You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As of grape 0.1.9, node embedding model names have changed, such that a call to embiggen's AbstractModel.get_task_data(model_name, task_name) with one of the frequently used model names like CBOW or SkipGram throws a ValueError.
I see from grape.get_available_models_for_node_embedding() that these now have more specific names like Node2Vec CBOW.
No problem with being specific, but we'd still like to be able to specify CBOW, SkipGram, or GloVe in config definitions without having to verify the exact model names embiggen is expecting first. Could we use the short names as aliases to a default model, like CBOW will be understood as Node2Vec CBOW, etc?
The name convention also appears to confuse the alternative suggests provided in the ValueError text, so we get suggestions like this:
ValueError: The provided model name `CBOW` is not available. Did you mean BoxE?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The reason we are no longer accepting the generic CBOW name is that we have a plethora of models that use CBOW or others, and it is, therefore, unclear which one to use. For instance, it may be Walklets CBOW, Node2Vec CBOW or Deepwalk CBOW. I am now looking into getting a more helpful suggestion.
As of
grape
0.1.9, node embedding model names have changed, such that a call to embiggen'sAbstractModel.get_task_data(model_name, task_name)
with one of the frequently used model names likeCBOW
orSkipGram
throws aValueError
.I see from
grape.get_available_models_for_node_embedding()
that these now have more specific names likeNode2Vec CBOW
.No problem with being specific, but we'd still like to be able to specify
CBOW
,SkipGram
, orGloVe
in config definitions without having to verify the exact model names embiggen is expecting first. Could we use the short names as aliases to a default model, likeCBOW
will be understood asNode2Vec CBOW
, etc?The name convention also appears to confuse the alternative suggests provided in the
ValueError
text, so we get suggestions like this:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: