Turn on suggestions

Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

Showing results for

- Intel Community
- Software
- Software Development SDKs and Libraries
- Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel Library
- Strange (and seemingly wrong) result from Pardiso

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page

Alessandro_M_

Beginner

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

04-03-2015
08:03 AM

54 Views

Strange (and seemingly wrong) result from Pardiso

I obtained strange (and seemingly wrong) result from Pardiso. I used Pardiso to solve a very ill-conditioned complex linear system arising from a circuital analysis of a three-dimensional conducting structure. I have no error from the analysis and numerical factorization phases.

Data and results are reported in the attached document. For instance, the Pardiso parameters and log are reported in the table, for three cases (three frequencies of analysis). When not present, parameters have zero value.

The right hand vector is shown in Figure 1: there are only two not-zero entries (corresponding to the two point excited on the structure). Figure 2 reports the magnitude of the solution vector. The case relative to the green curve (1500 Hz) exhibits unexpected values and leads to wrong results. There is no physical reason to have values with this magnitude. The other two cases (two frequencies very near to the wrong one) give the right result.

Do you suggest some changes in the parameters (the matrix is very ill-conditioned), or there is a way to recognize the wrong case?

Thank you,

Alessandro M.

Link Copied

1 Reply

Anton_A_Intel

Employee

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

04-08-2015
01:32 AM

54 Views

Hello, Alessandro

I see that you use parallel reordering (iparm(2)=3), so the results may be different for diffrent calls. Please use iparm(2)=2, it has to produce stable results.

For very ill-conditioned matrix direct solver can produce poor solution. In such case the default value of iparm(10)=13 (pivoting pertrubation) may be inappropriate. Could you play with iparm(10) = from 1 to 15. It is possible that one of the value resolve the problem.

Best regards, Anton

Topic Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

For more complete information about compiler optimizations, see our Optimization Notice.