We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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
I just follow the readme to perform one experiment on cpu: python train.py --method EDGNN --dname senate-committees-100 --All_num_layers 8 --MLP_num_layers 2 --MLP2_num_layers 2 --MLP3_num_layers 2 --Classifier_num_layers 2 --MLP_hidden 512 --Classifier_hidden 256 --aggregate mean --restart_alpha 0.5 --lr 0.001 --wd 0 --epochs 500 --runs 10 --feature_noise 1.0 --data_dir <data_path> --raw_data_dir <raw_data_path>
It returns the results: Highest Train: 100.00 ± 0.00 Highest Valid: 77.29 ± 4.18 Final Train: 97.16 ± 2.36 Final Test: 68.73 ± 3.56
my question is why it is much higher than the value 64.79 ± 5.14 from paper? though I did do it on GPU but it differ a lot, anything I miss?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
No branches or pull requests
I just follow the readme to perform one experiment on cpu:
python train.py --method EDGNN --dname senate-committees-100 --All_num_layers 8 --MLP_num_layers 2 --MLP2_num_layers 2
--MLP3_num_layers 2 --Classifier_num_layers 2 --MLP_hidden 512 --Classifier_hidden 256 --aggregate mean
--restart_alpha 0.5 --lr 0.001 --wd 0 --epochs 500 --runs 10 --feature_noise 1.0
--data_dir <data_path> --raw_data_dir <raw_data_path>
It returns the results:
Highest Train: 100.00 ± 0.00
Highest Valid: 77.29 ± 4.18
Final Train: 97.16 ± 2.36
Final Test: 68.73 ± 3.56
my question is why it is much higher than the value 64.79 ± 5.14 from paper?
though I did do it on GPU but it differ a lot, anything I miss?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: