test: migrate stats/base/dists/bradford/entropy to ULP-based assertions

[aryan7071]

Resolves a part of #11352

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• migrates the test suite for stats/base/dists/bradford/entropy from relative tolerance (abs/EPS-based) assertions to ULP difference assertions using @stdlib/assert/is-almost-same-value.
• updates test/test.js and test/test.native.js.
• removes the now-unused abs and EPS imports and the corresponding delta/tol variable declarations, collapsing each if/else exact-match-or-tolerance branch into a single isAlmostSameValue assertion. The pre-existing explanatory comment on the small_c block is preserved (updated to refer to the ULP tolerance rather than the old relative tolerance).

Measured minimum ULP bounds (identical across the main export and the native addon):

Fixture	ULP
small_c	1984
large_c	64

The small_c bound is large in absolute terms, consistent with the pre-existing comment in the test file: for very small values of the shape parameter c, nested ln calculations diverge slightly from the SciPy-generated reference fixtures, and the resulting entropy values are themselves very small in magnitude. Inspecting the worst-case row directly (c=0.1315...) shows the actual and expected values agree to ~13 significant digits (absolute difference ~2.15e-16); the large ULP count reflects the fine representable spacing of floating-point values at that small magnitude rather than a correctness issue.

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• [RFC]: Migrate math/base/special packages from relative tolerance testing to ULP difference testing (tracking issue) #11352

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

{{TODO: add disclosure if applicable}}

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
stats/base/dists/bradford/entropy	$\\color{green}172/172$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}8/8$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}2/2$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}172/172$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

[Planeshifter]

⚠️ Issue Reference Review

An automated check found potentially unrelated issue/PR references in this PR:

Reference	Assessment	Reasoning
#11352	suspicious	Issue #11352 is an RFC explicitly scoped to migrating math/base/special packages from relative-tolerance to ULP-based testing (its own instructions say to search for a package "in math/base/special"). This PR migrates tests for stats/base/dists/bradford/entropy, which is outside the issue's stated scope.

Why this matters: GitHub automatically closes issues referenced with
closing keywords (Resolves, Closes, Fixes) when the PR is merged. Incorrect
references can accidentally close unrelated issues.

What to do:

• If the reference is correct, no action needed. This check may produce
  false positives.
• If the reference is incorrect, please update your PR description.

This assessment was generated by an AI model and is informational only.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Thank you for working on this pull request. However, we cannot accept your contribution as the issue this pull request seeks to resolve has already been addressed in a different pull request or commit.

Thank you again for your interest in stdlib, and we look forward to reviewing your future contributions.