将双精度数舍入到以位数给出的较低精度的有效

测试中的调用次数:100,000,000
不安全时间 = 1.922(秒)
安全时间 = 0.799(秒)

Dekker 算法会将浮点数拆分为高低部分.如果有效数字中有 s 位(IEEE 754 64 位二进制中为 53)，则 *x0 接收高位 s-b 位，这是您请求的，而 *x1 接收剩余的位，您可以将其丢弃.在下面的代码中，Scale 的值应为 2^b.如果 b 在编译时已知，例如常量 43，您可以将 Scale 替换为 0x1p43.否则，你必须以某种方式产生 2^b.

这需要四舍五入到最近的模式.IEEE 754 算术就足够了，但其他合理的算术也可以.它将关系四舍五入，这不是您所要求的(向上关系).有必要吗?

这假设 x * (Scale + 1) 没有溢出.运算必须以双精度(不更高)进行计算.

void Split(double *x0, double *x1, double x){双 d = x * (比例 + 1);双 t = d - x;*x0 = d - t;*x1 = x - *x0;}

In C#, I want to round doubles to a lower precision so that I can store them in buckets of varying size in an associative array. Unlike the usual rounding, I want to round to a number of significant bits. Thus large numbers will change in absolute terms much more than small numbers, but they will tend to change the same proportionately. So if I want to round to 10 binary digits, I find the ten most significant bits, and zero out all the lower bits, possibly adding a small number for rounding up.

I prefer "half-way" numbers be rounded up.

If it were an integer type, here would be a possible algorithm:

  1. Find: zero-based index of the most significant binary digit set H.
  2. Compute: B = H - P, 
       where P is the number of significant digits of precision to round
       and B is the binary digit to start rounding, where B = 0 is the ones place, 
       B = 1 is the twos place, etc. 
  3. Add: x = x + 2^B 
       This will force a carry if necessary (we round halfway values up).
  4. Zero out: x = x mod 2^(B+1). 
       This clears the B place and all lower digits.

The problem is finding an efficient way to find the highest bit set. If I were using integers, there are cool bit hacks to find the MSB. I do not want to call Round(Log2(x)) if I can help it. This function will be called many millions of times.

Note: I have read this SO question:

What is a good way to round double-precision values to a (somewhat) lower precision?

It works for C++. I am using C#.

UPDATE:

This is the code (modified from what the answerer supplied) as I am using it:

/// <summary>
/// Round numbers to a specified number of significant binary digits.
/// 
/// For example, to 3 places, numbers from zero to seven are unchanged, because they only require 3 binary digits,
/// but larger numbers lose precision:
/// 
///      8    1000 => 1000   8
///      9    1001 => 1010  10
///     10    1010 => 1010  10
///     11    1011 => 1100  12
///     12    1100 => 1100  12
///     13    1101 => 1110  14
///     14    1110 => 1110  14
///     15    1111 =>10000  16
///     16   10000 =>10000  16
///     
/// This is different from rounding in that we are specifying the place where rounding occurs as the distance to the right
/// in binary digits from the highest bit set, not the distance to the left from the zero bit.
/// </summary>
/// <param name="d">Number to be rounded.</param>
/// <param name="digits">Number of binary digits of precision to preserve. </param>
public static double AdjustPrecision(this double d, int digits)
{
    // TODO: Not sure if this will work for both normalized and denormalized doubles. Needs more research.
    var shift = 53 - digits; // IEEE 754 doubles have 53 bits of significand, but one bit is "implied" and not stored.
    ulong significandMask = (0xffffffffffffffffUL >> shift) << shift;
    var local_d = d;
    unsafe
    {
        // double -> fixed point (sorta)
        ulong toLong = *(ulong*)(&local_d);
        // mask off your least-sig bits
        var modLong = toLong & significandMask;
        // fixed point -> float (sorta)
        local_d = *(double*)(&modLong);
    }
    return local_d;
}

UPDATE 2: Dekker's Algorithm

I derived this from Dekker's algorithm, thanks to the other respondent. It rounds to the closest value, instead of truncating as the above code does, and it uses only safe code:

private static double[] PowersOfTwoPlusOne;

static NumericalAlgorithms()
{
    PowersOfTwoPlusOne = new double[54];
    for (var i = 0; i < PowersOfTwoPlusOne.Length; i++)
    {
        if (i == 0)
            PowersOfTwoPlusOne[i] = 1; // Special case.
        else
        {
            long two_to_i_plus_one = (1L << i) + 1L;
            PowersOfTwoPlusOne[i] = (double)two_to_i_plus_one;
        }
    }
}

public static double AdjustPrecisionSafely(this double d, int digits)
{
    double t = d * PowersOfTwoPlusOne[53 - digits];
    double adjusted = t - (t - d);
    return adjusted;
}

UPDATE 2: TIMINGS

I ran a test and found that Dekker's algorithm is better than TWICE as fast!

Number of calls in test: 100,000,000
Unsafe Time = 1.922 (sec)
Safe Time = 0.799 (sec)

Dekker’s algorithm will split a floating-point number into high and low parts. If there are s bits in the significand (53 in IEEE 754 64-bit binary), then *x0 receives the high s-b bits, which is what you requested, and *x1 receives the remaining bits, which you may discard. In the code below, Scale should have the value 2^b. If b is known at compile time, e.g., the constant 43, you can replace Scale with 0x1p43. Otherwise, you must produce 2^b in some way.

This requires round-to-nearest mode. IEEE 754 arithmetic suffices, but other reasonable arithmetic may be okay too. It rounds ties to even, which is not what you requested (ties upward). Is that necessary?

This assumes that x * (Scale + 1) does not overflow. The operations must be evaluated in double precision (not greater).

void Split(double *x0, double *x1, double x)
{
    double d = x * (Scale + 1);
    double t = d - x;
    *x0 = d - t;
    *x1 = x - *x0;
}

这篇关于将双精度数舍入到以位数给出的较低精度的有效方法的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持编程学习网！