比较两个双精度浮点数或两个浮点数最有效的方法是什么?

简单地这样做是不正确的:

bool CompareDoubles1 (double A, double B)
{
   return A == B;
}

比如:

bool CompareDoubles2 (double A, double B) 
{
   diff = A - B;
   return (diff < EPSILON) && (-diff < EPSILON);
}

似乎是浪费加工。

有人知道更聪明的浮点比较器吗?


当前回答

我最终花了相当多的时间在这个伟大的线程通过材料。我怀疑每个人都想花这么多时间,所以我将强调我所学到的总结和我实施的解决方案。

快速的总结

Is 1e-8 approximately same as 1e-16? If you are looking at noisy sensor data then probably yes but if you are doing molecular simulation then may be not! Bottom line: You always need to think of tolerance value in context of specific function call and not just make it generic app-wide hard-coded constant. For general library functions, it's still nice to have parameter with default tolerance. A typical choice is numeric_limits::epsilon() which is same as FLT_EPSILON in float.h. This is however problematic because epsilon for comparing values like 1.0 is not same as epsilon for values like 1E9. The FLT_EPSILON is defined for 1.0. The obvious implementation to check if number is within tolerance is fabs(a-b) <= epsilon however this doesn't work because default epsilon is defined for 1.0. We need to scale epsilon up or down in terms of a and b. There are two solution to this problem: either you set epsilon proportional to max(a,b) or you can get next representable numbers around a and then see if b falls into that range. The former is called "relative" method and later is called ULP method. Both methods actually fails anyway when comparing with 0. In this case, application must supply correct tolerance.

实用函数实现(c++ 11)

//implements relative method - do not use for comparing with zero
//use this most of the time, tolerance needs to be meaningful in your context
template<typename TReal>
static bool isApproximatelyEqual(TReal a, TReal b, TReal tolerance = std::numeric_limits<TReal>::epsilon())
{
    TReal diff = std::fabs(a - b);
    if (diff <= tolerance)
        return true;

    if (diff < std::fmax(std::fabs(a), std::fabs(b)) * tolerance)
        return true;

    return false;
}

//supply tolerance that is meaningful in your context
//for example, default tolerance may not work if you are comparing double with float
template<typename TReal>
static bool isApproximatelyZero(TReal a, TReal tolerance = std::numeric_limits<TReal>::epsilon())
{
    if (std::fabs(a) <= tolerance)
        return true;
    return false;
}


//use this when you want to be on safe side
//for example, don't start rover unless signal is above 1
template<typename TReal>
static bool isDefinitelyLessThan(TReal a, TReal b, TReal tolerance = std::numeric_limits<TReal>::epsilon())
{
    TReal diff = a - b;
    if (diff < tolerance)
        return true;

    if (diff < std::fmax(std::fabs(a), std::fabs(b)) * tolerance)
        return true;

    return false;
}
template<typename TReal>
static bool isDefinitelyGreaterThan(TReal a, TReal b, TReal tolerance = std::numeric_limits<TReal>::epsilon())
{
    TReal diff = a - b;
    if (diff > tolerance)
        return true;

    if (diff > std::fmax(std::fabs(a), std::fabs(b)) * tolerance)
        return true;

    return false;
}

//implements ULP method
//use this when you are only concerned about floating point precision issue
//for example, if you want to see if a is 1.0 by checking if its within
//10 closest representable floating point numbers around 1.0.
template<typename TReal>
static bool isWithinPrecisionInterval(TReal a, TReal b, unsigned int interval_size = 1)
{
    TReal min_a = a - (a - std::nextafter(a, std::numeric_limits<TReal>::lowest())) * interval_size;
    TReal max_a = a + (std::nextafter(a, std::numeric_limits<TReal>::max()) - a) * interval_size;

    return min_a <= b && max_a >= b;
}

其他回答

使用任何其他建议都要非常小心。这完全取决于上下文。

我花了很长时间在一个系统中追踪错误,该系统假设|a-b|<epsilon,则a==b。潜在的问题是:

The implicit presumption in an algorithm that if a==b and b==c then a==c. Using the same epsilon for lines measured in inches and lines measured in mils (.001 inch). That is a==b but 1000a!=1000b. (This is why AlmostEqual2sComplement asks for the epsilon or max ULPS). The use of the same epsilon for both the cosine of angles and the length of lines! Using such a compare function to sort items in a collection. (In this case using the builtin C++ operator == for doubles produced correct results.)

就像我说的,这完全取决于上下文和a和b的预期大小。

顺便说一下,std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon()是“机器epsilon”。它是1.0和下一个用double表示的值之间的差值。我猜它可以用在比较函数中,但只有当期望值小于1时。(这是对@cdv的回答的回应…)

同样,如果你的int算术是双精度的(这里我们在某些情况下使用双精度来保存int值),你的算术是正确的。例如,4.0/2.0将等同于1.0+1.0。只要你不做导致分数(4.0/3.0)的事情,或者不超出int的大小。

这取决于你想要的比较有多精确。如果您想对完全相同的数字进行比较,那么只需使用==。(除非你真的想要完全相同的数字,否则你几乎不会想这么做。)在任何一个不错的平台上,你都可以做到以下几点:

diff= a - b; return fabs(diff)<EPSILON;

因为晶圆厂往往很快。我说的快是指它基本上是一个位与,所以它最好快。

用于比较双精度和浮点数的整数技巧很好,但往往会使各种CPU管道更难有效处理。现在,由于使用堆栈作为频繁使用的值的临时存储区域,在某些有序架构上它肯定不会更快。(在乎的人可以去Load-hit-store。)

不幸的是,即使您的“浪费”代码也是不正确的。EPSILON是可以添加到1.0并更改其值的最小值。值1.0非常重要——更大的数字在添加到EPSILON时不会改变。现在,您可以将这个值缩放到您正在比较的数字,以判断它们是否不同。比较两个双精度对象的正确表达式是:

if (fabs(a - b) <= DBL_EPSILON * fmax(fabs(a), fabs(b)))
{
    // ...
}

这是最小值。一般来说,你会想要在计算中考虑噪声,并忽略一些最不重要的位,所以更现实的比较应该是这样的:

if (fabs(a - b) <= 16 * DBL_EPSILON * fmax(fabs(a), fabs(b)))
{
    // ...
}

如果比较性能对您非常重要,并且您知道值的范围,那么您应该使用定点数字。

你写的代码有bug:

return (diff < EPSILON) && (-diff > EPSILON);

正确的代码应该是:

return (diff < EPSILON) && (diff > -EPSILON);

(…是的,这是不同的)

我想知道晶圆厂是否会让你在某些情况下失去懒惰的评价。我会说这取决于编译器。你可能想两种都试试。如果它们在平均水平上是相等的,则采用晶圆厂实现。

如果你有一些关于两个浮点数中哪一个比另一个更大的信息,你可以根据比较的顺序来更好地利用惰性求值。

最后,通过内联这个函数可能会得到更好的结果。不过不太可能有太大改善……

编辑:OJ,谢谢你纠正你的代码。我相应地删除了我的评论

我使用以下函数进行浮点数比较:

bool approximatelyEqual(double a, double b)
{
  return fabs(a - b) <= ((fabs(a) < fabs(b) ? fabs(b) : fabs(a)) * std::numeric_limits<double>::epsilon());
}