## Part 3: The Metropolis algorithm

### Introduction

This is the third part in a series of posts on MCMC-based Bayesian inference for a logistic regression model. If you are new to this series, please go back to Part 1.

In the previous post we derived the log posterior for the model and implemented it in a variety of programming languages and libraries. In this post we will construct a Markov chain having the posterior as its equilibrium.

## MCMC

### Detailed balance

A homogeneous Markov chain with transition kernel $p(\theta_{n+1}|\theta_n)$ is said to satisfy detailed balance for some target distribution $\pi(\theta)$ if

$\displaystyle \pi(\theta)p(\theta'|\theta) = \pi(\theta')p(\theta|\theta'), \quad \forall \theta, \theta'$

Integrating both sides wrt $\theta$ gives

$\displaystyle \int_\Theta \pi(\theta)p(\theta'|\theta)d\theta = \pi(\theta'),$

from which it is clear that $\pi(\cdot)$ is a stationary distribution of the chain (and the chain is reversible). Under fairly mild regularity conditions we expect $\pi(\cdot)$ to be the equilibrium distribution of the chain.

For a given target $\pi(\cdot)$ we would like to find an easy-to-sample-from transition kernel $p(\cdot|\cdot)$ that satisfies detailed balance. This will then give us a way to (asymptotically) generate samples from our target.

In the context of Bayesian inference, the target $\pi(\theta)$ will typically be the posterior distribution, which in the previous post we wrote as $\pi(\theta|y)$. Here we drop the notational dependence on $y$, since MCMC can be used for any target distribution of interest.

### Metropolis-Hastings

Suppose we have a fairly arbitrary easy-to-sample-from transition kernel $q(\theta_{n+1}|\theta_n)$ and a target of interest, $\pi(\cdot)$. Metropolis-Hastings (M-H) is a strategy for using $q(\cdot|\cdot)$ to construct a new transition kernel $p(\cdot|\cdot)$ satisfying detailed balance for $\pi(\cdot)$.

The kernel $p(\theta'|\theta)$ can be described algorithmically as follows:

1. Call the current state of the chain $\theta$. Generate a proposal $\theta^\star$ by simulating from $q(\theta^\star|\theta)$.
2. Compute the acceptance probability

$\displaystyle \alpha(\theta^\star|\theta) = \min\left[1,\frac{\pi(\theta^\star)q(\theta|\theta^\star)}{\pi(\theta)q(\theta^\star|\theta)}\right].$

1. With probability $\alpha(\theta^\star|\theta)$ return new state $\theta'=\theta^\star$, otherwise return $\theta'=\theta$.

It is clear from the algorithmic description that this kernel will have a point mass at $\theta'=\theta$, but that for $\theta'\not=\theta$ the transition kernel will be $p(\theta'|\theta)=q(\theta'|\theta)\alpha(\theta'|\theta)$. But then

$\displaystyle \pi(\theta)p(\theta'|\theta) = \min[\pi(\theta)q(\theta'|\theta),\pi(\theta')q(\theta|\theta')]$

is symmetric in $\theta$ and $\theta'$, and so detailed balance is satisfied. Since detailed balance is trivial at the point mass at $\theta=\theta'$ we are done.

#### Metropolis algorithm

It is often convenient to generate proposals perturbatively, using a distribution that is symmetric about the current state of the chain. But then $q(\theta'|\theta)=q(\theta|\theta')$, and so $q(\cdot|\cdot)$ drops out of the acceptance probability. This is the Metropolis algorithm.

#### Some computational tricks

To generate an event with probability $\alpha(\theta^\star|\theta)$, we can generate a $u\sim U(0,1)$ and accept if $u < \alpha(\theta^\star|\theta)$. This is convenient for several reasons. First, it means that we can ignore the "min", and just accept if

$\displaystyle u < \frac{\pi(\theta^\star)q(\theta|\theta^\star)}{\pi(\theta)q(\theta^\star|\theta)}$

since $u\leq 1$ regardless. Better still, we can take logs, and accept if

$\displaystyle \log u < \log\pi(\theta^\star) - \log\pi(\theta) + \log q(\theta|\theta^\star) - \log q(\theta^\star|\theta),$

so there is no need to evaluate any raw densities. Again, in the case of a symmetric proposal distribution, the $q(\cdot|\cdot)$ terms can be dropped.

Another trick worth noting is that in the case of the simple M-H algorithm described, using a single update for the entire state space (and not multiple component-wise updates, for example), and assuming that the same M-H kernel is used repeatedly to generate successive states of a Markov chain, then the $\log \pi(\theta)$ term (which in the context of Bayesian inference will typically be the log posterior) will have been computed at the previous update (irrespective of whether or not the previous move was accepted). So if we are careful about how we pass on that old value to the next iteration, we can avoid recomputing the log posterior, and our algorithm will only require one log posterior evaluation per iteration rather than two. In functional programming languages it is often convenient to pass around this current log posterior density evaluation explicitly, effectively augmenting the state space of the Markov chain to include the log posterior density.

## HoF for a M-H kernel

Since I’m a fan of functional programming, we will adopt a functional style throughout, and start by creating a higher-order function (HoF) that accepts a log-posterior and proposal kernel as input and returns a Metropolis kernel as output.

### R

In R we can write a function to create a M-H kernel as follows.

mhKernel = function(logPost, rprop, dprop = function(new, old, ...) { 1 })
function(x, ll) {
prop = rprop(x)
llprop = logPost(prop)
a = llprop - ll + dprop(x, prop) - dprop(prop, x)
if (log(runif(1)) < a)
list(x=prop, ll=llprop)
else
list(x=x, ll=ll)
}


Note that the kernel returned requires as input both a current state x and its associated log-posterior, ll. The new state and log-posterior densities are returned.

We need to use this transition kernel to simulate a Markov chain by successive substitution of newly simulated values back into the kernel. In more sophisticated programming languages we will use streams for this, but in R we can just use a for loop to sample values and write the states into the rows of a matrix.

mcmc = function(init, kernel, iters = 10000, thin = 10, verb = TRUE) {
p = length(init)
ll = -Inf
mat = matrix(0, nrow = iters, ncol = p)
colnames(mat) = names(init)
x = init
if (verb)
message(paste(iters, "iterations"))
for (i in 1:iters) {
if (verb)
message(paste(i, ""), appendLF = FALSE)
for (j in 1:thin) {
pair = kernel(x, ll)
x = pair$x ll = pair$ll
}
mat[i, ] = x
}
if (verb)
message("Done.")
mat
}


Then, in the context of our running logistic regression example, and using the log-posterior from the previous post, we can construct our kernel and run it as follows.

pre = c(10.0,1,1,1,1,1,5,1)
out = mcmc(init, mhKernel(lpost,
function(x) x + pre*rnorm(p, 0, 0.02)), thin=1000)


Note the use of a symmetric proposal, so the proposal density is not required. Also note the use of a larger proposal variance for the intercept term and the second last covariate. See the full runnable script for further details.

### Python

We can do something very similar to R in Python using NumPy. Our HoF for constructing a M-H kernel is

def mhKernel(lpost, rprop, dprop = lambda new, old: 1.):
def kernel(x, ll):
prop = rprop(x)
lp = lpost(prop)
a = lp - ll + dprop(x, prop) - dprop(prop, x)
if (np.log(np.random.rand()) < a):
x = prop
ll = lp
return x, ll
return kernel


Our Markov chain runner function is

def mcmc(init, kernel, thin = 10, iters = 10000, verb = True):
p = len(init)
ll = -np.inf
mat = np.zeros((iters, p))
x = init
if (verb):
print(str(iters) + " iterations")
for i in range(iters):
if (verb):
print(str(i), end=" ", flush=True)
for j in range(thin):
x, ll = kernel(x, ll)
mat[i,:] = x
if (verb):
print("\nDone.", flush=True)
return mat


We can use this code in the context of our logistic regression example as follows.

pre = np.array([10.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,5.,1.])

def rprop(beta):
return beta + 0.02*pre*np.random.randn(p)

out = mcmc(init, mhKernel(lpost, rprop), thin=1000)


See the full runnable script for further details.

#### JAX

The above R and Python scripts are fine, but both languages are rather slow for this kind of workload. Fortunately it’s rather straightforward to convert the Python code to JAX to obtain quite amazing speed-up. We can write our M-H kernel as

def mhKernel(lpost, rprop, dprop = jit(lambda new, old: 1.)):
@jit
def kernel(key, x, ll):
key0, key1 = jax.random.split(key)
prop = rprop(key0, x)
lp = lpost(prop)
a = lp - ll + dprop(x, prop) - dprop(prop, x)
accept = (jnp.log(jax.random.uniform(key1)) < a)
return jnp.where(accept, prop, x), jnp.where(accept, lp, ll)
return kernel


and our MCMC runner function as

def mcmc(init, kernel, thin = 10, iters = 10000):
key = jax.random.PRNGKey(42)
keys = jax.random.split(key, iters)
@jit
def step(s, k):
[x, ll] = s
x, ll = kernel(k, x, ll)
s = [x, ll]
return s, s
@jit
def iter(s, k):
keys = jax.random.split(k, thin)
_, states = jax.lax.scan(step, s, keys)
final = [states[0][thin-1], states[1][thin-1]]
return final, final
ll = -np.inf
x = init
_, states = jax.lax.scan(iter, [x, ll], keys)
return states[0]


The first relates to the way JAX handles pseudo-random numbers. Since JAX is a pure functional eDSL, it can’t be used in conjunction with the typical pseudo-random number generators often used in imperative programming languages which rely on a global mutable state. This can be dealt with reasonably straightforwardly by explicitly passing around the random number state. There is a standard way of doing this that has been common practice in functional programming languages for decades. However, this standard approach is very sequential, and so doesn’t work so well in a parallel context. JAX therefore uses a splittable random number generator, where new states are created by splitting the current state into two (or more). We’ll come back to this when we get to the Haskell examples.

The second thing that might be unfamiliar to imperative programmers is the use of the scan operation (jax.lax.scan) to generate the Markov chain rather than a "for" loop. But scans are standard operations in most functional programming languages.

We can then call this code for our logistic regression example with

pre = jnp.array([10.,1.,1.,1.,1.,1.,5.,1.]).astype(jnp.float32)

@jit
def rprop(key, beta):
return beta + 0.02*pre*jax.random.normal(key, [p])

out = mcmc(init, mhKernel(lpost, rprop), thin=1000)


See the full runnable script for further details.

### Scala

In Scala we can use a similar approach to that already seen for defining a HoF to return a M-H kernel.

def mhKernel[S](
logPost: S => Double, rprop: S => S,
dprop: (S, S) => Double = (n: S, o: S) => 1.0
): ((S, Double)) => (S, Double) =
val r = Uniform(0.0,1.0)
state =>
val (x0, ll0) = state
val x = rprop(x0)
val ll = logPost(x)
val a = ll - ll0 + dprop(x0, x) - dprop(x, x0)
if (math.log(r.draw()) < a)
(x, ll)
else
(x0, ll0)


Note that Scala’s static typing does not prevent us from defining a function that is polymorphic in the type of the chain state, which we here call S. Also note that we are adopting a pragmatic approach to random number generation, exploiting the fact that Scala is not a pure functional language, using a mutable generator, and omitting to capture the non-determinism of the rprop function (and the returned kernel) in its type signature. In Scala this is a choice, and we could adopt a purer approach if preferred. We’ll see what such an approach will look like in Haskell, coming up next.

Now that we have the kernel, we don’t need to write an explicit runner function since Scala has good support for streaming data. There are many more-or-less sophisticated ways that we can work with data streams in Scala, and the choice depends partly on how pure one is being about tracking effects (such as non-determinism), but here I’ll just use the simple LazyList from the standard library for unfolding the kernel into an infinite MCMC chain before thinning and truncating appropriately.

  val pre = DenseVector(10.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,5.0,1.0)
def rprop(beta: DVD): DVD = beta + pre *:* (DenseVector(Gaussian(0.0,0.02).sample(p).toArray))
val kern = mhKernel(lpost, rprop)
val s = LazyList.iterate((init, -Inf))(kern) map (_._1)
val out = s.drop(150).thin(1000).take(10000)


See the full runnable script for further details.

Since Haskell is a pure functional language, we need to have some convention regarding pseudo-random number generation. Haskell supports several styles. The most commonly adopted approach wraps a mutable generator up in a monad. The typical alternative is to use a pure functional generator and either explicitly thread the state through code or hide this in a monad similar to the standard approach. However, Haskell also supports the use of splittable generators, so we can consider all three approaches for comparative purposes. The approach taken does affect the code and the type signatures, and even the streaming data abstractions most appropriate for chain generation.

Starting with a HoF for producing a Metropolis kernel, an approach using the standard monadic generators could like like

mKernel :: (StatefulGen g m) => (s -> Double) -> (s -> g -> m s) ->
g -> (s, Double) -> m (s, Double)
mKernel logPost rprop g (x0, ll0) = do
x <- rprop x0 g
let ll = logPost(x)
let a = ll - ll0
u <- (genContVar (uniformDistr 0.0 1.0)) g
let next = if ((log u) < a)
then (x, ll)
else (x0, ll0)
return next


Note how non-determinism is captured in the type signatures by the monad m. The explicit pure approach is to thread the generator through non-deterministic functions.

mKernelP :: (RandomGen g) => (s -> Double) -> (s -> g -> (s, g)) ->
g -> (s, Double) -> ((s, Double), g)
mKernelP logPost rprop g (x0, ll0) = let
(x, g1) = rprop x0 g
ll = logPost(x)
a = ll - ll0
(u, g2) = uniformR (0, 1) g1
next = if ((log u) < a)
then (x, ll)
else (x0, ll0)
in (next, g2)


Here the updated random number generator state is returned from each non-deterministic function for passing on to subsequent non-deterministic functions. This explicit sequencing of operations makes it possible to wrap the generator state in a state monad giving code very similar to the stateful monadic generator approach, but as already discussed, the sequential nature of this approach makes it unattractive in parallel and concurrent settings.

Fortunately the standard Haskell pure generator is splittable, meaning that we can adopt a splitting approach similar to JAX if we prefer, since this is much more parallel-friendly.

mKernelP :: (RandomGen g) => (s -> Double) -> (s -> g -> s) ->
g -> (s, Double) -> (s, Double)
mKernelP logPost rprop g (x0, ll0) = let
(g1, g2) = split g
x = rprop x0 g1
ll = logPost(x)
a = ll - ll0
u = unif g2
next = if ((log u) < a)
then (x, ll)
else (x0, ll0)
in next


Here non-determinism is signalled by passing a generator state (often called a "key" in the context of splittable generators) into a function. Functions receiving a key are responsible for splitting it to ensure that no key is ever used more than once.

Once we have a kernel, we need to unfold our Markov chain. When using the monadic generator approach, it is most natural to unfold using a monadic stream

mcmc :: (StatefulGen g m) =>
Int -> Int -> s -> (g -> s -> m s) -> g -> MS.Stream m s
mcmc it th x0 kern g = MS.iterateNM it (stepN th (kern g)) x0

stepN :: (Monad m) => Int -> (a -> m a) -> (a -> m a)
stepN n fa = if (n == 1)
then fa
else (\x -> (fa x) >>= (stepN (n-1) fa))


whereas for the explicit approaches it is more natural to unfold into a regular infinite data stream. So, for the explicit sequential approach we could use

mcmcP :: (RandomGen g) => s -> (g -> s -> (s, g)) -> g -> DS.Stream s
mcmcP x0 kern g = DS.unfold stepUf (x0, g)
where
stepUf xg = let
(x1, g1) = kern (snd xg) (fst xg)
in (x1, (x1, g1))


and with the splittable approach we could use

mcmcP :: (RandomGen g) =>
s -> (g -> s -> s) -> g -> DS.Stream s
mcmcP x0 kern g = DS.unfold stepUf (x0, g)
where
stepUf xg = let
(x1, g1) = xg
x2 = kern g1 x1
(g2, _) = split g1
in (x2, (x2, g2))


Calling these functions for our logistic regression example is similar to what we have seen before, but again there are minor syntactic differences depending on the approach. For further details see the full runnable scripts for the monadic approach, the pure sequential approach, and the splittable approach.

### Dex

Dex is a pure functional language and uses a splittable random number generator, so the style we use is similar to JAX (or Haskell using a splittable generator). We can generate a Metropolis kernel with

def mKernel {s} (lpost: s -> Float) (rprop: Key -> s -> s) :
Key -> (s & Float) -> (s & Float) =
def kern (k: Key) (sll: (s & Float)) : (s & Float) =
(x0, ll0) = sll
[k1, k2] = split_key k
x = rprop k1 x0
ll = lpost x
a = ll - ll0
u = rand k2
select (log u < a) (x, ll) (x0, ll0)
kern


We can then unfold our Markov chain with

def markov_chain {s} (k: Key) (init: s) (kern: Key -> s -> s) (its: Nat) :
Fin its => s =
with_state init \st.
for i:(Fin its).
x = kern (ixkey k i) (get st)
st := x
x


Here we combine Dex’s state effect with a for loop to unfold the stream. See the full runnable script for further details.

## Next steps

As previously discussed, none of these codes are optimised, so care should be taken not to over-interpret running times. However, JAX and Dex are noticeably faster than the alternatives, even running on a single CPU core. Another interesting feature of both JAX and Dex is that they are differentiable. This makes it very easy to develop algorithms using gradient information. In subsequent posts we will think about the gradient of our example log-posterior and how we can use gradient information to develop "better" sampling algorithms.

The complete runnable scripts are all available from this public github repo.

## Background

In May I attended a great workshop on advances and challenges in machine learning languages at the CMS in Cambridge. There was an a good mix of people from different disciplines, and a bit of a theme around probabilistic programming. The workshop schedule includes links to many of the presentations, and is generally worth browsing. In particular, it includes a link to the slides for my presentation on a compositional approach to scalable Bayesian computation and probabilistic programming. I’ve given a few talks on this kind of thing over the last couple of years, at Newcastle, at the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge (twice), and at CIRM in France. But I think I explained things best at this workshop at the CMS, though my impression could partly have been a reflection of the more interested and relevant audience. In the talk I started with a basic explanation of why ideas from category theory and functional programming can help to solve problems in statistical computing in a more composable and scalable way, before moving on to discuss probability monads and their fundamental connection to probabilistic programming. The take home message from the talk is that if you have a generic inference algorithm, expressing the logic in the context of probability monads can give you an embedded probabilistic programming language (PPL) for that inference algorithm essentially “for free”.

So, during my talk I said something a little fool-hardy. I can’t remember my exact words, but while presenting the idea behind an SMC-based probability monad I said something along the lines of “one day I will write a blog post on how to write a probabilistic programming language from scratch in 50 lines of code, and this is how I’ll do it“! Rather predictably (with hindsight), immediately after my talk about half a dozen people all pleaded with me to urgently write the post! I’ve been a little busy since then, but now that things have settled down a little for the summer, I’ve some time to think and code, so here is that post.

## Introduction

The idea behind this post is to show that, if you think about the problem in the right way, and use a programming language with syntactic support for monadic composition, then producing a flexible, general, compositional, embedded domain specific language (DSL) for probabilistic programming based on a given generic inference algorithm is no more effort than hard-coding two or three illustrative examples. You would need to code up two or three examples for a paper anyway, but providing a PPL is way more useful. There is also an interesting converse to this, which is that if you can’t easily produce a PPL for your “general” inference algorithm, then perhaps it isn’t quite as “general” as you thought. I’ll try to resist exploring that here…

To illustrate these principles I want to develop a fairly minimal PPL, so that the complexities of the inference algorithm don’t hide the simplicity of the PPL embedding. Importance sampling with resampling is probably the simplest useful generic Bayesian inference algorithm to implement, so that’s what I’ll use. Note that there are many limitations of the approach that I will adopt, which will make it completely unsuitable for “real” problems. In particular, this implementation is: inefficient, in terms of both compute time and memory usage, statistically inefficient for deep nesting and repeated conditioning, due to the particle degeneracy problem, specific to a particular probability monad, strictly evaluated, impure (due to mutation of global random number state), etc. All of these things are easily fixed, but all at the expense of greater abstraction, complexity and lines of code. I’ll probably discuss some of these generalisations and improvements in future posts, but for this post I want to keep everything as short and simple as practical. It’s also worth mentioning that there is nothing particularly original here. Many people have written about monadic embedded PPLs, and several have used an SMC-based monad for illustration. I’ll give some pointers to useful further reading at the end.

## The language, in 50 lines of code

Without further ado, let’s just write the PPL. I’m using plain Scala, with just a dependency on the Breeze scientific library, which I’m going to use for simulating random numbers from standard distributions, and evaluation of their log densities. I have a directory of materials associated with this post in a git repo. This post is derived from an executable tut document (so you know it works), which can be found here. If you just want to follow along copying code at the command prompt, just run sbt from an empty or temp directory, and copy the following to spin up a Scala console with the Breeze dependency:

set libraryDependencies += "org.scalanlp" %% "breeze" % "1.0-RC4"
set libraryDependencies += "org.scalanlp" %% "breeze-natives" % "1.0-RC4"
set scalaVersion := "2.13.0"
console


import breeze.stats.{distributions => bdist}
import breeze.linalg.DenseVector


which are not strictly necessary, but clean up the subsequent code. We are going to use a set of weighted particles to represent a probability distribution empirically, so we’ll start by defining an appropriate ADT for these:

implicit val numParticles = 300

case class Particle[T](v: T, lw: Double) { // value and log-weight
def map[S](f: T => S): Particle[S] = Particle(f(v), lw)
}


We also include a map method for pushing a particle through a transformation, and a default number of particles for sampling and resampling. 300 particles are enough for illustrative purposes. Ideally it would be good to increase this for more realistic experiments. We can use this particle type to build our main probability monad as follows.

trait Prob[T] {
val particles: Vector[Particle[T]]
def map[S](f: T => S): Prob[S] = Empirical(particles map (_ map f))
def flatMap[S](f: T => Prob[S]): Prob[S] = {
Empirical((particles map (p => {
f(p.v).particles.map(psi => Particle(psi.v, p.lw + psi.lw))
})).flatten).resample
}
def resample(implicit N: Int): Prob[T] = {
val lw = particles map (_.lw)
val mx = lw reduce (math.max(_,_))
val rw = lw map (lwi => math.exp(lwi - mx))
val law = mx + math.log(rw.sum/(rw.length))
val ind = bdist.Multinomial(DenseVector(rw.toArray)).sample(N)
val newParticles = ind map (i => particles(i))
Empirical(newParticles.toVector map (pi => Particle(pi.v, law)))
}
def cond(ll: T => Double): Prob[T] =
Empirical(particles map (p => Particle(p.v, p.lw + ll(p.v))))
def empirical: Vector[T] = resample.particles.map(_.v)
}

case class Empirical[T](particles: Vector[Particle[T]]) extends Prob[T]


Note that if you are pasting into the Scala REPL you will need to use :paste mode for this. So Prob[_] is our base probability monad trait, and Empirical[_] is our simplest implementation, which is just a collection of weighted particles. The method flatMap forms the naive product of empirical measures and then resamples in order to stop an explosion in the number of particles. There are two things worth noting about the resample method. The first is that the log-sum-exp trick is being used to avoid overflow and underflow when the log weights are exponentiated. The second is that although the method returns an equally weighted set of particles, the log weights are all set in order that the average raw weight of the output set matches the average raw weight of the input set. This is a little tricky to explain, but it turns out to be necessary in order to correctly propagate conditioning information back through multiple monadic binds (flatMaps). The cond method allows conditioning of a distribution using an arbitrary log-likelihood. It is included for comparison with some other implementations I will refer to later, but we won’t actually be using it, so we could save two lines of code here if necessary. The empirical method just extracts an unweighted set of values from a distribution for subsequent analysis.

It will be handy to have a function to turn a bunch of unweighted particles into a set of particles with equal weights (a sort-of inverse of the empirical method just described), so we can define that as follows.

def unweighted[T](ts: Vector[T], lw: Double = 0.0): Prob[T] =
Empirical(ts map (Particle(_, lw)))


Probabilistic programming is essentially trivial if we only care about forward sampling. But interesting PPLs allow us to condition on observed values of random variables. In the context of SMC, this is simplest when the distribution being conditioned has a tractable log-likelihood. So we can now define an extension of our probability monad for distributions with a tractable log-likelihood, and define a bunch of convenient conditioning (or “fitting”) methods using it.

trait Dist[T] extends Prob[T] {
def ll(obs: T): Double
def ll(obs: Seq[T]): Double = obs map (ll) reduce (_+_)
def fit(obs: Seq[T]): Prob[T] =
Empirical(particles map (p => Particle(p.v, p.lw + ll(obs))))
def fitQ(obs: Seq[T]): Prob[T] = Empirical(Vector(Particle(obs.head, ll(obs))))
def fit(obs: T): Prob[T] = fit(List(obs))
def fitQ(obs: T): Prob[T] = fitQ(List(obs))
}


The only unimplemented method is ll(). The fit method re-weights a particle set according to the observed log-likelihood. For convenience, it also returns a particle cloud representing the posterior-predictive distribution of an iid value from the same distribution. This is handy, but comes at the expense of introducing an additional particle cloud. So, if you aren’t interested in the posterior predictive, you can avoid this cost by using the fitQ method (for “fit quick”), which doesn’t return anything useful. We’ll see examples of this in practice, shortly. Note that the fitQ methods aren’t strictly required for our “minimal” PPL, so we can save a couple of lines by omitting them if necessary. Similarly for the variants which allow conditioning on a collection of iid observations from the same distribution.

At this point we are essentially done. But for convenience, we can define a few standard distributions to help get new users of our PPL started. Of course, since the PPL is embedded, it is trivial to add our own additional distributions later.

case class Normal(mu: Double, v: Double)(implicit N: Int) extends Dist[Double] {
lazy val particles = unweighted(bdist.Gaussian(mu, math.sqrt(v)).sample(N).toVector).particles
def ll(obs: Double) = bdist.Gaussian(mu, math.sqrt(v)).logPdf(obs) }

case class Gamma(a: Double, b: Double)(implicit N: Int) extends Dist[Double] {
lazy val particles = unweighted(bdist.Gamma(a, 1.0/b).sample(N).toVector).particles
def ll(obs: Double) = bdist.Gamma(a, 1.0/b).logPdf(obs) }

case class Poisson(mu: Double)(implicit N: Int) extends Dist[Int] {
lazy val particles = unweighted(bdist.Poisson(mu).sample(N).toVector).particles
def ll(obs: Int) = bdist.Poisson(mu).logProbabilityOf(obs) }


Note that I’ve parameterised the Normal and Gamma the way that statisticians usually do, and not the way they are usually parameterised in scientific computing libraries (such as Breeze).

That’s it! This is a complete, general-purpose, composable, monadic PPL, in 50 (actually, 48, and fewer still if you discount trailing braces) lines of code. Let’s now see how it works in practice.

## Examples

### Normal random sample

We’ll start off with just about the simplest slightly interesting example I can think of: Bayesian inference for the mean and variance of a normal distribution from a random sample.

import breeze.stats.{meanAndVariance => meanVar}
// import breeze.stats.{meanAndVariance=>meanVar}

val mod = for {
mu <- Normal(0, 100)
tau <- Gamma(1, 0.1)
_ <- Normal(mu, 1.0/tau).fitQ(List(8.0,9,7,7,8,10))
} yield (mu,tau)
// mod: Wrapped.Prob[(Double, Double)] = Empirical(Vector(Particle((8.718127116254472,0.93059589932682),-15.21683812389373), Particle((7.977706390420308,1.1575288208065433),-15.21683812389373), Particle((7.977706390420308,1.1744750937611985),-15.21683812389373), Particle((7.328100552769214,1.1181787982959164),-15.21683812389373), Particle((7.977706390420308,0.8283737237370494),-15.21683812389373), Particle((8.592847414557049,2.2934836446009026),-15.21683812389373), Particle((8.718127116254472,1.498741032928539),-15.21683812389373), Particle((8.592847414557049,0.2506065368748732),-15.21683812389373), Particle((8.543283880264225,1.127386759627675),-15.21683812389373), Particle((7.977706390420308,1.3508728798704925),-15.21683812389373), Particle((7.977706390420308,1.1134430556990933),-15.2168...

val modEmp = mod.empirical
// modEmp: Vector[(Double, Double)] = Vector((7.977706390420308,0.8748006833362748), (6.292345096890432,0.20108091703626174), (9.15330820843396,0.7654238730107492), (8.960935105658741,1.027712984079369), (7.455292602273359,0.49495749079351836), (6.911716909394562,0.7739749058662421), (6.911716909394562,0.6353785792877397), (7.977706390420308,1.1744750937611985), (7.977706390420308,1.1134430556990933), (8.718127116254472,1.166399872049532), (8.763777227034538,1.0468304705769353), (8.718127116254472,0.93059589932682), (7.328100552769214,1.6166695922250236), (8.543283880264225,0.4689300351248357), (8.543283880264225,2.0028918490755094), (7.536025958690963,0.6282318170458533), (7.328100552769214,1.6166695922250236), (7.049843463553113,0.20149378088848635), (7.536025958690963,2.3565657669819897...

meanVar(modEmp map (_._1)) // mu
// res0: breeze.stats.meanAndVariance.MeanAndVariance = MeanAndVariance(8.311171010932343,0.4617800639333532,300)

meanVar(modEmp map (_._2)) // tau
// res1: breeze.stats.meanAndVariance.MeanAndVariance = MeanAndVariance(0.940762723934599,0.23641881704888842,300)


Note the use of the empirical method to turn the distribution into an unweighted set of particles for Monte Carlo analysis. Anyway, the main point is that the syntactic sugar for monadic binds (flatMaps) provided by Scala’s for-expressions (similar to do-notation in Haskell) leads to readable code not so different to that in well-known general-purpose PPLs such as BUGS, JAGS, or Stan. There are some important differences, however. In particular, the embedded DSL has probabilistic programs as regular values in the host language. These may be manipulated and composed like other values. This makes this probabilistic programming language more composable than the aforementioned languages, which makes it much simpler to build large, complex probabilistic programs from simpler, well-tested, components, in a scalable way. That is, this PPL we have obtained “for free” is actually in many ways better than most well-known PPLs.

### Noisy measurements of a count

Here we’ll look at the problem of inference for a discrete count given some noisy iid continuous measurements of it.

val mod = for {
count <- Poisson(10)
tau <- Gamma(1, 0.1)
_ <- Normal(count, 1.0/tau).fitQ(List(4.2,5.1,4.6,3.3,4.7,5.3))
} yield (count, tau)
// mod: Wrapped.Prob[(Int, Double)] = Empirical(Vector(Particle((5,4.488795220669575),-11.591037521513753), Particle((5,1.7792314573063672),-11.591037521513753), Particle((5,2.5238021156137673),-11.591037521513753), Particle((4,3.280754333896923),-11.591037521513753), Particle((5,2.768438569482849),-11.591037521513753), Particle((4,1.3399975573518912),-11.591037521513753), Particle((5,1.1792835858615431),-11.591037521513753), Particle((5,1.989491156206883),-11.591037521513753), Particle((4,0.7825254987152054),-11.591037521513753), Particle((5,2.7113936834028793),-11.591037521513753), Particle((5,3.7615196800240387),-11.591037521513753), Particle((4,1.6833300961124709),-11.591037521513753), Particle((5,2.749183220798113),-11.591037521513753), Particle((5,2.1074062883430202),-11.591037521513...

val modEmp = mod.empirical
// modEmp: Vector[(Int, Double)] = Vector((4,3.243786594839479), (4,1.5090869158886693), (4,1.280656912383482), (5,2.0616356908358195), (5,3.475433097869503), (5,1.887582611202514), (5,2.8268877720514745), (5,0.9193261688050818), (4,1.7063629502805908), (5,2.116414832864841), (5,3.775508828984636), (5,2.6774941123762814), (5,2.937859946593459), (5,1.2047689975166402), (5,2.5658806161572656), (5,1.925890364268593), (4,1.0194093176888832), (5,1.883288825936725), (5,4.9503779454422965), (5,0.9045613180858916), (4,1.5795027943928661), (5,1.925890364268593), (5,2.198539449287062), (5,1.791363956348445), (5,0.9853760689818026), (4,1.6541388923071607), (5,2.599899960899971), (4,1.8904423810277957), (5,3.8983183765907836), (5,1.9242319515895554), (5,2.8268877720514745), (4,1.772120802027519), (5,2...

meanVar(modEmp map (_._1.toDouble)) // count
// res2: breeze.stats.meanAndVariance.MeanAndVariance = MeanAndVariance(4.670000000000004,0.23521739130434777,300)

meanVar(modEmp map (_._2)) // tau
// res3: breeze.stats.meanAndVariance.MeanAndVariance = MeanAndVariance(1.9678279101913874,0.9603971613375548,300)


I’ve included this mainly as an example of inference for a discrete-valued parameter. There are people out there who will tell you that discrete parameters are bad/evil/impossible. This isn’t true – discrete parameters are cool!

### Linear model

Because our PPL is embedded, we can take full advantage of the power of the host programming language to build our models. Let’s explore this in the context of Bayesian estimation of a linear model. We’ll start with some data.

val x = List(1.0,2,3,4,5,6)
// x: List[Double] = List(1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0)

val y = List(3.0,2,4,5,5,6)
// y: List[Double] = List(3.0, 2.0, 4.0, 5.0, 5.0, 6.0)

val xy = x zip y
// xy: List[(Double, Double)] = List((1.0,3.0), (2.0,2.0), (3.0,4.0), (4.0,5.0), (5.0,5.0), (6.0,6.0))


Now, our (simple) linear regression model will be parameterised by an intercept, alpha, a slope, beta, and a residual variance, v. So, for convenience, let’s define an ADT representing a particular linear model.

case class Param(alpha: Double, beta: Double, v: Double)
// defined class Param


Now we can define a prior distribution over models as follows.

val prior = for {
alpha <- Normal(0,10)
beta <- Normal(0,4)
v <- Gamma(1,0.1)
} yield Param(alpha, beta, v)
// prior: Wrapped.Prob[Param] = Empirical(Vector(Particle(Param(-2.392517550699654,-3.7516090283880095,1.724680963054379),0.0), Particle(Param(7.60982717067903,-1.4318199629361292,2.9436745225038545),0.0), Particle(Param(-1.0281832158124837,-0.2799562317845073,4.05125312048092),0.0), Particle(Param(-1.0509321093485073,-2.4733837587060448,0.5856868459456287),0.0), Particle(Param(7.678898742733517,0.15616204936412104,5.064540017623097),0.0), Particle(Param(-3.392028985658713,-0.694412176170572,7.452625596437611),0.0), Particle(Param(3.0310535934425324,-2.97938526497514,2.138446100857938),0.0), Particle(Param(3.016959696424399,1.3370878561954143,6.18957854813488),0.0), Particle(Param(2.6956505371497066,1.058845844793446,5.257973123790336),0.0), Particle(Param(1.496225540527873,-1.573936445746...


Since our language doesn’t include any direct syntactic support for fitting regression models, we can define our own function for conditioning a distribution over models on a data point, which we can then apply to our prior as a fold over the available data.

def addPoint(current: Prob[Param], obs: (Double, Double)): Prob[Param] = for {
p <- current
(x, y) = obs
_ <- Normal(p.alpha + p.beta * x, p.v).fitQ(y)
} yield p
// addPoint: (current: Wrapped.Prob[Param], obs: (Double, Double))Wrapped.Prob[Param]

// mod: Vector[Param] = Vector(Param(1.4386051853067798,0.8900831186754122,4.185564696221981), Param(0.5530582357040271,1.1296886766045509,3.468527573093037), Param(0.6302560079049571,0.9396563485293532,3.7044543917875927), Param(3.68291303096638,0.4781372802435529,5.151665328789926), Param(3.016959696424399,0.4438016738989412,1.9988914122633519), Param(3.016959696424399,0.4438016738989412,1.9988914122633519), Param(0.6302560079049571,0.9396563485293532,3.7044543917875927), Param(0.6302560079049571,0.9396563485293532,3.7044543917875927), Param(3.68291303096638,0.4781372802435529,5.151665328789926), Param(3.016959696424399,0.4438016738989412,1.9988914122633519), Param(0.6302560079049571,0.9396563485293532,3.7044543917875927), Param(0.6302560079049571,0.9396563485293532,3.7044543917875927), ...

meanVar(mod map (_.alpha))
// res4: breeze.stats.meanAndVariance.MeanAndVariance = MeanAndVariance(1.5740812481283812,1.893684802867127,300)

meanVar(mod map (_.beta))
// res5: breeze.stats.meanAndVariance.MeanAndVariance = MeanAndVariance(0.7690238868623273,0.1054479268115053,300)

meanVar(mod map (_.v))
// res6: breeze.stats.meanAndVariance.MeanAndVariance = MeanAndVariance(3.5240853748668695,2.793386340338213,300)


We could easily add syntactic support to our language to enable the fitting of regression-style models, as is done in Rainier, of which more later.

### Dynamic generalised linear model

The previous examples have been fairly simple, so let’s finish with something a bit less trivial. Our language is quite flexible enough to allow the analysis of a dynamic generalised linear model (DGLM). Here we’ll fit a Poisson DGLM with a log-link and a simple Brownian state evolution. More complex models are more-or-less similarly straightforward. The model is parameterised by an initial state, state0, and and evolution variance, w.

val data = List(2,1,0,2,3,4,5,4,3,2,1)
// data: List[Int] = List(2, 1, 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1)

val prior = for {
w <- Gamma(1, 1)
state0 <- Normal(0.0, 2.0)
} yield (w, List(state0))
// prior: Wrapped.Prob[(Double, List[Double])] = Empirical(Vector(Particle((0.12864918092587044,List(-2.862479260552014)),0.0), Particle((1.1706344622093179,List(1.6138397233532091)),0.0), Particle((0.757288087950638,List(-0.3683499919402798)),0.0), Particle((2.755201217523856,List(-0.6527488751780317)),0.0), Particle((0.7535085397802043,List(0.5135562407906502)),0.0), Particle((1.1630726564525629,List(0.9703146201262348)),0.0), Particle((1.0080345715326213,List(-0.375686732266234)),0.0), Particle((4.603723117526974,List(-1.6977366375222938)),0.0), Particle((0.2870669117815037,List(2.2732160435099433)),0.0), Particle((2.454675218313211,List(-0.4148287542786906)),0.0), Particle((0.3612534201761152,List(-1.0099270904161748)),0.0), Particle((0.29578453393473114,List(-2.4938128878051966)),0.0)...


We can define a function to create a new hidden state, prepend it to the list of hidden states, and condition on the observed value at that time point as follows.

def addTimePoint(current: Prob[(Double, List[Double])],
obs: Int): Prob[(Double, List[Double])] = for {
tup <- current
(w, states) = tup
ns <- Normal(os, w)
_ <- Poisson(math.exp(ns)).fitQ(obs)
} yield (w, ns :: states)
// addTimePoint: (current: Wrapped.Prob[(Double, List[Double])], obs: Int)Wrapped.Prob[(Double, List[Double])]


We then run our (augmented state) particle filter as a fold over the time series.

val mod = data.foldLeft(prior)(addTimePoint(_,_)).empirical
// mod: Vector[(Double, List[Double])] = Vector((0.053073252551193446,List(0.8693030057529023, 1.2746526177834938, 1.020307245610461, 1.106341696651584, 1.070777529635013, 0.8749041525303247, 0.9866999164354662, 0.4082577920509255, 0.06903234462140699, -0.018835642776197814, -0.16841912034400547, -0.08919045681401294)), (0.0988871875952762,List(-0.24241948109998607, 0.09321618969352086, 0.9650532206325375, 1.1738734442767293, 1.2272325310228442, 0.9791695328246326, 0.5576319082578128, -0.0054280215024367084, 0.4256621012454391, 0.7486862644576158, 0.8193517409118243, 0.5928750312493785)), (0.16128799384962295,List(-0.30371187329667104, -0.3976854602292066, 0.5869357473774455, 0.9881090696832543, 1.2095181380307558, 0.7211231597865506, 0.8085486452269925, 0.2664373341459165, -0.627344024142...

meanVar(mod map (_._1)) // w
// res7: breeze.stats.meanAndVariance.MeanAndVariance = MeanAndVariance(0.29497487517435844,0.0831412016262515,300)

meanVar(mod map (_._2.reverse.head)) // state0 (initial state)
// res8: breeze.stats.meanAndVariance.MeanAndVariance = MeanAndVariance(0.04617218427664018,0.372844704533101,300)

meanVar(mod map (_._2.head)) // stateN (final state)
// res9: breeze.stats.meanAndVariance.MeanAndVariance = MeanAndVariance(0.4937178761565612,0.2889287607470016,300)


## Summary, conclusions, and further reading

So, we’ve seen how we can build a fully functional, general-purpose, compositional, monadic PPL from scratch in 50 lines of code, and we’ve seen how we can use it to solve real, analytically intractable Bayesian inference problems of non-trivial complexity. Of course, there are many limitations to using exactly this PPL implementation in practice. The algorithm becomes intolerably slow for deeply nested models, and uses unreasonably large amounts of RAM for large numbers of particles. It also suffers from a particle degeneracy problem if there are too many conditioning events. But it is important to understand that these are all deficiencies of the naive inference algorithm used, not the PPL itself. The PPL is flexible and compositional and can be used to build models of arbitrary size and complexity – it just needs to be underpinned by a better, more efficient, inference algorithm. Rainier is a Scala library I’ve blogged about previously which uses a very similar PPL to the one described here, but is instead underpinned by a fast, efficient, HMC algorithm. With my student Jonny Law, we have recently arXived a paper on Functional probabilistic programming for scalable Bayesian modelling, discussing some of these issues, and exploring the compositional nature of monadic PPLs (somewhat glossed over in this post).

Since the same PPL can be underpinned by different inference algorithms encapsulated as probability monads, an obvious question is whether it is possible to abstract the PPL away from the inference algorithm implementation. Of course, the answer is “yes”, and this has been explored to great effect in papers such as Practical probabilistic programming with monads and Functional programming for modular Bayesian inference. Note that they use the cond approach to conditioning, which looks a bit unwieldy, but is equivalent to fitting. As well as allowing alternative inference algorithms to be applied to the same probabilistic program, it also enables the composing of inference algorithms – for example, composing a MH algorithm with an SMC algorithm in order to get a PMMH algorithm. The ideas are implemented in an embedded DSL for Haskell, monad-bayes. If you are not used to Haskell, the syntax will probably seem a bit more intimidating than Scala’s, but the semantics are actually quite similar, with the main semantic difference being that Scala is strictly evaluated by default, whereas Haskell is lazily evaluated by default. Both languages support both lazy and strict evaluation – the difference relates simply to default behaviour, but is important nevertheless.

### Software

• min-ppl – code associated with this blog post
• Rainier – a more efficient PPL with similar syntax

## Introduction

In the previous post I gave a brief introduction to Rainier, a new HMC-based probabilistic programming library/DSL for Scala. In that post I assumed that people were using the latest source version of the library. Since then, version 0.1.1 of the library has been released, so in this post I will demonstrate use of the released version of the software (using the binaries published to Sonatype), and will walk through a slightly more interesting example – a dynamic linear state space model with unknown static parameters. This is similar to, but slightly different from, the DLM example in the Rainier library. So to follow along with this post, all that is required is SBT.

## An interactive session

First run SBT from an empty directory, and paste the following at the SBT prompt:

set libraryDependencies  += "com.stripe" %% "rainier-plot" % "0.1.1"
set scalaVersion := "2.12.4"
console


This should give a Scala REPL with appropriate dependencies (rainier-plot has all of the relevant transitive dependencies). We’ll begin with some imports, and then simulating some synthetic data from a dynamic linear state space model with an AR(1) latent state and Gaussian noise on the observations.

import com.stripe.rainier.compute._
import com.stripe.rainier.core._
import com.stripe.rainier.sampler._

implicit val rng = ScalaRNG(1)
val n = 60 // number of observations/time points
val mu = 3.0 // AR(1) mean
val a = 0.95 // auto-regressive parameter
val sig = 0.2 // AR(1) SD
val sigD = 3.0 // observational SD
val state = Stream.
iterate(0.0)(x => mu + (x - mu) * a + sig * rng.standardNormal).
take(n).toVector
val obs = state.map(_ + sigD * rng.standardNormal)


Now we have some synthetic data, let’s think about building a probabilistic program for this model. Start with a prior.

case class Static(mu: Real, a: Real, sig: Real, sigD: Real)
val prior = for {
mu <- Normal(0, 10).param
a <- Normal(1, 0.1).param
sig <- Gamma(2,1).param
sigD <- Gamma(2,2).param
sp <- Normal(0, 50).param
} yield (Static(mu, a, sig, sigD), List(sp))


Note the use of a case class for wrapping the static parameters. Next, let’s define a function to add a state and associated observation to an existing model.

def addTimePoint(current: RandomVariable[(Static, List[Real])],
datum: Double) = for {
tup <- current
static = tup._1
states = tup._2
ns <- Normal(((Real.one - static.a) * static.mu) + (static.a * os),
static.sig).param
_ <- Normal(ns, static.sigD).fit(datum)
} yield (static, ns :: states)


Given this, we can generate the probabilistic program for our model as a fold over the data initialised with the prior.

val fullModel = obs.foldLeft(prior)(addTimePoint(_, _))


If we don’t want to keep samples for all of the variables, we can focus on the parameters of interest, wrapping the results in a Map for convenient sampling and plotting.

val model = for {
tup <- fullModel
static = tup._1
states = tup._2
} yield
Map("mu" -> static.mu,
"a" -> static.a,
"sig" -> static.sig,
"sigD" -> static.sigD,


We can sample with

val out = model.sample(HMC(3), 100000, 10000 * 500, 500)


(this will take several minutes) and plot some diagnostics with

import com.cibo.evilplot.geometry.Extent
import com.stripe.rainier.plot.EvilTracePlot._

val truth = Map("mu" -> mu, "a" -> a, "sigD" -> sigD,
"sig" -> sig, "SP" -> state(0))
render(traces(out, truth), "traceplots.png",
Extent(1200, 1400))
render(pairs(out, truth), "pairs.png")


This generates the following diagnostic plots:

Everything looks good.

## Summary

Rainier is a monadic embedded DSL for probabilistic programming in Scala. We can use standard functional combinators and for-expressions for building models to sample, and then run an efficient HMC algorithm on the resulting probability monad in order to obtain samples from the posterior distribution of the model.

See the Rainier repo for further details.

## Introduction

In a previous post I’ve given a brief introduction to monads in Scala, aimed at people interested in scientific and statistical computing. Monads are a concept from category theory which turn out to be exceptionally useful for solving many problems in functional programming. But most categorical concepts have a dual, usually prefixed with “co”, so the dual of a monad is the comonad. Comonads turn out to be especially useful for formulating algorithms from scientific and statistical computing in an elegant way. In this post I’ll illustrate their use in signal processing, image processing, numerical integration of PDEs, and Gibbs sampling (of an Ising model). Comonads enable the extension of a local computation to a global computation, and this pattern crops up all over the place in statistical computing.

Simplifying massively, from the viewpoint of a Scala programmer, a monad is a mappable (functor) type class augmented with the methods pure and flatMap:

trait Monad[M[_]] extends Functor[M] {
def pure[T](v: T): M[T]
def flatMap[T,S](v: M[T])(f: T => M[S]): M[S]
}


In category theory, the dual of a concept is typically obtained by “reversing the arrows”. Here that means reversing the direction of the methods pure and flatMap to get extract and coflatMap, respectively.

trait Comonad[W[_]] extends Functor[W] {
def extract[T](v: W[T]): T
def coflatMap[T,S](v: W[T])(f: W[T] => S): W[S]
}


So, while pure allows you to wrap plain values in a monad, extract allows you to get a value out of a comonad. So you can always get a value out of a comonad (unlike a monad). Similarly, while flatMap allows you to transform a monad using a function returning a monad, coflatMap allows you to transform a comonad using a function which collapses a comonad to a single value. It is coflatMap (sometimes called extend) which can extend a local computation (producing a single value) to the entire comonad. We’ll look at how that works in the context of some familiar examples.

## Applying a linear filter to a data stream

One of the simplest examples of a comonad is an infinite stream of data. I’ve discussed streams in a previous post. By focusing on infinite streams we know the stream will never be empty, so there will always be a value that we can extract. Which value does extract give? For a Stream encoded as some kind of lazy list, the only value we actually know is the value at the head of the stream, with subsequent values to be lazily computed as required. So the head of the list is the only reasonable value for extract to return.

Understanding coflatMap is a bit more tricky, but it is coflatMap that provides us with the power to apply a non-trivial statistical computation to the stream. The input is a function which transforms a stream into a value. In our example, that will be a function which computes a weighted average of the first few values and returns that weighted average as the result. But the return type of coflatMap must be a stream of such computations. Following the types, a few minutes thought reveals that the only reasonable thing to do is to return the stream formed by applying the weighted average function to all sub-streams, recursively. So, for a Stream s (of type Stream[T]) and an input function f: W[T] => S, we form a stream whose head is f(s) and whose tail is coflatMap(f) applied to s.tail. Again, since we are working with an infinite stream, we don’t have to worry about whether or not the tail is empty. This gives us our comonadic Stream, and it is exactly what we need for applying a linear filter to the data stream.

In Scala, Cats is a library providing type classes from Category theory, and instances of those type classes for parametrised types in the standard library. In particular, it provides us with comonadic functionality for the standard Scala Stream. Let’s start by defining a stream corresponding to the logistic map.

import cats._
import cats.implicits._

val lam = 3.7
def s = Stream.iterate(0.5)(x => lam*x*(1-x))
s.take(10).toList
// res0: List[Double] = List(0.5, 0.925, 0.25668749999999985,
//  0.7059564011718747, 0.7680532550204203, 0.6591455741499428, ...


Let us now suppose that we want to apply a linear filter to this stream, in order to smooth the values. The idea behind using comonads is that you figure out how to generate one desired value, and let coflatMap take care of applying the same logic to the rest of the structure. So here, we need a function to generate the first filtered value (since extract is focused on the head of the stream). A simple first attempt a function to do this might look like the following.

  def linearFilterS(weights: Stream[Double])(s: Stream[Double]): Double =
(weights, s).parMapN(_*_).sum


This aligns each weight in parallel with a corresponding value from the stream, and combines them using multiplication. The resulting (hopefully finite length) stream is then summed (with addition). We can test this with

linearFilterS(Stream(0.25,0.5,0.25))(s)
// res1: Double = 0.651671875


and let coflatMap extend this computation to the rest of the stream with something like:

s.coflatMap(linearFilterS(Stream(0.25,0.5,0.25))).take(5).toList
// res2: List[Double] = List(0.651671875, 0.5360828502929686, ...


This is all completely fine, but our linearFilterS function is specific to the Stream comonad, despite the fact that all we’ve used about it in the function is that it is a parallelly composable and foldable. We can make this much more generic as follows:

  def linearFilter[F[_]: Foldable, G[_]](
weights: F[Double], s: F[Double]
)(implicit ev: NonEmptyParallel[F, G]): Double =
(weights, s).parMapN(_*_).fold


This uses some fairly advanced Scala concepts which I don’t want to get into right now (I should also acknowledge that I had trouble getting the syntax right for this, and got help from Fabio Labella (@SystemFw) on the Cats gitter channel). But this version is more generic, and can be used to linearly filter other data structures than Stream. We can use this for regular Streams as follows:

s.coflatMap(s => linearFilter(Stream(0.25,0.5,0.25),s))
// res3: scala.collection.immutable.Stream[Double] = Stream(0.651671875, ?)


But we can apply this new filter to other collections. This could be other, more sophisticated, streams such as provided by FS2, Monix or Akka streams. But it could also be a non-stream collection, such as List:

val sl = s.take(10).toList
sl.coflatMap(sl => linearFilter(List(0.25,0.5,0.25),sl))
// res4: List[Double] = List(0.651671875, 0.5360828502929686, ...


Assuming that we have the Breeze scientific library available, we can plot the raw and smoothed trajectories.

def myFilter(s: Stream[Double]): Double =
linearFilter(Stream(0.25, 0.5, 0.25),s)
val n = 500
import breeze.plot._
import breeze.linalg._
val fig = Figure(s"The (smoothed) logistic map (lambda=$lam)") val p0 = fig.subplot(3,1,0) p0 += plot(linspace(1,n,n),s.take(n)) p0.ylim = (0.0,1.0) p0.title = s"The logistic map (lambda=$lam)"
val p1 = fig.subplot(3,1,1)
p1 += plot(linspace(1,n,n),s.coflatMap(myFilter).take(n))
p1.ylim = (0.0,1.0)
p1.title = "Smoothed by a simple linear filter"
val p2 = fig.subplot(3,1,2)
p2 += plot(linspace(1,n,n),s.coflatMap(myFilter).coflatMap(myFilter).coflatMap(myFilter).coflatMap(myFilter).coflatMap(myFilter).take(n))
p2.ylim = (0.0,1.0)
p2.title = "Smoothed with 5 applications of the linear filter"
fig.refresh


## Image processing and the heat equation

Streaming data is in no way the only context in which a comonadic approach facilitates an elegant approach to scientific and statistical computing. Comonads crop up anywhere where we want to extend a computation that is local to a small part of a data structure to the full data structure. Another commonly cited area of application of comonadic approaches is image processing (I should acknowledge that this section of the post is very much influenced by a blog post on comonadic image processing in Haskell). However, the kinds of operations used in image processing are in many cases very similar to the operations used in finite difference approaches to numerical integration of partial differential equations (PDEs) such as the heat equation, so in this section I will blur (sic) the distinction between the two, and numerically integrate the 2D heat equation in order to Gaussian blur a noisy image.

First we need a simple image type which can have pixels of arbitrary type T (this is very important – all functors must be fully type polymorphic).

  import scala.collection.parallel.immutable.ParVector
case class Image[T](w: Int, h: Int, data: ParVector[T]) {
def apply(x: Int, y: Int): T = data(x*h+y)
def map[S](f: T => S): Image[S] = Image(w, h, data map f)
def updated(x: Int, y: Int, value: T): Image[T] =
Image(w,h,data.updated(x*h+y,value))
}


Here I’ve chosen to back the image with a parallel immutable vector. This wasn’t necessary, but since this type has a map operation which automatically parallelises over multiple cores, any map operations applied to the image will be automatically parallelised. This will ultimately lead to all of our statistical computations being automatically parallelised without us having to think about it.

As it stands, this image isn’t comonadic, since it doesn’t implement extract or coflatMap. Unlike the case of Stream, there isn’t really a uniquely privileged pixel, so it’s not clear what extract should return. For many data structures of this type, we make them comonadic by adding a “cursor” pointing to a “current” element of interest, and use this as the focus for computations applied with coflatMap. This is simplest to explain by example. We can define our “pointed” image type as follows:

  case class PImage[T](x: Int, y: Int, image: Image[T]) {
def extract: T = image(x, y)
def map[S](f: T => S): PImage[S] = PImage(x, y, image map f)
def coflatMap[S](f: PImage[T] => S): PImage[S] = PImage(
x, y, Image(image.w, image.h,
(0 until (image.w * image.h)).toVector.par.map(i => {
val xx = i / image.h
val yy = i % image.h
f(PImage(xx, yy, image))
})))


There is missing a closing brace, as I’m not quite finished. Here x and y represent the location of our cursor, so extract returns the value of the pixel indexed by our cursor. Similarly, coflatMap forms an image where the value of the image at each location is the result of applying the function f to the image which had the cursor set to that location. Clearly f should use the cursor in some way, otherwise the image will have the same value at every pixel location. Note that map and coflatMap operations will be automatically parallelised. The intuitive idea behind coflatMap is that it extends local computations. For the stream example, the local computation was a linear combination of nearby values. Similarly, in image analysis problems, we often want to apply a linear filter to nearby pixels. We can get at the pixel at the cursor location using extract, but we probably also want to be able to move the cursor around to nearby locations. We can do that by adding some appropriate methods to complete the class definition.

    def up: PImage[T] = {
val py = y-1
val ny = if (py >= 0) py else (py + image.h)
PImage(x,ny,image)
}
def down: PImage[T] = {
val py = y+1
val ny = if (py < image.h) py else (py - image.h)
PImage(x,ny,image)
}
def left: PImage[T] = {
val px = x-1
val nx = if (px >= 0) px else (px + image.w)
PImage(nx,y,image)
}
def right: PImage[T] = {
val px = x+1
val nx = if (px < image.w) px else (px - image.w)
PImage(nx,y,image)
}
}


Here each method returns a new pointed image with the cursor shifted by one pixel in the appropriate direction. Note that I’ve used periodic boundary conditions here, which often makes sense for numerical integration of PDEs, but makes less sense for real image analysis problems. Note that we have embedded all “indexing” issues inside the definition of our classes. Now that we have it, none of the statistical algorithms that we develop will involve any explicit indexing. This makes it much less likely to develop algorithms containing bugs corresponding to “off-by-one” or flipped axis errors.

This class is now fine for our requirements. But if we wanted Cats to understand that this structure is really a comonad (perhaps because we wanted to use derived methods, such as coflatten), we would need to provide evidence for this. The details aren’t especially important for this post, but we can do it simply as follows:

  implicit val pimageComonad = new Comonad[PImage] {
def extract[A](wa: PImage[A]) = wa.extract
def coflatMap[A,B](wa: PImage[A])(f: PImage[A] => B): PImage[B] =
wa.coflatMap(f)
def map[A,B](wa: PImage[A])(f: A => B): PImage[B] = wa.map(f)
}


It’s handy to have some functions for converting Breeze dense matrices back and forth with our image class.

  import breeze.linalg.{Vector => BVec, _}
def BDM2I[T](m: DenseMatrix[T]): Image[T] =
Image(m.cols, m.rows, m.data.toVector.par)
def I2BDM(im: Image[Double]): DenseMatrix[Double] =
new DenseMatrix(im.h,im.w,im.data.toArray)


Now we are ready to see how to use this in practice. Let’s start by defining a very simple linear filter.

def fil(pi: PImage[Double]): Double = (2*pi.extract+
pi.up.extract+pi.down.extract+pi.left.extract+pi.right.extract)/6.0


This simple filter can be used to “smooth” or “blur” an image. However, from a more sophisticated viewpoint, exactly this type of filter can be used to represent one time step of a numerical method for time integration of the 2D heat equation. Now we can simulate a noisy image and apply our filter to it using coflatMap:

import breeze.stats.distributions.Gaussian
val bdm = DenseMatrix.tabulate(200,250){case (i,j) => math.cos(
0.1*math.sqrt((i*i+j*j))) + Gaussian(0.0,2.0).draw}
val pim0 = PImage(0,0,BDM2I(bdm))
def pims = Stream.iterate(pim0)(_.coflatMap(fil))


Note that here, rather than just applying the filter once, I’ve generated an infinite stream of pointed images, each one representing an additional application of the linear filter. Thus the sequence represents the time solution of the heat equation with initial condition corresponding to our simulated noisy image.

We can render the first few frames to check that it seems to be working.

import breeze.plot._
val fig = Figure("Diffusing a noisy image")
pims.take(25).zipWithIndex.foreach{case (pim,i) => {
val p = fig.subplot(5,5,i)
p += image(I2BDM(pim.image))
}}


Note that the numerical integration is carried out in parallel on all available cores automatically. Other image filters can be applied, and other (parabolic) PDEs can be numerically integrated in an essentially similar way.

## Gibbs sampling the Ising model

Another place where the concept of extending a local computation to a global computation crops up is in the context of Gibbs sampling a high-dimensional probability distribution by cycling through the sampling of each variable in turn from its full-conditional distribution. I’ll illustrate this here using the Ising model, so that I can reuse the pointed image class from above, but the principles apply to any Gibbs sampling problem. In particular, the Ising model that we consider has a conditional independence structure corresponding to a graph of a square lattice. As above, we will use the comonadic structure of the square lattice to construct a Gibbs sampler. However, we can construct a Gibbs sampler for arbitrary graphical models in an essentially identical way by using a graph comonad.

Let’s begin by simulating a random image containing +/-1s:

import breeze.stats.distributions.{Binomial,Bernoulli}
val beta = 0.4
val bdm = DenseMatrix.tabulate(500,600){
case (i,j) => (new Binomial(1,0.2)).draw
}.map(_*2 - 1) // random matrix of +/-1s
val pim0 = PImage(0,0,BDM2I(bdm))


We can use this to initialise our Gibbs sampler. We now need a Gibbs kernel representing the update of each pixel.

def gibbsKernel(pi: PImage[Int]): Int = {
val sum = pi.up.extract+pi.down.extract+pi.left.extract+pi.right.extract
val p1 = math.exp(beta*sum)
val p2 = math.exp(-beta*sum)
val probplus = p1/(p1+p2)
if (new Bernoulli(probplus).draw) 1 else -1
}


So far so good, but there a couple of issues that we need to consider before we plough ahead and start coflatMapping. The first is that pure functional programmers will object to the fact that this function is not pure. It is a stochastic function which has the side-effect of mutating the random number state. I’m just going to duck that issue here, as I’ve previously discussed how to fix it using probability monads, and I don’t want it to distract us here.

However, there is a more fundamental problem here relating to parallel versus sequential application of Gibbs kernels. coflatMap is conceptually parallel (irrespective of how it is implemented) in that all computations used to build the new comonad are based solely on the information available in the starting comonad. OTOH, detailed balance of the Markov chain will only be preserved if the kernels for each pixel are applied sequentially. So if we coflatMap this kernel over the image we will break detailed balance. I should emphasise that this has nothing to do with the fact that I’ve implemented the pointed image using a parallel vector. Exactly the same issue would arise if we switched to backing the image with a regular (sequential) immutable Vector.

The trick here is to recognise that if we coloured alternate pixels black and white using a chequerboard pattern, then all of the black pixels are conditionally independent given the white pixels and vice-versa. Conditionally independent pixels can be updated by parallel application of a Gibbs kernel. So we just need separate kernels for updating odd and even pixels.

def oddKernel(pi: PImage[Int]): Int =
if ((pi.x+pi.y) % 2 != 0) pi.extract else gibbsKernel(pi)
def evenKernel(pi: PImage[Int]): Int =
if ((pi.x+pi.y) % 2 == 0) pi.extract else gibbsKernel(pi)


Each of these kernels can be coflatMapped over the image preserving detailed balance of the chain. So we can now construct an infinite stream of MCMC iterations as follows.

def pims = Stream.iterate(pim0)(_.coflatMap(oddKernel).
coflatMap(evenKernel))


We can animate the first few iterations with:

import breeze.plot._
val fig = Figure("Ising model Gibbs sampler")
fig.width = 1000
fig.height = 800
pims.take(50).zipWithIndex.foreach{case (pim,i) => {
print(s"$i ") fig.clear val p = fig.subplot(1,1,0) p.title = s"Ising model: frame$i"
p += image(I2BDM(pim.image.map{_.toDouble}))
fig.refresh
}}
println


Here I have a movie showing the first 1000 iterations. Note that youtube seems to have over-compressed it, but you should get the basic idea.

Again, note that this MCMC sampler runs in parallel on all available cores, automatically. This issue of odd/even pixel updating emphasises another issue that crops up a lot in functional programming: very often, thinking about how to express an algorithm functionally leads to an algorithm which parallelises naturally. For general graphs, figuring out which groups of nodes can be updated in parallel is essentially the graph colouring problem. I’ve discussed this previously in relation to parallel MCMC in:

Wilkinson, D. J. (2005) Parallel Bayesian Computation, Chapter 16 in E. J. Kontoghiorghes (ed.) Handbook of Parallel Computing and Statistics, Marcel Dekker/CRC Press, 481-512.

There are quite a few blog posts discussing comonads in the context of Haskell. In particular, the post on comonads for image analysis I mentioned previously, and this one on cellular automata. Bartosz’s post on comonads gives some connection back to the mathematical origins. Runar’s Scala comonad tutorial is the best source I know for comonads in Scala.

Full runnable code corresponding to this blog post is available from my blog repo.

## Statistical computing with Scala free on-line course

I’ve recently delivered a three-day intensive short-course on Scala for statistical computing and data science. The course seemed to go well, and the experience has convinced me that Scala should be used a lot more by statisticians and data scientists for a range of problems in statistical computing. In particular, the simplicity of writing fast efficient parallel algorithms is reason alone to take a careful look at Scala. With a view to helping more statisticians get to grips with Scala, I’ve decided to freely release all of the essential materials associated with the course: the course notes (as PDF), code fragments, complete examples, end-of-chapter exercises, etc. Although I developed the materials with the training course in mind, the course notes are reasonably self-contained, making the course quite suitable for self-study. At some point I will probably flesh out the notes into a proper book, but that will probably take me a little while.

I’ve written a brief self-study guide to point people in the right direction. For people studying the material in their spare time, the course is probably best done over nine weeks (one chapter per week), and this will then cover material at a similar rate to a typical MOOC.

The nine chapters are:

1. Introduction
2. Scala and FP Basics
3. Collections
4. Scala Breeze
5. Monte Carlo
6. Statistical modelling
7. Tools
8. Apache Spark

For anyone frustrated by the limitations of dynamic languages such as R, Python or Octave, this course should provide a good pathway to an altogether more sophisticated, modern programming paradigm.

## Introduction

People regularly ask me about books and other resources for getting started with Scala for statistical computing and data science. This post will focus on books, but it’s worth briefly noting that there are a number of other resources available, on-line and otherwise, that are also worth considering. I particularly like the Coursera course Functional Programming Principles in Scala – I still think this is probably the best way to get started with Scala and functional programming for most people. In fact, there is an entire Functional Programming in Scala Specialization that is worth considering – I’ll probably discuss that more in another post. I’ve got a draft page of Scala links which has a bias towards scientific and statistical computing, and I’m currently putting together a short course in that area, which I’ll also discuss further in future posts. But this post will concentrate on books.

### Getting started with Scala

Before one can dive into statistical computing and data science using Scala, it’s a good idea to understand a bit about the language and about functional programming. There are by now many books on Scala, and I haven’t carefully reviewed all of them, but I’ve looked at enough to have an idea about good ways of getting started.

• Programming in Scala: Third edition, Odersky et al, Artima.
• This is the Scala book, often referred to on-line as PinS. It is a weighty tome, and works through the Scala language in detail, starting from the basics. Every serious Scala programmer should own this book. However, it isn’t the easiest introduction to the language.
• Scala for the Impatient, Horstmann, Addison-Wesley.
• As the name suggests, this is a much quicker and easier introduction to Scala than PinS, but assumes reasonable familiarity with programming in general, and sort-of assumes that the reader has a basic knowledge of Java and the JVM ecosystem. That said, it does not assume that the reader is a Java expert. My feeling is that for someone who has a reasonable programming background and a passing familiarity with Java, then this book is probably the best introduction to the language. Note that there is a second edition in the works.
• Functional Programming in Scala Chiusano and Bjarnason, Manning.
• Functional and Reactive Domain Modeling, Ghosh, Manning.
• This is another book that isn’t really about Scala, but about software engineering using a strongly typed FP language. But again, it uses Scala to illustrate the ideas, and is an excellent read. You can think of it as a more practical "hands-on" follow-up to the red book, which shows how the ideas from the red book translate into effective solutions to real-world problems.
• Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, second edition Abelson et al, MIT Press.
• This is not a Scala book! This is the only book in this list which doesn’t use Scala at all. I’ve included it on the list because it is one of the best books on programming that I’ve read, and is the book that I wish someone had told me about 20 years ago! In fact the book uses Scheme (a Lisp derivative) as the language to illustrate the ideas. There are obviously important differences between Scala and Scheme – eg. Scala is strongly statically typed and compiled, whereas Scheme is dynamically typed and interpreted. However, there are also similarities – eg. both languages support and encourage a functional style of programming but are not pure FP languages. Referred to on-line as SICP this book is a classic. Note that there is no need to buy a paper copy if you like eBooks, since electronic versions are available free on-line.

### Scala for statistical computing and data science

• Scala for Data Science, Bugnion, Packt.
• Not to be confused with the (terrible) book, Scala for machine learning by the same publisher. Scala for Data Science is my top recommendation for getting started with statistical computing and data science applications using Scala. I have reviewed this book in another post, so I won’t say more about it here (but I like it).
• Scala Data Analysis Cookbook, Manivannan, Packt.
• I’m not a huge fan of the cookbook format, but this book is really mis-named, as it isn’t really a cookbook and isn’t really about data analysis in Scala! It is really a book about Apache Spark, and proceeds fairly sequentially in the form of a tutorial introduction to Spark. Spark is an impressive piece of technology, and it is obviously one of the factors driving interest in Scala, but it’s important to understand that Spark isn’t Scala, and that many typical data science applications will be better tackled using Scala without Spark. I’ve not read this book cover-to-cover as it offers little over Scala for Data Science, but its coverage of Spark is a bit more up-to-date than the Spark books I mention below, so it could be of interest to those who are mainly interested in Scala for Spark.
• Scala High Performance Programming, Theron and Diamant, Packt.
• This is an interesting book, fundamentally about developing high performance streaming data processing algorithm pipelines in Scala. It makes no reference to Spark. The running application is an on-line financial trading system. It takes a deep dive into understanding performance in Scala and on the JVM, and looks at how to benchmark and profile performance, diagnose bottlenecks and optimise code. This is likely to be of more interest to those interested in developing efficient algorithms for scientific and statistical computing rather than applied data scientists, but it covers some interesting material not covered by any of the other books in this list.
• Learning Spark, Karau et al, O’Reilly.
• This book provides an introduction to Apache Spark, written by some of the people who developed it. Spark is a big data analytics framework built on top of Scala. It is arguably the best available framework for big data analytics on computing clusters in the cloud, and hence there is a lot of interest in it. The book is a perfectly good introduction to Spark, and shows most examples implemented using the Java and Python APIs in addition to the canonical Scala (Spark Shell) implementation. This is useful for people working with multiple languages, but can be mildly irritating to anyone who is only interested in Scala. However, the big problem with this (and every other) book on Spark is that Spark is evolving very quickly, and so by the time any book on Spark is written and published it is inevitably very out of date. It’s not clear that it is worth buying a book specifically about Spark at this stage, or whether it would be better to go for a book like Scala for Data Science, which has a couple of chapters of introduction to Spark, which can then provide a starting point for engaging with Spark’s on-line documentation (which is reasonably good).
• Advanced Analytics with Spark, Ryza et al, O’Reilly.
• This book has a bit of a "cookbook" feel to it, which some people like and some don’t. It’s really more like an "edited volume" with different chapters authored by different people. Unlike Learning Spark it focuses exclusively on the Scala API. The book basically covers the development of a bunch of different machine learning pipelines for a variety of applications. My main problem with this book is that it has aged particularly badly, as all of the pipelines are developed with raw RDDs, which isn’t how ML pipelines in Spark are constructed any more. So again, it’s difficult for me to recommend. The message here is that if you are thinking of buying a book about Spark, check very carefully when it was published and what version of Spark it covers and whether that is sufficiently recent to be of relevance to you.

## Summary

There are lots of books to get started with Scala for statistical computing and data science applications. My "bare minimum" recommendation would be some generic Scala book (doesn’t really matter which one), the red book, and Scala for data science. After reading those, you will be very well placed to top-up your knowledge as required with on-line resources.

## HOFs, closures, partial application and currying to solve the function environment problem in Scala

### Introduction

Functional programming (FP) is a programming style that emphasises the use of referentially transparent pure functions and immutable data structures. Higher order functions (HOFs) tend to be used extensively to enable a clean functional programming style. A HOF is just a function that either takes a function as an argument or returns a function. For example, the default List type in Scala is immutable. So, if one defines a list via

val l1 = List(1,2,3)


we add a new value to the front of the list by creating a new list from the old list and leaving the old list unchanged:

val l2 = 4 :: l1
// List(4, 1, 2, 3)


We can create a new list the same length as an existing list by applying the same function to each element of the list in turn using map:

val l3 = l2 map { x => x*x }
// List(16, 1, 4, 9)


We could write this slightly differently as

val l4 = l2.map(x => x*x)


which makes it clearer that map is a higher order function on lists. In fact, the presence of a map method on List[_] makes it a functor, but that is a topic for another post.

HOFs are ubiquitous in FP, and very powerful. But there are a few techniques for working with functions in Scala (and other FP languages) which make creating and using HOFs more convenient.

### Plotting a function of one scalar variable

There are many, many reasons for using functions and HOFs in scientific and statistical computing (optimising, integrating, differentiating, or sampling, to name just a few). But the basic idea can be illustrated simply by considering the problem of plotting a function of one scalar variable.

All of the code associated with this post is available in the curry directory of my blog repo. Full instructions for running the code are included in the README. The code includes a simple short method, plotFun which uses breeze to produce a simple plot of a user supplied function. For example:

import Currying._

plotFun(x => x*x)


produces the plot:

We can use this method to plot other functions, for example:

def myQuad1(x: Double): Double = x*x - 2*x + 1
def myQuad2(x: Double): Double = x*x - 3*x - 1


Now technically, myQuad1 and myQuad2 are methods rather than functions. The distinction is a bit subtle, and they can often be used interchangeably, but the difference does sometimes matter, so it is good to understand it. To actually define a function and plot it, we could instead use code like:

val myQuad3: (Double => Double) = x => -x*x + 2


Note that here myQuad3 is a value whose type is a function mapping a Double to a Double. This is a proper function. This style of function declaration should make sense to people coming from other functional languages such as Haskell, but is potentially confusing to those coming from O-O languages such as Java. Note that is is easy to convert a method to a function using an underscore, so that, for example, myQuad2 _ will give the function corresponding to myQuad2. Note that there is no corresponding way to get a method from a function, so that is one reason for preferring method declaration syntax (and there are others, such as the ability to parametrise method declarations with generic types).

Now, rather than defining lots of specific instances of quadratic functions from scratch, it would make more sense to define a generic quadratic function and then just plot particular instances of this generic quadratic. It is simple enough to define a generic quadratic with:

def quadratic(a: Double, b: Double, c: Double, x: Double): Double =
a*x*x + b*x + c


But we clearly can’t pass that in to the plotting function directly, as it has the wrong type signature (not Double => Double), and the specific values of a, b and c need to be given. This issue crops up a lot in scientific and statistical computing – there is a function which has some additional parameters which need to be fixed before the function can actually be used. This is referred to as the “function environment problem” by Oliveira and Stewart (section 8.5). Fortunately, in functional languages it’s easy enough to use this function to create a new “partially specified” function and pass that in. For example, we could just do

plotFun(x => quadratic(3,2,1,x))


We can define another function, quadFun, which allows us to construct these partially applied function closures, and use it as follows:

def quadFun(a: Double, b: Double, c: Double): Double => Double =


Here, quadFun is a HOF in the sense that it returns a function closure corresponding to the partially applied quadratic function. The returned function has the type Double => Double, so we can use it wherever a function with this signature is expected. Note that the function carries around with it its lexical “environment”, specifically, the values of a, b and c specified at the time quadFun was called. This style of constructing closures works in most lexically scoped languages which have functions as first class objects. I use this style of programming a lot in several different languages. In particular, I’ve written previously about lexical scope and function closures in R.

Again, the intention is perhaps slightly more explicit if we re-write the above using function syntax as:

val quadFunF: (Double,Double,Double) => Double => Double =


Now, this concept of partial application is so prevalent in FP that some languages have special syntactic support for it. In Scala, we can partially apply using an underscore to represent unapplied parameters as:

val myQuad6 = quadratic(1,2,3,_: Double)


In Scala we can also directly write our functions in curried form, with parameters (or parameter lists) ordered as they are to be applied. So, for this example, we could define (partially) curried quad and use it with:

def quad(a: Double, b: Double, c: Double)(x: Double): Double = a*x*x + b*x + c


Note the use of an underscore to convert a partially applied method to a function. Also note that every function has a method curried which turns an uncurried function into a (fully) curried function. So in the case of our quadratic function, the fully curried version will be a chain of four functions.

def quadCurried = (quadratic _).curried


Again, note the strategic use of an underscore. The underscore isn’t necessary if we have a true function to start with, as the following illustrates:

val quadraticF: (Double,Double,Double,Double) => Double = (a,b,c,x) => a*x*x + b*x + c


### Summary

Working with functions, closures, HOFs and partial application is fundamental to effective functional programming style. Currying functions is one approach to handling the function environment problem, and is the standard approach in languages such as Haskell. However, in Scala there are other possible approaches, such as using underscores for partial application. The preferred approach will depend on the context. Currying is often used for HOFs accepting a function as argument (as it can help with type inference), and also in conjunction with implicits (beyond the scope of this post – pun intended). In other contexts partial application using underscores seems to be more commonly used.

## A functional Gibbs sampler in Scala

For many years I’ve had a passing interest in functional programming and languages which support functional programming approaches. I’m also quite interested in MOOCs and their future role in higher education. So I recently signed up for my first on-line course, Functional Programming Principles in Scala, via Coursera. I’m around half way through the course at the time of writing, and I’m enjoying it very much. I knew that I didn’t know much about Scala before starting the course, but during the course I’ve also learned that I didn’t know as much about functional programming as I thought I did, either! 😉 The course itself is very interesting, the assignments are well designed and appropriately challenging, and the web infrastructure to support the course is working well. I suspect I’ll try other on-line courses in the future.

Functional programming emphasises immutability, and discourages imperative programming approaches that use variables that can be modified during run-time. There are many advantages to immutability, especially in the context of parallel and concurrent programming, which is becoming increasingly important as multi-core systems become the norm. I’ve always found functional programming to be intellectually appealing, but have often worried about the practicalities of using functional programming in the context of scientific computing where many algorithms are iterative in nature, and are typically encoded using imperative approaches. The Scala programming language is appealing to me as it supports both imperative and functional styles of programming, as well as object oriented approaches. However, as a result of taking this course I am now determined to pursue functional approaches further, and get more of a feel for how practical they are for scientific computing applications.

For my first experiment, I’m going back to my post describing a Gibbs sampler in various languages. See that post for further details of the algorithm. In that post I did have an example implementation in Scala, which looked like this:

object GibbsSc {

import cern.jet.random.tdouble.engine.DoubleMersenneTwister
import cern.jet.random.tdouble.Normal
import cern.jet.random.tdouble.Gamma
import Math.sqrt
import java.util.Date

def main(args: Array[String]) {
val N=50000
val thin=1000
val rngEngine=new DoubleMersenneTwister(new Date)
val rngN=new Normal(0.0,1.0,rngEngine)
val rngG=new Gamma(1.0,1.0,rngEngine)
var x=0.0
var y=0.0
println("Iter x y")
for (i <- 0 until N) {
for (j <- 0 until thin) {
x=rngG.nextDouble(3.0,y*y+4)
y=rngN.nextDouble(1.0/(x+1),1.0/sqrt(2*x+2))
}
println(i+" "+x+" "+y)
}
}

}


At the time I wrote that post I knew even less about Scala than I do now, so I created the code by starting from the Java version and removing all of the annoying clutter! 😉 Clearly this code has an imperative style, utilising variables (declared with var) x and y having mutable state that is updated by a nested for loop. This algorithm is typical of the kind I use every day, so if I can’t re-write this in a more functional style, removing all mutable variables from my code, then I’m not going to get very far with functional programming!

In fact it is very easy to re-write this in a more functional style without utilising mutable variables. One possible approach is presented below.

object FunGibbs {

import cern.jet.random.tdouble.engine.DoubleMersenneTwister
import cern.jet.random.tdouble.Normal
import cern.jet.random.tdouble.Gamma
import java.util.Date
import scala.math.sqrt

val rngEngine=new DoubleMersenneTwister(new Date)
val rngN=new Normal(0.0,1.0,rngEngine)
val rngG=new Gamma(1.0,1.0,rngEngine)

class State(val x: Double,val y: Double)

def nextIter(s: State): State = {
val newX=rngG.nextDouble(3.0,(s.y)*(s.y)+4.0)
new State(newX,
rngN.nextDouble(1.0/(newX+1),1.0/sqrt(2*newX+2)))
}

def nextThinnedIter(s: State,left: Int): State = {
if (left==0) s
else nextThinnedIter(nextIter(s),left-1)
}

def genIters(s: State,current: Int,stop: Int,thin: Int): State = {
if (!(current>stop)) {
println(current+" "+s.x+" "+s.y)
genIters(nextThinnedIter(s,thin),current+1,stop,thin)
}
else s
}

def main(args: Array[String]) {
println("Iter x y")
genIters(new State(0.0,0.0),1,50000,1000)
}

}


Although it is a few lines longer, it is a fairly clean implementation, and doesn’t look like a hack. Like many functional programs, this one makes extensive use of recursion. This is one of the things that has always concerned me about functional programming – many scientific computing applications involve lots of iteration, and that can potentially translate into very deep recursion. The above program has an apparent recursion depth of 50 million! However, it runs fine without crashing despite the fact that most programming languages will crash out with a stack overflow with recursion depths of more than a couple of thousand. So why doesn’t this crash? It runs fine because the recursion I used is a special form of recursion known as a tail call. Most functional (and some imperative) programming languages automatically perform tail call elimination which essentially turns the tail call into an iteration which runs very fast without creating new stack frames. In fact, this functional version of the code runs at roughly the same speed as the iterative version I presented first (perhaps just a few percent slower – I haven’t done careful timings), and runs well within a factor of 2 of imperative C code. So actually this seems perfectly practical so far, and I’m looking forward to experimenting more with functional programming approaches to statistical computation over the coming months…

## Introduction

Parallel tempering is a method for getting Metropolis-Hastings based MCMC algorithms to work better on multi-modal distributions. Although the idea has been around for more than 20 years, and works well on many problems, it still isn’t routinely used in applications. I think this is partly because relatively few people understand how it works, and partly due to the perceived difficulty of implementation. I hope to show here that it is both very easy to understand and to implement. It is also rather easy to implement in parallel on multi-core systems, though I won’t get into that in this post.

## Sampling a double-well potential

To illustrate the ideas, we need a toy multi-modal distribution to sample. There are obviously many possibilities here, but I rather like to use a double potential well distribution. The simplest version of this assumes a potential function of the form

$U(x) = \gamma (x^2-1)^2$

for some given potential barrier height $\gamma$. The potential function $U(x)$ corresponds to the probability density function

$\pi(x) \propto \exp\{-U(x)\}.$

There is a physical explanation for the terminology, via Langevin diffusions, but that isn’t really important here. It is fine to just think of potentials as being a (negative) log-density scale. On this scale, high potential barrier heights correspond to regions of very low probability density. We can set up a double well potential and plot it for the case $\gamma=4$ in R with the following code

U=function(gam,x)
{
gam*(x*x-1)*(x*x-1)
}

curried=function(gam)
{
message(paste("Returning a function for gamma =",gam))
function(x) U(gam,x)
}
U4=curried(4)

op=par(mfrow=c(2,1))
curve(U4(x),-2,2,main="Potential function, U(x)")
curve(exp(-U4(x)),-2,2,main="Unnormalised density function, exp(-U(x))")
par(op)


Incidentally, the function curried(), which curries the potential function, did not include the message() statement when I first wrote it. It mostly worked fine, but some of the code below didn’t behave as I expected. I inserted the message() statement to figure out what was going on, and the code started behaving perfectly – a beautiful example of a Heisenbug! The reason is that the message statement is not redundant – it forces evaluation of the gam variable, which is necessary in some cases, due to the lazy evaluation model that R uses for function arguments. If you don’t like the message() statement, replacing it with a simple gam works just as well.

Anyway, the point is that we have defined a multi-modal density, and that a Metropolis-Hastings algorithm initialised in one of the modes will have a hard time jumping to the other mode, and the difficulty of this jump will increase as we increase the value of $\gamma$.

We can write a simple function for a Metropolis algorithm targeting a particular potential function as follows.

chain=function(target,tune=0.1,init=1)
{
x=init
xvec=numeric(iters)
for (i in 1:iters) {
can=x+rnorm(1,0,tune)
logA=target(x)-target(can)
if (log(runif(1))<logA)
x=can
xvec[i]=x
}
xvec
}


We can use this code to run some chains for a few different values of $\gamma$ as follows.

temps=2^(0:3)
iters=1e5

mat=sapply(lapply(temps,curried),chain)
colnames(mat)=paste("gamma=",temps,sep="")

require(smfsb)
mcmcSummary(mat,rows=length(temps))


We see that as $\gamma$ increases, the chain jumps between modes less frequently. Indeed, for $\gamma=8$, the chain fails to jump to the second mode at all during this particular run of 100,000 iterations. That’s a problem if we are really interested in sampling from distributions like this. Of course, for this particular problem, there are all kinds of ways to fix this sampler, but the point is to try and develop methods that will work in high-dimensional situations where we cannot just “look” at what is going wrong.

Before we see how to couple the chains and improve the mixing, it is useful to think how to re-write this sampler. Above we sampled each chain in turn for different barrier heights. To couple the chains, we need to sample them together, sampling each iteration for all of the chains in turn. This is very easy to do. The code below isn’t especially efficient, but it is written to look very similar to the single chain code above.

chains=function(pot=U, tune=0.1, init=1)
{
x=rep(init,length(temps))
xmat=matrix(0,iters,length(temps))
for (i in 1:iters) {
can=x+rnorm(length(temps),0,tune)
logA=unlist(Map(pot,temps,x))-unlist(Map(pot,temps,can))
accept=(log(runif(length(temps)))<logA)
x[accept]=can[accept]
xmat[i,]=x
}
colnames(xmat)=paste("gamma=",temps,sep="")
xmat
}

mcmcSummary(chains(),rows=length(temps))


This code should behave identically to the previous code, simulating independent parallel MCMC chains. However, the code is now in the form that is very easy to modify to couple the chains together in an attempt to improve mixing.

## Coupling parallel chains

In the above example the chains we are simulating are all independent of one another. Some mix reasonably well, and some mix very badly. But the distributions are all related to one another, changing gradually as the barrier height changes. The idea behind coupling the chains is to try and swap states between the chains to use the chains which are mixing well to improve the mixing of the chains which aren’t. In particular, suppose interest is in the target of the worst mixing chain. The other chains can be constructed as “tempered” versions of the target of interest, here by raising it to a power between 0 and 1, with 0 corresponding to a complete flattening of the distribution, and 1 corresponding to the desired target. The use of parallel chains to improve mixing in this way is usually referred to as parallel tempering, but also sometimes as $(\text{MC})^3$. In the context of Bayesian inference, tempering using the “power posterior” can often be more natural and useful (to be discussed in a subsequent post).

So, how do we swap states between the chains without affecting the target distributions? As always, just use a Metropolis-Hastings update… To keep things simple, let’s just suppose that we have two (independent, parallel) chains, one with target $f(x)$ and the other with target $g(y)$. We can consider these chains to be evolving together, with joint target $\pi(x,y)=f(x)g(y)$. The updates chosen to update the within-chain states will obviously preserve this joint target. Now we consider how to swap states between the two chains without destroying the target. We simply propose a swap of $x$ and $y$. That is, we propose to move from $(x,y)$ to $(x^\star,y^\star)$, where $x^\star=y$ and $y^\star=x$. We are proposing this move as a standard Metropolis-Hastings update of the joint chain. We may therefore wonder about exactly what the proposal density for this move is. In fact, it is a point mass at the swapped values, and therefore has density

$q((x^\star,y^\star)|(x,y)) = \delta(x^\star-y)\delta(y^\star-x),$

but it really doesn’t matter, as it is clearly a symmetric proposal, and hence will drop out of the M-H ratio. Our acceptance probability is therefore $\min\{1,A\}$, where

$\displaystyle A = \frac{\pi(x^\star,y^\star)}{\pi(x,y)} = \frac{\pi(y,x)}{\pi(x,y)} = \frac{f(y)g(x)}{f(x)g(y)}.$

So, if we use this acceptance probability whenever we propose a swap of the states between two chains, then we will preserve the joint target, and hence the marginal targets and asymptotic independence of the target. However, the chains themselves will no longer be independent of one another. They will be coupled – Metropolis coupled. This is very easy to implement. We can just add a few lines to our previous chains() function as follows

chains=function(pot=U, tune=0.1, init=1)
{
x=rep(init,length(temps))
xmat=matrix(0,iters,length(temps))
for (i in 1:iters) {
can=x+rnorm(length(temps),0,tune)
logA=unlist(Map(pot,temps,x))-unlist(Map(pot,temps,can))
accept=(log(runif(length(temps)))<logA)
x[accept]=can[accept]
# now the coupling update
swap=sample(1:length(temps),2)
logA=pot(temps[swap[1]],x[swap[1]])+pot(temps[swap[2]],x[swap[2]])-
pot(temps[swap[1]],x[swap[2]])-pot(temps[swap[2]],x[swap[1]])
if (log(runif(1))<logA)
x[swap]=rev(x[swap])
# end of the coupling update
xmat[i,]=x
}
colnames(xmat)=paste("gamma=",temps,sep="")
xmat
}


This can be used as before, but now gives results as illustrated in the following plots.

We see immediately from the plots that whilst the individual target distributions remain unchanged, the mixing of the chains is greatly improved (though still far from perfect). Note that in the code above I just picked two chains at random to propose a state swap. In practice people typically only propose to swap states between chains which are adjacent – i.e. most similar, since proposed swaps between chains with very different targets are unlikely to be accepted. Since implementation of either strategy is very easy, I would recommend trying both to see which works best.

## Parallel implementation

It should be clear that there are opportunities for parallelising the above algorithm to make effective use of modern multi-core hardware. An approach using OpenMP with C++ is discussed in this blog post. Also note that if the state space of the chains is large, it can be much more efficient to swap temperatures between the chains rather than states – so long as you are careful about keeping track of stuff – this is explored in detail in Altekar et al (’04).

## Complete R script

For convenience, a complete R script to run all of the examples in this post is given below.

# temper.R
# functions for messing around with tempering MCMC

U=function(gam,x)
{
gam*(x*x-1)*(x*x-1)
}

curried=function(gam)
{
#gam
message(paste("Returning a function for gamma =",gam))
function(x) U(gam,x)
}
U4=curried(4)

op=par(mfrow=c(2,1))
curve(U4(x),-2,2,main="Potential function, U(x)")
curve(exp(-U4(x)),-2,2,main="Unnormalised density function, exp(-U(x))")
par(op)

# global settings
temps=2^(0:3)
iters=1e5

# First look at some independent chains
chain=function(target,tune=0.1,init=1)
{
x=init
xvec=numeric(iters)
for (i in 1:iters) {
can=x+rnorm(1,0,tune)
logA=target(x)-target(can)
if (log(runif(1))<logA)
x=can
xvec[i]=x
}
xvec
}

mat=sapply(lapply(temps,curried),chain)
colnames(mat)=paste("gamma=",temps,sep="")

require(smfsb)
mcmcSummary(mat,rows=length(temps))

# Next, let's generate 5 chains at once...
chains=function(pot=U, tune=0.1, init=1)
{
x=rep(init,length(temps))
xmat=matrix(0,iters,length(temps))
for (i in 1:iters) {
can=x+rnorm(length(temps),0,tune)
logA=unlist(Map(pot,temps,x))-unlist(Map(pot,temps,can))
accept=(log(runif(length(temps)))<logA)
x[accept]=can[accept]
xmat[i,]=x
}
colnames(xmat)=paste("gamma=",temps,sep="")
xmat
}

mcmcSummary(chains(),rows=length(temps))

# Next let's couple the chains...
chains=function(pot=U, tune=0.1, init=1)
{
x=rep(init,length(temps))
xmat=matrix(0,iters,length(temps))
for (i in 1:iters) {
can=x+rnorm(length(temps),0,tune)
logA=unlist(Map(pot,temps,x))-unlist(Map(pot,temps,can))
accept=(log(runif(length(temps)))<logA)
x[accept]=can[accept]
# now the coupling update
swap=sample(1:length(temps),2)
logA=pot(temps[swap[1]],x[swap[1]])+pot(temps[swap[2]],x[swap[2]])-
pot(temps[swap[1]],x[swap[2]])-pot(temps[swap[2]],x[swap[1]])
if (log(runif(1))<logA)
x[swap]=rev(x[swap])
# end of the coupling update
xmat[i,]=x
}
colnames(xmat)=paste("gamma=",temps,sep="")
xmat
}

mcmcSummary(chains(),rows=length(temps))

# eof