This
std::mt19937 gen(123);
std::normal_distribution<> distr(0., .2);
printf("%f", distr(gen));
prints 0.339167 on my OSX 10.9 machine (built with clang 3.5) but prints -0.113922 on a linux box (gcc 4.8). I was expecting to see the same results everywhere.
When inspecting the underlying stream from mt19937, I see a consistent sequence of numbers on both platforms. So it appears that the platform inconsistency is in std::normal_distribution.
Is this expected behavior? Is there a way that I can set this up so that I am guaranteed to get the same results everywhere?
std::mt19937 and siblings are very specific algorithms. The standard requires that e.g. The 10000th consecutive invocation of a default-constructed object of type mt19937 shall produce the value 4123659995. There's no wiggle room here.
std::normal_distribution and siblings, by contrast, are only required to produce results distributed according to a certain probability density function. There is no requirement for them to be any specific function.
Related
I'm using the random_number subroutine from Fortran, but in different runs of program the number which is being produced doesn't change. What should I include in my code so every time I compile and run the program the numbers change?
The random number generator produces pseudo-random numbers. To get different numbers each run, you need to initialise the random seed at the start of your program. This picks a different starting position in the pseudo-random stream.
The sequence of pseudorandom numbers coming from call(s) to random_number depends on the algorithm used by the processor and the value of the seed.
The initial value of the seed is processor dependent. For some processors this seed value will be the same each time the program runs, and for some it will be different. The first case gives a repeatable pseudorandom sequence and the second a non-repeatable sequence.
gfortran (before version 7) falls into this first category. You will need to explicitly change the random seed if you wish to get non-repeatable sequences.
As stated in another answer the intrinsic random_seed can be used to set the value of the seed and restart the pseudorandom generator. Again, it is processor dependent what happens when the call is call random_seed() (that is, without a put= argument). Some processors will restart the generator with a repeatable sequence, some won't. gfortran (again, before version 7) is in the first category.
For processors where call random_seed() gives rise to a repeatable sequence an explicit run-time varying seed will be required to generate distinct sequences. An example for those older gfortran versions can be found in the documentation.
It should be noted that choosing a seed can be a complicated thing. Not only will there be portability issues, but care may be required in ensuring that the generator is not restarted in a low entropy region. For multi-image programs the user will have to work to have varying sequences across these images.
On a final note, Fortran 2018 introduced the standard intrinsic procedure random_init. This handles both cases of selecting repeatability across invocations and distinctness over (coarray) images.
os system: macos Catalina 10.15.2
xcode: 11.3
coreml3.0
I give same model input to the same mlmodel. But the inference results are different using cpu device and gpu device.
The results are as follows, the left file is inference result (second column) using cpu and the right file is inference result (second column) using CpuAndGpu. I use beyond compare to compare the two files, and the data marked with red color are the difference.
Does anyone know about the problem and how to fix it?
enter image description here
This is not a problem per se. On the GPU, 16-bit floats are used while on the CPU 32-bit floats are used. 16-bit floats have less precision, which explains the different results you're getting.
Some numbers will be slightly larger, some will be slightly smaller, but generally these effects cancel out and you won't notice the difference.
(However, if your model generates images, you may notice pixel artifacts from the lower precision provided by the 16-bit floats.)
For the program I'm working on, I'd like to limit the length of each compiled function, so as to provide a hard upper-bound on the distance1 required to reach a function boundary2. Is there an option in GCC or Clang (or really any compiler framework/toolchain) that will enable function splitting to do this? Or are there limitations that I'm not aware of preventing this?
1 Distance here defined as any discrete unit smaller than a function - i.e., number of instructions, number of basic blocks, number of grey hairs on Jon Skeet's head3, etc.
2 I'm defining function boundary as "location where a new stack frame is pushed on to the CPU's stack". To my understanding, this happens almost exclusively when a new function is called (except occasionally for leaf functions that don't themselves call other functions).
3 This is just a joke. We all know that Jon Skeet's hair doesn't turn grey - it just garbage collects and a new hair is instantiated, good as new.
I'm not aware of any compiler switch, but you don't need one. The size of symbols in the text segment is easily obtained with nm:
$ nm -AP a.out|awk '$3=="T" {print $2 " " $5}'
main 000000000000005b
Note that this requires an unstripped executable. Many nm implementations provide additional options, such as decimal numbers instead of hex, which makes comparing the numbers a little easier. Turning this into a script to output functions larger than X left as an exercise :-)
I have a Deck vector with 52 Card, and I want to shuffle it.
vector<Card^> cards;
So I used this:
random_shuffle(cards.begin(), cards.end());
The problem was that it gave me the same result every time, so I used srand to randomize it:
srand(unsigned(time(NULL)));
random_shuffle(cards.begin(),cards.end());
This was still not truly random. When I started dealing cards, it was the same as in the last run. For example: "1. deal: A,6,3,2,K; 2. deal: Q,8,4,J,2", and when I restarted the program I got exactly the same order of deals.
Then I used srand() and random_shuffle with its 3rd parameter:
int myrandom (int i) {
return std::rand()%i;
}
srand(unsigned(time(NULL)));
random_shuffle(cards.begin(),cards.end(), myrandom);
Now it's working and always gives me different results on re-runs, but I don't know why it works this way. How do these functions work, what did I do here?
This answer required some investigation, looking at the C++ Standard Library headers in VC++ and looking at the C++ standard itself. I knew what the standard said, but I was curious about VC++ (including C++CLI) did their implementation.
First what does the standard say about std::random_shuffle . We can find that here. In particular it says:
Reorders the elements in the given range [first, last) such that each possible permutation of those elements has equal probability of appearance.
1) The random number generator is implementation-defined, but the function std::rand is often used.
The bolded part is key. The standard says that the RNG can be implementation specific (so results across different compilers will vary). The standard suggests that std::rand is often used. But this isn't a requirement. So if an implementation doesn't use std::rand then it follows that it likely won't use std::srand for a starting seed. An interesting footnote is that the std::random_shuffle functions are deprecated as of C++14. However std::shuffle remains. My guess is that since std::shuffle requires you to provide a function object you are explicitly defining the behavior you want when generating random numbers, and that is an advantage over the older std::random_shuffle.
I took my VS2013 and looked at the C++ standard library headers and discovered that <algorithm> uses template class that uses a completely different pseudo-rng (PRNG) than std::rand with an index (seed) set to zero. Although this may vary in detail between different versions of VC++ (including C++/CLI) I think it is probable that most versions of VC++/CLI do something similar. This would explain why each time you run your application you get the same shuffled decks.
The option I would opt for if I am looking for a Pseudo RNG and I'm not doing cryptography is to use something well established like Mersenne Twister:
Advantages The commonly-used version of Mersenne Twister, MT19937, which produces a sequence of 32-bit integers, has the following desirable properties:
It has a very long period of 2^19937 − 1. While a long period is not a guarantee of quality in a random number generator, short periods (such as the 2^32 common in many older software packages) can be problematic.
It is k-distributed to 32-bit accuracy for every 1 ≤ k ≤ 623 (see definition below).
It passes numerous tests for statistical randomness, including the Diehard tests.
Luckily for us C++11 Standard Library (which I believe should work on VS2010 and later C++/CLI) includes a Mersenne Twister function object that can be used with std::shuffle Please see this C++ documentation for more details. The C++ Standard Library reference provided earlier actually contains code that does this:
std::random_device rd;
std::mt19937 g(rd());
std::shuffle(v.begin(), v.end(), g);
The thing to note is that std::random_device produces non-deterministic (non repeatable) unsigned integers. We need non-deterministic data if we want to seed our Mersenne Twister (std::mt19937) PRNG with. This is similar in concept to seeding rand with srand(time(NULL)) (The latter not being an overly good source of randomness).
This looks all well and good but has one disadvantage when dealing with card shuffling. An unsigned integer on the Windows platform is 4 bytes (32 bits) and can store 2^32 values. This means there are only 4,294,967,296 possible starting points (seeds) therefore only that many ways to shuffle the deck. The problem is that there are 52! (52 factorial) ways to shuffle a standard 52 card deck. That happens to be 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 ways, which is far bigger than the number of unique ways we can get from setting a 32-bit seed.
Thankfully, Mersenne Twister can accept seeds between 0 and 2^19937-1. 52! is a big number but all combinations can be represented with a seed of 226 bits (or ~29 bytes). The Standard Library allow std::mt19937 to accept a seed up to 2^19937-1 (~624 bytes of data) if we so choose. But since we need only 226 bits the following code would allow us to create 29 bytes of non-deterministic data to be used as a suitable seed for std::mt19937:
// rd is an array to hold 29 bytes of seed data which covers the 226 bits we need */
std::array<unsigned char, 29> seed_data;
std::random_device rd;
std::generate_n(seed_data.data(), seed_data.size(), std::ref(rd));
std::seed_seq seq(std::begin(seed_data), std::end(seed_data));
// Set the seed for Mersenne *using the 29 byte sequence*
std::mt19937 g(seq);
Then all you need to do is call shuffle with code like:
std::shuffle(cards.begin(),cards.end(), g);
On Windows VC++/CLI you will get a warning that you'll want to suppress with the code above. So at the top of the file (before other includes) you can add this:
#define _SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS 1
I've tried for hours to find the implementation of rand() function used in gcc...
It would be much appreciated if someone could reference me to the file containing it's implementation or website with the implementation.
By the way, which directory (I'm using Ubuntu if that matters) contains the c standard library implementations for the gcc compiler?
rand consists of a call to a function __random, which mostly just calls another function called __random_r in random_r.c.
Note that the function names above are hyperlinks to the glibc source repository, at version 2.28.
The glibc random library supports two kinds of generator: a simple linear congruential one, and a more sophisticated linear feedback shift register one. It is possible to construct instances of either, but the default global generator, used when you call rand, uses the linear feedback shift register generator (see the definition of unsafe_state.rand_type).
You will find C library implementation used by GCC in the GNU GLIBC project.
You can download it sources and you should find rand() implementation. Sources with function definitions are usually not installed on a Linux distribution. Only the header files which I guess you already know are usually stored in /usr/include directory.
If you are familiar with GIT source code management, you can do:
$ git clone git://sourceware.org/git/glibc.git
To get GLIBC source code.
The files are available via FTP. I found that there is more to rand() used in stdlib, which is from [glibc][2]. From the 2.32 version (glibc-2.32.tar.gz) obtained from here, the stdlib folder contains a random.c file which explains that a simple linear congruential algorithm is used. The folder also has rand.c and rand_r.c which can show you more of the source code. stdlib.h contained in the same folder will show you the values used for macros like RAND_MAX.
/* An improved random number generation package. In addition to the
standard rand()/srand() like interface, this package also has a
special state info interface. The initstate() routine is called
with a seed, an array of bytes, and a count of how many bytes are
being passed in; this array is then initialized to contain
information for random number generation with that much state
information. Good sizes for the amount of state information are
32, 64, 128, and 256 bytes. The state can be switched by calling
the setstate() function with the same array as was initialized with
initstate(). By default, the package runs with 128 bytes of state
information and generates far better random numbers than a linear
congruential generator. If the amount of state information is less
than 32 bytes, a simple linear congruential R.N.G. is used.
Internally, the state information is treated as an array of longs;
the zeroth element of the array is the type of R.N.G. being used
(small integer); the remainder of the array is the state
information for the R.N.G. Thus, 32 bytes of state information
will give 7 longs worth of state information, which will allow a
degree seven polynomial. (Note: The zeroth word of state
information also has some other information stored in it; see setstate
for details). The random number generation technique is a linear
feedback shift register approach, employing trinomials (since there
are fewer terms to sum up that way). In this approach, the least
significant bit of all the numbers in the state table will act as a
linear feedback shift register, and will have period 2^deg - 1
(where deg is the degree of the polynomial being used, assuming
that the polynomial is irreducible and primitive). The higher order
bits will have longer periods, since their values are also
influenced by pseudo-random carries out of the lower bits. The
total period of the generator is approximately deg*(2deg - 1); thus
doubling the amount of state information has a vast influence on the
period of the generator. Note: The deg*(2deg - 1) is an
approximation only good for large deg, when the period of the shift
register is the dominant factor. With deg equal to seven, the
period is actually much longer than the 7*(2**7 - 1) predicted by
this formula. */