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
Both papers proposed GALA methods, but their experimental results on DrugOOD datasets are inconsistent. I am wondering the reason of the difference, and which version is the benchmark for comparison?
Thanks for taking the time to read this!
Your attention means a lot to me.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi @qkrdmsghk , thanks for noting the differences in the results. In the updated results published at NeurIPS, we adopted a better backbone for the subgraph extraction module, where we incorporated InstanceNorm into the edge attention module inspired by the GSAT architecture. For further comparison of GALA, please use the updated results.
For DrugOOD datasets, we use the latest official release based on ChEMBL30 from https://drugood.github.io/ . For your information, in our previous work CIGA, we curated the datasets the ChEMBL29 following the DrugOOD repository.
Please feel free to let us know if you have any further questions!
Hi LFhase, thank you for your contributions to the GALA method.
I recently found two versions of the GALA publications.
One is https://openreview.net/forum?id=bjw5jqGtDy which was published at ICLR 2023 Workshop on Domain Generalization.
The other is https://openreview.net/forum?id=EqpR9Vtt13 which was published at NeurIPS 2023.
Both papers proposed GALA methods, but their experimental results on DrugOOD datasets are inconsistent. I am wondering the reason of the difference, and which version is the benchmark for comparison?
Thanks for taking the time to read this!
Your attention means a lot to me.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: