Machine learning in OCaml or Haskell?

Question

I'm hoping to use either Haskell or OCaml on a new project because R is too slow. I need to be able to use support vectory machines, ideally separating out each execution to run in parallel. I want to use a functional language and I have the feeling that these two are the best so far as performance and elegance are concerned (I like Clojure, but it wasn't as fast in a short test). I am leaning towards OCaml because there appears to be more support for integration with other languages so it could be a better fit in the long run (e.g. OCaml-R).

Does anyone know of a good tutorial for this kind of analysis, or a code example, in either Haskell or OCaml?

Answer 1

Hal Daume has written several major machine learning algorithms during his Ph.D. (now he is an assistant professor and rising star in machine learning community)

On his web page, there are a SVM, a simple decision tree and a logistic regression all in OCaml. By reading these code, you can have a feeling how machine learning models are implemented in OCaml.

Another good example of writing basic machine learning models is Owl library for scientific and numeric computations in OCaml.

I'd also like to mention F#, a new .Net language similar to OCaml. Here's a factor graph model written in F# analyzing Chess play data. This research also has a NIPS publication.

While FP is suitable for implementing machine learning and data mining models. But what you can get here most is NOT performance. It is right that FP supports parallel computing better than imperative languages, like C# or Java. But implementing a parallel SVM, or decision tree, has very little relation to do with the language! Parallel is parallel. The numerical optimizations behind machine learning and data mining are usually imperative, writing them pure-functionally is usually hard and less efficient. Making these sophisticated algorithms parallel is very hard task in the algorithm level, not in the language level. If you want to run 100 SVM in parallel, FP helps here. But I don't see the difficulty running 100 libsvm parallel in C++, not to consider that the single thread libsvm is more efficient than a not-well-tested haskell svm package.

Then what do FP languages, like F#, OCaml, Haskell, give?

1. Easy to test your code. FP languages usually have a top-level interpreter, you can test your functions on the fly.

2. Few mutable states. This means that passing the same parameter to a function, this function always gives the same result, thus debugging is easy in FPs.

3. Code is succinct. Type inference, pattern matching, closures, etc. You focus more on the domain logic, and less on the language part. So when you write the code, your mind is mainly thinking about the programming logic itself.

4. Writing code in FPs is fun.

Answer 2

The only problem I can see is that OCaml doesn't really support multicore parallelism, while GHC has excellent support and performance. If you're looking to use multiple threads of execution, on multiple calls, GHC Haskell will be a lot easier.

Secondly, the Haskell FFI is more powerful (that is, it does more with less code) than OCaml's, and more libraries are avaliable (via Hackage: http://hackage.haskell.org ) so I don't think foreign interfaces will be a deciding factor.

Answer 3

As far as multi-language integration goes, combining C and Haskell is remarkably easy, and I say this as someone who is (unlike dons) not really much of an expert on either. Any other language that integrates well with C shouldn't be much trickier; you can always fall back to a thin interface layer in C if nothing else. For better or worse, C is still the lingua franca of programming, so Haskell is more than acceptable for most cases.

...but. You say you're motivated by performance issues, and want to use "a functional language". From this I infer you're not previously familiar with the languages you ask about. Among Haskell's defining features are that it, by default, uses non-strict evaluation and immutable data structures--which are both incredibly useful in many ways, but it also means that optimizing Haskell for performance is often dramatically different from other languages, and well-honed instincts may lead you astray in baffling ways. You may want to browse performance-related topics on the Haskell wiki to get a feel for the issues.

Which isn't to say that you can't do what you want in Haskell--you certainly can. Both laziness and immutability can in fact be exploited for performance benefits (Chris Okasaki's thesis provides some nice examples). But be aware that there'll be a bit of a learning curve when it comes to dealing with performance.

Both Haskell and OCaml provide the lovely benefits of using an ML-family language, but for most programmers, OCaml is likely to offer a gentler learning curve and better immediate results.

Answer 4

It's hard to give a definitive answer on this. Haskell has the advantages that Don mentioned along with having a more powerful type system and cleaner syntax. OCaml will be easier to learn if you coming from almost any other language (this is because Haskell is as function as functional languages get), and working with mutable random access structures can be a little clunky in Haskell. You will also likely find the performance characteristics of your OCaml code more intuitive than Haskell because of Haskell's lazy evaluation.

Really, I would recommend you evaluate both if you have the time. Here are some relevant Haskell resources:

• http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hslibsvm
• http://hackage.haskell.org/package/HSvm
• Real World Haskell: this is a great freely available book for Haskell
• Learn You a Haskell: this tutorial is just plain fun to read

Oh, if you look further into Haskell be sure to sign up for the Haskell Beginners and Haskell Cafe lists. The community is friendly and eager to help out newcomers (is my bias showing?).

Answer 5

If speed is your prime concern then go for C. Haskell is pretty good performance wise but you are never going to get as fast as C. To my knowledge the only functional language that has bettered C in a benchmark is Stalin Scheme but that is very old and nobody really knows how it works.

I've written genetic programming libraries where performance was key and I wrote it in a functional style in C. The functional style allowed me to easily parallelise it using OMP and it scales linearly upto 8 cores within a single process. You certainly can't do that in OCaml although Haskell is improving all the time with regards to concurrency and parallelism.

The downside of using C was that it took me months to finally find all the bugs and stop the core dumps which was extremely challenging because of the concurrency. Haskell would probably have caught 90% of those bugs on the first compilation.

So speed at any cost ? Looking back I'd wish I'd used Haskell as I could stand it to be 2 - 3 times slower if I'd saved over a month in development time.

Answer 6

While dons is correct that multicore parallelism at the thread level is better supported in Haskell, it sounds like you could live with process level parallelism (from your phrase: ideally separating out each execution to run in parallel.) which is supported quite well in OCaml. Keith pointed out that Haskell has a more powerful type system, but it can also be said that OCaml has a more powerful module system than Haskell.

As others have pointed out, OCaml's learning curve will be lower than Haskell's; you'll likely be more productive more quickly in OCaml. That said, learning OCaml is a great stepping-stone towards learning Haskell because many of the underlying concepts are very similar, so you could always migrate to Haskell later and find a lot of things familiar there. And as you pointed out, there is an OCaml-R bridge.

Answer 7

As an examples of Haskell and Ocaml in machine learning see stuff at Hal Daume and Lloyd Allison homepages. IMO it's is much more straightforward to achieve C++-like performance in Ocaml, than in Haskell. Through, as already said, Haskell has much nicer community (packages, tools and support), syntax&features (i.e. FFI, probability monads via typeclasses) and parallel programming support.

Answer 8

Having revamped OCaml-R, I've got a few comments to make on integrating OCaml and R. It might be worthwile to use OCaml to call R code, it works, but is not yet exactly straightforward. So using it to pilot R is worthwile. Integrating R functionality much more thoroughly is still cumbersome as, for example, much remains to be done to export R's type system and data to OCaml in a seamless way (you will have work to do). Moreover, the interaction of R's GC and OCaml's GC is a delicate point: you free n values in O(n^2) time, which isn't nice (to solve this point, you either need a more flexible R API, as far as I understand it, or to implement a GC in the binding itself as a big R array for proper interaction between GCs).

In a nutshell, I'd go for the "pilot R from OCaml" approach.

Contributions on the GC interaction layer and on mapping R datatypes to OCaml are most welcome.

Answer 9

You may want to take a look at this : http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2010-May/077243.html

Answer 10

Late answer but a machine learning library in Haskell is available here : https://github.com/mikeizbicki/HLearn

This library implements various ML algorithms who are designed to have a much faster cross-validation than the usual implementations. It is based on the following paper Algebraic classifiers: a generic approach to fast cross-validation, online training, and parallel training. The authors claims a 400x speed-up compared to the same task in Weka.

Answer 11

for haskell, consider checking hasktorch (which I managed to use for my AI thesis). for ocaml there seem to be tensorflow bindings.