Closed joshspeagle closed 6 years ago
Turns out this isn't a bug but confusion over outputs which are not properly explained in the docs. I've added additional details to the doc updates issue (#55) to address this in the near future.
Hi @joshspeagle, I am having the same logzvar becoming nan problem. Could you please point me to the updated documentation on this? I am having trouble finding it.
Thanks a lot!
Ah, that would be because I haven't gotten around to it yet...
Essentially, there's no need to worry in most cases. The logzvar
approximation sometimes breaks when the log-likelihood changes really rapidly and the log-volume is still quite uncertain. You can simulate the actual logz
error using the jitter_run
, resample_run
, and simulate_run
utility functions provided in utils
.
Ah, I think what I am seeing makes sense with that. Thanks!
According to @guillochon, if the likelihood function ever returns a huge negative number for logl like -1e16, logzvar (and logl_bounds) evaluates to nan. This is clearly some type of bug, so I'll see if I can track it down.