| ▲ | chrisra 2 hours ago | |
It might be worth looking into probabilistic programming languages. I'm out of date, but I remember webppl, stan, anglican, pymc (a python library). Seems worth an investigation and maybe mention on the article. | ||
| ▲ | ljwolf an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |
if you read the website, the author explicitly mentions stan in the comparison at the end ;^) | ||
| ▲ | esafak 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | |
It says Stan and PyMC beat Noise at the thing they’re built for, fitting a posterior to lots of continuous data with their HMC/NUTS samplers, and NumPy beats it at raw array crunching. Conditioning in Noise is rejection-based, so it works great for a handful of discrete observations but becomes useless for ten thousand continuous measurements, and there is no stateful simulation yet (no Markov chains yet). Where Noise wins when you have a probability question and you wanna know the answer without much hassle. So use Noise for the whiteboard stage of a problem, when you want to run the math you just wrote, and move to Stan or PyMC when you need a real posterior, or to NumPy and JAX when you need to go to production. | ||