# Loss of significance

**Loss of significance** is an undesirable effect in calculations using finite-precision arithmetic such as floating-point arithmetic. It occurs when an operation on two numbers increases relative error substantially more than it increases absolute error, for example in subtracting two nearly equal numbers (known as catastrophic cancellation). The effect is that the number of significant digits in the result is reduced unacceptably. Ways to avoid this effect are studied in numerical analysis.

The effect can be demonstrated with decimal numbers. The following example demonstrates catastrophic cancellation for a decimal floating-point data type with 10 significant digits:

A floating-point representation of this number on a machine that keeps 10 floating-point digits would be

which is fairly close when measuring the error as a percentage of the value. It is very different when measured in order of precision. The value 'x' is accurate to 10×10^{−19}, while the value 'y' is only accurate to 10×10^{−10}.

However, on the 10-digit floating-point machine, the calculation yields

In both cases the result is accurate to same order of magnitude as the inputs (−20 and −10 respectively). In the second case, the answer seems to have one significant digit, which would amount to loss of significance. However, in computer floating-point arithmetic, all operations can be viewed as being performed on antilogarithms, for which the rules for significant figures indicate that the number of significant figures remains the same as the smallest number of significant figures in the mantissas. The way to indicate this and represent the answer to 10 significant figures is

It is possible to do computations using an exact fractional representation of rational numbers and keep all significant digits, but this is often prohibitively slower than floating-point arithmetic.

One of the most important parts of numerical analysis is to avoid or minimize loss of significance in calculations. If the underlying problem is well-posed, there should be a stable algorithm for solving it.

Sometimes clever algebra tricks can change an expression into a form that circumvents the problem. One such trick is to use the well-known equation

Notice that the solution of greater magnitude is accurate to ten digits, but the first nonzero digit of the solution of lesser magnitude is wrong.

Because of the subtraction that occurs in the quadratic equation, it does not constitute a stable algorithm to calculate the two roots.

A careful floating-point computer implementation combines several strategies to produce a robust result. Assuming that the discriminant *b*^{2} − 4*ac* is positive, and *b* is nonzero, the computation would be as follows:^{[1]}

Using the standard quadratic formula and maintaining 16 significant digits at each step, the standard quadratic formula yields

To illustrate this, consider the following quadratic equation, adapted from Kahan (2004):^{[2]}

which are both false after the 8th significant digit. This is despite the fact that superficially, the problem seems to require only 11 significant digits of accuracy for its solution.