Skip to content

Conversation

@L-Howell
Copy link

decisionList$test.sm_tmax_IntensityRatio <- decisionList$sm_tmax_IntensityRatio > threshold_sm_tmax_IntensityRatio Incorrectly compares decisionList$sm_tmax_IntensityRatio to threshold_dsm_tmax_IntensityRatio Amended to decisionList$test.sm_tmax_IntensityRatio <- decisionList$sm_tmax_IntensityRatio > threshold_sm_tmax_IntensityRatio

Default value for threshold_sm_tmax_IntensityRatio changed to 0.75 to avoid any change to the behaviour of the package

decisionList$test.sm_tmax_IntensityRatio <- decisionList$sm_tmax_IntensityRatio > threshold_sm_tmax_IntensityRatio
Incorrectly compares decisionList$sm_tmax_IntensityRatio to threshold_dsm_tmax_IntensityRatio
Amended to decisionList$test.sm_tmax_IntensityRatio <- decisionList$sm_tmax_IntensityRatio > threshold_sm_tmax_IntensityRatio

Default value for threshold_sm_tmax_IntensityRatio changed to 0.75 to avoid any change to the behaviour of the package
@hardin47
Copy link

hardin47 commented Jul 29, 2025

We have moved sicegar to https://github.com/hardin47/sicegar and will update to CRAN soon. We have edited your first suggestion, and it will soon be available in the newest version of sicegar, 0.3.0.

We are not sure about the intent of the second suggestion as the parameter estimation for double sigmoidal fit requires estimating many more parameters. We have not seen simulations or evidence that 0.75 is necessarily better than 0.85, so we have left the default values as is.

hardin47 referenced this pull request in hardin47/sicegar Sep 12, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants