You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm not sure why it was set up this way to begin with. It's possible to change. However, since the calculations are done by binning, a highly asymmetrical placement could give weird results. I wonder if users can be trusted with this. In any case, perhaps I could add the option for users to input their own bins.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I though it could be easy-is to let users supply their own bins. But then I have to change a lot of the architecture:
Finding in which bin zstar is, and which are the other relevant bins.
Rather than calculating distances using binw, I'd have to use some sort of numbering of histogram bins.
Calculating probability masses is now done using binw as well, and that would need to change.
For now, it seems like the simplest solution for anyone who wants the kink/notch point to be between bins is to approximate this with narrower bins. This might make a noisier histogram, but perhaps that can be fixed by adding replications of the data with small variations (e.g. "jitter").
I'm not sure why it was set up this way to begin with. It's possible to change. However, since the calculations are done by binning, a highly asymmetrical placement could give weird results. I wonder if users can be trusted with this. In any case, perhaps I could add the option for users to input their own bins.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: