-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Addition of step_warmup
#117
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #117 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 96.87% 92.87% -4.00%
==========================================
Files 8 8
Lines 320 351 +31
==========================================
+ Hits 310 326 +16
- Misses 10 25 +15
☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think, as the HMC code in Turing, this conflates warmup stages for the sampler with discarding initial samples. In the first case, (usually) you also want to discard these samples but you might even want to discard more samples even after tuning hyperparameters of a sampler.
I also wonder a bit whether AbstractMCMC is the right level for such an abstraction. Or whether, eg it could be done in AdvancedHMC.
Oh I definitively agree with this. IMO this wouldn't be a catch-all solution, and you could still argue that in the case of HMC we should stick to the current approach. But in many cases this sort of behavior would indeed be what the user expects (though I agree with you, I also don't want to remove the allowance of the current Is it worth introducing a new keyword argument then? Something that is separate from
I don't think we should deal with the adaptation, etc. itself in AbstractMCMC, but there are sooo many samplers that have some form of initial adaptation that it's IMO worth providing a simple hook that let's people do this. |
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Yes, I think we should keep these options separate. I wonder if |
No, I agree with you there; sometimes it's nice to keep them. So are we thinking |
Yes, I think these would be reasonable default values. |
Doneso 👍 Nvm, I forgot we wanted to allow potentially keeping the warmup-samples around.. |
Aight, I've made an attempt at allowing the desired interaction between I've also added some docstring for |
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
The standard keyword arguments are listed and explained in the documentation: https://turinglang.org/AbstractMCMC.jl/dev/api/#Common-keyword-arguments |
src/sample.jl
Outdated
""" | ||
mcmcsample(rng, model, sampler, N_or_is_done; kwargs...) | ||
|
||
Default implementation of `sample` for a `model` and `sampler`. | ||
|
||
# Arguments | ||
- `rng::Random.AbstractRNG`: the random number generator to use. | ||
- `model::AbstractModel`: the model to sample from. | ||
- `sampler::AbstractSampler`: the sampler to use. | ||
- `N::Integer`: the number of samples to draw. | ||
|
||
# Keyword arguments | ||
- `progress`: whether to display a progress bar. Defaults to `true`. | ||
- `progressname`: the name of the progress bar. Defaults to `"Sampling"`. | ||
- `callback`: a function that is called after each [`AbstractMCMC.step`](@ref). | ||
Defaults to `nothing`. | ||
- `num_warmup`: number of warmup samples to draw. Defaults to `0`. | ||
- `discard_initial`: number of initial samples to discard. Defaults to `num_warmup`. | ||
- `thinning`: number of samples to discard between samples. Defaults to `1`. | ||
- `chain_type`: the type to pass to [`AbstractMCMC.bundle_samples`](@ref) at the | ||
end of sampling to wrap up the resulting samples nicely. Defaults to `Any`. | ||
- `kwargs...`: Additional keyword arguments to pass on to [`AbstractMCMC.step`](@ref). | ||
""" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think nobody will look up the docstring for the unexported mcmcsample
function, so it feels listing and explaining keyword arguments in https://turinglang.org/AbstractMCMC.jl/dev/api/#Common-keyword-arguments is the better approach? And possibly extending the docstring of sample
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Aaah I was totally unaware!
So I removed this, and then I've just added a section to sample
to tell people where to find docs on the default arguments. I personally rarely go to the docs of a package unless I "have" to, so I think it's at least nice to tell the user where to find the info. I'm even partial to putting the stuff about common keywords in the actual docstrings of sample
but I'll leave as is for now.
src/sample.jl
Outdated
thinning=1, | ||
chain_type::Type=Any, | ||
kwargs..., | ||
) | ||
# Check the number of requested samples. | ||
N > 0 || error("the number of samples must be ≥ 1") | ||
Ntotal = thinning * (N - 1) + discard_initial + 1 | ||
Ntotal = thinning * (N - 1) + discard_initial + num_warmup + 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this correct? Shouldn't it just stay the same, possibly with some additional checks:
Ntotal = thinning * (N - 1) + discard_initial + num_warmup + 1 | |
discard_initial >= 0 || throw(ArgumentError("number of discarded samples must be non-negative")) | |
num_warmup >= 0 || throw(ArgumentError("number of warm-up samples must be non-negative")) | |
Ntotal = thinning * (N - 1) + discard_initial + 1 | |
Ntotal >= num_warmup || throw(ArgumentError("number of warm-up samples exceeds the total number of samples")) |
I thought we would do the following:
- If
num_warmup = 0
, we just do the same as currently: Samplediscard_initial
samples that are discarded + theN
samples that are returned, possibly after thinning them. - If
num_warmup > 0
, we still returnN
samples but depending ondiscard_initial
part of theN
samples might be samples from the warm-up stage. For instance:- If
num_warmup = 10
,discard_initiial = 0
, andN = 100
, we would sample in totalN
samples and return them, whereof the first 10 are warm-up samples. - If
num_warmup = 10
,discard_initial = 10
(the default if you just specifynum_warmup
), andN = 100
, then we would sampleN + discard_initial = 110
samples in total and return the lastN = 100
of them, so drop all warm-up samples. - If
num_warmup = 10
,discard_initial = 20
, andN = 100
, then we would sampleN + discard_initial = 120
samples in total and return the lastN = 100
of them, so we would drop all samples in the warm-up stage and the first 10 samples of the regular sampling.
- If
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah sorry, yes this was left over from my initial implementation that treated discard_initial
and num_warmup
as "seperate phases".
I thought we would do the following:
Agreed, but isn't this what my impl is currently doing? With the exception of this line above of course.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't know, I stopped reviewing at this point and didn't check the rest 😄
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Haha, aight. Well, the rest is supposed to implement exactly what you outlined 😅
I'll see if I can also add some tests.
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: David Widmann <[email protected]>
…tMCMC.jl into torfjelde/step-warmup
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: github-actions[bot] <41898282+github-actions[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@torfjelde Can you fix the merge conflict? |
Should be good to go now @devmotion |
But we're having issues with nightly on x86 so these two last ones won't finish. |
thinning=1, | ||
initial_state=nothing, | ||
kwargs..., | ||
) | ||
# Determine how many samples to drop from `num_warmup` and the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you add the same/similar error checks as above?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Done 👍
end | ||
|
||
# Obtain the next sample and state. | ||
sample, state = step(rng, model, sampler, state; kwargs...) | ||
sample, state = if i ≤ keep_from_warmup |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We could merge this with the for-loop above AFAICT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Aye, but we can do that everywhere here no? I can make this change, but I'll wait until you've had a final look (to make the diff clearer).
Ran into another place where this will be useful: https://github.com/torfjelde/AutomaticMALA.jl. Avoids having to put (I need to do some more work on this PR; had sort of forgotten about this) |
Aight @devmotion I believe I've addressed your comments:) Should be a quick approve now I think 👍 Sorry it took so long 😬 |
Bumped minor version btw, given that this adds a new feature. |
For many samplers, it might be useful to separate between the warmup phase and the sampling phase, e.g. in AdvancedHMC we have an initial phase where we adapt the parameters to the parameters at hand.
Currently, the usual approach to implementing such a warmup stage is to keep track of the iteration + the adaptation stuff internally in the state, but sometimes that can be quite annoying and/or redundant to implement.
I would also argue that separating these is useful on a conceptual level, e.g. even if I interact directly with the stepper-interface, I would now do
vs.
With this PR, for something like MCMCTempering.jl where in the warmup phase we actually just want to take steps with the underlying sampler rather than also include the swaps, we can then just make the
step_warmup
do so without having to add any notion of iterations in the state, nor without telling the sampler itself about how many warm-up steps we want (instead it's just specified by kwarg insample
, as it should be).