Showing posts with label tail recursion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tail recursion. Show all posts

Sunday, November 1, 2020

Evaluate Performance of Scala Tail Recursion

Target audience: Intermediate
Estimated reading time: 3'

Recursion refers to the technique where a function invokes itself, either directly or indirectly, and such a function is termed a recursive function. 
Some problems can be more effortlessly addressed using recursive algorithms. In this article, we will assess the performance of Scala's tail recursion in comparison to iterative approaches.


Table of contents
Follow me on LinkedIn
   

Overview

In Scala, the tail recursion is a commonly used technique to apply a transformation to the elements of a collection. The purpose of this post is to evaluate the performance degradation of the tail recursion comparatively to iterative based methods.
For the sake of readability of the implementation of algorithms, all non-essential code such as error checking, comments, exception, validation of class and method arguments, scoping qualifiers or import is omitted.

Test benchmark

Let's consider a "recursive" data transformation on an array using a sliding window. For the sake of simplicity, we create a simple polynomial transform on a array of values
   {X0, ... ,Xn, ... Xp}
with a window w, defined as
   f(Xn) = (n-1)Xn-1 + (n-2)Xn-2 + ... + (n-w)Xn-w.  

Such algorithms are widely used in signal processing and technical analysis of financial markets (i.e. moving average, filters).

def polynomial(values: Array[Int]): Int = 
  (if(values.size < W_SIZE) 
     values 
  else 
     values.takeRight(W_SIZE)
  ).sum


The first implementation of the polynomial transform is a tail recursion on each element Xn of the array. The transform f compute f (values(cursor)) from the array values[0, ... , cursor-1] as describe in the code snippet below

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
class Evaluation(values: Array[Int]) {
  def recurse(f: Array[Int] => Int): Array[Int] = {

    @scala.annotation.tailrec
    def recurse(
      f: Array[Int] => Int, 
      cursor: Int, 
      results: Array[Int]): Boolean = {  
        
      if( cursor >= values.size) // exit condition
        true
      else {
        val arr = f(values.slice(cursor+1, cursor-W_SIZE))
        results.update(cursor, arr)
        recurse(f, cursor+1, results)
      }
    }

    val results = new Array[Int](values.size)
    recurse(f, 0, results)
    results
  }
}

The second implementation relies on the scanLeft method that return a cumulative of transformed value f(Xn).

def scan(f: Array[Int] => Int): Array[Int] = 
   values.zipWithIndex.scanLeft(0)((sum, vn) => 
         f(values.slice(vn._2+1, vn._2-W_SIZE))
  )

Finally, we implement the polynomial transform on the sliding array window with a map method.

def map(f: Array[Int] => Int): Array[Int] = 
   values.zipWithIndex.map(vn =>  f(values.slice(vn._2+1, vn._2-W_SIZE)))


Performance evaluation

For the test, each of those 3 methods is executed 1000 on a dual core i7 with 8 Gbyte RAM and MacOS X Mountain Lion 10.8. The first test consists of executing the 3 methods and varying the size of the array from 10 to 90. The test is repeated 5 times and the duration is measured in milliseconds.



The tail recursion is significantly faster than the two other methods. The scan methods (scan, scanLeft, scanRight) have significant overhead that cannot be "amortized" over a small array. It is worth noticing that the performance of map and scan are similar. The relative performance of those 3 methods is confirmed while testing with large size array (from 1,000,000 to 9,000,000 items).



Thank you for reading this article. For more information ...

References


---------------------------
Patrick Nicolas has over 25 years of experience in software and data engineering, architecture design and end-to-end deployment and support with extensive knowledge in machine learning. 
He has been director of data engineering at Aideo Technologies since 2017 and he is the author of "Scala for Machine Learning" Packt Publishing ISBN 978-1-78712-238-3

Monday, July 9, 2018

Speed up Fibonacci Sequence with Tail Recursion

Target audience: Intermediate
Estimated reading time: 5'

The Fibonacci sequence is characterized by each number being the summation of its two immediate predecessors. In this article, we delve into an examination and comparison of tail recursion's efficiency in Scala, specifically when applied to the Fibonacci sequence.


Table of contents
Follow me on LinkedIn

There are many ways to skin a cat and implement the Fibonacci recursion. This post illustrates the power of tail recursion in Scala, relative to alternative solution such as recursion without tail elimination and iterations. This post compares the performance of the simple "out-of-the-box" implementation of the Fibonacci recursion with an Scala implementation using tail-recursion.

Note: This post relies on Scala 2.11.8


Non-tail recursive Fibonacci

The Fibonacci algorithm is defined as
   f(n) = f(n-1) + f(n-2)
   f(0) = 0
   f(1) = 1
Let's look at text book recursive implementation.

 
def fibonacci(n: Int): Long =  {
    if(n == 0) 0
    else if(n == 1) 1
    else fibonacci1(n-1) + fibonacci1(n-2)
}

The duration of execution is recorded for values between 2 and 50, run 10,000 times.
The profile of the performance of the non-tail recursion of Fibonacci should not be a surprise. After all, the time complexity of this implementation is a staggering O(2n)


Tail recursion

Let's look at one example of implementation of the Fibonacci formula using the Scala tail recursion.

def fibonacci(n: Int): Long = {
   
   @tailrec
   def _fibonacci(i: Int, next: Long, sum: Long): Long = 
       if(i ==0) sum
       else fibonacci(i-1, sum+ next, next)

   fibonacci(n, 1, 0)
}

The performance of the tail recursion is measure against a plain-vanilla iterative execution. The duration of execution is recorded for values between 5 and 200, run 100,000 times.

 
def fibonacci(n: Int): Long = {
    var s1 = 0
    var s2 = 1 
 
    (n-1 to 0 by -1).foreach(
       _ => {
           val tmp = s2 + s1
           s1 = s2
           s2 = tmp    
      }
   )
   
   s1
}

The following chart illustrates that the performance of the implementation of Fibonacci using the tail recursion and the iterative execution is almost identical.

Iterative computation

For good measure, I thought it would be interesting to measure the performance of an iterative approach using a fold.

def fibonacci(n: Int): Long = 
 
  (n-1 to 0 by -1)./:((0, 1)) {  
      case ((s1, s2), n) => { 
          val tmp = s2 + s1
          (s2, tmp) 
      }
   }._1

Here is the performance profile for the iterative computation.
Note: The fold (:/) can be implemented as a closure using a recursive formula for the function argument.

Conclusion

Scala tail recursion is indeed as effective as the iterative implementation at processing the Fibonacci formula. The performance of the recursion without tail elimination is extremely poor. Aggregators or reducers such as fold, reduce and scan add some overhead to the computation although the performance is still decent.

Thank you for reading this article. For more information ...

References



---------------------------
Patrick Nicolas has over 25 years of experience in software and data engineering, architecture design and end-to-end deployment and support with extensive knowledge in machine learning. 
He has been director of data engineering at Aideo Technologies since 2017 and he is the author of "Scala for Machine Learning" Packt Publishing ISBN 978-1-78712-238-3

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Immutability & Covariance in Scala 2.x

Target audience: Beginner
Estimated reading time: 4'

This posts illustrates the concept of immutable and covariant containers/collections in Scala in the case of the stack data structure. 

Note: This article uses Scala 2.11.6

Overview

There is a relation between immutability and covariance which may not be apparent to a novice Scala programmer. Let's consider the case of a mutable and immutable implementation of a stack. The mutable stack is a container of elements with method to push element into (pop the last element from) the stack.

class MutableStack[T]  {
  private[this] val _stack = new ListBuffer[T]
  
  final def pop: Option[T]= 
    if(_stack.isEmpty) 
      None 
    else 
      Some(_stack.remove(_stack.size-1))
  
   def push(t: T): Unit = _stack.append(t)
}

The internal container is defined as a ListBuffer instance. The elements are appended to the list buffer (push) and the method pop pops the last elements pushed onto the stack.
This implementation has a major inconvenient: It cannot accept elements of type other than T because ListBuffer is a invariant collection. Let's consider then a immutable stack

Immutability and covariance

An covariant immutable stack cannot access its elements unless its elements are contained by itself. This feat is accomplish by breaking down the stack recursively as the last element pushed into the stack and the previous state of the stack.

class ImmutableStack[+T](
   val t: T, 
   val stack: Option[ImmutableStack[T]]) {

  def this(t: T) = this(t, Some(new EmptyImmutableStack(t)))
  ...
}

In this recursive approach the immutable stack is initialized with a single element of type T and the option of the existing immutable stack. The stack can be defined as reusable with covariance because elements are managed by the stack itself stack.
The next step is to define the initial state of the stack. We could have chosen a singleton empty stack with no elements. Instead, we define the first state of the immutable stack as:

 
class EmptyImmutableStack[+T](t: T) extends ImmutableStack[T](t, None) 
 

Next let's define the pop and push operators for ImmutableStack. The pop method return the previous state of the immutable stack that is next to last element pushed into the stack. The push method is contra-variant as its push an element of super type of T. The existing state this stack is added as the previous (2nd argument) state.

final def pop: Option[ImmutableStack[T]] = 
      stack.map(sk => new ImmutableStack[T](sk.t, sk.stack))

def push[U >: T](u: U): ImmutableStack[U] = new ImmutableStack[U](u, Some(this))


Tail recursion

The next step is to traverse the entire stack and return a list of all its element. This is accomplished through a tail recursion on the state of the stack

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
def popAll[U >: T]: List[U] = pop(this,List[U]())
 
@scala.annotation.tailrec
private def pop[U >: T](
    _stck: ImmutableStack[U], 
    xs: List[U]
): List[U] = _stck match { 
  
  case st: EmptyImmutableStack[T] => xs.reverse
  case st: ImmutableStack[T] => {
     val newStack = _stck.stack.getOrElse(
        new EmptyImmutableStack[T](_stck.t)
     )
     pop(newStack, _stck.t :: xs)
  }
}

The recursion call pop (line 4) updates the list xs (line 6) and exists when the ImmutableStack is empty of type EmptyImmutableStack (line 9). The list has to be reversed to index the list elements from the last to the first (line 9). As long as the stack is not empty (or type ImmutableStack) the method recurses (line 14).
It is time to test drive this immutable stack.

 
val intStack = new ImmutableStack[Int](4)
val newStack = intStack.push(56).push(14).push(77)
 
println(newStack.popAll.mkString(", "))

The values in the stack are: 77, 14, 56, 4.
This examples illustrates the concept of immutable, covariant stack by using the instance of the stack has its state (current list of elements it contains).

References

Sunday, April 2, 2017

Recursive Minimum Spanning Tree in Scala

Target audience: Intermediate
Estimated reading time: 6'

Determining the best way to link nodes is frequently encountered in network design, transport ventures, and electrical circuitry. This piece explores and showcases an efficient computation for the minimum spanning tree (MST) through the use of Prim's algorithm, which is built on tail recursion.
This article assumes a very minimal understanding of undirected graphs.

Note: Implementation relies on Scala 2.11.8

Overview

Each connectivity in a graph is usually defined as a weight (cost, length, time...). The purpose is to compute the schema that connects all the nodes that minimize the total weight. This problem is known as the minimum spanning tree or MST related to the nodes connected through an un-directed graph [ref 1].

Several algorithms have been developed over the last 70 years to extract the MST from a graph. This post focuses on the implementation of the Prim's algorithm in Scala.

There are many excellent tutorials on graph algorithm and more specifically on the Prim's algorithm. I recommend Lecture 7: Minimum Spanning Trees and Prim’s Algorithm [ref 2].

Let's PQ is a priority queue, a Graph G(V, E) with n vertices V and E edges w(u,v). A Vertex v is defined by 
  • An identifier
  • A load factor, load(v)
  • A parent tree(v)
  • The adjacent vertices adj(v)
The Prim's algorithm can be easily expressed as a simple iterative process. It consists of using a priority queue of all the vertices in the graph and update their load to select the next node in the spanning tree. Each node is popped up (and removed) from the priority queue before being inserted in the tree.
PQ <- V(G)
foreach u in PQ
   load(u) <- INFINITY
 
while PQ nonEmpty
   do u <- v in adj(u)
      if v in PQ && load(v) < w(u,v)
      then
         tree(v) <- u
         load(v) <- w(u,v)
The Scala implementation relies on a tail recursion to transfer vertices from the priority queue to the spanning tree.

Graph definition

The first step is to define a graph structure with edges and vertices [ref 3]. The graph takes two arguments:
  • numVertices number of vertices
  • start index of the root of the minimum spanning tree
The vertex class has three attributes
  • id identifier (arbitrary an integer)
  • load dynamic load (or key) on the vertex
  • tree reference to the minimum spanning tree
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
final class Graph(numVertices: Int, start: Int = 0) {
 
  class Vertex(val id: Int, 
     var load: Int = Int.MaxValue, 
     var tree: Int = -1) 

  val vertices = List.tabulate(numVertices)(new Vertex(_))
  vertices.head.load = 0
  val edges = new HashMap[Vertex, HashMap[Vertex, Int]]

  def += (from: Int, to: Int, weight: Int): Unit = {
    val fromV = vertices(from)
    val toV = vertices(to)
    connect(fromV, toV, weight)
    connect(toV, fromV, weight)
  }

  def connect(from: Vertex, to: Vertex, weight: Int): Unit = {
    if( !edges.contains(from))
      edges.put(from, new HashMap[Vertex, Int])    
    edges.get(from).get.put(to, weight)
  }   
  // ...
}

The vertices are initialized by with a unique identifier id, and a default load Int.MaxValue and a default depth tree (lines 3-5). The Vertex class resides within the scope of the outer class Graph to avoid naming conflict. The vertices are managed through a linked list (line 7) while the edges are defined as hash maps with a map of other edges as value (line 9). The operator += add a new edge between two existing vertices with a specified load (line 11) 
In most case, the identifier is a character string or a data structure. As described in the pseudo-code, the load for the root of the spanning tree is defined a 0.

The load is defined as an integer for performance's sake. It is recommended to convert (quantization) a floating-point value to an integer for the processing of very large graph, then convert back to a original format on the resulting minimum spanning tree.
The edges are defined as hash table with the source vertex as key and the hash table of destination vertex and edge weight as value. 


The graph is un-directed therefore the connection initialized in the method
+= are bi-directional.

Priority queue

The priority queue is used to re-order the vertices and select the next vertex to be added to the spanning tree.

Note: There are many different implementation of priority queues in Scala and Java. You need to keep in mind that the Prim's algorithm requires the queue to be re-ordered after its load is updated (see pseudo-code). The PriorityQueue classes in the Scala and Java libraries do not allow elements to be removed or to be explicitly re-ordered. An alternative is to use a binary tree, red-black tree for which elements can be removed and the tree re-balanced.

The implementation of the priority has an impact on the time complexity of the algorithm. The following implementation of the priority queue is provided only to illustrate the Prim's algorithm. 

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
class PQueue(vertices: List[Vertex]) {
   var queue = vertices./:(new PriorityQueue[Vertex])((pq, v) => pq += v)
    
   def += (vertex: Vertex): Unit = queue += vertex
   def pop: Vertex = queue.dequeue
   def sort: Unit = {}
   def push(vertex: Vertex): Unit = queue.enqueue(vertex)
   def nonEmpty: Boolean = queue.nonEmpty
}
  
type MST = ListBuffer[Int]
implicit def orderingByLoad[T <: Vertex]: Ordering[T] = Ordering.by( - _.load)  


The Scala PriorityQueue class required the implicit ordering of vertices using their load (line 2). This accomplished by defining an implicit conversion of a type T with upper-bound type Vertex to Ordering[T] (line 12).

Notes
  • The type T has to be a sub-class of Vertex. A direct conversion from Vertex type to Ordering[Vertex] is not allowed in Scala.
  • We use the PriorityQueue from the Java library as it provides more flexibility than the Scala TreeSet.

Prim's algorithm

This implementation is the direct translation of the pseudo-code presented in the second paragraph. It relies on the efficient Scala tail recursion (line 5).

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
def prim: List[Int] = {
  val queue = new PQueue(vertices)
   
  @scala.annotation.tailrec
  def prim(parents: MST): Unit = {
    if( queue.nonEmpty ) {
      val head = queue.pop
      val candidates = edges.get(head).get
          .filter{ 
            case(vt,w) => vt.tree == -1 && w <= vt.load
          }
 
      if( candidates.nonEmpty ) {
        candidates.foreach {case (vt, w) => vt.load = w }
        queue.sort
      }
      parents.append(head.id)
      head.tree = 1
      prim(parents)
    }
  }
  val parents = new MST
  prim(parents)
  parents.toList
}

As long as the priority queue is not empty (line 6), the next element is the priority queue is retrieved (line 7) for which is select the most appropriate candidate for the next vertex (line 8 - 11). The load of each candidate is updated (line 14) and the priority queue is re-sorted (line 15).
Although a tree set is a more efficient data structure for managing the set of vertices waiting to be weighted, it does not allow the existing priority queue to be resorted because of its immutability.

Time complexity

As mentioned earlier, the time complexity depends on the implementation of the priority queue. If E is the number of edges, and V the number of vertices:
  • Minimum spanning tree with linear queue: V2
  • Minimum spanning tree with binary heap: (E + V).LogV
  • Minimum spanning tree with Fibonacci heap: V.LogV
Note: See Summary of time complexity of algorithms for details.


References

[1Introduction to Algorithms Chapter 24 Minimum Spanning Trees - T. Cormen, C. Leiserson, R. Rivest - MIT Press 1989
[2Lecture 7: Minimum Spanning Trees and Prim’s Algorithm Dekai Wu, Department of Computer Science and Engineering - The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology
[3] Graph Theory Chapter 4 Optimization Involving Tree - V.K. Balakrishnan - Schaum's Outlines Series, McGraw Hill, 1997