<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic intel pardiso iparm[12] or iparm(13) in Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel Library</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/intel-pardiso-iparm-12-or-iparm-13/m-p/1169164#M28413</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I have a question about the parameter iparm[12] (zero index, weighted matchings) of intel pardiso solver.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Actually the problem was in a solution of a non linear problem by Newton Raphson iteration. The used solver was Intel Pardiso for sparse non symmetric systems. The solution diverged, as in the topic&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/intel-math-kernel-library/topic/537126" target="_blank"&gt;https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/intel-math-kernel-library/topic/537126&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;while the solver dgbsv (lapack) converged. The value of parameter was iparm[12] = 1 (as in the examples.)&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I don't remember if I tried iparm[12]=0 or not (It's about a couple of months, I think I did). When I tried iparm[12] = 2 it worked and Intel Pardiso and DGBSV solvers produced the same correct result. Actually I keep using iparm[12] = 2, in difficult systems.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I cannot find the document "intel pardiso users guide" where this comment about iparm[12] = 2 was written anymore. In the site and in all MKL documents the value of iparm[12] is&amp;nbsp; 0 or 1. Is it implemented the iparm[12] = 2 ? or it has the same effect as iparm[12] = 0?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;In Pardiso's user guide &lt;A href="https://pardiso-project.org/manual/manual.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://pardiso-project.org/manual/manual.pdf&lt;/A&gt; they have a comment about iparm(13) = 2. (weighted matchings)&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:57:49 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>sellountos__euripide</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-04-13T08:57:49Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>intel pardiso iparm[12] or iparm(13)</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/intel-pardiso-iparm-12-or-iparm-13/m-p/1169164#M28413</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I have a question about the parameter iparm[12] (zero index, weighted matchings) of intel pardiso solver.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Actually the problem was in a solution of a non linear problem by Newton Raphson iteration. The used solver was Intel Pardiso for sparse non symmetric systems. The solution diverged, as in the topic&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/intel-math-kernel-library/topic/537126" target="_blank"&gt;https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/intel-math-kernel-library/topic/537126&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;while the solver dgbsv (lapack) converged. The value of parameter was iparm[12] = 1 (as in the examples.)&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I don't remember if I tried iparm[12]=0 or not (It's about a couple of months, I think I did). When I tried iparm[12] = 2 it worked and Intel Pardiso and DGBSV solvers produced the same correct result. Actually I keep using iparm[12] = 2, in difficult systems.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I cannot find the document "intel pardiso users guide" where this comment about iparm[12] = 2 was written anymore. In the site and in all MKL documents the value of iparm[12] is&amp;nbsp; 0 or 1. Is it implemented the iparm[12] = 2 ? or it has the same effect as iparm[12] = 0?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;In Pardiso's user guide &lt;A href="https://pardiso-project.org/manual/manual.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://pardiso-project.org/manual/manual.pdf&lt;/A&gt; they have a comment about iparm(13) = 2. (weighted matchings)&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 08:57:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/intel-pardiso-iparm-12-or-iparm-13/m-p/1169164#M28413</guid>
      <dc:creator>sellountos__euripide</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-04-13T08:57:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi,</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/intel-pardiso-iparm-12-or-iparm-13/m-p/1169165#M28414</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;That's correct, behavior of MKL pardiso is different in case of iparm[12] is equal to 2 or 3 and sometimes&amp;nbsp;results with these parameters better than 0 or 1. However the behavior currently is unstable&amp;nbsp;so officially these parameters are unsupported and&amp;nbsp;I&amp;nbsp;recommend to not use them.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Alex&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 14:21:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/intel-pardiso-iparm-12-or-iparm-13/m-p/1169165#M28414</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alexander_K_Intel2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-04-27T14:21:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

