MM牧羊犬和JG Laframboise，“切比雪夫逼近的（1 + 2×）EXP（X ） erfc x in 0≤x <∞。“计算，第36卷，第153号，1981年1月，第的数学249-253 (online)
本文提出使得所述经缩放互补误差函数映射到一个紧界辅助函数是适合于简单的多项式巧妙变换近似。为了表现，我已经尝试过变化的变化，但所有这些都对准确性有负面影响。在变换（x - K）/（x + K）中常数K的选择与核心近似的精度之间存在着非明显的关系。我凭经验确定了与文章不同的“最佳”值。
核心近似和中间结果参数的转换回到erfcx结果会产生额外的舍入误差。为了减轻他们对准确性的影响，我们需要采取补偿步骤，我在之前的question & answer regarding erfcf中详细列出了这些步骤。FMA的可用性极大地简化了这项任务。
产生的单精度代码如下：
/*
* Based on: M. M. Shepherd and J. G. Laframboise, "Chebyshev Approximation of
* (1+2x)exp(x^2)erfc x in 0 <= x < INF", Mathematics of Computation, Vol. 36,
* No. 153, January 1981, pp. 249-253.
*
*/
float my_erfcxf (float x)
{
float a, d, e, m, p, q, r, s, t;
a = fmaxf (x, 0.0f - x); // NaN-preserving absolute value computation
/* Compute q = (a-2)/(a+2) accurately. [0,INF) -> [-1,1] */
m = a - 2.0f;
p = a + 2.0f;
#if FAST_RCP_SSE
r = fast_recipf_sse (p);
#else
r = 1.0f/p;
#endif
q = m * r;
t = fmaf (q + 1.0f, -2.0f, a);
e = fmaf (q, -a, t);
q = fmaf (r, e, q);
/* Approximate (1+2*a)*exp(a*a)*erfc(a) as p(q)+1 for q in [-1,1] */
p = 0x1.f10000p-15f; // 5.92470169e-5
p = fmaf (p, q, 0x1.521cc6p-13f); // 1.61224554e-4
p = fmaf (p, q, -0x1.6b4ffep-12f); // -3.46481771e-4
p = fmaf (p, q, -0x1.6e2a7cp-10f); // -1.39681227e-3
p = fmaf (p, q, 0x1.3c1d7ep-10f); // 1.20588380e-3
p = fmaf (p, q, 0x1.1cc236p-07f); // 8.69014394e-3
p = fmaf (p, q, -0x1.069940p-07f); // -8.01387429e-3
p = fmaf (p, q, -0x1.bc1b6cp-05f); // -5.42122945e-2
p = fmaf (p, q, 0x1.4ff8acp-03f); // 1.64048523e-1
p = fmaf (p, q, -0x1.54081ap-03f); // -1.66031078e-1
p = fmaf (p, q, -0x1.7bf5cep-04f); // -9.27637145e-2
p = fmaf (p, q, 0x1.1ba03ap-02f); // 2.76978403e-1
/* Divide (1+p) by (1+2*a) ==> exp(a*a)*erfc(a) */
d = a + 0.5f;
#if FAST_RCP_SSE
r = fast_recipf_sse (d);
#else
r = 1.0f/d;
#endif
r = r * 0.5f;
q = fmaf (p, r, r); // q = (p+1)/(1+2*a)
t = q + q;
e = (p - q) + fmaf (t, -a, 1.0f); // residual: (p+1)-q*(1+2*a)
r = fmaf (e, r, q);
if (a > 0x1.fffffep127f) r = 0.0f; // 3.40282347e+38 // handle INF argument
/* Handle negative arguments: erfcx(x) = 2*exp(x*x) - erfcx(|x|) */
if (x < 0.0f) {
s = x * x;
d = fmaf (x, x, -s);
e = expf (s);
r = e - r;
r = fmaf (e, d + d, r);
r = r + e;
if (e > 0x1.fffffep127f) r = e; // 3.40282347e+38 // avoid creating NaN
}
return r;
}
在负半平面这种实现的最大误差将取决于标准的数学库的实现expf()的准确性。使用英特尔编译器13.1.3.198版和编译/fp:strict，在完全测试中，我观察到正半平面上的最大误差为2.00450 ulps，负半平面上的最大误差为2.38412 ulps。我现在可以告诉的是，如果一个忠实的圆整实现expf()将导致小于2.5 ulps的最大误差。
请注意，尽管代码包含两个可能较慢操作的分区，但它们以互补的特殊形式出现，因此可以在许多平台上使用快速互易近似。只要倒数近似值可靠地取整，基于实验，对精度的影响似乎可以忽略不计。即使是稍大的错误，例如在快速SSE版本中（最大错误为< 2.0 ulps），似乎也只有很小的影响。
/* Fast reciprocal approximation. HW approximation plus Newton iteration */
float fast_recipf_sse (float a)
{
__m128 t;
float e, r;
t = _mm_set_ss (a);
t = _mm_rcp_ss (t);
_mm_store_ss (&r, t);
e = fmaf (0.0f - a, r, 1.0f);
r = fmaf (e, r, r);
return r;
}
双精度版本erfcx()是结构上等同于单精度版本erfcxf()，但需要有更多的条件极小极大多项式逼近。这在优化核心逼近时提出了一个挑战，因为当搜索空间非常大时，许多启发式算法都会失效。下面的系数代表了我迄今为止的最佳解决方案，并且肯定有改进的余地。用英特尔编译器和/fp:strict构建，并使用随机测试向量，观察到的最大误差在正半平面为2.83788 ulps，在负半平面为2.77856 ulps。
double my_erfcx (double x)
{
double a, d, e, m, p, q, r, s, t;
a = fmax (x, 0.0 - x); // NaN preserving absolute value computation
/* Compute q = (a-4)/(a+4) accurately. [0,INF) -> [-1,1] */
m = a - 4.0;
p = a + 4.0;
r = 1.0/p;
q = m * r;
t = fma (q + 1.0, -4.0, a);
e = fma (q, -a, t);
q = fma (r, e, q);
/* Approximate (1+2*a)*exp(a*a)*erfc(a) as p(q)+1 for q in [-1,1] */
p = 0x1.edcad78fc8044p-31; // 8.9820305531190140e-10
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.b1548f14735d1p-30); // 1.5764464777959401e-09
p = fma (p, q, -0x1.a1ad2e6c4a7a8p-27); // -1.2155985739342269e-08
p = fma (p, q, -0x1.1985b48f08574p-26); // -1.6386753783877791e-08
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.c6a8093ac4f83p-24); // 1.0585794011876720e-07
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.31c2b2b44b731p-24); // 7.1190423171700940e-08
p = fma (p, q, -0x1.b87373facb29fp-21); // -8.2040389712752056e-07
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.3fef1358803b7p-22); // 2.9796165315625938e-07
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.7eec072bb0be3p-18); // 5.7059822144459833e-06
p = fma (p, q, -0x1.78a680a741c4ap-17); // -1.1225056665965572e-05
p = fma (p, q, -0x1.9951f39295cf4p-16); // -2.4397380523258482e-05
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.3be1255ce180bp-13); // 1.5062307184282616e-04
p = fma (p, q, -0x1.a1df71176b791p-13); // -1.9925728768782324e-04
p = fma (p, q, -0x1.8d4aaa0099bc8p-11); // -7.5777369791018515e-04
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.49c673066c831p-8); // 5.0319701025945277e-03
p = fma (p, q, -0x1.0962386ea02b7p-6); // -1.6197733983519948e-02
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.3079edf465cc3p-5); // 3.7167515521269866e-02
p = fma (p, q, -0x1.0fb06dfedc4ccp-4); // -6.6330365820039094e-02
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.7fee004e266dfp-4); // 9.3732834999538536e-02
p = fma (p, q, -0x1.9ddb23c3e14d2p-4); // -1.0103906603588378e-01
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.16ecefcfa4865p-4); // 6.8097054254651804e-02
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.f7f5df66fc349p-7); // 1.5379652102610957e-02
p = fma (p, q, -0x1.1df1ad154a27fp-3); // -1.3962111684056208e-01
p = fma (p, q, 0x1.dd2c8b74febf6p-3); // 2.3299511862555250e-01
/* Divide (1+p) by (1+2*a) ==> exp(a*a)*erfc(a) */
d = a + 0.5;
r = 1.0/d;
r = r * 0.5;
q = fma (p, r, r); // q = (p+1)/(1+2*a)
t = q + q;
e = (p - q) + fma (t, -a, 1.0); // residual: (p+1)-q*(1+2*a)
r = fma (e, r, q);
/* Handle argument of infinity */
if (a > 0x1.fffffffffffffp1023) r = 0.0;
/* Handle negative arguments: erfcx(x) = 2*exp(x*x) - erfcx(|x|) */
if (x < 0.0) {
s = x * x;
d = fma (x, x, -s);
e = exp (s);
r = e - r;
r = fma (e, d + d, r);
r = r + e;
if (e > 0x1.fffffffffffffp1023) r = e; // avoid creating NaN
}
return r;
}