sktsherlock / tag-benchmark Goto Github PK
View Code? Open in Web Editor NEWBenchmark
Benchmark
I am trying to load your Children dataset, and I am not entirely sure what the npy file(Children_roberta_base_512)'s use is. It is not described in the readMe. If you could clarify and give an example, that would be very helpful. Thank you
I'm currently trying to reproduce the experimental results from your paper using the train_command file. However, it seems the provided commands are incomplete, making it difficult to run the experiments successfully. Could you please update the train_command file with all necessary parameters and settings for a comprehensive reproduction of the results? Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Hello,
I've noticed that for most datasets, there are both CSV and PT files available. However, for the Arxiv dataset, it seems only the CSV file is provided. Could you please guide me on where to find the PT file for the Arxiv dataset? I've looked through the repository but haven't had any luck.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Syzseisus
Hi, thanks for you repo. I meet a problem when run the train_CLM.py, the error information is that "ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'datasets'". In the "LMs" package, I don't find the 'datasets' package as well as the "load_dataset" function.
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/pycharm_project/TAG-Benchmark/LMs/train_CLM.py", line 32, in
import datasets
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'datasets'
I am currently in the process of replicating the experiments from your paper, specifically focusing on Table 3. However, I have encountered an unexpected phenomenon, particularly with the Photo_RW dataset.
When using the default split method (split=time), the observed accuracies are as follows:
PLM-Based (tiny): ≈66%
GNN-based (T-SAGE): ≈83%
Co-Training Based (SAGE(T)): ≈82%
However, when employing the random split method (split=random), the accuracies change to:
PLM-Based (tiny): ≈73%
GNN-based (T-SAGE): ≈88%
Co-Training Based (SAGE(T)): ≈87%
In both split methods, it seems that GNN-based accuracy is consistently higher than Co-Training Based accuracy. This contrasts with the values reported in Table 3 of your paper, where PLM-Based (tiny) ≈73%, GNN-based (T-SAGE) ≈83%, and Co-Training Based (SAGE(T)) ≈86%. According to the paper, Co-Training Based should outperform GNN-based.
I have provided my parameter configurations for your reference. Do you have any suggestions or insights into this inconsistency? Alternatively, could you please share specific running commands or the wandb experiment records for further clarification?
Hi! After downloading the dataset from the google drive link, I can't open the .pt files using torch.load. An error occurs:
_pickle.UnpicklingError: invalid load key, '?'.
I wonder if this is related to torch version. Thanks!
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
A PHP framework for web artisans
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
Data-Driven Documents codes.
China tencent open source team.