Cited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Turing: A language for flexible probabilistic inference

Ge, H, Xu, K, Ghahramani, Z·2018·Proceedings of Machine Learning Research

Abstract

Probabilistic programming is becoming an attractive approach to probabilistic machine learning. Through relieving researchers from the tedious burden of hand-deriving inference algorithms, not only does it enable the development of more accurate and interpretable models but it also encourages reproducible research. However, successful probabilistic programming systems require flexible, generic and efficient inference engines. In this work, we present a system called Turing for flexible composable probabilistic programming inference. Turing has an intuitive modelling syntax and supports a wide range of sampling-based inference algorithms. Most importantly, Turing inference is composable: it combines Markov chain sampling operations on subsets of model variables, e.g. using a combination of a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) engine and a particle Gibbs (PG) engine. This composable inference engine allows the user to easily switch between black-box style inference methods such as HMC and customized inference methods. Our aim is to present Turing and its composable inference engines to the community and encourage other researchers to build on this system to help advance the field of probabilistic machine learning.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.17863/cam.42246

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Parameters can be fitted to data using DiffEqParamEstim.jl, Optimization.jl, or Turing.jl.

    “This can be done using DiffEqParamEstim.jl, which provides simple functions that are easy to use. Alternatively, more powerful packages, like Optimization.jl and the Turing.jl Julia library for Bayesian analysis, offer increased flexibility for experienced users [59].”

    From Catalyst: Fast and flexible modeling of reaction networks (2023) · cites this paper as [59]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Christophe Andrieu, Arnaud Doucet, and Roman Holenstein. Particle Markov chain Monte Carlo meth- ods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 72(3):269-342, 2010.
  2. Atilim Gunes Baydin, Barak A Pearlmutter, Alexey An- dreyevich Radul, and Jeffrey Mark Siskind. Auto- matic differentiation in machine learning: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.05767, 2015. · arXiv
  3. Christopher M Bishop. Model-based machine learning. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 371(1984):20120222, 2013.
  4. Andrew Gelman, Daniel Lee, and Jiqiang Guo. Stan a probabilistic programming language for bayesian inference and optimization. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 2015.
  5. Zoubin Ghahramani. Probabilistic machine learning and artificial intelligence. Nature, 521(7553):452-459, 2015.
  6. Noah D. Goodman, Vikash K. Mansinghka, Daniel M. Roy, Keith Bonawitz, and Joshua B. Tenen- baum. Church: a language for generative models. In Proc. of Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2008. URL http://danroy.org/papers/church_ GooManRoyBonTen-UAI-2008.pdf.
  7. Matthew D Hoffman and Andrew Gelman. The no- U-turn sampler: Adaptively setting path lengths in hamiltonian Monte Carlo. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):1593-1623, 2014.
  8. Kamil A Khan and Paul I Barton. A vector forward mode of automatic differentiation for generalized derivative evaluation. Optimization Methods and Software, 30(6):1185-1212, 2015.
  9. David J Lunn, Andrew Thomas, Nicky Best, and David Spiegelhalter. WinBUGS -a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and computing, 10(4):325-337, 2000.
  10. Vikash Mansinghka, Daniel Selsam, and Yura Perov. Venture: a higher-order probabilistic programming platform with programmable inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.0099, 2014. · arXiv
  11. T. Minka, J.M. Winn, J.P. Guiver, S. Webster, Y. Zaykov, B. Yangel, A. Spengler, and J. Bron- skill. Infer.NET 2.6, 2014. URL http://research. microsoft.com/infernet. Microsoft Research Cambridge.
  12. Thomas P Minka. Expectation propagation for ap- proximate Bayesian inference. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence, pages 362-369.
  13. Lawrence M Murray, Daniel Lundén, Jan Kudlicka, David Broman, and Thomas B Schön. Delayed sam- pling and automatic rao-blackwellization of proba- bilistic programs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07787, 2017. · arXiv
  14. Radford M Neal et al. MCMC using Hamiltonian dynamics. Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo, 2(11), 2011.
  15. Avi Pfeffer. IBAL: A probabilistic rational program- ming language. In Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 733-740.
  16. Tom Rainforth, Christian Naesseth, Fredrik Lind- sten, Brooks Paige, Jan-Willem Vandemeent, Ar- naud Doucet, and Frank Wood. Interacting Particle Markov Chain Monte Carlo. In International Confer- ence on Machine Learning, pages 2616-2625, 2016.
  17. John Winn and Christopher M Bishop. Variational mes- sage passing. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6(Apr):661-694, 2005.
  18. Frank Wood, Jan Willem van de Meent, and Vikash Mansinghka. A new approach to probabilistic programming inference. In Arti- ficial Intelligence and Statistics, 2014. URL http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/ ~fwood/anglican/ assets/pdf/Wood-AISTATS-2014.pdf.
  19. Robert Zinkov and Chung-chieh Shan. Composing infer- ence algorithms as program transformations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01882, 2016. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ge, H., Xu, K., & Ghahramani, Z.
Venue
Proceedings of Machine Learning Research
Publisher
Proceedings of Machine Learning Research
Published
2018-01-01
References
0

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review