Numerical solutions to linear transfer problems of polarized radiation

II. Krylov methods and matrix-free implementation

¹ Euler Institute, Università della Svizzera italiana (USI), 6900 Lugano, Switzerland
e-mail: pietro.benedusi@usi.ch
² Istituto Ricerche Solari (IRSOL), Università della Svizzera italiana (USI), 6605 Locarno-Monti, Switzerland
³ Leibniz-Institut für Sonnenphysik (KIS), 79104 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

Received: 3 May 2021
Accepted: 27 June 2021

Abstract

Context. Numerical solutions to transfer problems of polarized radiation in solar and stellar atmospheres commonly rely on stationary iterative methods, which often perform poorly when applied to large problems. In recent times, stationary iterative methods have been replaced by state-of-the-art preconditioned Krylov iterative methods for many applications. However, a general description and a convergence analysis of Krylov methods in the polarized radiative transfer context are still lacking.

Aims. We describe the practical application of preconditioned Krylov methods to linear transfer problems of polarized radiation, possibly in a matrix-free context. The main aim is to clarify the advantages and drawbacks of various Krylov accelerators with respect to stationary iterative methods and direct solution strategies.

Methods. After a brief introduction to the concept of Krylov methods, we report the convergence rate and the run time of various Krylov-accelerated techniques combined with different formal solvers when applied to a 1D benchmark transfer problem of polarized radiation. In particular, we analyze the GMRES, BICGSTAB, and CGS Krylov methods, preconditioned with Jacobi, (S)SOR, or an incomplete LU factorization. Furthermore, specific numerical tests were performed to study the robustness of the various methods as the problem size grew.

Results. Krylov methods accelerate the convergence, reduce the run time, and improve the robustness (with respect to the problem size) of standard stationary iterative methods. Jacobi-preconditioned Krylov methods outperform SOR-preconditioned stationary iterations in all respects. In particular, the Jacobi-GMRES method offers the best overall performance for the problem setting in use.

Conclusions. Krylov methods can be more challenging to implement than stationary iterative methods. However, an algebraic formulation of the radiative transfer problem allows one to apply and study Krylov acceleration strategies with little effort. Furthermore, many available numerical libraries implement matrix-free Krylov routines, enabling an almost effortless transition to Krylov methods.