Skip to content

Custom likelihood variables#30

Open
jessegrabowski wants to merge 8 commits into
pymc-devs:mainfrom
jessegrabowski:custom-likelihood-variables
Open

Custom likelihood variables#30
jessegrabowski wants to merge 8 commits into
pymc-devs:mainfrom
jessegrabowski:custom-likelihood-variables

Conversation

@jessegrabowski
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This was originally @ricardoV94's PR, but I clobbered it when I moved the repo. Sorry.

@jessegrabowski jessegrabowski added the enhancement New feature or request label May 29, 2026
@ricardoV94
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

there were some PR comments in the old PR but I guess they are lost forever

@jessegrabowski
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

there were some PR comments in the old PR but I guess they are lost forever

I have them in pycharm cache. I addressed them in my follows ups: removed build (made a thin helper that goes in the user-facing functions), leaned into GPData (though you had already did that, you mooted your own comment).

You also flagged the need for more testing (you only tested clone), that's still a to-do.

@ricardoV94
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

ricardoV94 commented May 29, 2026

it was more the motivation for my changes on top of yours, and whether it makes sense for custom type or we'd be okay with a functional api like pm.logp(rv, value) instead of rv.logp(value). For Likelihood we can be cute and add these methods, but I dunno what other "GP objects" are there around. I suppose there are some latent GPs? with similar methods, and I dunno if there have actual tensor meaning right now (the f or whatever)?

@jessegrabowski
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Personally i think it's great, it solves the problem very cleanly in an idiomatic pytensor way

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants