1. Machine Learning with
Apache Hama
Tommaso Teofili
tommaso [at] apache [dot] org
1

2. About me

ASF member having fun with:

Lucene / Solr

Hama

UIMA

Stanbol

… some others

SW engineer @ Adobe R&D
2

3. Agenda

Apache Hama and BSP

Why machine learning on BSP

Some examples

Benchmarks
3

4. Apache Hama

Bulk Synchronous Parallel computing
framework on top of HDFS for massive
scientific computations

TLP since May 2012

0.6.0 release out soon

Growing community
4

5. BSP supersteps

A BSP algorithm is composed by a sequence of “supersteps”
5

6. BSP supersteps

Each task

Superstep 1

Do some computation

Communicate with other tasks

Synchronize

Superstep 2

Do some computation

Communicate with other tasks

Synchronize

…

…

…

Superstep N

Do some computation

Communicate with other tasks

Synchronize
6

7. Why BSP

Simple programming model

Supersteps semantic is easy

Preserve data locality

Improve performance

Well suited for iterative algorithms
7

8. Apache Hama architecture

BSP Program execution flow
8

9. Apache Hama architecture
9

10. Apache Hama

Features

BSP API

M/R like I/O API

Graph API

Job management / monitoring

Checkpoint recovery

Local & (Pseudo) Distributed run modes

Pluggable message transfer architecture

YARN supported

Running in Apache Whirr
10

11. Apache Hama BSP API

public abstract class BSP<K1, V1, K2, V2,
M extends Writable> …

K1, V1 are key, values for inputs

K2, V2 are key, values for outputs

M are they type of messages used for task
communication
11

12. Apache Hama BSP API

public void bsp(BSPPeer<K1, V1, K2, V2,
M> peer) throws ..

public void setup(BSPPeer<K1, V1, K2,
V2, M> peer) throws ..

public void cleanup(BSPPeer<K1, V1, K2,
V2, M> peer) throws ..
12

13. Machine learning on BSP

Lots (most?) of ML algorithms are
inherently iterative

Hama ML module currently counts

Collaborative filtering

Clustering

Gradient descent
13

14. Benchmarking architecture
Node
Node
Node
Node
Node
Node
Node
Node Hama
Hama
Solr DBMS
Lucene
Mahout
Mahout
HDFS
HDFS
14

15. Collaborative filtering

Given user preferences on movies

We want to find users “near” to some
specific user

So that that user can “follow” them

And/or see what they like (which he/she could
like too)
15

16. Collaborative filtering BSP

Given a specific user

Iteratively (for each task)

Superstep 1*i

Read a new user preference row

Find how near is that user from the current user

That is finding how near their preferences are

Since they are given as vectors we may use vector
distance measures like Euclidean, cosine, etc. distance
algorithms

Broadcast the measure output to other peers

Superstep 2*i

Aggregate measure outputs

Update most relevant users

Still to be committed (HAMA-612)
16

17. Collaborative filtering BSP

Given user ratings about movies

"john" -> 0, 0, 0, 9.5, 4.5, 9.5, 8

"paula" -> 7, 3, 8, 2, 8.5, 0, 0

"jim” -> 4, 5, 0, 5, 8, 0, 1.5

"tom" -> 9, 4, 9, 1, 5, 0, 8

"timothy" -> 7, 3, 5.5, 0, 9.5, 6.5, 0

We ask for 2 nearest users to “paula” and
we get “timothy” and “tom”

user recommendation

We can extract highly rated movies
“timothy” and “tom” that “paula” didn’t see

Item recommendation
17

18. Benchmarks

Fairly simple algorithm

Highly iterative

Comparing to Apache Mahout

Behaves better than ALS-WR

Behaves similarly to RecommenderJob and
ItemSimilarityJob
18

19. K-Means clustering

We have a bunch of data (e.g. documents)

We want to group those docs in k
homogeneous clusters

Iteratively for each cluster

Calculate new cluster center

Add doc nearest to new center to the cluster
19

20. K-Means clustering
20

21. K-Means clustering BSP

Iteratively

Superstep 1*i

Assignment phase

Read vectors splits

Sum up temporary centers with assigned vectors

Broadcast sum and ingested vectors count

Superstep 2*i

Update phase

Calculate the total sum over all received
messages and average

Replace old centers with new centers and check
for convergence
21

22. Benchmarks

One rack (16 nodes 256 cores) cluster

10G network

On average faster than Mahout’s impl
22

23. Gradient descent

Optimization algorithm

Find a (local) minimum of some function

Used for

solving linear systems

solving non linear systems

in machine learning tasks

linear regression

logistic regression

neural networks backpropagation

…
23

24. Gradient descent

Minimize a given (cost) function

Give the function a starting point (set of parameters)

Iteratively change parameters in order to minimize the
function

Stop at the (local)
minimum

There’s some math but intuitively:

evaluate derivatives at a given point in order to choose
where to “go” next
24

25. Gradient descent BSP

Iteratively

Superstep 1*i

each task calculates and broadcasts portions of the
cost function with the current parameters

Superstep 2*i

aggregate and update cost function

check the aggregated cost and iterations count

cost should always decrease

Superstep 3*i

each task calculates and broadcasts portions of
(partial) derivatives

Superstep 4*i

aggregate and update parameters
25

26. Gradient descent BSP

Simplistic example

Linear regression

Given real estate market dataset

Estimate new houses prices given known
houses’ size, geographic region and prices

Expected output: actual parameters for the
(linear) prediction function
26

27. Gradient descent BSP

Generate a different model for each region

House item vectors

price -> size

150k -> 80

2 dimensional space

~1.3M vectors dataset
27

28. Gradient descent BSP

Dataset and model fit
28

29. Gradient descent BSP

Cost checking
29

30. Gradient descent BSP

Classification

Logistic regression with gradient descent

Real estate market dataset

We want to find which estate listings belong to agencies

To avoid buying from them 

Same algorithm

With different cost function and features

Existing items are tagged or not as “belonging to agency”

Create vectors from items’ text

Sample vector

1 -> 1 3 0 0 5 3 4 1
30

31. Gradient descent BSP

Classification
31

32. Benchmarks

Not directly comparable to Mahout’s
regression algorithms

Both SGD and CGD are inherently better than
plain GD

But Hama GD had on average same
performance of Mahout’s SGD / CGD

Next step is implementing SGD / CGD on top of
Hama 
32

33. Wrap up

Even if

ML module is still “young” / work in progress

and tools like Apache Mahout have better
“coverage”

Apache Hama can be particularly useful in
certain “highly iterative” use cases

Interesting benchmarks
33

34. Thanks!
34