improved render_model

[karm-patel]

As discussed in #3023, I made the following changes in pyro.infer.inspect.py

• added _pyro_post_param() method for provenance tracking for pyro.param.
• added bool: render_param argument in render_model() to display param in graph.
• added sample_param and param_constraint in dictionary returned by get_model_relations()
• modified generate_graph_specification() and render_graph() to show param in graph returned by render_model()

@fritzo, Can you please suggest which type of test cases needs to be changed/added to test the above changes?

[karm-patel]

EDIT: I got the issue, I'm working on it.
.........................................................................
Hi @fritzo, I tried to study why this check is failing, But I'm unable to get an exact reason. It looks like adding provenance tracking for pyro.param conflicts with other methods. Can you please help me to get started to solve this problem?

[karm-patel]

Hi @fritzo, I am describing the error in detail. Previously, There was no provenance tracking for pyro.param hence the value of param was only tensor. In the previous commit, I have added a method to track provenance for pyro.param. So, the value of pyro.param is changed to ProvenanceTensor. Now Problem is - In module.py, some methods were expecting the value of pyro.param as tensor, so I detached provenance from the value of pyro.param using detach_provenance() method wherever needed.

I have also added the docstring for bool: render_param argument.

[karm-patel]

Hi @fritzo, This PR is ready for review.

[fritzo]

Hi @karm216, thanks for your patience. Your code looks great! I have only minor comments.

Re: testing, I think since this is a visual output and we have no existing tests for get_model_relations() it is enough to simply rerun tutorial/source/intro_long.ipynb and commit the updated output. I think your improved rendering will improve that tutorial. Feel free to add a sentence or two to that tutorial describing the difference between sample and param nodes, if you think that's needed.

[review-notebook-app]

Check out this pull request on 

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.

---

Powered by ReviewNB

[karm-patel]

Hi @fritzo , I made 3 changes

1. Code changes suggested by you.
2. Added render_params=True while calling render_model in 3 notebooks (wherever needed)
   1. intro_long.ipynb
   2. model_rendering.ipynb
   3. mle_map.ipynb
3. Added explanation text regarding render_param and constraints in 2 tutorials.
   1. intro_long.ipynb
   2. model_rendering.ipynb

[fritzo]

Hi @karm216 it looks like your changes include accidental running of black on notebooks. Can you please revert that part of the PR? Many of our tutorials were meticulously formatted prior to black, including pasting of data directly in notebook cells, and adding aligned line-comments. Running black creates sprawling and less legible notebooks for our readers.

[karm-patel]

Hi @karm216 it looks like your changes include accidental running of black on notebooks. Can you please revert that part of the PR? Many of our tutorials were meticulously formatted prior to black, including pasting of data directly in notebook cells, and adding aligned line-comments. Running black creates sprawling and less legible notebooks for our readers.

Ohh that's my bad! @fritzo , I reverted changes by black. Can you please check now?

[fritzo]

Looks great, thanks for updating the notebooks!

[karm-patel]

Hi @fritzo , Some checks are failed. It looks like there is a problem in installing dependencies. Please let me know if there is a problem at my side.

[fritzo]

It looks like github is buggy. First a microsoft bug broke github actions, then github allowed merging this PR without actions running 🤷

Thanks for the great contribution @karm216, I think many people will appreciate this feature!