Consider removing lstm and gru operators

[a-sully]

Proposal Status

From #689 (comment)

• Remove MLActivation in favor of restoring the former MLRecurrentNetworkActivation enum (described here)
  • Completed in Replace MLActivation with MLRecurrentNetworkActivation #718
• Add conformance tests for lstm() and gru()
• Try implementing these operators on Core ML and TFLite
• Re-evaluate lstm() and gru() based on the results of the previous step

---

Related to #453. One recommendation of that issue is:

• Remove model-specific instructions like LSTM and gru

Current support across backends

Operator	DirectML	CoreML	TFLite
lstm	✅	✅	⚠️†
gru	✅	✅	-

†TFLite delegates generally do not support the entire TFLite opset. For instance, TFLite GPU delegates only support a very basic variant of LSTM which does not support most of the parameters specified by WebNN.

What does "supporting" LSTM really mean?

Higher-level operators such as lstm and gru tend to have more knobs to turn, and each additional knob increases the likelihood that WebNN will not actually be able to use the backend's operator of the same name. There are many variants of LSTM. Just because a backend has an LSTM operator does not mean that operator can express everything required by the variant of LSTM that WebNN specifies. Meanwhile, frameworks sitting on top of WebNN may only take advantage of WebNN’s lstm operator if it is exactly the variant the calling framework needs.

For example, TFLite's variant of LSTM uses coupled "input" and "forget" gates (CIFG), whereas this option is not available in WebNN - Chromium's DML implementation currently does not couple these gates. User agents implementing WebNN on TFLite cannot use its LSTM operator, and neither can frameworks calling into WebNN use its LSTM operator if they want the CIFG behavior.

Let's look at the problem @philloooo mentioned about the activations supported by LSTM across various backends: #573 (comment)

Supported activation functions for LSTM

Operator	ONNX	DirectML†	CoreML	TFLite	WebNN
affine	optional	-	-	-	-
elu	optional	✅	-	-	✅
ceu	-	✅	-	-	-
gelu	-	✅	-	-	✅
hardSigmoid	optional	✅	⚠️††	-	✅
hardSwish	-	✅	-	-	✅
identity	-	✅	-	-	As operator only
leakyRelu	optional	✅	-	-	✅
linear	-	✅	⚠️††	-	✅
parametricSoftplus	-	✅	-	-	-
relu	✅	✅	✅	✅	✅
reluN1To1	-	-	-	✅	-
relu6	-	-	-	✅	-
scaledElu	-	✅	-	-	-
scaledTanh	optional	✅	⚠️††	-	-
shrink	-	✅	-	-	-
swish	-	✅	-	-	-
sigmoid	✅	✅	✅	-	✅
sign	-	-	-	✅	-
softplus	optional	✅	-	-	✅
softsign	optional	✅	-	-	✅
tanh	✅	✅	✅	✅	✅
thresholdedRelu	optional	✅	-	-	-

†I couldn't find documentation in DirectML saying which activations are supported by which operators. @ folks familiar with DML, please feel free to chime in! (done! #689 (comment))

††Does not support passing alpha nor beta values, as far as I can tell

---

Aside: Now that MLActivations are no longer used for op fusion, we should consider removing MLActivations which do not make sense for use with recurrent operators.

---

What activations can be specified on each backend?

Let's also remember that WebNN's lstm operator has multiple activations.

Gates	DirectML†	CoreML	TFLite	WebNN
input (i)	f()	recurrent_activation	fused_activation_function	activations[0]
output (o)	f()	recurrent_activation	fused_activation_function	activations[0]
forget (f)	f()	recurrent_activation	fused_activation_function	activations[0]
cell (g)	g()	cell_activation	always sigmoid, I think?	activations[1]
hidden (h)	h()	activation	always sigmoid, I think?	activations[2]

†DML also supports passing different activations for LSTM's forward and backward passes

Summary

Reviewing the Guildelines for new operations to retroactively evaluate whether lstm and gru meet these guidelines, this stands out:

• Prefer primitives over new high level operations but consider performance consequences

The rationale for having these operators in WebNN is that the user agent's implementation of WebNN can plumb this directly to the backend's operator of the same name; otherwise there's no benefit compared to having the framework sitting on top of WebNN decompose the operator itself.

While there is some overlap - DML and CoreML are the most similar - there are still far more differences than similarities. For a web developer looking to deploy a model on WebNN across platforms, the tables suggest that aside from a few exceptional cases, these operators would need to be decomposed by the user agent.

If a high-level operator:

• does not provide performance benefits for most of the permutations of its parameters and backends, and
• cannot reliably be used by the framework sitting on top of WebNN

...should it still be in WebNN? :)

Options:

1. Remove these operators from WebNN
2. Keep these operators, understanding that they will often be decomposed
3. Water down these operators into a least-common-denominator variant
   • Open question: Would real models use these watered-down variants?

---

Updates

2024-06-07:

• Removed clamp and softmax activations from the table as per Remove MLActivations definitely not usable with recurrent ops #703
• Filled out the DirectML column of the "Supported activation functions for LSTM" table as per Consider removing lstm and gru operators #689 (comment) by @fdwr (thanks!)

2024-07-23:

• Added Proposal Status section

[fdwr]

I couldn't find documentation in DirectML saying which activations are supported by which operators. @ folks familiar with DML, please feel free to chime in!

🔔 For RNN, GRU, LSTM:

✅:
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_IDENTITY
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_LINEAR
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_ELU
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_RELU
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_CELU
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_GELU
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_SCALED_ELU
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_LEAKY_RELU
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_THRESHOLDED_RELU
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_PARAMETERIZED_RELU
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_PARAMETRIC_SOFTPLUS
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_SIGMOID
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_HARD_SIGMOID
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_SOFTPLUS
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_SOFTSIGN
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_TANH
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_SCALED_TANH
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_SHRINK
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_SWISH
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_HARD_SWISH

❌:
DML_OPERATOR_ELEMENT_WISE_CLIP
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_SOFTMAX
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_SOFTMAX1
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_LOG_SOFTMAX
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_LOG_SOFTMAX1
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_HARDMAX
DML_OPERATOR_ACTIVATION_HARDMAX1

[a-sully]

Thanks for the investigation! 🙏 Updated the table

[miaobin]

We decomposed the Gru operator in the RNNosie sample into some other operators supported by WebNN. And we ran the sample on some integrated and discrete graphics:

GRU (ms)			Integrated Graphics	Discrete Graphics 1	Discrete Graphics 2
build	MC enabled	GRU single op	333.90	707.10	503.60
build	MC enabled	GRU decomposed	867.50	828.80	1534.50
build	HLSL (MC disabled)	GRU single op	152.00	344.70	497.50
build	HLSL (MC disabled)	GRU decomposed	880.50	756.80	1595.20
compute	MC enabled	GRU single op	11.77	14.81	21.57
compute	MC enabled	GRU decomposed	18.18	14.83	23.18
compute	HLSL (MC disabled)	GRU single op	14.62	13.21	18.47
compute	HLSL (MC disabled)	GRU decomposed	18.06	15.98	23.07

[a-sully]

Thanks for the investigation, @miaobin!

Thinking about the options I mentioned above, this RNNoise model is a nice example of a model which could benefit from the third option:

3. Water down these operators into a least-common-denominator variant

The sample always uses sigmoid for f()/recurrent_activation and relu for g()/cell_activation. These activations, along with tanh, are the most widely supported activations. If WebNN were to support only these 3 activations for lstm() and gru(), then it seems likely that both DirectML and Core ML could directly support it (though TFLite may still require a fallback). Since none of these activations take any arguments (and Core ML doesn't support passing arguments to activations anyways) these activations could be expressed with a string...

...This may sound familiar! :) https://github.com/webmachinelearning/webnn/pull/188/files#diff-5e793325cd2bfc452e268a4aa2f02b4024dd9584bd1db3c2595f61f1ecf7b985L909-L913

Given that MLActivation was proposed to accommodate op fusion, which has since been removed (in #664), I don't see a need to keep it in its current form. That sort of takes option 2 off the board:

2. Keep these operators, understanding that they will often be decomposed

There are still open questions with regards to supporting lstm() or gru() on Core ML. For instance:

• These operators have no WPT conformance tests. Without them, we can't be sure the respective Core ML and DirectML operators behave identically. If not, then the user agent implementation will need to use fallbacks, which negates the benefit of having these operators in WebNN https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/tree/master/webnn/conformance_tests
• Core ML requires several parameters to be constant tensors: Do we need an MLConstantOperand? #668

I propose the following:

• Remove MLActivation in favor of restoring the former MLRecurrentNetworkActivation enum (described here)
• Add conformance tests for lstm() and gru()
• Try implementing these operators on Core ML and TFLite
• Re-evaluate lstm() and gru() based on the results of the previous step

WDYT?

[a-sully]

I see there are a few thumbs-up on my previous comment so I just put up #718. PTAL :)

[huningxin]

Add conformance tests for lstm() and gru()

/cc @BruceDai

[BruceDai]

@huningxin Thanks for the reminder!
I'll add those tests ASAP.

[fdwr]

🙏 Updated the table

@a-sully : It is a beautiful table btw.

[a-sully]

FYI I added a Proposal Status header to the issue description to track progress on my proposal from #689 (comment). @BruceDai please post an update on this issue when conformance WPTs are added!

[BruceDai]

I've initialed these two CL CL-1 and CL-2 for adding gru/gruCell and lstm/lstmCell conformance tests, and these two CL still are WIP on the tolerance criterial that @fdwr is helping to define for those complex operators.

[BruceDai]

For adding gru/gruCell and lstm/lstmCell conformance tests into WPT ASAP, I created another two CL CL-1' and CL-2' by leveraging test data and tolerance criteria from existed gru and lstm tests of ONNX CTS. Then we could go forward with continuing to work on defining exact tolerance criteria for these complex operators and add more others tests for test coverage.

Updated
CL-1' and CL-2' both landed, now we have such conformance tests.

[a-sully]

Thanks for the update, @BruceDai! I've filed https://crbug.com/360052663 to track the next step: implementation of these operators in Chromium on TFLite and CoreML