1: 

2: % Please use the skeleton file you have received in the 

3: % invitation-to-submit email, where your data are already

4: % filled in. Otherwise please make sure you insert your 

5: % data according to the instructions in PoSauthmanual.pdf

6: \documentclass{PoS}

7: 

8: \def\mg{MG}

9: \def\rmsub#1#2{#1_{\mbox{\tiny #2}}} % Small roman subscript

10: \def\secspace{\vspace{-0.38mm}}

11: 

12: \title{Adaptive Multigrid Algorithm for the QCD Dirac-Wilson Operator}

13: 

14: \ShortTitle{Adaptive Multigrid Algorithm for the QCD Dirac-Wilson Operator}

15: 

16: \author{J. Brannick$^a$, R. C. Brower$^{bc}$,

17:   \speaker{M. A. Clark}$^b$, J. C. Osborn$^{bd}$ and C. Rebbi$^{bc}$\\

18:   \llap{$^a$} Department of Mathematics, The Pennsylvania State

19:   University, 230 McAllister Building,

20:   University Park, PA 16802, USA\\

21:   \llap{$^b$} Center for Computational Science, Boston University, 3

22:   Cummington St,

23:   MA 02215, USA\\

24:   \llap{$^c$} Department of Physics, Boston University,

25:   590 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston,  MA 02215,  USA\\

26:   \llap{$^d$} Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, 9700 S. Cass

27:   Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439, USA}

28: 

29:       \abstract{We present a new multigrid solver that is suitable

30:         for the Dirac operator in the presence of disordered gauge

31:         fields. The key behind the success of the algorithm is an

32:         adaptive projection onto the coarse grids that preserves the

33:         near null space. The resulting algorithm has weak dependence

34:         on the gauge coupling and exhibits mild critical slowing down in

35:         the chiral limit. Results are presented for the Wilson Dirac

36:         operator of the 2d U(1) Schwinger model.}

37: 

38: \FullConference{The XXV International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory\\

39: 		 July 30-4 August 2007\\

40: 		 Regensburg, Germany}

41: 

42: \begin{document}

43: 

44: \section{Introduction}

45: \secspace

46: The most demanding computational task in lattice QCD simulations

47: consists of the calculation of quark propagators, which are needed

48: both for generating gauge field configurations with the appropriate

49: measure and for the evaluation of most observables.  This calculation

50: consists of solving a very large system of linear equations,

51: \begin{equation}

52: D(U) \psi = \chi,

53: \label{eq:Dpsichi}

54: \end{equation}

55: where $\psi$ is the quark propagator, $\chi$ is the source term and

56: $D(U)$ is the discretized the Dirac operator matrix, with elements

57: dependent on the gauge field background $U$.

58: 

59: In the language of applied mathematics, Eq.~(\ref{eq:Dpsichi}) is a

60: discretized elliptic partial differential equation (PDE).  For

61: definiteness,

62: \begin{displaymath}

63:   D_{x,y} = - \frac{1}{2} \displaystyle \sum_{\mu=1}^{d} \bigl( (1-\gamma_\mu)U_x^\mu\, 

64:   \delta_{x+\hat\mu,y}\, + (1+\gamma_\mu)U_{x-\hat\mu}^{\mu \dagger}\, \delta_{x-\hat\mu,y}\bigr) + 

65:   (2d + m)\delta_{x,y}

66: \end{displaymath}

67: is the discretized Dirac operator describing a fermion in \(d\)

68: dimensions with mass \(m\) in the Wilson discretization of the Dirac

69: equation.  In the full 4 dimensional QCD problem (in volume \(V\)) the

70: matrices \(\gamma_\mu\) are the \(4\times4\) Dirac spin matrices and

71: \(U\) is the \(SU(3)\) gauge field.  It is this formulation that we

72: concentrate upon, however, we point out that many of the problems

73: encountered in solving this equation extend to other

74: formulations.

75: 

76: For any realistic QCD calculation the size of the matrix in

77: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Dpsichi}) is too large for a direct solver and iterative

78: Krylov-space methods must be used.  As the quark mass is brought

79: towards zero, the condition number of the matrix diverges and hence so

80: does the number of iterations until the desired convergence.  This

81: scaling with the mass is commonly referred to as critical slowing

82: down.

83: 

84: It has been known for some time that the multigrid (\mg) approach is

85: optimal when solving systems of the form \(Ax=b\), where \(A\) is the

86: sparse matrix that arises from the discretization of continuum

87: differential equations, \(b\) is a source vector and \(x\) is the

88: desired solution vector.  Here discretizations on successively coarser

89: (blocked) grids are used to accelerate the solver and this approach is

90: known to remove critical slowing down~\cite{Brandt:1977}.

91: 

92: One exception to the above statement is in solving the Dirac operator

93: in lattice QCD: here the nature of the underlying gauge field in the

94: Dirac operator has proven to be especially resistant to \mg.  Previous

95: attempts at \mg\ solvers have relied on renormalization group

96: arguments to define the coarse grids without realizing why the \mg\

97: approach succeeds, and this has invariably led to failure as the

98: physically interesting regime is approached

99: ~\cite{Brower:1991xv,Lauwers:1992cp}~\footnote{We note, however, that

100:   recent progress has been made in the use of renormalization group to

101:   define a coarse Dirac operator, which may render this statement

102:   erroneous~\cite{Borici:2007ft}.}.  In this work we demonstrate an

103: \mg\ algorithm for the Dirac operator normal equations, i.e., the

104: positive definite operator given by

105: \[

106: A= D^\dagger D,

107: \]

108: that is shown to work in all regimes and vastly reduces the notorious

109: critical slowing of the solver as the renormalized fermion mass is

110: brought to zero.  We do so in the context of a 2-dimensional system

111: with $U(1)$ gauge field (Schwinger model).  This system captures many

112: of the physical properties (confinement, chiral symmetry breaking,

113: existence of non-trivial topological sectors) of the more complex

114: 4-dimensional QCD.

115: 

116: \secspace

117: \section{Multigrid}

118: \secspace

119: The original formulation of \mg\ is best viewed with the example of

120: the free Dirac operator.  Multigrid solvers are based on the

121: observation that stationary iterative solvers (e.g., Jacobi,

122: Gauss-Seidel) are only effective at reducing local error components

123: leaving slow to converge, low wave-number components in the error.

124: For the free Dirac operator these slow modes will be geometrically

125: smooth and can be accurately represented on a coarser grid using

126: simple linear averaging.  However, on the coarse grid these low

127: wave-number error components become modes of shorter range and so

128: relaxation should be effective at removing them.  This process can

129: continue, moving to coarser and coarser grids until the degrees of

130: freedom have been thinned enough to solve the system exactly.  The

131: solution is then promoted back to the finest grid using linear

132: interpolation, where at each level relaxation is applied to the

133: correction vector to remove any high wave-number error components that

134: were introduced.  This process is known as a V-cycle~\cite{Brandt:1977}

135: and can be used as a solver in its own right, or more effectively as a

136: preconditioner for a Krylov method e.g., conjugate gradients (CG).

137: 

138: Before continuing we introduce the notation where the degree of

139: coarseness is represented by the integer \(l\), where \(l=1\)

140: represents the finest grid (i.e., where our actual problem is defined)

141: and \(l=L\) is the coarsest grid in an \(L\)-level \mg\ algorithm.

142: The operator used to promote a coarse grid vector on grid \(l+1\) to

143: the adjacent fine grid \(l\) is known as the prolongator

144: \(P^{(l,l+1)}\), and the converse operator is the restriction operator

145: \(Q^{(l+1,l)}\) which projects a fine grid vector onto the adjacent

146: coarse grid.  Typically the Galerkin definition is used to define the

147: coarse grid operator~\cite{Brandt:1977},

148: \begin{equation}

149:   A^{(l+1)} = Q^{(l+1,l)} A^{(l)} P^{(l,l+1)} = P^{(l,l+1)\dagger} A^{(l)} P^{(l,l+1)},

150: \label{eq:Galerkin}

151: \end{equation}

152: where we have defined the restriction operator as \(Q=P^\dagger\).

153: This guarantees the coarse grid operator is Hermitian positive

154: definite.  That the Galerkin definition is the optimum definition for

155: \(A\) can be found by minimizing the error of the coarse grid

156: corrected solution vector in the \(A\)-norm.  Apart from the coarsest

157: level which is an exact solve, each level of the V-cycle is the

158: following

159: \begin{enumerate}

160: \item Relax on the input vector, \(x^{(l)} = R^{(l)\dagger} b^{(l)}\),

161:   where \(R^{(l)\dagger}\) is a suitable relaxation

162:   operator.\footnote{The relaxation operator need not be Hermitian for

163:     the entire V-cycle to be Hermitian: the post-relaxation operator

164:     need only be the Hermitian conjugate to pre-relaxation.}

165: \item Restrict the resulting residual to the next coarsest grid, 

166:   \(r^{(l+1)} = P^{(l,l+1)\dagger} (b^{(l)}-A^{(l)}x^{(l)})\).

167: \item Apply the \(L=l+1\) V-cycle on the coarse residual, 

168:   \(e^{(l+1)} = V^{(l+1)} r^{(l+1)}\).

169: \item Correct the current solution with coarse grid correction,

170:   \(x^{(l)} = x^{(l)} + P^{(l,l+1)} e^{(l+1)}\).

171: \item Relax on the final residual, \( x^{(l)} = R^{(l)} (b^{(l)} - A^{(l)}x^{(l)})\).

172: \end{enumerate}

173: Written explicitly in terms of operators the \(l^{th}\) level of the

174: V-cycle thus takes the following form

175: \begin{equation}

176:   V^{(l)} = R^{(l)} + R^{(l)\dagger} + R^{(l)}A^{(l)}R^{(l)\dagger} +

177:   \Big[ (1 - R^{(l)}A^{(l)}) P^{(l,l+1)} V^{(l+1)}

178:   P^{(l,l+1)\dagger} (1 - A^{(l)} R^{(l)\dagger}) \Big].

179: \label{eq:vcycle}

180: \end{equation}

181: In this form the Hermiticity of the V-cycle is obvious (a necessary

182: condition if we are to use the V-cycle as a CG preconditioner).  The

183: cost of applying the \mg\ V-cycle becomes apparent from this explicit

184: form: on each level we must apply the operator \(A^{(l)}\) a total of

185: \(2\nu + 2\) times for each \(l\), where \(\nu\) is the number of

186: steps within the relaxation operator.

187: 

188: The problem in the application of the above procedure in the presence

189: of a non-trivial gauge field is that the eigenvectors responsible for

190: slow convergence are no longer low wave-number modes with

191: geometrically smooth variation.  They are instead modes that exhibit

192: localized lumps, typically extending over several lattice spacings.

193: An approach that was followed in \cite{Brower:1991xv} was to impose

194: Dirichlet boundary conditions along the block boundaries, and to use

195: the low modes of resulting blocked operator to define the prolongator.

196: This approach is bound to produce only a limited advantage since the

197: lumps of the low modes can span between several such blocks, so the

198: blocked operator will not possess this property.  Indeed in

199: \cite{Brower:1991xv} some acceleration was obtained but critical

200: slowing down was found to return after the correlation length of the

201: pion \(\mu^{-1}\) exceeded the correlation length \(l_\sigma\) of the

202: underlying gauge field.

203: 

204: \secspace

205: \section{Adaptive Multigrid}

206: \label{sec:adaptive}

207: \secspace

208: A breakthrough in the application of multiscale methods to more

209: complex problems occurred with the discovery of adaptive \mg\

210: techniques~\cite{Brezina:2004, Brannick:2006}.  In the adaptive

211: algorithm the \mg\ process itself defines the appropriate prolongator

212: by an iterative procedure which we now concisely describe.

213: 

214: In the first pass, one uses relaxation alone to solve the homogenous

215: problem \(Ae=0\) with a randomly chosen initial error vector.  After a

216: certain number, \(\nu\), of relaxation steps, the relaxation procedure, which we

217: symbolically represent by

218: \begin{equation}

219: e \to e^\prime=(I-\omega A)^\nu e \equiv (I- \omega D^\dagger D)^\nu e,

220: \label{eq:relax}

221: \end{equation}

222: produces an \(e^\prime\) that essentially belongs to the space spanned

223: by the slow modes, so $e^\prime$ is now used to define a first

224: approximation to the prolongator $P$.  One blocks the variables of the

225: original lattice into subsets, which we denote by $S_j$.  From

226: $e^\prime$ we construct the vectors $e^\prime_j$, which are identical

227: to $e^\prime$ within $S_j$ and $0$ outside $S_j$, and the vectors of

228: unit norm $v_{1j}=e'_j /\vert e'_j \vert$.  The extra ``1'' index in

229: $v_{1j}$ has been introduced for a discussion that follows.  The

230: prolongator $P^{(1,2)} \equiv P^{(1,2)}_{i,j}$ which maps a vector

231: $\psi_j^{(2)}$ in the coarse lattice, indexed by $j$, to the original

232: lattice, where $i$ denotes collectively the site, spin and possible

233: internal symmetry indices, is then defined by

234: \begin{equation}

235: P^{(1,2)}_{i,j}=v_{1j,i},

236: \label{eq:P1}

237: \end{equation}

238: where we have made explicit the fine lattice indices of $v_{1j}$.

239: 

240: There are variations on how to block the fine lattice, i.e.,~how to

241: define the sets $S_j$.  In the so called ``algebraic adaptive MG'' one

242: partitions the fine lattice into subsets on the basis of the magnitude

243: of the matrix elements of $A$.  Since such matrix elements in lattice

244: gauge theories are typically of uniform magnitude, differing rather in

245: phase or, in a broader sense, in orientation within the space of gauge

246: transformations, we chose instead to partition the lattice

247: geometrically into fixed blocks of neighboring lattice sites,

248: specifically $4\times 4$ squares in our study of the Schwinger model.

249: Maintaining a regular lattice on coarse levels will allow more

250: efficient parallel code with exact load balancing.

251: 

252: Another refinement of the technique consists of applying a simple

253: Richardson iteration to the vectors $v_{1j}$ before defining the

254: prolongator.  The choice of damping parameter in this smoothing

255: procedure is chosen to minimize the condition number of the resulting

256: coarse grid operator.  The term ``smoothed aggregation'' is used for

257: this.  Thus our overall technique can be referred to as ``geometric

258: adaptive smoothly aggregated MG''.

259: 

260: We come now to the crux of the adaptive \mg\ method.  We use the

261: prolongator defined above (Eq.~(\ref{eq:P1})) to implement a standard

262: \mg\ V-cycle and apply it, like relaxation before, to a randomly

263: chosen error vector.  There are two possibilities.  Either the V-cycle

264: reduces the error with no sign of critical slowing down or some large

265: error, $e^{\prime \prime}$, survives the cycle.  In the first case, of

266: course, one need not proceed: the \mg\ procedure works as is.  In the

267: second case, we define another set of vectors $v_{2j}$ over the coarse

268: lattice by restricting $e^{\prime \prime}$ to the subsets $S_j$,

269: making the new vectors orthogonal to the vectors $v_{1j}$ and

270: normalizing them to 1.  The smoothed aggregation procedure is now

271: applied to the set $v_{sj}\equiv (v_{1j}, v_{2j})$.  A new prolongator

272: is defined by projecting over these vectors

273: \begin{displaymath}

274: P_{i,sj}^{(1,2)}=v_{sj,i},

275: \end{displaymath}

276: where the index $s$ (taking values $1,2$) can be considered

277: as an intrinsic index over the coarse lattice.

278: 

279: The procedure described in the above paragraph is repeated as

280: necessary, until the repeated application of a V-cycle reduces a

281: random initial error sufficiently without critical slowing down.  The

282: method works if critical slowing down is eliminated with a few

283: iterations of the adaptive procedure.  If this occurs with $M$ vector

284: sets, then the coarse lattice will carry $M$ degrees of freedom per

285: site.  As with all \mg\ methods, the procedure is recursive and it can

286: be used to define further coarsenings.

287: 

288: \secspace

289: \section{Results}

290: \secspace

291: In testing this algorithm for lattice QCD we generated quenched $U(1)$

292: gauge field configurations on a $128 \times 128$ lattice with the

293: standard Wilson gauge field action

294: \begin{displaymath}

295: S=\sum_{x,\nu<\mu} \beta\, {\rm Re}\, U_x^{\mu \nu} \equiv

296: \sum_{x,\nu<\mu} \beta\, {\rm Re}\, U_x^{\mu} U_{x+\hat \mu}^{\nu}

297: U_{x+\hat \nu}^{\mu \dagger} U_x^{\nu \dagger}

298: \end{displaymath}

299: and periodic boundary conditions at $\beta=6$ and $\beta=10$.  These

300: two values of $\beta$ define correlation lengths for the gauge field

301: to be $l_\sigma = 3.30 $ and $l_\sigma = 4.35$ respectively, via the

302: area law for the Wilson loop: $ W \sim \exp[ -A/l^2_\sigma]$. For

303: comparison on these lattices, a fermion mass gap \(\hat{m} = m -

304: \rmsub{m}{crit} = 0.01\) corresponds to the pseudoscalar meson

305: correlation lengths \(\mu^{-1} = 6.4 \) and \(\mu^{-1} = 12.7 \)

306: respectively.~\footnote{All quantities are expressed in lattice

307:   units.}  In the 2-dimensional \(U(1)\) gauge theory, one can

308: identify a gauge invariant topological charge \(\hat{Q}\), which in the

309: continuum limit is proportional to the quantized magnetic flux flowing

310: through the system.  A gauge field with nonzero \(\hat{Q}\) corresponds to a

311: Dirac operator with exactly real eigenvalues and, hence, as the mass

312: gap is brought towards zero the condition number becomes infinite.

313: Thus, it is important to test both trivial (\(\hat{Q}=0\)) and non-trivial

314: (\(\hat{Q}\neq 0\)) gauge field topologies.

315: 

316: We blocked the lattice into $4 \times 4$ blocks and implemented the

317: adaptive \mg\ procedure described above.  We used a degree 2

318: polynomial smoother for our relaxation procedure, where the

319: coefficients were chosen by running two iterations of an underrelaxed

320: minimum residual solver (\(\omega=0.8\)) and subsequently held fixed

321: (hence, for our choice of smoother \(R=R^\dagger\)).  The coarsening

322: procedure was repeated twice maintaining $M=8$ vectors in all

323: coarsenings, down to an $8 \times 8$ lattice, over which the equations

324: were solved exactly.  For each gauge field we performed the set up

325: procedure for the \mg\ preconditioner for the lightest mass parameter

326: only, and reused the vectors for each heavier mass. We used this

327: constructed V-cycle as a preconditioner for CG where the operator

328: defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:vcycle}) is applied at each iteration to the CG

329: direction vector (here on referred to as MG-CG).

330: 

331: \begin{figure}

332:   \hfill

333:   \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\textwidth}

334:     \includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{beta6.eps} 

335:     \caption{Number of Dirac operator applications of CG vs.~MG-CG as

336:       function of the mass gap at $\beta =6$ (point source, relative

337:       residual \(|r|=10^{-14}\)).}

338:     \label{fig:beta6} 

339:   \end{minipage}

340:   \hfill

341:   \begin{minipage}[t]{0.47\textwidth}

342:     \includegraphics[width=1.05\textwidth]{beta10.eps} 

343:     \caption{Number of Dirac operator applications of CG vs.~MG-CG as

344:       function of the mass gap at $\beta =10$ (point source, relative

345:       residual \(|r|=10^{-14}\)).}

346:     \label{fig:beta10} 

347:   \end{minipage}

348:   \hfill

349: \end{figure} 

350: 

351: If one compares the number of CG iterations needed to achieve

352: convergence with or without \mg\ preconditioning, the gain obtained

353: with the \mg\ method is dramatic: for example, with \(\beta =6\),

354: \(\hat{m}=0.01\) and \(\hat{Q}=0\), it takes 3808 iterations to

355: achieve convergence with a straightforward application of the CG

356: technique, whereas it takes only 26 iterations using MG-CG.  However

357: this comparison does not take into account the fact that many more

358: operations per iterations must be performed when applying the \mg\

359: preconditioner.  To achieve a more balanced comparison, in

360: Figs.~\ref{fig:beta6},~\ref{fig:beta10} we plot the total number of

361: applications of \(D\) and \(D^\dagger\) done on the fine lattice.

362: This reflects better the actual cost of the calculations (at each

363: iteration of MG-CG there are 6 applications of \(D^\dagger D\): 1

364: application in the outer CG, and 2 pre- and 2 post- coarsening

365: smoothing applications and 1 further application required to form the

366: residual).  We do not include the additional cost arising from the

367: coarse lattices since this is expected to be a small overhead, and has

368: not been optimized for our model calculation.  The advantage coming

369: from the use of the adaptive \mg\ technique is still very dramatic:

370: critical slowing down, if not totally eliminated, is very

371: substantially reduced and there is no slow down as as the pion

372: correlation length exceeds the gauge field correlation length.  These

373: results are for point sources, however, we tried a variety of

374: different source vectors for this analysis (e.g., Gaussian noise,

375: \(Z_4\) noise) and found very little dependence of MG-CG performance

376: on the source vector.

377: 

378: From the point of view of computational complexity, one should also

379: take into account the cost of setting up the \mg\ preconditioner,

380: i.e.,~of constructing the prolongator $P$.  This cost is however

381: heavily amortized, to the point of being negligible, if, as is often

382: the case, one must apply the solver to systems with multiple given

383: vectors (for example, solving for all color and spin components of a

384: quark propagator or, in the calculation of disconnected diagrams where,

385: \(O(1000)\) inverses are required to estimate the trace of the inverse

386: Dirac operator).

387: 

388: \secspace

389: \section{Conclusion}

390: \secspace

391: Our results, albeit for now limited to a 2-dimensional example,

392: provide a clear indication that adaptive \mg\ can be made to work with

393: the lattice Dirac operator.  What appears to be at the root of its

394: success is that, although the modes responsible for slow convergence

395: of the Dirac solver on a fine lattice are not low wavenumber

396: excitations, like in the free case, their span can be well

397: approximated by a set of vectors of limited dimensionality on the

398: blocks that define the coarse lattice.\footnote{The observation that

399:   the space of slow modes may be of limited span is also at the root

400:   of a method recently proposed by L\"uscher in

401:   Ref.~\cite{Luscher:2007se}, although the technique there is quite

402:   different from the one we follow.}  Earlier

403: attempts~\cite{Brower:1991xv,Lauwers:1992cp} failed to eliminate

404: critical slowing down when the pseudoscalar length exceeded the

405: disorder length of the gauge field: $\mu^{-1} > l_\sigma$.  Adaptive

406: \mg\ finds the coarse subspaces through the iterative application of

407: the method itself.  It is of course crucial that the approximation to

408: the space of slow modes can be achieved with a small number of vectors

409: on the individual blocks, otherwise the application of the method

410: would not be cost effective.  But this appears to be the case in the

411: examples we studied and, if the results hold true in general, adaptive

412: \mg\ has the potential of substantially speeding up lattice QCD

413: simulations as the increase of available computational power leads one

414: to consider ever larger lattices.

415: 

416: Current research is focussed on applying this adaptive \mg\ algorithm

417: to the Dirac operator directly, as opposed to the normal equations.

418: Here we are motivated to do so because of the reduced condition number

419: and the increased sparsity of the operator.  There are added

420: complications because the Dirac operator isn't Hermitian (this

421: requires that the restriction and prolongation operators are defined

422: using left and right vectors respectively), however, initial progress

423: is extremely promising.  The application of the method to large

424: 4-dimensional systems is in progress,

425: 

426: Acknowledgments.  This research was supported in part under NSF grant

427: PHY-0427646 and DOE grants DE-FG02-91ER40676 and DE-FC02-06ER41440.

428: 

429: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

430: 

431: %\bibitem{Kaplan:1992bt}

432: %D.B.~Kaplan.

433: %\newblock A {M}ethod for simulating chiral fermions on the lattice.

434: %\newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B288:342--347, 1992.

435: 

436: %\bibitem{Shamir:1993zy}

437: %Y.~Shamir.

438: %\newblock Chiral fermions from lattice boundaries.

439: %\newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B406:90--106, 1993.

440: 

441: %\bibitem{Neuberger:1998fp}

442: %H.~Neuberger.

443: %\newblock Exactly massless quarks on the lattice.

444: %\newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B417:141--144, 1998.

445: 

446: \bibitem{Brandt:1977}

447: A.~Brandt.

448: %\newblock Multi-level adaptive solutions to boundary value problems.

449: \newblock {\em Math. Comp.}, 31:333--390, 1977.

450: 

451: \bibitem{Brower:1991xv}

452: Richard~C. Brower, Robert~G. Edwards, Claudio Rebbi, and Ettore Vicari.

453: %\newblock Projective multigrid for {W}ilson fermions.

454: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B366:689--705, 1991.

455: 

456: \bibitem{Lauwers:1992cp}

457: P.~G. Lauwers and T.~Wittlich.

458: %\newblock Inversion of the fermion matrix in lattice {QCD} by means of parallel

459: %  transported multigrid {(PTMG)}.

460: \newblock {\em Int. J. Mod. Phys.}, C4:609--620, 1993.

461: 

462: \bibitem{Borici:2007ft}

463:   A.~Borici,

464:   %``On Gauged Renormalisation Group Transformations of Lattice Fermions,''

465:   2007 (arXiv:0704.2341 [hep-lat]).

466:   %%CITATION = ARXIV:0704.2341;%%

467: 

468: \bibitem{Brezina:2004}

469: M.~Brezina, R.~Falgout, S.~MacLachlan, T.~Manteuffek, S.~McCormick, and

470:   J.~Ruge.

471: %\newblock Adaptive smoothed aggregation ($\alpha${SA}).

472: \newblock {\em Siam J. Sci. Comput.}, 25:1896--1920, 2004.

473: 

474: \bibitem{Brannick:2006} 

475:   J.~Brannick, M.~Brezina, D.~Keyes, O.~Livne, I.~Livshits,

476:   S.~MacLachlan, T.~Manteuffel, S.~McCormick, J.~Ruge, and L.~Zikatanov.

477: %\newblock Adaptive smoothed aggregation in lattice qcd.

478: %\newblock In Olof~B. Widlund and David~E. Keyes, editors, 

479: %  \newblock{\em Domain Decomposition Methods in Science and

480: %    Engineering XVI}, volume~55 of 

481:   \newblock{\em Lecture Notes in Computational

482:     Science and Engineering}, 55:499--506, 2006.

483: 

484: \bibitem{Luscher:2007se}

485: M.~L\"{u}scher.

486: %\newblock Local coherence and deflation of the low quark modes in lattice

487: %  {QCD}.

488: \newblock 2007 (arXiv:0706.2298 [hep-lat]).

489: 

490: \end{thebibliography}

491: 

492: \end{document}

493: 

494: 

495: