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've encountered an issue with the Assortativity class in Networkit. When comparing the assortativity coefficient calculated by Networkit and Networkx for the same graph, I noticed a discrepancy in the values.
The assortativity coefficient computed with Networkit returns positive values, while the one computed with Networkx returns negative values. I believe the usage of the Assortativity class is correct, or am I wrong?
Could you please look into this issue? Any guidance or clarification would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you, Fabio
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
thanks for bringing this up. Your code does correctly use Assortativity from NetworKit and NetworkX. Our documentation is a bit imprecise, since it computes something related to what NetworkX is doing - but not the same thing.
While both numbers are between -1 and 1, the difference is, that the sample approach considers (only) the correlation between numbers. If we relate this to degrees, a node with a higher degree should therefore connect to another node with a higher degree. The standard pearson correlation coefficient considers the mixing of the degree of both endpoints. That means, that the difference between degrees should also be minimized.
Hello,
I've encountered an issue with the
Assortativity
class in Networkit. When comparing the assortativity coefficient calculated by Networkit and Networkx for the same graph, I noticed a discrepancy in the values.Here's the code snippet I used for testing:
The assortativity coefficient computed with Networkit returns positive values, while the one computed with Networkx returns negative values. I believe the usage of the Assortativity class is correct, or am I wrong?
Could you please look into this issue? Any guidance or clarification would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you, Fabio
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: