac was first introduced in [19], were it was sown tat a multigrid convergence rate of O(k 1 ) can be acieved, were k denotes te number of smooting steps on eac level. As a relaxation sceme for te system in (), one solves a system of te form ( ) ( ) ( ) αd B T δu ru M E δ x = =, (5) B C δp r p were D is an approximation to A, te inverse of wic is easy to apply, for example I, or diag(a). Solutions of (5) are computed in two stages as S δp = 1 α BD 1 r U r p, (6) δu = 1 α D 1 (r U B T δp), were S = 1 α BD 1 B T + C, and α > 0 is a cosen weigt for D to obtain a better approximation to A. We consider an additional weigt, ω, for te global update, δx, to improve te effectiveness of te correction to bot te velocity and pressure unknowns. Tere is a significant difficulty in practical use of exact BSR because it requires an exact inversion of te approximate Scur complement, S, wic is typically very expensive. A broader 15

16 class of iterative metods for te Stokes problem is discussed in [1], wic demonstrated tat te same O(k 1 ) performance can be acieved as wit exact BSR wen te pressure correction equation is not solved exactly. In practice, an approximate solve is sufficient for te Scur complement system, suc as wit a few sweeps of weigted Jacobi relaxation or a few multigrid cycles. In wat follows, we take D = diag(a) and analyze exact BSR; to see wat convergence factor can be acieved. In numerical experiments, we ten consider weter it is possible to acieve te same convergence factor using an inexact solver. Note tat some studies [3,, 45] ave sown te efficiency of inexact Braess-Sarazin relaxation. Te symbol of M E is given by 3 α 0 b 1 M E (θ 1, θ ) = 0 3 α b. b 1 b c Te symbol of te error-propagation matrix for weigted exact BSR is S E (α, ω, θ) = I ω M E 1 L. A standard calculation sows tat te determinant of L λ M E is π E (λ; α) = (1 λ)(a [ 3 αλ) (1 λ)(b 1 + b ]. ) + ( 3 αλ a)c (7) We first establis a lower bound on te LFA smooting factor for te stabilized metod wit BSR. Teorem 4.5. Te optimal LFA smooting factor for te Poisson-stabilized and projection stabilized discretizations wit exact BSR is not less tan 1 3. Proof. From (7), two eigenvalues of M E 1 L are given by λ 1 = 1, λ = 3a α, wic are independent of te stabilization term, c. From Lemma 4.1, we know tat for λ, te optimal smooting factor is 1 3, under te condition tat ω α = 9. Note tat if 1 ωλ 1 1 3, ten 3 ω 4 3. Because tere is anoter eigenvalue, λ 3, te optimal LFA smooting factor is not less tan 1 3. Similarly to DWJ, we see tat te Jacobi relaxation for te Laplacian discretization places a limit on te overall performance of BSR. From (7), te tird eigenvalue of M E 1 L is λ 3 = ac+b αc+b, 3 were b = (b 1 + b ) 0 (because bot b 1 and b are imaginary). Tus, we only need to ceck weter we can coose α and ω so tat 1 ωλ over all ig frequencies, wile also ensuring 1 ωλ and 1 ωλ 1 3. Teorem 4.6. Te optimal smooting factor for bot te Poisson-stabilized and projection stabilized discretizations wit exact BSR is µ opt = min (α,ω) max θ T ig λ( S(α, ω, θ)) = 1 3, if and only if ω α = 9, 3 4 α 3. 16

17 Proof. Note tat a [, 4], and coose α suc tat = a min 3 α a max = 4. If c is positive, te following always olds 3 4α = a min 3 α a minc + b ac + b 3αc + b 3 αc + b a maxc + b 3 αc + b a max 3 α = 3 α. Furtermore, if ω α = 9, we ave 3 = 3 4α 9 α ωλ 3 3 α 9 α = 4 3. () For bot discretizations, we can ceck tat c > 0 over te ig frequencies. From (), it is easy to see tat 1 ωλ 3 1 3, wit α = 9 ω [ 3 4, 3 ] Inexact Braess-Sarazin relaxation Here, we also consider solving te Scur complement equation, (6), by weigted Jacobi relaxation wit weigt, ω J. Following [1], we refer to tis as inexact Braess-Sarazin relaxation (IBSR). Let te corresponding block preconditioner be M I, given by ( ) αd B T M I = B Ŝ + B(αD) 1 B T were Ŝ is te approximation of S = B(αD) 1 B T C used in (6). For one sweep of weigted Jacobi relaxation, Ŝ is given by Ŝ 1 = 1 ω J diag(s ), and for sweeps of weigted Jacobi relaxation wit equal weigts, Ŝ is given by Ŝ = Ŝ 1 ( I + Ŝ 1 1 S ) 1. By direct computation, B(αD) 1 B T := S 0 can be written in terms of a 5 5 stencil: S 0 = α 1/19 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/19 1/4 0 1/4 0 1/4 1/4 1/4 3/16 1/4 1/4. (9) 1/4 0 1/4 0 1/4 1/19 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/19 Te symbol of S 0 is S 0 = 3b α := ς for b = b 1 b. In fact, ς = B( αd) 1 B T. Let γ be te symbol of Ŝ 1, 4ω γ = J ( 9 α + 3 ), for PoSD 4ω J ( 9 α ), for PrSD Similarly, let η be te symbol of Ŝ + B(αD) 1 B T, γ + ς, for one sweep (Ŝ 1 ) η = ( ) 1 + τγ 1 γ + ς, for two sweeps (Ŝ ) 17

18 were Finally, te symbol of M I is given by { ς + c1, for PoSD τ = ς + c, for PrSD 3 α 0 b 1 M I (θ 1, θ ) = 0 3 α b. (30) b 1 b η Te symbol of te error-propagation matrix for IBSR is S I (α, ω, θ) = I ω M I 1 L. A standard calculation sows tat te determinant of L λ M I is π I (λ; α, ω, ω J ) = (a [ 3 αλ) (b αη 3 )λ + (aη αc ] 3 b)λ + ac + b. (31) From (31), we see tere is an eigenvalue 3a α, wic is te same as tat of exact BSR. As before, te question now becomes weter tere is a coice of ω, α and ω J suc tat convergence equal to tat of exact BSR can be acieved. We leave tis as an open question for future work and, instead, numerically optimize te two-grid convergence factor over tese parameters. Remark 4.4. A similar form to (30) occurs for inexact BSR applied to te stable Q Q 1 approximation, modifying te stencil of C to be zero, and accounting for te block structure sown in (10) Numerical experiments for stabilized discretizations We now present LFA predictions, validating DWJ, (I)BSR, and te related Uzawa iteration against measured multigrid performance for tese scemes. We consider te omogeneous problem in (1), wit periodic boundary conditions, and a random initial guess, x (0). Convergence is measured using te averaged convergence factor, ˆρ = k d (k), wit k = 100, d (0) and d (k) = b Kx (k). Te LFA predictions are made wit = 1/1, for bot te smooting factor, µ, and two-grid convergence factor, ρ. For testing, we use standard W(ν 1, ν ) cycles wit bilinear interpolation for Q 1 variables and biquadratic interpolation for Q variables, and teir adjoints for restriction. We consider bot rediscretization and Galerkin coarsening, noting tat tey coincide for all terms except te stabilization terms tat include a scaling of. Te coarsest grid is a mes wit 4 elements. Were significant differences arise, we also report two-grid convergence rates for TG(ν 1, ν ) cycles PoSD wit DWJ From te range of parameters allowed in (14), we select α 1 = 1.451, α = 1.000, and ω = 1.90 (for convenience, satisfying te equality in (14)) to compute te LFA predictions. Figure sows te spectrum of te two-grid error-propagation operators for DWJ relaxation wit rediscretization and Galerkin coarsening. Note tat te two-grid convergence factor is te same as te optimal smooting factor for rediscretization, but not for Galerkin coarsening. 1

19 Figure : Te spectrum of te two-grid error-propagation operator using DWJ for PoSD. Results wit rediscretization are sown at left, wile tose wit Galerkin coarsening are at rigt. In bot figures, te inner circle as radius equal to te LFA smooting factor. In order to see te sensitivity of performance to parameter coice, we consider te two-grid LFA convergence factor wit rediscretization coarsening. From (14), we know tat tere are many optimal parameters. To fix a single parameter for DWJ, we consider te case of ω = and, at te left of Figure 3, we present te LFA-predicted two-grid convergence factors for DWJ wit variation in α 1 and α. Here, we see strong sensitivity to too small values of bot parameters, for α 1 < 1 and α < 0.9, including a notable portion of te optimal range of values predicted by te LFA smooting factor. At te rigt of Figure 3, we fix α = ω and vary ω and α 1. Te two lines are te lower and upper bounds from (14), between wic LFA predicts te optimal convergence factor sould be acieved. Note tat not all of te allowed parameters obtain te optimal convergence factor. Here, we see great sensitivity for large values of ω, but a large range wit generally similar performance as in te optimal parameter case. Figure 3: Te two-grid LFA convergence factor for te PoSD using DWJ and rediscretization. At left, we fix ω = and vary α 1 and α. At rigt, we fix α = ω and vary ω and α 1. 19

20 In Table 1, we present te multigrid performance of DWJ wit W-cycles for rediscretization coarsening. Tese results sow measured multigrid convergence factors tat coincide wit te LFA-predicted two-grid convergence factors. Similar results are seen for V-cycles wit rediscretization. For Galerkin coarsening, nearly identical W-cycle results are seen wen ν 1 + ν >, but divergence is seen for W-cycles wit ν 1 + ν = 1 or, and for all V-cycles tested. In Table, we report te multigrid performance of DWJ using sweeps of Jacobi relaxation on te pressure equation wit rediscretization for PoSD. Here, we take α 1 = 3/, ω J = 1, ω = 4/3 as in Teorem 4.3. We see tat te LFA convergence factor accurately predicts te measured performance. Table 1: W-cycle convergence factors, ˆρ, for DWJ wit rediscretization for PoSD, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ. Here, te algoritmic parameters are α 1 = 1.451, α = 1.000, ω = 1.90 and te LFA smooting factor is µ = Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ Table : W-cycle convergence factors, ˆρ, for DWJ wit sweeps of Jacobi on te pressure equation for PoSD wit rediscretization, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ. Here, te algoritmic parameters are α 1 = 3/, ω J = 1, ω = 4/3 and te LFA smooting factor is µ = Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ PrSD wit DWJ From te range of parameters allowed in (15), we coose α 1 = 1, α = 1, ω = Figure 4 sows tat te smooting factor provides a good prediction for te two-grid convergence factor wit rediscretization, but not wit Galerkin coarsening. 0

21 Figure 4: Te spectrum of te two-grid error-propagation operator using DWJ for PrSD. Results wit rediscretization are sown at left, wile tose wit Galerkin coarsening are at rigt. In bot figures, te inner circle as radius equal to te LFA smooting factor. Similarly to te discussion above, we consider te sensitivity to parameter coice for DWJ applied to PrSD. To fix a single parameter for DWJ, we consider te case of ω = At te left of Figure 5, we present te LFA-predicted convergence factors for DWJ wit variation in α 1 and α, again seeing a strong sensitivity to too small values of te parameters. At te rigt of Figure 5, we fix α = 97 10ω. Te two lines are te lower and upper bounds from (15), between wic LFA predicts te optimal convergence factor sould be acieved. Note tat not all of te parameters in tis range obtain te optimal convergence factor. We see tat, for small α 1, te convergence factor is very sensitive to large values of ω. Figure 5: Te two-grid LFA convergence factor for te PrSD using DWJ and rediscretization. At left, we fix ω = and vary α 1 and α. At rigt, we fix α = ω and vary ω and α 1. In Table 3, we present te multigrid performance of DWJ relaxation wit W-cycles for rediscretization coarsening. We see tat te measured multigrid convergence factors matc well wit te LFA-predicted two-grid convergence factors. For Galerkin coarsening, as in te case of 1

22 PoSD, we see divergence wen ν 1 + ν, but performance matcing tat of rediscretization for ν 1 + ν >. Here, V-cycle results are similar to te W-cycle results for bot rediscretization and Galerkin coarsening approaces. In Table 4, we compare te LFA predictions wit multigrid performance for DWJ using sweeps of Jacobi relaxation on te pressure equation. Here, we take α 1 = 3/, ω J = 1, ω = 4/3 as in Teorem 4.4, and observe a good matc between te LFA predictions and measured performance. Table 3: W-cycle convergence factors, ˆρ, for DWJ wit rediscretization for PrSD, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ. Here, te algoritmic parameters are α 1 = 1, α = 1, ω = 10/97 and te LFA smooting factor is µ = Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ Table 4: W-cycle convergence factors, ˆρ, for DWJ wit sweeps of Jacobi on te pressure equation for PrSD wit rediscretization, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ. Here, te algoritmic parameters are α 1 = 3/, ω J = 1, ω = 4/3 and te LFA smooting factor is µ = Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ PoSD wit BSR Next, we consider BSR for PoSD, first displaying te two-grid LFA convergence factor as a function of α for rediscretization coarsening wit ω = 9α in Figure 6. Comparing te convergence factor wit µ, for ν 1 = ν = 1, we see a good matc over te interior of te interval 3 4 α 3 predicted by Teorem 4.6. For larger values of ν 1 + ν, tis agreement deteriorates as is typical wen te beavior of coarse-grid correction becomes dominant. At te rigt of Figure 6, we see good agreement between ρ and µ wen ν 1 + ν = 1 wit fixed α = 1. In bot cases, similar beaviour is seen wit Galerkin coarsening.

23 Figure 6: Two-grid and smooting factors for BSR wit rediscretization for PoSD. At left, comparing ρ wit µ for ν 1 = ν = 1 wit ω = 9 α. At rigt, comparing ρ wit µ for ν 1 + ν = 1 wit α = 1. Motivated by te above, we use α = 1 and ω = 9 for multigrid experiments wit rediscretization, solving te Scur complement equation exactly. Table 5 sows tat te measured multigrid convergence factors matc well wit te LFA-predicted two-grid convergence factors for W-cycles wit rediscretization coarsening, and similar results are seen for Galerkin coarsening. Table 5: W-cycle convergence factors, ˆρ, for BSR wit rediscretization for PoSD, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ. Here, te algoritmic parameters are α = 1, ω = 9 and te LFA smooting factor is µ = Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ In Table 6, we report te LFA prediction for IBSR wit different parameters and one or two sweeps of Jacobi relaxation on te approximate Scur complement for PoSD. Here, we clearly see te benefit of two sweeps of relaxation on te approximate Scur complement over a single sweep, as well as tat better performance is possible wen (numerically) optimizing all of te parameters for IBSR independent of te optimization for exact BSR. Table 6: LFA predictions: two-grid convergence factor, ρ =1/1, and smooting factor, µ, of IBSR wit rediscretization for PoSD wit ν 1 + ν = 1. Sweep α ω ω J µ ρ =1/1 1 (Optimized) / (Optimized) / Table 7 sows tat te LFA-predicted -grid convergence factors closely matc tose seen 3

24 in practice. However, as sown in Table, significant degradation is seen wen considering W-cycles, particularly as ν 1 + ν increases. Table 7: Two-grid convergence factor, ˆρ for IBSR wit sweeps of Jacobi wit rediscretization for PoSD, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ, wit optimized parameters, α = 1.1, ω = 1.0 and ω J = 1. Cycle TG(0, 1) TG(1, 0) TG(1, 1) TG(1, ) TG(, 1) TG(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ Table : W-cycles convergence factors, ˆρ, for IBSR wit sweeps of Jacobi wit rediscretization for PoSD, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ wit optimized parameters, α = 1.1, ω = 1.0 and ω J = 1. Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ Te gap between te results seen for exact BSR in Table 5 and tose for IBSR in Table is quite significant. To maintain te performance observed for exact BSR, we could simply use more Jacobi iterations on te Scur complement system in IBSR; owever, experiments sowed tat tis did not lead to a scalable algoritm. Instead, we consider solving te Scur complement system by applying a multigrid W(1, 1)-cycle using weigted Jacobi relaxation wit weigt ω J, sown in Table 9. From Table 9, we observe tat using only 1 or W(1, 1)-cycles on te approximate Scur complement acieves convergence factors essentially matcing tose in Table 5, sowing tat te W(1, 1) cycle is te most cost effective. Table 9: W-cycle convergence factors, ˆρ, for IBSR wit inner W(1, 1)-cycle for PoSD and (α, ω, ω J ) = (1, /9, 1). In brackets, minimum value of te number of inner W(1, 1)-cycles tat acieves te same convergence factors as tose of LFA predictions, ρ, for exact BSR. Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ () 0.346() 0.131() 0.075() 0.075() 0.059(1) ˆρ =1/ () 0.351() 0.111() 0.075() 0.075() 0.063(1) PrSD wit BSR We now consider BSR for PrSD. At te left of Figure 7, we see a good agreement between te two-grid convergence factor and µ for ν 1 = ν = 1 for some parameters in te range defined in Teorem 4.6 wen using rediscretization. A larger interval of agreement is seen for te corresponding results for Galerkin coarsening. In bot cases, agreement between te two-grid convergence factor and µ ν 1+ν degrades as ν 1 + ν increases, as expected. Note tat Teorem 4.6 demonstrates tat te smooting factor for BSR is a function of ω α (but te same is not necessarily true for te convergence factor). In Figure 7, we plot te LFA smooting and convergence factors for BSR wit rediscretization as a function of ω, wit α = 0. and see tat tese factors generally agree, altoug te smooting factor sligtly underestimates 4

25 te convergence factor. As two-grid convergence is, owever, sensitive to te coice of α, te smooting factor generally underestimates te convergence factor for oter values of α. Figure 7: Two-grid and smooting factors for BSR wit rediscretization for PrSD. At left, comparing ρ wit µ for ν 1 = ν = 1 wit ω = 9 α. At rigt, comparing ρ wit µ for ν 1 + ν = 1 wit α = 4 5. Fixing ω = 9 α wit α = 1. (as suggested by Figure 7 for ν 1 = ν = 1), Table 10 sows tat te measured multigrid convergence factors again matc well wit te LFA-predicted two-grid convergence factors for W-cycles wit rediscretization coarsening. Note, owever, te degradation for ν 1 +ν = 1, were te smooting factor analysis predicts a convergence factor of 1 3 tat is not realized. Te convergence factor of 1 3 can be acieved by coosing α = 4 5 and ω = 9α in te BSR sceme wit eiter W(1, 0) or W(0, 1) cycles, but tese coices lead to a sligt degradation wit ν 1 +ν > 1. Similar results are seen for Galerkin coarsening wit α = 1 and ω = 9α wit te notable exception tat te smooting factor prediction was matced by bot te two-grid LFA convergence factor and true W-cycle convergence in tis case for all experiments. Table 10: W-cycle convergence factors, ˆρ, for BSR wit rediscretization for PrSD, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ, wit algoritmic parameters, α = 1. and ω = 9 α. Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ In Table 11, we report te LFA prediction for IBSR wit one or two sweeps of Jacobi relaxation on te approximate Scur complement wit different parameters for PrSD. As in te case of PoSD, one sweep is not enoug to obtain performance comparable to exact BSR, and tere is a significant advantage to independently optimizing te parameters for IBSR. 5

26 Table 11: LFA predictions: two-grid convergence factor, ρ =1/1, and smooting factor, µ, of IBSR wit rediscretization for PrSD wit ν 1 + ν = 1. Sweep α ω ω J µ ρ =1/1 1 (Optimized) / (Optimized) / Considering, ten, te two-grid metod wit tese optimized parameters and two relaxation sweeps on te approximate Scur complement, Table 1 sows tat two-grid LFA offers a good prediction of performance. In Table 13, owever, we see degraded performance wen using W-cycles. Table 1: Two-grid convergence factors, ˆρ for IBSR wit sweeps of Jacobi for PrSD wit rediscretization, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ, wit optimized parameters, α = 1., ω = 0.9 and ω J = 1.. Cycle TG(0, 1) TG(1, 0) TG(1, 1) TG(1, ) TG(, 1) TG(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ Table 13: W-cycles convergence factors, ˆρ for IBSR wit sweeps of Jacobi for PrSD wit rediscretization, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ, wit optimized parameters, α = 1., ω = 0.9 and ω J = 1.. Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ Tus, we again consider solving te Scur complement system by applying a multigrid W(1, 1)-cycle. Table 14 sows tat tis IBSR is seen to be effective, requiring 1 to 4 W(1, 1) cycles on te Scur complement system to matc te convergence seen in Table 10. Again, W(1, 1) cycles seem to be te most cost effective option for te approximate Scur complement. Table 14: W-cycle convergence factors, ˆρ, for IBSR wit inner W(1, 1)-cycle for PrSD and (α, ω, ω J ) = (6/5, 16/15, 1.1). In brackets, minimum value of te number of inner W(1, 1)-cycles tat acieves te same convergence factors as tose of LFA predictions, ρ, for exact BSR. Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ (4) 0.677(1) 0.11(3) 0.075() 0.075() 0.059(1) ˆρ =1/ (1) 0.66(1) 0.11(3) 0.075() 0.075() 0.067(1) 4.5. Stabilized discretizations wit Uzawa relaxation Multigrid metods using Uzawa relaxation scemes [6, 6, 7] are popular approaces due to teir low cost per iteration. We consider Uzawa relaxation as a simplification of BSR, deter- 6

27 mining te update as te (weigted) solution of ( ) ( ) ( ) αd 0 δu ru Mδx = =, B Ŝ δp r p were αd is an approximation to A and Ŝ is an approximation of te Scur complement, BA 1 B T C. Here, we consider an analogue to exact BSR wit D = diag(a). Te coice of Ŝ is discussed later. In tis setting, we observe tat minimizing te LFA smooting factor does not minimize te LFA convergence factor. Tus, we consider minimizing te two-grid convergence factor numerically for ν 1 + ν = 1 and ν 1 = ν = 1 wit rediscretization coarsening, and compare wit measured multigrid performance. We consider tree approximations to te Scur complement, starting from te true approximate Scur complement, C + B(αdiag(A)) 1 B T. Motivated by te stable finite-element case, we also consider replacing B(αdiag(A)) 1 B T in tis matrix by a weigted mass matrix, yielding Ŝ = C + δq. Finally, motivated by te finite-difference case and efficiency of implementation, we consider taking Ŝ = σ I, for a scalar weigt, σ, to be optimized by te LFA. Note tat, due to te constant-coefficient stencils assumed by LFA, tis corresponds to using a single sweep of Jacobi to approximate solution of eiter of te two above approximations. For te case of C + B(αdiag(A)) 1 B T, te optimized LFA two-grid convergence factors for ν 1 + ν = 1 wit rediscretization coarsening are 0.4 for PoSD and for PrSD. Tese are notably worse tan te BSR smooting factor of 1 3, wic is acieved for W(1, 0) or W(0, 1) cycles. Here, W(1, 0) cycles reflect tis convergence, acieving measured convergence factors of for PoSD and 0.56 for PrSD. Increasing te number of relaxation sweeps per iteration yields some improvement in te predicted LFA convergence factors wen optimizing parameters again, but not enoug to outperform repeated W(1, 0) cycles. For te mass-matrix-based approximation, Ŝ = C + δq, te optimized two-grid convergence factors for ν 1 + ν = 1 wit rediscretization coarsening are 0.5 for PoSD and for PrSD. Wile poorer convergence migt be expected in bot cases, te addition of an extra parameter, δ, allows a (sligt) improvement for PrSD. In bot cases, we observe consistent performance wit numerical experiments, acieving convergence factors of for PoSD and 0.39 for PrSD using W(0, 1) or W(1, 0) cycles. Finally, for te diagonal approximation Ŝ = σ I, we acieve notably better performance optimizing wit ν 1 = ν = 1 tan for ν 1 + ν = 1. For PoSD, te optimized two-grid LFA convergence factor is 0.3, wile it is for PrSD. In practice, we acieve sligtly worse convergence factors using W(1, 1) cycles wit rediscretization coarsening, of for PoSD and for PrSD. Tese are bot significantly worse tan te convergence factors of 1 9 observed using inexact BSR; owever, it must be noted tat W-cycles on te Scur complement system were needed in tat case. A better approximation to inverting te true approximate Scur complement would be to apply multigrid to it, just as was done for IBSR above. Here, we observe tat significant work may be needed to acieve convergence similar to tat of Uzawa were te Scur complement is exactly inverted, requiring 10 W(1, 1)-cycles on te approximate Scur complement to acieve a convergence factor of for PoSD and 0.5 for PrSD, suggesting tat te Jacobi version of Uzawa is ultimately more efficient Comparing cost and performance For convenience, we denote standard DWJ as DWJ(1) and DWJ wit sweeps of Jacobi relaxation on te pressure equation as DWJ() in te following. 7

28 Te above results give a clear comparison of te effectiveness of te multigrid cycles wit te considered relaxation scemes, but not of teir relative efficiencies. To translate from effectiveness to efficiency, we must properly account for te cost per iteration of eac relaxation sceme. All scemes assume te residual is already calculated; for te 9-point stencils in A, B, and stabilization terms, C, te cost of a single residual evaluation on a mes wit n points is (rougly) tat of 63n multiply-add operations, coming from te 7 nonzero blocks in te matrix. For DWJ(1), te rest of te cost of relaxation is fairly easy to account, requiring one diagonal scaling operation on eac of te tree components of te solution vector, plus matrix-vector products wit te pressure Laplacian, A p, and wit bot B and B T. Counting multiply-add operations for tese on a grid wit n points, we ave 3n for te diagonal scalings, and 9n eac for te multiplication wit A p and wit B x and B y and teir transposes, totalling 4n multiply-add operations. For DWJ(), we need 4n multiply-add operators plus te cost of te second sweep. For te second sweep, we need to compute a residual related to G, te (3, 3) block of (11), and a diagonal scaling. Note tat te cost of te residual is 54n (9n eac for te multiplication wit A p, C, and wit B x and B y and teir transposes). In total, te cost of DWJ() is 103n multiply-add operators. For IBSR, following (6), we require two diagonal scaling operations on eac of te velocity components, one matrix-vector product wit eac of B and B T, and or 3 W(1,1) cycles on te pressure variable. To account for te costs of te W(1,1) cycles, we use te standard cost estimate for W-cycles, as requiring 4 Work Units per iteration, were a Work Unit is te cost of forming a residual for te pressure equation. Here, given te 5-point stencil structure seen in Equation (9), eac Work Unit requires 5 multiply-add operations, so te total cost of IBSR wit W(1,1) cycles on te Scur complement is 4n + 36n + 00n = 40n multiply-add operations (and 340n multiply-add operations if 3 W(1,1) cycles are needed). Finally, Uzawa relaxation wit diagonal scaling on te pressure as a cost less tan tat of DWJ(1), as it requires diagonal scaling again for all tree components of te solution, but only one matrix-vector multiplication, wit B. Tese total 1n multiply-add operations. Accumulating te costs of a residual evaluation wit tese, we ave total costs of 111n multiply-add operations per sweep of DWJ(1), 166n multiply-add operations per sweep of DWJ(), 303n multiply-add operations per sweep of IBSR wit W(1,1) cycles per Scur-complement solve, and 4n multiply-add operations per sweep of Uzawa wit diagonal scaling. Considering tese relative to one-anoter, we see tat DWJ(1) as a cost of about 4/3 per cycle as Uzawa, tat DWJ() as a per-cycle cost of about times tat of Uzawa, and 1.5 times tat of DWJ(1), tat IBSR as a per-cycle cost of about 3.6 times tat of Uzawa,.7 and 1. times tat of DWJ(1) and DWJ(), respectively. Te per-cycle convergence factors observed above are 0.35 per cycle for W(1,1) cycles of DWJ(1) for PoSD and 0.44 per cycle for W(1,1) cycles of DWJ(1) for PrSD, 0.11 per cycle for W(1,1) cycles of DWJ() and IBSR for bot stabilizations, and 0.53 or 0.54 per cycle for W(1,1) cycles wit Uzawa. Comparing efficiencies can now be easily done by appropriately weigting tese convergence factors relative to teir work: if one iteration costs W times tat of anoter, and yields a convergence factor of ρ 1, ten we can easily compare ρ 1/W 1 directly to te second convergence factor, ρ, to see if te effective error reduction acieved by te first algoritm in an equal amount of work to te second is better or worse tan tat acieved by te second. Comparing DWJ(1) to Uzawa, ten, for PoSD, we compare / to 0.53 and see tat DWJ(1) is more efficient. For PrSD, we compare / and see tat DWJ(1) and Uzawa are similarly efficient for PrSD. Comparing DWJ() to Uzawa, we compare / 0.33 to 0.53(0.54), sowing tat DWJ() is muc efficient tan Uzawa. Comparing DWJ() to DWJ(1), we compare / to 0.35 (0.45) and see DWJ() is more efficient tan DWJ(1). Comparing IBSR to Uzawa, we compare / , and see tat it as also

29 comparable in efficiency to te oters for te case of PrSD, but sligtly less efficient tan DWJ(1) for PoSD. DWJ() and IBSR ave te same per-cycle convergence factor, but te cost of DWJ() (166n) is less tan IBSR (303n). Tus DWJ() is more efficient tan IBSR. Overall, DWJ() outperforms Uzawa, IBSR and DWJ(1). We note tat tese results are a little different tan tose seen for te MAC discretization in [1], were IBSR outperforms oter scemes. Differences seen in practice (and te influence of factors ignored in te LFA, suc as boundary conditions) are important to consider. An important practical consideration commonly observed in te LFA literature (see, for example, [1, 35]) is te influence of boundary conditions. In numerical experiments not sown ere, we often see significant degradation in convergence between te results for periodic boundary conditions and tose for Diriclet boundary conditions, particularly for cases wit larger numbers of relaxation sweeps per cycle. For DWJ() wit ν 1 + ν = 1, canging from periodic to Diriclet boundary conditions results in convergence factors increasing from 0.34 reported in Tables and 4 to about 0.46 (PrSD) or 0.56 (PoSD) for two-grid cycles, and to about 0.64 (PrSD) and 0.7 (PoSD) for W-cycles. For IBSR wit ν 1 + ν = 1, owever, te degradation is muc less, wit W-cycle convergence rates of 0.3 for PoSD (still wit inner W(1,1)-cycles for te Scur complement system) and 0.35 for PrSD (wit α = 4/5, ω = 3/45, and 4 W(1,1) cycles wit ω J = 1.1 for te Scur complement system). Clearly tis difference in performance is enoug to cange te balance above, wit te added cost of IBSR wit inner W-cycles paying off over DWJ(). 5. Relaxation for Q Q 1 discretization As explored in [15], classical LFA smooting factor analysis is unreliable for Q discretizations, making it unsuitable for analysis of te standard stable Q Q 1 discretization of te Stokes equations. Tus, we consider only numerical ( brute force ) optimization of two-grid LFA convergence factors in tis setting. For DWJ, we find optimal convergence factors of for ν 1 + ν = 1 and 0.55 for ν 1 = ν = 1. Wile te former is quite comparable to convergence predicted and acieved for bot stabilized discretizations wit ν 1 +ν = 1, we see a significant lack of improvement wit increased relaxation, in contrast to te equal-order case. Te same is observed for multigrid W-cycle performance, wit W(1, 0) convergence measured at 0.60 and W(1, 1) convergence measured at For exact BSR, we find optimal convergence factors of for ν 1 + ν = 1 and 0.50 for ν 1 = ν = 1. Wile tese are sligtly larger tan te comparable factors of 1 3 and 1 9, respectively, for te stabilized discretizations, tey still reflect good performance of te underlying metod. At left of Figure, we sow te spectral radius of te error-propagation symbol for exact BSR as a function of Fourier frequency, θ, noting tat predicted reduction over te ig frequencies is not as good as would be needed to equal two-grid convergence in te equal-order case. In order to see ow te convergence factor canges wit te parameters α and ω, we display te convergence factor as a function of α and ω at te rigt of Figure. Te optimal coice, of α = 1.1 and ω = 1.05, occurs in a narrow band of ω values, but larger range of α values lead to reasonable results. 9

30 Figure : At left, te spectral radius of te error-propagation symbol for exact BSR applied to te Q Q 1 discretization, as a function of te Fourier mode, θ. At rigt, te LFA-predicted two-grid convergence factor for BSR applied to te Q Q 1 discretization as a function of α and ω, wit (ν 1, ν ) = (1, 1). As always, an inexact solve of te Scur complement system is needed to yield a practical variant of BSR. Wile sweeps of Jacobi appears sufficient to acieve scalable W-cycle convergence wen ν 1 + ν > (see Table 15), we find 3 sweeps are needed to acieve W(1, 1) convergence factors of 0.40 (see Table 16), in contrast to results in [1] and for te equal-order discretizations considered ere, were a muc stronger iteration was needed. Similar results were seen for V(1, 1) cycles wen 3 sweeps of Jacobi were used for te Scur complement system. Table 15: W-cycles convergence factors, ˆρ, for IBSR wit sweeps Jacobi for Q Q 1 approximation wit rediscretization, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ, for exact BSR wit algoritmic parameters, α = 1.1, ω = 1.05 and ω J = 1.0. Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/64 NAN NAN ˆρ =1/1 NAN NAN Table 16: W-cycles convergence factors, ˆρ, for IBSR wit 3 sweeps Jacobi for Q Q 1 approximation wit rediscretization, compared wit LFA two-grid predictions, ρ, for exact BSR wit algoritmic parameters, α = 1.1, ω = 1.05 and ω J = 1.0. Cycle W(0, 1) W(1, 0) W(1, 1) W(1, ) W(, 1) W(, ) ρ =1/ ˆρ =1/ ˆρ =1/1 NAN NAN Finally, we consider te same tree variants of Uzawa relaxation as examined above for te equal-order case. For Ŝ = B(αdiag(A)) 1 B T, te best convergence factor found for ν 1 + ν = 1 was 0.79, wile better convergence was predicted for Ŝ = δq, wit factor Tis is to be expected, peraps, since te Q 1 mass matrix is well-known to be a better approximation of 30