1: \newif\ifcbtex

2: \cbtexfalse

3: 

4: \ifcbtex

5: 

6: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}

7: \usepackage{times}

8: \usepackage{cb2}

9: \usepackage{epsf}

10: \usepackage{graphicx}

11: 

12: \pagestyle{cb}

13: \titleline{C.Best: Algebraic Multigrid for Disordered Systems\dots}

14: 

15: \else

16: 

17: \documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}

18: \usepackage{graphicx}

19: 

20: \newcommand{\nnm}{\nonumber}

21: \newcommand{\setZ}{{\bf Z}}

22: \newcommand{\onehalf}{\mbox{$\scriptstyle 1\over 2$}}

23: \newcommand{\const}{\mbox{\rm const}}

24: 

25: \fi

26: 

27: \newcommand{\V}[1]{{\bf #1}}

28: \newcommand{\conj}{+}

29: \renewcommand{\and}{{\&} }

30: 

31: \begin{document}

32: 

33: \preprint{HLRZ2000\_21}

34: \title{Algebraic Multigrid for Disordered Systems\\and Lattice Gauge

35:   Theories}

36: 

37: \ifcbtex

38: 

39: \author{Christoph Best\\

40:   {\small John von Neumann Institute for Computing/DESY,}

41:   {\small 52425 J\"ulich, Germany}\\

42:   {\small c.best@computer.org}}

43: \date{November 30, 2000}

44: \maketitle

45: \vspace*{-1cm}

46: 

47: \else

48: 

49: \author{Christoph Best}

50: \email{c.best@computer.org}

51: \affiliation{%

52:   John von Neumann Institute for Computing/DESY,

53:   52425 J\"ulich, Germany}

54: 

55: \date{November 30, 2000}

56: 

57: \fi

58: 

59: \begin{abstract}

60:   The construction of multigrid operators for disordered linear

61:   lattice operators, in particular the fermion matrix in lattice gauge

62:   theories, by means of algebraic multigrid and block LU decomposition

63:   is discussed. In this formalism, the effective coarse-grid operator

64:   is obtained as the Schur complement of the original matrix.  An

65:   optimal approximation to it is found by a numerical optimization

66:   procedure akin to Monte Carlo renormalization, resulting in a

67:   generalized (gauge-path dependent) stencil that is easily evaluated

68:   for a given disorder field.  Applications to preconditioning and

69:   relaxation methods are investigated.

70: \end{abstract}

71: 

72: \ifcbtex

73: 

74: \vspace*{1cm}

75: {\small

76: \noindent{\bf Table of Contents}

77: 

78: \tableofcontents}

79: 

80: \clearpage

81: 

82: \else

83: 

84: \maketitle

85: 

86: \tableofcontents

87: 

88: \fi

89: 

90: \section{Introduction}

91: 

92: Most of the computer time in lattice gauge theory simulations is spent

93: today on inverting the Dirac matrix, which describes the dynamics of

94: quarks.  While this problem can be tackled efficiently by iterative

95: solvers such as Krylov subspace methods

96: \cite{heplat-9404013,heplat-9608074,gutknecht-wup-1999}, these solvers

97: suffer from critical slowing down in the physically interesting

98: regions of small quark masses. One of the limiting factors here is

99: that the elementary operation in iterative solvers, the matrix-vector

100: multiplication, affects only next neighbors and thus limits the speed

101: of information propagation over the lattice (though it can be improved

102: by ILU preconditioning \cite{heplat-9602019,heplat-0011080}).  Using

103: multigrid methods, one attempts to overcome this limitation by

104: propagating information on a hierarchy of coarser and coarser grids.

105: 

106: Multigrid methods \cite{hackbusch-springer,mccormick-siam} for the

107: Dirac matrix inversion were inspired by Mack's multigrid approach to

108: quantum field theory \cite{mack-1988} and have been proposed and

109: investigated around 1990 by groups in Boston

110: \nocite{juelich-1991}

111: \cite{prd-43-1965,brower-moriarty-rebbi-vicari,brower-edwards-rebbi-1991,

112:   vyas-jue-1991,prd-vyas}, Israel

113: \cite{plb-253-185,solomon-jue-1991,heplat-9204014,lauwers-benav-solomon-1992},

114: Amsterdam \cite{hulsebos-jue-1991,

115:   npb-331-531,plb-272-81,amsterdam-1991}, and Hamburg

116: \cite{kalkreuter-jue-1991,

117:   heplat-9304004,heplat-9310029,heplat-9409008,heplat-9408013,thesis-baeker}.

118: Though it was shown that multigrid methods would, in principle,

119: greatly reduce or eliminate critical slowing down, they have not been

120: able to improve the performance of the Dirac matrix inversion in

121: actual applications.  These classical multigrid methods are based on a

122: geometrical blocking of the lattice that leads to an effective

123: coarse-grid formulation of the original matrix by a Galerkin approach.

124: The choice of the blocking and interpolation kernels is crucial for

125: the performance of the multigrid algorithm; they must be chosen such

126: that the long-range and short-range dynamics decouple as much as

127: possible.  An optimal choice of the blocking kernels thus depends on

128: the gauge field and must in principle be recalculated for each gauge

129: configuration as the solution of a minimization problem. As this is

130: not feasible, various approximations have been introduced in the

131: literature.

132: 

133: % as the

134: % solution of an eigenproblem

135: % \cite{heplat-9304004,heplat-9310029,amsterdam-1991} or a variational

136: % minimization \cite{brower-edwards-rebbi-1991} on each point of the

137: % coarse lattice.

138: 

139: \nocite{wuppertal-1999-proceedings} 

140: 

141: Since then, the algebraic multigrid method \cite{siam-ruge-stueben,

142:   reusken-wup-1999,notay-wup-1999,brandt-2000,zhang-2000} has emerged

143: as a proven new method in numerical mathematics which does not rely on

144: a geometrical decomposition of the lattice, but solely on the matrix

145: itself.  It starts out from a thinned lattice that contains a certain

146: subset of the original lattice sites retaining their original values

147: and constructs an effective operator on this lattice by means of an

148: block $LU$ decomposition.  Thus, instead of geometric proximity, the

149: actual matrix elements determine in the coarsening procedure.  For

150: lattice gauge theory, this would automatically take the dynamics of

151: the gauge field, which appears as a phase factor in the matrix

152: elements, into account. (A similar reasoning was already cited by

153: Edwards, Goodman, and Sokal \cite{prl-61-1333} in one of the first

154: papers on multigrid methods for disordered systems, namely on random

155: resistor networks, though it was later assumed that algebraic

156: multigrid would be much more costly than the geometric variant

157: \cite{heplat-9204014}.) Recently, algebraic multigrid was applied to

158: lattice gauge theory by Medeke \cite{medeke-wup-1999}, and conversely

159: research about renormalization-group improved and perfect operators in

160: lattice gauge theory has been used to obtain efficient coarse-graining

161: schemes for partial and stochastic differential equations

162: \cite{condmat-0009449}.

163: 

164: %This reasoning was already mentioned by Edwards, Goodman, and Sokal

165: %\cite{prl-61-1333} in one of the first papers on multigrid methods for

166: %disordered systems and inspired the projective multigrid method of

167: %Brower, Rebbi, and Vicari \cite{prd-43-1965}. 

168: 

169: %and, as we will see, the

170: %idealized multigrid algorithm \cite{heplat-9304004} leads to the same

171: %choice for the coarsening kernel as the incomplete LU decomposition.

172: 

173: One advantage of algebraic multigrid over geometric methods is that it

174: directly gives a prescription for calculating the coarse-lattice

175: operator and the interpolation kernel by a submatrix inversion

176: problem. For this purpose, it is instructive to consider the problem

177: of matrix inversion not in terms of the spectral decomposition, but in

178: terms of the von Neumann series

179: \cite{kuti-neumann-series,vyas-random-walk}.  Combined with the block

180: $LU$ decomposition, this results in a simple computational picture of

181: the method as a noninteracting random walk on a hierarchically

182: decomposed lattice in a disordered background. The resulting algebra

183: of paths on this lattice is the basis for the computational

184: construction of multigrid operators below, where the expansion

185: coefficients are calculated numerically in a process similar to Monte

186: Carlo renormalization. In that way, physical (or rather,

187: computational) information about the fine-lattice operator is

188: harvested to approximate the coarse-lattice operator as closely as

189: desired. 

190: 

191: The lattice fermion matrix is an example of the more general problem

192: of disordered matrices operators which has many applications in

193: different fields of computational physics.  Some recent instances in

194: the literature are e.g.  the transport properties of light particles

195: in solid-state physics \cite{kehr-1996,guo-miller-2000}, or transport

196: in porous media, where multigrid methods have already been employed

197: \cite{moulton-knapek-dendy-1998,SKnapek:99b}. The numerical method

198: investigated here is sufficiently general to be applicable to such

199: problems.

200: 

201: Another factor that might turn out in favor of multigrid algorithms

202: comes from recent advances in computer technology.  Supercomputer

203: architecture has long been dominated by vector-oriented machines that

204: can quickly execute relatively simple and uniform elementary

205: operations on large vectors.  But because processor speed

206: advances much faster than memory access speed, the performance of

207: such operations is now severely limited by memory bandwidth.

208: In computer architecture, this is overcome by using

209: cache-oriented architectures such as in modern microprocessors, from

210: which e.g.~cluster computers \cite{iwcc-melbourne} are built.

211: These architectures are efficient for algorithms that have a high

212: balance, i.e.~number of operations per memory access, and make a

213: frequent reuse of memory locations

214: \cite{iwcc-melbourne-cbest,cs-0007027}, but can tolerate much more

215: complexity and irregularity. Multigrid algorithms usually result in

216: denser, but smaller matrices and might thus be favored by these

217: architectures.

218: 

219: Finally, problems other than matrix inversion have recently come into

220: focus for the Dirac operator. One is the calculation of its low-lying

221: eigenvalues, which was one of the first applications of multigrid

222: \cite{heplat-9408013} and is today used for investigating hadron

223: structure \cite{heplat-9709130} and chiral properties

224: \cite{heplat-0010049,heplat-0003021}.  Another one is the development

225: of chirally-improved Dirac operators such as the Neuberger operator

226: \cite{heplat-9806025,jansen-wup-1999} which requires the calculation

227: of the inverse square root of a matrix.  Algorithms for this problem

228: are still under development, but as they also employ iterative

229: solvers, it can be hoped that multigrid operators can aid in improving

230: performance there.  Multigrid methods have also been cited as a

231: possible improvement to the domain-wall formulation of lattice gauge

232: theory on a five-dimensional lattice \cite{heplat-0007003}.

233: 

234: The layout of the paper is as follows: In section 2, we introduce the

235: lattice Klein-Gordon and Wilson-Dirac operator and their

236: interpretation as diffusion on a disordered lattice, and in section 3,

237: the general algebraic multigrid procedure.  The numerical procedure to

238: construct multigrid operators is discussed in section 4, and some

239: applications to preconditioning and relaxation algorithms are

240: discussed in section 5.

241: 

242: \section{Model}

243: 

244: The model considered here is the Euclidean lattice Klein-Gordon and

245: Dirac operators with a $U(1)$ gauge field, discretized on a square

246: lattice of lattice spacing $a=1$. The formalism will also apply to

247: other gauge groups and can be generalized to other operators and other

248: types of disorder. Numerical calculations are performed in two

249: dimensions and on relatively small lattices ($16\times 16$), so that

250: the complete spectrum of the operators can be analyzed.

251: 

252: %Dirac

253: %operators describe fermion fields in lattice gauge theories, and the

254: %calculation of their Green's functions in a given gauge field consumes

255: %most computer time in modern lattice field theory.  The Klein-Gordon

256: %operator describes a bosonic field and does not have the internal spin

257: %degrees of freedom.  Both are linear differential operators with a

258: %link disorder introduced by a gauge field generated in a Monte Carlo

259: %process.

260: 

261: \subsection{Klein-Gordon operator \label{sec:KleinGordon}}

262: 

263: For simplicity, we start with the Klein-Gordon operator

264: which, without a gauge field, is conventionally written as

265: \begin{equation}

266:   \label{eq:29}

267:   - \Delta(x,y) + m^2 \delta_{x,y}

268: \end{equation}

269: with the next-neighbor

270: lattice Laplacian $\Delta(x,y)$ and the (bare) mass $m$. Its

271: eigenmodes are discrete Fourier modes, and its Green's functions decay 

272: exponentially as $e^{-m |x-y|}$ 

273: with the inverse correlation length $m$. Gauge disorder

274: is introduced as a $U(1)$ gauge phase $U_\mu(x)$ associated with the

275: links 

276: $(x,\mu)$ of the 

277: lattice. The disordered Klein-Gordon operator can be rewritten, up to a

278: normalizing factor, as

279: \begin{eqnarray}

280:   M(x,y) &=& \delta_{x,y}- \kappa Q(x,y) \quad, \nnm\\

281:   Q(x,y) &=& \sum_{\mu=1}^{\pm D}

282:                 \delta_{y,x+e_\mu} U_\mu(x)  \quad.      \label{eq:1}

283: \end{eqnarray}

284: Here $x$, $y$ are sites on the lattice, $\mu$ labels positive and

285: negative directions $\pm 1,\ldots,\pm D$, $e_\mu$ is the unit vector

286: in direction $\mu$, and we use the convention $e_{-\mu} = -e_\mu$ and

287: $U_{-\mu}(x) = U^\conj_\mu(x - e_\mu)$.  The completely hopping

288: parameter $\kappa$ are borrowed from fermion terminology and

289: related to the bare mass $m$ in (\ref{eq:29}) by

290: \begin{equation}

291:   \label{eq:34}

292:   \kappa = \frac{1}{m^2 + 2D} \quad.

293: \end{equation}

294: It determines the spectrum of $M$ and thus the physical properties of

295: the theory. For the free theory, i.e.~$U_\mu(x) \equiv 1$, the

296: eigenvalues of $Q$ lie between $-2D$ (checkerboard configuration) and

297: $2D$ (completely constant configuration). Consequently, the

298: eigenvalues $\lambda_n$ of $M$ lie in a band of width $2D\kappa$

299: around $1$:

300: \begin{equation}

301:   \label{eq:91}

302:   1 - 2D \kappa \le \lambda_n \le 1 + 2D\kappa \quad.

303: \end{equation}

304: For values of $\kappa$ below a critical value $1/2D$,

305: \begin{equation}

306:   \label{eq:36}

307:   \kappa < \frac{1}{2D} = \kappa_{\rm crit}

308: \end{equation}

309: the spectrum of $M$ is strictly positive and $M$ invertible. The

310: situation for a theory in a gauge field will be discussed in the next

311: section. 

312: 

313: Physically, the interesting quantity in $M$ is the location of the

314: lowest eigenvalue that determines the mass gap of the theory and the

315: exponential decay of its Green's functions, i.e.~the correlation

316: functions or propagators. As $\kappa$ approaches $\kappa_{\rm crit}$,

317: the mass gap becomes smaller and the correlation length increases,

318: until at $\kappa = \kappa_{\rm crit}$, a zero eigenvalue appears and

319: the correlation functions, after proper subtraction, decays

320: logarithmically or rationally, depending on the dimension $D$.

321: 

322: The performance of iterative solvers for the inverse of

323: $M$ is linked to the condition number, i.e.~the ratio of the largest

324: to the smallest eigenvalue, that diverges as $\kappa \to

325: \kappa_c$. Unfortunately, this is exactly the region that is of

326: interest in lattice gauge theories, where quarks are much lighter

327: than the typical scales of the theory.

328: 

329: \subsection{Diffusion representation of $M^{-1}$\label{sec:diffusion}}

330: 

331: Conventionally, eq.~(\ref{eq:1}) is interpreted in lattice field theory

332: in terms of its spectrum that determines the dispersion relation and

333: thus the mass of the physical particle.  However, this description is

334: less useful in the presence of a gauge field, as there is no

335: simple expression for the eigenmodes and eigenvalues of $M$.

336: Alternatively, $M$ can also be interpreted as describing the diffusion

337: of noninteracting random walkers, i.e.~Brownian motion,

338: on the lattice. This can most easily

339: be seen by using the von Neumann series to calculate $M^{-1}$:

340: \begin{eqnarray}

341: \label{eq:31}

342: (1-\kappa Q)^{-1} &=& 1 + \kappa Q + (\kappa Q)^2 + (\kappa Q)^3 + 

343:   \ldots 

344: \nnm \\ (1-\kappa Q)_{xy}^{-1} &=&

345: \sum_{n=0}^\infty 

346: \sum_{\mu_1}^{\pm D} \ldots \sum_{\mu_n}^{\pm D} \, 

347:   \delta_{y,x+e_{\mu_1}+ \cdots \, 

348:   +e_{\mu_n}} \, \kappa^n \, {\cal P}(U;x,\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_n) \quad.

349: \end{eqnarray}

350: The sum here runs over all connected paths leading from $x$ to $y$, and

351: each path carries a gauge phase assembled from the links it traverses 

352: of the lattice:

353: \begin{eqnarray}

354:   \label{eq:38}

355:   {\cal P}_{\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_m}(U;x)

356:   &= & {\cal P}(U;x,x+e_{\mu_1},\dots,x+e_{\mu_1}+\ldots+e_{\mu_{n}})

357:   \\

358:   \label{eq:38b}

359:    &=& 

360:    U_{\mu_1}(x) U_{\mu_2}(x + e_{\mu_1}) \ldots

361:    U_{\mu_n}(x+e_{\mu_1}+\cdots+e_{\mu_{n-1}}) \quad.

362: \end{eqnarray}

363: The diffusion interpretation is based of the fact that the sum in

364: eq.~(\ref{eq:31}) can be generated by a random walk starting at $x$

365: and making random moves along the links of the lattice until reaching

366: site $y$.

367: %The probability for a random walker to

368: %reach lattice site $y$ when starting out from site $x$ in $n$ steps is 

369: %\begin{equation}

370: %  \label{eq:93}

371: %  p_n(y|x) = \sum_{(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_n)}^{\pm D} \,

372: %             \delta_{y,x+e_{\mu_1}+ \cdots +e_{\mu_n}} \,

373: %             (2D)^{-n} \quad,

374: %\end{equation}

375: %and the time-integrated probability, i.e.~the average time spent by

376: %all random walkers at site $y$, is given by $\sum_n p_n(y|x)$.  

377: Since the probability for each path of length $n$ is $(2D)^{-n}$,

378: eq.~(\ref{eq:31}) can be rewritten as an ensemble average over

379: random walkers:

380: \begin{equation}

381:   \label{eq:94}

382:   (1-\kappa Q)^{-1}_{xy} = \sum_n \left<

383:   \left(\frac{\kappa}{2D}\right)^n \, {\cal P}(U;x,\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_n) 

384:   \, \delta_{y,x+e_{\mu_1}+ \cdots +e_{\mu_n}}

385:   \right>_n

386: \end{equation}

387: where the average is over all random paths of length $n$, and each

388: random walker carries a phase factor.

389: 

390: In the free case, and for $\kappa=2D$, eq.~(\ref{eq:94}) is just the

391: time-integrated probability, or average time spent, at site $y$ for a

392: random walker starting out at $x$. Other values of $\kappa$ correspond

393: to spontaneous creation or absorption of walkers.  In the presence of

394: gauge disorder, each walker additionally carries a phase factor ${\cal

395:   P}(U)$ picked up from the links it has travesed.  Their

396: contributions can therefore interfere destructively, leading to a

397: stronger decay of the Green's function than in the free case:

398: \begin{equation}

399:   \label{eq:95}

400:   \left|(1-\kappa Q(U))^{-1}_{xy}\right| \le 

401:   \left|(1-\kappa Q(U=0))^{-1}_{xy}\right| \quad.

402: \end{equation}

403: In particular, this means that for those $\kappa$ for which the free

404: correlation function exists, i.e.~for $\kappa < 1/2D$, the disordered

405: correlation function also converges, and the critical hopping

406: parameter $\kappa_{\rm crit}$ of the disordered theory therefore must

407: be equal or larger than $1/2D$. From the discussion in the preceding

408: section, this reflects an upward shift of the lowest eigenvalue of $M$

409: that is interpreted as a dynamically generated mass. 

410: 

411: The value of the dynamical mass depends on the correlation

412: characteristics of the gauge field. If the gauge field is strongly

413: correlated, similar paths will have similar phase factors, the

414: destructive interference will be less severe and the dynamical mass

415: smaller than for more disordered fields. In this way, the diffusion

416: representation provides a qualitative picture of the spectrum of $M$

417: in a disordered field.

418: 

419: \subsection{Wilson-Dirac operator}

420: 

421: The Dirac operator describes the fermionic quark fields in lattice

422: gauge theory simulations. These fields possess an internal spin degree

423: of freedom and are described by a $\lfloor d/2 \rfloor$-component

424: spinor field. The Dirac equation is a first-order differential

425: equation, and its naive discretization on the lattice suffers from

426: fermion doubling, which is removed in the Wilson-Dirac discretization:

427: \begin{eqnarray}

428:   \label{eq:59}

429:   M_D(x,y) &=& \delta_{x,y}- \kappa Q_D(x,y) \quad,\nnm\\

430:   Q_D(x,y) &=& \sum_{\mu=1}^{\pm D}

431:                 \delta_{y,x+e_\mu} 

432:                 \left( 1 - \gamma_\mu \right)

433:                  U_\mu(x)             \quad.

434: \end{eqnarray}

435: where in two dimensions the Dirac matrices $\gamma_\mu$ are given by

436: \begin{equation}

437:   \label{eq:60}

438:   \gamma_1 = 

439:   \left( \begin{array}{cc}  1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1  \end{array} \right)

440:   \quad,\quad

441:   \gamma_2 = 

442:   \left( \begin{array}{cc}  0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0  \end{array} \right) \quad.

443: \end{equation}

444: Together with the unit matrix and the matrix $\gamma_5 = i \gamma_1

445: \gamma_2$, they form a basis for the linear operators in spinor

446: space. The Wilson-Dirac operator is a non-Hermitian operator and thus

447: has in general complex eigenvalues and different left and right

448: eigenvectors, but a Hermitian Wilson-Dirac operator can by defined by

449: multiplying it with $\gamma_5$:

450: \begin{equation}

451:   \label{eq:61}

452:   M_{HD} = \gamma_5 M_D \quad.

453: \end{equation}

454: For the matter of inversion, this operator is completely equivalent to

455: the original Wilson-Dirac operator. Due to the two-component spinors

456: it acts upon, it has twice as many degrees of freedom as the

457: Klein-Gordon operator. These additional degrees of freedom show up in

458: the spectrum of $M_{HD}$ as a band of negative eigenvalues mirroring

459: the positive band seen in the Klein-Gordon operator. The argument

460: used above about the relation of $\kappa$ to the low-lying

461: eigenvectors and the mass gap remain valid for the Dirac operator.

462: 

463: \section{Algebraic multigrid}

464: 

465: %Traditional multigrid approaches that have been tried in lattice gauge

466: %theory relied on blocking, where several geometrically close lattice

467: %sites are replaced by an effective average field on a coarser lattice.

468: %However, the presence of the gauge field makes this process difficult

469: %in particular with respect to maintaining gauge invariance and not

470: %introducing artifacts.  Here, we instead consider the algebraic

471: %multigrid method which only relies on the algebraic structure of the

472: %matrix $M$.

473: 

474: \subsection{Schur complement}

475: 

476: We consider the solution of a linear system

477: \begin{equation}

478:   \sum_y M(x,y) f(x) = a(y)

479:   \label{eq:2}

480: \end{equation}

481: with the right-hand side $a$ given and $f$ unknown. 

482: In the algebraic multigrid approach, the sites of the lattice ${\cal L}$ are

483: decomposed into a coarse lattice ${\cal L}_1$ and a fine complement lattice 

484: ${\cal L}_2 = {\cal L} \backslash {\cal L}_1$. This decomposition can

485: in principle be performed without reference to the geometric locations 

486: of the sites. In particular, the coarse-lattice sites are not block

487: averages, but retain the same values as they had on the fine lattice.

488: Eq.~(\ref{eq:2}) can then be rewritten as

489: \begin{equation}

490:   \label{eq:3}

491:   \left(\begin{array}{cc} M_{11} & M_{12} \\ M_{21} & M_{22} \end{array}

492:   \right) \,

493:   \left( \begin{array}{c} f_1 \\ f_2 \end{array} \right)

494:   =

495:   \left( \begin{array}{c} a_1 \\ a_2 \end{array} \right)

496: \end{equation}

497: where the column vectors are reordered so that $f_1$ and $a_1$ are

498: defined on the coarse lattice, and $f_2$, $a_2$ on the fine

499: lattice. Applying Gaussian elimination, the fine-lattice field

500: $f_2$ is eliminated completely from the first row:

501: \begin{eqnarray}

502:   \label{eq:4}

503:   (M_{11} - M_{12} M_{22}^{-1} M_{21}) \, f_1 &=&

504:   (a_1 - M_{12} M_{22}^{-1} a_2) \\

505:   \label{eq:5}

506:   M_{22} \, f_2 &=& ( a_2 - M_{21} f_1 )

507: \end{eqnarray}

508: The matrix operator in front of $f_1$ plays the role of an effective

509: operator on the coarse lattice. It is called the {\em Schur

510: complement} $S_M$ of the matrix $M$ with respect to the decomposition

511: ${\cal L}_1$:

512: \begin{equation}

513:   \label{eq:6}

514:   S_M = M_{11} - M_{12} M_{22}^{-1} M_{21} \quad.

515: \end{equation}

516: The simplest example of a

517: Schur complement is the odd-even decomposition of a square matrix with

518: next-neighbor interactions, where $M_{22}$ is diagonal.

519: 

520: Since the Schur complement contains the inverse of the fine-grid

521: submatrix $M_{22}$, algebraic multigrid must strive to find

522: decompositions that make $M_{22}$ as dominated by the diagonal as

523: possible so that a good approximation to its inverse can be found.

524: The method thus provides an immediate heuristic for choosing a

525: multigrid decomposition based only on the content of the matrix $M$

526: which is advantageous e.g.~for irregular discretizations.  In the case

527: of lattice gauge theories, the coefficients fluctuate stochastically

528: on the gauge group, but have the same magnitude. We thus choose a

529: regular decomposition where ${\cal L}_1 = (2\setZ)^D$, i.e.~the coarse

530: lattice is the lattice of points with all-even coordinates (cf.\ Fig.\ 

531: \ref{fig:9}; for a different choice see \cite{medeke-wup-1999}). Since

532: ${\cal L}_1$ is not connected with respect to $M$, $M_{11}$ is

533: diagonal, $M_{12}$ links points of ${\cal L}_1$ to the remaining

534: points, and $M_{22}$ forms a connected lattice on the fine grid.

535: 

536: \begin{figure}[htbp]

537: \begin{center}

538: \includegraphics[width=.5\hsize]{plots/basic-amg.eps}

539: \end{center}

540:     \caption{\label{fig:9}

541:       Two-grid decomposition of a two-dimensional lattice. Filled

542:       points are lattice sites of the coarse grid (${\cal L}_1$), open 

543:       points sites of the fine grid (${\cal L}_2$). Dashed lines

544:       are links that enter in $M_{12}$ and $M_{21}$, while solid lines 

545:       are those in $M_{22}$. The arrows show three possible

546:       contributions of order $2$,

547:       $4$, and $6$ to a general coarse-grid operator of the form (\ref{eq:19}).

548:     }

549: \end{figure}

550: 

551: \subsection{Block $LU$ factorization}

552: 

553: Eq.~(\ref{eq:4}) and (\ref{eq:5}) can be expressed in matrix form as

554: an {\em block $LU$ decomposition} of $M$. Its general form is

555: \begin{equation}

556:   \label{eq:40}

557:   M = 

558:   \left(

559:     \begin{array}{cc}

560:       1 & -Q^\conj \\ 0 & 1 

561:     \end{array}

562:     \right)

563:     \,

564:   \left(

565:     \begin{array}{cc}

566:       S & 0 \\ 0 & T

567:     \end{array}

568:     \right)

569:     \,

570:   \left(

571:     \begin{array}{cc}

572:       1 & 0 \\ -Q & 1

573:     \end{array}

574:     \right) \quad.

575: \end{equation}

576: The advantage of the representation (\ref{eq:40}) is

577: that its inverse can be readily written as

578: \begin{equation}

579:   \label{eq:44}

580:   M^{-1} = 

581:   \left(

582:     \begin{array}{cc}

583:       1 & 0 \\ Q & 1

584:     \end{array}

585:     \right) \,

586:   \left(

587:     \begin{array}{cc}

588:       S^{-1} & 0 \\ 0 & T^{-1}

589:     \end{array}

590:     \right)

591:     \,

592:   \left(

593:     \begin{array}{cc}

594:       1 & Q^\conj \\ 0 & 1 

595:     \end{array}

596:     \right)

597:     \,

598: \end{equation}

599: requiring only the inversion of the smaller matrices $S$ and $Q$. In

600: multigrid terminology, applying the factorization (\ref{eq:44}) to a

601: vector amounts to first applying an {\em restriction operator}

602: $Q^\conj$ that moves information from the fine grid to the

603: coarse grid, then solving the {\em effective coarse-grid operator} $S$

604: along with the residual fine-grid operator $T$, and finally

605: using the {\em interpolation operator} $Q$ to move information back

606: from the coarse grid to the full grid.

607: 

608: Inserting (\ref{eq:40}) into (\ref{eq:3}) leads to the following

609: relations that define $S$, $Q$, and $T$.

610: \begin{eqnarray}

611:   \label{eq:41}

612:   S f_1 &=& a_1 - Q^\conj \, a_2 \quad \\

613:   \label{eq:41b}

614:   T \left( -Q f_1 + f_2 \right) &=& a_2 \quad.

615: \end{eqnarray}

616: Comparing with eq.~(\ref{eq:4}) and (\ref{eq:5}) gives the solution

617: \begin{eqnarray}

618:   \label{eq:44b}

619:   S &=& S_M = M_{11} - M_{12} M_{22}^{-1} M_{21} \quad, \nnm \\

620:   Q &=& -M_{22}^{-1} M_{21} \quad,\nnm\\

621:   T &=& M_{22}  \quad.

622: \end{eqnarray}

623: 

624: The Schur complement is the exact effective coarse-grid operator

625: associated with a given decomposition of the lattice. Unlike the

626: geometrical approach, this decomposition is performed simply by

627: thinning the matrix and thus without a block averaging that might

628: introduce artifacts in the presence of a gauge field, and the

629: resulting coarsened operator is defined solely in terms of the

630: original matrix and thus the original disorder field. In the following

631: sections, we will show that this procedure can be interpreted in terms

632: of a noninteracting random walk leading to an explicit

633: representation of the effective matrix in terms

634: of a generalized path-dependent stencil.

635: 

636: \subsection{Renormalization group and projective multigrid}

637: The Schur complement has a close relation to the renormalization group

638: approach used in statistical mechanics, where the Klein-Gordon and

639: Dirac fields are described by a path integral with a Gaussian weight.

640: In this approach, the partition sum

641: \begin{eqnarray*}

642:   \label{eq:73}

643:   Z &=& \int {\rm d}f \, \exp\left[

644:     -\onehalf (f,Mf) + \onehalf (a,f) + {\rm c.c.} \right] \nnm \\

645:   &=& \const \cdot

646:     e^{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{4}} (a, M^{-1} a)}

647: \end{eqnarray*}

648: (the integration is over all lattice field configurations $f$)

649: generates the inverse of $M$ by

650: taking the derivative with respect to the source field $a(x)$:

651: \begin{equation}

652:   \label{eq:74}

653:   \left.

654:   \frac{1}{Z} \, \frac{\partial^2}{\partial a^*(x) \, \partial a(y)}

655:   \right|_{a=0}

656:   Z = \onehalf M^{-1}(x,y) \quad.

657: \end{equation}

658: 

659: In renormalization-group inspired multigrid approach, such as proposed

660: by Mack \cite{mack-1988}, Brower et.~al.\ 

661: \cite{brower-edwards-rebbi-1991} or Vyas \cite{prd-vyas}, one

662: introduces new variables in the path integral by means of coarsening.

663: In our terminology, a coarsened lattice field $F_1$ defined on on

664: ${\cal L}_1$ is given by

665: \begin{equation}

666:   \label{eq:80}

667:   F_1 = f_1 + C f_2

668: \end{equation}

669: where the coarsening matrix $C$ performs an averaging over neighboring

670: sites in ${\cal L}_2$. (A more general coarsening would also include

671: an averaging over neighboring sites from ${\cal L}_1$).  The coarsened

672: field $F_1$ is interpolated back to the fine lattice using an

673: interpolation kernel $A$ and subtracted from $f_2$ to form the

674: residual fine-grid field:

675: \begin{equation}

676:   \label{eq:81}

677:   \zeta_2 = f_2 - A F_1

678: \end{equation}

679: In this way, it is hoped that some of the dynamics of the fine

680: lattice ${\cal L}_2$ is moved to the coarse lattice.  The whole

681: transformation reads

682: \begin{equation}

683:   \label{eq:82}

684:   \left(\begin{array}{c} F_1 \\ \zeta_2 \end{array}\right) = 

685:   \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ -A & 1 \end{array}\right) \,

686:   \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & C \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right) \,

687:   \left(\begin{array}{c} f_1 \\ f_2 \end{array}\right) \quad.  

688: \end{equation}

689: As its determinant is unity, $F_1$ and $\zeta_2$ can be used as new

690: integration variables in the path integral. The quadratic form in the

691: exponential is then

692: \begin{eqnarray}

693:   \label{eq:83}

694:   \left( f,M f \right) &=& 

695:   \left(\begin{array}{c} F_1 \\ \zeta_2 \end{array} \right)^\conj

696:   \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & A^\conj \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right) \,

697:   \tilde M \,

698:   \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ A & 1 \end{array}\right) 

699:   \left(\begin{array}{c} F_1 \\ \zeta_2 \end{array} \right)^\conj 

700:   \\

701:   \label{eq:83b}

702:   \tilde M &=& 

703:   \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ -C^\conj & 1 \end{array}\right) \,

704:   M \,

705:   \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & -C \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)

706: %  \nnm\\

707: %  &=&

708: %  \left(\begin{array}{cc} M_{11} & 

709: %                          M_{12} - M_{11} C \\ 

710: %                          M_{21} - C^\conj M_{11} & 

711: %                          M_{22} - M_{21} C_{12} - C^\conj M_{12} 

712: %                          + C^\conj M_{11} C

713: %  \end{array}\right) 

714:   \quad,

715: \end{eqnarray}

716: and the coupling to the external fields

717: \begin{eqnarray}

718:   \label{eq:84}

719:   (a,f) = 

720:   \left(\begin{array}{c} a_1 + A^\conj a_2 - A^\conj C^\conj a_1 \\ 

721:                          a_2 - C^\conj a_1 \end{array} \right)^\conj \,

722:   \left(\begin{array}{c} F_1 \\ \zeta_2 \end{array} \right)^\conj  \quad.

723: \end{eqnarray}

724: 

725: Algebraic multigrid does not use coarsening; the coarse lattice field

726: is obtained by thinning out the original lattice and thus $F_1=f_1$,

727: $C=0$ and $\tilde M = M$.  Then the block $LU$ decomposition (\ref{eq:40})

728: tells us that we can make the quadratic form (\ref{eq:83}) block

729: diagonal by choosing $A = -M_{22}^{-1} M_{21}$, in which case the partition

730: sum factorizes into a coarse-grid and a fine-grid integral:

731: \begin{eqnarray}

732:   \label{eq:75}

733:   Z &=& \int {\rm d}f_1 \, 

734:         e^{-\onehalf (f_1,S_M f_1) + \onehalf (a_1 + A^\conj a_2,f_1) + {\rm c.c.}} \cdot

735:         \int {\rm d}f_2 \,

736:         e^{-\onehalf (f_2,M_{22} f_2) + 

737:             \onehalf (a_2,f_2) + {\rm c.c.}} \quad.        

738: \end{eqnarray}

739: The coarse scale dynamics is obtained by taking derivatives of $Z$

740: with respect to $a_1$ at $a_2=0$ and is therefore completely contained

741: in the first integral, which is governed by $S_M$, the Schur

742: complement.  Thus the algebraic multigrid choice of the interpolation

743: kernel $A$ can be characterized as that choice that leads to a

744: complete decoupling of fine and coarse degrees of freedom, which makes

745: integrating out the fine-grid degrees of freedom $\zeta_2$ trivial.

746: Note that the Schur complement can be used to obtain effective

747: fermions such as used in the blocked fermion approach to full QCD

748: \cite{prd-lippert}.

749: 

750: If a nonvanishing averaging kernel $C$ is used, one can achieve

751: complete decoupling in the quadratic form by applying the Schur

752: complement to the matrix $\tilde M$, but now $a_1$ also couples to

753: $\zeta_2$ in the source term (\ref{eq:84}), and the integral over

754: $\zeta_2$ results in a nontrivial contribution to the partition sum.

755: This contribution is governed by $\tilde M_{22}^{-1}$, the

756: propagator of the residual modes $\zeta_2$ on the fine lattice, which

757: is given by

758: \begin{equation}

759:   \tilde M_{22} = M_{22} - M_{21} C - C^\conj M_{12}

760:                  +C^\conj M_{11} C   \quad.

761: \end{equation}

762: One therefore strives to choose an averaging kernel $C$ such that

763: $\tilde M_{22}^{-1}$ is as local as possible, indicating that most of

764: the (long-range) dynamics has been moved to the coarse-lattice field

765: $F_1$. 

766: 

767: The decoupling of coarse and fine modes was at the heart of Mack's

768: original multigrid proposal \cite{mack-1988}, which was inspired by

769: constructive quantum field theory.  It was already noticed by Brower,

770: Rebbi, and Vicari \cite{prd-43-1965} that minimizing the coupling

771: between coarse and fine modes amounts in spirit to algebraic

772: multigrid, and using a similar reasoning, the form of the Schur

773: complement is mentioned in eq.~(12) of

774: \cite{brower-edwards-rebbi-1991} by Brower, Edwards, and Rebbi. In

775: practice, in the projective multigrid method the coarsening $C$ was

776: chosen to localize $\tilde M_{22}^{-1}$ as much as possible, and the

777: interpolation $A$ to maximize the decoupling between coarse and fine

778: modes.  An explicit method for calculating $A$ for a given $C$ is

779: specified as idealized multigrid algorithm by Kalkreuter

780: \cite{heplat-9304004,heplat-9408013}, and it can be verified that for

781: a ``lazy'' coarsening kernel $C=0$, the resulting interpolation kernel

782: has the form (\ref{eq:44b}). The actual calculation for nontrivial $C$

783: is numerically infeasible as it requires the solution of a nonlinear

784: equation at each coarse lattice site, so instead the ground-state of a

785: block-truncated matrix was used for the kernels, leading to the method

786: known as ground-state projection multigrid. The effective coarse-grid

787: matrix was then approximated by a Galerkin choice using the rows of

788: $A$ as a basis.

789: 

790: Using the algebraic multigrid choice of $C=0$, we cannot optimize the

791: decay of $M_{22}^{-1}$. However, as there is no induced coupling of

792: $a_1$ to the fine lattice field $\zeta_2$, the Schur complement

793: provides an explicit representation of the complete coarse-lattice

794: dynamics. In the following, we will discuss the interpretation of this

795: quantity based on the diffusion representation.

796: 

797: \subsection{Diffusion on a multigrid}

798: \label{sec:diffmultigrid}

799: 

800: In sec.~\ref{sec:diffusion}, the diffusion representation of the

801: inverse of a matrix $M$ was introduced. The matrix elements of the

802: Schur complement $S_M$ define a similar effective diffusion process

803: involving only coarse lattice sites with transition probabilities and

804: gauge phases determined by the elements of $S_M$.  As $S_M^{-1}$ is

805: identical with the upper left submatrix of $M^{-1}$,

806: \begin{equation}

807:   \label{eq:96}

808:   S_M^{-1}(x,y) = M^{-1}(x,y) \qquad\mbox{for }x,y \in {\cal L}_1

809:   \quad,

810: \end{equation}

811: this diffusion process is equivalent to the original diffusion process

812: when origin and destination of the random walk are restricted to the

813: coarse lattice.  Using (\ref{eq:6}), the matrix elements of $S_M$ can

814: itself be written in a diffusion representation:

815: \begin{eqnarray}

816:   \label{eq:39}

817:   S_M(x,y) &=&

818:   \delta_{x,y} - \sum_n \sum_{\begin{array}{c}

819:       (x,x_1,\ldots,x_n,y) \\

820:       x_1,\ldots,x_n \in {\cal L}_2 \,

821:     \end{array}}

822:   \kappa^n \, {\cal P}(U;x,x_1,\ldots,x_n,y) \quad.

823: \end{eqnarray}

824: Since the sum comes from expanding $M_{22}^{-1}$, the inner parts

825: $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ of the paths run exclusively on the fine lattice

826: ${\cal L}_2$; they are connected to the coarse lattice ${\cal L}_1$ at

827: points $x$ and $y$ through the matrix elements of $M_{12}$ and

828: $M_{21}$ (some of these paths are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:9}).  The matrix

829: elements of the Schur complement can therefore be interpreted as

830: resulting from random

831: walks on the fine complement lattice ${\cal L}_2$, and when the Schur

832: complement is inverted, it defines a random walk on the

833: coarse lattice ${\cal L}_1$, in each of whose steps all possible paths

834: on the fine lattice ${\cal L}_2$ are effectively taken into account.

835: In this way, the Schur complement allows to ``integrate out'' the

836: fine degrees of freedom in the diffusion process much as

837: renormalization group transformations do.

838: 

839: \begin{figure}[htbp]

840: \begin{center}

841: \includegraphics[width=.5\hsize]{plots/oe-amg.eps}

842: \end{center}

843:     \caption{\label{fig:10}

844:       Two-grid decomposition of a odd-even decomposed lattice. As in

845:       Fig.~\ref{fig:9}, filled circles mark sites of the coarse grid,

846:       and open circles those of the fine grid. 

847:       Full lines show

848:       links from $M_{22}$, dashed lines those from $M_{11}$, and

849:       dotted lines those from $M_{12}$. $M_{11}$ and $M_{22}$ here

850:       form two similar grids, with $M_{12}$ connecting the two along

851:       the diagonals.

852:     }

853: \end{figure}

854: 

855: In the two-dimensional case, the situation can be made more

856: symmetrical by performing and even-odd-decomposition before the

857: multigrid decomposition. 

858: %For the even-odd-decomposition, 

859: %the vectors

860: %are reordered such that matrix decomposes as

861: %\begin{equation}

862: %  \label{eq:56}

863: %  \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & M_{eo} \\ M_{oe} & 1 \end{array} \right)

864: %  \quad.

865: %\end{equation}

866: %Then the odd sites can be eliminated completely, and the effective

867: %operator on the even sites is given by the Schur complement

868: In an even-odd decomposition, the matrix is replaced by the effective

869: matrix on the even sites of the lattice,

870: \begin{equation}

871:   \label{eq:57}

872:   S_{ee} = 1 - M_{eo} M_{oe} \quad,

873: \end{equation}

874: where $M_{eo}$ and $M_{oe}$ are the

875: matrix elements of $M$ between even and odd sites, resp.  In the resulting

876: lattice topology, each site is linked both to its four next neighbors

877: in the straight direction as well to the four next neighbors in the

878: diagonal (cf.\ Fig.~\ref{fig:10}). Applying now the multigrid

879: decomposition, the lattice decomposes into two similar square

880: lattices. $M_{11}$ and $M_{22}$ are represented by the straight

881: links on each lattice, while $M_{12}$ and $M_{21}$ are carried by the

882: diagonals linking the two lattices. 

883: The effective hopping parameter on each lattice is

884: $\kappa_{\rm eff} = \frac{\kappa^2}{1-4 \kappa^2}$ and thus

885: %for $\kappa < (\sqrt{4D^2+1} - 1)/4D$, 

886: %the effective hopping parameter is 

887: smaller than on the original lattice, and consequently $M_{11}$ and

888: $M_{22}$ are less critical than $M$. In the diffusion interpretation,

889: even if probability was conserved on the original lattice, it is not

890: conserved on the two sublattices individually, as the random walkers

891: can move from one lattice to the other along the diagonal links

892: represented by $M_{12}$ and $M_{21}$.  The criticality of the system

893: is only regained when $M_{11}$ and $M_{22}$ are combined in the Schur

894: complement.

895: 

896: The propagator on the fine lattice $M_{22}^{-1}$ will therefore

897: be short-ranged and can be incorporated approximately by considering

898: only a limited number of hops on the fine lattice in the

899: expansion (\ref{eq:39}). In the following section, we exploit this to

900: construct an approximate Schur complement numerically.

901: 

902: \section{Construction of the multigrid operator}

903: 

904: The central problem in deriving a multigrid algorithm for disordered

905: systems is the construction of a suitable approximation to the Schur

906: complement $S_M$ and the block $LU$ decomposition

907: (\ref{eq:40}). 

908: 

909: %As the disorder is stochastic, this construction must be

910: %performed many times in a typical application. The disorder breaks

911: %translation invariance which should be restored by the stochastic

912: %average. For gauge disorders, the fields obey gauge invariance, and

913: %the approximation should respect this symmetry.

914: 

915: \subsection{Numerically optimized Schur complement}

916: 

917: Our method is based on numerically approximating the Schur complement

918: as a linear combination of suitable basis operators.  

919: The full Schur complement $S$ usually cannot be computed exactly, 

920: but it can be characterized numerically by a sufficiently large 

921: set of pairs $\{ f^{(n)}, a^{(n)}; n=1,\ldots,N \}$ which satisfy

922: \begin{equation}

923:   \label{eq:17}

924:   M(U^{(n)}) f^{(n)} = a^{(n)} \quad, 

925: \end{equation}

926: where it is explicitly indicated that $M$ depends on different

927: realizations $U^{(n)}$ of the disorder field. 

928: Using the block $LU$ decomposition (\ref{eq:40}), this implies that 

929: $S$, $Q$, and $T$ satisfy the relations (\ref{eq:41}), (\ref{eq:41b}). 

930: In particular, if

931: the pairs are chosen such that $a_2=0$, 

932: their coarse-lattice components $\{ f_1^{(n)}, a_1^{(n)} \}$

933: characterize the Schur complement by the relation:

934: \begin{equation}

935:   \label{eq:42}

936:   S f_1^{(n)} = a_1^{(n)} \quad.

937: \end{equation}

938: Similarly, the interpolation operator is characterized by the pairs $\{ 

939: f_1^{(n)}, f_2^{(n)} \}$ using

940: \begin{equation}

941:   \label{eq:43}

942:   Q f_1^{(n)} = f_2^{(n)} \quad.

943: \end{equation}

944: There is no need to approximate $T = M_{22}$, as it does not contain the

945: inverse of $M_{22}$.

946: An approximation $\bar S$ to $S$, and similarly $\bar Q$ to Q, can then be

947: characterized with minimum bias by the mean error norm of (\ref{eq:42}):

948: \begin{equation}

949:   \label{eq:16}

950:   \delta^2 = \sum_n^N \left| \bar S(U^{(n)}) f_1^{(n)} - a_1^{(n)} \right|^2

951: \end{equation}

952: This quantity is an approximation to an operator norm

953: $|\bar S S - 1|^2$ averaged over gauge field configurations.  

954: The choice of pairs (\ref{eq:17}) introduces a

955: weight function in this norm and thus determines which functions are

956: well approximated by $\bar S$. Eq.~(\ref{eq:16}) can be rewritten as

957: \begin{equation}

958:   \label{eq:25}

959:   \delta^2 = \sum_n^N \left | \left( \bar S(U^{(n)}) S - 1 \right)

960:     a_1^{(n)} \right|^2

961:   = \sum_n^N \left | \left( \bar S(U^{(n)} - S(U^{(n)} \right)

962:     f_1^{(n)} \right|^2

963: \end{equation}

964: If $f_1$ is chosen randomly on the whole function space, $\delta^2$

965: thus approximates $|\bar S - S|^2$, while if $a_1$ is chosen randomly, it

966: approximates

967: \begin{equation}

968:   \label{eq:26}

969:   |\bar S S^{-1} -1|^2 = |(\bar S - S) S^{-1}|^2

970: \end{equation}

971: The factor $S^{-1}$ increases the weight of functions that have

972: eigenvalues closer to zero, and these are exactly the long-ranged

973: functions we are interested in. Choosing the right-hand sides $a_1$

974: also allows us to enforce $a_2=0$ and thus remove $Q$ from the

975: (\ref{eq:41}). In practice, we choose $a$ to be a delta function on a

976: randomly chosen coarse-lattice point, and determine $f$ by solving the

977: linear system (\ref{eq:17}). In other words, the $f^{(n)}$ are Green's

978: functions, or propagators in lattice gauge theory language, and we

979: look for an approximate operator $\bar S$ that well reproduces the

980: action of $S$ on these functions. 

981: 

982: If we choose a general linear combination of suitably chosen basis

983: operators $S^{(i)}(U)$ respecting the symmetries of the problem as

984: approximate operators,

985: \begin{equation}

986:   \label{eq:17a}

987:   \bar S(U) = \sum_i \alpha_i \bar S^{(i)}(U) \quad,

988: \end{equation}

989: the approximation error $\delta^2$ is a 

990: quadratic form in the coefficients $\alpha_i$:

991: \begin{eqnarray}

992:   \label{eq:18}

993:   \delta^2 &=&

994:   \sum_{ij} \alpha_i^\ast \, A_{ij} \, \alpha_j

995:        - \sum_i \alpha_i \, B_i^*

996:      - {\rm c.c.} + C \\

997:   \label{eq:18a}

998:   A_{ij} &=& \sum_n^N \, \left( S^{(i)}(U^{(n)}) f_1^{(n)}, 

999:                      S^{(j)}(U^{(n)}) f_1^{(n)} \right)_{{\cal L}_1}

1000:                    \\

1001:   \label{eq:18b}

1002:   B_i &=& \sum_n^N \, \left (S^{(i)}(U^{(n)}) f_1^{(n)}, a_1^{(n)}\right)_{{\cal L}_1} \\

1003:   C &=& \sum_n^N \,\left (a_1^{(n)},a_1^{(n)} \right)_{{\cal L}_1} 

1004: \end{eqnarray}

1005: where $(a_1,b_1)_{{\cal L}_1}$ 

1006: denotes that scalar product on the coarse grid ${\cal

1007: L}_1$. Thus the minimum of the approximation error and thus the 

1008: optimal choice of coefficients is found simply by:

1009: \begin{equation}

1010:   \label{eq:27}

1011:   \alpha_i = \sum_j (A^{-1})_{ij} B_j

1012: \end{equation}

1013: The procedure for finding the coefficients of the numerical

1014: approximation to the Schur complement is therefore as follows:

1015: \begin{enumerate}

1016: \item Generate right-hand sides $a^{(n)}$ by choosing random delta functions

1017:   on the coarse grid.

1018: \item Find the corresponding $f^{(n)}$ by solving (\ref{eq:17}) using

1019:   the original fine-grid operator $M$.

1020: \item Project $a^{(n)}$ and $f^{(n)}$ to the coarse lattice.

1021: \item Calculate the matrix elements (\ref{eq:18a}) and (\ref{eq:18b})

1022:   and find $\alpha_i$ from (\ref{eq:27}).

1023: \end{enumerate}

1024: A similar procedure is used to approximate the interpolation operator

1025: $Q$. This method is similar to Monte Carlo renormalization group as it

1026: calculates the coefficients of the effective coarse-grid operator by

1027: applying a block-spin transformation (in our case, simply a

1028: projection) to an ensemble of configurations on the fine grid.  Note

1029: that the procedure is completely general and can be used to

1030: approximate any operator, e.g.~the Neuberger or a

1031: renormalization-group improved operator, if its action on some sample

1032: fields is known.

1033: 

1034: %In particular, $M(U)$ satisfies gauge

1035: %invariance: Let $\Lambda(x)$ a field defined on $x\in{\cal L}$ with

1036: %values in the gauge group. This field acts on the gauge field $U$ by

1037: %\begin{equation}

1038: %  \label{eq:19}

1039: %  U^\Lambda_\mu(x) = \Lambda(x) U_\mu(x) \Lambda(x+e_\mu)^{-1} \quad.

1040: %\end{equation}

1041: 

1042: \subsection{Choice of the operator basis}

1043: The approximate coarse-grid operator $\bar S(U)$ is a general

1044: operator-valued function of the disorder field $U$, but the symmetries

1045: of the problem greatly restrict the possible basis operators $\bar

1046: S^{(i)}(U)$ from which it can be constructed.

1047: %A gauge transform specified by an arbitrary field $\Lambda(x)$ in the

1048: %gauge group acts in the following way on fields and operators:

1049: %\begin{eqnarray}

1050: %  \label{eq:37}

1051: %  {}^\Lambda f(x) &=& \Lambda(x) f(x) \\

1052: %  \label{eq:37b}

1053: %  {}^\Lambda U_\mu(x) &=& \Lambda(x) U_\mu(x) \Lambda(x+e_\mu)^{-1} \\

1054: %  \label{eq:37c}

1055: %  {}^\Lambda M(x,y) &=& \Lambda(x) M(x,y) \Lambda(y)^{-1}

1056: %\end{eqnarray}

1057: %A gauge covariant operator, such as the original fine-grid operator,

1058: %satisfies the relation

1059: %\begin{equation}

1060: %  \label{eq:32}

1061: %  {}^\Lambda M = M({}^\Lambda U) \quad,

1062: %\end{equation}

1063: %and so must the basis operators $S^{(i)}(U)$.

1064: %From (\ref{eq:37b}), only the product of links along a closed path

1065: %satisfies this relation:

1066: %\begin{eqnarray}

1067: %  \label{eq:85} &&

1068: %  {}^\Lambda U_{\mu_1}(x_1)

1069: %  {}^\Lambda U_{\mu_2}(x_1 + e_{\mu_1}) \ldots

1070: %  {}^\Lambda U_{\mu_n}(y = x_1 + e_{\mu_1} + \cdots + e_{\mu_{n-1}})

1071: %  = \nnm \\ && \kern20pt

1072: %  \Lambda(x) 

1073: %  U_{\mu_1}(x_1)

1074: %  U_{\mu_2}(x_1 + e_{\mu_1}) \ldots

1075: %  U_{\mu_n}(x_1 + e_{\mu_1} + \cdots + e_{\mu_{n-1}})

1076: %  \Lambda(y)^{-1}

1077: %\end{eqnarray}

1078: To maintain gauge covariance, each contribution to the matrix element

1079: $M(x,y)$ can be factored into a gauge-field independent part and a

1080: product of the gauge field links along a connected path from $x$ to

1081: $y$, leading to the following representation of $M$:

1082: \begin{equation}

1083:   \label{eq:45}

1084:   M(x,y) = \sum_n \sum_{P = (\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_n)} \,

1085:     m(P) \,

1086:     \delta_{y,x + e_{\mu_1} + \cdots + e_{\mu_n}} \, 

1087:     {\cal P}_{\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_n}(U;x)

1088: \end{equation}

1089: where the sum is over connected paths from $x$ to $y$, and the reduced

1090: matrix element $m(P)$ does not depend on the gauge field $U$. 

1091: Basis operators $S^{(i)}$ can thus be associated with the possible

1092: relative paths $P_i = \{ \mu_1, \ldots, \mu_n \}$:

1093: \begin{equation}

1094:   \label{eq:19}

1095:   \bar S^{(i)}(U)(x,y) = \Gamma^{(i)}

1096:   \delta_{y,x + \mu_1 + \cdots + \mu_n} \, 

1097:   {\cal P}_{\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_n}(U;x) \quad,

1098: \end{equation}

1099: where $\Gamma^{(i)}$ is independent of $x$, $y$, and $U$, and serves to

1100: contain a possible internal structure of the field, e.g.~the Dirac

1101: $\gamma$ matrices.

1102: 

1103: Other symmetries like translation, rotation, and reflection invariance

1104: as well as hermiticity and charge conjugation generate further

1105: restrictions on the coefficients $\alpha_i$.  In the calculations, our

1106: computer code automatically evaluates discrete rotation and reflection

1107: symmetry for all paths and constructs basis operators that are

1108: invariant under these transformations. This reduces significantly the

1109: number of degrees of freedom in (\ref{eq:18}). Hermiticity places

1110: constraints on the real and imaginary parts of the coefficients; it is

1111: not enforced and can be used as a check of the accuracy of the

1112: constructed operator. The general problem of constructing generalized

1113: Dirac operators was recently brought up in the context of

1114: chirally-enhanced operators in \cite{heplat-0001001,heplat-0003005}

1115: and discussed in general in \cite{heplat-0003013}.

1116: 

1117: The representation (\ref{eq:45}) has the same form as the

1118: diffusion representation (\ref{eq:39}), with the additional

1119: restriction that only paths moving exclusively on the fine lattice

1120: contribute there.  The optimization process (\ref{eq:16}) thus results

1121: in assigning weights to the different paths in the diffusion

1122: representation that reflect how much a path contributes, on average,

1123: to the propagator. If a complete sum over all lengths $n$ is taken,

1124: the correct weights are of course $\kappa^{-n}$, as in the von Neumann

1125: series. However, if the sum is truncated, the weights are modified in

1126: the optimization process and the contributions of the individual paths

1127: renormalized to take the obmitted paths into account.

1128: 

1129: The basis (\ref{eq:19}) can be compared to the situation without a

1130: gauge field.  In the terminology of numerical analysis, a

1131: translation-invariant operator is represented by a {\em stencil}

1132: $S(a)$ using the expression corresponding to (\ref{eq:45})

1133: \begin{equation}

1134:   \label{eq:54}

1135:   M(x,y) = \sum_a S(a) \, \delta_{y,x+a}

1136: \end{equation}

1137: where $a$ runs over the possible offsets between lattice points. The

1138: basis operators in this case can therefore be labeled by the offset $a$,

1139: and the equation corresponding to (\ref{eq:19}) reads

1140: \begin{equation}

1141:   \label{eq:55}

1142:   S^{(i)}(x,y) = \delta_{y,x+a_i} \quad.

1143: \end{equation}

1144: Comparing the two cases, one can see that in the disordered case the

1145: relative paths take over the role of the offsets, and a generalized

1146: stencil is given by assigning each relative path a certain weight. The

1147: optimization procedure corresponds to calculating such a generalized

1148: stencil, much as an ordinary stencil is constructed for differential

1149: equations.

1150: 

1151: Once the disordered stencil is known, the coarse-grid operator $S$ for

1152: any gauge field can be constructed simply by evaluating all paths in

1153: the set $\{S^{(i)}\}$ and combining them according to the weights

1154: $\alpha_i$.  Note that it is not necessary to perform the construction

1155: of the on the actual set of gauge fields, but on a representative

1156: ensemble only, so the optimization can be performed in advance of the

1157: simulation.

1158: 

1159: The resulting coarse-grid operator contains in particular also

1160: contributions beyond direct neighbors on the coarse grid, similar to

1161: improved and perfect operators that lose locality but gain a more

1162: faithful representation of the continuum operator, and the amount of

1163: nonlocality can be tuned by selecting the paths in the basis set. On

1164: the other hand, if the basis set is chosen to reproduce the original

1165: topology on the coarse lattice, the coarse-grid operator defines a new

1166: effective disorder field on the coarse-grid. However, this disorder

1167: field is obtained by a sum and will therefore lie outside the gauge

1168: group, though it can be projected back to the gauge group, as is

1169: customarily done in many renormalization schemes. In this way, the

1170: Schur complement can be used to define a block-spin transformation for 

1171: the gauge field.

1172: 

1173: \subsection{Construction in the diagonal subspace}

1174: The basis (\ref{eq:19}) is the most general set of operators that can

1175: make up a gauge-covariant operator. Its size grows exponentially with

1176: the order of the path set and thus makes both the evaluation of the

1177: coefficients (\ref{eq:18a}) and (\ref{eq:18b}) and the actual

1178: construction of the approximate Schur complement very time consuming.

1179: A smaller and thus more tractable basis can be found by considering

1180: the operators that appear in the von Neumann series (\ref{eq:31})

1181: which are:

1182: \begin{eqnarray}

1183:   \label{eq:20}

1184:   \bar S^{(0)} &=& M_{11} \quad, \nnm\\

1185:   \bar S^{(i+1)} &=& M_{12} M_{22}^{2i} M_{21} \quad. 

1186: \end{eqnarray}

1187: This basis generates exactly the same paths as the diffusion

1188: representation (\ref{eq:19}) restricted to the fine lattice, but uses

1189: coefficients that only depend on the length of the paths.  Obviously,

1190: if an infinite set of basis operators is used, the optimal

1191: coefficients are $\pm 1$ as given by the von Neumann series. However,

1192: in a finite set, the optimization procedure amounts to finding a

1193: polynomial approximation to the inverse function.

1194: 

1195: To see this, let $T$ be an approximation to $M_{22}^{-1}$, and write

1196: the approximate Schur complement as

1197: \begin{equation}

1198:   \label{eq:22}

1199:   \bar S = M_{11} - M_{12} T M_{21}

1200: \end{equation}

1201: Inserting this into (\ref{eq:16}) gives after some algebra

1202: \begin{equation}

1203:   \label{eq:23}

1204:   \left| \bar S f_1 - a_1 \right|^2

1205:   = \left( T \hat f, M_{21} M_{12} T \hat f \right)_2

1206:     - 2 \Re \left( \hat b, T \hat f \right)_2 + \left(b, b\right)_1

1207: \end{equation}

1208: with the notation $(\ldots,\ldots)_2$  for the scalar product over

1209: ${\cal L}_2$ and the definitions

1210: \begin{eqnarray}

1211:   \label{eq:24}

1212:   \hat f &=& M_{21} f_1 \quad,\\

1213:    b &=& M_{11} f_1 - a_1 \quad, \nnm\\

1214:   \hat b &=& M_{21} b \nnm\\

1215:   \label{eq:24b}

1216:   &=& M_{21} M_{12} M_{22}^{-1} M_{21} f_1 \quad,

1217: \end{eqnarray}

1218: where we used (\ref{eq:42}) and (\ref{eq:6}) in the last line.

1219: If $T$ is a polynomial in $M_{22}$, it is diagonal in the eigenbasis

1220: of $M_{22}$ and can be written as

1221: \begin{eqnarray}

1222:   \label{eq:22b}

1223:   M_{22} &=& \sum_k \lambda_k \, v_k \otimes v_k^\conj \\

1224:   T &=& \sum_k T_k \, v_k \otimes v_k^\conj

1225: \end{eqnarray}

1226: where $\lambda_k$, $v_k$ are eigenvalues and -vectors of $M_{22}$, and 

1227: $T_k$ the diagonal elements of $T$ in the eigenrepresentation.

1228: Inserting this into (\ref{eq:23}) gives the following

1229: quadratic form for the

1230: diagonal components $T_k$ of the operator $T$:

1231: \begin{eqnarray}

1232:   \label{eq:46}

1233:   \left| \bar S f_1 - a_1 \right|^2 &=&

1234:   \sum_{kl} T_k^\star \,

1235:             ( \hat f^{\star}_k \hat f_l )

1236:   \, \left( M_{21} M_{12} \right)_{kl} T_l

1237:   \\ && - 2 \Re 

1238:   \sum_k T_k \, 

1239:          ( \hat b^{\star}_k \hat f_k )

1240:   + \const 

1241: \end{eqnarray}

1242: where $\hat f_k = (v_k, \hat f)$, $\hat b_k = (v_k, \hat b)$ are the

1243: representations of $\hat f$ and $\hat b$ in the eigenspace of

1244: $M_{22}$, and similarly for $(M_{21} M_{12})_{kl}$. Eq.~(\ref{eq:24b})

1245: relates these quantities by

1246: \begin{equation}

1247:   \label{eq:51}

1248:   \hat b_k = \sum_l (M_{21} M_{12})_{kl} \, \lambda_l^{-1} \, 

1249:              \hat f_l

1250: \end{equation}

1251: which gives the following expression for (\ref{eq:46}):

1252: \begin{eqnarray}

1253:   \label{eq:52}

1254:   \left| \bar S f_1 - a_1 \right|^2 &=&

1255:   \sum_{kl} \left( T_k - \frac{1}{\lambda_k} \right)^\star \, 

1256:   ( \hat f^{\star}_k \hat f_l ) \,

1257:   \left( M_{21} M_{12} \right)_{kl} \,

1258:   \left( T_l - \frac{1}{\lambda_l} \right) + \const \nnm\\

1259:   &=& 

1260:   \sum_k

1261:   \left|

1262:     \sum_l

1263:     \left(M_{12}\right)_{kl} \hat f_l \,

1264:     \left( T_l - \frac{1}{\lambda_l} \right) 

1265:   \right|^2 + \const \quad.

1266: \end{eqnarray}

1267: Minimizing this quantity thus amounts to finding 

1268: a best approximation $T_k$ to

1269: $\lambda_k^{-1}$ in a weighted square norm specified by $M_{12} \hat f

1270: = M_{12} M_{21} f_1$. 

1271: 

1272: Choosing for $T$ a polynomial form

1273: \begin{equation}

1274:   \label{eq:53}

1275:   T = \sum_{n=0}^N \alpha_{n+1} \, M_{22}^{2n} \qquad,\quad

1276:   T_k = \sum_{n=0}^N \alpha_{n+1} \, \lambda_k^{2n}

1277: \end{equation}

1278: in accordance with the expansion (\ref{eq:20}),

1279: the approximate Schur complement then takes the form

1280: \begin{equation}

1281:   \label{eq:53b}

1282:   \bar S = M_{11} 

1283:          - \sum_{k=0}^N \alpha_{k+1} M_{12} M_{22}^{2k} M_{21}

1284: \end{equation}

1285: Fig.~\ref{fig:1} shows a numerical evaluation of such an approximation

1286: using the Dirac operator on a sample $U(1)$ configuration.

1287: 

1288: An operator of the form (\ref{eq:53b}) can be computed relatively

1289: easily: The coefficient $\bar S(x,y)$ between two sites is given by

1290: summing the phase factors over all paths from $x$ to $y$ on ${\cal

1291:   L}_2$

1292: with weights

1293: depending only on the length of the paths and given by the

1294: coefficients $\alpha_k$.  This is a simplification over the full path

1295: set (\ref{eq:19}), where each path can be assigned its own weight.  If

1296: only a finite number $N$ of coefficients is used, the operator is

1297: local, but contains more than next-neighbor interactions. Note that in

1298: a typical iteration scheme the calculation of the matrix elements of

1299: $\bar S$ has to be done only once, and the complexity of the iteration

1300: depends only on the sparsity of the resulting $\bar S$.

1301: 

1302: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1303: \begin{center}

1304: \includegraphics[width=.8\hsize]{plots/approximating-M22-3.eps}

1305: \end{center}

1306:     \caption{\label{fig:1}

1307:     Numerical evaluation of the optimal polynomial 

1308:     approximation to $M_{22}^{-1}$. The curves show the polynomial

1309:     approximations of order 1, 3, 5, and 7 to the inverse

1310:     function. The actual eigenvalues are marked with crosses.}

1311: \end{figure}

1312: 

1313: \begin{figure}[p]

1314:   \begin{center}

1315:     \centerline{\hss 

1316:       \includegraphics[width=3.8in]{plots/fine-2d-2.eps} \kern-60pt

1317:       \includegraphics[width=3.8in]{plots/coarse-2d-2.eps} \hss}

1318:     \caption{%

1319:       Absolute value of a sample fermionic Green's function on an

1320:       $16\times 16$ lattice in a $U(1)$ background field for the

1321:       original Dirac operator (left) and the approximate coarse-grid

1322:       operator obtained from the Schur complement. The source is

1323:       located at the origin; since the lattice is periodic, it shows

1324:       up at the four corners of the plot.

1325:       }

1326:     \label{fig:12}

1327:   \end{center}

1328: %\end{figure}

1329: 

1330: %\begin{figure}[h]

1331:   \begin{center}

1332:     \includegraphics[width=.8\hsize]{plots/greens-function-2.eps}

1333:     \caption{%

1334:       Cut through the example fermionic Green's function (black

1335:       squares) compared to Green's functions calculated from an

1336:       approximate Schur complement and interpolation operator 

1337:       of order 1, 2, and 4.

1338:       }

1339:     \label{fig:13}

1340:   \end{center}

1341: \end{figure}

1342: 

1343: \subsection{Numerical results}

1344: 

1345: We have numerically evaluated the optimal operator both for the full

1346: path set of eq.~(\ref{eq:19}) and the subset defined in

1347: eq.~(\ref{eq:20}). The calculations were performed for the Dirac

1348: equation on a $16\times 16$ lattice in two dimensions in a $U(1)$

1349: gauge field generated at $\beta=3.0$, which results in relatively

1350: smooth configurations and long-ranged correlation

1351: functions. Fig.~\ref{fig:12} and \ref{fig:13} show sample Green's

1352: functions of the original Dirac matrix and the approximate Schur

1353: complement. The disorder from the gauge field shows up clearly in the

1354: Green's function, but the various approximations to the Schur

1355: complement reproduce the irregularities and the overall form of the

1356: function quite well.

1357: 

1358: % and found that the they indeed produce an

1359: %approximation of the true coarse-lattice operator with an error that

1360: %decreases exponentially with the order of the approximation.

1361: 

1362: \begin{figure}[p]

1363:   \begin{center}

1364:     \includegraphics[width=.8\hsize]{plots/error-by-order.eps}

1365:     \caption{%

1366:       The relative approximation error as a function of the order of the

1367:       approximation, calculated in an ensemble of 10 independent

1368:       $16\times16$ $U(1)$ gauge configurations at $\beta=3.0$ and

1369:       $\kappa=0.265$. The full line gives the result from the

1370:       optimization in the diagonal subspace, the dashed line from the

1371:       full optimization. The dotted line is the relative error of the

1372:       truncated von Neumann series of the same order.

1373:       }

1374:     \label{fig:3}

1375:   \end{center}

1376: %\end{figure}

1377: 

1378: %\begin{figure}[h]

1379:   \begin{center}

1380:     \includegraphics[width=.8\hsize]{plots/error-by-order-2.eps}

1381:     \caption{%

1382:       The relative inversion error as a function of the approximation

1383:       order for both diagonal and full optimization. For comparison, 

1384:       the original relative error from Fig.~\ref{fig:3} is also

1385:       shown.

1386:       }

1387:     \label{fig:3a}

1388:   \end{center}

1389: \end{figure}

1390: 

1391: This is quantified in fig.~\ref{fig:3}, which shows the average relative error

1392: \begin{equation}

1393:   \label{eq:70}

1394:   \sqrt{\frac{\delta^2}{\sum_n^N |a_1^{(n)}|^2}}

1395: \end{equation}

1396: evaluated in an ensemble of ten sample $U(1)$ gauge configurations

1397: generated at $\beta=3.0$ on a $16\times16$-lattice. For each

1398: configuration, five different Green's function at $\kappa=0.265$ on each

1399: configuration were calculated and the coefficients (\ref{eq:18a}) and

1400: (\ref{eq:18b}) that characterize the error ellipsoid were evaluated.

1401: For the diagonal optimization, the basis (\ref{eq:20})

1402: with maximum order $i$ from $1$ to $6$, corresponding to a maximum

1403: path length from $2$ to $12$, was used. For the full optimization, a complete

1404: path basis of paths up to length $2i$ constrained to the discrete

1405: rotation and reflection symmetry was taken. For comparison, the

1406: relative error resulting from the von Neumann series is also shown.

1407: The errors show a very clean logarithmic dependence on the order. As

1408: the number of paths in the operator increases exponentially with

1409: order, this corresponds to a polynomial dependence of the error on the

1410: number of paths.

1411: 

1412: The full path set gives only a slightly better approximation than the

1413: diagonal approximation, though it is significantly more difficult to

1414: evaluate, as the number of coefficients grows exponentially. Its main

1415: advantage is that it allows to fine-tune the number and

1416: characteristics of the paths, e.g.~the maximum distance between end

1417: points.  Fig.~\ref{fig:3} shows the resulting errors when the error

1418: ellipsoid is restricted to a certain number of paths. It turns out

1419: that the relative error has a power law dependence on the number of

1420: paths, with an exponent of approximately $-0.55$ in this case. The

1421: contributions from different operators are relatively uniform except

1422: for the operators in the tails that contribute little or nothing, so

1423: the accuracy of the approximate Schur complement can be fine-tuned by

1424: varying the number of paths in the operator.

1425: 

1426: The relative error measures how well the approximate Schur complement

1427: reproduces a delta function when applied to a Green's function. For

1428: actual applications, the more relevant quantity is the relative

1429: inversion error that looks at how good the inverse of the

1430: approximate Schur complement reproduces the Green's function of the

1431: original matrix. This is quantified by

1432: \begin{equation}

1433:   \label{eq:71}

1434:   \delta_{\rm inv.}^2 = 

1435:   \sum_n^N \left| \bar f_1^{(n)} - S^{-1}(U^{(n)})  a_1^{(n)}

1436:   \right|^2

1437: \end{equation}

1438: with the relative error taken relative to the norm of $f_1^{(n)}$:

1439: %\begin{equation}

1440: %  \label{eq:71a}

1441: %  \sqrt{\frac{\delta^2_{\rm inv.}}{  \sum_n^N \left| \bar f_1^{(n)}

1442: %    \right|^2}}

1443: %  \quad.

1444: %\end{equation}

1445: This quantity was evaluated numerically by computing Green's function

1446: of the approximate Schur complement on the coarse lattice and

1447: comparing the results to the Green's functions of the original

1448: Wilson-Dirac matrix.  Fig.~\ref{fig:3a} shows the relative error as a

1449: function of the approximation order both for the diagonal and the full

1450: optimization. It also decreases exponentially but is about twice the

1451: magnitude of the original error. 

1452: %At larger orders, there is some

1453: %levelling off.

1454: 

1455: \subsection{Spectrum}

1456: 

1457: The low eigenvalues of the original matrix $M$ have a direct relation

1458: to those of the Schur complement $S_M$. If $f$ is an eigenvector of

1459: $M$ with eigenvalue $\lambda$,

1460: \begin{equation}

1461:   \label{eq:86}

1462:   M f = \lambda f \quad,

1463: \end{equation}

1464: this becomes using (\ref{eq:4})

1465: \begin{eqnarray}

1466:   \label{eq:87}

1467:   S f_1 &=& \lambda f_1 - M_{21} M_{22}^{-1} \, \lambda f_2 \nnm\\

1468:   M_{22} f_2 &=& \lambda f_2 - M_{21} f_1 \quad.

1469: \end{eqnarray}

1470: Eliminating $f_2$ in the first line yields a modified eigenvalue

1471: equation for $S$:

1472: \begin{equation}

1473:   \label{eq:88}

1474:   S f_1 = \lambda \, \left(

1475:           1 + M_{12} M_{22}^{-1} (M_{22} - \lambda)^{-1} M_{21}

1476:           \right) \, f_1 \quad.

1477: \end{equation}

1478: If the eigenvalues of $M_{22}$ are large, as argued in

1479: sec.~\ref{sec:diffmultigrid}, the additional term on the right-hand

1480: side multiplying the eigenvalue is approximately

1481: \begin{equation}

1482:   \label{eq:89}

1483:   1 + M_{12} M_{22}^{-2} M_{21} = 1 + Q^\conj Q \quad.

1484: \end{equation}

1485: Assuming further that $M_{22}^{-1}$ is 

1486: short-ranged, the second term can be approximated by a constant

1487: $\alpha$ when acting on a low eigenvector, and (\ref{eq:88}) becomes

1488: \begin{equation}

1489:   \label{eq:90}

1490:   S f_1 \approx \lambda (1+\alpha) f_1 \quad.

1491: \end{equation}

1492: This rescaling of the eigenvalues accounts for the different lattice

1493: constant of the coarse grid.  The appearance of the interpolation

1494: kernel $Q$ in (\ref{eq:89}) shows that it accounts for the parts

1495: of the original eigenvector that were on the fine grid and therefore

1496: dropped. In a geometric multigrid method, this is usually done by the

1497: coarsening prescription which moves information from fine to coarse

1498: degrees of freedom; in algebraic multigrid, it results directly from

1499: the $LU$ decomposition.

1500: 

1501: Fig.~\ref{fig:11} shows the lowest positive eigenvalues of the Dirac

1502: matrix and different forms of the Schur complement for a sample $U(1)$

1503: gauge configuration at $\beta=3.0$. With a rescaling factor of

1504: approximately $1+\alpha \approx 4$, the exact Schur complement $S_M$

1505: reproduces the low eigenvalues of $M$ well, and so does the

1506: order-2 optimized operator. The truncated von Neumann series, however,

1507: deviates significantly from the true results for the lowest

1508: eigenvalues, which are expected to be very important for the

1509: convergence properties when used as a preconditioner.

1510: 

1511: \begin{figure}[p]

1512:   \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.8\hsize]{plots/error-by-paths.eps}}

1513:     \caption{The relative error as a function of the number of 

1514:       paths in the approximate Schur complement for different orders

1515:       of the path set. The paths have been reordered so that the

1516:       relative error decays fastests.}

1517:     \label{fig:2}

1518: %\end{figure}

1519: 

1520: %\begin{figure}[htbp]

1521:   \begin{center}

1522:     \includegraphics[width=.8\hsize]{plots/error-by-dist.eps}

1523:     \caption{%

1524:       The relative error from the full optimization as a function of

1525:       the maximum distance of path end points in the path set, shown

1526:       for different maximum lengths of the path.

1527:       }

1528:     \label{fig:4}

1529:   \end{center}

1530: \end{figure}

1531: 

1532: \begin{figure}[htb]

1533:   \begin{center}

1534:     \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{plots/low-spectrum.eps}

1535:     \caption{%

1536:       Lowest positive eigenvalues of the effective coarse-grid

1537:       operator $S$. The lower curve (filled circles) shows 

1538:       eigenvalues of the full Dirac matrix on a $16\times 16$ lattice

1539:       with a sample $U(1)$ gauge field at $\beta=3.0$. The three

1540:       upper curves are the corresponding eigenvalues on the coarse

1541:       grid, calculated from the exact Schur complement (full squares), 

1542:       the order-2 optimized operator (open squares), and the order-2

1543:       von Neumann series (open diamonds). The inset enlarges low

1544:       eigenvalues. 

1545:       }

1546:     \label{fig:11}

1547:   \end{center}

1548: \end{figure}

1549: 

1550: \section{Applications}

1551: 

1552: While a full discussion of the performance of multigrid operators in

1553: different algorithms is outside of the scope of this paper, we give

1554: here two examples of how they can be applied in numerical algorithms.

1555: Preconditioning uses the block $LU$ decomposition provided by the

1556: multigrid decomposition to improve the condition number and thus

1557: convergence in iterative algorithms. Multigrid relaxation is the

1558: classical multigrid algorithm for solving the system (\ref{eq:2}) and

1559: allows a comparison between a two-grid iteration and the original

1560: fine-grid iteration. In all calculations, a $16 \times 16$ lattice was 

1561: used to allow the calculation of complete spectra. Note that only

1562: two-grid algorithms are considered; for realistic problems, the

1563: procedure should be repeated on several grid levels.

1564: 

1565: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1566:   \begin{center}

1567:     \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{plots/precond-1.eps}

1568:     \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{plots/precond-2.eps}

1569:     \caption{

1570:       Spectra of the multigrid preconditioned Dirac matrix $1 - \bar

1571:       M^{-1} M$ for a sample gauge field configuration.

1572:       Optimized approximations of order 1, 2, and 3 where used from left to

1573:       right for the Schur complement.

1574:       The top row shows the spectra obtained using an approximate

1575:       interpolation operator, the bottom row the spectra using the

1576:       exact interpolation operator. Preconditioning with an exact

1577:       Schur complement and interpolation operator would result in a

1578:       single point at the origin.

1579:       \label{fig:5}

1580:     }

1581: 

1582:     \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{plots/precond-3.eps}

1583:     \caption{

1584:       The preconditioned spectrum of fig.~\ref{fig:5},

1585:       using the von Neumann series as approximate Schur complement.

1586:       \label{fig:6}

1587:     }

1588:   \end{center}

1589: \end{figure}

1590: 

1591: \subsection{Preconditioning}

1592: 

1593: In preconditioning, the linear system

1594: \begin{equation}

1595:   \label{eq:69}

1596:   M f = a

1597: \end{equation}

1598: is replaced by an equivalent system

1599: \begin{equation}

1600:   \label{eq:69b}

1601:   \bar M^{-1} M f = a' = \bar M^{-1} a

1602: \end{equation}

1603: using a preconditioning matrix $\bar M$ that is an easily invertible

1604: approximation to $M$. If $\bar M$ is sufficiently close to $M$, the

1605: spectrum of the preconditioned matrix $\bar M^{-1} M$ is contracted towards

1606: unity and its condition number reduced. For multigrid preconditioning,

1607: one uses an approximate block LU decomposition of the form

1608: (\ref{eq:40}) as the preconditioner. The preconditioned matrix is then

1609: \begin{eqnarray}

1610:   \label{eq:97}

1611:   && \bar M^{-1} M =

1612:   \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ \bar Q & 1 \end{array}

1613:   \right) \,

1614:   \left( \begin{array}{cc} \bar S^{-1} & 0 \\ 0 & \bar T^{-1} 

1615:   \end{array} \right) \,

1616:   \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & \bar Q^\conj \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}

1617:   \right) \,

1618:   \left( \begin{array}{cc} M_{11} & M_{12} \\ M_{21} & \bar M_{22}

1619:   \end{array} \right) 

1620: %\nnm \\

1621: %  &&\quad = 

1622: %  \left( \begin{array}{cc} 

1623: %    \bar S^{-1} ( M_{11} + \bar Q^\conj M_{21} ) &

1624: %    \bar S^{-1} ( M_{12} + \bar Q^\conj M_{22} ) \\

1625: %    \bar Q \bar S^{-1} ( M_{11} + \bar Q^\conj M_{21} ) 

1626: %       + \bar T^{-1} M_{21} &

1627: %    \bar Q \bar S^{-1} ( M_{12} + \bar Q^\conj M_{22} ) 

1628: %       + \bar T^{-1} M_{22} 

1629: %  \end{array} \right) \quad.

1630: \end{eqnarray}

1631: If $Q$ and $T$ are chosen to be exact, $Q=-M_{22}^{-1} M_{21}$ and

1632: $T=M_{22}$, this reduces to

1633: \begin{equation}

1634:   \label{eq:98}

1635:   \bar M^{-1} M =  

1636:   \left( \begin{array}{cc} 

1637:     \bar S^{-1} S_M &

1638:     0\\

1639:     \bar Q \bar S^{-1} ( \bar S^{-1} S_M - 1 ) &

1640:     1 \end{array} \right)

1641:   \quad.

1642: \end{equation}

1643: The properties of the preconditioner are therefore determined by $1 -

1644: \bar S^{-1} S_M$, which is the quantity that was optimized in the

1645: optimization process (\ref{eq:26}) above.

1646: 

1647: %In an iterative algorithm to solve (\ref{eq:69b}), each elementary

1648: %matrix-vector multiplication then entails the application of the

1649: %$\tilde S^{-1}$ and $M_{22}^{-1}$, which itself must be performed

1650: %using an iterative algorithm.  These inner iterations act separately

1651: %on the fine and coarse sublattices and correspond to the V- and

1652: %W-cycles in classical multigrid relaxation schemes.

1653: 

1654: Fig.~\ref{fig:5} shows sample spectra of $1 - \bar M^{-1} M$ with the

1655: Schur complement approximated to order 1, 2, and 3. If an exact

1656: Schur complement was used, the spectrum would reduce to a single point

1657: at the origin; the radius of the disk on which the eigenvalues lie in the

1658: complex plane is a measure of the quality of the preconditioner. The

1659: figure shows the result for two different choices of the interpolation

1660: matrix $Q$: In the bottom row, the exact interpolation $Q=-M_{22}^{-1}

1661: M_{21}$ was used. Since $Q$ is, as opposed to $S$, never inverted in

1662: the process, this is numerically legitimate and no more complex than

1663: the application of the approximate $S^{-1}$. The top row shows the

1664: result when an approximate interpolation matrix $\bar Q$ was used that 

1665: was calculated in the same way as $S$ in an optimization process. It

1666: shows that only if a high order of approximation for $S$ was chosen, it

1667: makes sense to use the exact interpolation operator, otherwise it just 

1668: leads to a larger concentration of eigenvalues without reducing the

1669: radius of the disk.

1670: 

1671: For comparison, fig.~\ref{fig:6} shows the spectrum of a matrix that

1672: was preconditioned using von Neumann series (and the exact

1673: interpolation operator) to the same order as before. While most modes

1674: are quite well reduced, there remain even at order 3 a few eigenvalues 

1675: far away from the origin. These probably correspond to low eigenvalues of

1676: the original matrix that are not properly approximated by the von

1677: Neumann series, as seen in fig.~\ref{fig:11} above.

1678: 

1679: \begin{figure}[p!]

1680:   \begin{center}

1681:     \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{plots/gs-1.eps}

1682:     \includegraphics[width=\hsize]{plots/gs-2.eps}

1683:     \caption{

1684:       Spectra of the convergence matrix for multigrid relaxation

1685:       in a sample gauge field.

1686:       Optimized approximations of order 1, 2, and 3 where used from left to

1687:       right for the Schur complement.

1688:       The top row shows the convergence of the multigrid cycle if a

1689:       full inversion is performed on the coarse grid, and one relaxation 

1690:       step on the fine grid. The bottom row shows the same spectrum if 

1691:       only a single relaxation step is performed on each grid. The

1692:       convergence rate is given by the radius of the smallest

1693:       disk containing eigenvalues. 

1694:       \label{fig:7}}

1695:   \end{center}

1696:   \vspace*{6cm}  %otherwise is placed at end of paper

1697: \end{figure}

1698: 

1699: \subsection{Multigrid relaxation}

1700: 

1701: Relaxation schemes for solving eq.~(\ref{eq:2}) make use of an

1702: iterative process with an update step that is derived from the residual

1703: %Given an approximate solution $f^{(n)}$ of (\ref{eq:2}), the residual

1704: %is easily calculated as

1705: \begin{equation}

1706:   \label{eq:12}

1707:   r^{(n)} = a - M f^{(n)} \quad,

1708: \end{equation}

1709: where $f^{(n)}$ is the current approximate solution.

1710: The true error, i.e.~the amount by which $f^{(n)}$ has to be updated,

1711: can be calculated from the residual by

1712: \begin{equation}

1713:   \label{eq:13}

1714:   e^{(n)} = f - f^{(n)} = M^{-1} r^{(n)} \quad.

1715: \end{equation}

1716: Given an approximation $\bar M^{-1}$ to $M^{-1}$, 

1717: an approximate update step reads

1718: \begin{equation}

1719:   \label{eq:13a}

1720:   f^{(n+1)} = f^{(n)} + T r^{(n)} = (1 - \bar M^{-1} M) f^{(n)} + T a \quad.

1721: \end{equation}

1722: This iteration always has a fixed point at the true solution $f$, and

1723: the quality of the approximation $\bar M^{-1}$ to $M^{-1}$ only

1724: determines the convergence characteristics of the process.

1725: 

1726: Multigrid relaxation is based on using the Schur complement along with

1727: restriction and interpolation to construct an approximation to

1728: $M^{-1}$ on the coarse lattice.  First, the residual is restricted to

1729: the coarse lattice using the restriction

1730: \begin{equation}

1731:   \label{eq:62}

1732:   \bar r^{(n)} = e_1 + Q^\conj e_2 \quad.

1733: \end{equation}

1734: A coarse lattice approximation $\bar e^{(n)}$ to the true error is

1735: then found by applying the inverse of the approximate Schur

1736: complement:

1737: \begin{equation}

1738:   \label{eq:63}

1739:   \bar e^{(n)} = \bar S^{-1} \bar r^{(n)} \quad.

1740: \end{equation}

1741: Finally, this is interpolated back to the fine lattice:

1742: \begin{equation}

1743:   \label{eq:64}

1744:   \bar e_1^{(n)} = \bar e^{(n)} \quad, \qquad

1745:   \bar e_2^{(n)} = Q \bar e^{(n)}

1746: \end{equation}

1747: and used to update the approximation.  This update step acts on the

1748: coarse degrees of freedom only and must be followed by a compatible

1749: relaxation step on the fine lattice.  In matrix form, the

1750: approximate inverse of $M$ used here reads

1751: \begin{equation}

1752:   \label{eq:66}

1753:   T = 

1754:   \left(

1755:     \begin{array}{cc}

1756:       1 & 0 \\ \bar Q & 1

1757:     \end{array}

1758:   \right) \, \left(

1759:     \begin{array}{cc}

1760:       \bar S^{-1} & 0 \\ 0 & 0

1761:     \end{array}

1762:   \right) \, \left(

1763:     \begin{array}{cc}

1764:       1 & \bar Q \\  0 & 1

1765:     \end{array}

1766:   \right) \quad.

1767: \end{equation}

1768: It differs from the true LU decomposition (\ref{eq:44}) in that the

1769: lower right entry of the matrix in the middle is zero instead of

1770: $M^{-1}_{22}$.  If a perfect interpolation and restriction is chosen,

1771: $\bar Q = -M_{22}^{-1} M_{21}$, the iteration matrix for the coarse-grid

1772: step reads

1773: \begin{equation}

1774:   \label{eq:67}

1775:   1-TM = \left(

1776:     \begin{array}{cc}

1777:       1 - \bar S^{-1} S & 0 \\ Q \bar S^{-1} S & 1

1778:     \end{array}

1779:     \right) \quad.

1780: \end{equation}

1781: %and consequently the update step can be written as

1782: %\begin{eqnarray}

1783: %  \label{eq:68}

1784: %  f_1^{(n+1)} &=& (1 - \bar S^{-1} S) \, f_1^{(n)} +

1785: %                \bar S^{-1} \, (a_1 + Q^\conj a_2) \nnm \\

1786: %  f_2^{(n+1)} &=& f_2^{(n)} + Q \left( f_1^{(n+1)} - f_1^{(n)} \right) \quad.

1787: %\end{eqnarray}

1788: Its convergence properties on the coarse lattice are thus given again

1789: by $1 - \bar S^{-1} S$ as in the case of preconditioning; on the fine

1790: lattice, it performs no relaxation at all, and must be followed by an

1791: ordinary relaxation step using $M_{22}$.

1792: 

1793: \begin{figure}[htb]

1794:   \begin{center}

1795:     \includegraphics[width=.8\hsize]{plots/convergence.eps}    

1796:     \caption{Sample convergence of a two-grid relaxation method 

1797:       compared to the same

1798:       method applied to the base grid, for a $U(1)$ Dirac operator on

1799:       a $16 \times 16$-lattice.  The horizontal axis gives the number

1800:       of floating-point multiplications, the vertical axis the true

1801:       error of the algorithm. For the two-grid algorithm, one sweep on

1802:       the coarse lattice and one sweep on the fine lattice were

1803:       performed alternately.}

1804:     \label{fig:8}

1805:   \end{center}

1806: \end{figure}

1807: 

1808: Fig.~\ref{fig:7} shows the spectra of the convergence matrix for

1809: multigrid relaxation. In the top row, each step consists of performing

1810: a complete relaxation on the coarse lattice, and one relaxation step

1811: on the fine lattice. This leads to a concentration of eigenvalues

1812: around zero, showing modes that are nearly completely reduced on the

1813: coarse grid. The remaining modes must be reduced on the fine grid and

1814: determine the residual convergence rate.  In an actual application,

1815: one would not completely reduce the modes on the coarse grid, but

1816: perform coarse- and fine-grid relaxation alternately. The resulting

1817: convergence spectrum is shown in the bottom row; it has a similar

1818: convergence rate as the complete reduction, but requires much less

1819: operations. Note that increasing the order of the approximation from 2

1820: to 3 does not improve the convergence, but this might be related to

1821: the fact that only one fine-grid relaxation step was used here.

1822: 

1823: Finally, we compare the number of operations required to calculate a

1824: sample Green's function in $U(1)$ lattice gauge theory on a $16\times

1825: 16$ lattice. It must be cautioned that this is only an example

1826: calculation using two-grid relaxation, not a full multigrid algorithm.

1827: The method offers a multitude of choices and tunable parameters: the

1828: order and type of the approximation for the $LU$ decomposition, the

1829: iterative algorithm (used here is for simplicity Jacobi relaxation; in

1830: actual applications one would probable use Gauss-Seidel), the

1831: multigrid cycle, and the convergence criteria on the two grids. The

1832: size and dimensionality of the lattice and the gauge group, as well as

1833: the amount of disorder in the gauge field, have been seen to

1834: decisively influence results in other algorithms. Also, the two-grid

1835: algorithm must be extended to a true multigrid algorithm by

1836: recursively applying the method. And finally relaxation might be less

1837: performant than a preconditioned Krylov solver. The ultimate measure

1838: of performance will be the actual computer time used in the

1839: algorithms, but this will depend on the implementation and on the

1840: architecture of the target machine. For example, the computation of

1841: the approximate Schur complement can either be performed beforehand

1842: and stored in memory, or on the fly in the matrix-vector

1843: multiplication of the Schur complement, depending on the amount of

1844: memory available. Here a lower order of approximation, resulting in a

1845: smaller Schur complement, can be favorable though its convergence rate

1846: per relaxation step might be slower.

1847: 

1848: With these precautions, an example run for calculating a sample

1849: Green's function is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:8}. As a measure of

1850: computer time used, the approximate number of floating-point

1851: multiplications is given. The convergence is measured as the

1852: error norm against the true result.

1853: 

1854: \section{Conclusions}

1855: 

1856: It was demonstrated how the algebraic multigrid method 

1857: can be applied to disordered linear operators.

1858: Other than in previous multigrid approaches, a thinned lattice for the

1859: coarse degrees of freedom is used and averaging over block spins is

1860: avoided. The interpolation operator is chosen to obtain a block $LU$

1861: decomposition, and the resulting coarse-grid dynamics is completely

1862: described by the Schur complement of the original matrix. Gauge

1863: covariance is automatically taken into account by this procedure.

1864: 

1865: The Schur complement can be approximated to arbitrary precision in a

1866: numerical optimization process by expanding it in a linear basis

1867: constructed from connected paths on the original lattice, forming a

1868: generalized stencil for disordered operators.  Similar to

1869: renormalization group techniques, the numerical procedure for

1870: obtaining the expansion coefficients uses the coarse-grid projection

1871: of an ensemble of systems to obtain the coefficients of the

1872: approximate coarse-grid operator.  In this way, the information

1873: gathered in the optimization process can be used to speed up the

1874: actual calculations as the optimized effective coarse-grid operator

1875: ``learns'' the dynamics of the system.

1876: 

1877: The resulting effective coarse-grid operator is constructed from the

1878: generalized stencil as a weighted sum over paths on the original

1879: lattice. It forms a denser, but smaller matrix with next-neighbor and

1880: higher interactions and can be used to improve performance in

1881: numerical algorithms by preconditioning or similar methods, hopefully

1882: not only for matrix inversion, but also for other problems such as

1883: eigensystem analysis and rational matrix functions.  A variety of

1884: tunable parameters make it possible to adapt the procedure to

1885: different algorithms and architectures.  Whether the method will

1886: actually improve real-life algorithms, remains of course to be seen

1887: until realistic systems and efficient implementations are

1888: investigated.

1889: 

1890: \noindent{\small{\bf Acknowledgements}\\

1891:   The author wishes to thank K.~Schilling, T.~Lippert, B.~Medeke,

1892:   and J.~Negele for useful discussions, and the

1893:   Center for Theoretical Physics at MIT for its hospitality. Computer

1894:   time was provided by the NICse cluster computer at the John von

1895:   Neumann Institute.}

1896: 

1897: \ifcbtex

1898: \raggedright

1899: \bibliographystyle{cb}

1900: \fi

1901: \bibliography{mg}

1902: 

1903: \end{document}

1904: