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? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # 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: