Closed junkangwu closed 1 year ago
Hi @junkangwu,
Please refer to sec. 4.3 summary https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/file/3fe230348e9a12c13120749e3f9fa4cd-Paper.pdf where we determine rules of thumb for aug selections.
@yyou1996 , Thanks a lot for your explanations.
As the setting in Unsupervised_TU, GraphCL adopts the above rules of thumb for aug selections and multiple run with mean & std at 20th epoch are reported. I understand right?
Hi @yyou1996, I reproduce GraphCL on an unsupervised setting on MUTAG where aug adopts random2 ( node dropping and subgraph for biochemical molecules). However, the final results are extremely higher than that on paper. (88.26+-1.76 vs 86.80±1.34). Is it real or does some issue exist?
Hi @junkangwu,
Sry for the delay. I come and check in on a weekly base. For Q1 yes you understand correctly. For Q2, I reply to you in the email and post here for others' interests. I would say it is possible since 88.26 is still within std of 86.80+-1.34; more importantly, MUTAG is nearly the smallest dataset that could suffer from unstable results.
@yyou1996 hi, yuning, May I ask you about details about experiments? In readme, your said
$GPU_ID
is the lanched GPU ID and$AUGMENTATION
could berandom2, random3, random4
that sampling from {NodeDrop, Subgraph}, {NodeDrop, Subgraph, EdgePert} and {NodeDrop, Subgraph, EdgePert, AttrMask}, seperately. So the result in paper leverages random2 to random4 repeatly as multiple run with mean & std reported is performed in your paper?