Spark out of memory when reducing by key - scala

I'm working on a algorithm that requires math operations on large matrix. Basically, the algorithm involves the following steps:
Inputs: two vectors u and v of size n
For each vector, compute pairwise Euclidean distance between elements in the vector. Return two matrix E_u and E_v
For each entry in the two matrices, apply a function f. Return two matrix M_u, M_v
Find the eigen values and eigen vectors of M_u. Return e_i, ev_i for i = 0,...,n-1
Compute the outer product for each eigen vector. Return a matrix O_i = e_i*transpose(e_i), i = 0,...,n-1
Adjust each eigen value with e_i = e_i + delta_i, where delta_i = sum all elements(elementwise product of O_i and M_v)/2*mu, where mu is a parameter
Final return a matrix A = elementwise sum (e_i * O_i) over i = 0,...,n-1
The issue I'm facing is mainly the memory when n is large (15000 or more), since all matrices here are dense matrices. My current way to implement this may not be the best, and partially worked.
I used a RowMatrix for M_u and get eigen decomposition using SVD.
The resulting U factor of SVD is a row matrix whose columns are ev_i's, so I have to manually transpose it so that its rows become ev_i. The resulting e vector is the eigen values e_i.
Since a previous attempt of directly mapping each row ev_i to O_i failed due to out of memory, I'm currently doing
R = U.map{
case(i,ev_i) => {
(i, ev_i.toArray.zipWithIndex)
}
}//add index for each element in a vector
.flatMapValues(x=>x)}
.join(U)//eigen vectors column is appended
.map{case(eigenVecId, ((vecElement,elementId), eigenVec))=>(elementId, (eigenVecId, vecElement*eigenVec))}
To compute adjusted e_i's in step 5 above, M_v is stored as rdd of tuples (i, denseVector). Then
deltaRdd = R.join(M_v)
.map{
case(j,((i,row_j_of_O_i),row_j_of_M_v))=>
(i,row_j_of_O_i.t*DenseVector(row_j_of_M_v.toArray)/(2*mu))
}.reduceByKey(_+_)
Finally, to compute A, again due to memory issue, I have to first joining rows from different rdds and then reducing by key. Specifically,
R_rearranged = R.map{case(j, (i, row_j_of_O_i))=>(i,(j,row_j_of_O_i))}
termsForA = R_rearranged.join(deltaRdd)
A = termsForA.map{
case(i,(j,row_j_of_O_i), delta_i)) => (j, (delta_i + e(i))*row_j_of_O_i)
}
.reduceByKey(_+_)
The above implementation worked to the step of termsForA, which means if I execute an action on termsForA like termsForA.take(1).foreach(println), it succeeded. But if I execute an action on A, like A.count(), an OOM error occured on driver.
I tried to tune sparks configuration to increase driver memory as well as parallelism level, but all failed.

Use IndexedRowMatrix instead of RowMatrix, it will help in conversions and transpose.
Suppose your IndexedRowMatrix is Irm
svd = Irm.computeSVD(k, True)
U = svd.U
U = U.toCoordinateMatrix().transpose().toIndexedRowMatrix()
You can convert Irm to BlockMatrix for multiplication with another distributed BlockMatrix.

I guess at some point Spark decided there's no need to carry out operations on executors, and do all the work on driver. Actually, termsForA would fail as well in action like count. Somehow I made it work by broadcasting deltaRdd and e.

Related

Cosine similarity of two sparse vectors in Scala Spark

I have a dataframe with two columns where each row has a Sparse Vector. I try to find a proper way to calculate the cosine similarity (or just the dot product) of the two vectors in each row.
However, I haven't been able to find any library or tutorial to do it for Sparse vectors.
The only way I found is the following:
Create a k X n matrix, where n items are described as k-dimensioned vectors. For representing each item as a k dimension vector, you can use ALS which represents each entity in a latent factor space. The dimension of this space (k) can be chosen by you. This k X n matrix can be represented as RDD[Vector].
Convert this k X n matrix to RowMatrix.
Use columnSimilarities() function to get a n X n matrix of similarities between n items.
I feel it is an overkill to calculate all the cosine similarities for each pair while I need it only for the specific pairs in my (quite big) dataframe.
In Spark 3 there is now method dot for a SparseVector object, which takes another vector as its argument.
If you want to do this in earlier versions, you could create a user defined function that follows this algorithm:
Take intersection of your vectors' indices.
Get two subarrays of your vectors' values based on the indices from the intersection.
Do pairwise multiplication of the elements of those two subarrays.
Sum the values resulting values from such pairwise multiplication.
Here's my realization of it:
import org.apache.spark.ml.linalg.SparseVector
def dotProduct(vec: SparseVector, vecOther: SparseVector) = {
val commonIndices = vec.indices intersect vecOther.indices
commonIndices.map(x => vec(x) * vecOther(x)).reduce(_+_)
}
I guess you know how to turn it into a Spark UDF from here and apply it to your dataframe's columns.
And if you normalize your sparse vectors with org.apache.spark.ml.feature.Normalizer before computing your dot product, you'll get cosine similarity in the end (by definition).
Great answer above #Sergey-Zakharov +1.
A few adds-on:
The reduce doesn't work on empty sequences.
Make sure computing L2 normalization.
val normalizer = new Normalizer()
.setInputCol("features")
.setOutputCol("normFeatures")
.setP(2.0)
val l2NormData = normalizer.transform(df_features)
and
val dotProduct = udf {(v1: SparseVector, v2: SparseVector) =>
v1.indices.intersect(v2.indices).map(x => v1(x) * v2(x)).reduceOption(_ + _).getOrElse(0.0)
}
and then
val df = dfA.crossJoin(broadcast(dfB))
.withColumn("dot", dotProduct(col("featuresA"), col("featuresB")))
If the number of vectors you want to calculate the dot product with is small, cache the RDD[Vector] table. Create a new table [cosine_vectors] that is a filter on the original table to only select the vectors you want the cosine similarities for. Broadcast join those two together and calculate.

Adding a sparse vector to a dense vector in Matlab

Suppose I have a high dimensional vector v which is dense and another high dimensional vector x which is sparse and I want to do an operation which looks like
v = v + x
Ideally since one needs to update only a few entries in v this operation should be fast but it is still taking a good amount of time even when I have declared x to be sparse. I have tried with v being in full as well as v being in sparse form and both are fairly slow.
I have also tried to extract the indices from the sparse vector x by calling a find and then updating the original vector in a for loop. This is faster than the above operations, but is there a way to achieve the same with much less code.
Thanks
Quoting from the Matlab documentation (emphasis mine):
Binary operators yield sparse results if both operands are sparse, and full results if both are full. For mixed operands, the result is full unless the operation preserves sparsity. If S is sparse and F is full, then S+F, S*F, and F\S are full, while S.*F and S&F are sparse. In some cases, the result might be sparse even though the matrix has few zero elements.
Therefore, if you wish to keep x sparse, I think using logical indexing to update v with the nonzero values of x is best. Here is a sample function that shows either logical indexing or explicitly full-ing x is best (at least on my R2015a install):
function [] = blur()
n = 5E6;
v = rand(n,1);
x = sprand(n,1,0.001);
xf = full(x);
vs = sparse(v);
disp(['Full-Sparse: ',num2str(timeit(#() v + x) ,'%9.5f')]);
disp(['Full-Full: ',num2str(timeit(#() v + xf) ,'%9.5f')]);
disp(['Sparse-Sparse: ',num2str(timeit(#() vs + x) ,'%9.5f')]);
disp(['Logical Index: ',num2str(timeit(#() update(v,x)),'%9.5f')]);
end
function [] = update(v,x)
mask = x ~= 0;
v(mask) = v(mask) + x(mask);
end

Matrix indices for creating sparse matrix

I want to create a 4 by 4 sparse matrix A. I want assign values (e.g. 1) to following entries:
A(2,1), A(3,1), A(4,1)
A(2,2), A(3,2), A(4,2)
A(2,3), A(3,3), A(4,3)
A(2,4), A(3,4), A(4,4)
According to the manual page, I know that I should store the indices by row and column respectively. That is, for row indices,
r=[2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4]
Also, for column indices
c=[1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4]
Since I want to assign 1 to each of the entries, so I use
value = ones(1,length(r))
Then, my sparse matrix will be
Matrix = sparse(r,c,value,4,4)
My problem is this:
Indeed, I want to construct a square matrix of arbitrary dimension. Says, if it is a 10 by 10 matrix, then my column vector will be
[1,2,..., 10, 1,2, ..., 10, 1,...,10, 1,...10]
For row vector, it will be
[2,2,...,2,3,3,...,3,...,10, 10, ...,10]
I would like to ask if there is a quick way to build these column and row vector in an efficient manner? Thanks in advance.
I think the question aims to create vectors c,r in an easy way.
n = 4;
c = repmat(1:n,1,n-1);
r = reshape(repmat(2:n,n,1),1,[]);
Matrix = sparse(r,c,value,n,n);
This will create your specified vectors in general.
However as pointed out by others full sparse matrixes are not very efficient due to overhead. If I recall correctly a sparse matrix offers advantages if the density is lower than 25%. Having everything except the first row will result in slower performance.
You can sparse a matrix after creating its full version.
A = (10,10);
A(1,:) = 0;
B = sparse(A);

MATLAB: Find abbreviated version of matrix that minimises sum of matrix elements

I have a 151-by-151 matrix A. It's a correlation matrix, so there are 1s on the main diagonal and repeated values above and below the main diagonal. Each row/column represents a person.
For a given integer n I will seek to reduce the size of the matrix by kicking people out, such that I am left with a n-by-n correlation matrix that minimises the total sum of the elements. In addition to obtaining the abbreviated matrix, I also need to know the row number of the people who should be booted out of the original matrix (or their column number - they'll be the same number).
As a starting point I take A = tril(A), which will remove redundant off-diagonal elements from the correlation matrix.
So, if n = 4 and we have the hypothetical 5-by-5 matrix above, it's very clear that person 5 should be kicked out of the matrix, since that person is contributing a lot of very high correlations.
It's also clear that person 1 should not be kicked out, since that person contributes a lot of negative correlations, and thus brings down the sum of the matrix elements.
I understand that sum(A(:)) will sum everything in the matrix. However, I'm very unclear about how to search for the minimum possible answer.
I noticed a similar question Finding sub-matrix with minimum elementwise sum, which has a brute force solution as the accepted answer. While that answer works fine there it's impractical for a 151-by-151 matrix.
EDIT: I had thought of iterating, but I don't think that truly minimizes the sum of elements in the reduced matrix. Below I have a 4-by-4 correlation matrix in bold, with sums of rows and columns on the edges. It's apparent that with n = 2 the optimal matrix is the 2-by-2 identity matrix involving Persons 1 and 4, but according to the iterative scheme I would have kicked out Person 1 in the first phase of iteration, and so the algorithm makes a solution that is not optimal. I wrote a program that always generated optimal solutions, and it works well when n or k are small, but when trying to make an optimal 75-by-75 matrix from a 151-by-151 matrix I realised my program would take billions of years to terminate.
I vaguely recalled that sometimes these n choose k problems can be resolved with dynamic programming approaches that avoid recomputing things, but I can't work out how to solve this, and nor did googling enlighten me.
I'm willing to sacrifice precision for speed if there's no other option, or the best program will take more than a week to generate a precise solution. However, I'm happy to let a program run for up to a week if it will generate a precise solution.
If it's not possible for a program to optimise the matrix within an reasonable timeframe, then I would accept an answer that explains why n choose k tasks of this particular sort can't be resolved within reasonable timeframes.
This is an approximate solution using a genetic algorithm.
I started with your test case:
data_points = 10; % How many data points will be generated for each person, in order to create the correlation matrix.
num_people = 25; % Number of people initially.
to_keep = 13; % Number of people to be kept in the correlation matrix.
to_drop = num_people - to_keep; % Number of people to drop from the correlation matrix.
num_comparisons = 100; % Number of times to compare the iterative and optimization techniques.
for j = 1:data_points
rand_dat(j,:) = 1 + 2.*randn(num_people,1); % Generate random data.
end
A = corr(rand_dat);
then I defined the functions you need to evolve the genetic algorithm:
function individuals = user1205901individuals(nvars, FitnessFcn, gaoptions, num_people)
individuals = zeros(num_people,gaoptions.PopulationSize);
for cnt=1:gaoptions.PopulationSize
individuals(:,cnt)=randperm(num_people);
end
individuals = individuals(1:nvars,:)';
is the individual generation function.
function fitness = user1205901fitness(ind, A)
fitness = sum(sum(A(ind,ind)));
is the fitness evaluation function
function offspring = user1205901mutations(parents, options, nvars, FitnessFcn, state, thisScore, thisPopulation, num_people)
offspring=zeros(length(parents),nvars);
for cnt=1:length(parents)
original = thisPopulation(parents(cnt),:);
extraneus = setdiff(1:num_people, original);
original(fix(rand()*nvars)+1) = extraneus(fix(rand()*(num_people-nvars))+1);
offspring(cnt,:)=original;
end
is the function to mutate an individual
function children = user1205901crossover(parents, options, nvars, FitnessFcn, unused, thisPopulation)
children=zeros(length(parents)/2,nvars);
cnt = 1;
for cnt1=1:2:length(parents)
cnt2=cnt1+1;
male = thisPopulation(parents(cnt1),:);
female = thisPopulation(parents(cnt2),:);
child = union(male, female);
child = child(randperm(length(child)));
child = child(1:nvars);
children(cnt,:)=child;
cnt = cnt + 1;
end
is the function to generate a new individual coupling two parents.
At this point you can define your problem:
gaproblem2.fitnessfcn=#(idx)user1205901fitness(idx,A)
gaproblem2.nvars = to_keep
gaproblem2.options = gaoptions()
gaproblem2.options.PopulationSize=40
gaproblem2.options.EliteCount=10
gaproblem2.options.CrossoverFraction=0.1
gaproblem2.options.StallGenLimit=inf
gaproblem2.options.CreationFcn= #(nvars,FitnessFcn,gaoptions)user1205901individuals(nvars,FitnessFcn,gaoptions,num_people)
gaproblem2.options.CrossoverFcn= #(parents,options,nvars,FitnessFcn,unused,thisPopulation)user1205901crossover(parents,options,nvars,FitnessFcn,unused,thisPopulation)
gaproblem2.options.MutationFcn=#(parents, options, nvars, FitnessFcn, state, thisScore, thisPopulation) user1205901mutations(parents, options, nvars, FitnessFcn, state, thisScore, thisPopulation, num_people)
gaproblem2.options.Vectorized='off'
open the genetic algorithm tool
gatool
from the File menu select Import Problem... and choose gaproblem2 in the window that opens.
Now, run the tool and wait for the iterations to stop.
The gatool enables you to change hundreds of parameters, so you can trade speed for precision in the selected output.
The resulting vector is the list of indices that you have to keep in the original matrix so A(garesults.x,garesults.x) is the matrix with only the desired persons.
If I have understood you problem statement, you have a N x N matrix M (which happens to be a correlation matrix), and you wish to find for integer n where 2 <= n < N, a n x n matrix m which minimises the sum over all elements of m which I denote f(m)?
In Matlab it is fairly easy and fast to obtain a sub-matrix of a matrix (see for example Removing rows and columns from matrix in Matlab), and the function f is relatively inexpensive to evaluate for n = 151. So why can't you implement an algorithm that solves this backwards dynamically in a program as below where I have sketched out the pseudocode:
function reduceM(M, n){
m = M
for (ii = N to n+1) {
for (jj = 1 to ii) {
val(jj) = f(m) where mhas column and row jj removed, f(X) being summation over all elements of X
}
JJ(ii) = jj s.t. val(jj) is smallest
m = m updated by removing column and row JJ(ii)
}
}
In the end you end up with an m of dimension n which is the solution to your problem and a vector JJ which contains the indices removed at each iteration (you should easily be able to convert these back to indices applicable to the full matrix M)
There are several approaches to finding an approximate solution (eg. quadratic programming on relaxed problem or greedy search), but finding the exact solution is an NP-hard problem.
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on binary quadratic programming, and you may want to consult the academic literature for more sophisticated algorithms.
Mathematically equivalent formulation:
Your problem is equivalent to:
For some symmetric, positive semi-definite matrix S
minimize (over vector x) x'*S*x
subject to 0 <= x(i) <= 1 for all i
sum(x)==n
x(i) is either 1 or 0 for all i
This is a quadratic programming problem where the vector x is restricted to taking only binary values. Quadratic programming where the domain is restricted to a set of discrete values is called mixed integer quadratic programming (MIQP). The binary version is sometimes called Binary Quadratic Programming (BQP). The last restriction, that x is binary, makes the problem substantially more difficult; it destroys the problem's convexity!
Quick and dirty approach to finding an approximate answer:
If you don't need a precise solution, something to play around with might be a relaxed version of the problem: drop the binary constraint. If you drop the constraint that x(i) is either 1 or 0 for all i, then the problem becomes a trivial convex optimization problem and can be solved nearly instantaneously (eg. by Matlab's quadprog). You could try removing entries that, on the relaxed problem, quadprog assigns the lowest values in the x vector, but this does not truly solve the original problem!
Note also that the relaxed problem gives you a lower bound on the optimal value of the original problem. If your discretized version of the solution to the relaxed problem leads to a value for the objective function close to the lower bound, there may be a sense in which this ad-hoc solution can't be that far off from the true solution.
To solve the relaxed problem, you might try something like:
% k is number of observations to drop
n = size(S, 1);
Aeq = ones(1,n)
beq = n-k;
[x_relax, f_relax] = quadprog(S, zeros(n, 1), [], [], Aeq, beq, zeros(n, 1), ones(n, 1));
f_relax = f_relax * 2; % Quadprog solves .5 * x' * S * x... so mult by 2
temp = sort(x_relax);
cutoff = temp(k);
x_approx = ones(n, 1);
x_approx(x_relax <= cutoff) = 0;
f_approx = x_approx' * S * x_approx;
I'm curious how good x_approx is? This doesn't solve your problem, but it might not be horrible! Note that f_relax is a lower bound on the solution to the original problem.
Software to solve your exact problem
You should check out this link and go down to the section on Mixed Integer Quadratic Programming (MIQP). It looks to me that Gurobi can solve problems of your type. Another list of solvers is here.
Working on a suggestion from Matthew Gunn and also some advice at the Gurobi forums, I came up with the following function. It seems to work pretty well.
I will award it the answer, but if someone can come up with code that works better I'll remove the tick from this answer and place it on their answer instead.
function [ values ] = the_optimal_method( CM , num_to_keep)
%the_iterative_method Takes correlation matrix CM and number to keep, returns list of people who should be kicked out
N = size(CM,1);
clear model;
names = strseq('x',[1:N]);
model.varnames = names;
model.Q = sparse(CM); % Gurobi needs a sparse matrix as input
model.A = sparse(ones(1,N));
model.obj = zeros(1,N);
model.rhs = num_to_keep;
model.sense = '=';
model.vtype = 'B';
gurobi_write(model, 'qp.mps');
results = gurobi(model);
values = results.x;
end

matlab Create growing matrix with for loop that grows by 3 per loop

So I have written this:
HSRXdistpR = squeeze(comDatape_m1(2,7,1,:,isubj));
HSRXdistpL = squeeze(comDatape_m1(2,4,1,:,isubj));
TocomXdistp = squeeze(comDatape_m1(2,10,1,:,isubj));
for i = 1:2;
HSRXp = NaN(8,3*i);
HSRXp(:,i*3) = [HSRXdistpR(:,i) HSRXdistpL(:,i) TocomXdistp(:,i)];
end
In the first part I am just selecting data from a 5-D matrix, nothing special. All that's important here is that it creates an 8x2 matrix per line (isubj=2). Now I want to add the first column of each matrix into an 8x3 matrix, and then the second column of each matrix into the same matrix (creating an 8x6 matrix). Since the number of my subjects will vary, I want to do this in a for loop. This way, if the isubj increases to 3, it should go on to create an 8x9 matrix.
So I tried to create a matrix that will grow by 3 for each iteration of i, which selects the ith column of each of the 3 matrices and then puts them in there.
However I get the following error:
Subscripted assignment dimension mismatch.
Is it possible to let a matrix grow by more than one in a for loop? Or how should it be done otherwise?
Here is your problem:
HSRXp(:,i*3) = [HSRXdistpR(:,i) HSRXdistpL(:,i) TocomXdistp(:,i)];
You're trying to assign an n x 3 matrix (RHS) into an n x 1 vector (LHS). It would be easier to simply use horizontal concatenation:
HSRXp = [HSRXp, [HSRXdistpR(:,i) HSRXdistpL(:,i) TocomXdistp(:,i)]];
But that would mean reallocation at each step, which might slow your code down if the matrix becomes large.