-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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
New Basis function interface #284
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we need to discuss the backwards-compatibility of the new config.
# print(basis.dtype) | ||
# quit() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
remove
apax/model/builder.py
Outdated
dtype=self.config["descriptor_dtype"], | ||
) | ||
else: | ||
raise NotImplementedError("unknown basis requested") |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should be ValueError
pre-commit.ci autofix |
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I haven't looked into the paper to check if __call__
is implemented correctly. Ideally this would be unit-tested.
I'm looking forward to try this out 👍
Reworked choosing the basis function and added the non-orthogonalized bessel basis of Kocer https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.02384
I've found it to yield lower validation losses at no extra cost.