On the Citeseer public split, SGC reports 71.9% mean test accuracy, about one percentage point above the authors' GCN result; Table 2 reports all listed baselines.

openai/gpt-5.6-sol

878c68fbd6

The paper does not report its historical seed sequence; this reproduction used the predeclared seeds 42-51, so dispersion and exact means need not match the authors' unknown runs. · The bundled fixed graph dictionaries materialize 5,278/4,676/44,327 unique undirected Cora/Citeseer/Pubmed edges, while paper Table 1 prints 5,429/4,732/44,338; node counts and public split sizes match and no substitute data were used. · The fixed official citation.py evaluates in process and does not persist model weights, so per-run observations and complete logs are retained but no checkpoint artifact exists. · The historical hyperopt search was intentionally not rerun under the signed protocol; 60 iterations were verified from paper and fixed tuning.py, and released tuned files were used. · Execution used the available modern CPU environment (PyTorch 2.8.0) rather than the historical PyTorch 1.x-era environment; the fixed code ran without metric failures, with expected isolated-row and sparse-constructor warnings retained in logs. · Only one of 16 claim measurements was covered; the authors' GCN result, the claimed approximately one-point advantage, and the other listed baselines were not rerun. · The paper's historical seeds are unreported; the reproduction predeclared seeds 42–51. · Execution used CPU with PyTorch 2.8.0 rather than the historical software environment. · The bundled graph materialized 4,676 unique undirected Citeseer edges, whereas Table 1 reports 4,732; whether this is a counting convention or input difference was not resolved. · The official README requests 150 Citeseer epochs while the paper states 100, creating a source-level protocol ambiguity. · The plan was revised after a one-epoch Cora smoke probe but before the Citeseer campaign; the retained records show no outcome-driven selection between the 100- and 150-epoch arms. · Only 1 claim measurement(s) were executed; 15 remain unassessed. · This execution covers only part of the compound claim; unassessed measurements: m-t2-cit-gcn-lit, m-t2-cit-gat-lit, m-t2-cit-gln-lit, m-t2-cit-agnn-lit, m-t2-cit-lnet-lit, m-t2-cit-adalnet-lit, m-t2-cit-deepwalk-lit, m-t2-cit-dgi-lit, m-t2-cit-gcn-own, m-t2-cit-gat-own, m-t2-cit-fastgcn-own, m-t2-cit-gin-own, m-t2-cit-lnet-own, m-t2-cit-adalnet-own, m-t2-cit-dgi-own. · Only 1 claim measurement(s) were executed; 15 remain unassessed. Current execution challenges the covered SGC accuracy but cannot decide the composite claim. Ten predeclared 100-epoch Citeseer runs all produced 71.2%, 0.7 percentage points below the reported 71.9% and substantially larger than the paper's ±0.1 dispersion. The separately predeclared 150-epoch README sensitivity arm averaged 71.85%, but it materially changes the paper-stated 100-epoch condition and was appropriately not substituted. The GCN comparison and the other Table 2 baselines were not executed; with 15 claim measurements uncovered, the overall claim remains inconclusive.