Skip to content

Probabilistic Programming ​

Reactant.jl compiles ordinary Julia code through MLIR, running it on CPU, GPU, or TPU without rewriting. You write a normal Julia function, wrap a call to it in @compile, and Reactant traces the function, lowers it through MLIR, and hands you back a callable compiled program. Array inputs are staged through ConcreteRArray (created with Reactant.to_rarray) so they live on the target device.

Reactant.ProbProg is the Julia front-end for the impulse dialect, implemented across Enzyme (dialect definition and inference materialization passes) and Enzyme-JAX (backend-specific lowering). The impulse dialect provides high-level MLIR ops for describing probabilistic modeling and inference, materializes inference computation through compiler passes, and applies general-purpose and probabilistic-programming-specific optimizations during lowering.

optimize = :probprog opt-in required

For now, @compile needs an explicit optimize = :probprog argument on probabilistic programs to enable the impulse-specific MLIR passes (you'll see this in every @compile call below). Merging those passes into the default @compile pipeline is work in progress; once it lands, the explicit opt-in will no longer be required.

Next, we walk through two operating modes of Reactant.ProbProg: a trace-based mode built around a generative function, and a custom log-density mode that takes a custom log-density function.

Trace-based mode ​

We describe a Bayesian linear regression question:

slope∼N(0,2)intercept∼N(0,10)yi∣slope,intercept∼N(slope⋅xi+intercept,1)

Both regression coefficients are given Gaussian priors, tighter on slope (standard deviation 2) and looser on intercept (standard deviation 10). Each observation y_i is then drawn from a Gaussian centered on the fitted value slope · x_i + intercept with fixed noise (standard deviation 1).

The data ​

We start by drawing synthetic data using a known slope and intercept of -2 and 10 respectively.

julia
true_slope, true_intercept = -2.0, 10.0

xs = collect(Float64, 1:10)
ys = (true_slope .* xs) .+ true_intercept .+ randn(length(xs))
(xs, ys)
([1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, 10.0], [10.108398470763207, 6.181332811772933, 6.051695349808032, 2.726799696760322, -0.7838959592419449, -2.6019501065696287, -4.198437907508687, -6.558172895172051, -10.466020559687049, -11.522001136961169])

Describing the Model ​

We describe this model in Reactant.ProbProg as follows:

julia
using Reactant: ProbProg

function model(rng, xs)
    _, slope = ProbProg.sample(
        rng, ProbProg.Normal(0.0, 2.0, (1,)); symbol=:slope,
    )
    _, intercept = ProbProg.sample(
        rng, ProbProg.Normal(0.0, 10.0, (1,)); symbol=:intercept,
    )
    _, ys = ProbProg.sample(
        rng,
        ProbProg.Normal(slope .* xs .+ intercept, 1.0, (length(xs),));
        symbol=:ys,
    )
    return ys
end
model (generic function with 1 method)

Each random choice is introduced by a ProbProg.sample(rng, dist; symbol=...) call that takes a random number generator (RNG) and a distribution function. The symbol keyword names the sample site used for conditioning and specifying parameters to infer.

As a calling convention, ProbProg.sample returns (rng, value); the first element (omitted with _ above) is the updated RNG. In the current implementation rng is a traced ReactantRNG whose state corresponds to a tensor<2xui64> RNG state in the generated MLIR. We don't thread it through manually because Reactant tracing handles the input/output threading at the IR level, and ReactantRNG's internal state is updated via Julia mutability (see here for details).

Describing Inference ​

We condition on the observed ys with a Constraint object:

julia
obs = ProbProg.Constraint(:ys => ys)
Reactant.ProbProg.Constraint with 1 entry:
  Address([:ys]) => [10.1084, 6.18133, 6.0517, 2.7268, -0.783896, -2.60195, -4.…

The current implementation requires a bit of boilerplate to flatten the Constraint into a tensor representation and to extract its address set before passing them to the @compile'd function below (see Traces and constrained inference for details):

julia
obs_tensor = ProbProg.flatten_constraint(obs)
1×10 ConcretePJRTArray{Float64,2}:
 10.1084  6.18133  6.0517  2.7268  -0.783896  …  -6.55817  -10.466  -11.522
julia
constrained_addresses = ProbProg.extract_addresses(obs)
Set{Reactant.ProbProg.Address} with 1 element:
  Reactant.ProbProg.Address([:ys])

We then specify what parameters to infer:

julia
selection = ProbProg.select(
    ProbProg.Address(:slope),
    ProbProg.Address(:intercept),
)
OrderedCollections.OrderedSet{Reactant.ProbProg.Address} with 2 elements:
  Reactant.ProbProg.Address([:slope])
  Reactant.ProbProg.Address([:intercept])

We express inference in a single function that conditions the model on the constraint with generate and then runs NUTS over the selected sites with mcmc.

julia
function infer(rng, xs, obs_tensor, step_size, inverse_mass_matrix)
    trace, = ProbProg.generate(
        rng, obs_tensor, model, xs; constrained_addresses,
    )
    trace, = ProbProg.mcmc(
        rng, trace, model, xs;
        selection, algorithm=:NUTS,
        step_size, inverse_mass_matrix,
        num_warmup=200, num_samples=500,
    )
    return trace
end
infer (generic function with 1 method)

The returned trace contains the sampling result as a 2D tensor: each row is the concatenation of all selected sites' flattened values for one post-warmup sample. (We will show a possible trace for this example problem below.)

Compiling with @compile ​

We compile infer with Reactant's @compile for compiler-optimized probabilistic inference:

julia
rng                 = ReactantRNG()
step_size           = Reactant.ConcreteRNumber(0.1)
inverse_mass_matrix = Reactant.ConcreteRArray([1.0 0.0; 0.0 1.0])

compiled_fn = @compile optimize=:probprog infer(
    rng, xs, obs_tensor, step_size, inverse_mass_matrix,
)
Reactant compiled function infer (with tag ##infer_reactant#1121)

Defaults

It is often sufficient to start with step_size = 1.0 and an identity inverse_mass_matrix. With the default adapt_step_size = true and adapt_mass_matrix = true, mcmc adaptively selects appropriate values during the warmup iterations.

The compiled_fn is a callable object that takes the same arguments as infer and returns the inference result. We can execute the compiled inference program any number of times by calling it:

julia
trace_tensor = compiled_fn(rng, xs, obs_tensor, step_size, inverse_mass_matrix)
500×2 ConcretePJRTArray{Float64,2}:
 -2.37883  11.9431
 -2.4842   12.9036
 -2.56967  13.2016
 -2.54112  12.9438
 -2.50374  12.6717
 -2.24335  11.6478
 -2.44894  12.8982
 -2.4328   12.2381
 -2.4522   12.4221
 -2.32278  11.792
  ⋮        
 -2.35591  12.3057
 -2.45021  12.8598
 -2.51419  12.915
 -2.53281  12.4524
 -2.47251  12.6217
 -2.28677  11.7212
 -2.36692  11.8711
 -2.61394  13.0639
 -2.55106  13.1884

In this array, each row is one post-warmup sample, and each column is a parameter. The columns follow the order that we passed to ProbProg.select above, i.e., :slope first, then :intercept.

text
           :slope   :intercept
sample 1:    ...       ...    
sample 2:    ...       ...    
   ⋮          ⋮         ⋮     
sample N:    ...       ...

The posterior means obtained are:

julia
mean(trace_tensor, dims=1)
1×2 ConcretePJRTArray{Float64,2}:
 -2.40174  12.1185

We can see that NUTS recovers the values that were used to generate the data.

Custom logpdf mode ​

In larger applications, it is often infeasible to express the model in a PPL modeling language as we showed in the trace-based mode above. We can use Reactant.ProbProg to compile and run its inference algorithms directly on a hand-written log-density function via the custom logpdf mode.

For example, we can write the log-density function of the previous Bayesian linear regression model directly:

julia
function logdensity(θ, xs, ys)
    X = hcat(xs, ones(length(xs)))
    residuals = ys .- X * θ
    pr = -0.5 * sum(θ .^ 2 ./ [4.0, 100.0])
    ll = -0.5 * sum(residuals .^ 2)
    return ll + pr
end
logdensity (generic function with 1 method)

We pass logdensity to the mcmc_logpdf interface along with an initial position vector (the parameter values the chain starts from):

julia
function infer_logpdf(rng, θ0, xs, ys, step_size, inverse_mass_matrix)
    trace, = ProbProg.mcmc_logpdf(rng, logdensity, θ0, xs, ys;
        algorithm=:NUTS,
        step_size, inverse_mass_matrix,
        num_warmup=200, num_samples=500,
    )
    return trace
end

θ0 = Reactant.to_rarray(reshape([0.0, 0.0], 1, 2))
compiled_logpdf = @compile optimize=:probprog infer_logpdf(
    rng, θ0, xs, ys, step_size, inverse_mass_matrix,
)
trace = compiled_logpdf(rng, θ0, xs, ys, step_size, inverse_mass_matrix)
500×2 ConcretePJRTArray{Float64,2}:
 -2.40387  12.6518
 -2.37452  12.5438
 -2.43185  12.3009
 -2.33695  11.6187
 -2.47572  12.5289
 -2.27914  11.5905
 -2.33055  11.8682
 -2.38828  11.7834
 -2.57348  13.0441
 -2.32516  11.9569
  ⋮        
 -2.51604  12.8223
 -2.26081  11.3269
 -2.30708  10.906
 -2.36406  11.2492
 -2.41979  12.258
 -2.24874  11.1209
 -2.1852   10.8018
 -2.53611  12.2823
 -2.19051  10.5952

We get similar inference results

julia
(
    posterior_mean_slope     = mean(trace[:, 1]),
    posterior_mean_intercept = mean(trace[:, 2]),
)
(posterior_mean_slope = -2.396755721531105, posterior_mean_intercept = 12.070768918538324)

NUTS recovers both posterior means here too.

More Explanations ​