I want to solve the following non-linear system of equations.
Notes
the dot between a_k and x represents dot product.
the 0 in the first equation represents 0 vector and 0 in the second equation is scaler 0
all the matrices are sparse if that matters.
Known
K is an n x n (positive definite) matrix
each A_k is a known (symmetric) matrix
each a_k is a known n x 1 vector
N is known (let's say N = 50). But I need a method where I can easily change N.
Unknown (trying to solve for)
x is an n x 1 a vector.
each alpha_k for 1 <= k <= N a scaler
My thinking.
I am thinking of using scipy root to find x and each alpha_k. We essentially have n equations from each row of the first equation and another N equations from the constraint equations to solve for our n + N variables. Therefore we have the required number of equations to have a solution.
I also have a reliable initial guess for x and the alpha_k's.
Toy example.
n = 4
N = 2
K = np.matrix([[0.5, 0, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0, 0],[0,0,1,0], [0,0,0,0.5]])
A_1 = np.matrix([[0.98,0,0.46,0.80],[0,0,0.56,0],[0.93,0.82,0,0.27],[0,0,0,0.23]])
A_2 = np.matrix([[0.23, 0,0,0],[0.03,0.01,0,0],[0,0.32,0,0],[0.62,0,0,0.45]])
a_1 = np.matrix(scipy.rand(4,1))
a_2 = np.matrix(scipy.rand(4,1))
We are trying to solve for
x = [x1, x2, x3, x4] and alpha_1, alpha_2
Questions:
I can actually brute force this toy problem and feed it to the solver. But how do I do I solve this toy problem in such a way that I can extend it easily to the case when I have let's say n=50 and N=50
I will probably have to explicitly compute the Jacobian for larger matrices??.
Can anyone give me any pointers?
I think the scipy.optimize.root approach holds water, but steering clear of the trivial solution might be the real challenge for this system of equations.
In any event, this function uses root to solve the system of equations.
def solver(x0, alpha0, K, A, a):
'''
x0 - nx1 numpy array. Initial guess on x.
alpha0 - nx1 numpy array. Initial guess on alpha.
K - nxn numpy.array.
A - Length N List of nxn numpy.arrays.
a - Length N list of nx1 numpy.arrays.
'''
# Establish the function that produces the rhs of the system of equations.
n = K.shape[0]
N = len(A)
def lhs(x_alpha):
'''
x_alpha is a concatenation of x and alpha.
'''
x = np.ravel(x_alpha[:n])
alpha = np.ravel(x_alpha[n:])
lhs_top = np.ravel(K.dot(x))
for k in xrange(N):
lhs_top += alpha[k]*(np.ravel(np.dot(A[k], x)) + np.ravel(a[k]))
lhs_bottom = [0.5*x.dot(np.ravel(A[k].dot(x))) + np.ravel(a[k]).dot(x)
for k in xrange(N)]
lhs = np.array(lhs_top.tolist() + lhs_bottom)
return lhs
# Solve the system of equations.
x0.shape = (n, 1)
alpha0.shape = (N, 1)
x_alpha_0 = np.vstack((x0, alpha0))
sol = root(lhs, x_alpha_0)
x_alpha_root = sol['x']
# Compute norm of residual.
res = sol['fun']
res_norm = np.linalg.norm(res)
# Break out the x and alpha components.
x_root = x_alpha_root[:n]
alpha_root = x_alpha_root[n:]
return x_root, alpha_root, res_norm
Running on the toy example, however, only produces the trivial solution.
# Toy example.
n = 4
N = 2
K = np.matrix([[0.5, 0, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0, 0],[0,0,1,0], [0,0,0,0.5]])
A_1 = np.matrix([[0.98,0,0.46,0.80],[0,0,0.56,0],[0.93,0.82,0,0.27],
[0,0,0,0.23]])
A_2 = np.matrix([[0.23, 0,0,0],[0.03,0.01,0,0],[0,0.32,0,0],
[0.62,0,0,0.45]])
a_1 = np.matrix(scipy.rand(4,1))
a_2 = np.matrix(scipy.rand(4,1))
A = [A_1, A_2]
a = [a_1, a_2]
x0 = scipy.rand(n, 1)
alpha0 = scipy.rand(N, 1)
print 'x0 =', x0
print 'alpha0 =', alpha0
x_root, alpha_root, res_norm = solver(x0, alpha0, K, A, a)
print 'x_root =', x_root
print 'alpha_root =', alpha_root
print 'res_norm =', res_norm
Output is
x0 = [[ 0.00764503]
[ 0.08058471]
[ 0.88300129]
[ 0.85299622]]
alpha0 = [[ 0.67872815]
[ 0.69693346]]
x_root = [ 9.88131292e-324 -4.94065646e-324 0.00000000e+000
0.00000000e+000]
alpha_root = [ -4.94065646e-324 0.00000000e+000]
res_norm = 0.0
Related
I have an B x M x N tensor, X, and I have and B x 1 tensor, Y, which corresponds to the index of tensor X at dimension=1 that I want to keep. What is the shorthand for this slice so that I can avoid a loop?
Essentially I want to do this:
Z = torch.zeros(B,N)
for i in range(B):
Z[i] = X[i][Y[i]]
the following code is similar to the code in the loop. the difference is that instead of sequentially indexing the array Z,X and Y we are indexing them in parallel using the array i
B, M, N = 13, 7, 19
X = np.random.randint(100, size= [B,M,N])
Y = np.random.randint(M , size= [B,1])
Z = np.random.randint(100, size= [B,N])
i = np.arange(B)
Y = Y.ravel() # reducing array to rank-1, for easy indexing
Z[i] = X[i,Y[i],:]
this code can be further simplified as
-> Z[i] = X[i,Y[i],:]
-> Z[i] = X[i,Y[i]]
-> Z[i] = X[i,Y]
-> Z = X[i,Y]
pytorch equivalent code
B, M, N = 5, 7, 3
X = torch.randint(100, size= [B,M,N])
Y = torch.randint(M , size= [B,1])
Z = torch.randint(100, size= [B,N])
i = torch.arange(B)
Y = Y.ravel()
Z = X[i,Y]
The answer provided by #Hammad is short and perfect for the job. Here's an alternative solution if you're interested in using some less known Pytorch built-ins. We will use torch.gather (similarly you can achieve this with numpy.take).
The idea behind torch.gather is to construct a new tensor-based on two identically shaped tensors containing the indices (here ~ Y) and the values (here ~ X).
The operation performed is Z[i][j][k] = X[i][Y[i][j][k]][k].
Since X's shape is (B, M, N) and Y shape is (B, 1) we are looking to fill in the blanks inside Y such that Y's shape becomes (B, 1, N).
This can be achieved with some axis manipulation:
>>> Y.expand(-1, N)[:, None] # expand to dim=1 to N and unsqueeze dim=1
The actual call to torch.gather will be:
>>> X.gather(dim=1, index=Y.expand(-1, N)[:, None])
Which you can reshape to (B, N) by adding in [:, 0].
This function can be very effective in tricky scenarios...
I have a system given by this recursive relationship: xt = At xt-1 + bt. I wish to compute xt for all t, with At, bt and x0 given. Is there are built-in function for that? If I use a loop it would be extremely slow. Thanks!
There is sort of a way. Let's say you have your A matrices in a 3D tensor with shape (T, N, N), where T is the total number of time steps and N is the size of your vector. Similarly, B values are in a 2D tensor (T, N). The first step in the computation would be:
x1 = A[0] # x0 + B[0]
Where # represents matrix product. But you can convert this into a single matrix product. Suppose we add a value 1 at the end of x0, and we call that x0p (for prime):
x0p = tf.concat([x, [1]], axis=0)
And now we build a new 3D tensor Ap with shape (T, N+1, N+1), such that for each A[i] we concatenate B[i] as a new column, and then we add a row with N zeros and a single one at the end:
AwithB = tf.concat([tf.concat([A, tf.expand_dims(B, 2)], axis=2)], axis=1)
AnewRow = tf.concat([tf.zeros((T, 1, N), A.dtype), tf.ones((T, 1, 1), A.dtype)], axis=2)
Ap = tf.concat([AwithB, AnewRow], axis=1)
As it turns out, you can now say:
x1p = Ap[0] # x0p
And therefore:
x2p = Ap[1] # x1p = Ap[1] # Ap[0] # x0p
So we just need to compute all the matrix product of all matrices in Ap across the first dimension. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a direct operation to compute that with TensorFlow, but you can do it relatively fast with tf.scan:
Ap_prod = tf.scan(tf.matmul, Ap)[-1]
And with that you just have to do:
xtp = Ap_prod # x0p
Here is a proof of concept (the code is tweaked to support single examples and batches, either in the A and B values or in the x)
import tensorflow as tf
def compute_state(a, b, x):
s = tf.shape(a)
t = s[-3]
n = s[-1]
# Add final 1 to x
xp = tf.concat([x, tf.ones_like(x[..., :1])], axis=-1)
# Add B column to A
a_b = tf.concat([tf.concat([a, tf.expand_dims(b, axis=-1)], axis=-1)], axis=-2)
# Make new final row for A
a_row = tf.concat([tf.zeros_like(a[..., :1, :]),
tf.ones_like(a[..., :1, :1])], axis=-1)
# Add new row to A
ap = tf.concat([a_b, a_row], axis=-2)
# Compute matrix product reduction
ap_prod = tf.scan(tf.matmul, ap)[..., -1, :, :]
# Compute final result
outp = tf.linalg.matvec(ap_prod, xp)
return outp[..., :-1]
#Test
tf.random.set_seed(0)
a = tf.random.uniform((10, 5, 5), -1, 1)
b = tf.random.uniform((10, 5), -1, 1)
x = tf.random.uniform((5,), -1, 1)
y = compute_state(a, b, x)
# Also works with batches of (a, b) or x
a = tf.random.uniform((100, 10, 5, 5), -1, 1)
b = tf.random.uniform((100, 10, 5), -1, 1)
x = tf.random.uniform((100, 5), -1, 1)
y = compute_state(a, b, x)
Link is here : https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~r01922136/slides/ffm.pdf (slides 5-6)
Given the following matrices:
X : n * d
W : d * k
Is there an efficient way to calculate the n x 1 matrix using only matrix operations (eg. numpy, tensorflow), where the jth element is :
EDIT:
Current attempt is this, but obviously it's not very space efficient, as it requires storing matrices of size n*d*d :
n = 1000
d = 256
k = 32
x = np.random.normal(size=[n,d])
w = np.random.normal(size=[d,k])
xxt = np.matmul(x.reshape([n,d,1]),x.reshape([n,1,d]))
wwt = np.matmul(w.reshape([1,d,k]),w.reshape([1,k,d]))
output = xxt*wwt
output = np.sum(output,(1,2))
Avoid large temporary arrays
Not all types of algorithms are that easily or obviously to vectorize. The np.sum(xxt*wwt) can be rewritten using np.einsum. This should be faster than your solution, but has some other limitations (eg. no multithreading).
I would therefor suggest using a compiler like Numba.
Example
import numpy as np
import numba as nb
import time
#nb.njit(fastmath=True,parallel=True)
def factorization_nb(w,x):
n = x.shape[0]
d = x.shape[1]
k = w.shape[1]
output=np.empty(n,dtype=w.dtype)
wwt=np.dot(w.reshape((d,k)),w.reshape((k,d)))
for i in nb.prange(n):
sum=0.
for j in range(d):
for jj in range(d):
sum+=x[i,j]*x[i,jj]*wwt[j,jj]
output[i]=sum
return output
def factorization_orig(w,x):
n = x.shape[0]
d = x.shape[1]
k = w.shape[1]
xxt = np.matmul(x.reshape([n,d,1]),x.reshape([n,1,d]))
wwt = np.matmul(w.reshape([1,d,k]),w.reshape([1,k,d]))
output = xxt*wwt
output = np.sum(output,(1,2))
return output
Mesuring Performance
n = 1000
d = 256
k = 32
x = np.random.normal(size=[n,d])
w = np.random.normal(size=[d,k])
#first call has some compilation overhead
res_1=factorization_nb(w,x)
t1=time.time()
for i in range(100):
res_1=factorization_nb(w,x)
#res_2=factorization_orig(w,x)
print(time.time()-t1)
Timings
factorization_nb: 4.2 ms per iteration
factorization_orig: 460 ms per iteration (110x speedup)
For an einsum implemtnation in pytorch, it would be something like
V = torch.randn([50, 10])
x = torch.randn([50])
result = (torch.einsum('ik,jk,i,j->', V, V, x, x)-torch.einsum('ik,ik,i,i->', V, V, x, x))/2
where we subtract the contribution from the feature weight being dotted with itself.
I want to calculate pairwise distance between a set of Tensor (e.g 4 Tensor). Each matrix is 2D Tensor. I don't know how to do this in vectorize format. I wrote following sudo-code to determine what I need:
E.shape => [4,30,30]
sum = 0
for i in range(4):
for j in range(4):
res = calculate_distance(E[i],E[j]) # E[i] is one the 30*30 Tensor
sum = sum + reduce_sum(res)
Here is my last try:
x_ = tf.expand_dims(E, 0)
y_ = tf.expand_dims(E, 1)
s = x_ - y_
P = tf.reduce_sum(tf.norm(s, axis=[-2, -1]))
This code works But I don't know how do this in a Batch. For instance when E.shape is [BATCH_SIZE * 4 * 30 * 30] my code doesn't work and Out Of Memory will happen. How can I do this efficiently?
Edit: After a day, I find a solution. it's not perfect but works:
res = tf.map_fn(lambda x: tf.map_fn(lambda y: tf.map_fn(lambda z: tf.norm(z - x), x), x), E)
res = tf.reduce_mean(tf.square(res))
Your solution with expand_dims should be okay if your batch size is not too large. However, given that your original pseudo code loops over range(4), you should probably expand axes 1 and 2, instead of 0 and 1.
You can check the shape of the tensors to ensure that you're specifying the correct axes. For example,
batch_size = 8
E_np = np.random.rand(batch_size, 4, 30, 30)
E = K.variable(E_np) # shape=(8, 4, 30, 30)
x_ = K.expand_dims(E, 1)
y_ = K.expand_dims(E, 2)
s = x_ - y_ # shape=(8, 4, 4, 30, 30)
distances = tf.norm(s, axis=[-2, -1]) # shape=(8, 4, 4)
P = K.sum(distances, axis=[-2, -1]) # shape=(8,)
Now P will be the sum of pairwise distances between the 4 matrices for each of the 8 samples.
You can also verify that the values in P is the same as what would be computed in your pseudo code:
answer = []
for batch_idx in range(batch_size):
s = 0
for i in range(4):
for j in range(4):
a = E_np[batch_idx, i]
b = E_np[batch_idx, j]
s += np.sqrt(np.trace(np.dot(a - b, (a - b).T)))
answer.append(s)
print(answer)
[149.45960605637578, 147.2815068236368, 144.97487402393705, 146.04866735065312, 144.25537059201062, 148.9300986019226, 146.61229889228133, 149.34259789169045]
print(K.eval(P).tolist())
[149.4595947265625, 147.281494140625, 144.97488403320312, 146.04867553710938, 144.25537109375, 148.9300994873047, 146.6123046875, 149.34259033203125]
Tensorflow allows to compute the Frobenius norm via tf.norm function. In case of 2D matrices, it's equivalent to 1-norm.
The following solution isn't vectorized and assumes that the first dimension in E is known statically:
E = tf.random_normal(shape=[5, 3, 3], dtype=tf.float32)
F = tf.split(E, E.shape[0])
total = tf.reduce_sum([tf.norm(tensor=(lhs-rhs), ord=1, axis=(-2, -1)) for lhs in F for rhs in F])
Update:
An optimized vectorized version of the same code:
E = tf.random_normal(shape=[1024, 4, 30, 30], dtype=tf.float32)
lhs = tf.expand_dims(E, axis=1)
rhs = tf.expand_dims(E, axis=2)
total = tf.reduce_sum(tf.norm(tensor=(lhs - rhs), ord=1, axis=(-2, -1)))
Memory concerns: upon evaluating this code,
tf.contrib.memory_stats.MaxBytesInUse() reports that the peak memory consumption is 73729792 = 74Mb, which indicates relatively moderate overhead (the raw lhs-rhs tensor is 59Mb). Your OOM is most likely caused by the duplication of BATCH_SIZE dimension when you compute s = x_ - y_, because your batch size is much larger than the number of matrices (1024 vs 4).
Let x and y be vectors of length N, and z is a function z = f(x,y). In Tensorflow v1.0.0, tf.hessians(z,x) and tf.hessians(z,y) both returns an N by N matrix, which is what I expected.
However, when I concatenate the x and y into a vector p of size 2*N using tf.concat, and run tf.hessian(z, p), it returns error "ValueError: None values not supported."
I understand this is because in the computation graph x,y ->z and x,y -> p, so there is no gradient between p and z. To circumvent the problem, I can create p first, slice it into x and y, but I will have to change a ton of my code. Is there a more elegant way?
related question: Slice of a variable returns gradient None
import tensorflow as tf
import numpy as np
N = 2
A = tf.Variable(np.random.rand(N,N).astype(np.float32))
B = tf.Variable(np.random.rand(N,N).astype(np.float32))
x = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([N]) )
y = tf.Variable(tf.random_normal([N]) )
#reshape to N by 1
x_1 = tf.reshape(x,[N,1])
y_1 = tf.reshape(y,[N,1])
#concat x and y to form a vector with length of 2*N
p = tf.concat([x,y],axis = 0)
#define the function
z = 0.5*tf.matmul(tf.matmul(tf.transpose(x_1), A), x_1) + 0.5*tf.matmul(tf.matmul(tf.transpose(y_1), B), y_1) + 100
#works , hx and hy are both N by N matrix
hx = tf.hessians(z,x)
hy = tf.hessians(z,y)
#this gives error "ValueError: None values not supported."
#expecting a matrix of size 2*N by 2*N
hp = tf.hessians(z,p)
Compute the hessian by its definition.
gxy = tf.gradients(z, [x, y])
gp = tf.concat([gxy[0], gxy[1]], axis=0)
hp = []
for i in range(2*N):
hp.append(tf.gradients(gp[i], [x, y]))
Because tf.gradients computes the sum of (dy/dx), so when computing the second partial derivative, one should slice the vector into scalars and then compute the gradient. Tested on tf1.0 and python2.