请教

[lin-uice]

您好，您的benchmark和pipeline写的特别好。但是在当我重新运行您的代码的过程中(bash scripts/runfb.sh)。并且调试您的代码（在尝试找原因）的过程中，发现了您runfb.sh中，Linear的部分，model是没有定义的（该bug未解决。如果自己修改，可能和您本身的意思不同）

尝试修改了，仍然在报错（已把其注释掉，在跑AdjConv的内容，MLP的内容我跑的部分实验数据结果有误，正在检查中）。（仍然在调试中）
非常抱歉因为这些bug打扰到您，如果可以答疑解惑，不胜感激！

[lin-uice]

额外bug： (r_train, r_val) = map(int, self.data_split.split('/')[:2])
ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: 'Random 60'。
查阅代码，注释掉# self.data_split = f"Random {self.data_split}"就没问题了

[nyLiao]

Hi, thanks for reporting the issue!

model arg for linear models can be DecoupledFixed for decoupled arch or Iterative for iterative ones.

For data split, we are refactoring the data loading pipeline. So this should be solved soon.

[lin-uice]

Thank you for your reply! I have rerun your code and get some interesting findings. (But got some bad records). The exps are still running. Hoping consult with you after running code.

[lin-uice]

The dataset split might be your code may mistake:self.data_split = f"Random {self.data_split}"(the word "Random" might lead to the wrong)

I comment out the line self.data_split = f"Random {self.data_split}", then it runs normally

[lin-uice]

The results of your experiment differ significantly from the results in the paper. I will try running it again after you reconstruct the pipline.

[nyLiao]

Hi, we would like to follow up to see if you are still experiencing the reproducibility issues with the latest version. Kindly note that since we changed the data pipeline, the results may differ (usually they are more stable) from those in the arXiv version of the paper.

[lin-uice]

Thank you for your reply!
I am currently busy with the experiments for The conference in January next year, so I won't be able to provide you with results in a timely manner!. I will reproduce your experiments before next weekend (If I not counter bugs)(I will try to do it this week), your work is very meaningful.

[lin-uice]

Hi, we would like to follow up to see if you are still experiencing the reproducibility issues with the latest version. Kindly note that since we changed the data pipeline, the results may differ (usually they are more stable) from those in the arXiv version of the paper.

Hello!
I've reproduced the results from your paper, but I've noticed some discrepancies. I'm using a V100 GPU with 16GB of memory. My pytorch and pyg all suit 11.8. I'm not sure why there's a difference in the results when running Optuna.

Seeds Used: 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Model	Convolution Type	Chameleon Filtered	Citeseer	Cora	Squirrel Filtered
DecoupledFixed	AdjConv-appr	38.0234	72.5824	82.2378	23.2988
DecoupledFixed	AdjConv-impulse	37.6762	70.3392	84.0502	26.0318
DecoupledFixed	AdjConv-mono	35.3095	71.6144	77.8806	26.4272
DecoupledFixed	AdjiConv-ones	34.7247	71.6074	84.8014	30.0336
DecoupledVar	AdjiConv	39.752	67.507	84.8916	28.4191
DecoupledVar	ChebConv	30.595625	68.1796	64.4058	23.853
DecoupledVar	ChebIIConv	25.431	57.3408	82.632	25.8602
DecoupledVar	ClenshawConv	27.0886	68.4384	75.2602	20.4962
DecoupledVar	HornerConv	35.4326	73.12	84.1222	23.0216
MLP	MLP	29.6674	66.6186	69.33557143	19.2316

My experimental backbone is ChebNetII, and my research focuses on contrastive learning. The results I obtained are state-of-the-art, even surpassing the supervised GNNs in your table. I'm puzzled as to why this is the case.

Regarding Other GNNs

I'm also interested in experimenting with seeds like BernNet, but my GPU is currently occupied with my current experiments. I expect to run these experiments once my current work is completed.