I am using a package called missForest to estimate the missing values in my data set.
My question is: how can we parallelize this process to shorten the time that it takes to get the results?
Please refer to this example (from missForest package):
data(iris)
summary(iris)
The data contains four continuous and one categorical variable.
Artificially produce missing values using the prodNA function:
set.seed(81)
iris.mis <- prodNA(iris, noNA = 0.2)
summary(iris.mis)
Impute missing values providing the complete matrix for illustration. Use ’verbose’ to see what happens between iterations:
iris.imp <- missForest(iris.mis, xtrue = iris, verbose = TRUE)
Yesterday I submitted version 1.4 of missForest to CRAN; the Windows and Linux packages are ready, the Mac version will follow soon.
The new function has an additional argument "parallelize" which allows to either compute the single forests in a parallel fashion (parallelize="forests") or to compute several forests on multiple variables at the same time (parallelize="variables"). The default setting is without parallel computing (parallelize="no").
Do not forget to register a suitable parallel backend, e.g. using the package "doParallel", before trying it for the first time. The "doParallel" vignette gives an illustrative example in Section 4.
Due to some other details I had to temporarily remove the "missForest" vignette from the package. But I will resolve this in due course and release it as version 1.4-1.
It's a bit tricky to do a good job of parallelizing the missForest function. There seem to be two basic ways to do it:
Create the randomForest model objects in parallel;
Execute multiple randomForest operations (create model and predict) in parallel for each of the columns of the data frame that contain NA's.
Method 1 is rather easy to implement, except that you have to compute the error estimates yourself since the randomForest combine function doesn't compute them for you. However, if the randomForest objects don't take that long to compute and there are many columns containing NA's, you may get very little if any speed up, even though the operations in aggregate take a long time to compute.
Method 2 is a bit harder to implement because the sequential algorithm updates the columns of the xmis data frame after each randomForest operation. I think the right way to parallelize this is to process n columns in parallel at a time (where n is the number of worker processes), thus requiring another loop around the n columns in order to process all of the columns of the data frame. My experiments suggest that unless this is done, the outer loop takes longer to converge, thus losing the benefit of executing in parallel.
In general, to get a performance improvement you will need to implement both of these methods, and choose which to use based on your input data. If you just have a few columns with NA's but the randomForest models take a long time to compute, you should choose method 1. If you have many columns with NA's, you should probably choose method 2, even if the individual randomForest models take a long time to compute because this can be done more efficiently, although it's possible that it will still require an extra iteration of the outer while loop.
In the process of experimenting with missForest, I eventually developed a parallel version of the package. I put the modified version of library.R on GitHub Gist, however it isn't trivial to use in that form, especially without documentation. So I contacted the author of missForest, and he is very interested in incorporating at least some of my modifications into the official package, so hopefully the next version of missForest that is posted to CRAN will support parallel execution.
Related
The problem:
I am estimating fixed effects models using the felm function in the lfe package. I estimate several models, but the largest includes approximately 40 dependent variables plus county and year fixed effects (~3000 levels and 14 levels, respectively) using ~50 million observations. When I run the model, I get the following error:
Error in Crowsum(xz, ia) :
long vectors not supported yet: ../../src/include/Rinlinedfuns.h:519
Calls: felm -> felm.mm -> newols -> Crowsum
I realize that long vectors contain 2^31 or more elements, so I assume that felm produces these long vectors in estimating the model. Details about my resources: I have access to high-performance computing with multiple nodes, each with multiple cores; the node with the largest memory has 1012GB.
(1) Is support for "long vectors" something that can only be added by the author of lfe package?
(2) If so, are there other options for FE regressions on large data (provided that one has access to large amounts of memory and/or cluster computing, as I do)? (If I need to make a separate post to address this question more specifically, I can do that as well.)
Please note that I know there is a similar post about this problem: Error in LFE - Long Vectors Not Supported - R. 3.4.3
However, I made a new question for two reasons: (1) the author's question was unfocused--unclear what feedback to provide and I didn't want to assume that what I wanted to know was the same as the author; and (2) even if I edited the question, the original author left out details that I thought could be relevant.
It appears that long vectors won't be supported by the lfe package unless the author adds support.
Other routes for performing regression analysis with large datasets include the biglm package. biglm lets you run linear or logistic regression on a chunk, and then update the regression estimates as you run the regression on further chunks. However, this is a sequential process--which means it cannot be performed in parallel--and thus may run into memory issues (or take too long).
Another option, if you have access to some advanced computing resources (more cores, more RAM) is to use the partools package which provides tools for working with R's parallel. The package provides a wrapper for R's lm called calm (chunk averaged linear model), which, similar to biglm regresses on chunks, but allows for the process to be done in parallel. The vignette for partools is an excellent resources for learning how to use the package (even for those who haven't used the parallel package before): https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/partools/index.html
It appears that calm doesn't report standard errors, but datasets of the size that require parallel computing, standard errors probably are not relevant -- especially so if that dataset contains data from the entire population being studied.
I notice that using R to program constantly causing some running speed problem, especially when the code involves growing a list. It's just very unintuitive what is slowing down the program so dramatically during the looping.
Specifically I'm using caret to train a gbm model, after getting the tuned hyperparameter, I need to do LOOCV to obtain the test error, which demands me to train the model for n times (n=number of samples). All I store in the list is my prediction result. Yet the list grows slower as the loop progress.
Can you offer some general advice for testing the memory issues related to R programming?
First create an empty list/vector. Size of your "n" so R has not to rewrite it every time it wants to add one additional value
I am working on a very time intensive analysis using the LQMM package in R. I set the model to start running on Thursday, it is now Monday, and is still running. I am confident in the model itself (tested as a standard MLM), and I am confident in my LQMM code (have run several other very similar LQMMs with the same dataset, and they all took over a day to run). But I'd really like to figure out how to make this run faster if possible using the parallel processing capabilities of the machines I have access to (note all are Microsoft Windows based).
I have read through several tutorials on using parallel, but I have yet to find one that shows how to use the parallel package in concert with other R packages....am I over thinking this, or is it not possible?
Here is the code that I am running using the R package LQMM:
install.packages("lqmm")
library(lqmm)
g1.lqmm<-lqmm(y~x+IEP+pm+sd+IEPZ+IEP*x+IEP*pm+IEP*sd+IEP*IEPZ+x*pm+x*sd+x*IEPZ,random=~1+x+IEP+pm+sd+IEPZ, group=peers, tau=c(.1,.2,.3,.4,.5,.6,.7,.8,.9),na.action=na.omit,data=g1data)
The dataset has 122433 observations on 58 variables. All variables are z-scored or dummy coded.
The dependent libraries will need to be evaluated on all your nodes. The function clusterEvalQ is foreseen inside the parallel package for this purpose. You might also need to export some of your data to the global environments of your subnodes: For this you can use the clusterExport function. Also view this page for more info on other relevant functions that might be useful to you.
In general, to speed up your application by using multiple cores you will have to split up your problem in multiple subpieces that can be processed in parallel on different cores. To achieve this in R, you will first need to create a cluster and assign a particular number of cores to it. Next, You will have to register the cluster, export the required variables to the nodes and then evaluate the necessary libraries on each of your subnodes. The exact way that you will setup your cluster and launch the nodes will depend on the type of sublibraries and functions that you will use. As an example, your clustersetup might look like this when you choose to utilize the doParallel package (and most of the other parallelisation sublibraries/functions):
library(doParallel)
nrCores <- detectCores()
cl <- makeCluster(nrCores)
registerDoParallel(cl);
clusterExport(cl,c("g1data"),envir=environment());
clusterEvalQ(cl,library("lqmm"))
The cluster is now prepared. You can now assign subparts of the global task to each individual node in your cluster. In the general example below each node in your cluster will process subpart i of the global task. In the example we will use the foreach %dopar% functionality that is provided by the doParallel package:
The doParallel package provides a parallel backend for the
foreach/%dopar% function using the parallel package of R 2.14.0 and
later.
Subresults will automatically be added to the resultList. Finally, when all subprocesses are finished we merge the results:
resultList <- foreach(i = 1:nrCores) %dopar%
{
#process part i of your data.
}
stopCluster(cl)
#merge data..
Since your question was not specifically on how to split up your data I will let you figure out the details of this part for yourself. However, you can find a more detailed example using the doParallel package in my answer to this post.
It sounds like you want to use parallel computing to make a single call of the lqmm function execute more quickly. To do that, you either have to:
Split the one call of lqmm into multiple function calls;
Parallelize a loop inside lqmm.
Some functions can be split up into multiple smaller pieces by specifying a smaller iteration value. Examples include parallelizing randomForest over the ntree argument, or parallelizing kmeans over the nstart argument. Another common case is to split the input data into smaller pieces, operate on the pieces in parallel, and then combine the results. That is often done when the input data is a data frame or a matrix.
But many times in order to parallelize a function you have to modify it. It may actually be easier because you may not have to figure out how to split up the problem and combine the partial results. You may only need to convert an lapply call into a parallel lapply, or convert a for loop into a foreach loop. However, it's often time consuming to understand the code. It's also a good idea to profile the code so that your parallelization really speeds up the function call.
I suggest that you download the source distribution of the lqmm package and start reading the code. Try to understand it's structure and get an idea which loops could be executed in parallel. If you're lucky, you might figure out a way to split one call into multiple calls, but otherwise you'll have to rebuild a modified version of the package on your machine.
Is there any possible explanation for multiple optim instances with set starting values to return different results if run in parallel or one after another on a single core?
Basically, I do a rolling forecast with refitting of the model each time, so I can easily parallelize over the rolling windows, but the results are different if I do not parallelize...
Sadly, I don't have a simple reproducible example. I know that if I link to different BLAS then the results differ, so is there anything like different numerical precision / set of libraries used, that might cause this?
I'm aware of the fact that Amelia R package provides some support for parallel multiple imputation (MI). However, preliminary analysis of my study's data revealed that the data is not multivariate normal, so, unfortunately, I can't use Amelia. Consequently, I've switched to using mice R package for MI, as this package can perform MI on data that is not multivariate normal.
Since the MI process via mice is very slow (currently I'm using AWS m3.large 2-core instance), I've started wondering whether it's possible to parallelize the procedure to save processing time. Based on my review of mice documentation and the corresponding JSS paper, as well as mice's source code, it appears that currently the package doesn't support parallel operations. This is sad, because IMHO the MICE algorithm is naturally parallel and, thus, its parallel implementation should be relatively easy and it would result in a significant economy in both time and resources.
Question: Has anyone tried to parallelize MI in mice package, either externally (via R parallel facilities), or internally (by modifying the source code) and what are results, if any? Thank you!
Recently, I've tried to parallelize multiple imputation (MI) via mice package externally, that is, by using R multiprocessing facilities, in particular parallel package, which comes standard with R base distribution. Basically, the solution is to use mclapply() function to distribute a pre-calculated share of the total number of needed MI iterations and then combine resulting imputed data into a single object. Performance-wise, the results of this approach are beyond my most optimistic expectations: the processing time decreased from 1.5 hours to under 7 minutes(!). That's only on two cores. I've removed one multilevel factor, but it shouldn't have much effect. Regardless, the result is unbelievable!