Le 14/05/2015 01:29, Gilles a écrit :
> On Wed, 13 May 2015 19:43:09 +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 13/05/2015 11:35, Gilles a écrit :
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 May 2015 11:12:16 +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> As Jenkins failures appeared again, I restarted work on FastMath.pow.
>>>> I'll keep you informed as I make progess.
>>>
>>> Did someone see those failures anywhere else other than on the
>>> identified machine used for CI?
>>
>> I did not reproduce them myselves, and I guess most of us didn't succeed
>> either (lets remember last year when Thomas and Sebb tried to fix the
>> exp function).
>>
>> However, the configuration is not a rare one (Ubuntu, Java 7, Sun JVM),
>> so I fear this bug, even if rare, can hit several people.
>
> How much damage can it do, apart from a false positive on a unit test?
> Isn't it rather the configuration that is faulty, rather than the CM code?
There are at least some (small) problems in the code.
I did reimplement the method, relying more heavily on bits
representation to detect special cases. This new implementation also
delegates all integer powers to pow(double, long), which handle these
cases directly with high accuracy multiplication and reciprocal.
This showed that our previous implementation was sometimes slightly
false. For example during one test in the gamma distribution suite, we
compute 147.2421875^142. Our former implementation returned
1.3785386632060381807...e308, and the new implementation returns
1.3785386632060391688...e308 whereas the exact result should be
1.3785386632060390905...e308. These are denormalized numbers, i.e.
their mantissas have less than 53 significant bits (here, they have 52
bits). The mantissas are:
former implementation 0x9E9AA8184555B
new implementation 0x9E9AA8184555D
exact result 0x9E9AA8184555C.D7655353C...
So we had more than 1.8 ulp error in this case and now we have 0.16 ulp
error.
Comparing all the calls done in our test suite for the full library, the
differences between the implementations are always in the integer power
cases (which is normal if you look at the code), they are quite rare and
generally only 1ulp away. The case above with 2ulps difference (from
1.8 to +0.2) is rare.
Performances are equivalent to the previous ones, the new code is
neither faster nor slower. On my 7 years old desktop computer running
Linux, FastMath.pow takes about 0.69 as much time as StrictMath, as per
Gilles performance benchmarks.
Two junit tests did not pass anymore, and it took me a long time to
understand. The errors were really related to those 1 or 2 ulps differences.
The first test was for BOBYQA optimizer, with the DiffPow
function, which computes:
f(x) = abs(x0)^2 + abs(x1)^4 + abs(x2)^6 +
abs(x3)^8 +abs(x4)^10 + abs(x5)^12
The last term (power 12) is sometimes 1ulp away from the previous
implementation (and I think closer to exact result). The optimizer
does converge to the expected result (which is obviously all xi = 0),
but the number of iterations is extremelly large and highly dependent
on the accuracy. With former implementation, it took about 8000
iterations on my computer, for a limit set to 12000 for this test. With
the new implementation, I needed to raise the limit to 21000 to avoid
failing with a max number of iterations error. It really seems this test
is a stress test for this optimizer. The values computed are really
small, with denormalized numbers.
The second test was for gamma distribution, corresponding to a shape
parameter of 142. There was only one evaluation of pow that was
different, it is the one depicted above. The two ulps difference
implied the error in the nonoverflow part of the distribution (with x
from 0 to 150) was between 1 and 6 ulps, with a mean at about 3.54 ulps
whereas with the previous implementation it was always 0 or 1 ulp with a
mean slightly below 0.5 ulp. So I had to raise the test tolerance to
pass. This seems strange to me. I tried to recompute the reference files
using the maxima script and increasing the accuracy from 64 digits to 96
digits, but got similar behaviour. The tests for other shape parameters
do all pass (values 1, 8, 10, 100 and 1000). Only value 142 fails. I
even don't know why this 142 value was used (if it were 42 I would have
taken it as a well known humourous reference). Perhaps it was already a
borderline case.
So here we are. A new implementation is available in the h10builds
branch. It is as fast as the previous one, is probably slightly more
accurate for integer powers, but makes two tests fail unless we adjust
some test parameters or tolerances. The H10 host seem to not trigger the
JIT optimization bug anymore with this implementation.
What do we do? Do we put this back to the master branch?
best regards,
Luc
>
> Best,
> Gilles
>
>
> 
> To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, email: devunsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, email: devhelp@commons.apache.org
