FastMath test2

?

Percentage Accurate: 99.7% → 100.0%
Time: 4.6s
Precision: binary64
Cost: 320

?

\[\left(d1 \cdot 10 + d1 \cdot d2\right) + d1 \cdot 20 \]
\[d1 \cdot \left(d2 + 30\right) \]
(FPCore (d1 d2) :precision binary64 (+ (+ (* d1 10.0) (* d1 d2)) (* d1 20.0)))
(FPCore (d1 d2) :precision binary64 (* d1 (+ d2 30.0)))
double code(double d1, double d2) {
	return ((d1 * 10.0) + (d1 * d2)) + (d1 * 20.0);
}
double code(double d1, double d2) {
	return d1 * (d2 + 30.0);
}
real(8) function code(d1, d2)
    real(8), intent (in) :: d1
    real(8), intent (in) :: d2
    code = ((d1 * 10.0d0) + (d1 * d2)) + (d1 * 20.0d0)
end function
real(8) function code(d1, d2)
    real(8), intent (in) :: d1
    real(8), intent (in) :: d2
    code = d1 * (d2 + 30.0d0)
end function
public static double code(double d1, double d2) {
	return ((d1 * 10.0) + (d1 * d2)) + (d1 * 20.0);
}
public static double code(double d1, double d2) {
	return d1 * (d2 + 30.0);
}
def code(d1, d2):
	return ((d1 * 10.0) + (d1 * d2)) + (d1 * 20.0)
def code(d1, d2):
	return d1 * (d2 + 30.0)
function code(d1, d2)
	return Float64(Float64(Float64(d1 * 10.0) + Float64(d1 * d2)) + Float64(d1 * 20.0))
end
function code(d1, d2)
	return Float64(d1 * Float64(d2 + 30.0))
end
function tmp = code(d1, d2)
	tmp = ((d1 * 10.0) + (d1 * d2)) + (d1 * 20.0);
end
function tmp = code(d1, d2)
	tmp = d1 * (d2 + 30.0);
end
code[d1_, d2_] := N[(N[(N[(d1 * 10.0), $MachinePrecision] + N[(d1 * d2), $MachinePrecision]), $MachinePrecision] + N[(d1 * 20.0), $MachinePrecision]), $MachinePrecision]
code[d1_, d2_] := N[(d1 * N[(d2 + 30.0), $MachinePrecision]), $MachinePrecision]
\left(d1 \cdot 10 + d1 \cdot d2\right) + d1 \cdot 20
d1 \cdot \left(d2 + 30\right)

Local Percentage Accuracy vs ?

The average percentage accuracy by input value. Horizontal axis shows value of an input variable; the variable is choosen in the title. Vertical axis is accuracy; higher is better. Red represent the original program, while blue represents Herbie's suggestion. These can be toggled with buttons below the plot. The line is an average while dots represent individual samples.

Herbie found 3 alternatives:

AlternativeAccuracySpeedup

Accuracy vs Speed

The accuracy (vertical axis) and speed (horizontal axis) of each alternatives. Up and to the right is better. The red square shows the initial program, and each blue circle shows an alternative.The line shows the best available speed-accuracy tradeoffs.

Bogosity?

Bogosity

Try it out?

Your Program's Arguments

Results

Enter valid numbers for all inputs

Target

Original99.7%
Target100.0%
Herbie100.0%
\[d1 \cdot \left(30 + d2\right) \]

Derivation?

  1. Initial program 99.8%

    \[\left(d1 \cdot 10 + d1 \cdot d2\right) + d1 \cdot 20 \]
  2. Simplified100.0%

    \[\leadsto \color{blue}{d1 \cdot \left(d2 + 30\right)} \]
    Step-by-step derivation

    [Start]99.8%

    \[ \left(d1 \cdot 10 + d1 \cdot d2\right) + d1 \cdot 20 \]

    +-commutative [=>]99.8%

    \[ \color{blue}{\left(d1 \cdot d2 + d1 \cdot 10\right)} + d1 \cdot 20 \]

    associate-+l+ [=>]99.8%

    \[ \color{blue}{d1 \cdot d2 + \left(d1 \cdot 10 + d1 \cdot 20\right)} \]

    distribute-lft-out [=>]100.0%

    \[ d1 \cdot d2 + \color{blue}{d1 \cdot \left(10 + 20\right)} \]

    distribute-lft-in [<=]100.0%

    \[ \color{blue}{d1 \cdot \left(d2 + \left(10 + 20\right)\right)} \]

    metadata-eval [=>]100.0%

    \[ d1 \cdot \left(d2 + \color{blue}{30}\right) \]
  3. Final simplification100.0%

    \[\leadsto d1 \cdot \left(d2 + 30\right) \]

Alternatives

Alternative 1
Accuracy100.0%
Cost320
\[d1 \cdot \left(d2 + 30\right) \]
Alternative 2
Accuracy97.5%
Cost456
\[\begin{array}{l} \mathbf{if}\;d2 \leq -30:\\ \;\;\;\;d1 \cdot d2\\ \mathbf{elif}\;d2 \leq 30:\\ \;\;\;\;d1 \cdot 30\\ \mathbf{else}:\\ \;\;\;\;d1 \cdot d2\\ \end{array} \]
Alternative 3
Accuracy50.8%
Cost192
\[d1 \cdot 30 \]

Reproduce?

herbie shell --seed 2023263 
(FPCore (d1 d2)
  :name "FastMath test2"
  :precision binary64

  :herbie-target
  (* d1 (+ 30.0 d2))

  (+ (+ (* d1 10.0) (* d1 d2)) (* d1 20.0)))