# Using named dimensions when defining intermediate tensors/variables in the model

I have a model with four intermediate parameters: “mu_intercept”, “mu_slope”, “psi_intercept” and “psi_slope”. Each of these will be modelled using a sum of various factors; so, for example: `mu_intercept ~ baseline_mu_intercept + interaction_mu_intercept`, where `baseline_mu_intercept` etc all need to be estimated.

I have four intermediate params, each with a baseline so four baselines and each with an interaction factor so four interactions. All eight params have normal priors which I give in two lines and use dimension naming:

``````baseline = pm.Normal("baseline", mu=np.array([1., 2., 0., 0.]), sigma=0.5, dims="param")
interaction = pm.Normal("interaction", mu=0, sigma=0.5, dims=("factor", "param"))
``````

with `{ "param": ["mu_intercept", "mu_slope", "psi_intercept", "psi_slope"]}` (and some “factor” dimension)

Now I want to define my actual intermediate parameters:

``````  # "mu_intercept": 0, "mu_slope": 1, "psi_intercept": 2, "psi_slope": 3
mu_intercept = baseline[0] + interaction[:, 0]
mu_slope = baseline[1] + interaction[:, 1]
psi_intercept = baseline[2] + interaction[:, 2]
psi_slope = baseline[3] + interaction[:, 3]
``````

I couldn’t find a way to rely on named dimensions because `baseline` and `interaction` are PyTensor variables, which don’t seem to support named dimensions (named dimensions, as I understand, come from `xarray`)

Is that correct? Is there no way to leverage named dimensions when defining intermediate variables so that something like this works?

``````mu_intercept = baseline["mu_intercept"] + interaction[:, "mu_intercept"]
``````

If indeed that’s not possible, that seems to put quite a big constraint on the utility of named dimensions.

Yes that’s correct. Xarrays are used as the output of PyMC sampling routines, but PyMC itself uses PyTensor and that doesn’t support named dimensions.

There are plans to extend PyTensor to allow named dimensions but that is all in the future for now.

Ok thanks, that helps to know, thank you! Are the future plans completely ethereal at this stage or are there any issues/discussions on the repo you’d be able to link just so that I could follow it (if there is anything to follow)?

There are discussions from our design meetings: GitHub - pymc-devs/design-notes

There’s also two very exploratory PRs:

Amazing, thank you!