[Haskell-cafe] Memory Leak - Artificial Neural Network

Luke Palmer lrpalmer at gmail.com
Thu Nov 5 06:24:44 EST 2009

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 3:54 AM, Hector Guilarte <hectorg87 at gmail.com> wrote:
> entrenamiento:: ANN -> [[Float]] -> [Float] -> [Float] -> Int -> (ANN,Float)
> entrenamiento red _ _ accum 0 =
>     let squaredErrors = foldl' (+) 0 (map (**2) accum)
>     in (red,squaredErrors)
> entrenamiento red ejemplos esperados accum epoch =
>     let redInicializada = iniciarXsRed red (head ejemplos)
>         redEvaluada = evaluarRed redInicializada
>         redAjustada = ajustarPesos redEvaluada (head esperados)
>         error = (head esperados) - (resultadoRed1Output redAjustada)
>     in entrenamiento redAjustada (tail ejemplos) (tail esperados) (accum ++
> [error]) (epoch-1)

Well, I don't speak spanish (portuguese?), which makes this especially
hard to read.  But just from your introductory paragraph, maybe I can
give you a few hints.  They probably won't be able to fix your
program, just treat them as things to keep in mind in the future.

When I write in Haskell, my functions are usually *not* tail
recursive.  Tail recursion is good when you are reducing to a flat,
strict domain (Int, Bool, ...), but when you are building up
inductive, lazy structures, the relevant term is *corecursion* (IIRC),
which is a whole different thing.

Take eg. a tail recursive map function on lists:

map f = go []
    go accum [] = accum
    go accum (x:xs) = go (accum ++ [f x]) xs

map f [1,2,3] will reduce like this before anything else:

map f [1,2,3]
go [] [1,2,3]
go ([] ++ [1]) [2,3]
go (([] ++ [1]) ++ [2]) [3]
go ((([] ++ [1]) ++ [2]) ++ [3]) []
(([] ++ [1]) ++ [2]) ++ [3]

If the tail recursion has saved any stack space, it has paid for it in
heap space.  (Additionally, the way ++ is used here and in the code I
quoted causes quadratic time behavior, becuase ++ is linear in the
length of its left argument).

The corecursive way to write map is the canonical example:

map f (x:xs) = f x : map f xs

Notice how the recursive call to map is "under" the (:) constructor?
The new structure goes on the outside of the recursive call, not
passed as an argument.  IOW, we can generate some of the output
without looking at all of the input.  And this has very good behavior:

map f [1,2,3]
f 1 : map f [2,3]   -- and when you get around to evaluating the tail....
... : f 2 : map f [3]  -- ditto
... : f 3 : map f []  -- ditto
... : []

I used ...s to emphasize that we could have forgotten about of the
head of the list by now, only processing its tail, so it can be
garbage collected.  map has constant space complexity, in some sense.

The art of programming corecursively is one of the joys of Haskell,
but if you are used to either imperative programming or strict
functional programming (basically... any other language at all), it
takes time to get the hang of.


More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list