:= to keep track of generated quantities

[torfjelde]

Note that this is more of a fun idea rather than something I think we necessarily should do.

But due to a bunch of issues with invlinking (TuringLang/Turing.jl#2195), we're likely going to make it so that we always re-evaluate the model to get the properly linked realizations before passing it to the user (TuringLang/Turing.jl#2202) using values_as_in_model (#590).

Now, if we indeed decide to always do this re-evaluation, it opens a can of cute worms, one amongst them which is the possibility of the following with very little work 👀 (note the example is also using TuringLang/Turing.jl#2202)

julia> using Turing

julia> @model function demo()
           x ~ Normal()
           y := 100 + x
           return nothing
       end
demo (generic function with 2 methods)

julia> model = demo()
DynamicPPL.Model{typeof(demo), (), (), (), Tuple{}, Tuple{}, DynamicPPL.DefaultContext}(demo, NamedTuple(), NamedTuple(), DynamicPPL.DefaultContext())

julia> chain = sample(model, NUTS(), 1000)
┌ Info: Found initial step size
└   ϵ = 3.2
Sampling 100%|█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████| Time: 0:00:00
Chains MCMC chain (1000×14×1 Array{Float64, 3}):

Iterations        = 501:1:1500
Number of chains  = 1
Samples per chain = 1000
Wall duration     = 0.78 seconds
Compute duration  = 0.78 seconds
parameters        = x, y
internals         = lp, n_steps, is_accept, acceptance_rate, log_density, hamiltonian_energy, hamiltonian_energy_error, max_hamiltonian_energy_error, tree_depth, numerical_error, step_size, nom_step_size

Summary Statistics
  parameters       mean       std      mcse   ess_bulk   ess_tail      rhat   ess_per_sec 
      Symbol    Float64   Float64   Float64    Float64    Float64   Float64       Float64 

           x     0.0138    0.9837    0.0549   323.4336   721.8310    0.9991      417.3337
           y   100.0138    0.9837    0.0549   323.4336   721.8310    0.9991      417.3337

Quantiles
  parameters      2.5%     25.0%      50.0%      75.0%      97.5% 
      Symbol   Float64   Float64    Float64    Float64    Float64 

           x   -1.8697   -0.6448     0.0171     0.6708     1.8714
           y   98.1303   99.3552   100.0171   100.6708   101.8714

That is, we can finally "track" quantities in a nice manner + get easy integration with Chains (generated_quantities lacks this).

This is highly relevant to the age-old issue: #94

fix #94

[yebai]

Maybe we can push this a bit further by introducing a block syntax for :=:

julia> @model function demo()
           x ~ Normal(0, 1)
          generated_quantities := let
               # users could put arbitrary code in this block. 
                c = 5*x
                d = 2*x 
                z = x
                (c, z) # variables to track
          end

          return x
       end

julia> model = demo();

julia> model()

julia> generated_quantities(model, (x = 1,))

Then, we can conditionally evaluate this block during MCMC. The variable name generated_quantities inside the model definition is arbitrary, and we could have multiple such blocks (with different names) in general.

This would provide an alternative to #589, which is a bit unsatisfactory, I think.

[torfjelde]

Maybe we can push this a bit further by introducing a block syntax for :=:

Not a big fan because it will:

1. Require extensive macro writing to achieve in a decent way.
2. Will limit what the user can put in this block.

Compared to the simple := outlined in this PR, which is a trivial addition and poses no syntactical restrictions on on what the user does (beyond using left := right for tracking) => very easy to understand and use

[yebai]

Require extensive macro writing to achieve in a decent way.

I'm not sure it will involve a lot of extra work, but I don't think this is a major issue even if that is true. Also, we can do this block-syntax in a separate PR.

Will limit what the user can put in this block.

They are mostly equivalent to if-else blocks. I am not aware of any let-block limitations. Can you clarify?

EDIT: Apart from requiring an additional macro @is_post_processing, another issue with #589 is the slightly abusive overreliance on the return statement.

[devmotion]

Maybe we can push this a bit further by introducing a block syntax for :=:

If we consider a block syntax, maybe something like

julia> @model function demo()
           x ~ Normal(0, 1)
           @generated_quantities begin
               # users could put arbitrary code in this block. 
               c = 5*x
               d = 2*x 
               z = x
               (c, z) # variables to track
           end

           return x
       end

would be a slightly simpler syntax?

[torfjelde]

If we consider a block syntax, maybe something like

But won't this make our lives much more difficult? It will be additional macro-related stuff to maintain + the beautify of the current way with return is that it can handle arbitrary Julia code and it's not restricted to what can fit in a VarInfo. := in this PR is meant to be used for simple expressions that people just want to have in their chain; return is a strict super-set of := , but := still seems useful.

[devmotion]

I didn't focus on the return component too much actually when copying the example. I was more thinking that perhaps the meaning of := is less clear than a more explicit @generated_quantities block which would work also without return semantics:

@model function demo()
           x ~ Normal()
           @generated_quantities begin
               y = 100 + x
           end
           return nothing
       end

or even

@model function demo()
           x ~ Normal()
           @generated_quantities begin
               y := 100 + x
           end
           return nothing
       end

In principle different such blocks could be used for defining additional computations in other scenarios.

[torfjelde]

IMO if tell the user "use ~ to specify a random variable, and := to specify determinstic variables that you also want to end up in chains", things should be fairly understandable. AFAIK this is very common in PPLs, e.g. Deterministic in pymc3.

[trappmartin]

I find the syntax Tor posted pretty cool and intuitive. 😅 Why make it more complicated?

[torfjelde]

I find the syntax Tor posted pretty cool and intuitive. 😅 Why make it more complicated?

Seconded 👀

[yebai]

I'm happy to merge this PR and leave the block syntax for future work.

I find the syntax Tor posted pretty cool and intuitive. 😅 Why make it more complicated?

@trappmartin the let-block based syntax provides a nice alternative to #589

[trappmartin]

Thanks for the context.

[torfjelde]

I'm happy to merge this PR and leave the block syntax for future work.

So is this actually something we want to move forward?

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 8969088761

Details

• 22 of 30 (73.33%) changed or added relevant lines in 3 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.03%) to 81.501%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
src/utils.jl	2	5	40.0%
src/values_as_in_model.jl	12	17	70.59%

Totals
Change from base Build 8861691435:	-0.03%
Covered Lines:	2877
Relevant Lines:	3530

---

💛 - Coveralls

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 21.87500% with 25 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 76.61%. Comparing base (4cf395b) to head (4c61bcf).

❗ Current head 4c61bcf differs from pull request most recent head 30e99f6. Consider uploading reports for the commit 30e99f6 to get more accurate results

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/values_as_in_model.jl	18.75%	13 Missing ⚠️
src/compiler.jl	18.18%	9 Missing ⚠️
src/utils.jl	40.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #594      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.06%   76.61%   -4.45%     
==========================================
  Files          30       30              
  Lines        3517     3545      +28     
==========================================
- Hits         2851     2716     -135     
- Misses        666      829     +163     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[devmotion]

I don't think it's a good idea but I want to bring it up anyways: What about the opposite behaviour and making everything that is defined with = instead of := a tracked quantity (so := would be an opt-out instead of opt-in)?

[sunxd3]

What about aliasing?

For instance, given

@model function m()
    x := 1
    y ~ Normal(x, 1)
    x := y
end

The current implementation will be tracking the value of the second x in the end?

Also the use of tilde pipeline for regular assignment is not quite natural, but understandable.

[yebai]

What about aliasing?

It's probably sensible to simply throw an error for such scenarios.

[torfjelde]

What about aliasing?

We actually have DynamicPPL.TestUtiles.check_model for this now!:) Plan is to make that automatically run when the user calls sample, and it will either warn the user if something like this happens.

[torfjelde]

I don't think it's a good idea but I want to bring it up anyways: What about the opposite behaviour and making everything that is defined with = instead of := a tracked quantity (so := would be an opt-out instead of opt-in)?

Naaaaaah, that's going to be too crazy I think. Too many gotchas and annoyances. Also, we've had tons of requests to "filter out variables that I need for inference but am not actually interested in to save mem footprint", and this would make those people way less happy 😅

[yebai]

Let’s try to get this PR merged soon-ish.

[yebai]

Let's make a final push to get this merged and released -- it looks like some GSoC projects might benefit from this new feature.

[torfjelde]

Added tests + marked ready for review.

Combining this PR with TuringLang/Turing.jl#2202, automatic inclusion of tracked variables will be included.

[sunxd3]

Looks good to me. Tiny concern on a technicality: we are using the tilde functions to implement the whole values_as_in_model. I am a little worried that this might be confusing for future contributors as := is more of a = then ~. Not suggesting a rewrite, as I do think the current implementation is the most intuitive approach.

[torfjelde]

Looks good to me. Tiny concern on a technicality: we are using the tilde functions to implement the whole values_as_in_model. I am a little worried that this might be confusing for future contributors as := is more of a = then ~. Not suggesting a rewrite, as I do think the current implementation is the most intuitive approach.

So there are two aspects:

1. values_as_in_model is already implemented using the tilde pipeline, as it should, because it is meant to extract values primarily from ~ statements.
2. I think the concern regarding also implementing := using this approach rather than introducing another way of doing things is very fair. I think for now it makes sense to use the tilde pipeline because it a) it simplifies internals quite a bit vs. introducing specific handling of :=, and b) it's meant to work when using values_as_in_model, which this then trivially does.

I'm definitively open to maybe make a more explicit approach to (2), i.e. introduce some coloneq_* methods or something, but I think maybe that's worth delaying until we see explicit use-cases for this.

[torfjelde]

@yebai Please don't merge PRs opened by others without consulting with the author (unless they're super unrespnosive ofc)