test: migrate stats/base/dists/geometric/logpmf to ULP-based assertions

[kgryte]

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/geometric/logpmf from relative tolerance assertions (delta <= tol, where tol = N * EPS * abs( expected )) to ULP difference assertions using @stdlib/assert/is-almost-same-value.
• updates test/test.logpmf.js, test/test.factory.js, and test/test.native.js. test/test.js is unchanged, as it contains no tolerance-based assertions.
• removes the now unused @stdlib/math/base/special/abs and @stdlib/constants/float64/eps requires from the updated test files.

ULP bounds

Each bound was tightened to the measured minimum over the full fixture set (1000 values per fixture):

Fixture	Previous tolerance	ULP bound	Measured minimum
small_p.json	2.0 * EPS * abs( expected )	1	1
large_p.json	1.5 * EPS * abs( expected )	2	2

Notes on how the bounds were determined:

• For every fixture value, the minimum ULP distance between the returned value and the expected value was computed, and the maximum over each fixture set was taken as the bound.
• Lowering either bound by one causes failures (14 failing assertions across the fixture sets), so the values above are the tightest which pass.
• The suite was run twice at the final bounds with identical results.
• The C implementation was measured separately by compiling src/main.c (and its transitive C dependencies) into a standalone harness and evaluating the same fixtures. It produces bit-identical results to the JavaScript implementation at -O0, -O2, -O3, and -O3 -ffp-contract=fast, so test/test.native.js uses the same bounds.

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.

Opened as a draft. Note that this environment could not complete make install-node-modules (the dependency tree currently fails to resolve es-object-atoms@^1.1.2, which is not published), so the package tests were run directly with tape and lint was run with the repository's etc/eslint/.eslintrc.tests.js configuration; the stdlib/jsdoc-markdown-remark rule had to be disabled locally because its mathjax-node-sre dependency was unavailable. That rule only applies to Markdown within JSDoc comments, which this pull request does not touch. Full CI verification is therefore deferred to the CI workflows.

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

This PR was written by Claude Code, running as an unattended task. The ULP bounds were measured empirically against the existing fixtures rather than guessed, and verified to be minimal.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_016qDBdX4stVDGqj5ywZ7uwf

---

Generated by Claude Code

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
stats/base/dists/geometric/logpmf	$\\color{green}289/289$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}24/24$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}4/4$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$	$\\color{green}289/289$ $\\color{green}+100.00\\%$

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