BUGS and JAGS have been the main tools I have used for fitting Bayesian statistical models for a long time now. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are extremely useful tools, and I would anticipate that they will continue to develop their capabilities, and remain important components of my statistical toolbox for some time to come.

Recently, I’ve become aware of an alternative platform for Bayesian modelling, that has similar potential to BUGS and it’s dialects – PyMC. PyMC provides a framework for describing and fitting Bayesian statistical models using the Python programming language. Having read the paper describing the software, and consulted the user guide, I decided to have a try at building a simple linear regression model as a test, despite having very limited experience with python. I found that consulting the examples on the PyMC website, as well as the material presented in Abraham Flaxman’s blog very helpful for getting started, and for solving problems along the way.

I started by simulating some data from a very simple Gaussian linear model using R. I’m sure this could be easily done in Python, but for now R will be quicker and easier for me to code:

N<-50 x<-round(runif(N, -20, 20)) y<-rnorm(N, 2*x+ 3, 10) plot(y~x) cat(x, sep=", ", fill=T) cat(y, sep=", ", fill=T)

Running this code resulted in two nicely concatenated vectors of random x and y values generated from the (known) regression model . These random values were easily transferred to the PyMC code for the Bayesian model using cut-and-paste – clumsy, but it works for me…..

Here is the python code for the ordinary linear model, with the randomly generated data (called YY and XX) pasted in. Vague normal priors were assumed for the slope and intercept parameters ( and ), while the standard deviation of the random errors () was assigned a Uniform prior:

## Regression from pymc import * from numpy import * #data YY = array([-19.23776, 1.559197, 27.90364, -14.94222, -41.34614, 5.857922, -26.24492, -1.670176, -8.349098, -24.91511, 63.86167, 20.87778, 4.176622, -35.65956, 4.482383, 36.20763, 33.60314, 23.25372, -15.52639, -25.59295, 42.48803, -29.46465, 30.25402, -5.66534, -20.92914, 44.87109, 19.07603, 22.19699, 18.89613, 2.835296, 12.68109, -17.19655, 26.60962, -28.74333, -24.69688, -19.02279, -31.39471, -17.83819, 15.389, 40.41935, 0.972758, -36.49488, -2.041068, 23.22597, 1.226252, 11.87125, 36.32597, 29.20536, 16.24043, -0.8978296]) XX = array([-14, -6, 19, -12, -16, 1, -15, -13, 0, -6, 15, 8, 1, -16, -5, 19, 8, 7, -11, -13, 13, -18, 10, -1, -13, 13, 13, 17, 13, 11, 4, -6, 14, -14, 3, -3, -18, -11, 6, 13, -10, -12, -2, 9, -7, -1, 14, 15, 6, -2]) #priors sigma = Uniform('sigma', 0.0, 200.0, value=20) alpha = Normal('alpha', 0.0, 0.001, value=0) beta = Normal('beta', 0.0, 0.001, value=0) #model @deterministic(plot=False) def modelled_yy(XX=XX, beta=beta, alpha=alpha): return beta*XX + alpha #likelihood y = Normal('y', mu=modelled_yy, tau=1.0/sigma**2, value=YY, observed=True)

The python code for the model saved to a file named regress.py. Generating an MCMC sample from the parameters of model was then just a matter of running the following code within a python shell:

from pylab import * from pymc import * import regress M = MCMC(regress) M.sample(10000, burn=5000) Matplot.plot(M)

The code also generates some summary plots (traces and histograms) for each of the parameters. So far so good – it looks like the inferred values for the parameters fairly closely match those that the random data were generated from:

I’ll move onto some more complex models soon, but so far PyMC looks quite promising as a tool for Bayesian modelling. Perhaps a useful strategy for learning will be to construct a variety models of increasing complexity, with a focus on the types of models I use for my research.

Mindey I.Why do you think of learning PyMC rather than staying with BUGS and JAGS?

scrogsterPost authorThat’s a good question. The short answer is that thus far I have mainly stuck with using BUGS (and increasingly JAGS), but I remain and interested observer and occasional dabbler in the PyMC world. I always think having a choice of tools for data analysis is a good thing, and I think that PyMC is an excellent alternative to BUGS- I just haven’t invested enough time and effort in applying it to real problems, as opposed to playing around. My somewhat rudimentary python skills have probably limited my usage of PyMC as well – for a keen R user BUGS feels much more intuitive and natural, while PyMC is an entirely new game.