Maybe I don't understand the IEEE754 standard that much, but given a set of floating point values that are float or double, for example :
56.543f 3238.124124f 121.3f ...
you are able to convert them in values ranging from 0 to 1, so you normalize them, by taking an appropriate common factor while considering what is the maximum value and the minimum value in the set.
Now my point is that in this transformation I need a much higher precision for the set of destination that ranges from 0 to 1 if compared to the level of precision that I need in the first one, especially if the values in the first set are covering a wide range of numerical values ( really big and really small values ).
How the float or the double ( or the IEEE 754 standard if you want ) type can handle this situation while providing more precision for the second set of values knowing that I will basically not need an integer part ?
Or it doesn't handle this at all and I need fixed point math with a totally different type ?
Floating point numbers are stored in a format similar to scientific notation. Internally, they align the leading 1 of the binary representation to the top of the significand. Each value is carried with the same number of binary digits of precision relative to its own magnitude.
When you compress your set of floating point values to the range 0..1, the only precision loss you will get will be due to the rounding that occurs in the various steps of the process.
If you're merely compressing by scaling, you will lose only a small amount of precision near the LSBs of the mantissa (around 1 or 2 ulp, where ulp means "units of the last place).
If you also need to shift your data, then things get trickier. If your data is all positive, then subtracting off the smallest number will not damage anything. But, if your data is a mixture of positive and negative data, then some of your values near zero may suffer a loss in precision.
If you do all the arithmetic at double precision, you'll carry 53 bits of precision through the calculation. If your precision needs fit within that (which likely they do), then you'll be fine. Otherwise, the exact numerical performance will depend on the distribution of your data.
Single and double IEEE floats have a format where the exponent and fraction parts have fixed bit-width. So this is not possible (i.e. you will always have unused bits if you only store values between 0 and 1). (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format)
Are you sure the 52-bit wide fraction part of a double is not precise enough?
Edit: If you use the whole range of the floating format, you will lose precision when normalizing the values. The roundings can be off and enough small values will become 0. Unless you know that this is a problem, don't worry. Otherwise you have to look up some other solution as mentioned in other answers.
Having binary floating point values (with an implicit leading one) expressed as
(1+fraction) * 2^exponent where fraction < 1
A division a/b is:
a/b = (1+fraction(a)) / (1+fraction(b)) * 2^(exponent(a) - exponent(b))
Hence division/multiplication has essentially no loss of precision.
A subtraction a-b is:
a-b = (1+fraction(a)) * 2^(exponent(a) - (1+fraction(b)) * exponent(b))
Hence a subtraction/addition might have a loss of precision (big - tiny == big) !
Clamping a value x in a range [min, max] to [0, 1]
(x - min) / (max - min)
will have precision issues if any subtraction has a loss of precision.
Answering your question:
Nothing is, choose a suitable representation (floating point, fraction, multi precision ...) for your algorithms and expected data.
If you have a selection of doubles and you normalize them to between 0.0 and 1.0, there are a number of sources of precision loss. They are all, however, much smaller than you suspect.
First, you will lose some precision in the arithmetic operations required to normalize them as rounding occurs. This is relatively small -- a bit or so per operation -- and usually relatively random.
Second, the exponent component will no longer be using the positive exponent possibility.
Third, as all the values are positive, the sign bit will also be wasted.
Forth, if the input space does not include +inf or -inf or +NaN or -NaN or the like, those code points will also be wasted.
But, for the most part, you'll waste about 3 bits of information in a 64 bit double in your normalization, one of which being the kind of thing that is nearly unavoidable when you deal with finite-bit-width values.
Any 64 bit fixed point representation of the values from 0 to 1 will have far less "range" than doubles. A double can represent something on the order of 10^-300, while a 64 bit fixed point representation that includes 1.0 can only go as low as 10^-19 or so. (The 64 bit fixed point representation can represent 1 - 10^-19 as being distinct from 1, while the double cannot, but the 64 bit fixed point value can not represent anything smaller than 2^-64, while doubles can).
Some of the numbers above are approximate, and may depend on rounding/exact format.
For higher precision you can try http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_55_0/libs/multiprecision/doc/html/boost_multiprecision/tut/floats.html.
Note also, that for the numerical critical operations +,- there are special algorithms that minimize the numerical error introduced by the algorithm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahan_summation_algorithm
Related
I have numbers in the range of let's say 1e10 and 1e11. Is it better to normalize those numbers to [0;1] before making any calculations and/or comparisons for the sake of accuracy? I wonder because I heard that between 0 and 1 there are as many representable numbers than from 1 to infinity. However I can't find a source for that.
You can't increase the precision of an existing floating point number. There is no "hidden" precision that can be recovered through normalization, on the contrary, normalization is more likely to reduce the precision of a number due to rounding error. That said, there are some mathematical operations that may produce a more precise result if the inputs are normalized in some way first, but that depends specifically on the operations you are performing.
Floating point numbers are stored in memory in, well, floating point, that is scientific notation. That is 1.23456789e10, 1.23456789e-10 and 1.23456789 will all hold the same number of significant digits.
It is true that, mathematically, there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1, (that would be Aleph-1?), but that is irrelevant to the discussion, because a floating point variable can only hold so many different values. For example a 4-byte floating point variable has 32 bits, so it is impossible to make more than 2^32 different floating point values.
ques:
I have a large number of floating point numbers (~10,000 numbers) , each having 6 digits after decimal. Now, the multiplication of all these numbers would yield about 60,000 digits. But the double range is for 15 digits only. The output product has to have 6 digits of precision after decimal.
my approach:
I thought of multiplying these numbers by 10^6 and then multiplying them and later dividing them by 10^12.
I also thought of multiplying these numbers using arrays to store their digits and later converting them to decimal. But this also appears cumbersome and may not yield correct result.
Is there an alternate easier way to do this?
I thought of multiplying these numbers by 10^6 and then multiplying them and later dividing them by 10^12.
This would only achieve further loss of accuracy. In floating-point, large numbers are represented approximately just like small numbers are. Making your numbers bigger only means you are doing 19999 multiplications (and one division) instead of 9999 multiplications; it does not magically give you more significant digits.
This manipulation would only be useful if it prevented the partial product to reach into subnormal territory (and in this case, multiplying by a power of two would be recommended to avoid loss of accuracy due to the multiplication). There is no indication in your question that this happens, no example data set, no code, so it is only possible to provide the generic explanation below:
Floating-point multiplication is very well behaved when it does not underflow or overflow. At the first order, you can assume that relative inaccuracies add up, so that multiplying 10000 values produces a result that's 9999 machine epsilons away from the mathematical result in relative terms(*).
The solution to your problem as stated (no code, no data set) is to use a wider floating-point type for the intermediate multiplications. This solves both the problems of underflow or overflow and leaves you with a relative accuracy on the end result such that once rounded to the original floating-point type, the product is wrong by at most one ULP.
Depending on your programming language, such a wider floating-point type may be available as long double. For 10000 multiplications, the 80-bit “extended double” format, widely available in x86 processors, would improve things dramatically and you would barely see any performance difference, as long as your compiler does map this 80-bit format to a floating-point type. Otherwise, you would have to use a software implementation such as MPFR's arbitrary-precision floating-point format or the double-double format.
(*) In reality, relative inaccuracies compound, so that the real bound on the relative error is more like (1 + ε)9999 - 1 where ε is the machine epsilon. Also, in reality, relative errors often cancel each other, so that you can expect the actual relative error to grow like the square root of the theoretical maximum error.
I need to store a lot of different values as doubles between 0 to 1, to have a uniform representation. For example, an ARGB value - that is a 32-bit integer. Can doubles uniquely represent every integer value if i store it as a reciprocal? I know there's enough bits to do it, but I'm not sure whether the exponential spacing will prevent this.
The standard double has 52 bit mantissa, so yes, it is capable to hold and exactly reproduce a 32 bit integer.
Another problem is the requirement that they have to be beetween 0 and 1.
The reciprocal is not the way to do that! Counterexample: 1/3 is not exactly representable by a double.
You will have to divide the values to ensure the range. You may only divide or multiply by powers of two to preserve exact accuracy. So given you have unsigned 32 bit values convert them to double and then divide by 2^32. If you revert that on reading the values should be reproduced exactly. In C or C++ there are even special instructions to manipulate exponent and mantissa of a float or double directly, these may be more efficient and secure.
I was reading about the gradual underflow concept and how it is op important in the music industry Gradual overflow Application in Music
I well understand the problem of an overflow buffer, but this i don't know how to represent an underflow.
Can you please give me an example(a program preferably in c or c++) as in how a computer handles gradual underflow?
Gradual underflow is related to what IEEE 754 calls "subnormal" numbers.
Consider using scientific notation in which you have (say) 10 digits of precision and exponents that can range from -99 through 99.
Under normal circumstances, you treat everything as scientific notation, so if you want to represent 1000, you represent it as 1e3 -- that is, 1 * 103.
Now, consider a number like 1.234e-102. The smallest exponent you can represent is -99. So, if you do your job the simplest possible way, you simply that since it has an exponent smaller than that, it's just 0. That would be "fast underflow".
In IEEE 754 (and related standards) you can store that as (essentially) 0.001234 * 10-99. In doing so, you may lose some precision compared to a normal number that has an exponent in the -99...99 range. On the other hand, you lose less than if you just rounded it to zero because it has an exponent smaller than -99. In fact, in this case it started with 4 significant digits, and as represented it retains all 4 significant digits.
On a computer, the numbers are represented in binary, so the numbers of significant digits and/or maximum range of exponents aren't round numbers when converted to decimal, but the same basic idea applies--when we have a number that's too small to represent in the normal format, we can still store it with the smallest exponent that can be represented, but also includes some leading zeros.
This does lead to one difficulty: numbers are normally stored in what's called normalized form. The "significand" part is normalized by shifting it left until the first digit is a 1 (keep in mind that since it's binary it can only be 0 or 1). Since we know it's a 1, we cheat a little: we don't normally store that 1 in the number as it's stored. So, a double precision floating point number normally has 53 bits of precision, but only actually stores 52 bits of significand.
With a subnormal number, that's no longer the case. That's not terribly difficult to deal with, but it still introduces a special case--and one that's only rarely used, so CPU designers (and such) rarely try to optimize for it. As a result, the exact same code can suddenly run a lot slower when executing on data that contains subnormals.
(1) I have met several cases where epsilon is added to a non-negative variable to guarantee nonzero value. So I wonder why not add the minimum value that the data type can represent instead of epsilon? What are the difference problems that these two can solve?
(2) Also I notice that the inverse of the maximum value of a double precision type is bigger than its min value, and inverse of its min value is inf, way bigger than its max value. Is it useful to compute the reciprocals of its max and min values?
(3) For a very small positive number of double type, to compute its reciprocal, how small it is when its reciprocal starts to not make sense? Is it better to put an upper bound on the reciprocal? How much is the bound?
Thanks and regards
Epsilon
Epsilon is the smallest value that can be added to 1.0 and produce a result that's distinguishable from 1.0. As Poita_ implied, this is useful for dealing with rounding errors. The situation is pretty simple: a normal floating point number has precision that remains fixed, regardless of the magnitude of the number. To put that slightly differently, it always computes to the same number of significant digits. For example, a typical implementation of double will have around 15 significant digits (which translates to Epsilon = ~1e-15). If you're working with a number in the range 10e-200, the smallest change it can represent will be around 10e-215. If you're working with a number in the range 10e+200, the smallest change it can represent will be around 1e+185.
Meaningful use of Epsilon normally requires scaling it to the range of the numbers you're working with, and using that to define a range you're willing to accept as probably due to rounding errors, so if two numbers fall within that range, you assume they're probably really equal. For example, with Epsilon of 1e-15, you might decide to treat numbers that fall within 1e-14 of each other as equal (i.e. on significant digit has been lost to rounding).
The smallest number that can be represented will normally be dramatically smaller than that. With that same typical double, it's usually going to be around 1e-308. This would be equivalent to Epsilon if you were using fixed point numbers instead of floating point numbers. For example, at one time quite a few people used fixed-point for various graphics. A typical version was a 16-bit bit integer broken into a something like 10 bits before the decimal point and six bits after the decimal point. Such a number can represent numbers from roughly 0 to 1024, with about two (decimal) digits after the decimal point. Alternatively, you can treat it as signed, running from (roughly) -512 to +512, again with around two digits after the decimal point.
In this case, the scaling factor is fixed, so the smallest difference that can be represented between two numbers is also fixed -- i.e. the difference between 1024 and the next larger number is exactly the same as the difference between 0 and the next larger number.
Reciprocals
I'm not sure exactly why you're concerned with computing reciprocals of extremely large or extremely small numbers. IEEE floating point uses denormals, which means numbers close to the limits of the range lose precision. Basically, a number is divided into an exponent and a significand. The exponent contains the magnitude of the number, and the significand contains the significant digits. Each is represented with a specified number of bits. In the usual case, numbers are normalized, which means they're vaguely similar to the scientific notation we all learned in school. In scientific notation, you always adjust the significand and exponent so there's exactly one place before the decimal point, so (for example) 140 becomes 1.4e2, 20030 becomes 2.003e4, and so on.
Think of this as the "normalized" form of a floating point number. Assume, however, that you're limited t an exponent having 2 digits, so it can only run from -99 to +99. Also assume that you can have a maximum of 15 significant digits. Within those limitations, you could produce a number like 0.00001002e-99. This lets you represent a number smaller than 1e-99, at the expense of losing some precision -- instead of 15 digits of precision, you've used 5 digits of your significand to represent magnitude, so you're left with only 10 digits that are really significant.
Except that it's in binary instead of decimal, IEEE floating point works roughly that way.
As you approach the end of the range, the numbers have less and less precision, until (at the very end of the range) you have only one bit of precision left.
If you take that number that has only one bit of precision, and take its reciprocal you get an extremely large number -- but since you only started with one bit of precision, the result can only have one bit of precision as well. Although slightly better than no result at all, it's still pretty close to meaningless. You've reached the limit of what the number of bits can represent; about the only way to cure the problem is to use more bits.
There's not really any one point at which a reciprocal (or other computation) "stops making sense". It's not really a hard line where one result makes sense, and another doesn't. Rather, it's a slope, where one result might have 15 digits of precision, another 10 and a third only 1. What "makes sense" or not is mostly how you interpret that result. To get meaningful results, you need a fair idea of how many digits in your final result are really meaningful.
You need to understand how floating point numbers are represented in the CPU. In the data type, 1 bit is reserved for the sign, i.e. whether it is a positive or negative number, (yes you can have positive and negative 0 in floating point numbers,) then a number of bits is reserved for the significand (or mantissa,) these are the significant digits in the floating point number and finally a number of bits is reserved for the exponent. The value of the floating point number now is:
-1^sign * significand * 2^exponent
This means the smallest number is a very small value, namely the smalles significand with the lowest exponent. The rounding error however is much larger and depends on the magnitude of the number, namely the smallest number with a given exponent. The epsilon is the difference between 1.0 and the next representable larger value. That's why epsilon is used in code that is robust for rounding errors, and really you should scale the epsilon with the magnitude of the numbers you work with if you do it right. The smallest representable value is not really of any significant use normally.
You're seeing the difference between the normalized and denormalized minimum. The problem is that due to the way the significand is used it is possible to make a larger negative exponent than a positive one, say the bit pattern of the significand is all zeros except the last bit, which is one, then the exponent is effectively lowered by the number of bits in the significand. For the maximum you cannot do this, even if you set the significand to all ones, the effective exponent will still only be the exponent that is given. i.e. think of the difference between 0.000001e-10 and 9.999999e+10, the first is much smaller than the second is big. The first is actually 1e-16 while the second is approx 1e+11.
It depends on the precision of the floating point number of course. In the case of double precision, the difference between the maximum and the next smaller value is already huge, (along the lines of 10^292,) so your rounding errors will be very big. If the value is too small you will simply get inf instead, as you already saw. Really, there is no strict answer, it depends entirely on the precision of numbers you need. Given that the rounding error is approx epsilon*magnitude, the reciprocal of (1/epsilon) already has a rounding error of around 1.0 if you need numbers to be accurate to 1e-3 then even epsilon would be too big to divide by.
See these wikipedia pages on IEEE754 and Machine epsilon for some background info.
Epsilons are added to test equality between two values that should be equal, but aren't because of rounding errors. While you could use the smallest positive value for epsilon, it wouldn't be optimal, because it's simply too small. The rounding errors caused by floating point arithmetic almost always exceed that smallest value, so a larger epsilon is needed. How large depends on your desired accuracy.
I don't understand the question. Are the reciprocals useful for what? I can't think of any reason why they would be useful.
In general, dividing by very small values is a bad idea as it will cause very large rounding errors. I'm not sure what you mean by adding an upper bound. Just avoid dividing by small values wherever possible.