-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Not use public split on citation networks #1
Comments
Hi, thank you for your interest. In line 28 of data.py you can see that we invoke |
Thanks for your response. According to my knowledge, in self-supervised setting (use 'cora' dataset as an example), in |
Oh! I miss understood you question. In that case you're right. We use a random (60/40) split of the test set for the LogisticRegression classifier. |
Yes. So I guess you have to update your codes and manuscripts, to compare fairly with other models. |
BTW, a study discusses how using different splits will result in significantly different outcomes. Thus, we mention the split to indicate which particular splits of the publicly available ones we used for the three citation datasets. However, I agree that we need to state this clearly in the manuscript and I'll update it! Thank you for bringing this into light. |
Hi, thanks for your nice work. I find that in the original paper you state that you use the public split on the citation networks. However, in this repo it seems that you use random split. Can you explain it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: