Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@psycharo-zz
Last active January 29, 2020 02:04
Show Gist options
  • Star 4 You must be signed in to star a gist
  • Fork 1 You must be signed in to fork a gist
  • Save psycharo-zz/60f58d5435281bdea8b9d4ee4f6e895b to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save psycharo-zz/60f58d5435281bdea8b9d4ee4f6e895b to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
def mmul(*tensors):
return tf.foldl(tf.matmul, tensors)
def msym(X):
return (X + tf.matrix_transpose(X)) / 2
def mdiag(X):
return tf.matrix_diag(tf.matrix_diag_part(X))
@tf.RegisterGradient('Svd')
def gradient_svd(op, dL_ds, dL_dU, dL_dV):
s, U, V = op.outputs
# NOTE: based on https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.07838.pdf
# this version works for square matrices only
# in practice it means that only U_1 part of (17) is used
assert U.shape == V.shape, U.shape[1] == U.shape[2]
I = tf.eye(tf.shape(s)[1])
S = tf.matrix_diag(s)
dL_dS = tf.matrix_diag(dL_ds)
V_T = tf.matrix_transpose(V)
U_T = tf.matrix_transpose(U)
s_2 = tf.square(s)
K = 1.0 / (s_2[:,tf.newaxis,:] - s_2[:,:,tf.newaxis] + I) - I
D = mmul(dL_dU, tf.matrix_diag(1.0 / s))
D_T = tf.matrix_transpose(D)
return (mmul(D, V_T) +
mmul(U, mdiag(dL_dS - mmul(U_T, D)), V_T) +
2 * mmul(U, S, msym(K * mmul(V_T, dL_dV - mmul(V, D_T, U, S))), V_T))
@JaeDukSeo
Copy link

Hello! I have one question the two terms dL_dV, dL_dU and dL_ds where does these values come from?
Additionally, what was the reason for not following https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/gilesm/files/NA-08-01.pdf implementation of svd?
The above paper gives the formula to calculate the gradient respect to input A isn't that enough?

Thank you for your implementation!

@yz-cnsdqz
Copy link

Thanks for sharing the code! I have a similar version of your code, but I runs very slow... I am not sure whether such customized gradient runs on GPU? THX!!

@JaeDukSeo
Copy link

Also, one more question in the paper it says when dU is (m,n) did you assume that m and n are equal?
And in https://i.imgur.com/Bzyb1My.png I notice that the second term is not considered, I guess since m and n are equal we are only considering the first term?

@JaeDukSeo
Copy link

Oh oh nvm you set the n to be m - hence the second part of block decomposition never gets to be considered gotcha

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment