Does following class breaks strict-weak-ordering (in comparison to regular std::less
(So ignoring edge case values such as Nan))
struct LessWithEpsilon
{
static constexpr double epsilon = some_value;
bool operator() (double lhs, double rhs) const
{
return lhs + epsilon < rhs;
}
};
LessWithEpsilon lessEps{};
The exponential nature of floats means that many more values are gathered there than anywhere else on the number line. Despite being a fairly small value in the context of many calculations, 0.1 is over one billion ULPs away from zero! Consequently, fixed epsilons are probably the best choice when you expect the results to be small. What particular
float a = 0.15 + 0.15 float b = 0.1 + 0.2 if (a == b) // can be false! if (a >= b) // can also be false! The solution is to check not whether the numbers are exactly the same, but whether their difference is very small. The error margin that the difference is compared to is often called epsilon. The most simple form:
When comparing non-zero values, some ULPs-based comparison is probably the best choice. When values could be anywhere on the number line, some hybrid of the two is needed. Choose epsilons carefully based on expected outputs.
The comparison would return “true” for numbers that are quite different. And when the numbers are very large, the epsilon could end up being smaller than the smallest rounding error, so that the comparison always returns “false”. Therefore, it is necessary to see whether the relative error is smaller than epsilon:
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_ordering#Strict_weak_orderings
- Transitivity of incomparability: For all
x
,y
,z
inS
, ifx
is incomparable withy
(meaning that neitherx < y
nory < x
istrue
) and ify
is incomparable withz
, thenx
is incomparable withz
.
Similarly, from https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/named_req/Compare
If
equiv(a, b) == true and equiv(b, c) == true
, thenequiv(a, c) == true
With {x, y, z} = {0, epsilon, 2 * epsilon}
, that rule is broken:
!lessEps(x, y) && !lessEps(y, x) && !lessEps(y, z) && !lessEps(z, y)
but lessEps(x, z)
.equiv(x, y) == true and equiv(y, z) == true
but equiv(x, z) == false
(as x + epsilon < z
)So, that class breaks strict-weak-ordering.
It is true that LessWithEpsilon
does not impose a strict weak order for the domain of all doubles, as explained in Jarod42's answer.
However, there can be cases where the input has a limited domain of values for which LessWithEpsilon
can impose a strict weak order. In particular, if the input consists of set of disjoint ranges where values of each range are equal to each other (within epsilon) and unequal to all other ranges (distance between ranges greater than epsilon).
In case you're wondering whether it is reasonable to consider limited input domains, consider that std::less
also doesn't impose a strict weak order for domain of all doubles - NaN must be excluded.
As for what may have been the intention when writing the comparison function, I suggest a possible alternative: Transform the inputs such that each value is rounded to nearest multiple of epslon. This would technically make the input valid for the suggested comparison function, but it also makes it unnecessary because we would get same result using std::less
.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With