Skip to content
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

The implemented baseline issues #13

Open
kiarashza opened this issue Dec 16, 2020 · 6 comments
Open

The implemented baseline issues #13

kiarashza opened this issue Dec 16, 2020 · 6 comments

Comments

@kiarashza
Copy link

Many thanks for releasing the code. I have some questions regarding the GraphVAE.

  • It seems that the encoder is not using the graph neural network, the GCN layers are commented at lines 113-118 of baselines/graphvae/model.py. Am I right?

  • The binary assignment matrix has not been used after matching graphs, since self.permute_adj is also commented. if that's the case, the model is a simple Variational Graph Auto-Encoders implemented by kipf.

  • I uncommented these parts and still did not get the reported result in the GrapgRNN paper. I am not sure what could be the problem. I was wondering if this implementation of the GrapgVAE model used in the paper.

Many thanks for your help and answer.

@shayestehfard
Copy link

Hi Kiarash,
@kiarashza ,any updates on this issue? I'm dealing with similar problem!

Many thanks for releasing the code. I have some questions regarding the GraphVAE.

  • It seems that the encoder is not using the graph neural network, the GCN layers are commented at lines 113-118 of baselines/graphvae/model.py. Am I right?
  • The binary assignment matrix has not been used after matching graphs, since self.permute_adj is also commented. if that's the case, the model is a simple Variational Graph Auto-Encoders implemented by kipf.
  • I uncommented these parts and still did not get the reported result in the GrapgRNN paper. I am not sure what could be the problem. I was wondering if this implementation of the GrapgVAE model used in the paper.

Many thanks for your help and answer.

@kiarashza
Copy link
Author

Hi @shayestehfard. No, Nothing.

@rwchakra
Copy link

rwchakra commented Apr 1, 2022

Hi @kiarashza and @shayestehfard ,

I am also trying to run the code on enzymes without any changes, but unfortunately the max pool matching code seems to throw nan values on the first epoch itself. This in turn, as expected, prevents the Hungarian algorithm to work, throwing a ValueError("invalid numeric entries in matrix").

I have tried changing the number of iterations, and the max_num_nodes for the graphs, but the issue persists. Did you face this? Any ideas how to fix? Thanks

@pb0316
Copy link

pb0316 commented Sep 18, 2022

Hi @kiarashza and @shayestehfard ,

I am also trying to run the code on enzymes without any changes, but unfortunately the max pool matching code seems to throw nan values on the first epoch itself. This in turn, as expected, prevents the Hungarian algorithm to work, throwing a ValueError("invalid numeric entries in matrix").

I have tried changing the number of iterations, and the max_num_nodes for the graphs, but the issue persists. Did you face this? Any ideas how to fix? Thanks

Hi @rwchakra ,

I am facing the same issue. Have you fixed it? Do you have any ideas if so? Thank you so much!

@pb0316
Copy link

pb0316 commented Sep 19, 2022

Hi all,
I solved this issue by changing the adj_recon_loss function in graphvae/model.py to:

def adj_recon_loss(self, adj_truth, adj_pred):
        return F.binary_cross_entropy_with_logits(adj_truth, adj_pred)

Thanks.

@cxw-droid
Copy link

It seems the adj_recon_loss() in the code is not correct. The order of the adj_truth and adj_pred should be switched (otherwise pytorch throw errors), and leave F.binary_cross_entropy untouched. After switching the training loss looks normal.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants