Say a function that counts the appearances of ones at each index of an array:
import theano
import theano.tensor as T
A = T.vector("A")
idx_range = T.arange(A.shape[0])
result, updates = theano.scan(fn=lambda idx: T.sum(A[:idx+1]), sequences=idx_range)
count_ones = theano.function(inputs=[A], outputs=result)
print count_ones([0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1])
# gives [ 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. 2. 3. 4.]
As said here, using scan may not be efficient. Plus, theano.scan always produces "RuntimeWarning: numpy.ndarray size changed, may indicate binary incompatibility from scan_perform.scan_perform import *" on my machine.
So I was wondering is there a better way of mapping functions in Theano?
Thanks in advance.
Edit:
I just realized it is a terrible example, apparently there's a more efficient way of just looping over the vector once like:
result, updates = theano.scan(fn=lambda prior_result, a: prior_result + a,
outputs_info=T.alloc(np.int32(0), 1),
sequences=A,
n_steps=A.shape[0])
However according to #Daniel Renshaw's answer, since
the computation in one step is dependent on the same computation at
some earlier step
so actually I can't avoid using scan in this regard, right?
Edit:
I thought of a way of vercotrizing it as:
A = T.vector()
in_size = 8
# a matrix with ones at and below the given diagonal and zeros elsewhere
mask = theano.shared(numpy.tri(in_size))
result = T.dot(mask, A)
count_ones = theano.function(inputs=[A], outputs=result)
print count_ones(numpy.asarray([0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1]))
But in this case I have to know the size of the input in advance (unless I can craft numpy.tri like matrices on the fly?).
Any suggestions would be welcome. :)
Edit:
I benchmarked the three methods using a 512D input array and 10000 iterations, and got the following results:
map a sum function to each element: CPU 16s GPU 140s
loop over the array using scan: CPU 13s GPU 32s
vectorization: CPU 0.8s GPU 0.8s (actually I don't think theano has engaged GPU to do this
In the most general case, if no assumptions are made about the function, then scan would have to be used. However, many (maybe most?) useful functions can be vectorized such that scan is not needed. As is pointed out in the question edit, the example function can certainly be applied to the input without using scan.
To decided whether scan is needed will depend on the function that needs to be applied. Case that certainly will require scan are those when the computation in one step is dependent on the same computation at some earlier step.
P.S. The warning about binary incompatibility can be safely ignored.
Related
TensorFlow recommends batching of datasets before transformations with map in order to vectorize the transformation and reduce overhead: https://www.tensorflow.org/guide/data_performance#vectorizing_mapping
However, there are cases where you want to perform transformations on the dataset and then do something (e.g., shuffle) on the UNBATCHED dataset.
I haven't been able to find anything to indicate which is more efficient:
1) dataset.map(my_transformations)
2) dataset.batch(batch_size).map(my_transformations).unbatch()
(2) has reduced map overhead from having vectorized with batch, but has additional overhead from having to unbatch the dataset after.
I could also see it being that there is not a universal rule. Short of testing every time I try a new dataset or transformation (or hardware!), is there a good rule of thumb here? I have seen several examples online use (2) without explanation, but I have no intuition on this subject, so...
Thanks in advance!
EDIT: I have since found that in at least some cases, (2) is MUCH less efficient than (1). For example, on our image dataset, applying random flips and rotations (with .map and the built-in TF functions tf.image.random_flip_left_right, tf.image.random_flip_up_down, and tf.image.rot90) per epoch for data augmentation takes 50% longer with (2). I still have no idea when to expect this to be the case, or not, but the tutorials' suggested approach is at least sometimes wrong.
The answer is (1). https://github.com/tensorflow/tensorflow/issues/40386
TF is modifying the documentation to reflect that the overhead from unbatch will usually (always?) be higher than the savings from vectorized transformations.
I am working with bidimensional arrays on Numpy for Extreme Learning Machines. One of my arrays, H, is random, and I want to compute its pseudoinverse.
If I use scipy.linalg.pinv2 everything runs smoothly. However, if I use scipy.linalg.pinv, sometimes (30-40% of the times) problems arise.
The reason why I am using pinv2 is because I read (here: http://vene.ro/blog/inverses-pseudoinverses-numerical-issues-speed-symmetry.html ) that pinv2 performs better on "tall" and on "wide" arrays.
The problem is that, if H has a column j of all 1, pinv(H) has huge coefficients at row j.
This is in turn a problem because, in such cases, np.dot(pinv(H), Y) contains some nan values (Y is an array of small integers).
Now, I am not into linear algebra and numeric computation enough to understand if this is a bug or some precision related property of the two functions. I would like you to answer this question so that, if it's the case, I can file a bug report (honestly, at the moment I would not even know what to write).
I saved the arrays with np.savetxt(fn, a, '%.2e', ';'): please, see https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/48242012/example.tar.gz to find them.
Any help is appreciated. In the provided file, you can see in pinv(H).csv that rows 14, 33, 55, 56 and 99 have huge values, while in pinv2(H) the same rows have more decent values.
Your help is appreciated.
In short, the two functions implement two different ways to calculate the pseudoinverse matrix:
scipy.linalg.pinv uses least squares, which may be quite compute intensive and take up a lot of memory.
https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.linalg.pinv.html#scipy.linalg.pinv
scipy.linalg.pinv2 uses SVD (singular value decomposition), which should run with a smaller memory footprint in most cases.
https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.linalg.pinv2.html#scipy.linalg.pinv2
numpy.linalg.pinv also implements this method.
As these are two different evaluation methods, the resulting matrices will not be the same. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages, and it is not always easy to determine which one should be used without deeply understanding the data and what the pseudoinverse will be used for. I'd simply suggest some trial-and-error and use the one which gives you the best results for your classifier.
Note that in some cases these functions cannot converge to a solution, and will then raise a scipy.stats.LinAlgError. In that case you may try to use the second pinv implementation, which will greatly reduce the amount of errors you receive.
Starting from scipy 1.7.0 , pinv2 is deprecated and also replaced by a SVD solution.
DeprecationWarning: scipy.linalg.pinv2 is deprecated since SciPy 1.7.0, use scipy.linalg.pinv instead
That means, numpy.pinv, scipy.pinv and scipy.pinv2 now compute all equivalent solutions. They are also equally fast in their computation, with scipy being slightly faster.
import numpy as np
import scipy
arr = np.random.rand(1000, 2000)
res1 = np.linalg.pinv(arr)
res2 = scipy.linalg.pinv(arr)
res3 = scipy.linalg.pinv2(arr)
np.testing.assert_array_almost_equal(res1, res2, decimal=10)
np.testing.assert_array_almost_equal(res1, res3, decimal=10)
Do we have a GPU accelerated of version of numpy.max(X, axis=None) in Theano.
I looked into the documentation and found theano.tensor.max(X, axis=None), but it is 4-5 times slower than the numpy implementation.
I can assure you, it is not slow because of some bad choice of matrix size. Same matrix under theano.tensor.exp is 40 times faster than its numpy counterpart.
Any suggestions?
The previous answer is partial. The suggestion should not work, as the work around is the one used in the final compiled code. There is optimization that will do this transformation automatically.
The title of the question isn't the same as the content. They differ by the axis argument. I'll answer both questions.
If the axis is 0 or None we support this on the GPU for that operation for matrix. If the axis is None, we have a basic implementation that isn't well optimized as it is harder to parallelize. If the axis is 0, we have a basic implementation, but it is faster as it is easier to parallelize.
Also, how did you do your timing? If you just make one function with only that operation and test it via the device=gpu flags to do your comparison, this will include the transfer time between CPU and GPU. This is a memory bound operation, so if you include the transfer in your timming, personnaly I don't expect any speed op for that case. To see only the GPU operation, use Theano profiler: run with the Theano flag profile=True.
The max and exp operations are fundamentally different; exp (and other operations like addition, sin, etc.) is an elementwise operation that is embarrassingly parallelizable, while max requires a parallel-processing scan algorithm that basically builds up a tree of pairwise comparisons over an array. It's not impossible to speed up max, but it's not as easy as exp.
Anyway, the theano implementation of max basically consists of the following lines (in theano/tensor/basic.py):
try:
out = max_and_argmax(x, axis)[0]
except Exception:
out = CAReduce(scal.maximum, axis)(x)
where max_and_argmax is a bunch of custom code that, to my eye, implements a max+argmax operation using numpy, and CAReduce is a generic GPU-accelerated scan operation used as a fallback (which, according to the comments, doesn't support grad etc.). You could try using the fallback directly and see whether that is faster, maybe something like this:
from theano.tensor.elemwise import CAReduce
from theano.scalar import maximum
def mymax(X, axis=None):
CAReduce(maximum, axis)(X)
NOTE:
Speed is not as important as getting a final result.
However, some speed up over worst case is required as well.
I have a large array A:
A.shape=(20000,265) # or possibly larger like 50,000 x 265
I need to compute the correlation coefficients.
np.corrcoeff # internally casts the results as doubles
I just borrowed their code and wrote my own cov/corr not casting into doubles, since I really only need 32 bit floats.And I ditch the conj() since my data are always real.
cov = A.dot(A.T)/n #where A is an array of 32 bit floats
diag = np.diag(cov)
corr = cov / np.sqrt(np.mutliply.outer(d,d))
I still run out of memory and I'm using a large memory machine, 264GB
I've been told, that the fast C libraries, are probably using a routine which breaks the
dot product up into pieces, and to optimize this, the number of elements is padded to a power of 2.
I don't really need to compute the symmetric half of the correlation coefficient matrix.
However, I don't see a way to do this in reasonable amount of time doing it "manually", with python loops.
Does anybody know of a way to ask numpy for a decent dot product routine, that balances memory usage with speed...?
Cheers
UPDATE:
Funny how writing these questions tends to help me find the language for a better google query.
Found this:
http://wiki.scipy.org/PerformanceTips
Not sure that I follow it....so, please comment or provide answers about this solution, your own ideas, or just general commentary on this type of problem.
TIA
EDIT: I apologize because my array is really much bigger than I thought.
array size is actually 151,000 x 265
I''m running out of memory on a machine with 264 GB with at least 230 GB free.
I'm surprised that the numpy call to blas dgemm and being careful with C order arrays
didn't do squat.
Python compiled with intel's mkl will run this with 12GB of memory in about 30 seconds:
>>> A = np.random.rand(50000,265).astype(np.float32)
>>> A.dot(A.T)
array([[ 86.54410553, 64.25226593, 67.24698639, ..., 68.5118103 ,
64.57299805, 66.69223785],
...,
[ 66.69223785, 62.01016235, 67.35866547, ..., 66.66306305,
65.75863647, 86.3017807 ]], dtype=float32)
If you do not have access to in intel's MKL download python anaconda and install the accelerate package which has a trial version for 30 days or free for academics that contains a mkl compile. Various other C++ BLAS libraries should work also- even if it copies the array from C to F it should not take more then ~30GB of memory.
The only thing that I can think of that your installation is trying to do is try to hold the entire 50,000 x 50,000 x 265 array in memory which is quite frankly terrible. For reference a float32 50,000 x 50,000 array is only 10GB, while the aforementioned array is 2.6TB...
If its a gemm issue you can try a chunk gemm formula:
def chunk_gemm(A, B, csize):
out = np.empty((A.shape[0],B.shape[1]), dtype=A.dtype)
for i in xrange(0, A.shape[0], csize):
iend = i+csize
for j in xrange(0, B.shape[1], csize):
jend = j+csize
out[i:iend, j:jend] = np.dot(A[i:iend], B[:,j:jend])
return out
This will be slower, but will hopefully get over your memory issues.
You can try and see if np.einsum works better than dot for your case:
cov = np.einsum('ij,kj->ik', A, A) / n
The internal workings of dot are a little obscure, as it tries to use BLAS optimized routines, which sometimes require copies of arrays to be in Fortran order, not sure if that's the case here. einsum will buffer its inputs, and use vectorized SIMD operations where possible, but outside that it is basically going to run the naive three nested loops to compute the matrix product.
UPDATE: Turns out the dot product completed with out error, but upon careful inspection
the output array consists of zeros at 95,000 to the end, of the 151,000 cols.
That is, out[:,94999] = non-zero but out[:,95000] = 0 for all rows...
This is super annoying...
Another Blas description
The exchange, mentions something that I thought about too...Since blas is fortran, shouldn't
the order of the input be F order...? Where as the scipy doc page below, says C order.
Trying F order caused a segmentation fault. So I'm back to square one.
ORIGINAL POST
I finally tracked down my problem, which was in the details as usual.
I'm using an array of np.float32 which were stored as F order. I can't control the F order to my knowledge, since the data is loaded from images using an imaging library.
import scipy
roi = np.ascontiguousarray( roi )# see roi.flags below
out = scipy.linalg.blas.sgemm(alpha=1.0, a=roi, b=roi, trans_b=True)
This level 3 blas routine does the trick. My problem was two fold:
roi.flags
C_CONTIGUOUS : False
F_CONTIGUOUS : True
OWNDATA : True
WRITEABLE : True
ALIGNED : True
UPDATEIFCOPY : False
And... i was using blas dgemm NOT sgemm. The 'd' is for 'double' and 's' for 'single'.
See this pdf: BLAS summary pdf
I looked at it once and was overwhelmed...I went back and read the wikipedia article on blas routines to understand level 3 vs other levels: wikipedia article on blas
Now it works on A = 150,000 x 265, performing:
A \dot A.T
Thanks everyone for your thoughts...knowing that it could be done was most important.
I have a large numpy array that I am going to take a linear projection of using randomly generated values.
>>> input_array.shape
(50, 200000)
>>> random_array = np.random.normal(size=(200000, 300))
>>> output_array = np.dot(input_array, random_array)
Unfortunately, random_array takes up a lot of memory, and my machine starts swapping. It seems to me that I don't actually need all of random_array around at once; in theory, I ought to be able to generate it lazily during the dot product calculation...but I can't figure out how.
How can I reduce the memory footprint of the calculation of output_array from input_array?
This obviously isn't the fastest solution, but have you tried:
m, inner = input_array.shape
n = 300
out = np.empty((m, n))
for i in xrange(n):
out[:, i] = np.dot(input_array, np.random.normal(size=inner))
This might be a situation where using cython could reduce your memory usage. You could generate the random numbers on the fly and accumulate the result as you go. I don't have the time to write and test the full function, but you would definitely want to use randomkit (the library that numpy uses under the hood) at the c-level.
You can take a look at some example code I wrote for another application to see how to wrap randomkit:
https://github.com/synapticarbors/pylangevin-integrator/blob/master/cIntegrator.pyx
And also check out how matrix multiplication is implemented in the following paper on cython:
http://conference.scipy.org/proceedings/SciPy2009/paper_2/full_text.pdf
Instead of having both arrays as inputs, just have input_array as one, and then in the method, generate small chunks of the random array as you go.
Sorry if it is just a sketch instead of actual code, but hopefully it is enough to get you started.