Author mark.dickinson
Recipients mark.dickinson, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka
Date 2013-02-10.11:17:27
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
Looks good to me.  I can confirm that the new formulas are equivalent to the old, at least for positive kappa.  (They're not the same for negative kappa, but that shouldn't matter in this context.)

Serhiy: do you know how the original formulas arose?  I don't have access to the "circular data" book, or to the original Best & Fisher paper, but that use of b in the original code is just plain peculiar;  I wonder why on earth anyone would want to go about computing  `a / (2 kappa)` that way.

I'd suggest leaving off the `u3 > 0.5` to `u3 >= 0.5` change for this particular issue;  I understand the motivation for the change, but it's unrelated to this issue, and seems like unnecessary code churn to me.

A test would be good!
Date User Action Args
2013-02-10 11:17:27mark.dickinsonsetrecipients: + mark.dickinson, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka
2013-02-10 11:17:27mark.dickinsonsetmessageid: <>
2013-02-10 11:17:27mark.dickinsonlinkissue17141 messages
2013-02-10 11:17:27mark.dickinsoncreate