Tutorial: Introduction to Modeling in Gen
Gen is a multiparadigm platform for probabilistic modeling and inference. Gen supports multiple modeling and inference workflows, including:

Unsupervised learning and posterior inference in generative models using Monte Carlo, variational, EM, and stochastic gradient techniques.

Supervised learning of conditional inference models (e.g. supervised classification and regression).

Hybrid approaches including amortized inference / inference compilation, variational autoencoders, and semisupervised learning.
In Gen, probabilistic models (both generative models and conditional inference models) are represented as generative functions. Gen provides a builtin modeling language for defining generative functions (Gen can also be extended to support other modeling languages, but this is not covered in this tutorial). This tutorial introduces the basics of Gen’s builtin modeling language, and illustrates a few types of modeling flexibility afforded by the language, including:

Using a stochastic branching and function abstraction to express uncertainty about which of multiple models is appropriate.

Representing models with an unbounded number of parameters (a ‘Bayesian nonparametric’ model).
This notebook uses a simple generic inference algorithm for posterior inference, and shows some examples of inference being applied to simple models. The notebook also introduces a technique for validating a model and inference algorithm by predicting new data from inferred parameters, and comparing this data to the observed data set.
This tutorial does not cover custom inference programming, which is a key capability of Gen in which users implement inference algorithms that are specialized to their probabilistic model. Inference programming is important for getting accurate posterior inferences efficiently, and will be covered in later tutorials. Also, this tutorial does not exhaustively cover all features of the modeling language – there are also features and extensions that provide improved performance that are not covered here.
Outline
Section 1. Julia, Gen, and this Jupyter notebook
Section 2. Writing a probabilistic model as a generative function
Section 3. Doing posterior inference
Section 4. Predicting new data
Section 5. Calling other generative functions
Section 6. Modeling with an unbounded number of parameters
1. Julia, Gen, and this Jupyter notebook
Gen is a package for the Julia language. The package can be loaded with:
using Gen
Gen programs typically consist of a combination of (i) probabilistic models written in modeling languages and (ii) inference programs written in regular Julia code. Gen provides a builtin modeling language that is itself based on Julia.
This tutorial uses a Jupyter notebook. All cells in the notebook are regular Julia cells. In Julia, semicolons are optional at the end of statements; we will use them at the end of some cells so that the value of the cell is not printed.
a = 1 + 1
2
a = 1 + 1;
This notebook uses the PyPlot Julia package for plotting. PyPlot wraps the matplotlib Python package.
using PyPlot
This notebook will make use of Julia symbols. Note that a Julia symbol is different from a Julia string:
typeof(:foo)
Symbol
typeof("foo")
String
2. Writing a probabilistic model as a generative function
Probabilistic models are represented in Gen as generative functions.
The simplest way to construct a generative function is by using the builtin modeling DSL. Generative functions written in the builtin modeling DSL are based on Julia function definition syntax, but are prefixed with the @gen
keyword. The function represents the datagenerating process we are modeling: each random choice it makes can be thought of as a random variable in the model.
The generative function below represents a probabilistic model of a linear relationship in the xy plane. Given a set of $x$ coordinates, it randomly chooses a line in the plane and generates corresponding $y$ coordinates so that each $(x, y)$ is near the line. We might think of this function as modeling house prices as a function of square footage, or the measured volume of a gas as a function of its measured temperature.
@gen function line_model(xs::Vector{Float64})
n = length(xs)
# We begin by sampling a slope and intercept for the line.
# Before we have seen the data, we don't know the values of
# these parameters, so we treat them as random choices. The
# distributions they are drawn from represent our prior beliefs
# about the parameters: in this case, that neither the slope nor the
# intercept will be more than a couple points away from 0.
slope = @trace(normal(0, 1), :slope)
intercept = @trace(normal(0, 2), :intercept)
# Given the slope and intercept, we can sample y coordinates
# for each of the x coordinates in our input vector.
for (i, x) in enumerate(xs)
@trace(normal(slope * x + intercept, 0.1), (:y, i))
end
# The return value of the model is often not particularly important,
# Here, we simply return n, the number of points.
return n
end;
The generative function takes as an argument a vector of xcoordinates. We create one below:
xs = [5., 4., 3., .2, 1., 0., 1., 2., 3., 4., 5.];
Given this vector, the generative function samples a random choice representing the slope of a line from a normal distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation 1, and a random choice representing the intercept of a line from a normal distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation 2. In Bayesian statistics terms, these distributions are the prior distributions of the slope and intercept respectively. Then, the function samples values for the ycoordinates corresponding to each of the provided xcoordinates.
This generative function returns the number of data points. We can run the function like we run a regular Julia function:
n = line_model(xs)
println(n)
11
More interesting than n
are the values of the random choies that line_model
makes. Crucially, each random choice is annotated with a unique address. A random choice is assigned an address using the @trace
keyword. Addresses can be any Julia value. In this program, there are two types of addresses used – Julia symbols and tuples of symbols and integers. Note that within the for
loop, the same line of code is executed multiple times, but each time, the random choice it makes is given a distinct address.
Although the random choices are not included in the return value, they are included in the execution trace of the generative function. We can run the generative function and obtain its trace using the
simulate
method from the Gen API:
trace = Gen.simulate(line_model, (xs,));
This method takes the function to be executed, and a tuple of arguments to the function, and returns a trace and a second value that we will not be using in this tutorial. When we print the trace, we see that it is a complex data structure.
println(trace)
Gen.DynamicDSLTrace{DynamicDSLFunction{Any}}(DynamicDSLFunction{Any}(Dict{Symbol,Any}(), Dict{Symbol,Any}(), Type[Array{Float64,1}], ##line_model#360, Bool[false], false), Trie{Any,Gen.ChoiceOrCallRecord}(Dict{Any,Gen.ChoiceOrCallRecord}((:y, 7)=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(1.27898, 0.531045, NaN, true),(:y, 9)=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(1.18495, 0.383827, NaN, true),(:y, 1)=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(2.59637, 0.989953, NaN, true),(:y, 10)=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(0.923242, 1.18703, NaN, true),(:y, 5)=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(1.83234, 1.2226, NaN, true),(:y, 4)=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(1.68603, 1.22205, NaN, true),:intercept=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(1.59258, 1.92912, NaN, true),(:y, 3)=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(2.29103, 0.267383, NaN, true),(:y, 6)=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(1.78879, 0.541288, NaN, true),(:y, 8)=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(1.08288, 0.351557, NaN, true),(:y, 11)=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(0.681258, 1.38295, NaN, true),(:y, 2)=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(2.35704, 1.3311, NaN, true),:slope=>ChoiceOrCallRecord{Float64}(0.183012, 0.935685, NaN, true)), Dict{Any,Trie{Any,Gen.ChoiceOrCallRecord}}()), false, 5.463390098859433, 0.0, ([5.0, 4.0, 3.0, 0.2, 1.0, 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0],), 11)
A trace of a generative function contains various information about an execution of the function. For example, it contains the arguments on which the function was run, which are available with the API method get_args
:
Gen.get_args(trace)
([5.0, 4.0, 3.0, 0.2, 1.0, 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0],)
The trace also contains the value of the random choices, stored in map from address to value called a choice map. This map is available through the API method get_choices
:
println(Gen.get_choices(trace))
│
├── (:y, 7) : 1.2789843754761785
│
├── (:y, 9) : 1.1849531901901305
│
├── (:y, 1) : 2.5963722983723976
│
├── (:y, 10) : 0.9232419919072302
│
├── (:y, 5) : 1.8323447123380334
│
├── (:y, 4) : 1.6860320485983082
│
├── :intercept : 1.5925794282610763
│
├── (:y, 3) : 2.291030703942859
│
├── (:y, 6) : 1.788790237655204
│
├── (:y, 8) : 1.0828836930416266
│
├── (:y, 11) : 0.6812575540332843
│
├── (:y, 2) : 2.3570433271057403
│
└── :slope : 0.18301160776308753
We can pull out individual values from this map using Julia’s subscripting syntax [...]
:
choices = Gen.get_choices(trace)
println(choices[:slope])
0.18301160776308753
We can also read the value of a random choice directly from the trace, without having to use get_choices
first:
println(trace[:slope])
0.18301160776308753
The return value is also recorded in the trace, and is accessible with the get_retval
API method:
println(Gen.get_retval(trace));
11
In order to understand the probabilistic behavior of a generative function, it is helpful to be able to visualize its traces. Below, we define a function that uses PyPlot to render a trace of the generative function above. The rendering shows the xy data points and the line that is represented by the slope and intercept choices.
function render_trace(trace; show_data=true)
# Pull out xs from the trace
xs = get_args(trace)[1]
xmin = minimum(xs)
xmax = maximum(xs)
if show_data
ys = [trace[(:y, i)] for i=1:length(xs)]
# Plot the data set
scatter(xs, ys, c="black")
end
# Pull out slope and intercept from the trace
slope = trace[:slope]
intercept = trace[:intercept]
# Draw the line
plot([xmin, xmax], slope * [xmin, xmax] .+ intercept, color="black", alpha=0.5)
ax = gca()
ax[:set_xlim]((xmin, xmax))
ax[:set_ylim]((xmin, xmax))
end;
figure(figsize=(3,3))
render_trace(trace);
Because a generative function is stochastic, we need to visualize many runs in order to understand its behavior. The cell below renders a grid of traces.
function grid(renderer::Function, traces; ncols=6, nrows=3)
figure(figsize=(16, 8))
for (i, trace) in enumerate(traces)
subplot(nrows, ncols, i)
renderer(trace)
end
end;
Now, we generate several traces and render them in a grid
traces = [Gen.simulate(line_model, (xs,)) for _=1:12]
grid(render_trace, traces)
Exercise
Write a generative function that uses the same address twice. Run it to see what happens.
Exercise
Write a model that generates a sine wave with random phase, period and amplitude, and then generates ycoordinates from a given vector of xcoordinates by adding noise to the value of the wave at each xcoordinate.
Use a gamma(5, 1)
prior distribution for the period, and a gamma(1, 1)
prior distribution on the amplitude (see Gen.gamma
). Use a uniform distribution for the phase (see Gen.uniform
). Write a function that renders the trace by showing the data set and the sine wave. Visualize a grid of traces and discuss the distribution. Try tweaking the parameters of each of the prior distributions and seeing how the behavior changes.
Solution
@gen function sine_model(xs::Vector{Float64})
n = length(xs)
phase = @trace(uniform(0, 2 * pi), :phase)
period = @trace(gamma(5, 1), :period)
amplitude = @trace(gamma(1, 1), :amplitude)
for (i, x) in enumerate(xs)
mu = amplitude * sin(2 * pi * x / period + phase)
@trace(normal(mu, 0.1), (:y, i))
end
return n
end;
function render_sine_trace(trace; show_data=true)
xs = get_args(trace)[1]
xmin = minimum(xs)
xmax = maximum(xs)
if show_data
ys = [trace[(:y, i)] for i=1:length(xs)]
scatter(xs, ys, c="black")
end
phase = trace[:phase]
period = trace[:period]
amplitude = trace[:amplitude]
test_points = collect(range(xmin, stop=xmax, length=100))
plot(test_points, amplitude * sin.(2 * pi * test_points / period .+ phase))
ax = gca()
ax[:set_xlim]((xmin, xmax))
ax[:set_ylim]((xmin, xmax))
end;
traces = [Gen.simulate(sine_model, (xs,)) for _=1:12];
figure(figsize=(16, 8))
for (i, trace) in enumerate(traces)
subplot(3, 6, i)
render_sine_trace(trace)
end
3. Doing Posterior inference
We now will provide a data set of ycoordinates and try to draw inferences about the process that generated the data. We begin with the following data set:
ys = [6.75003, 6.1568, 4.26414, 1.84894, 3.09686, 1.94026, 1.36411, 0.83959, 0.976, 1.93363, 2.91303];
figure(figsize=(3,3))
scatter(xs, ys, color="black");
We will assume that the line model was responsible for generating the data, and infer values of the slope and intercept that explain the data.
To do this, we write a simple inference program that takes the model we are assuming generated our data, the data set, and the amount of computation to perform, and returns a trace of the function that is approximately sampled from the posterior distribution on traces of the function, given the observed data. That is, the inference program will try to find a trace that well explains the dataset we created above. We can inspect that trace to find estimates of the slope and intercept of a line that fits the data.
Functions like importance_resampling
expect us to provide a model and also an choice map representing our data set and relating it to the model. A choice map maps random choice addresses from the model to values from our data set. Here, we want to tie model addresses like (:y, 4)
to data set values like ys[4]
:
function do_inference(model, xs, ys, amount_of_computation)
# Create a choice map that maps model addresses (:y, i)
# to observed values ys[i]. We leave :slope and :intercept
# unconstrained, because we want them to be inferred.
observations = Gen.choicemap()
for (i, y) in enumerate(ys)
observations[(:y, i)] = y
end
# Call importance_resampling to obtain a likely trace consistent
# with our observations.
(trace, _) = Gen.importance_resampling(model, (xs,), observations, amount_of_computation);
return trace
end;
We can run the inference program to obtain a trace, and then visualize the result:
trace = do_inference(line_model, xs, ys, 100)
figure(figsize=(3,3))
render_trace(trace);
We see that importance_resampling
found a reasonable slope and intercept to explain the data. We can also visualize many samples in a grid:
traces = [do_inference(line_model, xs, ys, 100) for _=1:10];
grid(render_trace, traces)
We can see here that there is some uncertainty: with our limited data, we can’t be 100% sure exactly where the line is. We can get a better sense for the variability in the posterior distribution by visualizing all the traces in one plot, rather than in a grid. Each trace is going to have the same observed data points, so we only plot those once, based on the values in the first trace:
function overlay(renderer, traces; same_data=true, args...)
renderer(traces[1], show_data=true, args...)
for i=2:length(traces)
renderer(traces[i], show_data=!same_data, args...)
end
end;
traces = [do_inference(line_model, xs, ys, 100) for _=1:10];
figure(figsize=(3,3))
overlay(render_trace, traces);
Exercise
The results above were obtained for amount_of_computation = 100
. Run the algorithm with this value set to 1
, 10
, and 1000
, etc. Which value seems like a good tradeoff between accuracy and running time? Discuss.
Exercise
Consider the following data set.
ys_sine = [2.89, 2.22, 0.612, 0.522, 2.65, 0.133, 2.70, 2.77, 0.425, 2.11, 2.76];
figure(figsize=(3, 3));
scatter(xs, ys_sine, color="black");
Write an inference program that generates traces of sine_model
that explain this data set. Visualize the resulting distribution of traces. Temporarily change the prior distribution on the period to be gamma(1, 1)
(by changing and rerunning the cell that defines sine_model
from a previous exercise). Can you explain the difference in inference results when using gamma(1, 1)
vs gamma(5, 1)
prior on the period? How much computation did you need to get good results?
4. Predicting new data
Using the API method generate
, we can generate a trace of a generative function in which the values of certain random choices constrained to given values. The constraints are a choice map that maps the addresses of the constrained random choices to their desired values.
For example:
constraints = Gen.choicemap()
constraints[:slope] = 0.
constraints[:intercept] = 0.
(trace, _) = Gen.generate(line_model, (xs,), constraints)
figure(figsize=(3,3))
render_trace(trace);
Note that the random choices corresponding to the ycoordinates are still made randomly. Run the cell above a few times to verify this.
We will use the ability to run constrained executions of a generative function to predict the value of the ycoordinates at new xcoordinates by running new executions of the model generative function in which the random choices corresponding to the parameters have been constrained to their inferred values. We have provided a function below (predict_new_data
) that takes a trace, and a vector of new xcoordinates, and returns a vector of predicted ycoordinates corresponding to the xcoordinates in new_xs
. We have designed this function to work with multiple models, so the set of parameter addresses is an argument (param_addrs
):
function predict_new_data(model, trace, new_xs::Vector{Float64}, param_addrs)
# Copy parameter values from the inferred trace (`trace`)
# into a fresh set of constraints.
constraints = Gen.choicemap()
for addr in param_addrs
constraints[addr] = trace[addr]
end
# Run the model with new x coordinates, and with parameters
# fixed to be the inferred values
(new_trace, _) = Gen.generate(model, (new_xs,), constraints)
# Pull out the yvalues and return them
ys = [new_trace[(:y, i)] for i=1:length(new_xs)]
return ys
end;
The cell below defines a function that first performs inference on an observed data set (xs, ys)
, and then runs predict_new_data
to generate predicted ycoordinates. It repeats this process num_traces
times, and returns a vector of the resulting ycoordinate vectors.
function infer_and_predict(model, xs, ys, new_xs, param_addrs, num_traces, amount_of_computation)
pred_ys = []
for i=1:num_traces
trace = do_inference(model, xs, ys, amount_of_computation)
push!(pred_ys, predict_new_data(model, trace, new_xs, param_addrs))
end
pred_ys
end;
Finally, we define a cell that plots the observed data set (xs, ys)
as red dots, and the predicted data as small black dots.
function plot_predictions(xs, ys, new_xs, pred_ys)
scatter(xs, ys, color="red")
for pred_ys_single in pred_ys
scatter(new_xs, pred_ys_single, color="black", s=1, alpha=0.3)
end
end;
Recall the original dataset for the line model. The xcoordinates span the interval 5 to 5.
figure(figsize=(3,3))
scatter(xs, ys, color="red");
We will use the inferred values of the parameters to predict ycoordinates for xcoordinates in the interval 5 to 10 from which data was not observed. We will also predict new data within the interval 5 to 5, and we will compare this data to the original observed data. Predicting new data from inferred parameters, and comparing this new data to the observed data is the core idea behind posterior predictive checking. This tutorial does not intend to give a rigorous overview behind techniques for checking the quality of a model, but intends to give highlevel intuition.
new_xs = collect(range(5, stop=10, length=100));
We generate and plot the predicted data:
pred_ys = infer_and_predict(line_model, xs, ys, new_xs, [:slope, :intercept], 20, 1000)
figure(figsize=(3,3))
plot_predictions(xs, ys, new_xs, pred_ys)
The results look reasonable, both within the interval of observed data and in the extrapolated predictions on the right.
Now consider the same experiment run with following data set, which has significantly more noise.
ys_noisy = [5.092, 4.781, 2.46815, 1.23047, 0.903318, 1.11819, 2.10808, 1.09198, 0.0203789, 2.05068, 2.66031];
pred_ys = infer_and_predict(line_model, xs, ys_noisy, new_xs, [:slope, :intercept], 20, 1000)
figure(figsize=(3,3))
plot_predictions(xs, ys_noisy, new_xs, pred_ys)
It looks like the generated data is less noisy than the observed data in the regime where data was observed, and it looks like the forecasted data is too overconfident. This is a sign that our model is misspecified. In our case, this is because we have assumed that the noise has value 0.1. However, the actual noise in the data appears to be much larger. We can correct this by making the noise a random choice as well and inferring its value along with the other parameters.
We first write a new version of the line model that samples a random choice for the noise from a gamma(1, 1)
prior distribution.
@gen function line_model_2(xs::Vector{Float64})
n = length(xs)
slope = @trace(normal(0, 1), :slope)
intercept = @trace(normal(0, 2), :intercept)
noise = @trace(gamma(1, 1), :noise)
for (i, x) in enumerate(xs)
@trace(normal(slope * x + intercept, noise), (:y, i))
end
return nothing
end;
Then, we compare the predictions using inference the unmodified and modified model on the ys
data set:
figure(figsize=(6,3))
pred_ys = infer_and_predict(line_model, xs, ys, new_xs, [:slope, :intercept], 20, 1000)
subplot(1, 2, 1)
title("Fixed noise level")
plot_predictions(xs, ys, new_xs, pred_ys)
pred_ys = infer_and_predict(line_model_2, xs, ys, new_xs, [:slope, :intercept, :noise], 20, 10000)
subplot(1, 2, 2)
title("Inferred noise level")
plot_predictions(xs, ys, new_xs, pred_ys)
Notice that there is more uncertainty in the predictions made using the modified model.
We also compare the predictions using inference the unmodified and modified model on the ys_noisy
data set:
figure(figsize=(6,3))
pred_ys = infer_and_predict(line_model, xs, ys_noisy, new_xs, [:slope, :intercept], 20, 1000)
subplot(1, 2, 1)
title("Fixed noise level")
plot_predictions(xs, ys_noisy, new_xs, pred_ys)
pred_ys = infer_and_predict(line_model_2, xs, ys_noisy, new_xs, [:slope, :intercept, :noise], 20, 10000)
subplot(1, 2, 2)
title("Inferred noise level")
plot_predictions(xs, ys_noisy, new_xs, pred_ys)
Notice that while the unmodified model was very overconfident, the modified model has an appropriate level of uncertainty, while still capturing the general negative trend.
Exercise
Write a modified version the sine model that makes noise into a random choice. Compare the predicted data with the observed data infer_and_predict
and plot_predictions
for the unmodified and modified model, and for the ys_sine
and ys_noisy
datasets. Discuss the results. Experiment with the amount of inference computation used. The amount of inference computation will need to be higher for the model with the noise random choice.
Solution
@gen function sine_model_2(xs::Vector{Float64})
n = length(xs)
phase = @trace(uniform(0, 2 * pi), :phase)
period = @trace(gamma(5, 1), :period)
amplitude = @trace(gamma(1, 1), :amplitude)
noise = @trace(gamma(1, 1), :noise)
for (i, x) in enumerate(xs)
mu = amplitude * sin(2 * pi * x / period + phase)
@trace(normal(mu, noise), (:y, i))
end
return n
end;
figure(figsize=(6,3))
pred_ys = infer_and_predict(sine_model, xs, ys_sine, new_xs, [:phase, :period, :amplitude], 20, 100)
subplot(1, 2, 1)
title("Fixed noise level")
plot_predictions(xs, ys_sine, new_xs, pred_ys)
pred_ys = infer_and_predict(sine_model_2, xs, ys_sine, new_xs, [:phase, :period, :amplitude, :noise], 20, 1000)
subplot(1, 2, 2)
title("Inferred noise level")
plot_predictions(xs, ys_sine, new_xs, pred_ys)
figure(figsize=(6,3))
pred_ys = infer_and_predict(sine_model, xs, ys_noisy, new_xs, [:phase, :period, :amplitude], 20, 100)
subplot(1, 2, 1)
title("Fixed noise level")
plot_predictions(xs, ys_noisy, new_xs, pred_ys)
pred_ys = infer_and_predict(sine_model_2, xs, ys_noisy, new_xs, [:phase, :period, :amplitude, :noise], 20, 1000)
subplot(1, 2, 2)
title("Inferred noise level")
plot_predictions(xs, ys_noisy, new_xs, pred_ys)
The model with the noise inference is more able to avoid making inaccurate overconfident predictions on the data set (ys_noisy
) for which the model’s assumptios are violated.
5. Calling other generative functions
In addition to making random choices, generative functions can invoke other generative functions. To illustrate this, we will write a probabilistic model that combines the line model and the sine model. This model is able to explain data using either model, and which model is chosen will depend on the data. This is called model selection.
A generative function can invoke another generative function in three ways:

using regular Julia function call syntax

using the
@trace
Gen keyword with an address:@trace(<call>, <addr>)

using the
@trace
Gen keyword without an address:@trace(<call>)
When invoking using regular function call syntax, the random choices made by the callee function are not traced. When invoking using @trace
without an address, the random choices of the callee function are placed in the same address namespace as the caller’s random choices. When using @trace(<call>, <addr>)
, the random choices of the callee are placed under the namespace <addr>
.
@gen function foo()
@trace(normal(0, 1), :y)
end
@gen function bar()
@trace(bernoulli(0.5), :x)
@trace(foo())
end
@gen function bar_using_namespace()
@trace(bernoulli(0.5), :x)
@trace(foo(), :z)
end;
We first show the addresses sampled by bar
:
trace = Gen.simulate(bar, ())
println(Gen.get_choices(trace))
│
├── :y : 0.1555163501029882
│
└── :x : false
And the addresses sampled by bar_using_namespace
:
trace = Gen.simulate(bar_using_namespace, ())
println(Gen.get_choices(trace))
│
├── :x : false
│
└── :z
│
└── :y : 0.3173884162416476
Using @trace
with a namespace can help avoid address collisions for complex models.
A hierarchical address is represented as a Julia Pair
, where the first element of the pair is the first element of the address and the second element of the pair is the rest of the address:
trace[Pair(:z, :y)]
0.3173884162416476
Julia uses the =>
operator as a shorthand for the Pair
constructor, so we can access choices at hierarchical addresses like:
trace[:z => :y]
0.3173884162416476
If we have a hierarchical address with more than two elements, we can construct the address by chaining the =>
operator:
@gen function baz()
@trace(bar_using_namespace(), :a)
end
trace = simulate(baz, ())
trace[:a => :z => :y]
1.2035666821158528
Note that the =>
operator associated right, so this is equivalent to:
trace[Pair(:a, Pair(:z, :y))]
1.2035666821158528
Now, we write a generative function that combies the line and sine models. It makes a Bernoulli random choice (e.g. a coin flip that returns true or false) that determines which of the two models will generate the data.
@gen function combined_model(xs::Vector{Float64})
if @trace(bernoulli(0.5), :is_line)
@trace(line_model_2(xs))
else
@trace(sine_model_2(xs))
end
end;
We also write a visualization for a trace of this function:
function render_combined(trace; show_data=true)
if trace[:is_line]
render_trace(trace, show_data=show_data)
else
render_sine_trace(trace, show_data=show_data)
end
end;
We visualize some traces, and see that sometimes it samples linear data and other times sinusoidal data.
traces = [Gen.simulate(combined_model, (xs,)) for _=1:12];
grid(render_combined, traces)
We run inference using this combined model on the ys
data set and the ys_sine
data set.
figure(figsize=(6,3))
subplot(1, 2, 1)
traces = [do_inference(combined_model, xs, ys, 10000) for _=1:10];
overlay(render_combined, traces)
subplot(1, 2, 2)
traces = [do_inference(combined_model, xs, ys_sine, 10000) for _=1:10];
overlay(render_combined, traces)
The results should show that the line model was inferred for the ys
data set, and the sine wave model was inferred for the ys_sine
data set.
Exercise
Construct a data set for which it is ambiguous whether the line or sine wave model is best. Visualize the inferred traces using render_combined
to illustrate the ambiguity. Write a program that takes the data set and returns an estimate of the posterior probability that the data was generated by the sine wave model, and run it on your data set.
Hint: To estimate the posterior probability that the data was generated by the sine wave model, run the inference program many times to compute a large number of traces, and then compute the fraction of those traces in which :is_line
is false.
Exercise
There is code that is duplicated between line_model_2
and sine_model_2
. Refactor the model to reduce code duplication and improve the readability of the code. Rerun the experiment above and confirm that the results are qualitatively the same. You may need to write a new rendering function. Try to avoid introducing code duplication between the model and the rendering code.
Hint: To avoid introducing code duplication between the model and the rendering code, use the return value of the generative function.
@gen function line_model_refactored()
# < your code here >
end;
@gen function sine_model_refactored()
# < your code here >
end;
@gen function combined_model_refactored(xs::Vector{Float64})
# < your code here >
end;
function render_combined_refactored(trace; show_data=true)
xs = Gen.get_args(trace)[1]
xmin = minimum(xs)
xmax = maximum(xs)
if show_data
ys = [trace[(:y, i)] for i=1:length(xs)]
scatter(xs, ys, c="black")
end
# < your code here >
ax = gca()
ax[:set_xlim]((xmin, xmax))
ax[:set_ylim]((xmin, xmax))
end;
figure(figsize=(6,3))
subplot(1, 2, 1)
traces = [do_inference(combined_model_refactored, xs, ys, 10000) for _=1:10];
overlay(render_combined_refactored, traces)
subplot(1, 2, 2)
traces = [do_inference(combined_model_refactored, xs, ys_sine, 10000) for _=1:10];
overlay(render_combined_refactored, traces)
6. Modeling with an unbounded number of parameters
Gen’s builtin modeling language can be used to express models that use an unbounded number of parameters. This section walks you through development of a model of data that does not apriori specify an upper bound on the complexity of the model, but instead infers the complexity of the model as well as the parameters. This is a simple example of a Bayesian nonparametric model.
We will consider two data sets:
xs_dense = collect(range(5, stop=5, length=50))
ys_simple = fill(1., length(xs_dense)) .+ randn(length(xs_dense)) * 0.1
ys_complex = [Int(floor(abs(x/3))) % 2 == 0 ? 2 : 0 for x in xs_dense] .+ randn(length(xs_dense)) * 0.1;
figure(figsize=(6,3))
subplot(1, 2, 1)
title("yssimple")
scatter(xs_dense, ys_simple, color="black", s=10)
gca()[:set_ylim]((1, 3))
subplot(1, 2, 2)
title("yscomplex")
scatter(xs_dense, ys_complex, color="black", s=10)
gca()[:set_ylim]((1, 3))
(1, 3)
The data set on the left appears to be best explained as a contant function with some noise. The data set on the right appears to include two changepoints, with a constant function in between the changepoints. We want a model that does not apriori choose the number of changepoints in the data. To do this, we will recursively partition the interval into regions. We define a Julia data structure that represents a binary tree of intervals; each leaf node represents a region in which the function is constant.
struct Interval
l::Float64
u::Float64
end
abstract type Node end
struct InternalNode <: Node
left::Node
right::Node
interval::Interval
end
struct LeafNode <: Node
value::Float64
interval::Interval
end
We now write a generative function that randomly creates such a tree. Note the use of recursion in this function to create arbitrarily large trees representing arbitrarily many changepoints. Also note that we assign the address namespaces :left
and :right
to the calls made for the two recursive calls to generate_segments
.
@gen function generate_segments(l::Float64, u::Float64)
interval = Interval(l, u)
if @trace(bernoulli(0.7), :isleaf)
value = @trace(normal(0, 1), :value)
return LeafNode(value, interval)
else
frac = @trace(beta(2, 2), :frac)
mid = l + (u  l) * frac
left = @trace(generate_segments(l, mid), :left)
right = @trace(generate_segments(mid, u), :right)
return InternalNode(left, right, interval)
end
end;
We also define some helper functions to visualize traces of the generate_segments
function.
function render_node(node::LeafNode)
plot([node.interval.l, node.interval.u], [node.value, node.value])
end
function render_node(node::InternalNode)
render_node(node.left)
render_node(node.right)
end;
function render_segments_trace(trace)
node = get_retval(trace)
render_node(node)
ax = gca()
ax[:set_xlim]((0, 1))
ax[:set_ylim]((3, 3))
end;
We generate 12 traces from this function and visualize them below. We plot the piecewise constant function that was sampled by each run of the generative function. Different constant segments are shown in different colors. Run the cell a few times to get a better sense of the distribution on functions that is represented by the generative function.
traces = [Gen.simulate(generate_segments, (0., 1.)) for i=1:12]
grid(render_segments_trace, traces)
Because we only subdivide an interval with 30% probability, most of these sampled traces have only one segment.
Now that we have generative function that generates a random piecewiseconstant function, we write a model that adds noise to the resulting constant functions to generate a data set of ycoordinates. The noise level will be a random choice.
# get_value_at searches a binary tree for
# the leaf node containing some value.
function get_value_at(x::Float64, node::LeafNode)
@assert x >= node.interval.l && x <= node.interval.u
return node.value
end
function get_value_at(x::Float64, node::InternalNode)
@assert x >= node.interval.l && x <= node.interval.u
if x <= node.left.interval.u
get_value_at(x, node.left)
else
get_value_at(x, node.right)
end
end
# Out full model
@gen function changepoint_model(xs::Vector{Float64})
node = @trace(generate_segments(minimum(xs), maximum(xs)), :tree)
noise = @trace(gamma(1, 1), :noise)
for (i, x) in enumerate(xs)
@trace(normal(get_value_at(x, node), noise), (:y, i))
end
return node
end;
We write a visualization for changepoint_model
below:
function render_changepoint_model_trace(trace; show_data=true)
xs = Gen.get_args(trace)[1]
node = Gen.get_retval(trace)
render_node(node)
if show_data
ys = [trace[(:y, i)] for i=1:length(xs)]
scatter(xs, ys, c="black")
end
ax = gca()
ax[:set_xlim]((minimum(xs), maximum(xs)))
ax[:set_ylim]((3, 3))
end;
Finally, we generate some simulated data sets and visualize them on top of the underlying piecewise constant function from which they were generated:
traces = [Gen.simulate(changepoint_model, (xs_dense,)) for i=1:12]
grid(render_changepoint_model_trace, traces)
Notice that the amount of variability around the piecewise constant mean function differs from trace to trace.
Now we perform inference for the simple data set:
traces = [do_inference(changepoint_model, xs_dense, ys_simple, 10000) for _=1:12];
grid(render_changepoint_model_trace, traces)
We see that we inferred that the mean function that explains the data is a constant with very high probability.
For inference about the complex data set, we use more computation. You can experiment with different amounts of computation to see how the quality of the inferences degrade with less computation. Note that we are using a very simple generic inference algorithm in this tutorial, which really isn’t suited for this more complex task. In later tutorials, we will learn how to write more efficient algorithms, so that accurate results can be obtained with significantly less computation. We will also see ways of annotating the model for better performance, no matter the inference algorithm.
traces = [do_inference(changepoint_model, xs_dense, ys_complex, 100000) for _=1:12];
grid(render_changepoint_model_trace, traces)
The results show that more segments are inferred for the more complex data set.
Exercise
Write a function that takes a data set of x and ycoordinates and plots the histogram of the probability distribution on the number of changepoints.
Show the results for the ys_simple
and ys_complex
data sets.
Hint: The return value of changepoint_model
is the tree of Node
values. Walk this tree.
Exercise
Write a new version of changepoint_model
that uses @trace
without an address (e.g. @trace(<call>)
) to make the recursive calls.
Hint: You will need to guarantee that all addresses are unique. How can you label each node in a binary tree using an integer?