Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

A spelling mistake in ampligraph/latent_features/models/EmbeddingModel.py or documentation causes the training model different the documentation's #258

Open
Faker-lz opened this issue Oct 28, 2021 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
quality & documentation Coding conventions compliance, unit tests, documentation

Comments

@Faker-lz
Copy link

Description

The spelling mistake in ampligraph/latent_features/models/EmbeddingModel.py or documentation causes the the strategy of generating corruptions is allways default('s,o').

Actual Behavior

I want to build a TransE model, when generates corruptions only changing tail entity.
After read the documentation, I passed the parameter embedding_model_params={'corrupt_sides': 'o'} to the TransE function to build the model.
When I single step debugging, I find that the strategy of generating corruptions is allways default('s,o').
The bug is caused by EmbeddingModel.py 667 line code corruption_sides = self.embedding_model_params.get('corrupt_side', constants.DEFAULT_CORRUPT_SIDE_TRAIN) . In this line, the variable self.embedding_model_params tries to get the value of key corrupt_side, but the documentation's key is corrupt_sides.

Solution

To solve the bug, we could pass the the parameter embedding_model_params={'corrupt_side': 'o'} to the TransE function instead of the documentation's parameter.
This is a serious mistake, fortunately,it is easy to solve, so I hope you could correct it quickly.

Thank you!

@sumitpai sumitpai added the quality & documentation Coding conventions compliance, unit tests, documentation label Jun 24, 2022
@sumitpai sumitpai self-assigned this Jun 24, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
quality & documentation Coding conventions compliance, unit tests, documentation
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants