41,735 research outputs found

    On Sound Relative Error Bounds for Floating-Point Arithmetic

    Full text link
    State-of-the-art static analysis tools for verifying finite-precision code compute worst-case absolute error bounds on numerical errors. These are, however, often not a good estimate of accuracy as they do not take into account the magnitude of the computed values. Relative errors, which compute errors relative to the value's magnitude, are thus preferable. While today's tools do report relative error bounds, these are merely computed via absolute errors and thus not necessarily tight or more informative. Furthermore, whenever the computed value is close to zero on part of the domain, the tools do not report any relative error estimate at all. Surprisingly, the quality of relative error bounds computed by today's tools has not been systematically studied or reported to date. In this paper, we investigate how state-of-the-art static techniques for computing sound absolute error bounds can be used, extended and combined for the computation of relative errors. Our experiments on a standard benchmark set show that computing relative errors directly, as opposed to via absolute errors, is often beneficial and can provide error estimates up to six orders of magnitude tighter, i.e. more accurate. We also show that interval subdivision, another commonly used technique to reduce over-approximations, has less benefit when computing relative errors directly, but it can help to alleviate the effects of the inherent issue of relative error estimates close to zero

    Certified Roundoff Error Bounds Using Semidefinite Programming.

    Get PDF
    Roundoff errors cannot be avoided when implementing numerical programs with finite precision. The ability to reason about rounding is especially important if one wants to explore a range of potential representations, for instance for FPGAs or custom hardware implementation. This problem becomes challenging when the program does not employ solely linear operations as non-linearities are inherent to many interesting computational problems in real-world applications. Existing solutions to reasoning are limited in the presence of nonlinear correlations between variables, leading to either imprecise bounds or high analysis time. Furthermore, while it is easy to implement a straightforward method such as interval arithmetic, sophisticated techniques are less straightforward to implement in a formal setting. Thus there is a need for methods which output certificates that can be formally validated inside a proof assistant. We present a framework to provide upper bounds on absolute roundoff errors. This framework is based on optimization techniques employing semidefinite programming and sums of squares certificates, which can be formally checked inside the Coq theorem prover. Our tool covers a wide range of nonlinear programs, including polynomials and transcendental operations as well as conditional statements. We illustrate the efficiency and precision of this tool on non-trivial programs coming from biology, optimization and space control. Our tool produces more precise error bounds for 37 percent of all programs and yields better performance in 73 percent of all programs

    A Verified Certificate Checker for Finite-Precision Error Bounds in Coq and HOL4

    Full text link
    Being able to soundly estimate roundoff errors of finite-precision computations is important for many applications in embedded systems and scientific computing. Due to the discrepancy between continuous reals and discrete finite-precision values, automated static analysis tools are highly valuable to estimate roundoff errors. The results, however, are only as correct as the implementations of the static analysis tools. This paper presents a formally verified and modular tool which fully automatically checks the correctness of finite-precision roundoff error bounds encoded in a certificate. We present implementations of certificate generation and checking for both Coq and HOL4 and evaluate it on a number of examples from the literature. The experiments use both in-logic evaluation of Coq and HOL4, and execution of extracted code outside of the logics: we benchmark Coq extracted unverified OCaml code and a CakeML-generated verified binary
    • …
    corecore