Message323423
Thanks for doing the "real ulp" calc, Raymond! It was intended to make the Kahan gimmick look better, and it succeeded ;-) I don't personally care whether adding 10K things ends up with 50 ulp error, but to each their own.
Division can be mostly removed from scaling, but it's a bit delicate. The obvious stab would be to multiply by 1/max instead of dividing by max. That introduces another rounding error, but as you've already discovered this computation as a whole is relatively insensitive to rounding errors in scaling. The real problem is that 1/max can overflow (when max is subnormal - the IEEE range isn't symmetric).
Instead a power of 2 could be used, chosen so that it and its reciprocal are both representable. There's no particular virtue in scaling the largest value to 1.0 - the real point is to avoid spurious overflow/underflow when squaring the scaled x. Code like the following could work. Scaling would introduce essentially no rounding errors then.
But I bet a call to `ldexp()` is even more expensive than division on most platforms. So it may well be slower when there are few points.
def hyp_ps(xs):
b = max(map(abs, xs))
_, exp = frexp(b)
exp = -3 * exp // 4
# scale and invscale are exact.
# Multiplying by scale is exact, except when
# the result becomes subnormal (in which case
# |x| is insignifcant compared to |b|).
# invscale isn't needed until the loop ends,
# so the division time should overlap with the
# loop body.
scale = ldexp(1.0, exp) # exact
invscale = 1.0 / scale # exact
# and `x * scale` is exact except for underflow
s = fsum((x * scale)**2 for x in xs)
return invscale * sqrt(s) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2018-08-11 21:56:50 | tim.peters | set | recipients:
+ tim.peters, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, serhiy.storchaka |
2018-08-11 21:56:50 | tim.peters | set | messageid: <1534024610.7.0.56676864532.issue34376@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2018-08-11 21:56:50 | tim.peters | link | issue34376 messages |
2018-08-11 21:56:50 | tim.peters | create | |
|