Extend exact posteriors to condition on multiple observations about aemcmc HOT 7 OPEN

Yes, definitely part of it. I was wondering if AeMCMC has the structure to emulate/automate common conjugate distributions as in this Wiki table.

Absolutely; that's a big part of this work (e.g. #48, #46). The current conjugation implementations are mostly framed as kanren relations, but there are some challenges with that approach that we need to address (e.g. #108); however, we really don't need to use that approach. We can implement these conjugates (in one "direction") using plain Aesara rewrites.

from aemcmc.

You're right, that one identity won't work in general. What I'm talking about is the general approach of operating in a non-(log-)density space, for which that convolution identity is just a single example

(Sorry, been on the last part of a big project for a little while now; will provide a real response as soon as I can!)

from aemcmc.

Does the following illustrate the problem you're talking about—or part of it?

import aemcmc
import aesara
import aesara.tensor as at


srng = at.random.RandomStream(0)

lam_rv = srng.gamma(1., 1., name="lam")
Y1_rv = srng.poisson(lam=lam_rv, name="Y1")
Y2_rv = srng.poisson(lam=lam_rv, name="Y2")

y1_vv = Y1_rv.clone()
y1_vv.name = "y1"
y2_vv = Y2_rv.clone()
y2_vv.name = "y2"

sampler, initial_values = aemcmc.construct_sampler({Y1_rv: y1_vv, Y2_rv: y2_vv}, srng)

p_posterior_step = sampler.sample_steps[lam_rv]

# Only one posterior sampling step for `lam_rv`
sampler.sample_steps.keys()
# dict_keys([lam])

# and it only uses the value of `Y2_rv` (i.e. `y2`)
aesara.dprint(p_posterior_step)
# gamma_rv{0, (0, 0), floatX, False}.1 [id A]
#  |RandomGeneratorSharedVariable(<Generator(PCG64) at 0x7FDEAC9F9660>) [id B]
#  |TensorConstant{[]} [id C]
#  |TensorConstant{11} [id D]
#  |Elemwise{add,no_inplace} [id E]
#  | |TensorConstant{1.0} [id F]
#  | |y2 [id G]
#  |Elemwise{true_divide,no_inplace} [id H]
#    |TensorConstant{1.0} [id I]
#    |Elemwise{add,no_inplace} [id J]
#      |TensorConstant{1.0} [id F]
#      |TensorConstant{1} [id K]

This example seems like it might require a new relation (e.g. the sum of independent Poissons being a Poisson) in order to give the expected result. At the very least, it should be aware of the other observed Poisson.

from aemcmc.

Yes, definitely part of it. I was wondering if AeMCMC has the structure to emulate/automate common conjugate distributions as in this Wiki table. These likelihoods assume some $n$ observed data points. What do you think of this?

I imagine that, eventually, instead of having Y1_rv, Y2_rv, we could have some batched n-vector Y_rv in the pseudo-code above?

from aemcmc.

This example seems like it might require a new relation (e.g. the sum of independent Poissons being a Poisson) in order to give the expected result. At the very least, it should be aware of the other observed Poisson.

Why would we need to recognize that a sum of independent Poissons is a Poisson? The likelihood portion of the posterior kernel is the same as a sum of Poissons, but maybe that's just a coincidence here? Here are some math scribbles:

$$\pi_n(\lambda) \stackrel{\lambda}{\propto} \pi_0(\lambda) P(Y_1 = y_1 \mid \lambda)P(Y_2 = y_2 \mid \lambda) = \pi_0(\lambda) \frac{\lambda^{y_1}\text{exp}(-\lambda) }{y_1!} \frac{\lambda^{y_2}\text{exp}(-\lambda) }{y_2!} \stackrel{\lambda}{\propto} \pi_0(\lambda) \frac{\lambda^{y_1 + y_2}\text{exp}(-2\lambda) }{y_1! y_2!} \stackrel{\lambda}{\propto} \pi_0(\lambda) \lambda^{y_1 + y_2} \text{exp}(-2\lambda)$$

where the kernel of $Y_1 + Y_2$ would have been $\frac{\lambda^{y_1 + y_2}\text{exp}(-2\lambda) }{(y_1 +y_2)!} \stackrel{\lambda}{\propto} \lambda^{y_1 + y_2}\text{exp}(-2\lambda)$ as well. (The denominators are different) $\pi_n(\cdot)$ and $\pi_0(\cdot)$ denote the posterior and prior distributions respectively

from aemcmc.

Why would we need to recognize that a sum of independent Poissons is a Poisson?

That's just one fairly straightforward approach to handling this exact situation, but there are likely many others. The reason that approach is nice: we need only add one simple additional rewrite and it should immediately work with the current rewrites to produce the desired result. In other words, we wouldn't need to change how things work.

The likelihood portion of the posterior kernel is the same as a sum of Poissons, but maybe that's just a coincidence here? Here are some math scribbles:

πn(λ)∝λπ0(λ)P(Y1=y1∣λ)P(Y2=y2∣λ)=π0(λ)λy1exp(−λ)y1!λy2exp(−λ)y2!∝λπ0(λ)λy1+y2exp(−2λ)y1!y2!∝λπ0(λ)λy1+y2exp(−2λ)

where the kernel of Y1+Y2 would have been λy1+y2exp(−2λ)(y1+y2)!∝λλy1+y2exp(−2λ) as well. (The denominators are different) πn(⋅) and π0(⋅) denote the posterior and prior distributions respectively

Yeah, it looks like you're deriving the rewrite I proposed adding, but in "log-density space".

Our rewrite process operates primarily in a "measurable function/random variable space": i.e. on random variables like $Z = X + Y$, where $X \sim \text{Pois}(\lambda_x)$ and $Y \sim \text{Pois}(\lambda_y)$ by adding/using/replacing $Z \sim \text{Pois}(\lambda_x + \lambda_y)$ in our IR graphs. After that, it becomes possible/easy to formulate $(\beta | Z = z)$ for any $\beta$ upon which $X$ and/or $Y$ is dependent.

Using this approach, we avoid all the extra machinery needed to perform the log-density derivation/proof of $Z = X + Y \sim \text{Pois}(...)$. That kind of work can be done "off-line" and added to the library at will.

from aemcmc.

Thanks for the clarifications above

Our rewrite process operates primarily in a "measurable function/random variable space": i.e. on random variables like Z=X+Y, where X∼Pois(λx) and Y∼Pois(λy) by adding/using/replacing Z∼Pois(λx+λy) in our IR graphs. After that, it becomes possible/easy to formulate (β|Z=z) for any β upon which X and/or Y is dependent.

I think that I'm missing something here. I was referring to $(\beta \mid X = x, Y = y)$, which happens to similar (proportional) to $(\beta \mid Z = z)$ but I'm not sure if it's generally the case. Mathematically, is there an implicit use of sufficient statistics that link these posterior expressions together? Perhaps that's the bridge that I am not seeing

from aemcmc.