Скачать или смотреть Understanding the Erroneous Results in Random Two State Benchmarking

Discover how to address incorrect results in random state benchmarks, focusing on C+ + code and common pitfalls in variable types and loop iterations.
---
This video is based on the question https://stackoverflow.com/q/63601379/ asked by the user 'Yatharth' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/11733629/ ) and on the answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/65441454/ provided by the user 'Yatharth' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/11733629/ ) at 'Stack Overflow' website. Thanks to these great users and Stackexchange community for their contributions.

Visit these links for original content and any more details, such as alternate solutions, latest updates/developments on topic, comments, revision history etc. For example, the original title of the Question was: Erroneous Results with random two state benchmark

Also, Content (except music) licensed under CC BY-SA https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/l...
The original Question post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license, and the original Answer post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license.

If anything seems off to you, please feel free to write me at vlogize [AT] gmail [DOT] com.
---
Understanding the Erroneous Results in Random Two State Benchmarking

When benchmarking the time taken to generate random states in C+ + , facing erroneous results can be frustrating. Recently, a user encountered unexpected outcomes while running a benchmark that compares two methods of generating random states: using a scaled double random value and the Bernoulli distribution. This guide aims to dissect this problem and illustrate how to resolve it effectively.

The Problem Explained

In the given code snippet, the user performed a benchmark comparing two random number generation methods with a significant limit of 10^10. However, when running the benchmark, the resulting sums of the counters exceeded the initial limit, leading to faulty conclusions. Below are the results showcased by the user:

When the limit was set to 10^10, the counter additions showed values greater than the limit.

However, when the limit was decreased to 10^9, the results were consistent and fell within expected ranges.

This inconsistency raised questions about the causes of such erroneous results in the random number generation process.

Breaking Down the Solutions

Upon deeper investigation, the problem boiled down to the following critical factors:

1. Variable Types and Sizes

The user's counter variable was declared as long int, which is generally sufficient for large integers. However, there are nuances in C+ + that must be addressed:

C+ + offers different integer types with varying sizes (e.g., int, long, long long).

Depending on the platform and compiler, the size of int can be 4 bytes, which could lead to overflow when performing operations with large values.

It's essential to ensure that all variables handling large count operations are appropriately declared.

2. Loop Iteration Type

In the user's code, the loop was conducted using a regular int for the iterator (i). Given that int can overflow at high limits and lead to unexpected behavior, a better approach is to declare the loop counter as a long long. Here’s how to modify the loop declaration:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

3. Implicit Conversions

During operations, implicit conversions between types can sometimes yield unexpected results. For instance, if an int is involved in arithmetic with a long int, the size of the int could lead to incorrect calculations if overflow occurs. Always try to use consistent types throughout computations.

Conclusion

By addressing these key areas of concern—variable types, loop iteration types, and implicit conversions—the user can significantly reduce the risk of encountering erroneous results while benchmarking random state generation in C+ + . When dealing with high limits or potentially large calculations, always prioritize using types that can safely handle large values.

Implementing the suggested modifications, such as using long long for both the loop iterator and counters, can enhance the reliability of your benchmarks. With these adjustments, your C+ + code should yield correct and consistent results.

If you've encountered similar issues or have further questions on this topic, feel free to reach out in the comments below!