Version 6 (modified by 9 years ago) (diff) | ,
---|

#### Table of Contents

# Remez tutorial 4/5: fixing lower-order parameters

In the previous section, we took advantage of the symmetry of *sin(x)* to build the following minimax expression:

Leading to the following coefficient, amongst others:

const double a1 = 9.999999765898820673279342160490060830302e-1;

This is an interesting value, because it is very close to 1. Many CPUs can load the value 1 very quickly, which can be a potential runtime gain.

## The brutal way

Now we may wonder: what would be the cost of directly setting `a1 = 1`

here? Let’s see the error value:

Duh. Pretty bad, actually. Maximum error is about 10 times worse.

## The clever way

The clever way involves some more maths. Instead of looking for polynomial *Q(y)* and setting *Q(0) = 1* manually, we search instead for *R(y)* where *Q(y) = 1 + yR(y)*:

Dividing by *y* up and down gives:

Once again, we get a form suitable for the Remez algorithm.

## Source code

#include "lol/math/real.h" #include "lol/math/remez.h" using lol::real; using lol::RemezSolver; real f(real const &y) { real sqrty = sqrt(y); return (sin(sqrty) - sqrty) / (y * sqrty); } real g(real const &y) { return re(y * sqrt(y)); } int main(int argc, char **argv) { RemezSolver<3, real> solver; solver.Run("1e-1000", real::R_PI_2 * real::R_PI_2, f, g, 40); return 0; }

Only `f`

and `g`

changed here, as well as the polynomial degree. The rest is the same as in the previous section.

## Compilation and execution

Build and run the above code:

make ./remez

After all the iterations the output should be as follows:

Step 8 error: 4.618689007546850899022101933442449327546e-9 Polynomial estimate: x**0*-1.666665709650470145824129400050267289858e-1 +x**1*8.333017291562218127986291618761571373087e-3 +x**2*-1.980661520135080504411629636078917643846e-4 +x**3*2.600054767890361277123254766503271638682e-6

We can therefore write the corresponding C++ function:

double fastsin2(double x) { const double a3 = -1.666665709650470145824129400050267289858e-1; const double a5 = 8.333017291562218127986291618761571373087e-3; const double a7 = -1.980661520135080504411629636078917643846e-4; const double a9 = 2.600054767890361277123254766503271638682e-6; return x + x*x*x * (a3 + x*x * (a5 + x*x * (a7 + x*x * a9)))); }

Note that because of our change of variables, the polynomial coefficients are now `a3`

, `a5`

, `a7`

…

## Analysing the results

Let’s see the new error curve:

Excellent! The loss of precision is clearly not as bad as before.

## Conclusion

You should now be able to fix lower-order coefficients in the minimax polynomial for possible performance improvements.

Please report any trouble you may have had with this document to sam@hocevar.net. You may then carry on to the next section: additional tips.

### Attachments (2)

- bad-error.png (20.3 KB) - added by 9 years ago.
- better-error.png (29.8 KB) - added by 9 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip