CORDIC Arcsine implementation fails - c

Question

I have recently implemented a library of CORDIC functions to reduce the required computational power (my project is based on a PowerPC and is extremely strict in its execution time specifications). The language is ANSI-C.
The other functions (sin/cos/atan) work within accuracy limits both in 32 and in 64 bit implementations.
Unfortunately, the asin() function fails systematically for certain inputs.
For testing purposes I have implemented an .h file to be used in a simulink S-Function. (This is only for my convenience, you can compile the following as a standalone .exe with minimal changes)
Note: I have forced 32 iterations because I am working in 32 bit precision and the maximum possible accuracy is required.
Cordic.h:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define FLOAT32 float
#define INT32 signed long int
#define BIT_XOR ^
#define CORDIC_1K_32 0x26DD3B6A
#define MUL_32 1073741824.0F /*needed to scale float -> int*/
#define INV_MUL_32 9.313225746E-10F /*needed to scale int -> float*/
INT32 CORDIC_CTAB_32 [] = {0x3243f6a8, 0x1dac6705, 0x0fadbafc, 0x07f56ea6, 0x03feab76, 0x01ffd55b, 0x00fffaaa, 0x007fff55,
0x003fffea, 0x001ffffd, 0x000fffff, 0x0007ffff, 0x0003ffff, 0x0001ffff, 0x0000ffff, 0x00007fff,
0x00003fff, 0x00001fff, 0x00000fff, 0x000007ff, 0x000003ff, 0x000001ff, 0x000000ff, 0x0000007f,
0x0000003f, 0x0000001f, 0x0000000f, 0x00000008, 0x00000004, 0x00000002, 0x00000001, 0x00000000};
/* CORDIC Arcsine Core: vectoring mode */
INT32 CORDIC_asin(INT32 arc_in)
{
INT32 k;
INT32 d;
INT32 tx;
INT32 ty;
INT32 x;
INT32 y;
INT32 z;
x=CORDIC_1K_32;
y=0;
z=0;
for (k=0; k<32; ++k)
{
d = (arc_in - y)>>(31);
tx = x - (((y>>k) BIT_XOR d) - d);
ty = y + (((x>>k) BIT_XOR d) - d);
z += ((CORDIC_CTAB_32[k] BIT_XOR d) - d);
x = tx;
y = ty;
}
return z;
}
/* Wrapper function for scaling in-out of cordic core*/
FLOAT32 asin_wrap(FLOAT32 arc)
{
return ((FLOAT32)(CORDIC_asin((INT32)(arc*MUL_32))*INV_MUL_32));
}
This can be called in a manner similar to:
#include "Cordic.h"
#include "math.h"
void main()
{
y1 = asin_wrap(value_32); /*my implementation*/
y2 = asinf(value_32); /*standard math.h for comparison*/
}
The results are as shown:
Top left shows the [-1;1] input over 2000 steps (0.001 increments), bottom left the output of my function, bottom right the standard output and top right the difference of the two outputs.
It is immediate to see that the error is not within 32 bit accuracy.
I have analysed the steps performed (and the intermediate results) by my code and it seems to me that at a certain point the value of y is "close enough" to the initial value of arc_in and what could be related to a bit-shift causes the solution to diverge.
My questions:
I am at a loss, is this error inherent in the CORDIC implementation or have I made a mistake in the implementation? I was expecting the decrease of accuracy near the extremes, but those spikes in the middle are quite unexpected. (the most notable ones are just beyond +/- 0.6, but even removed these there are more at smaller values, albeit not as pronounced)
If it is something part of the CORDIC implementation, are there known workarounds?
EDIT:
Since some comment mention it, yes, I tested the definition of INT32, even writing
#define INT32 int32_T
does not change the results by the slightest amount.
The computation time on the target hardware has been measured by hundreds of repetitions of block of 10.000 iterations of the function with random input in the validity range. The observed mean results (for one call of the function) are as follows:
math.h asinf() 100.00 microseconds
CORDIC asin() 5.15 microseconds
(apparently the previous test had been faulty, a new cross-test has obtained no better than an average of 100 microseconds across the validity range)
I apparently found a better implementation. It can be downloaded in matlab version here and in C here. I will analyse more its inner workings and report later.

Answer 1

To review a few things mentioned in the comments:
The given code outputs values identical to another CORDIC implementation. This includes the stated inaccuracies.
The largest error is as you approach arcsin(1).
The second largest error is that the values of arcsin(0.60726) to arcsin(0.68514) all return 0.754805.
There are some vague references to inaccuracies in the CORDIC method for some functions including arcsin. The given solution is to perform "double-iterations" although I have been unable to get this to work (all values give a large amount of error).
The alternate CORDIC implemention has a comment /* |a| < 0.98 */ in the arcsin() implementation which would seem to reinforce that there is known inaccuracies close to 1.
As a rough comparison of a few different methods consider the following results (all tests performed on a desktop, Windows7 computer using MSVC++ 2010, benchmarks timed using 10M iterations over the arcsin() range 0-1):
Question CORDIC Code: 1050 ms, 0.008 avg error, 0.173 max error
Alternate CORDIC Code (ref): 2600 ms, 0.008 avg error, 0.173 max error
atan() CORDIC Code: 2900 ms, 0.21 avg error, 0.28 max error
CORDIC Using Double-Iterations: 4700 ms, 0.26 avg error, 0.917 max error (???)
Math Built-in asin(): 200 ms, 0 avg error, 0 max error
Rational Approximation (ref): 250 ms, 0.21 avg error, 0.26 max error
Linear Table Lookup (see below) 100 ms, 0.000001 avg error, 0.00003 max error
Taylor Series (7th power, ref): 300 ms, 0.01 avg error, 0.16 max error
These results are on a desktop so how relevant they would be for an embedded system is a good question. If in doubt, profiling/benchmarking on the relevant system would be advised. Most solutions tested don't have very good accuracy over the range (0-1) and all but one are actually slower than the built-in asin() function.
The linear table lookup code is posted below and is my usual method for any expensive mathematical function when speed is desired over accuracy. It simply uses a 1024 element table with linear interpolation. It seems to be both the fastest and most accurate of all methods tested, although the built-in asin() is not much slower really (test it!). It can easily be adjusted for more or less accuracy by changing the size of the table.
// Please test this code before using in anything important!
const size_t ASIN_TABLE_SIZE = 1024;
double asin_table[ASIN_TABLE_SIZE];
int init_asin_table (void)
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < ASIN_TABLE_SIZE; ++i)
{
float f = (float) i / ASIN_TABLE_SIZE;
asin_table[i] = asin(f);
}
return 0;
}
double asin_table (double a)
{
static int s_Init = init_asin_table(); // Call automatically the first time or call it manually
double sign = 1.0;
if (a < 0)
{
a = -a;
sign = -1.0;
}
if (a > 1) return 0;
double fi = a * ASIN_TABLE_SIZE;
double decimal = fi - (int)fi;
size_t i = fi;
if (i >= ASIN_TABLE_SIZE-1) return Sign * 3.14159265359/2;
return Sign * ((1.0 - decimal)*asin_table[i] + decimal*asin_table[i+1]);
}

Answer 2

The "single rotate" arcsine goes badly wrong when the argument is just greater than the initial value of 'x', where that is the magical scaling factor -- 1/An ~= 0.607252935 ~= 0x26DD3B6A.
This is because, for all arguments > 0, the first step always has y = 0 < arg, so d = +1, which sets y = 1/An, and leaves x = 1/An. Looking at the second step:
if arg <= 1/An, then d = -1, and the steps which follow converge to a good answer
if arg > 1/An, then d = +1, and this step moves further away from the right answer, and for a range of values a little bigger than 1/An, the subsequent steps all have d = -1, but are unable to correct the result :-(
I found:
arg = 0.607 (ie 0x26D91687), relative error 7.139E-09 -- OK
arg = 0.608 (ie 0x26E978D5), relative error 1.550E-01 -- APALLING !!
arg = 0.685 (ie 0x2BD70A3D), relative error 2.667E-04 -- BAD !!
arg = 0.686 (ie 0x2BE76C8B), relative error 1.232E-09 -- OK, again
The descriptions of the method warn about abs(arg) >= 0.98 (or so), and I found that somewhere after 0.986 the process fails to converge and the relative error jumps to ~5E-02 and hits 1E-01 (!!) at arg=1 :-(
As you did, I also found that for 0.303 < arg < 0.313 the relative error jumps to ~3E-02, and reduces slowly until things return to normal. (In this case step 2 overshoots so far that the remaining steps cannot correct it.)
So... the single rotate CORDIC for arcsine looks rubbish to me :-(
Added later... when I looked even closer at the single rotate CORDIC, I found many more small regions where the relative error is BAD...
...so I would not touch this as a method at all... it's not just rubbish, it's useless.
BTW: I thoroughly recommend "Software Manual for the Elementary Functions", William Cody and William Waite, Prentice-Hall, 1980. The methods for calculating the functions are not so interesting any more (but there is a thorough, practical discussion of the relevant range-reductions required). However, for each function they give a good test procedure.

Answer 3

The additional source I linked at the end of the question apparently contains the solution.
The proposed code can be reduced to the following:
#define M_PI_2_32 1.57079632F
#define SQRT2_2 7.071067811865476e-001F /* sin(45°) = cos(45°) = sqrt(2)/2 */
FLOAT32 angles[] = {
7.8539816339744830962E-01F, 4.6364760900080611621E-01F, 2.4497866312686415417E-01F, 1.2435499454676143503E-01F,
6.2418809995957348474E-02F, 3.1239833430268276254E-02F, 1.5623728620476830803E-02F, 7.8123410601011112965E-03F,
3.9062301319669718276E-03F, 1.9531225164788186851E-03F, 9.7656218955931943040E-04F, 4.8828121119489827547E-04F,
2.4414062014936176402E-04F, 1.2207031189367020424E-04F, 6.1035156174208775022E-05F, 3.0517578115526096862E-05F,
1.5258789061315762107E-05F, 7.6293945311019702634E-06F, 3.8146972656064962829E-06F, 1.9073486328101870354E-06F,
9.5367431640596087942E-07F, 4.7683715820308885993E-07F, 2.3841857910155798249E-07F, 1.1920928955078068531E-07F,
5.9604644775390554414E-08F, 2.9802322387695303677E-08F, 1.4901161193847655147E-08F, 7.4505805969238279871E-09F,
3.7252902984619140453E-09F, 1.8626451492309570291E-09F, 9.3132257461547851536E-10F, 4.6566128730773925778E-10F};
FLOAT32 arcsin_cordic(FLOAT32 t)
{
INT32 i;
INT32 j;
INT32 flip;
FLOAT32 poweroftwo;
FLOAT32 sigma;
FLOAT32 sign_or;
FLOAT32 theta;
FLOAT32 x1;
FLOAT32 x2;
FLOAT32 y1;
FLOAT32 y2;
flip = 0;
theta = 0.0F;
x1 = 1.0F;
y1 = 0.0F;
poweroftwo = 1.0F;
/* If the angle is small, use the small angle approximation */
if ((t >= -0.002F) && (t <= 0.002F))
{
return t;
}
if (t >= 0.0F)
{
sign_or = 1.0F;
}
else
{
sign_or = -1.0F;
}
/* The inv_sqrt() is the famous Fast Inverse Square Root from the Quake 3 engine
here used with 3 (!!) Newton iterations */
if ((t >= SQRT2_2) || (t <= -SQRT2_2))
{
t = 1.0F/inv_sqrt(1-t*t);
flip = 1;
}
if (t>=0.0F)
{
sign_or = 1.0F;
}
else
{
sign_or = -1.0F;
}
for ( j = 0; j < 32; j++ )
{
if (y1 > t)
{
sigma = -1.0F;
}
else
{
sigma = 1.0F;
}
/* Here a double iteration is done */
x2 = x1 - (sigma * poweroftwo * y1);
y2 = (sigma * poweroftwo * x1) + y1;
x1 = x2 - (sigma * poweroftwo * y2);
y1 = (sigma * poweroftwo * x2) + y2;
theta += 2.0F * sigma * angles[j];
t *= (1.0F + poweroftwo * poweroftwo);
poweroftwo *= 0.5F;
}
/* Remove bias */
theta -= sign_or*4.85E-8F;
if (flip)
{
theta = sign_or*(M_PI_2_32-theta);
}
return theta;
}
The following is to be noted:
It is a "Double-Iteration" CORDIC implementation.
The angles table thus differs in construction from the old table.
And the computation is done in floating point notation, this will cause a major increase in computation time on the target hardware.
A small bias is present in the output, removed via the theta -= sign_or*4.85E-8F; passage.
The following picture shows the absolute (left) and relative errors (right) of the old implementation (top) vs the implementation contained in this answer (bottom).
The relative error is obtained only by dividing the CORDIC output with the output of the built-in math.h implementation. It is plotted around 1 and not 0 for this reason.
The peak relative error (when not dividing by zero) is 1.0728836e-006.
The average relative error is 2.0253509e-007 (almost in accordance to 32 bit accuracy).

Answer 4

For convergence of iterative process it is necessary that any "wrong" i-th
iteration could be "corrected" in the subsequent (i+1)-th, (i+2)-th, (i+3)-th,
etc. etc. iterations. Or, in other words, at least a half of the "wrong"
i-th iteration could be corrected in the next (i+1)-th iteration.
For atan(1/2^i) this condition is satisfied, i.e.:
atan(1/2^(i+1)) > 1/2*atan(1/2^i)
Read more at
http://cordic-bibliography.blogspot.com/p/double-iterations-in-cordic.html
and:
http://baykov.de/CORDIC1972.htm
(note I'm the author of those pages)