pymc-bayesian-modeling
Probabilistic programming and Bayesian modeling with the PyMC library.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/pymc-bayesian-modeling && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/773" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/pymc-bayesian-modeling && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/pymc-bayesian-modeling
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
Bayesian modeling with PyMC. Build hierarchical models, MCMC (NUTS), variational inference, LOO/WAIC comparison, posterior checks, for probabilistic programming and inference.Key capabilities
- →Build hierarchical Bayesian models
- →Perform MCMC sampling
- →Conduct posterior predictive checks
- →Compare models using LOO/WAIC
- →Diagnose sampling convergence
How it works
It provides a workflow for defining probabilistic models, fitting them using NUTS sampling, and validating results through diagnostic checks and model comparison.
Inputs & outputs
When to use pymc-bayesian-modeling
- →Build hierarchical Bayesian models
- →Run NUTS MCMC sampling
- →Compare models using LOO/WAIC
- →Validate posterior distributions
About this skill
PyMC Bayesian Modeling
Overview
PyMC is a Python library for Bayesian modeling and probabilistic programming. Build, fit, validate, and compare Bayesian models using PyMC's modern API (version 5.x+), including hierarchical models, MCMC sampling (NUTS), variational inference, and model comparison (LOO, WAIC).
When to Use This Skill
This skill should be used when:
- Building Bayesian models (linear/logistic regression, hierarchical models, time series, etc.)
- Performing MCMC sampling or variational inference
- Conducting prior/posterior predictive checks
- Diagnosing sampling issues (divergences, convergence, ESS)
- Comparing multiple models using information criteria (LOO, WAIC)
- Implementing uncertainty quantification through Bayesian methods
- Working with hierarchical/multilevel data structures
- Handling missing data or measurement error in a principled way
Standard Bayesian Workflow
Follow this workflow for building and validating Bayesian models:
1. Data Preparation
import pymc as pm
import arviz as az
import numpy as np
# Load and prepare data
X = ... # Predictors
y = ... # Outcomes
# Standardize predictors for better sampling
X_mean = X.mean(axis=0)
X_std = X.std(axis=0)
X_scaled = (X - X_mean) / X_std
Key practices:
- Standardize continuous predictors (improves sampling efficiency)
- Center outcomes when possible
- Handle missing data explicitly (treat as parameters)
- Use named dimensions with
coordsfor clarity
2. Model Building
coords = {
'predictors': ['var1', 'var2', 'var3'],
'obs_id': np.arange(len(y))
}
with pm.Model(coords=coords) as model:
# Priors
alpha = pm.Normal('alpha', mu=0, sigma=1)
beta = pm.Normal('beta', mu=0, sigma=1, dims='predictors')
sigma = pm.HalfNormal('sigma', sigma=1)
# Linear predictor
mu = alpha + pm.math.dot(X_scaled, beta)
# Likelihood
y_obs = pm.Normal('y_obs', mu=mu, sigma=sigma, observed=y, dims='obs_id')
Key practices:
- Use weakly informative priors (not flat priors)
- Use
HalfNormalorExponentialfor scale parameters - Use named dimensions (
dims) instead ofshapewhen possible - Use
pm.Data()for values that will be updated for predictions
3. Prior Predictive Check
Always validate priors before fitting:
with model:
prior_pred = pm.sample_prior_predictive(samples=1000, random_seed=42)
# Visualize
az.plot_ppc(prior_pred, group='prior')
Check:
- Do prior predictions span reasonable values?
- Are extreme values plausible given domain knowledge?
- If priors generate implausible data, adjust and re-check
4. Fit Model
with model:
# Optional: Quick exploration with ADVI
# approx = pm.fit(n=20000)
# Full MCMC inference
idata = pm.sample(
draws=2000,
tune=1000,
chains=4,
target_accept=0.9,
random_seed=42,
idata_kwargs={'log_likelihood': True} # For model comparison
)
Key parameters:
draws=2000: Number of samples per chaintune=1000: Warmup samples (discarded)chains=4: Run 4 chains for convergence checkingtarget_accept=0.9: Higher for difficult posteriors (0.95-0.99)- Include
log_likelihood=Truefor model comparison
5. Check Diagnostics
Use the diagnostic script:
from scripts.model_diagnostics import check_diagnostics
results = check_diagnostics(idata, var_names=['alpha', 'beta', 'sigma'])
Check:
- R-hat < 1.01: Chains have converged
- ESS > 400: Sufficient effective samples
- No divergences: NUTS sampled successfully
- Trace plots: Chains should mix well (fuzzy caterpillar)
If issues arise:
- Divergences → Increase
target_accept=0.95, use non-centered parameterization - Low ESS → Sample more draws, reparameterize to reduce correlation
- High R-hat → Run longer, check for multimodality
6. Posterior Predictive Check
Validate model fit:
with model:
pm.sample_posterior_predictive(idata, extend_inferencedata=True, random_seed=42)
# Visualize
az.plot_ppc(idata)
Check:
- Do posterior predictions capture observed data patterns?
- Are systematic deviations evident (model misspecification)?
- Consider alternative models if fit is poor
7. Analyze Results
# Summary statistics
print(az.summary(idata, var_names=['alpha', 'beta', 'sigma']))
# Posterior distributions
az.plot_posterior(idata, var_names=['alpha', 'beta', 'sigma'])
# Coefficient estimates
az.plot_forest(idata, var_names=['beta'], combined=True)
8. Make Predictions
X_new = ... # New predictor values
X_new_scaled = (X_new - X_mean) / X_std
with model:
pm.set_data({'X_scaled': X_new_scaled})
post_pred = pm.sample_posterior_predictive(
idata.posterior,
var_names=['y_obs'],
random_seed=42
)
# Extract prediction intervals
y_pred_mean = post_pred.posterior_predictive['y_obs'].mean(dim=['chain', 'draw'])
y_pred_hdi = az.hdi(post_pred.posterior_predictive, var_names=['y_obs'])
Common Model Patterns
Linear Regression
For continuous outcomes with linear relationships:
with pm.Model() as linear_model:
alpha = pm.Normal('alpha', mu=0, sigma=10)
beta = pm.Normal('beta', mu=0, sigma=10, shape=n_predictors)
sigma = pm.HalfNormal('sigma', sigma=1)
mu = alpha + pm.math.dot(X, beta)
y = pm.Normal('y', mu=mu, sigma=sigma, observed=y_obs)
Use template: assets/linear_regression_template.py
Logistic Regression
For binary outcomes:
with pm.Model() as logistic_model:
alpha = pm.Normal('alpha', mu=0, sigma=10)
beta = pm.Normal('beta', mu=0, sigma=10, shape=n_predictors)
logit_p = alpha + pm.math.dot(X, beta)
y = pm.Bernoulli('y', logit_p=logit_p, observed=y_obs)
Hierarchical Models
For grouped data (use non-centered parameterization):
with pm.Model(coords={'groups': group_names}) as hierarchical_model:
# Hyperpriors
mu_alpha = pm.Normal('mu_alpha', mu=0, sigma=10)
sigma_alpha = pm.HalfNormal('sigma_alpha', sigma=1)
# Group-level (non-centered)
alpha_offset = pm.Normal('alpha_offset', mu=0, sigma=1, dims='groups')
alpha = pm.Deterministic('alpha', mu_alpha + sigma_alpha * alpha_offset, dims='groups')
# Observation-level
mu = alpha[group_idx]
sigma = pm.HalfNormal('sigma', sigma=1)
y = pm.Normal('y', mu=mu, sigma=sigma, observed=y_obs)
Use template: assets/hierarchical_model_template.py
Critical: Always use non-centered parameterization for hierarchical models to avoid divergences.
Poisson Regression
For count data:
with pm.Model() as poisson_model:
alpha = pm.Normal('alpha', mu=0, sigma=10)
beta = pm.Normal('beta', mu=0, sigma=10, shape=n_predictors)
log_lambda = alpha + pm.math.dot(X, beta)
y = pm.Poisson('y', mu=pm.math.exp(log_lambda), observed=y_obs)
For overdispersed counts, use NegativeBinomial instead.
Time Series
For autoregressive processes:
with pm.Model() as ar_model:
sigma = pm.HalfNormal('sigma', sigma=1)
rho = pm.Normal('rho', mu=0, sigma=0.5, shape=ar_order)
init_dist = pm.Normal.dist(mu=0, sigma=sigma)
y = pm.AR('y', rho=rho, sigma=sigma, init_dist=init_dist, observed=y_obs)
Model Comparison
Comparing Models
Use LOO or WAIC for model comparison:
from scripts.model_comparison import compare_models, check_loo_reliability
# Fit models with log_likelihood
models = {
'Model1': idata1,
'Model2': idata2,
'Model3': idata3
}
# Compare using LOO
comparison = compare_models(models, ic='loo')
# Check reliability
check_loo_reliability(models)
Interpretation:
- Δloo < 2: Models are similar, choose simpler model
- 2 < Δloo < 4: Weak evidence for better model
- 4 < Δloo < 10: Moderate evidence
- Δloo > 10: Strong evidence for better model
Check Pareto-k values:
- k < 0.7: LOO reliable
- k > 0.7: Consider WAIC or k-fold CV
Model Averaging
When models are similar, average predictions:
from scripts.model_comparison import model_averaging
averaged_pred, weights = model_averaging(models, var_name='y_obs')
Distribution Selection Guide
For Priors
Scale parameters (σ, τ):
pm.HalfNormal('sigma', sigma=1)- Default choicepm.Exponential('sigma', lam=1)- Alternativepm.Gamma('sigma', alpha=2, beta=1)- More informative
Unbounded parameters:
pm.Normal('theta', mu=0, sigma=1)- For standardized datapm.StudentT('theta', nu=3, mu=0, sigma=1)- Robust to outliers
Positive parameters:
pm.LogNormal('theta', mu=0, sigma=1)pm.Gamma('theta', alpha=2, beta=1)
Probabilities:
pm.Beta('p', alpha=2, beta=2)- Weakly informativepm.Uniform('p', lower=0, upper=1)- Non-informative (use sparingly)
Correlation matrices:
pm.LKJCorr('corr', n=n_vars, eta=2)- eta=1 uniform, eta>1 prefers identity
For Likelihoods
Continuous outcomes:
pm.Normal('y', mu=mu, sigma=sigma)- Default for continuous datapm.StudentT('y', nu=nu, mu=mu, sigma=sigma)- Robust to outliers
Count data:
pm.Poisson('y', mu=lambda)- Equidispersed countspm.NegativeBinomial('y', mu=mu, alpha=alpha)- Overdispersed countspm.ZeroInflatedPoisson('y', psi=psi, mu=mu)- Excess zeros
Binary outcomes:
pm.Bernoulli('y', p=p)orpm.Bernoulli('y', logit_p=logit_p)
Categorical outcomes:
pm.Categorical('y', p=probs)
See: references/distributions.md for comprehensive distribution reference
Sampling and Inference
MCMC with NUTS
Default and recommended for most models:
idata = pm.sample(
draws=2000,
tune=1000,
chains=4,
target_accept=0.9,
random_seed=42
)
Adjust when needed:
- Divergences →
target_accept=0.95or higher - Slow sampling → Use ADVI for initialization
- Discrete
Content truncated.
When not to use it
- →When you need a simple frequentist point estimate
- →When the dataset is too small for Bayesian inference
Prerequisites
Limitations
- →Requires careful prior selection and diagnostic validation
- →Computationally intensive for large datasets
How it compares
It enables a full Bayesian workflow including uncertainty quantification, whereas manual frequentist approaches often ignore parameter uncertainty.
Compared to similar skills
pymc-bayesian-modeling side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pymc-bayesian-modeling (this skill) | 3 | 7mo | Review | Advanced |
| quant-analyst | 103 | 2mo | No flags | Advanced |
| umap-learn | 6 | 2mo | Review | Intermediate |
| embedding-strategies | 8 | 2mo | No flags | Intermediate |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
More by davila7
View all by davila7 →You might also like
quant-analyst
zenobi-us
Expert quantitative analyst specializing in financial modeling, algorithmic trading, and risk analytics. Masters statistical methods, derivatives pricing, and high-frequency trading with focus on mathematical rigor, performance optimization, and profitable strategy development.
umap-learn
K-Dense-AI
UMAP dimensionality reduction. Fast nonlinear manifold learning for 2D/3D visualization, clustering preprocessing (HDBSCAN), supervised/parametric UMAP, for high-dimensional data.
embedding-strategies
wshobson
Select and optimize embedding models for semantic search and RAG applications. Use when choosing embedding models, implementing chunking strategies, or optimizing embedding quality for specific domains.
building-automl-pipelines
jeremylongshore
Build automated machine learning pipelines, including feature engineering, model selection, and performance evaluation.
model-compare
rawwerks
Compare 3D CAD models using boolean operations (IoU, Dice, precision/recall). Use when evaluating generated models against gold references, diffing CAD revisions, or computing similarity metrics for ML training. Triggers on: model diff, compare models, IoU, intersection over union, model similarity, CAD comparison, STEP diff, 3D evaluation, gold reference, generated model, precision recall 3D.
matchms
davila7
Mass spectrometry analysis. Process mzML/MGF/MSP, spectral similarity (cosine, modified cosine), metadata harmonization, compound ID, for metabolomics and MS data processing.