Open midnight2104 opened 5 years ago
i run this code and the F1 result is only 68%?... i had not change any parameters
F1 result is only 68%,but the paper of f1 is 84 , how about your socre finally?
hi , SeoSangwoo, thank you very much for sharing the code firstly , and when i run the code ,i also encountered the problems mentioned above ,the result of f1 is not same as that in paper , i found that PI was not considered in the code,isn't it?
Does anyone get the best F1? Is it convenient to reveal the design of super parameters?
Hello,I am sorry to just find this email and can't reply to you timely. I did not reproduce the code of the article either. I would like to ask you a question about the code,
why did use tf.reduce_sum here to reduce dimensions?is it the beat way?I would appreciate it if you could answer my questions.
output = tf.reduce_sum(inputs * tf.expand_dims(alphas, -1), 1)
------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------ 发件人: "Jerry"notifications@github.com; 发送时间: 2019年6月12日(星期三) 下午3:16 收件人: "SeoSangwoo/Attention-Based-BiLSTM-relation-extraction"Attention-Based-BiLSTM-relation-extraction@noreply.github.com; 抄送: "肖燕"592589519@qq.com;"Comment"comment@noreply.github.com; 主题: Re: [SeoSangwoo/Attention-Based-BiLSTM-relation-extraction] can`treach the F1 80.4 (#14)
Does anyone get the best F1? Is it convenient to reveal the design of super parameters?
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
<<< (9+1)-WAY EVALUATION TAKING DIRECTIONALITY INTO ACCOUNT -- OFFICIAL >>>:
Confusion matrix: C-E C-W C-C E-D E-O I-A M-C M-T P-P O <-- classified as +--------------------------------------------------+ -SUM- xDIRx skip ACTUAL C-E | 295 1 0 0 6 1 0 2 2 17 | 324 4 0 328 C-W | 1 245 3 0 0 6 10 5 4 28 | 302 10 0 312 C-C | 0 3 159 8 1 0 2 1 0 17 | 191 1 0 192 E-D | 0 2 5 265 0 0 0 0 0 20 | 292 0 0 292 E-O | 5 2 1 2 225 0 0 1 1 20 | 257 1 0 258 I-A | 3 7 0 2 1 91 0 1 11 39 | 155 1 0 156 M-C | 0 10 1 1 2 0 195 0 2 18 | 229 4 0 233 M-T | 2 5 0 1 1 0 1 217 0 29 | 256 5 0 261 P-P | 4 3 0 0 6 6 1 5 173 31 | 229 2 0 231 O | 22 38 17 31 24 16 33 27 28 218 | 454 0 0 454 +--------------------------------------------------+ -SUM- 332 316 186 310 266 120 242 259 221 437 2689 28 0 2717
Coverage = 2717/2717 = 100.00% Accuracy (calculated for the above confusion matrix) = 2083/2717 = 76.67% Accuracy (considering all skipped examples as Wrong) = 2083/2717 = 76.67% Accuracy (considering all skipped examples as Other) = 2083/2717 = 76.67%
Results for the individual relations: Cause-Effect : P = 295/( 332 + 4) = 87.80% R = 295/ 328 = 89.94% F1 = 88.86% Component-Whole : P = 245/( 316 + 10) = 75.15% R = 245/ 312 = 78.53% F1 = 76.80% Content-Container : P = 159/( 186 + 1) = 85.03% R = 159/ 192 = 82.81% F1 = 83.91% Entity-Destination : P = 265/( 310 + 0) = 85.48% R = 265/ 292 = 90.75% F1 = 88.04% Entity-Origin : P = 225/( 266 + 1) = 84.27% R = 225/ 258 = 87.21% F1 = 85.71% Instrument-Agency : P = 91/( 120 + 1) = 75.21% R = 91/ 156 = 58.33% F1 = 65.70% Member-Collection : P = 195/( 242 + 4) = 79.27% R = 195/ 233 = 83.69% F1 = 81.42% Message-Topic : P = 217/( 259 + 5) = 82.20% R = 217/ 261 = 83.14% F1 = 82.67% Product-Producer : P = 173/( 221 + 2) = 77.58% R = 173/ 231 = 74.89% F1 = 76.21% _Other : P = 218/( 437 + 0) = 49.89% R = 218/ 454 = 48.02% F1 = 48.93%
Micro-averaged result (excluding Other): P = 1865/2280 = 81.80% R = 1865/2263 = 82.41% F1 = 82.10%
MACRO-averaged result (excluding Other): P = 81.33% R = 81.03% F1 = 81.04%
<<< The official score is (9+1)-way evaluation with directionality taken into account: macro-averaged F1 = 81.04% >>> using the default hyper-parameters and small batch size=10, Glove 6d.100.txt
By using BiLSTM+attention+pytorch ,I got the best marco-F1(exclude relation 'other') 79.2% . I guess that some tricks may lead to a worse result compare to the F1 reported from the paper.
hao notifications@github.com 於 2019年8月27日週二 下午4:28寫道:
I also cannot reach 80%, my best result using Pytorch is only 71.3% (BiLSTM + ATTN), 69.9% (BiLSTM), is the result reported in the paper correct?
— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SeoSangwoo/Attention-Based-BiLSTM-relation-extraction/issues/14?email_source=notifications&email_token=AFKQGUIKHYL47EVZLAEXWKLQGTQS5A5CNFSM4GKSMIL2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5G6FAY#issuecomment-525197955, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFKQGULNFNRQZIV5VZZKTS3QGTQS5ANCNFSM4GKSMILQ .
For everyone's inference,
I ran the code on Sept 9, 2019, did not change anything, and obtained macro-averaged F1 = 81.37%.
<<< The official score is (9+1)-way evaluation with directionality taken into account: macro-averaged F1 = 81.37% >>>
My environment is
通过使用BiLSTM + attention + pytorch,我获得了79.2%的最佳marco-F1(排除“其他”关系)。我猜想,与本文报道的F1相比,一些技巧可能会导致更糟糕的结果。hao notifications@github.com于2019年8月27日周二下午4:28时间: … 我也无法达到80%,使用Pytorch的最佳结果仅为71.3%(BiLSTM + ATTN),69.9%(BiLSTM),论文中报告的结果正确吗?—您收到此评论是因为您发表了评论。回复此电子邮件直接,查看它在GitHub < #14?email_source =通知&email_token = AFKQGUIKHYL47EVZLAEXWKLQGTQS5A5CNFSM4GKSMIL2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5G6FAY#issuecomment-525197955>,或静音螺纹< https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFKQGULNFNRQZIV5VZZKTS3QGTQS5ANCNFSM4GKSMILQ >。
hello,i never used the tensorflow ,can you share your code with me.Rencently,i copy one code from other,which's p can only 62% , i can't find some questions ,so i want study your code by pytorch
hi , SeoSangwoo, when i run your code , the result of f1 is 81.56, but the paper of f1 is 84 , how about your socre finally?