Take the 2-minute tour ×
Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for finance professionals and academics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm wondering if there's any point at all in double-precision calculations, or whether it's ok to just do everything in single-precision, seeing how the difference on non-Tesla GPUs for single and double-precision calculations appears to be large.

Some of the operations where this is relevant are:

  • General option pricing (BS, uses numerical approximation of cumulative normal distribution)
  • Calculating implied volatility (Newton-Raphson)
  • Interpolating the volatility smile (Levenberg-Marquardt)

In particular I'm interested in whether initial pricing is worth doing using a 'better' CND formula rather the one with just 5 constants in it... I know there are more precise ones with lots more constants, but I've been reticent to use one so far.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

When you decide if the performance improvement is worth it you can add these to the downside ow using single precision:

  • the result of your basic B-S pricer will eventually need to be multiplied with a notional and maybe a discount factor; For a sufficiently large notional you will see different results than the one calculated using double precision. Is that kind of a notional likely to occur in practice in your system?

  • numerical stability. The straight-forward implementation of many algorithms (Newton-Raphson and probably Levenberg-Marquardt) may be unstable under the reduced precision of a single. Stable versions are slower and add complexity.

  • validation. Many people use Excel or other similar software to quickly test the final results of a complex calculation. Due to the difference in precision between that and your software the results will not match, leading to head-scratching and an impossibility of validating your results.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for these. Excel parity is, in fact, important. –  Dmitri Nesteruk May 10 '12 at 18:00
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.