Protocol
Bayesian Inference and Graphical Models
Build a small hierarchical analysis with a graphical model, exact toy check and posterior predictive criticism. Explain what stronger evidence would change the model.
55–90 active hours60–90 min sessionsAdvanced
Mastery contract
Specialization · Standard 1.0 · Build a small hierarchical analysis with a graphical model, exact toy check and posterior predictive criticism. Explain what stronger evidence would change the model.
Loading your learning records…
Reasoning — not yet passed
The factorization and ELBO derivations are correct and explain which dependencies the approximation removes.
Reliable implementation — not yet passed
Approximate inference is compared with exact results on a tractable fixture; sampling diagnostics are retained.
Reproducible experiment — not yet passed
Compare at least two stated priors against the same observed data and inference budget; retain posterior predictive discrepancies, uncertainty and sampling diagnostics.
Defense and handoff — not yet passed
Use the tractable fixture and posterior predictive results to separate approximation, sampling and model errors; justify one revised modeling assumption.
All four criteria must pass. Activity completion does not satisfy them.
An independent reviewer reruns your work and varies something you did not rehearse: a fresh input, a different working directory, or a declared edge case.
Pilot decisions are provisional, not external credentials. For an appeal or sensitive artifact, contact your designated pilot operator with the submission ID. Export your assessment history.
What you will do
6 total
Derive variable elimination on a 3-node discrete graph and an ELBO for a simple latent-variable model; identify conditional-independence assumptions.
Implement exact enumeration and mean-field updates for a tiny model; fit a small hierarchical model with Stan or PyMC and inspect diagnostics.
Compare approximate marginals against exact inference and repeat posterior predictions under 3 prior choices; report sensitivity and computation.
Debug a mistaken collider-independence claim and a poorly mixing chain; test whether reparameterization changes effective sample size.
Write a 500–900 word technical report linking the reasoning, code, measurements, and limitations; include the project decision below.
Assess all 4 mastery criteria against saved artifacts, request an independent review, and repeat each failed criterion on a fresh example.
Essentials
A reading session alone never satisfies a mastery criterion.
Store source references, assumptions, and artifact paths beside every result.
Keep an untouched check case that differs from the worked example.
Record all attempts, including failures and results that contradict your prediction.
Use the stated comparison conditions; document every deviation before drawing a conclusion.
Protocol guardrails
Do
- +State the expected result before running the comparison.
- +Keep one minimal reproducible failing case when debugging.
- +Record environment versions and the exact command used.
- +Compare explanations with saved intermediate values.
- +Ask a reviewer to challenge the weakest assumption.
Don't
- ×Do not copy a worked solution and present it as an independent implementation.
- ×Do not tune against held-out evaluation outcomes.
- ×Do not report only the best seed or discard inconvenient runs.
- ×Do not equate elapsed hours or a completed run with a passed assessment.
- ×Do not conceal reduced-scale experiments behind claims about the original full-scale result.
Protocol authorship
Written by NuthinButta as instructional design. The teaching sources are the official references linked in each milestone; the exercises, workload and pass thresholds are ours, not their authors'.