SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
MiloRambaldi
Topic Author
Posts: 273
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:27 am

qfcl/random

August 7th, 2012, 1:21 am

Just in case anyone is wondering: As previously mentioned, in version 0.3, I generalized the mersenne twister code to allow for arbitrary linear generators modulo finite. A month or so ago, I noticed that using the new code, MT19937 was about 25% slower than before (and thus 25% slower than boost. The test program is qfcl/test/speed_test). While this probably won't make much of a difference when generating actual variates (as opposed to raw PRNGs), I was not happy with this. I was in fact expecting a slight speed up with the new design. I looked at the assembly code output, and could not see anything obvious (in fact the new design has much smaller assembly output). Profiling, including measuring the latency of short code segments is rather nontrivial (the profiler included with VC10 seems to be useless for this). Since this seems to be a skill that a library designer should have, I decided it was a worthwhile effort to profile the PRNGs. I haven't drilled down quite far enough yet, but I have a few tools in qfcl/test: timer_latency, engine_speed and engine_profiler. We now also have a DescriptiveStatistics class for computing and displaying statistical properties of a given sequence of data (it was originally designed a long time ago, and is not quite how I would do things now) ... I couldn't find anything like this in boost.Here is example output from engine_profiler. More details are still needed...engine_profiler -n -r 40
 
User avatar
MiloRambaldi
Topic Author
Posts: 273
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:27 am

qfcl/random

August 22nd, 2012, 2:18 am

I've done more work on the tools in qfcl/test: timer_latency, engine_speed and engine_profiler. I am now using boost.Program_options to make the tools more usable with command line options, and I would recommend it. For example,engine_profiler.exe -hProfiling is taking longer than I thought, so I will continue with some other things. I think to submit to boost only 2 more things need to be done: 1) get the build working on a unix type platform 2) provide complete documentation.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 59681
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

qfcl/random

August 22nd, 2012, 4:49 am

General question: would it be useful to have default values in traits classes? More generally, is it easy to integate in a non-command line environment?
Last edited by Cuchulainn on August 21st, 2012, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
MiloRambaldi
Topic Author
Posts: 273
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:27 am

qfcl/random

August 23rd, 2012, 11:54 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnGeneral question: would it be useful to have default values in traits classes? I'm not clear what you are asking about, the engine_traits class? Perhaps this will be clearer once the documentation is complete?QuoteMore generally, is it easy to integate in a non-command line environment?As far as boost.Program_options, it can handle configuration files or combined config file/command line args. However, I don't think it would be helpful for interactive input.As for the profiling tools, they were just meant for me to profile the random number generation. If there was an interest, I don't see any difficulty in moving to a different environment.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 59681
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

qfcl/random

August 25th, 2012, 10:05 am

The rationale for traits (Alexandrescu calls "baggage classes") is to avoid too many template parameters and to let the SUPPLIER provide 'don't care' values for the USER.Here is a simple example.
Last edited by Cuchulainn on August 24th, 2012, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
MiloRambaldi
Topic Author
Posts: 273
Joined: July 26th, 2010, 12:27 am

qfcl/random

August 31st, 2012, 9:30 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnThe rationale for traits (Alexandrescu calls "baggage classes") is to avoid too many template parameters and to let the SUPPLIER provide 'don't care' values for the USER.Here is a simple example.I read about that in "C++ Templates: The Complete Guide". I introduced engine_traits because for example, boost::mersenne_twister has 14 template parameters and should probably have more for things such as the default seed. I'm not sure if my traits follow the usual idea. I will need to review the code when writing the documentation.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 59681
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

qfcl/random

September 8th, 2014, 2:34 pm

A question for the RNG tsars:Is std::random_device a good way to generate seeds for RNG in C++ 11? I ported some code from Boost to C++ 11 to sees if it all works.
Last edited by Cuchulainn on September 7th, 2014, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 59681
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

qfcl/random

September 25th, 2014, 5:17 pm

This links is for generating variates from the non-central chi^2 distribution here1. The algorithm comes from Glasserman's book page 124. What is the original source? How 'good' is the approximation?1. The () member has an if-else test on k (degrees of freedom?). So, if we wish to compute an array of variates ==> the value of k is checked each time even though it is constant. Maybe all compilers optimize this but that's not the point. Mathematica does it like this You can give it a scalar, vector or matrix and get the same return type.
Last edited by Cuchulainn on September 24th, 2014, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 59681
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

qfcl/random

September 29th, 2014, 5:28 pm

1. I have Glasserman but the original source seems to be Johnson and Kotz Vol. 2 Continuous distributions.2. Some tests showed indeed if .. else does not seem to be a bottleneck.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 59681
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

qfcl/random

October 13th, 2014, 9:02 am

QuoteThis links is for generating variates from the non-central chi^2 distribution hereAs well as this approach why not have a lite C version without all that Boost overhead? Just use a free function. Then it can be integrated into other libraries, and not just Boost-based. Now there is only one choice which is Boost which is not yet shipping.A more flexible solution would be less dependent on Boost. This is the library-independent part and is the meat (can the if-else be removed? avoid branching):
Last edited by Cuchulainn on October 12th, 2014, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Polter
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 4:55 pm

qfcl/random

January 18th, 2015, 1:01 pm

Looks interesting: http://www.pcg-random.org/
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 59681
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

qfcl/random

January 25th, 2015, 1:43 pm

pcg: I did not see anywhere any mention of its thread-safeness (or otherwise)... especially in parallel loops. This feature is so fundamental but has anyone really solved it? ==The only thing I see in C++11 ishttp://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/random/seed_seqso that each thread has its own RNG.
Last edited by Cuchulainn on January 24th, 2015, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On