I am trying to implement Expectation Maximization algorithm(Gaussian Mixture Model) on a data set data=[[x,y],...]. I am using mv_norm.pdf(data, mean,cov) function to calculate cluster responsibilities. But after calculating new values of covariance (cov matrix) after 6-7 iterations, cov matrix is becoming singular i.e determinant of cov is 0 (very small value) and hence it is giving errors
ValueError: the input matrix must be positive semidefinite
and
raise np.linalg.LinAlgError('singular matrix')
Can someone suggest any solution for this?
#E-step: Compute cluster responsibilities, given cluster parameters
def calculate_cluster_responsibility(data,centroids,cov_m):
pdfmain=[[] for i in range(0,len(data))]
for i in range(0,len(data)):
sum1=0
pdfeach=[[] for m in range(0,len(centroids))]
pdfeach[0]=1/3.*mv_norm.pdf(data[i], mean=centroids[0],cov=[[cov_m[0][0][0],cov_m[0][0][1]],[cov_m[0][1][0],cov_m[0][1][1]]])
pdfeach[1]=1/3.*mv_norm.pdf(data[i], mean=centroids[1],cov=[[cov_m[1][0][0],cov_m[1][0][1]],[cov_m[1][1][0],cov_m[0][1][1]]])
pdfeach[2]=1/3.*mv_norm.pdf(data[i], mean=centroids[2],cov=[[cov_m[2][0][0],cov_m[2][0][1]],[cov_m[2][1][0],cov_m[2][1][1]]])
sum1+=pdfeach[0]+pdfeach[1]+pdfeach[2]
pdfeach[:] = [x / sum1 for x in pdfeach]
pdfmain[i]=pdfeach
global old_pdfmain
if old_pdfmain==pdfmain:
return
old_pdfmain=copy.deepcopy(pdfmain)
softcounts=[sum(i) for i in zip(*pdfmain)]
calculate_cluster_weights(data,centroids,pdfmain,soft counts)
Initially, I've passed [[3,0],[0,3]] for each cluster covariance since expected number of clusters is 3.
Can someone suggest any solution for this?
The problem is your data lies in some manifold of dimension strictly smaller than the input data. In other words for example your data lies on a circle, while you have 3 dimensional data. As a consequence when your method tries to estimate 3 dimensional ellipsoid (covariance matrix) that fits your data - it fails since the optimal one is a 2 dimensional ellipse (third dimension is 0).
How to fix it? You will need some regularization of your covariance estimator. There are many possible solutions, all in M step, not E step, the problem is with computing covariance:
Simple solution, instead of doing something like cov = np.cov(X) add some regularizing term, like cov = np.cov(X) + eps * np.identity(X.shape[1]) with small eps
Use nicer estimator like LedoitWolf estimator from scikit-learn.
Initially, I've passed [[3,0],[0,3]] for each cluster covariance since expected number of clusters is 3.
This makes no sense, covariance matrix values has nothing to do with amount of clusters. You can initialize it with anything more or less resonable.
Related
I've been trying to understand how does a model trained with support vector machines for regression predict values. I have trained a model with the sklearn.svm.SVR, and now I'm wondering how to "manually" predict the outcome of an input.
Some background - the model is trained with kernel SVR, with RBF function and uses the dual formulation. So now I have arrays of the dual coefficients, the indexes of the support vectors, and the support vectors themselves.
I found the function which is used to fit the hyperplane but I've been unsuccessful in applying that to "manually" predict outcomes without the function .predict.
The few things I tried all include the dot products of the input (features) array, and all the support vectors.
If anyone ever needs this, I've managed to understand the equation and code it in python.
The following is the used equation for the dual formulation:
where N is the number of observations, and αi multiplied by yi are the dual coefficients found from the model's attributed model.dual_coef_. The xiT are some of the observations used for training (support vectors) accessed by the attribute model.support_vectors_ (transposed to allow multiplication of the two matrices), x is the input vector containing a value for each feature (its the one observation for which we want to get prediction), and b is the intercept accessed by model.intercept_.
The xiT and x, however, are the observations transformed in a higher-dimensional space, as explained by mery in this post.
The calculation of the transformation by RBF can be either applied manually step by stem or by using the sklearn.metrics.pairwise.rbf_kernel.
With the latter, the code would look like this (my case shows I have 589 support vectors, and 40 features).
First we access the coefficients and vectors:
support_vectors = model.support_vectors_
dual_coefs = model.dual_coef_[0]
Then:
pred = (np.matmul(dual_coefs.reshape(1,589),
rbf_kernel(support_vectors.reshape(589,40),
Y=input_array.reshape(1,40),
gamma=model.get_params()['gamma']
)
)
+ model.intercept_
)
If the RBF funcion needs to be applied manually, step by step, then:
vrbf = support_vectors.reshape(589,40) - input_array.reshape(1,40)
pred = (np.matmul(dual_coefs.reshape(1,589),
np.diag(np.exp(-model.get_params()['gamma'] *
np.matmul(vrbf, vrbf.T)
)
).reshape(589,1)
)
+ model.intercept_
)
I placed the .reshape() function even where it is not necessary, just to emphasize the shapes for the matrix operations.
These both give the same results as model.predict(input_array)
I am doing a project on multiclass semantic segmentation. I have formulated a model that outputs pretty descent segmented images by decreasing the loss value. However, I cannot evaluate the model performance in metrics, such as meanIoU or Dice coefficient.
In case of binary semantic segmentation it was easy just to set the threshold of 0.5, to classify the outputs as an object or background, but it does not work in the case of multiclass semantic segmentation. Could you please tell me how to obtain model performance on the aforementioned metrics? Any help will be highly appreciated!
By the way, I am using PyTorch framework and CamVid dataset.
If anyone is interested in this answer, please also look at this issue. The author of the issue points out that mIoU can be computed in a different way (and that method is more accepted in literature). So, consider that before using the implementation for any formal publication.
Basically, the other method suggested by the issue-poster is to separately accumulate the intersections and unions over the entire dataset and divide them at the final step. The method in the below original answer computes intersection and union for a batch of images, then divides them to get IoU for the current batch, and then takes a mean of the IoUs over the entire dataset.
However, this below given original method is problematic because the final mean IoU would vary with the batch-size. On the other hand, the mIoU would not vary with the batch size for the method mentioned in the issue as the separate accumulation would ensure that batch size is irrelevant (though higher batch size can definitely help speed up the evaluation).
Original answer:
Given below is an implementation of mean IoU (Intersection over Union) in PyTorch.
def mIOU(label, pred, num_classes=19):
pred = F.softmax(pred, dim=1)
pred = torch.argmax(pred, dim=1).squeeze(1)
iou_list = list()
present_iou_list = list()
pred = pred.view(-1)
label = label.view(-1)
# Note: Following for loop goes from 0 to (num_classes-1)
# and ignore_index is num_classes, thus ignore_index is
# not considered in computation of IoU.
for sem_class in range(num_classes):
pred_inds = (pred == sem_class)
target_inds = (label == sem_class)
if target_inds.long().sum().item() == 0:
iou_now = float('nan')
else:
intersection_now = (pred_inds[target_inds]).long().sum().item()
union_now = pred_inds.long().sum().item() + target_inds.long().sum().item() - intersection_now
iou_now = float(intersection_now) / float(union_now)
present_iou_list.append(iou_now)
iou_list.append(iou_now)
return np.mean(present_iou_list)
Prediction of your model will be in one-hot form, so first take softmax (if your model doesn't already) followed by argmax to get the index with the highest probability at each pixel. Then, we calculate IoU for each class (and take the mean over it at the end).
We can reshape both the prediction and the label as 1-D vectors (I read that it makes the computation faster). For each class, we first identify the indices of that class using pred_inds = (pred == sem_class) and target_inds = (label == sem_class). The resulting pred_inds and target_inds will have 1 at pixels labelled as that particular class while 0 for any other class.
Then, there is a possibility that the target does not contain that particular class at all. This will make that class's IoU calculation invalid as it is not present in the target. So, you assign such classes a NaN IoU (so you can identify them later) and not involve them in the calculation of the mean.
If the particular class is present in the target, then pred_inds[target_inds] will give a vector of 1s and 0s where indices with 1 are those where prediction and target are equal and zero otherwise. Taking the sum of all elements of this will give us the intersection.
If we add all the elements of pred_inds and target_inds, we'll get the union + intersection of pixels of that particular class. So, we subtract the already calculated intersection to get the union. Then, we can divide the intersection and union to get the IoU of that particular class and add it to a list of valid IoUs.
At the end, you take the mean of the entire list to get the mIoU. If you want the Dice Coefficient, you can calculate it in a similar fashion.
I have read an article on data leakage. In a hackathon there are two sets of data, train data on which participants train their algorithm and test set on which performance is measured.
Data leakage helps in getting a perfect score in test data, with out viewing train data by exploiting the leak.
I have read the article, but I am missing the crux how the leakage is exploited.
Steps as shown in article are following:
Let's load the test data.
Note, that we don't have any training data here, just test data. Moreover, we will not even use any features of test objects. All we need to solve this task is the file with the indices for the pairs, that we need to compare.
Let's load the data with test indices.
test = pd.read_csv('../test_pairs.csv')
test.head(10)
pairId FirstId SecondId
0 0 1427 8053
1 1 17044 7681
2 2 19237 20966
3 3 8005 20765
4 4 16837 599
5 5 3657 12504
6 6 2836 7582
7 7 6136 6111
8 8 23295 9817
9 9 6621 7672
test.shape[0]
368550
For example, we can think that there is a test dataset of images, and each image is assigned a unique Id from 0 to N−1 (N -- is the number of images). In the dataframe from above FirstId and SecondId point to these Id's and define pairs, that we should compare: e.g. do both images in the pair belong to the same class or not. So, for example for the first row: if images with Id=1427 and Id=8053 belong to the same class, we should predict 1, and 0 otherwise.
But in our case we don't really care about the images, and how exactly we compare the images (as long as comparator is binary).
print(test['FirstId'].nunique())
print(test['SecondId'].nunique())
26325
26310
So the number of pairs we are given to classify is very very small compared to the total number of pairs.
To exploit the leak we need to assume (or prove), that the total number of positive pairs is small, compared to the total number of pairs. For example: think about an image dataset with 1000 classes, N images per class. Then if the task was to tell whether a pair of images belongs to the same class or not, we would have 1000*N*(N−1)/2 positive pairs, while total number of pairs was 1000*N(1000N−1)/2.
Another example: in Quora competitition the task was to classify whether a pair of qustions are duplicates of each other or not. Of course, total number of question pairs is very huge, while number of duplicates (positive pairs) is much much smaller.
Finally, let's get a fraction of pairs of class 1. We just need to submit a constant prediction "all ones" and check the returned accuracy. Create a dataframe with columns pairId and Prediction, fill it and export it to .csv file. Then submit
test['Prediction'] = np.ones(test.shape[0])
sub=pd.DataFrame(test[['pairId','Prediction']])
sub.to_csv('sub.csv',index=False)
All ones have accuracy score is 0.500000.
So, we assumed the total number of pairs is much higher than the number of positive pairs, but it is not the case for the test set. It means that the test set is constructed not by sampling random pairs, but with a specific sampling algorithm. Pairs of class 1 are oversampled.
Now think, how we can exploit this fact? What is the leak here? If you get it now, you may try to get to the final answer yourself, othewise you can follow the instructions below.
Building a magic feature
In this section we will build a magic feature, that will solve the problem almost perfectly. The instructions will lead you to the correct solution, but please, try to explain the purpose of the steps we do to yourself -- it is very important.
Incidence matrix
First, we need to build an incidence matrix. You can think of pairs (FirstId, SecondId) as of edges in an undirected graph.
The incidence matrix is a matrix of size (maxId + 1, maxId + 1), where each row (column) i corresponds i-th Id. In this matrix we put the value 1to the position [i, j], if and only if a pair (i, j) or (j, i) is present in a given set of pais (FirstId, SecondId). All the other elements in the incidence matrix are zeros.
Important! The incidence matrices are typically very very sparse (small number of non-zero values). At the same time incidence matrices are usually huge in terms of total number of elements, and it is impossible to store them in memory in dense format. But due to their sparsity incidence matrices can be easily represented as sparse matrices. If you are not familiar with sparse matrices, please see wiki and scipy.sparse reference. Please, use any of scipy.sparseconstructors to build incidence matrix.
For example, you can use this constructor: scipy.sparse.coo_matrix((data, (i, j))). We highly recommend to learn to use different scipy.sparseconstuctors, and matrices types, but if you feel you don't want to use them, you can always build this matrix with a simple for loop. You will need first to create a matrix using scipy.sparse.coo_matrix((M, N), [dtype]) with an appropriate shape (M, N) and then iterate through (FirstId, SecondId) pairs and fill corresponding elements in matrix with ones.
Note, that the matrix should be symmetric and consist only of zeros and ones. It is a way to check yourself.
import networkx as nx
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import scipy.sparse
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
test = pd.read_csv('../test_pairs.csv')
x = test[['FirstId','SecondId']].rename(columns={'FirstId':'col1', 'SecondId':'col2'})
y = test[['SecondId','FirstId']].rename(columns={'SecondId':'col1', 'FirstId':'col2'})
comb = pd.concat([x,y],ignore_index=True).drop_duplicates(keep='first')
comb.head()
col1 col2
0 1427 8053
1 17044 7681
2 19237 20966
3 8005 20765
4 16837 599
data = np.ones(comb.col1.shape, dtype=int)
inc_mat = scipy.sparse.coo_matrix((data,(comb.col1,comb.col2)), shape=(comb.col1.max() + 1, comb.col1.max() + 1))
rows_FirstId = inc_mat[test.FirstId.values,:]
rows_SecondId = inc_mat[test.SecondId.values,:]
f = rows_FirstId.multiply(rows_SecondId)
f = np.asarray(f.sum(axis=1))
f.shape
(368550, 1)
f = f.sum(axis=1)
f = np.squeeze(np.asarray(f))
print (f.shape)
Now build the magic feature
Why did we build the incidence matrix? We can think of the rows in this matix as of representations for the objects. i-th row is a representation for an object with Id = i. Then, to measure similarity between two objects we can measure similarity between their representations. And we will see, that such representations are very good.
Now select the rows from the incidence matrix, that correspond to test.FirstId's, and test.SecondId's.
So do not forget to convert pd.series to np.array
These lines should normally run very quickly
rows_FirstId = inc_mat[test.FirstId.values,:]
rows_SecondId = inc_mat[test.SecondId.values,:]
Our magic feature will be the dot product between representations of a pair of objects. Dot product can be regarded as similarity measure -- for our non-negative representations the dot product is close to 0 when the representations are different, and is huge, when representations are similar.
Now compute dot product between corresponding rows in rows_FirstId and rows_SecondId matrices.
From magic feature to binary predictions
But how do we convert this feature into binary predictions? We do not have a train set to learn a model, but we have a piece of information about test set: the baseline accuracy score that you got, when submitting constant. And we also have a very strong considerations about the data generative process, so probably we will be fine even without a training set.
We may try to choose a thresold, and set the predictions to 1, if the feature value f is higer than the threshold, and 0 otherwise. What threshold would you choose?
How do we find a right threshold? Let's first examine this feature: print frequencies (or counts) of each value in the feature f.
For example use np.unique function, check for flags
Function to count frequency of each element
from scipy.stats import itemfreq
itemfreq(f)
array([[ 14, 183279],
[ 15, 852],
[ 19, 546],
[ 20, 183799],
[ 21, 6],
[ 28, 54],
[ 35, 14]])
Do you see how this feature clusters the pairs? Maybe you can guess a good threshold by looking at the values?
In fact, in other situations it can be not that obvious, but in general to pick a threshold you only need to remember the score of your baseline submission and use this information.
Choose a threshold below:
pred = f > 14 # SET THRESHOLD HERE
pred
array([ True, False, True, ..., False, False, False], dtype=bool)
submission = test.loc[:,['pairId']]
submission['Prediction'] = pred.astype(int)
submission.to_csv('submission.csv', index=False)
I want to understand the idea behind this. How we are exploiting the leak from the test data only.
There's a hint in the article. The number of positive pairs should be 1000*N*(N−1)/2, while the number of all pairs is 1000*N(1000N−1)/2. Of course, the number of all pairs is much, much larger if the test set was sampled at random.
As the author mentions, after you evaluate your constant prediction of 1s on the test set, you can tell that the sampling was not done at random. The accuracy you obtain is 50%. Had the sampling been done correctly, this value should've been much lower.
Thus, they construct the incidence matrix and calculate the dot product (the measure of similarity) between the representations of our ID features. They then reuse the information about the accuracy obtained with constant predictions (at 50%) to obtain the corresponding threshold (f > 14). It's set to be greater than 14 because that constitutes roughly half of our test set, which in turn maps back to the 50% accuracy.
The "magic" value didn't have to be greater than 14. It could have been equal to 14. You could have adjusted this value after some leader board probing (as long as you're capturing half of the test set).
It was observed that the test data was not sampled properly; same-class pairs were oversampled. Thus there is a much higher probability of each pair in the training set to have target=1 than any random pair. This led to the belief that one could construct a similarity measure based only on the pairs that are present in the test, i.e., whether a pair made it to the test is itself a strong indicator of similarity.
Using this insight one can calculate an incidence matrix and represent each id j as a binary array (the i-th element representing the presence of i-j pair in test, and thus representing the strong probability of similarity between them). This is a pretty accurate measure, allowing one to find the "similarity" between two rows just by taking their dot product.
The cutoff arrived at is purely by the knowledge of target-distribution found by leaderboard probing.
In WinBUGS, I am specifying a model with a multinomial likelihood function, and I need to make sure that the multinomial probabilities are all between 0 and 1 and sum to 1.
Here is the part of the code specifying the likelihood:
e[k,i,1:9] ~ dmulti(P[k,i,1:9],n[i,k])
Here, the array P[] specifies the probabilities for the multinomial distribution.
These probabilities are to be estimated from my data (the matrix e[]) using multiple linear regressions on a series of fixed and random effects. For instance, here is the multiple linear regression used to predict one of the elements of P[]:
P[k,1,2] <- intercept[1,2] + Slope1[1,2]*Covariate1[k] +
Slope2[1,2]*Covariate2[k] + Slope3[1,2]*Covariate3[k]
+ Slope4[1,2]*Covariate4[k] + RandomEffect1[group[k]] +
RandomEffect2[k]
At compiling, the model produces an error:
elements of proportion vector of multinomial e[1,1,1] must be between zero and one
If I understand this correctly, this means that the elements of the vector P[k,i,1:9] (the probability vector in the multinomial likelihood function above) may be very large (or small) numbers. In reality, they all need to be between 0 and 1, and sum to 1.
I am new to WinBUGS, but from reading around it seems that somehow using a beta regression rather than multiple linear regressions might be the way forward. However, although this would allow each element to be between 0 and 1, it doesn't seem to get to the heart of the problem, which is that all the elements of P[k,i,1:9] must be positive and sum to 1.
It may be that the response variable can very simply be transformed to be a proportion. I have tried this by trying to divide each element by the sum of P[k,i,1:9], but so far no success.
Any tips would be very gratefully appreciated!
(I have supplied the problematic sections of the model; the whole thing is fairly long.)
The usual way to do this would be to use the multinomial equivalent of a logit link to constrain the transformed probabilities to the interval (0,1). For example (for a single predictor but it is the same principle for as many predictors as you need):
Response[i, 1:Categories] ~ dmulti(prob[i, 1:Categories], Trials[i])
phi[i,1] <- 1
prob[i,1] <- 1 / sum(phi[i, 1:Categories])
for(c in 2:Categories){
log(phi[i,c]) <- intercept[c] + slope1[c] * Covariate1[i]
prob[i,c] <- phi[i,c] / sum(phi[i, 1:Categories])
}
For identifibility the value of phi[1] is set to 1, but the other values of intercept and slope1 are estimated independently. When the number of Categories is equal to 2, this collapses to the usual logistic regression but coded for a multinomial response:
log(phi[i,2]) <- intercept[2] + slope1[2] * Covariate1[i]
prob[i,2] <- phi[i, 2] / (1 + phi[i, 2])
prob[i,1] <- 1 / (1 + phi[i, 2])
ie:
logit(prob[i,2]) <- intercept[2] + slope1[2] * Covariate1[i]
prob[i,1] <- 1 - prob[i,2]
In this model I have indexed slope1 by the category, meaning that each level of the outcome has an independent relationship with the predictor. If you have an ordinal response and want to assume that the odds ratio associated with the covariate is consistent between successive levels of the response, then you can drop the index on slope1 (and reformulate the code slightly so that phi is cumulative) to get a proportional odds logistic regression (POLR).
Edit
Here is a link to some example code covering logistic regression, multinomial regression and POLR from a course I teach:
http://runjags.sourceforge.net/examples/squirrels.R
Note that it uses JAGS (rather than WinBUGS) but as far as I know there are no differences in model syntax for these types of models. If you want to quickly get started with runjags & JAGS from a WinBUGS background then you could follow this vignette:
http://runjags.sourceforge.net/quickjags.html
I am trying to use the minimize function from the scipy module. The full code is too lengthy to post, but the main idea is that there are multiple defined distributions that should be fittable against datasets. The observations per bin are easily calculated from the datasets, whereas the expectations per bin are calculated by a function that uses one argument to specify which distribution should be integrated over bin bounds (where the bin bounds are identical to the histogram bins). There are three functions chisqI where I = 1,2,3 (one for each distribution), each of which inputs specified observations per bin and expectations per bin to output the chi square. Then there are three functions, each of which inputs a chisqI and args to output the minimized function result and optimized parameters. Here, the args are parameters mu and sigma that will be optimized to produce the smallest chi-square. I was able to pass arguments through a chain of functions for one distribution, and am wondering if I need to pass through another arg that specifies which distribution is being dealt with from one function down the chain.
There are different methods that the minimize function can use, like Nelder-Mead or CG. I've been trying to compare results from the different methods to find the one that provides the best fit (where the best fit is defined as the fit that both produces the smallest chi-square or largest p-value when compared to an actual dataset). Interestingly enough, the Nelder-Mead and Powell methods produce the lowest chi square relative to the other methods, but the plotted fit against the histogram of the actual data looks better with other methods. For the code outputs below, the function value is the negative of the p-value that is associated with a chi-square value; this is the minimized result. CHISQ_RED is the reduced chi square value by using the CHISQ_TOT and the degrees of freedom, whereas the first and second elements in the x: array are the optimized parameters mu and sigma for a distribution, respectively.
Running the Nelder-Mead minimization method produces the output below.
final_simplex: (array([[ 6.00002802, 0.60020636],
[ 5.99995429, 0.60018798],
[ 6.0000716 , 0.60011127]]), array([ -5.16845821e-21, -5.16838926e-21, -5.16815050e-21]))
fun: -5.1684582072826815e-21
message: 'Optimization terminated successfully.'
nfev: 47
nit: 24
status: 0
success: True
x: array([ 6.00002802, 0.60020636])
CHISQ_TOT = 259.042420419 CHISQ_RED = 3.36418727816
Running the CG minimization method produces the output below.
fun: -4.0964504680695594e-97
jac: array([ 8.72867710e-94, -3.96555507e-93])
message: 'Optimization terminated successfully.'
nfev: 4
nit: 0
njev: 1
status: 0
success: True
x: array([ 6.01921293, 0.54436257])
CHISQ_TOT = 683.781671477 CHISQ_RED = 8.88028144776
Yet, the fit with a higher chi square value looks like a better fit (same dataset in the histogram).
The problem is that every method of minimization outputs my guess parameters (mu and sigma) as the optimized parameters. The Nelder-Mead method (smaller chi-square, worse-looking fit) has 47 function evaluations and 24 iterations, whereas the CG method (larger chi-square, better-looking fit) has 4 function evaluations and 0 iterations. I tried to change this by adding extra args in the minimization function (where chisq3 is the pre-defined function of mu and sigma being minimized, and parameterguess is [mu_guess, sigma_guess].
minimize( chisq3 , parameterguess , method = 'CG', options={'gtol':1e-50, 'maxiter': 100})
If I change my guess value of mu and sigma by adding 2 to each, then the fits become drastically worse (as the guess value for the optimized parameters is rather decent). I'm not sure if it's relevant, but the data shown in the plots are adapted from a lognormal distribution by taking the logarithm of each value in my dataset to create a "pseudo-" Gaussian shape/distribution (over logarithmic x axes).
I am guessing that the minimize function via scipy is supposed to do many iterations to be truly successful. So I think adding more iterations should decrease the sensitivity of the minimize function to my initial guess of parameters.
Most importantly, is this a common error using the minimize function via scipy? If so, what are some common fixes for this? Also, why would the minimize function do many iterations and function evaluations only to produce the same result as the input?
The problem was that chi square is the calculation equalto the sum of the square of the per-bin difference of expectation values and observed values, all divided by the expectation value. The result was a small number divided by a large number, squared, then continuously summed thousands of times, contributing to zero division problems and round off errors. By minimizing a simpler function, such as chi square without the denominator term, the source of the bug is gone and one can calculate a chi square from the obtained parameter fit.