Search for: All records

Exact probabilistic inference is a requirement for many applications of probabilistic programming languages (PPLs) such as in high-consequence settings or verification. However, designing and implementing a PPL with scalable high-performance exact inference is difficult: exact inference engines, much like SAT solvers, are intricate low-level programs that are hard to implement. Due to this implementation challenge, PPLs that support scalable exact inference are restrictive and lack many features of general-purpose languages. This paper presents Roulette, the first discrete probabilistic programming language that combines high-performance exact inference with general-purpose language features. Roulette supports a significant subset of Racket, including data structures, first-class functions, surely-terminating recursion, mutable state, modules, and macros, along with probabilistic features such as finitely supported discrete random variables, conditioning, and top-level inference. The key insight is that there is a close connection between exact probabilistic inference and the symbolic evaluation strategy of Rosette. Building on this connection, Roulette generalizes and extends the Rosette solver-aided programming system to reason about probabilistic rather than symbolic quantities. We prove Roulette sound by generalizing a proof of correctness for Rosette to handle probabilities, and demonstrate its scalability and expressivity on a number of examples. 

Currently, there is a gap between the tools used by probability theorists and those used in formal reasoning about probabilistic programs. On the one hand, a probability theorist decomposes probabilistic state along the simple and natural product of probability spaces. On the other hand, recently developed probabilistic separation logics decompose state via relatively unfamiliar measure-theoretic constructions for computing unions of sigma-algebras and probability measures. We bridge the gap between these two perspectives by showing that these two methods of decomposition are equivalent up to a suitable equivalence of categories. Our main result is a probabilistic analog of the classic equivalence between the category of nominal sets and the Schanuel topos. Through this equivalence, we validate design decisions in prior work on probabilistic separation logic and create new connections to nominal-set-like models of probability.