# What to return for non-differentiable points

If the function is not-differentiable choose to return something useful rather than erroring. For a branch a function is not differentiable due to e.g. a branch, like `abs`

, your rule can reasonably claim the derivative at that point is the value from either branch, *or* any value in-between. In particular for local optima (like in the case of `abs`

) claiming the derivative is 0 is a good idea. Similarly, if derivative is from one side is not defined, or is not finite, return the derivative from the other side. Throwing an error, or returning `NaN`

is generally the least useful option.

However, contrary to what calculus says most autodiff systems will return an answer for such functions. For example for: `abs_left(x) = (x <= 0) ? -x : x`

, AD will say the derivative at `x=0`

is `-1`

. Alternatively for: `abs_right(x) = (x < 0) ? -x : x`

, AD will say the derivative at `x=0`

is `1`

. Those two examples are weird since they are equal at all points, but AD claims different derivatives at `x=0`

. The way to fix autodiff systems being weird is to write custom rules. So what rule should we write for this case?

The obvious answer, would be to write a rule that throws an error if input at a point where calculus says the derivative is not defined. Another option is to return some error signally value like `NaN`

. Which you *can* do. However, there is no where to go with an error, the user still wants a derivative; so this is not useful.

Let us explore what is useful:

## Case Studies

### Derivative is defined in usual sense

`plot(x->x^3)`

This is the standard case, one can returned the derivative that is defined according to school room calculus. Here we would reasonably say that at `x=0`

the derivative is `3*0^2=0`

.

### Local Minima / Maxima

`plot(abs)`

`abs`

is the classic example of a function where the derivative is not defines as the limit from above is not equal to the limit from below

\[\operatorname{abs}'(0) = \lim_{h \to 0^-} \dfrac{\operatorname{abs}(0)-\operatorname{abs}(0-h)}{0-h} = -1\]

\[\operatorname{abs}'(0) = \lim_{h \to 0^+} \dfrac{\operatorname{abs}(0)-\operatorname{abs}(0-h)}{0-h} = 1\]

Now, as discussed in the introduction the AD system would on it's own choose either 1 or -1, depending on implementation.

We however have a potentially much nicer answer available to use: 0.

This has a number of advantages.

- It follows the rule that derivatives are zero at local minima (and maxima).
- If you leave a gradient decent optimizer running it will eventually actually converge absolutely to the point – where as with it being 1 or -1 it would never outright converge it would always flee.

Further:

- It is a perfectly nice member of the subderivative.
- It is the mean of the derivative on each side; which means that it will agree with central finite differencing at the point.

### Piecewise slope change

`plot(x-> x < 0 ? x : 5x)`

Here was have 3 main options, all are good.

We could say there derivative at 0 is:

- 1: which agrees with backwards finite differencing
- 5: which agrees with forwards finite differencing
- 3: which is the mean of
`[1, 5]`

, and agrees with central finite differencing

All of these options are perfectly nice members of the subderivative. `3`

is the arguably the nicest, but it is also the most expensive to compute. In general all are acceptable.

### Derivative zero almost everywhere

`plot(ceil)`

Here it is most useful to say the derivative is zero everywhere. The limits are zero from both sides.

The other option for `x->ceil(x)`

would be relax the problem into `x->x`

, and thus say it is 1 everywhere But that it too weird, if the use wanted a relaxation of the problem then they would provide one. We can not be imposing that relaxation on to `ceil`

for everyone is not reasonable.

### Not defined on one-side

`plot(x->exp(2log(x)))`

We do not have to worry about what to return for the side where it is not defined. As we will never be asked for the derivative at e.g. `x=-2.5`

since the primal function errors. But we do need to worry about at the boundary – if that boundary point doesn't error.

Since we will never be asked about the left-hand side (as the primal errors), we can use just the right-hand side derivative. In this case giving 0.0.

Also nice in this case is that it agrees with the symbolic simplification of `x->exp(2log(x))`

into `x->x^2`

.

### Derivative nonfinite and same on both sides

`plot(cbrt)`

Here we have no real choice but to say the derivative at `0`

is `Inf`

. We could consider as an alternative saying some large but finite value. However, if too large it will just overflow rapidly anyway; and if too small it will not dominate over finite terms. It is not possible to find a given value that is always large enough. Our alternatives woud be to consider the derivative at `nextfloat(0.0)`

or `prevfloat(0.0)`

. But this is more or less the same as choosing some large value – in this case an extremely large value that will rapidly overflow.

### Derivative on-finite and different on both sides

`plot(x-> sign(x) * cbrt(x))`

In this example, the primal is defined and finite, so we would like a derivative to defined. We are back in the case of a local minimal like we were for `abs`

. We can make most of the same arguments as we made there to justify saying the derivative is zero.

## Conclusion

From the case studies a few general rules can be seen for how to choose a value that is *useful*. These rough rules are:

- Say the derivative is 0 at local optima
- If the derivative from one side is defined and the other isn't, say it is the derivative taken from defined side.
- If the derivative from one side is finite and the other isn't, say it is the derivative taken from finite side.
- When derivative from each side is not equal, strongly consider reporting the average

Our goal as always, is to get a pragmatically useful result for everyone, which must by necessity also avoid a pathological result for anyone.