arxiv: v4 [math.na] 25 Aug 2014

Transcription

1 BIT manuscript No. (wi be inserted by the editor) A muti-eve spectra deferred correction method Robert Speck Danie Ruprecht Matthew Emmett Michae Minion Matthias Boten Rof Krause arxiv: v4 [math.na] 25 Aug 2014 Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract The spectra deferred correction (SDC) method is an iterative scheme for computing a higher-order coocation soution to an ODE by performing a series of correction sweeps using a ow-order timestepping method. This paper examines a variation of SDC for the tempora integration of PDEs caed muti-eve spectra deferred corrections (MLSDC), where sweeps are performed on a hierarchy of eves and an FAS correction term, as in noninear mutigrid methods, coupes soutions on different eves. Three different strategies to reduce the computationa cost of correction sweeps on the coarser eves are examined: re- Robert Speck and Danie Ruprecht acknowedge supported by Swiss Nationa Science Foundation grant under the ead agency agreement through the project ExaSovers within the Priority Programme 1648 Software for Exascae Computing of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Matthias Boten acknowedges support from DFG through the project ExaStencis within SPPEXA. Danie Ruprecht and Matthew Emmett aso thankfuy acknowedge support by grant SNF Matthew Emmett and Michae Minion were supported by the Appied Mathematics Program of the DOE Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research under the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC02-05CH Michae Minion was aso supported by the U.S. Nationa Science Foundation grant DMS R. Speck Jüich Supercomputing Centre, Forschungszentrum Jüich, Germany and Institute of Computationa Science, Università dea Svizzera itaiana, Lugano, Switzerand. E-mai: r.speck@fz-jueich.de D. Ruprecht Institute of Computationa Science, Università dea Svizzera itaiana, Lugano, Switzerand. E-mai: danie.ruprecht@usi.ch M. Emmett Center for Computationa Sciences and Engineering, Lawrence Berkeey Nationa Laboratory, USA. E-mai: mwemmett@b.gov M. Minion Institute for Computationa and Mathematica Engineering, Stanford University, USA. E-mai: mminion@stanford.edu M. Boten Department of Mathematics, Bergische Universität Wupperta, Germany. E-mai: boten@math.uni-wupperta.de R. Krause Institute of Computationa Science, Università dea Svizzera itaiana, Lugano, Switzerand. E-mai: rof.krause@usi.ch

2 2 R. Speck, D. Ruprecht, M. Emmett, M. Minion, M. Boten, R. Krause ducing the degrees of freedom, reducing the order of the spatia discretization, and reducing the accuracy when soving inear systems arising in impicit tempora integration. Severa numerica exampes demonstrate the effect of muti-eve coarsening on the convergence and cost of SDC integration. In particuar, MLSDC can provide significant savings in compute time compared to SDC for a three-dimensiona probem. Keywords spectra deferred corrections muti-eve spectra deferred corrections FAS correction PFASST Mathematics Subject Cassification (2000) 65M55 65M70 65Y05 1 Introduction The numerica approximation of initia vaue ordinary differentia equations is a fundamenta probem in computationa science, and many integration methods for probems of different character have been deveoped [2, 20, 21]. Among different soution strategies, this paper focuses on a cass of iterative methods caed Spectra Deferred Corrections (SDC) [16], which is a variant of the defect and deferred correction methods deveoped in the 1960s [3, 15,35,36,42,46]. In SDC methods, high-order tempora approximations are computed over a timestep by discretizing and approximating a series of correction equations on intermediate substeps. These corrections are appied iterativey to a provisiona soution computed on the substeps, with each iteration or sweep improving the soution and raising the forma order of accuracy of the method, see e.g. [11,13,45]. The correction equations are cast in the form of a Picard integra equation containing an expicity cacuated term corresponding to the tempora integration of the function vaues from the previous iteration. Substeps in SDC methods are chosen to correspond to Gaussian quadrature nodes, and hence the integras can be staby computed to a very high order of accuracy. One attractive feature of SDC methods is that the numerica method used to approximate the correction equations can be ow-order (even first-order) accurate, whie the soution after many iterations can in principa be of arbitrariy high-order of accuracy. This has been expoited to create SDC methods that aow the governing equations to be spit into two or more pieces that can be treated either impicity or expicity and/or with different timesteps, see e.g. [5, 6, 29, 32]. For high-order SDC methods constructed from ow-order propagators, the provisiona soution and the soution after the first few correction iterations are of ower-order compared to the fina soution. Hence it is possibe to reduce the computationa work done on these eary iterations by reducing the number of substeps (i.e. quadrature nodes) since higherorder integras are not yet necessary. In [30,32], the number of substeps used in initia iterations of SDC methods is appropriatey reduced to match the accuracy of the soution, and the methods there are referred to as adder methods. Ladder methods progress from a oworder coarse soution to a high-order fine soution by performing one or more SDC sweeps on the coarse eve and then using an interpoated (in time and possiby space) version of the soution as the provisiona soution for the next correction sweep. In both [30, 32] the authors concude that the reduction in work obtained by using adder methods is essentiay offset by a corresponding decrease in accuracy, making adder methods no more computationay efficient than non-adder SDC methods. On the other hand, in [28], SDC methods for a method of ines discretizations of PDEs are expored wherein the adder strategy aows both spatia and tempora coarsening as we as the use of ower-order spatia discretizations in initia iterations. The numerica resuts in [28] indicate that adding spatia coarsening

3 A muti-eve spectra deferred correction method 3 to SDC methods for PDEs can increase the overa efficiency of the timestepping scheme, athough this evidence is based ony on numerica experiments using simpe test cases. This paper significanty extends the idea of using spatia coarsening in SDC when soving PDEs. A genera muti-eve strategy is anayzed wherein correction sweeps are appied to different eves as in the V-cyces of mutigrid methods (e.g. [7, 8]). A simiar strategy is used in the parae fu approximation scheme in space and time (PFASST), see [18,34] and aso [39], to enabe concurrency in time by iterating on mutipe timesteps simutaneousy. As in noninear mutigrid methods, muti-eve SDC appies an FAS-type correction to enhance the accuracy of the soution on coarse eves. Therefore, some of the fine sweeps required by a singe-eve SDC agorithm can be repaced by coarse sweeps, which are reativey cheaper when spatia coarsening strategies are used. The paper introduces MLSDC and discusses three such spatia coarsening strategies: (1) reducing the number of degrees of freedom, (2) reducing the order of the discretization and (3) reducing the accuracy of impicit soves. To enabe the use of a high-order compact stencis for spatia operators, severa modifications to SDC and MLSDC are presented that incorporate a weighting matrix. It is shown for exampe probems in one and two dimensions that the number of MLSDC iterations required to converge to the coocation soution can be fewer than for SDC, even when the probem is poory resoved in space. Furthermore, resuts from a three-dimensiona benchmark probem demonstrate that MLSDC can significanty reduce time-to-soution compared to singe-eve SDC. 2 Muti-eve spectra deferred corrections The detais of the MLSDC schemes are presented in this section. The origina SDC method is first reviewed in 2.1, whie MLSDC aong with a brief review of FAS corrections, the incorporation of weighting matrices and a discussion of different coarsening strategies is presented in Spectra deferred corrections SDC methods for ODEs were first introduced in [16], and were subsequenty refined and extended e.g. in [22, 24, 32, 33]. SDC methods iterativey compute the soution to the coocation equation by approximating a series of correction equations at spectra quadrature nodes using ow-order substepping methods. The derivation of SDC starts from the Picard integra form of a generic IVP given by t u(t) = u 0 + f ( u(s),s ) ds (1) 0 where t [0,T ], u 0,u(t) R N, and f : R N R R N. We now focus on a singe timestep [T n,t n+1 ], which is divided into substeps by defining a set of quadrature nodes on the interva. Here we consider Lobatto quadrature and denote M + 1 nodes t := (t m ) m=0,...,m such that T n = t 0 < t 1 <... < t M = T n+1. We now denote the coocation poynomia on [T n,t n+1 ] by u p (t) and write U j = u p (t j ) u(t j ). In order to derive equations for the intermediate soutions U j, we define quadrature weights q m, j := 1 t tm T n j (s) ds, m = 0,...,M, j = 0,...,M (2)

4 4 R. Speck, D. Ruprecht, M. Emmett, M. Minion, M. Boten, R. Krause where ( j ) j=0,...,m are the Lagrange poynomias defined by the nodes t, and t = T N+1 T N. Inserting u p (t) into (1) and noting that the quadrature with weights defined in (2) integrates the poynomia u p (t) exacty, we obtain U m = u 0 + t M j=0 q m, j f (U j,t j ), m = 0,...,M. (3) For a more compact notation, we now define the integration matrix q to be the M +1 M +1 matrix consisting of entries q m, j. Note that because we use Gauss-Lobatto nodes, the first row of q is a zeros. Next, we denote and U := [U 0,...,U M ] T, F(U) := [F 0,...,F M ] T := [ f (U 0,t 0 ),..., f (U M,t M )] T. In order to mutipy the integration matrix q with the vector of the right-hand side vaues, we define Q := q I N where I N R N N is the identity matrix and is the Kronecker product. With these definitions, the set of equations in (3) can be written more compacty as U = U 0 + t Q F(U) where U 0 := U 0 I N. Eq. (4) is an impicit equation for the unknowns in U, and is aso referred to as the coocation formuation. Because we use Gauss-Lobatto nodes, the vaue U M readiy approximates the soution u(t n+1 ). Here, we consider ODEs that can be spit into stiff ( f I ) and non-stiff ( f E ) pieces so that f (u(t),t) = f E( u(t),t ) + f I( u(t),t ). SDC iterations begin by spreading the initia condition U 0 to each of the coocation nodes so that the provisiona soution U 0 is given by U 0 = [U 0,,U 0 ]. We define by s m, j := 1 t tm t m 1 j (s) ds, m = 1,...,M the quadrature weights for node-to-note integration, approximating integras over [t m 1,t m ], and as s the M M + 1 matrix consisting of the entries s m, j. Note that s can be easiy constructed from the integration matrix q. Furthermore, we denote as before S := s I N. Then, the semi-impicit update equation corresponding to the forward/backward Euer substepping method for computing U k+1 is given by U k+1 m+1 = U k+1 m + t m [ f E (U k+1 m,t m ) f E (U k m,t m ) ] + t m [ f I (U k+1 m+1,t m+1) f I (U k m+1,t m+1) ] + t S k m (4) where S k m is the m th row of SF(U k ) and t m := t m+1 t m. The process of soving (4) at each node is referred to as an SDC sweep or an SDC iteration (see Agorithm 1). SDC with a fixed number of k iterations and first-order sweeps is formay O( t k ) up to the accuracy of the underying integration rue [12, 45]. When SDC iterations converge, the scheme becomes equivaent to the coocation scheme determined by the quadrature nodes, and hence is of order 2M with M + 1 Lobatto nodes. It has been shown [24, 30] that in certain situations (particuary stiff equations) the convergence of SDC iterates can sow down consideraby for arge vaues of t. For a fixed

5 A muti-eve spectra deferred correction method 5 Agorithm 1: IMEX SDC sweep agorithm. Data: Initia U 0, function evauations F(U k ) from the previous iteration, and (optionay) FAS corrections τ. Resut: Soution U k+1 and function evauations F(U k+1 ). # Compute integras for m = 0...M 1 do end S k m t M j=0 s m, j(f E,k j + F I,k j ) # Set initia condition and compute function evauation t t 0 ; U k+1 0 U 0 F E,k+1 0 f E (U 0,t) F I,k+1 0 f I (U 0,t) # Forward/backward Euer substepping for correction for m = 0...M 1 do t t + t m RHS U k+1 m + t m ( F E,k+1 m Fm E,k Fm+1) I,k + S k m + τ m U k+1 m+1 Sove( U t m f I (U,t) = RHS ) for U F E,k+1 m+1 f E (U k+1 m+1,t) F I,k+1 m+1 f I (U k+1 m+1,t) end The FAS correction, denoted by τ, is incuded here to eucidate how FAS corrections derived in 2.2 are incorporated into an SDC sweep for pain, singe eve SDC agorithms the FAS correction τ woud be zero. number of iterations, this ack of convergence is characterized by order reduction. Hence in this study, to aow for a reasonabe comparison of SDC and MLSDC, we perform iterations unti a specified convergence criterion is met. Convergence is monitored by computing the SDC residua r k = U 0 + tqf(u k ) U k, (5) and the iteration is terminated when the norm of the residua drops beow a prescribed toerance. Simiary, if SDC or MLSDC are used to sove the coocation probem up to some fixed toerance, one aso observes a significant increase in the number of iterations required to reach a set toerance. Acceerating the convergence of SDC for stiff probems has been studied in e.g. [25,44]. 2.2 Muti-eve spectra deferred corrections In muti-eve SDC (MLSDC), SDC sweeps are performed on a hierarchy of discretizations or eves to sove the coocation equation (4). This section presents the detais of the MLSDC iterations for a generic set of eves, and in Sect , three different coarsening strategies are expored. For the foowing, we define eves = 1...L, where = 1 is the discretization that is to be soved (referred to genericay as the fine eve), and subsequent eves = 2...L are defined by successive coarsening of a type to be specified ater FAS correction Soutions on different MLSDC eves are couped in the same manner as used in the fu approximation scheme (FAS) for noninear mutigrid methods (see e.g. [7]). The FAS cor-

6 6 R. Speck, D. Ruprecht, M. Emmett, M. Minion, M. Boten, R. Krause rection for coarse SDC iterations is determined by considering SDC as an iterative method for soving the coocation formuation (4), where the operators A are given by A (U ) U tq F (U ). Note that the approximations A of the operator A can differ substantiay between eves as wi be discussed in Furthermore, we assume that suitabe restriction (denote by R) and interpoation operators between eves are avaiabe, see The FAS correction for coarse-grid sweeps is then given by τ +1 = A +1 (RU ) RA (U ) = t ( RQ F (U ) Q +1 F +1 (RU ) ). (6) In particuar, if the fine residua is zero (i.e., U U 0, + tq F (U )) the FAS-corrected coarse equation becomes U +1 tq +1 F +1 (U +1 ) = RU 0, + t ( RQ F (U ) Q +1 F +1 (RU ) ) = RU tq +1 F +1 (RU ) so that the coarse soution is the restriction of the fine soution. Note that for muti-eve schemes, FAS-corrections from finer eves need to be restricted and incorporated to coarser eves as we, i.e. if on eve the equation is aready corrected by τ with A (U ) = U tq F (U ) τ, the correction τ +1 for eve + 1 is then given by τ +1 = A +1 (RU ) RA (U ) = t ( RQ F (U ) Q +1 F +1 (RU ) ) + Rτ. Coarse eves thus incude the FAS corrections of a finer eves The MLSDC agorithm The MLSDC scheme introduced here proceeds as foows. The initia condition U 0 and its function evauation are spread to each of the coocation nodes on the finest eve so that the first provisiona soution U 0 1 is given by U 0 1 = [U 0,...,U 0 ]. A singe MLSDC iteration then consists of the foowing steps: 1. Perform one fine SDC sweep using the vaues U k 1 and F 1 (U k 1 ). This wi yied provisiona updated vaues U k+1 1 and F 1 (U k+1 1 ). 2. Sweep from fine to coarse: for each = 2...L: (a) Restrict the fine vaues U k+1 1 to the coarse vaues U k and compute F (U k ). (b) Compute the FAS correction τ k using F 1 (U 1 k+1 ), F (U k ), and τk 1 (if avaiabe). (c) Perform n SDC sweeps with the vaues on eve beginning with U k, F (U k ) and the FAS correction τ k k+1. This wi yied new vaues U and F (U k+1 ). 3. Sweep from coarse to fine: for each = L 1...1: (a) Interpoate coarse grid correction U k+1 k+1 +1 RU and add to U k+1. Recompute new vaues F (U k+1 ) (b) If > 1, perform n SDC sweeps beginning with vaues U k+1, F (U k+1 ) and the FAS correction τ k k+1. This wi once again yied new vaues U and F (U k+1 ).

7 A muti-eve spectra deferred correction method 7 Agorithm 2: MLSDC iteration for L eves. Data: Initia U1,0 k and function evauations Fk 1 from the previous iteration on the fine eve. Resut: Soution U k+1 and function evauations F k+1 on a eves. # Perform fine sweep and check convergence criteria U k+1 1, F1 k+1 SDCSweep ( U k 1, ) Fk 1 if fine eve has converged then return end # Cyce from fine to coarse for = 1...L 1 do # Restrict, re-evauate, and save restriction (used ater during interpoation) for m = 0...M do U+1,m k Restrict( U k+1 ),m F+1,m k FEva( U+1,m k+1 ) Ũ+1,m k Uk +1,m end # Compute FAS correction and sweep τ +1 FAS ( F k+1, F k +1, τ ) U+1 k+1, Fk+1 +1 SDCSweep( U k +1, Fk +1, τ ) +1 end # Cyce from coarse to fine for = L do # Interpoate coarse correction and re-evauate for m = 0...M do U k+1,m Uk+1,m + Interpoate( U+1,m k+1 ) Ũk +1,m ) F,m k+1 FEva( U,m k+1 end U k+1, F k+1 SDCSweep ( U k+1, F k+1 ), τ end # Return to finest eve before next iteration for m = 0...M do U1,m k+1 Uk+1 1,m + Interpoate( U2,m k+1 ) Ũk 2,m F1,m k+1 FEva( U1,m k+1 ) end Note that when interpoating from coarse to fine eves the correction U k+1 +1 RU k +1 is interpoated and subsequenty added to U k+1 instead of simpy overwriting the fine vaues with interpoated coarse vaues. Aso note that instead of interpoating soution vaues U k+1 +1 to U k+1 and immediatey re-evauating the function vaues F (U k+1 ), the change in the function vaues can be interpoated as we. Doing so reduces the cost of the interpoation step, but possiby at the cost of increasing the number of MLSDC iterations required to reach convergence. Since no significant increase coud be observed during our tests, we skip the re-evauation of the right-hand side and use interpoation of the coarse function vaues throughout this work. The above is summarized by Agorithm 2.

8 8 R. Speck, D. Ruprecht, M. Emmett, M. Minion, M. Boten, R. Krause Semi-impicit MLSDC with compact stencis In order to achieve higher-order accuracy with finite difference discretizations in space, the use of Mehrsteen discretizations is a common technique especiay when using mutigrid methods [43]. Whie the straightforward use of arger stencis eads to arger matrix bandwidths and higher communication costs during parae runs, high-order compact schemes aow for high-order accuracy with stencis of minima extent [41]. The compact stenci for a given discretization is obtained by approximating the eading order error term by a finite difference approximation of the right-hand side, resuting in a weighting matrix. Discretizing e.g. the heat equation u t = 2 u in space 1 yieds Wu t = Au with system matrix A and weighting matrix W. Formay, the discrete Lapacian is given by W 1 A. Using this approach, a fourth-order approximation of the Lapacian can be achieved using ony nearest neighbors (three-point stenci in 1D, nine-point-stenci in 2D, 19-point stenci in 3D). For further reading on compact schemes we refer to [31,41,43]. The presence of a weighting matrix requires some modifications to MLSDC. We start with the semi-impicit SDC update equation (4) given by U k+1 m+1 = U k+1 m + t m [ f E (U k+1 m,t m ) f E (U k m,t m ) ] + t m [ f I (U k+1 m+1,t m) f I (U k m+1,t m) ] + t S k m. (7) Next, we assume a inear, autonomous impicit part f I (U,t) = f I (U) = W 1 AU for a spatia vector U with sparse matrices W and A stemming from the discretization of the Lapacian with compact stencis. Furthermore, we define so that With these definitions (7) becomes f I (U) = AU f I (U) = W f I (U). (8) ( I tm W 1 A ) U k+1 m+1 = U k+1 m + t m [ f E (U k+1 m,t m ) f E (U k m,t m ) ] t m W 1 AU k m+1 + t Sk m. Since the operator ( I t m W 1 A ) is not sparse, we avoid computing with it by mutipying the equation above by W, so that (W t m A)Um+1 k+1 k+1 = WUm + t m W [ f E (Um k+1,t m ) f E (Um,t k m ) ] t m f I (U k m+1 ) + t S k m (9) where S k m now represents the m th row of S F k (U k ), using W f E (U k m,t m ) and f I (U k m) instead of f E (U k m,t m ) and f I (U k m) as integrands, that is S k m = M j=0 s m, j( W f E (U k j,t j) + f I (U k j )). 1 We adopt here and in the upcoming exampes the foowing notation: Soutions of PDEs are denoted with an underine, e.g. u, and depend continuousy on one or more spatia variabes and a time variabe. Discretizing a PDE in space by the method of ines resuts in an IVP with dimension N equa to the degrees of freedom of the spatia discretization. The soution of such an IVP is a vector-vaued function denoted by a ower case etter, e.g. u, and depends continuousy on time. The numerica approximation of u at some point in time t m is denoted by a capita etter, e.g. U k m, where k corresponds to the iteration number.

9 A muti-eve spectra deferred correction method 9 Whie this equation avoids the inversion of W, the computation of the residua does not. By equation (5), the m th component of the residua at iteration k reads either ( ) rm k = U 0 + t QF(U k ) m Uk m, or, after mutipication with W, Wr k m = WU 0 + t ( ) Q F(U k ) WU m. k m Both equations require the soution of a inear system with matrix W, either to compute the components of F(U k ) from (8) or to retrieve r k m from Wr k m. Note that the subscript m denotes here the m th coumn. Thus, we either need to obtain r k m from Wr k m (in case W f E is stored during the SDC sweep) or f I from f I (in case f E is stored). In either case, soving a inear system with the weighting matrix becomes inevitabe for the computation of the formay correct residua. Furthermore, evauating (6) for the FAS correction aso requires the expicit use of f E and f I = W 1 f I to compute RQ F (U ). Moreover, from (9) we note that weighted SDC sweeps on coarse eves + 1 require the computation of W +1 τ +1,m on a coarse nodes t so that Q +1 F +1 (RU ) can be repaced by Q +1 F +1 (RU ). For spatia discretizations in which both parts f E and f I of the right-hand side make use of weighting matrices W E and W I or e.g. for finite eement discretizations with a mass matrix, we note that simiar modifications to the MLSDC scheme as presented here must be made. The investigation of MLSDC for finite eement discretizations is eft for future work Coarsening strategies The goa in MLSDC methods is to reduce the tota cost of the method by performing SDC sweeps on coarsened eves at reduced computationa cost. In this section we describe the three types of spatia coarsening used in the numerica exampes: 1. REDUCED RESOLUTION IN SPACE: Use fewer degrees of freedom for the spatia representation (e.g. nodes, ces, points, partices, etc.) on the coarse eves. This directy transates into significant computationa savings for evauations of f, particuary for 3D probems. This approach requires spatia interpoation and restriction operators to transfer the soution between eves. 2. REDUCED ORDER IN SPACE: Use a spatia discretization on the coarse eves that is of reduced order. Lower-order finite difference stencis, for exampe, are typicay cheaper to evauate than higher-order ones, see [37] for an appication of this strategy for the time-parae Pararea method. 3. REDUCED IMPLICIT SOLVE IN SPACE: Use ony a few iterations of a spatia sover in every substep, if an impicit or impicit-expicit method is used in the SDC sweeps. By not soving the inear or noninear system in each SDC substep to fu accuracy, savings in execution time can be achieved. We note that a fourth possibiity not pursued here is to use a simpified physica representation of the probem on coarse eves. This approach requires a detaied understanding of the probem to derive suitabe coarse eve modes and appropriate coarsening and interpoation operators. Simiar ideas have been studied for Pararea in [14,23].

10 10 R. Speck, D. Ruprecht, M. Emmett, M. Minion, M. Boten, R. Krause The spatia coarsening strategies outined above can significanty reduce the cost of a coarse eve SDC substep, but do not affect the number of substeps used. In principe, it is aso possibe to reduce the number of quadrature nodes on coarser eves as in the adder schemes mentioned in the introduction. In this paper, no such tempora coarsening is appied and we focus on the appication of spatia coarsening strategies which eads to a arge reduction of the runtime for coarse eve sweeps Transfer operators In order to appy Strategy 1 and reduce the number of spatia degrees of freedom, transfer operators between different eves are required. In the tests presented here that are based on finite difference discretizations on simpe cartesian meshes, the spatia degrees of freedom are aigned, so that simpe injection can be used for restriction. We have observed that the order of the used spatia interpoation has a strong impact on the convergence of MLSDC. Whie goba information transfer when using e.g. spectra methods does not infuence the convergence properties of MLSDC, the use of oca Lagrangian interpoation for finite difference stencis has to be appied with care. In numerica experiments not documented here, MLSDC with simpe inear interpoation required twice as many iterations as MLSDC with fifth-order spatia interpoation. Further, ow resoutions in space combined with ow-order interpoation ed to significant degradation of the convergence speed of MLSDC, whie high spatia resoutions were much ess sensitive. Throughout the paper, Strategy 1 is appied with third-order Lagrangian interpoation, which has proven to be sufficient in a cases studied here. We note that the transfer operators woud be different if e.g. finite eements were used and operators between eement spaces of different order and/or on different meshes woud be required Stabiity of SDC and MLSDC Stabiity domains for SDC are presented in e.g. [16]. The stabiity of semi-impicit SDC is addressed in [32] and the issue of order reduction for stiff probems is discussed. Spit SDC methods are further anayzed theoreticay and numericay in [19]. A stabiity anaysis for MLSDC is compicated by the fact that it woud need to consider the effects of the different spatia coarsening strategies aid out in Therefore, it cannot simpy use Dahquist s test equation but has to resort to some we-defined PDE exampes in order to assess stabiity. Hence, for MLSDC the resuts presented here are experimenta but deveopment of a theory for the convergence properties of MLSDC is ongoing work. However, in a exampes presented beow, stabiity properties of SDC and MLSDC appeared to be comparabe, but a comprehensive anaysis is eft for future work. 3 Numerica Exampes In this section we investigate the performance of MLSDC for four numerica exampes. First, in order to demonstrate that the FAS correction in MLSDC is not unusabe for hyperboic probems per se, performance for the 1D wave equation is studied in 3.1. To investigate performance for a noninear probem, MLSDC is then appied to the 1D viscous Burgers equation in 3.2. A detaied investigation of different error components is given and we

11 A muti-eve spectra deferred correction method 11 verify that the FAS corrections aow the soutions on coarse eves to converge to the accuracy determined by the discretization on the finest eve. The 2D Navier-Stokes equations in vorticity-veocity form are soved in 3.3, showing again a reduction of the number of required iterations by MLSDC, athough using a coarsened spatia resoution is found to have a negative impact on convergence, if the fine eve is aready under-resoved. In 3.4, a FORTRAN impementation of MLSDC is appied to the three-dimensiona Burgers equation and it is demonstrated that the reduction in fine eve sweeps transates into a significant reduction of computing time. Throughout a exampes, we make use of a inear geometric mutigrid sover [10,43] with JOR reaxation in 3D and SOR reaxation 1D and 2D as smoothers, to sove the inear probems in the impicit part as we as to sove the inear system with the weighting matrix for the residua and the FAS correction. The parae impementation of the mutigrid sover used for the ast exampe is described in [4]. In the exampes beow, we compare the number of sweeps on the fine and most expensive eve required by SDC or MLSDC to converge up to a set toerance. For SDC, which sweeps ony on the fine eve, this number is identica to the number of iterations. For MLSDC, each iteration consists of one cyce through the eve hierarchy, starting from the finest eve, going up to the coarsest and then down again, with one SDC sweep on each eve on the way up and down, cf. Agorithm 2. Except for the ast iteration, the fina fine sweep is aso the first fine sweep of the next iteration, so that for MLSDC the number of fine sweeps is equa to the number of iterations pus one. Note that a factor of two coarsening in the spatia resoution in each dimension yieds a factor of eight reduction in degrees of freedom in three dimensions, which makes coarse eve sweeps significanty ess expensive. 3.1 Wave equation For spatia mutigrid, the FAS formaism is mosty derived and anayzed for stationary eiptic or paraboic probems, athough there are exampes of appications to hyperboic probems as we [1,38]. Here, as a first test, we investigate the performance of MLSDC for a simpe 1D wave equation to verify that the FAS procedure as used in MLSDC does not break down for a hyperboic probem per se. The probem considered here, with the wave equation written as a first order system, reads u t (x,t) + v x (x,t) = 0 v t (x,t) + u x (x,t) = 0 on x [0,1] with periodic boundary conditions and ( u(x,0) = exp 1 ( ) ) x 0.5 2, v(x,0) = for 0 t T. For the spatia derivatives, centered differences of 4 th order with 128 points are used on the fine eve and of 2 nd order with 64 points on the coarse. Both SDC and MLSDC perform 40 timesteps of ength t = to integrate up to T = 1.0 and iterations on each step are performed unti r k The average number of fine eve sweeps over a steps for SDC and MLSDC is shown in Tabe 1 for three different vaues of M. In a cases, MLSDC eads to savings in terms of required fine eve sweeps. We note that for a fine eve spatia resoution of ony 64 points, using spatia coarsening has a significant negative effect on the performance of MLSDC (not documented here): This suggests that for a probem which is spatiay under-resoved on the finest eve, further coarsening the spatia resoution within MLSDC might hurt performance, see aso 3.3.

12 12 R. Speck, D. Ruprecht, M. Emmett, M. Minion, M. Boten, R. Krause M SDC MLSDC(1,2) Tabe 1: Average number of fine eve sweeps over a time-steps of SDC and MLSDC for the wave equation exampe to reach a residua of r k The numbers in parentheses after MLSDC indicate the used coarsening strategies, see D viscous Burgers equation In this section we investigate the effect of coarsening in MLSDC by considering the noninear viscous Burgers equation with ν > 0 and initia condition u t + u u x = νu xx, x [ 1,1], t [0,t end ] u(x,0) = u 0 (x) (10) u( 1,t) = u(1,t), u 0 (x) = exp ) ( x2 σ 2, σ = 0.1 corresponding to a Gaussian peak strongy ocaized around x = 0. We denote the evauation of the continuous function u on a given spatia mesh with points (x i ) i=1,...,n with a subscript N, so that u N (t) := (u(x i,t)) i=1,...,n R N. Discretization of (10) in space then yieds an initia vaue probem u t (t) = f N (u(t)), u(t) R N, t [0,t end ] u(0) = u 0 N (11) with soution u. Finay, we denote by U N,M, t,k R N the resut of soving (11) with k iterations of MLSDC using a timestep of t, M substeps (or M + 1 Lobatto coocation nodes), and an N-point spatia mesh on the finest eve over one time step. Two runs are performed here, soving (10) with ν = 1.0 and ν = 0.1 with a singe MLSDC timestep t end = t = MLSDC with two eves with 7 Gauss-Lobatto coocation points is used with a spatia mesh of N = 256 points on the fine eve, and N = 128 on the coarse eve (Strategy 1). The advective term is discretized using a 5 th -order WENO finite difference method [27] on the fine eve and a simpe 1 st -order upwind scheme on the coarse eve. For the Lapacian, a 4 th -order compact stenci is used on the fine eve and a 2 nd -order stenci is used on the coarse eve (Strategy 2). The advective term is treated expicity whie the diffusion term is treated impicity. The resuting inear system is soved using a inear mutigrid sover with a toerance of on the fine eve but soved ony approximatey using a singe V-cyce on the coarse eve (Strategy 3). A fixed number of K = 80 MLSDC iterations is performed here without setting a toerance for the MLSDC residua. In order to assess the different error components, a reference PDE soution u N ( t) is computed with a singe-eve SDC scheme on a mesh with N = 1,024 points using M +1 = 9 and t = An ODE soution u( t) is computed by running singe-eve SDC using

13 A muti-eve spectra deferred correction method 13 M +1 = 9, t = 10 4 and the same spatia discretization as on the fine eve of the MLSDC run. Finay, the coocation soution u co ( t) is computed by performing 100 iterations of singe-eve SDC with M + 1 = 7 and again the same spatia discretization as the MLSDC fine eve. Reference ODE and coocation soutions are computed for the coarse eve using the same parameters and the MLSDC coarse eve spatia discretization Error components in MLSDC The reative error of the fuy discrete MLSDC soution to the anaytica soution u of the PDE (10) after a singe timestep of ength t is given by u ε PDE := N ( t) U N,M, t,k, (12) u N ( t) where denotes some norm on R N. A errors are hereafter reported using the maximum norm. The error ε PDE incudes contributions from three sources ε N := u N( t) u( t) (i) reative spatia error, u N ( t) u( t) u co ( t) ε t := (ii) reative tempora error, u N ( t) u ε co co ( t) U N,M, t,k := (iii) iteration error, u N ( t) with u co denoting the exact soution of the coocation equation (4). Here, (i) is the spatia discretization error; (ii) is the tempora discretization error, which is the error from repacing the anaytica Picard formuation (1) with the discrete coocation probem (4); and (iii) is the error from soving the coocation equation approximatey using the MLSDC iteration. The PDE error (12) can be estimated using the triange inequaity according to ε PDE ε N + ε t + ε co. In addition to the PDE error, we define the error between the MLSDC soution and the anaytica soution of the semi-discrete ODE (11) as u( t) ε ODE U N,M, t,k := ε t + ε co. (13) u N ( t) Note that ε ODE contains contributions from (ii) and (iii), and once the MLSDC iteration has converged, error (13) reduces to the error arising from repacing the exact Picard integra (1) by the coocation formua (4). The three different error components of MLSDC, ε PDE, ε ODE and ε co are expected to saturate at different eves as k according to ε PDE max{ε N,ε t }, ε ODE ε t, and ε co 0. The crucia point here is that due to the presence of the FAS correction incuded in MLSDC, we expect ε PDE, ε ODE and ε co on a eves to saturate at vaues of ε N and ε t determined by the discretization used on the finest eve. That is, the FAS correction shoud aow MLSDC to represent the soution on a coarse eves to the same accuracy as on the finest eve. This is verified in

14 14 R. Speck, D. Ruprecht, M. Emmett, M. Minion, M. Boten, R. Krause ν = 0.1 ν = 1.0 Method # Fine sweeps Method # Fine sweeps SDC 4 SDC 12 MLSDC 3 MLSDC 7 Tabe 2: Number of fine eve sweeps required to reach a residua of r k 10 5 for SDC and muti-eve SDC for Burgers equation with ν = 0.1 and ν = Convergence of MLSDC on a eves Figure 1 shows the three error components ε PDE (green squares), ε ODE (bue diamonds) and ε co (red circes) for ν = 0.1 (upper) and ν = 1.0 (ower) potted against the iteration number k. The errors on the fine eve are shown on the eft in Figures 1a and 1c, whie errors on the coarse mesh are shown on the right. Furthermore, the estimated spatia discretization error ε N (dashed) and tempora discretization error ε t (dash-dotted) are indicated by back ines. For ν = 0.1, we note that the PDE error ε PDE on the fine eve (Figures 1a and 1c) saturates as expected at a eve determined by the spatia discretization error ε N ; and the ODE error ε ODE saturates at the eve of the tempora discretization error ε t. The coocation error ε co saturates at near machine accuracy. Increasing the viscosity to ν = 1.0, the spatia error remains at about 10 7 on the fine eve but the time discretization error significanty increases compared to ν = 0.1. Thus in Figure 1c, both the PDE and the ODE error saturate at the vaue indicated by ε t. Once again, the coocation error goes down to machine accuracy, athough the rate of convergence is somewhat sower compared to ν = 0.1. On the coarse eve (Figures 1b and 1d), the estimated spatia error ε N is noticeaby higher because the vaues of N are smaer and the order of the spatia discretization is ower. However, as expected, the coarse eve error of MLSDC saturates at vaues determined by the accuracy of the finest eve. The saturation of ε PDE and ε ODE are identica in the eft and right figures, despite the difference in ε N and ε t. This demonstrates that the FAS correction in MLSDC aows the soutions on coarse eves to obtain the accuracy of the finest eve as ong as sufficienty many iterations are performed Required iterations Tabe 2 shows the number of fine eve sweeps required by SDC and MLSDC to reduce the infinity norm of the residua r k, see (5), beow For both setups, ν = 0.1 as we as ν = 1.0, MLSDC reduces the number of required fine sweeps compared to singe-eve SDC. In turn, however, MLSDC adds some overhead from coarse eve sweeps. If these are cheap enough, the reduced iteration number wi resut in reduced computing time, cf Stopping criteria Note that the overa PDE error of the soution is not reduced further by additiona iterations once ε co max{ε N,ε t }. In Figures 1a 1d, this corresponds to the point where the ine with red circes (iteration error) drops beow the dot-dashed ine (indicating ε t ) or dashed ine (indicating ε N ). The MLSDC soution, however, continues to converge to the coocation soution. In a scenario where the PDE error is the main criterion for the quaity of a soution, iterating beyond ε PDE no onger improves the soution. This suggests adaptivey setting the toerance for the residua of the MLSDC iteration in accordance with error estimators for ε N and ε t to avoid unnecessary further iterations.

15 A muti-eve spectra deferred correction method ε PDE ε ODE ε co ɛ N ɛ t ε PDE ε ODE ε co ɛ c N ɛ c t re max error re max error iteration (a) Errors on fine eve for ν = iteration (b) Errors on coarse eve for ν = ε PDE ε ODE ε co ɛ N ɛ t ε PDE ε ODE ε co ɛ c N ɛ c t re max error re max error iteration (c) Errors on fine eve for ν = iteration (d) Errors on coarse eve for ν = 1.0 Fig. 1: Errors on fine and coarse eve of MLSDC vs. iteration count. The dashed ine indicates the spatia error ε N whie the dot-dashed ine indicates the tempora error ε t. The red circes indicate the difference ε co between MLSDC and the coocation soution, the bue diamonds indicate the difference ε ODE between MLSDC and the ODE soution and the green squares indicate the difference ε PDE between MLSDC and the PDE soution. In (c) and (d), ε ODE is neary identica to ε PDE. Note how the FAS correction in MLSDC aows the coarse eve to attain the same accuracy as the fine eve soution: the saturation imits on the fine and coarse mesh are identica. 3.3 Shear ayer instabiity In this exampe, we study the behavior of MLSDC in the case where the exact soution is not we resoved. We consider a shear ayer instabiity in a 2D douby periodic domain governed by the vorticity-veocity formuation of the 2D Navier-Stokes equations given by ω t + u ω = ν 2 ω with veocity u R 2 [0, ), vorticity ω = u R [0, ) and viscosity ν R +. We consider the spatia domain [0,1] 2 with periodic boundary conditions in a directions and the initia conditions u 0 1 (x,y) = tanh(ρ(0.5 y)) + tanh(ρ(y 0.25)) u 0 2 (x,y) = δ sin(2π(x )).

16 16 R. Speck, D. Ruprecht, M. Emmett, M. Minion, M. Boten, R. Krause These initia conditions correspond to two horizonta shear ayers, of thickness ρ = 50, at y = 0.75 and y = 0.25, with a disturbance of magnitude δ = 0.05 in the vertica veocity u 2. As in 3.2, the system is spit into impicit/expicit parts according to where ω t = f E (ω) + f I (ω) f E (ω) = u ω f I (ω) = ν 2 ω. Whie the impicit term f I is discretized and soved as before, we appy a streamfunction approach for the expicit term f E : for periodic boundary conditions, we can assume u = ψ for a soenoida streamfunction ψ. Thus, ω = ( ψ) = 2 ψ. We refer to [9] for more detais. To compute fp,n E (ω) with order-p operators on an N N mesh, we therefore sove the Poisson probem 2 ψ = ω for ψ using the inear mutigrid method described previousy, cacuate the discretized version of u = ψ and finay compute the discretization of u ω, both with order-p operators. Two eves with M + 1 = 9 coocation nodes are used with a point spatia mesh and a fourth order stenci on the fine eve. Different combinations of coarsening are tested (the numbers in parentheses correspond to the strategies as isted in 2.2.4): 1. MLSDC(1,2) uses a coarsened point mesh on the coarse eve and second-order stencis. 2. MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) as MLSDC(1,2) but aso soves the impicit inear systems in the coarse SDC sweep ony approximatey with a singe V-cyce. 3. MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) as MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) but with two V-cyces. 4. MLSDC(2,3(1)) uses aso a point mesh on the coarse eve, but second-order stencis and approximate inear soves using a singe V-cyce. The simuation computes 256 timesteps of MLSDC up to a fina time t = 1.0. As reference, a cassica SDC soution is computed using 1024 timesteps with M +1 = 13 coocation nodes and the fine eve spatia discretization. Both SDC and MLSDC iterate unti the residua satisfies r k Vorticity fied on a eves Figure 2 shows the vorticity fied at the end of the simuation on the fine and the coarse eve. The reative maximum error ε ODE at time t = 1 is approximatey (which corresponds to the spatia and tempora residua threshods that were used for a runs in this exampe). We note that simpy running SDC with the coarse eve spatia discretization from MLSDC(1,2) gives competey unsatisfactory resuts (not shown): spurious vortices exist in addition to the two correct vortices and strong spurious osciations are present in the vorticity fied. In contrast, the coarse eve soution from MLSDC shown in Figure 2b ooks reasonabe, again because of the FAS correction.

17 A muti-eve spectra deferred correction method Vorticity (a) MLSDC, fine eve: , p = 4 Vorticity (b) MLSDC, coarse eve: 64 64, p = 2 Fig. 2: Vorticity of the soution of the shear ayer instabiity at t = 1.0 on the fine eve (eft) and coarse eve (right) using MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) Required iterations Tabe 3 shows the average number of fine eve sweeps over a timesteps required by SDC and MLSDC to converge. The configurations MLSDC(1,2), MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) and MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) do not reduce the number of sweeps, but instead ead to a sma increase. Avoiding a coarsened spatia mesh in MLSDC(2,3(1)), however, saves a sma amount of fine sweeps compared to SDC. Note that here, in contrast to the exampe presented in 3.4, Strategy 1 has a significant negative impact on the performance of MLSDC. This iustrates that coarsening in MLSDC cannot be used in the same way for every probem: a carefu adaption of the empoyed strategies to the probem at hand is necessary. Method SDC MLSDC(1,2) MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) MLSDC(2,3(1)) # Fine sweeps on average Tabe 3: Average number of fine eve sweeps required to converge for SDC and MLSDC for the shear ayer instabiity. The numbers indicate the different coarsening strategies. 3.4 Three-dimensiona viscous Burgers equation To demonstrate that MLSDC can not ony reduce iterations but aso runtime, we consider viscous Burgers equation in three dimensions ut (x,t) + u(x,t) u(x,t) = ν 2 u(x,t), x [0, 1]3, with x = (x, y, z), initia vaue (x 0.5)2 + (y 0.5)2 + (z 0.5)2, u(x,t) = exp σ2 0 t 1 σ = 0.1,

18 18 R. Speck, D. Ruprecht, M. Emmett, M. Minion, M. Boten, R. Krause homogeneous Dirichet boundary condition and diffusion coefficients ν = 0.1 and ν = 1.0. The probem is soved using a FORTRAN impementation of MLSDC combined with a C impementation of a parae mutigrid sover (PMG) in space [4]. A singe timestep of ength t = 0.01 is performed with MLSDC, corresponding to CFL numbers from the diffusive term on the fine eve, that is C diff := ν t x 2, of about C diff = 66 (for ν = 0.1) and C diff = 656 (for ν = 1.0). The diffusion term is integrated impicity using PMG to sove the corresponding inear system and the advection term is treated expicity. Simuations are run on 512 cores on the IBM BueGene/Q JUQUEEN at the Jüich Supercomputing Centre. MLSDC is run with M + 1 = 3, M + 1 = 5 and M + 1 = 7 Gauss-Lobatto nodes with a toerance for the residua of Two MLSDC eves are used with a three types of coarsening appied: 1. The fine eve uses a point mesh and the coarse eve A 4 th -order compact difference stenci for the Lapacian and a 5 th -order WENO [27] for the advection term are used on the fine eve; a 2 nd -order stenci for the Lapacian and a 1 st -order upwind scheme for advection on the coarse. 3. The accuracy of the impicit sove on the coarse eve is varied by fixing the number of V-cyces of PMG on this eve. Three runs are performed, each with a different number of V-cyces on the coarse eve. In the first run, the coarse eve inear systems are soved to fu accuracy, whereas the second and third runs use one and two V-cyces of PMG on the coarse eve, respectivey, instead of soving to fu accuracy. These cases are referred to as MLSDC(1,2), MLSDC(1,2,3(1)), and MLSDC(1,2,3(2)). On the fine eve, impicit systems are aways soved to fu accuracy (the PMG mutigrid iteration reaches a toerance of reach a toerance of or stas). Required iterations and runtimes. Tabe 4 shows both the required fine eve sweeps for SDC and MLSDC as we as the tota runtimes in seconds for ν = 0.1 and ν = 1.0 for three different vaues of M. MLSDC(1,2) and MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) in a cases manage to significanty reduce the number of fine sweeps required for convergence in comparison to singe-eve SDC, typicay by about a factor of two. These savings in fine eve sweeps transate into runtime savings on the order of 30 40%. For 3 and 5 quadrature nodes, there is no negative impact in terms of additiona fine sweeps by using a reduced impicit sove on the coarse eve and MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) is therefore faster than MLSDC(1,2). However, since coarse eve V-cyces are very cheap due to spatia coarsening, the additiona savings in runtime are sma. For 7 quadrature nodes, using a reduced impicit sove on the coarse eve in MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) comes at the price of an additiona MLSDC iteration and therefore, MLSDC(1,2) is the fastest variant in this case. Using ony a singe V-cyce for impicit soves on the coarse grid in MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) resuts in a modest to significant increase in the number of required MLSDC iterations compared to MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) in amost a cases. The ony exception is the run with 3 nodes and ν = 0.1. Therefore, MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) is typicay significanty sower than MLSDC(1,2) or MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) and not recommended for use in three dimensions. For 7 quadrature nodes, using ony a singe V-cyce eads to a dramatic increase in the number of required fine sweeps and MLSDC becomes much sower than singe eve SDC, indicating that the inaccurate coarse eve has a negative impact on convergence.

19 A muti-eve spectra deferred correction method 19 ν = 0.1 Method F-Sweeps Runtime (sec) SDC MLSDC(1,2) MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) ν = 0.1 Method F-Sweeps Runtime (sec) SDC MLSDC(1,2) MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) ν = 0.1 Method F-Sweeps Runtime (sec) SDC MLSDC(1,2) MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) M + 1 = 3 Gauss-Lobatto nodes M + 1 = 5 Gauss-Lobatto nodes M + 1 = 7 Gauss-Lobatto nodes ν = 1.0 Method F-Sweeps Runtime (sec) SDC MLSDC(1,2) MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) ν = 1.0 Method F-Sweeps Runtime (sec) SDC MLSDC(1,2) MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) ν = 1.0 Method F-Sweeps Runtime (sec) SDC MLSDC(1,2) MLSDC(1,2,3(2)) MLSDC(1,2,3(1)) Tabe 4: Number of required fine eve sweeps and resuting runtimes in seconds by SDC and MLSDC for 3D viscous Burgers equation. The numbers in parentheses after MLSDC indicate the empoyed coarsening strategies, see Reduced impicit soves are indicated by 3(n) where n indicates the fixed number of mutigrid V-cyces. Otherwise, PMG iterates unti a residua of is reached or the iteration stas. The toerance for the SDC/MLSDC iteration is Discussion The paper anayzes the muti-eve spectra deferred correction method (MLSDC), an extension to the origina singe-eve spectra deferred corrections (SDC) as we as adder SDC methods. In contrast to SDC, MLSDC performs correction sweeps in time on a hierarchy of discretization eves, simiar to V-cyces in cassica mutigrid. An FAS correction is used to increase the accuracy on coarse eves. The paper aso presents a new procedure to incorporate weighting matrices arising in higher-order compact finite difference stencis into the SDC method. The advantage of MLSDC is that it shifts computationa work from the fine eve to coarse eves, thereby reducing the number of fine SDC sweeps and, therefore, the time-to-soution. For MLSDC to be efficient, a reduced representation of the probem on the coarse eves has to be used in order to make coarse eve sweeps cheap in terms of computing time. Three strategies are investigated numericay, namey (1) using fewer degrees of freedom, (2) reducing the order of the discretization, and (3) reducing the accuracy of the inear sover in impicit substeps on the coarse eve. Numerica resuts are presented for the wave equation, viscous Burgers equation in 1D and 3D and for the 2D Navier-Stokes equation in vorticityveocity formuation. It is demonstrated that because of the FAS correction, the soutions on a eves converge up to the accuracy determined by the discretization on the finest eve. More significanty, in a four exampes, MLSDC can reduce the number of fine eve sweeps required to converge compared to singe eve SDC. For the 3D exampe this transates directy into significanty reduced computing times in comparison to singe-eve SDC.