4

Is there a "best practice" for less-than-equal comparisons with floating point number after a series of floating-point arithmetic operations?

I have the following example in R (although the question applies to any language using floating-point). I have a double x = 1 on which I apply a series of additions and subtractions. In the end x should be exactly one but is not due to floating-point arithmetic (from what I gather). Here is the example:

> stop_times <- seq(0.25, 2, by = .25) > expr <- expression(replicate(100,{ x <- 1 for(i in 1:10) { tmp <- rexp(1, 1) n <- sample.int(1e2, 1) delta <- tmp / n for(j in 1:n) x <- x - delta x <- x + tmp } # "correct" answer is 4 which.max(x <= stop_times) })) > eval(expr) [1] 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 [64] 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4

A (naive?) solution is to add some arbitrary small positive number to the right hand side of the inequality as follows

some_arbitrary_factor <- 100 stop_times <- seq(0.25, 2, by = .25) + some_arbitrary_factor * .Machine$double.eps eval(expr) [1] 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 [64] 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Is this "best practice" and if so are there guidelines on how to chose some_arbitrary_factor?

My concrete problem is that I have time periods (t_0, t_1], (t_1, t_2], ... and need to find out in which period a given observation x is in. x may have been set to one the boundaries t_i after having undergone a series of floating-point arithmetic operations which should result in t_i if exact operation where performed.

Improve this question
2
  • If you want to dive into this in more detail, Donald knuth's art of computer programming, chapter 3 is a pretty good overview of the black art of floating points. In R we have all.equal as a built in way to test approximate equality. So you could use maybe something like (x<y) | all.equal(x,y) Commented Oct 14, 2017 at 1:05
  • I am aware of the all.equal function. The default is to Numerical comparisons for scale = NULL (the default) are typically on relative difference scale unless the target values are close to zero: First, the mean absolute difference of the two numerical vectors is computed. If this is smaller than tolerance or not finite, absolute differences are used, otherwise relative differences scaled by the mean absolute target value. where tolerance defaults to sqrt(.Machine$double.eps). I am not sure whether or not this is a common practice? Commented Oct 14, 2017 at 1:12

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11

No, there is no best practice. Unfortunately, there cannot be, because almost all floating-point calculations introduce some rounding error, and the consequences of the errors are different for different applications.

Typically, software will perform some calculations that ideally would yield some exact mathematical result x but, due to rounding errors (or other issues), produce an approximation x'. When comparing floating-point numbers, you want to ask some question about x, such as “Is x < 1?” or “Is x = 3.1415926…?” So the problem you want to solve is “How do I use x' to answer this question about x?”

There is no general solution for this. Some errors may produce an x' that is greater than 1 even though x is less than 1. Some errors may produce an x' that is less than 1 even though x is greater than 1. The solution in any specific instance depends on information about the errors that were generated while calculating x' and the specific question to be answered.

Sometimes a thorough analysis can demonstrate that certain questions about x can be answered using x'. For example, in some situations, we might craft calculations so that we know that, if x' < 1, then x < 1. Or perhaps that, if x' < .99875, then x < 1. Say we analyze the calculations we used to calculate x' and can show that the final error is less than .00125. Then, if x' < .99875, then we know x < 1, and, if x' > 1.00125, then x > 1. But, if .99875 < x' < 1.00125, then we do not know whether x > 1 or x < 1. What do we do in that situation? Is it then better for your application to take the path where x < 1 or the path where x > 1? The answer is specific to each application, and there is no general best practice.

I will add to this that the amount of rounding error that occurs varies hugely from application to application. This is because rounding error can be compounded in various ways. Some applications with a few floating-point operations will achieve results with small errors. Some applications with many floating-point operations will also achieve results with modest errors. But certain behaviors can lead calculations astray and produce catastrophic errors. So dealing with rounding error is a custom problem for each program.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

This it what I thought to. Though, it is nice with a confirmation.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.