Learning RecSys through Papers Vol II- The How, What, and Why of In-Batch Negatives
Table of Contents
Consider the retrieval problem in a recommendation system. One way to model the problem is to create a big classification model predicting the next item a user will click or watch. This basic approach could be extended to large catalogs via a sampled softmax loss, as discussed in our last post. Naturally, the resulting dataset will only contain positive examples (i.e., what was clicked). In this post, we explore a more optimized version of this approach for more complex models via in-batch negatives. We derive the LogQ Correction to improve the estimate of the gradient and present code in PyTorch to implement the method, building on the previous blog post.
Motivation
A two-tower model typically outputs the logits \(\varepsilon(x,y)\) between the user and item embedding which are given by the two models \(u(x;\theta)\) and \(v(y;\theta)\) respectively, where \(x,y\) are inputs representing query and item features and \(\theta\) represents the parameters of the neural network. Typically, the model computes the dot product between the two embeddings, \(\varepsilon(x,y)= \langle u(x;\theta), v(y;\theta) \rangle.\) For a fixed query (user) \(x\), we will abuse notation and write \(\varepsilon(x,y):=\varepsilon(y)\). The following graphic shows a typical setup for a “two-tower” model from Google:
The softmax output is a natural choice for predicting the next click/watch as the softmax is meant to estimate the probability of an event \(\begin{equation}P(y|x)=\frac{ e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,y)} }{ \sum_{x^\prime \in X} e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)}},\end{equation}\) where \(\varepsilon_\theta:=\varepsilon\) represents the logit output of our neural network. To calculate \(P(y|x)\), you need to calculate the denominator which usually is prohibitively computationally expensive. If you sample negatives uniformly, this is easy to do, as the sampled estimate is unbiased. However, as models get more advanced, you won’t only include features on the user but also on the candidate items.
Essentially, for each input user and each clicked item, you form the outer product where you dot each vector together to form the matrix \([\text{sim}(u_i, v_j)]_{i,j=1}^n\), where the similarity function could be the dot product between the user and item embedding. Here’s an image from Spotify’s blog post on contrastive learning of language models to illustrate the similarity matrix:
Each row forms the data for the softmax loss on the batch. Notice, the technique for in-batch negatives for recommender systems and contrastive learning for language models is similar except the language model case tends to form a so-called “Siamese network” where both towers are the same network (e.g., a BERT model).
This approach is efficient but comes with some downsides. First, positive examples will show up more often in your data, and so they will more often be used as negative examples, skewing their popularity. Second, some items which are never or rarely clicked must still be accounted for, or else they may end up being ranked highly by accident, as they’ve never been seen before. Contrastive learning approaches for finetuning language models usually are not impacted by the second issue, but for recommender systems it is generally recommended to include some negative samples as well, which is done by both Google and Pinterest. For today’s post, we will build the starter model without the addition of random negatives.
In order to correct for the first problem, we can apply the LogQ Correction (Sampling-Bias-Corrected Neural Modeling for Large Corpus Item Recommendations ) to correct for any probabilistic discrepencies that arise from popular items showing up more often in training. This allows us to efficiently use our minibatch examples while maintaining the proper gradient for training.
In the next section, we will derive and sketch the proof for the correction term. Then we will implement a version of the correction on the MovieLens dataset.
LogQ Correction Term Derivation
In order to avoid this problem of popular items being used as negatives, we will adjust the logits with a correction term that will properly estimate the gradient as if we calculated it over the whole dataset. Back to our \(P(y|x)\) equation. We will assume \(y\) is our (clicked) item from production logs \(X\), and \(\varepsilon\) is our logit output which depends on an unwritten model parameters \(\theta\) and user \(u\) plus their input data query data \(x\). For convenience, we define the normalizing constant \(Z= \sum_{x^\prime \in X} e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)}\). If we consider the cross entropy loss (loosely following the notation in Benigio 2007 we have \(\begin{equation} \ell(x,y) = -\text{log} P(y|x) := -\text{log} \frac{ e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,y)} }{ \sum_{x^\prime \in X} e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)}}. \end{equation}\) The training process considers the gradient of this loss, which can be computed by using properties of the logarhythm and its derivative \(\begin{align} \nabla \ell(x,y) =& \nabla_\theta \left( -\text{log} \frac{ e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,y)} }{ \sum_{x^\prime \in X} e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)}} \right ) \\ =& \nabla_\theta \left( \varepsilon_\theta (x,y) + \text{log} \sum_{x^\prime \in X} e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)} \right ) \\ = & \nabla_\theta \varepsilon_\theta (x,y) + \frac{\nabla Z}{Z} \\ =& \nabla_\theta \varepsilon_\theta (x,y) + \frac{\sum_{x^\prime\in X} \nabla e ^{-\varepsilon_\theta(x,x^\prime)}}{Z} \\ =& \nabla_\theta \varepsilon_\theta (x,y) - \frac{\sum_{x^\prime\in X} e ^{-\varepsilon_\theta(x,x^\prime)}\nabla_\theta\varepsilon_\theta(x,x^\prime)}{Z} \\ =& \nabla_\theta \varepsilon_\theta (x,y) - \sum_{x^\prime\in X} P(x^\prime|x)\nabla_\theta\varepsilon_\theta(x,x^\prime).\\ \end{align}\)
Notice, the negative part of this equation is actually \(\begin{equation}N := \mathbb{E}_{x^\prime\sim X} \nabla_\theta \varepsilon(x,x^\prime).\end{equation}\)
Using a technique called weighted importance sampling, we can actually use the minibatch to estimate \(N\). For a minibatch \(Q\), let \(Q(x)\) be the probability that \(x\in Q\). Then we define the weight \(w\) as \(w(x,y)= e^{-\varepsilon(x,y)}/Q(y)\). This weight has two important properties that we will leverage, namely
\[\begin{equation}\mathbb{E}_y w(x,y) = \sum_{y\in X} \frac{e^{-\varepsilon(x,y)}}{Q(y)}Q(y) = Z \sum_{y\in X} \frac{e^{-\varepsilon(x,y)}}{Z}= Z \end{equation}\]since \(\begin{equation}\sum_y P(y|x)=1\end{equation}\) by definition and for any \(g\),
\[\begin{equation}\mathbb{E}_y w(x,y) g(y) = \sum_{y\in X} \frac{e^{-\varepsilon(x,y)}g(x,y)}{Q(y)}Q(y) = Z \sum_{y\in X} \frac{e^{-\varepsilon(x,y)}g(y)}{Z}= Z \mathbb{E}_y g(y). \end{equation}\]Moreover, any notes on weighted importance sampling will show that as the batch size \(|Q|=n\to\infty\), the terms will converge to their respective means, yielding \(\begin{equation}\frac{\frac{1}{n} \sum_{x^\prime\in Q} w(x,x^\prime) \nabla_\theta \varepsilon(x,x^\prime) }{\frac{1}{n} \sum_{x^\prime\in Q} w(x,x^\prime) } \to \frac{Z \mathbb{E}_{x^\prime} \nabla_\theta \varepsilon(x,x^\prime)}{Z}= N\end{equation}\) by the law of large numbers.
Now this is pretty clever, but how do we fit this idea into our loss function? If we subtract from the logit \(\varepsilon\) the constant for each item \(\text{log}Q(x)\), then we will have what we want. We will now cosider the new loss function \(\ell^\prime\) as \(\begin{equation}\ell^\prime(x,y) = -\text{log} \frac{e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,y) -\text{log}Q(y)} }{\sum_{x^\prime\in Q} e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime) -\text{log}Q(x^\prime)}},\end{equation}\)
where notice the denominator is now only summed over \(Q\) instead of \(X\). In the next calculation, we will liberally use the fact that \(\nabla_\theta log Q(y) = 0\):
\[\begin{align} \nabla \ell(x,y) =& \nabla_\theta \left( -\text{log} \frac{ e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,y) -\text{log}Q(y)} }{ \sum_{x \in Q} e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime) -\text{log}Q(x^\prime)}} \right ) \\ =& \nabla_\theta \left( \varepsilon_\theta (x,y) + \text{log}Q(y) + \text{log} \sum_{x^\prime \in Q} e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)-\text{log}Q(x^\prime) } \right ) \\ =& \nabla_\theta \varepsilon_\theta (x,y) + \frac{\sum_{x^\prime \in Q} \nabla_\theta e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)-\text{log}Q(x^\prime) }}{ \sum_{x^\prime \in Q} e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)-\text{log}Q(x^\prime) } } \\ =& \nabla_\theta \varepsilon_\theta (x,y) - \frac{\sum_{x^\prime \in Q} e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)-\text{log}Q(x^\prime) } \nabla_\theta(\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)-\text{log}Q(x^\prime)) }{ \sum_{x^\prime \in Q} \frac{e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)}}{Q(x^\prime) } }\\ =& \nabla_\theta \varepsilon_\theta (x,y) - \frac{\sum_{x^\prime \in Q} \frac{e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)}}{Q(y)} \nabla_\theta\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)}{ \sum_{x^\prime \in Q} \frac{e^{-\varepsilon_\theta (x,x^\prime)}}{Q(x^\prime) } }. \end{align}\]You can see that in the limit as \(n\to\infty\) (multiplying the top and bottom by \(1/n\)), the second term will converge on the expectation from the original gradient term, thus the gradient will converge as well.
Practical Issues
We wanted to highlight a few things we’ve discussed or said in passing in this section.
Unpopular Items Not Appearing in Training
As there are no random negatives, when an item is not selected in the positive examples (maybe a supremely unpopular item), it will not appear as a negative in training and the model will not have a good understanding of it. That means that at runtime those items may propogate to the top of the list. To avoid this, Google suggested adding a negative sampling term in their paper Mixed Negative Sampling for Learning Two-tower Neural Networks in Recommendations.
Calculating Q(x)
To calculate the sampling probability \(Q(x)\) for a batch of size \(n\), you could simply estimate the probability directly by calculating statistics over the entire corpus. In particular, if \(p(x)\) is the probability to select \(x\) from your dataset, then \(Q(x) = 1 - (1-p(x))^n\). As this can be impractical with large data, the original LogQ Paper by Yi et. al suggested a streaming approach, which was nicely implemented in this blog.
There is one question of how to calculate \(Q(x)\) when \(x\) is the positive label of the example. The original LogQ paper does not mention this caveat when the approach is introduced. Philosophically, as \(x\) is the positive label, one may assume \(Q(x)=1\). However, in the TensorFlow Recommenders SamplingProbabilityCorrection class, \(\text{log}Q(x)\) is subtracted from the logit without any special considerations for the positive label.
Practically, subtracting a large negative number from the logit which could impact training when the label is the \(1\) for the softmax. Additionally, later in the LogQ paper, in equation (5) the author appear to grant special treatment to the positive label when the sum does not include the case of \(i = j\):
This formula coincides with setting \(Q(x)=1\) which would imply its log is \(0\). Other implementations, such as the blog mentioned above, also sets the positive label’s log equal to \(0\). We will also follow this approach in our implementation.
Removing Duplicates In Batches
Another important thing to do is remove duplicate labels in your minibatch. In other words, don’t let the same item appear twice in a batch! You wouldn’t want the same item to be both a positive and negative label for the same example. Another way to solve this is by masking.
PyTorch Code
Below, we will demonstrate this technique in PyTorch using the MovieLens dataset. We will build off of the recommender setup from the previous blog post.
import torch
import torch.nn as nn
import torch.nn.functional as F
from torch.utils.data import Dataset
import hashlib
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
EMBED_TABLE_SIZE = 1000
device = 'cpu'
hash_f = lambda x: int(hashlib.md5(x.encode('utf-8')).hexdigest(),16) % EMBED_TABLE_SIZE
mps_device = torch.device("mps")
d = pd.read_csv('data/ratings.csv')
n_movies = d.movieId.nunique()
all_movies = d.movieId.unique().tolist()
n_movies
83239
max_pad=30
d['click'] = d['rating'] >= 3
dd = d[d['click'] > 0].groupby('userId', as_index=False).movieId.apply(list) # assumes final list is in order
dd.set_index('userId',inplace=True)
dd=dd[dd.movieId.apply(len) > max_pad+2] # minimum number of movies per user
class MovieLensInBatchDataset(Dataset):
def __init__(self, user_level_data, random_negatives=999):
self.d = user_level_data
def __len__(self):
return len(self.d)
def __getitem__(self, idx):
user_movies = dd.iloc[idx]['movieId']
label_idx = np.random.choice(range(1,len(user_movies)))
history = user_movies[label_idx-max_pad:label_idx]
label_movie_id = user_movies[label_idx]
return history, [label_movie_id]
from typing import Any, Iterable
import torch
from torch import Tensor, nn
from sentence_transformers import util
from sentence_transformers.SentenceTransformer import SentenceTransformer
class MultipleNegativesRankingLossLogQ(nn.Module):
# Borrowed from https://github.com/UKPLab/sentence-transformers/blob/master/sentence_transformers/losses/MultipleNegativesRankingLoss.py
def __init__(self, scale: float = 20.0, similarity_fct=util.cos_sim, device='cpu') -> None:
super().__init__()
self.scale = scale
self.similarity_fct = similarity_fct
self.cross_entropy_loss = nn.CrossEntropyLoss()
self.device = device
def forward(self, output: Tensor, log_candidate_probabilities: Tensor) -> Tensor:
reps = output
embeddings_a = reps[0]
embeddings_b = reps[1] # labels already concatenated due to model design
# Next bit is from https://medium.com/@iitmdinesh/lsh-based-sampling-bias-correction-for-retrieval-e28fb12caf97
log_probabilities_tensor = torch.as_tensor(log_candidate_probabilities).reshape(1, -1).repeat(embeddings_a.size(0), 1).to(self.device)
# need to set the correction for the positive label to 0
log_probabilities_tensor.fill_diagonal_(0)
scores = self.similarity_fct(embeddings_a, embeddings_b) * self.scale
range_labels = torch.arange(0, scores.size(0), device=scores.device)
return self.cross_entropy_loss(scores-log_probabilities_tensor, range_labels) #log Q correction
def get_config_dict(self) -> dict[str, Any]:
return {"scale": self.scale, "similarity_fct": self.similarity_fct.__name__}
import copy
class DeepNetRecommender(nn.Module):
def __init__(self, n_embed=3, table_size=EMBED_TABLE_SIZE, embed_dim=64):
super(DeepNetRecommender, self).__init__()
# MUST DEFINE ALL LAYERS IN THE BODY OR PYTORCH DOESNT NOTICE THEM
self.embed1 = nn.Embedding(table_size, embed_dim)
self.embed2 = nn.Embedding(table_size, embed_dim)
self.embed3 = nn.Embedding(table_size, embed_dim)
# need to set seed for it to be the same
np.random.seed(182)
self.embeds = [(getattr(self,'embed'+str(k)),np.random.choice(100000)) for k in range(1,1+n_embed)] # (layer, salt)
self.model = nn.Sequential(nn.Linear(64,64), nn.ReLU(), nn.Linear(64,64), nn.ReLU(), nn.Linear(64,64))
def embed(self, x, max_pad, default=False):
o = None
x = copy.deepcopy(x) # since we edit it
# Append a default to x, stops NAN
if default:
x.insert(0, 'DEFAULT')
for embedder, salt in self.embeds:
items = [hash_f(str(salt) + '_' + str(k)) for k in x][:max_pad]
hashed_items = torch.IntTensor(items).to(mps_device)
embedded = embedder(hashed_items)
if o is None:
o = embedded
else:
o += embedded
return o
def embed_stack(self, x):
return torch.stack([self.embed(k, max_pad=len(k)) for k in x],0)
def _embed_transform(self, y, max_pad):
# embeds variable length inputs and translate them to the same size, [1,64] via averaging
x = self.embed(y, max_pad, default=True)
return torch.sum(x,0) / x.shape[0]
def embed_and_avg(self, data, max_pad):
stacked = torch.stack([self._embed_transform(x, max_pad) for x in data],0)
return stacked.unsqueeze(1)
def forward(self, x):
# Pad, stack and embed vectors
inps = x['history']
to_rank = x['to_rank']
lhs = self.embed_and_avg(inps, max_pad)
lhs = self.model(lhs)
rhs = self.embed_stack(to_rank)
return lhs.squeeze(1), rhs.squeeze(1)
model = DeepNetRecommender().to(mps_device)
optimizer = torch.optim.Adam(model.parameters(), lr=0.01)
dd['train'] = np.random.uniform(0,1, len(dd)) < .9
dataset=MovieLensInBatchDataset(dd[dd['train']])
val_dataset=MovieLensInBatchDataset(dd[~dd['train']])
def my_collate(batch):
data = [item[0] for item in batch]
target = [item[1] for item in batch]
return [data, target]
trainloader = torch.utils.data.DataLoader(dataset, batch_size=256, drop_last=True,
shuffle=True, collate_fn = my_collate)
testloader = torch.utils.data.DataLoader(val_dataset, batch_size=256, drop_last=True,
shuffle=True, collate_fn = my_collate)
# run through the training set to estimate probabilities
prob_counter = {}
counter = 0
for i, data in enumerate(trainloader):
_, labels = data
for item in labels:
counter += 1
it = item[0] # always has 1
prob_counter[it] = prob_counter.get(it, 0) + 1
def get_prob(movie_id):
return prob_counter.get(movie_id,0)/counter
def inbatch_collate(batch):
data = [item[0] for item in batch]
target = [item[1] for item in batch]
log_candidate_probabilities = [np.log(1-(1-get_prob(item[0]))**len(batch) + 1e-6).astype(np.float32) for item in target] # must be float for torch
# only keep non duplicates
target_set = set()
data_new = []
target_new = []
log_probs_new = []
for k in range(len(data)):
candidate = target[k][0]
if candidate not in target_set:
target_set.add(candidate)
data_new.append(data[k])
target_new.append(target[k])
log_probs_new.append(log_candidate_probabilities[k])
return [data_new, target_new, log_probs_new]
from torch.utils.tensorboard import SummaryWriter
# default `log_dir` is "runs" - we'll be more specific here
writer = SummaryWriter('runs/experiment_1')
trainloader = torch.utils.data.DataLoader(dataset, batch_size=256, drop_last=True,
shuffle=True, collate_fn = inbatch_collate)
def train_one_epoch(epoch_index, tb_writer):
running_loss = 0.
last_loss = 0.
loss_fn = MultipleNegativesRankingLossLogQ(device=mps_device)
for i, data in enumerate(trainloader):
inputs, labels, log_candidate_probabilities = data
optimizer.zero_grad()
# Make predictions for this batch
outputs = model({'history': inputs, 'to_rank':labels})
# Compute the loss and its gradients
loss = loss_fn.forward(outputs, log_candidate_probabilities)
loss.backward()
# Adjust learning weights
optimizer.step()
# Gather data and report
l = loss.item()
running_loss += l
if i % 100 == 99:
last_loss = running_loss / 100 # loss per batch
print(' batch {} loss: {}'.format(i + 1, last_loss))
tb_x = epoch_index * len(trainloader) + i + 1
tb_writer.add_scalar('Loss/train', last_loss, tb_x)
running_loss = 0.
return last_loss
fixed_validation_set = [vdata for vdata in testloader]
val_loss = nn.CrossEntropyLoss()
epochs = 1
avg_loss = -1
for epoch_number in range(epochs+1):
if epoch_number > 0:
model.train()
avg_loss = train_one_epoch(1, writer)
running_vloss = 0.0
model.eval()
with torch.no_grad():
for i, vdata in enumerate(fixed_validation_set):
# Do a normal categorical cross entropy here
vinputs, vlabels = vdata
voutputs = model({'history': vinputs, 'to_rank':vlabels})
# note output is not normalized, and we care about the similarity without log probabilities
default_label = torch.zeros((voutputs[0].shape[0]), dtype=torch.long).to(mps_device)
vloss = val_loss(torch.nn.functional.normalize(voutputs[0]) @ torch.nn.functional.normalize(voutputs[1]).T, default_label) # dot em
running_vloss += vloss
avg_vloss = running_vloss / (i + 1)
print('LOSS train {} valid {}'.format(avg_loss, avg_vloss))
writer.add_scalars('Training vs. Validation Loss',
{ 'Training' : avg_loss, 'Validation' : avg_vloss },
epoch_number + 1)
writer.flush()
torch.save(model, 'model.pt' +'_' +'_'.join([str(k[1]) for k in model.embeds]) +'.pt' ) # save model with hashes
# batch size 256 the loss went down slowly... only in batch negs loss, no log Q, only got to ~ 5.5 on test set
LOSS train -1 valid 27.810686111450195
batch 100 loss: 15.676618509292602
batch 200 loss: 14.067757024765015
batch 300 loss: 13.870365705490112
batch 400 loss: 13.575820159912109
batch 500 loss: 13.039354686737061
LOSS train 13.039354686737061 valid 5.583367824554443
movies = pd.read_csv('data/ml-latest-small/movies.csv')
movies.set_index('movieId',inplace=True)
def map_movies_list(x):
return [movies.loc[k,'title'] for k in x]
o = model({'history': [dd.iloc[0].movieId[:max_pad]], 'to_rank': [list(movies.index)]})
all_movies_scored = torch.nn.functional.normalize(o[0]) @ torch.nn.functional.normalize(o[1].squeeze(0)).T
print('User Movies','\n', map_movies_list(dd.iloc[0].movieId[:max_pad]))
User Movies
['Toy Story (1995)', 'Braveheart (1995)', 'Casper (1995)', 'Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)', 'Forrest Gump (1994)', 'When a Man Loves a Woman (1994)', 'Pinocchio (1940)', 'Die Hard (1988)', 'Ghost and the Darkness, The (1996)', 'Shall We Dance (1937)', 'Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)', 'Aliens (1986)', 'Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)', 'Alien (1979)', 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)', 'Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)', 'Sneakers (1992)', 'Shall We Dance? (Shall We Dansu?) (1996)', 'X-Files: Fight the Future, The (1998)', 'Out of Africa (1985)', 'Last Emperor, The (1987)', 'Saving Private Ryan (1998)', '101 Dalmatians (One Hundred and One Dalmatians) (1961)', 'Lord of the Rings, The (1978)', 'Elizabeth (1998)', 'Notting Hill (1999)', 'Sixth Sense, The (1999)', 'Christmas Story, A (1983)', "Boys Don't Cry (1999)", 'American Graffiti (1973)']
print('Predicted Top 20 Movies', '\n', movies.title.values[np.argsort(all_movies_scored.cpu().detach().numpy())[0][::-1]][:20])
Predicted Top 20 Movies
['Dark Knight, The (2008)'
'Spirited Away (Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi) (2001)' 'Inception (2010)'
'Gladiator (2000)' 'Rain Man (1988)' 'Batman (1989)'
'Jurassic Park (1993)' 'Fight Club (1999)'
'Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)' 'Speed (1994)'
'Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002)'
'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)' 'Groundhog Day (1993)'
'Batman Begins (2005)' 'Titanic (1997)' 'Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)'
'Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)'
"Schindler's List (1993)" 'Mask, The (1994)'
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)"]
For fun, you can compare this list to the previous post on recommender system’s list. A more robust evaluation would involve calculating Recall @ K for various K’s, which is typical for retrieval models and can be seen in the papers linked above.