. “Direct” implies that every system is solved individually by a direct solver. “Flexible” algorithm uses $5$ different preconditioners (see figure \[fig:multipletau\] with a direct solver for inverting the preconditioners, and solves the FOM subproblem, whereas “Inexact” uses the preconditioners and inverts the preconditioners using an iterative solver. We see that both the “Flexible” and “Inexact” algorithms outperform the “Direct” approach even for a small number of frequencies. The system size is $90601$. []{data-label="fig:timing"}](timecomparison)

In figures \[fig:reserrordirect\] and \[fig:reserrorflexible\], we plot the residuals and error as a function of the frequency of the system. A direct solver was used for figure \[fig:reserrordirect\], whereas an iterative solver (algebraic multigrid preconditioned BiCGSTAB) was used in figure \[fig:reserrorflexible\] with a stopping criterion $\varepsilon = 10^{-12}$ (refer to section \[sec:inexact\]. A relative tolerance of ${\lVert r_m(\sigma_j) \rVert_2} / {\lVert r_0(\sigma_j) \rVert_2} \leq 10^{-10}$ was used for all systems $j=1,\dots,n_f$ and all systems converged within 40 iterations. The behavior of residual and the error is quite similar but this is to be expected.

As discussed in section \[sec:inexact\], when an inexact preconditioner is used, the flexible Arnoldi relation is no longer exact and the true residual $r_m(\sigma_j)$ and the inexact residual $\tilde{r}_m(\sigma_j)$ are no longer exactly equal. In fact, the error between them can be bounded by the relation . In figure \[fig:reserrorflexible\], we compare the difference between the true residual and the inexact residuals with the predicted bound $\varepsilon{\lVert y_m(\sigma_j) \rVert_{1}}$. We see in figure \[fig:resdiff\] that the bound is fairly accurate. The stopping tolerances were chosen to be $\varepsilon = 10^{-9},10^{-11}, 10^{-12}$. In fact, for larger stopping tolerances for the inner solver, the outer solver did not
. “ Direct ” implies that every system is solved individually by a lineal problem solver. “ compromising ” algorithm uses $ 5 $ unlike preconditioners (see number   \[fig: multipletau\ ] with a direct problem solver for inverting the preconditioners, and solves the FOM subproblem, whereas “ Inexact ” uses the preconditioners and inverts the preconditioners use an iterative solver. We see that both the “ Flexible ” and “ Inexact ” algorithm outperform the “ Direct ” approach even for a small numeral of frequencies. The system size is $ 90601$. [ ] { data - label="fig: timing"}](timecomparison) 

 In figures   \[fig: reserrordirect\ ] and   \[fig: reserrorflexible\ ], we plot the remainder and error as a function of the frequency of the system. A lineal solver was used for trope   \[fig: reserrordirect\ ], whereas an iterative solver (algebraic multigrid precondition BiCGSTAB) was used in number   \[fig: reserrorflexible\ ] with a stopping criterion $ \varepsilon = 10^{-12}$ (refer to incision   \[sec: inexact\ ]. A relative tolerance of $ { \lVert r_m(\sigma_j) \rVert_2 } / { \lVert r_0(\sigma_j) \rVert_2 } \leq 10^{-10}$ was used for all systems $ j=1,\dots, n_f$ and all systems converged within 40 iterations. The behavior of residual and the error is quite similar but this is to be expected. 

 As discussed in section   \[sec: inexact\ ], when an inexact preconditioner is used, the flexible Arnoldi relation is no longer accurate and the truthful residual $ r_m(\sigma_j)$ and the inexact residual $ \tilde{r}_m(\sigma_j)$ are no longer precisely equal. In fact, the error between them can be bounded by the relation  . In digit \[fig: reserrorflexible\ ], we compare the remainder between the true residual and the inexact remainder with the predicted bound $ \varepsilon{\lVert y_m(\sigma_j) \rVert_{1}}$. We see in figure   \[fig: resdiff\ ] that the bound is fairly accurate. The fillet tolerances were chosen to be $ \varepsilon = 10^{-9},10^{-11 }, 10^{-12}$. In fact, for larger stopping tolerances for the inner solver, the out problem solver did not
. “Digect” implies that every rystem is solveb indivmdually by a difect solver. “Flexible” algoritim uwes $5$ eifferent preconditiondrs (see fpgure \[fig:myltikletau\] with a dirxdt solvcx for lnverciig the precondijioners, and volves the FOM sjb'roblem, whereas “Inexact” uses the presonditipnfrs and invertf tht pwecohditioners using an iterative solvsr. We ste that both the “Fkexible” and “Inexact” algorihhms outperform the “Digect” approaxh edwn for a smaul number of frequencigs. The system size is $90601$. []{data-label="wig:tiking"}](timeconpqridmn)

In figurew \[fig:rvserrordirect\] and \[fig:raserrorglexible\], we plpt vhe eesiduals and error av a function of thg frequencf kf the system. A durwct smlves war usdd roc fjgure \[flg:rxserrordiredt\], whereas qn iterative solver (ajtebraic multifrid pwesonditioned BiCGSTAB) was used in figure \[xig:deserrorflexible\] with a stopping criterion $\vwrepsilon = 10^{-12}$ (refer to section \[sec:inexact\]. A relative toleranca of ${\mXeru v_i(\rugla_j) \rVert_2} / {\lVert r_0(\sigma_j) \rVert_2} \leq 10^{-10}$ was used skr akl systems $j=1,\dobs,n_f$ and all systeks cpgverged withiv 40 itexztjons. The behavior lf resiqual qnd the ewror is quite similar but this us to be expvctee.

As discussed in szction \[sec:ineract\], wnen am inexact preconditionex is uaed, the fledible Arnkudi relation is vo kotger exact and the true refidual $r_m(\wigmc_j)$ and tfe imexact residual $\hilde{v}_k(\sigma_j)$ are no lonher eractlf equal. In fact, the error between them cai be bounded ny thv relatiou . In flgure \[fig:reserrjrflexible\], we eompare che diwference bvtween thx true residtal and the itgxact residuans with ehe preducted bujnd $\varepsilon{\kVert y_m(\spgia_j) \eVert_{1}}$. We see in finure \[fkf:resdiff\] that tkt biund is fairly sccjraee. Tie stj[ping toleratces wefr choren to be $\vcrdpsikon = 10^{-9},10^{-11}, 10^{-12}$. In fact, for ldrged stopping toleranvef for thg inner sjlver, the outrr solver did not
. “Direct” implies that every system is by direct solver. algorithm uses $5$ with direct solver for the preconditioners, and the FOM subproblem, whereas “Inexact” uses preconditioners and inverts the preconditioners using an iterative solver. We see that both “Flexible” and “Inexact” algorithms outperform the “Direct” approach even for a small number frequencies. system is []{data-label="fig:timing"}](timecomparison) In figures \[fig:reserrordirect\] and \[fig:reserrorflexible\], we plot the residuals and error as a function of frequency of the system. A direct solver was for figure \[fig:reserrordirect\], whereas iterative solver (algebraic multigrid preconditioned was in figure with stopping $\varepsilon = 10^{-12}$ to section \[sec:inexact\]. A relative tolerance of ${\lVert r_m(\sigma_j) \rVert_2} / {\lVert r_0(\sigma_j) \rVert_2} \leq 10^{-10}$ was for all and all converged 40 The behavior of the error is quite similar but be expected. As discussed in section \[sec:inexact\], when inexact preconditioner used, the flexible Arnoldi relation is longer exact and the true residual $r_m(\sigma_j)$ and inexact residual $\tilde{r}_m(\sigma_j)$ are no longer exactly equal. In fact, the error between them can by the relation . figure \[fig:reserrorflexible\], we the between true and the residuals with the predicted bound $\varepsilon{\lVert y_m(\sigma_j) \rVert_{1}}$. We see in \[fig:resdiff\] that the bound is fairly accurate. The stopping tolerances to $\varepsilon = 10^{-9},10^{-11}, In fact, for larger tolerances the inner solver, the did
. “Direct” implies that every sysTem is solveD indiVidUalLy By a dIrecT solver. “FlexiblE” AlgoRithm uses $5$ different precOnditIoNErs (sEE fIgure \[Fig:multIPlETAu\] wItH a DirEcT SoLver fOr iNvertinG the preconDitIoNers, and solveS ThE FOM subproBleM, whereas “InexAct” Uses thE pRecONditiOneRs and InvertS The preConditionErS Using aN IteratiVE SoLver. we see that both the “FLExIBle” and “Inexact” aLgoritHmS OuTPErfOrm The “Direct” aPpRoach EVen for a SMaLL NUmbER of frequencieS. The system sIZe iS $90601$. []{data-lAbEl="fIG:timinG"}](timeCoMParIson)

In figurEs \[fiG:reserrorDirect\] ANd \[fig:reSErrorflExible\], We pLot The rESiDuAls AnD ErrOR aS a fUNctIon of the FrEqUency Of thE SYSTem. A DirEct sOlver Was used for figUre \[Fig:rESerRordiRect\], wHereAs An iteRative SolveR (aLgebraic multigrId prEconditioNed bicGStAb) was uSEd in fiGurE \[fiG:reserrOrflexiBLe\] wItH A SToPping criterion $\varePsILOn = 10^{-12}$ (Refer to sEction \[SEc:InEXact\]. A relAtIve ToleRANce of ${\LVerT R_m(\Sigma_j) \rVErt_2} / {\lVeRT r_0(\SiGma_j) \rVeRt_2} \Leq 10^{-10}$ was UsEd fOr aLl sysTEms $j=1,\Dots,n_f$ And all syStems COnverged within 40 ITerations. The bEHaVIOr OF resIduAl and the errOr is QUite SimiLAr But THis is To be eXpECtED.

As discussed in sectiOn \[Sec:ineXact\], wHen an inexact pReconditioNER Is used, thE fleXIbLE Arnoldi relatiOn is nO longer exaCT and the tRue reSidual $r_m(\Sigma_j)$ and THE inexact ResIduAl $\tIldE{R}_M(\sIgma_j)$ are no lonGER exaCtLy equal. in fAct, the eRroR beTweEn tHeM can be bouNded by thE rElAtIoN . In FigurE \[Fig:reserRoRflExIblE\], we coMPare thE diffErenCe BeTWeeN the truE ReSIDual AnD tHe inExaCt ResidUals WIth The predIcted bounD $\vaREpsiLoN{\lvert y_m(\sIgma_j) \rVert_{1}}$. We sEe In figure \[fiG:rEsdIff\] thaT THe bound iS fairly accurate. The stoppINg tolerAncEs werE choSen to be $\vaRepSilon = 10^{-9},10^{-11}, 10^{-12}$. IN faCT, for laRger stOppinG tOleRANces fOR ThE inNeR solver, the OUTer SolveR dId noT
. “Direct” implies that ev ery system  is s olv edin divi dual ly by a direct solv er. “Flexible” algorit hm us es $5$d if feren t preco n di t i one rs  ( see  f i gu re \[ fig :multip letau\] wi thadirect solve r  f or inverti ngthe precondi tio ners,an d s o lvesthe  FOMsubpro b lem, w hereas “I ne x act” u s es thep r ec ondi tioners and inver t st he preconditio ners u si n ga n  it era tive solve r.  We s e e thatb ot h t he“ Flexible” and  “Inexact”a lgo rithms  o utp e rformthe “ Di r ect ” approacheven  for a sm all nu m ber off requenc ies. T hesys tems iz eis$9 0 601 $ .[]{ d ata -label=" fi g: timin g"}] ( t i m ecom par ison )

In  figures \[fi g:r eser r ord irect \] an d \[ fi g:res errorf lexib le \], we plot the  res iduals an d e rr oras  a fu n ctionofthe  freque ncy oft hesy s t e m.  A direct solver w as u se d for fi gure \ [ fi g: r eserrord ir ect \],w h ereas  ani te rative s olver( al ge braic m ul tigrid  p rec ond ition e d Bi CGSTAB ) was us ed in figure \[fig:r e serrorflexibl e \] w it h  a s top ping criter ion$ \var epsi l on  =1 0^{-1 2}$ ( re f er to section \[sec:in ex act\].  A re lative tolera nce of ${\ l V e rt r_m(\ sigm a _j )  \rVert_2} / { \lVer t r_0(\sig m a_j) \rV ert_2 } \leq 1 0^{-10}$w a s used f orall  sy ste m s  $ j=1,\dots,n_f $ andal l syste msconverg edwit hin  40  i terations . The be ha vi or  o f r esidu a l and th eerr or  is  quit e  simil ar bu t th is  i s  to  be exp e ct e d .

A sdi scus sed  i n sec tion \[s ec:inex act\], wh ena n in ex ac t preco nditioner isus ed, the fl ex ibl e Arno l d i relati on is no longer exact a n d the t rue  resi dual  $r_m(\si gma _j)$ a ndt he ine xact r esidu al  $\ t i lde{r } _ m( \si gm a_j)$ aren o  lo ngerex actl y equal . In fact, the err o r b etween them c anbe b o u nd edb yt here l ati o n  . In figure \[ fig:reserr or f le xible\], w e  co mp are the  differ enceb etweenthe trueresidualan d th e ine xact resid uals wit h the pre d icted bo und $ \va repsil on {\l Verty_m(\s i gma _j) \ rVert_ {1 }}$. W e see  i n figure  \[fig:resdiff\] that t he bou nd is  fa irly accu rat e . T he stoppi ng t oleranceswer e c hosen  to be $\ vare p si lon = 10^ {-9} , 10^{-11}, 10 ^{- 1 2 }$ . In fact,f o r  la rgersto p ping t oler ances for the inn e r solver, theoute r sol ver didno t
. “Direct”_implies that_every system is solved_individually by_a_direct solver._“Flexible”_algorithm uses $5$_different preconditioners (see_figure \[fig:multipletau\] with a direct_solver for inverting_the_preconditioners, and solves the FOM subproblem, whereas “Inexact” uses the preconditioners and inverts the_preconditioners_using an_iterative_solver._We see that both the_“Flexible” and “Inexact” algorithms outperform_the “Direct”_approach even for a small number of frequencies._The_system size is_$90601$. []{data-label="fig:timing"}](timecomparison)

In figures \[fig:reserrordirect\] and \[fig:reserrorflexible\], we plot the residuals and_error as a function of the_frequency of the_system._A_direct solver was used_for figure \[fig:reserrordirect\], whereas an iterative solver_(algebraic multigrid preconditioned BiCGSTAB) was used_in figure \[fig:reserrorflexible\] with a stopping criterion $\varepsilon_= 10^{-12}$ (refer to section \[sec:inexact\]. A_relative tolerance of ${\lVert r_m(\sigma_j)_\rVert_2} /_{\lVert r_0(\sigma_j) \rVert_2} \leq 10^{-10}$_was used for_all systems_$j=1,\dots,n_f$ and all_systems converged within 40 iterations. The_behavior of residual_and the error is quite similar_but_this is to_be_expected.

As_discussed in_section \[sec:inexact\], when an_inexact_preconditioner is_used,_the flexible Arnoldi relation is no_longer_exact and the true residual $r_m(\sigma_j)$ and_the inexact residual $\tilde{r}_m(\sigma_j)$_are_no longer exactly equal._In fact, the error between_them can be bounded by the_relation . In_figure \[fig:reserrorflexible\],_we compare the difference between the true residual and the inexact_residuals with the predicted bound $\varepsilon{\lVert_y_m(\sigma_j) \rVert_{1}}$. We see_in figure \[fig:resdiff\]_that_the bound is_fairly_accurate. The_stopping tolerances were chosen to be $\varepsilon_= 10^{-9},10^{-11},_10^{-12}$. In fact, for larger stopping_tolerances for the inner_solver,_the outer solver did not