[Home]Algorithms for calculating variance/Talk

HomePage | Algorithms for calculating variance | Recent Changes | Preferences

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 14a15,18




I thought the reference was pretty explicit. I didn't mean, however, to imply the use of non-standard but still floating point arithmetic. I had in mind systems that were entirely different. A simple example is a system that uses rationals based on unlimited precision integers. Another system might be fixed point arithmetic. The first would not lose precision in the computation while the second would lose more or less precision than I quote depending on the values in question and the characteristics of the fixed point system. You could also imagine an optimizer that noted that you might be adding up large numbers of very small numbers and would re-order the addition to avoid most of the round-off errro by using log N temporary values to perform the addition. -- TedDunning

Editorial comment: it is actually the first formula that has precision problems when dealing with limited-precision arithmetic. If the difference between measurements and the mean is very small, then the first formula will yield precision problems, as information will be lost in the (xi - µ) operation. There is no such loss of significance in the intermediate operations of the second formula. -- ScottMoonen

Editorial comment the second: in fact, the second formula is the one more commonly beset with problems. The first can have problems when the mean is very large relative to the variance, but this is relatively rare in practice and this problem also affects the second formula. Much more common is the situation where you have comparable mean and variance and a very large number of observations. In this case, the second formula will result in the subtraction of two very large numbers whose difference is relatively small (by a factor roughly equal to the number of observations). If you have one million observations, you lose roughly six significant figures with the second formula if you use ordinary floating point arithmetic. -- TedDunning

''comment: The problem may occur
  1. when the deviations are very small relative to the mean or
  2. when they are small relative to the representational capacity of the arithmetic instrument (floating point computer, fixed point calculator, paper and pencil).
To be precise we have to specify the instrument and the nature of the data. -- DickBeldin''


Ted, what do you mean by ordinary floating point arithmetic? Are talking about precision with repsect to register width, or is there an implicit reference to some "non-ordinary" scheme, that is, non-IEEE? Thanks.


I thought the reference was pretty explicit. I didn't mean, however, to imply the use of non-standard but still floating point arithmetic. I had in mind systems that were entirely different. A simple example is a system that uses rationals based on unlimited precision integers. Another system might be fixed point arithmetic. The first would not lose precision in the computation while the second would lose more or less precision than I quote depending on the values in question and the characteristics of the fixed point system. You could also imagine an optimizer that noted that you might be adding up large numbers of very small numbers and would re-order the addition to avoid most of the round-off errro by using log N temporary values to perform the addition. -- TedDunning


HomePage | Algorithms for calculating variance | Recent Changes | Preferences
This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited July 2, 2001 5:18 am by TedDunning (diff)
Search: