Assert ndim and number of dims match

[ricardoV94]

Fixes bug where invalid number of dims was given to Deterministic introduced by OrderedLogistic/Probit

Description

Related Issue

• Closes #
• Related to #

Checklist

• Checked that the pre-commit linting/style checks pass
• Included tests that prove the fix is effective or that the new feature works
• Added necessary documentation (docstrings and/or example notebooks)
• If you are a pro: each commit corresponds to a relevant logical change

Type of change

• New feature / enhancement
• Bug fix
• Documentation
• Maintenance
• Other (please specify):

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pymc--7390.org.readthedocs.build/en/7390/

[ricardoV94]

This is not trivial. p may have more or less dims than the respective Categorical variable, and these may or not be broadcasting. I decided it was not worth the trouble for the time being. In general we still need to figure out an approach for automatic dims (see #6828)

[jessegrabowski]

I think partial dim assignment is currently supported, so you could do something like dims=(None,) * dim_diff + ('categories', ), no? The last one at least is always known iiuc

[ricardoV94]

No this is not sufficient either because p could have a broadcastable dim on the same batch dimensions of the underlying categorical variable. pm.Categorical(..., p=[[0.5, 0.5]], dims="obs”). You cannot say p has dims ("obs", None) because it has shape (1, 2) not (2, 2)

[ricardoV94]

Or you're suggestion adding a "categories dim" regardless of the rest. That has another problem, what if the user creates 2 variables with different number of categories? Then again you have two dims that are incompatible (same name, different shape).

That can also be solved (by using the variable name) but I don't want to do it here, I just want to not break stuff for now.

Besides that was not what the code was doing, it seems like the biggest focus was on reusing the user provided dims, not auto naming the extra dim

[jessegrabowski]

I was assuming that "categories" already was provided somewhere, not that we generate or auto-name anything.

But yes I understand this is a rabbit hole, focusing on not breaking things is fine.

[ricardoV94]

In that case the PR is ready for review :)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 92.19%. Comparing base (b496127) to head (81f25c1).
Report is 83 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7390   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   92.19%   92.19%           
=======================================
  Files         103      103           
  Lines       17214    17215    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        15870    15871    +1     
  Misses       1344     1344           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
pymc/distributions/discrete.py	99.40% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
pymc/model/core.py	91.77% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️