[FIXED] Vectorise VLAD computation in numpy

Issue

I was wondering whether it was possible to vectorise this implementation of VLAD computation.

For context:

feats = numpy array of shape (T, N, F)

kmeans = KMeans object from scikit-learn initialised with K clusters.

Current method

k = kmeans.n_clusters # K
centers = kmeans.cluster_centers_ # (K, F)
vlad_feats = []

for feat in feats:
    # feat shape - (N, F) 
    cluster_label = kmeans.predict(feat) #(N,)
    vlad = np.zeros((k, feat.shape[1])) # (K, F)

    # computing the differences for all the clusters (visual words)
    for i in range(k):
        # if there is at least one descriptor in that cluster
        if np.sum(cluster_label == i) > 0:
            # add the differences
            vlad[i] = np.sum(feat[cluster_label == i, :] - centers[i], axis=0)
    vlad = vlad.flatten() # (K*F,)
    # L2 normalization
    vlad = vlad / np.sqrt(np.dot(vlad, vlad))
    vlad_feats.append(vlad)

vlad_feats = np.array(vlad_feats) # (T, K*F)

Getting the kmeans predictions as a batch is not a problem as we can do as follows:

feats2 = feats.reshape(-1, F) # (T*N, F)
labels = kmeans.predict(feats2) # (T*N, )

But I'm stuck at computing cluster distances.

Solution

While @MadPhysicist's answer vectorizes, I've found it hurts performance.

Below, looping is essentially a re-written version of OP's algorithm and naivec employs vectorization through the exploded 4D tensor.

import numpy as np
from sklearn.cluster import MiniBatchKMeans

def looping(kmeans: MiniBatchKMeans, local_tlf):
    k, (t, l, f) = kmeans.n_clusters, local_tlf.shape
    centers_kf = kmeans.cluster_centers_
    vlad_tkf = np.zeros((t, k, f))
    for vlad_kf, local_lf in zip(vlad_tkf, local_tlf):
        label_l = kmeans.predict(local_lf)
        for i in range(k):
            vlad_kf[i] = np.sum(local_lf[label_l == i] - centers_kf[i], axis=0)
        vlad_D = vlad_kf.ravel()
        vlad_D = np.sign(vlad_D) * np.sqrt(np.abs(vlad_D))
        vlad_D /= np.linalg.norm(vlad_D)
        vlad_kf[:,:] = vlad_D.reshape(k, f)
    return vlad_tkf.reshape(t, -1)


def naivec(kmeans: MiniBatchKMeans, local_tlf):
    k, (t, l, f) = kmeans.n_clusters, local_tlf.shape
    centers_kf = kmeans.cluster_centers_
    labels_tl = kmeans.predict(local_tlf.reshape(-1,f)).reshape(t, l)
    mask_tlk = labels_tl[..., np.newaxis] == np.arange(k)
    local_tl1f = local_tlf[...,np.newaxis,:]
    delta_tlkf = local_tl1f - centers_kf # <-- easy to run out of memory
    vlad_tD = (delta_tlkf * mask_tlk[..., np.newaxis]).sum(axis=1).reshape(t, -1)
    vlad_tD = np.sign(vlad_tD) * np.sqrt(np.abs(vlad_tD))
    vlad_tD /= np.linalg.norm(vlad_tD, axis=1, keepdims=True)
    return vlad_tD

Indeed, see below for a benchmark.

np.random.seed(1234)
# usually there are a lot more images than this
t, l, f, k = 256, 128, 64, 512
X = np.random.randn(t, l, f)
km = MiniBatchKMeans(n_clusters=16, n_init=10, random_state=0)
km.fit(X.reshape(-1, f))

result_looping = looping(km, X)
result_naivec = naivec(km, X)

%timeit looping(km, X) # ~200 ms
%timeit naivec(km, X) # ~300 ms

assert np.allclose(result_looping, result_naivec)

An idiomatic vectorization which avoids memory growing beyond output size (asymptotically) would leverage a scatter reduction.

def truvec(kmeans: MiniBatchKMeans, local_tlf):
    k, (t, l, f) = kmeans.n_clusters, local_tlf.shape
    centers_kf = kmeans.cluster_centers_
    labels_tl = kmeans.predict(local_tlf.reshape(-1,f)).reshape(t, l)
    
    vlad_tkf = np.zeros((t, k, f))
    M = t * k
    labels_tl += np.arange(t)[:, np.newaxis] * k
    vlad_Mf = vlad_tkf.reshape(-1, f)
    np.add.at(vlad_Mf, labels_tl.ravel(), local_tlf.reshape(-1, f))
    counts_M = np.bincount(labels_tl.ravel(), minlength=M)
    vlad_tkf -= counts_M.reshape(t, k, 1) * centers_kf
    
    vlad_tD = vlad_tkf.reshape(t, -1)
    vlad_tD = np.sign(vlad_tD) * np.sqrt(np.abs(vlad_tD))
    vlad_tD /= np.linalg.norm(vlad_tD, axis=1, keepdims=True)
    return vlad_tD

However, disappointingly, this also only gets us about 200 ms computation time. This boils down to two reasons:

• the inner loop is already vectorized in looping()
• np.add.at actually cannot use vectorized CPU instructions, unlike the original strided reduction np.sum(local_lf[label_l == i] - centers_kf[i], axis=0)

A performant vectorized version of the VLAD algorithm requires some sophisticated techniques to leverage contiguous array accesses. This version gets 40% improvement over looping(), but requires a lot of setup---see my blog on the approach here.

Answered By - VF1