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
Hi,
These days I have been using the out-of-box TransE algorithm come with DGL-KE , thanks for your excellent and kind work !
However, I also encountered a quesion about the loss funciton while I am tracing down to the source code about it in the: dklke/models/general_models.py in method forward, lines between 370 and 399 as figures listed below:
It seems that it's NOT consistent with the loss function described in the paper on dgl-ke's official github homepage, as the figure showed below:
In this paper, the loss you author declared to be usued has just these 2 forms as below:
but is not the same with the implemented as I mentioned above in dgk-ke's source code,
so I'm wondering that why the source code of general_models.py has changed the loss form?
Dose it make any improvement compared with the oringinal two kind of loss function in your paper?
Looking forward your reply
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
These days I have been using the out-of-box TransE algorithm come with DGL-KE , thanks for your excellent and kind work !
However, I also encountered a quesion about the loss funciton while I am tracing down to the source code about it in the:
dklke/models/general_models.py in method forward, lines between 370 and 399 as figures listed below:
It seems that it's NOT consistent with the loss function described in the paper on dgl-ke's official github homepage, as the figure showed below:
In this paper, the loss you author declared to be usued has just these 2 forms as below:
but is not the same with the implemented as I mentioned above in dgk-ke's source code,
so I'm wondering that why the source code of general_models.py has changed the loss form?
Dose it make any improvement compared with the oringinal two kind of loss function in your paper?
Looking forward your reply
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: