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

DIANN 1.9.2 - Single pass and double pass NN give exact same results #1250

Open
rodvrees opened this issue Nov 7, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Comments

@rodvrees
Copy link

rodvrees commented Nov 7, 2024

Hi Vadim and team,

I was doing some benchmarking runs with DIA-NN 1.9.2, using different settings on the same data.
When I ran both the single pass NN and double pass NN machine learning modes (with all other settings kept identical), I noticed that all the results look identical.
Here's the logs and reports pdf for both runs:
report_doublepass.log.txt
report_doublepass.pdf
report.logsinglepass.txt
reportsinglepass.pdf

The docs mention that Double pass NN mode should give better results in most cases at the cost of time, so is it normal/possible that results look identical, or am I doing/understanding something wrong?

Thanks!

@vdemichev
Copy link
Owner

Hi Robbe,

Please see the warnings printed, this is what causes it. However, double pass is normally not recommended. In fact, it will be removed in future versions (may comeback later in a different form, but for now there are zero use cases with a proven benefit from it).

Best,
Vadim

@rodvrees
Copy link
Author

rodvrees commented Nov 9, 2024

Ah whoops, I missed that warning, thanks!

That said if you hover over the Machine learning selection box, it does say the following:
Screenshot 2024-11-09 225055, which may be confusing if it turns out not to be the case.

@vdemichev
Copy link
Owner

Thanks for pointing out :) The docs have been updated since then, but not the popup tip, will fix.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants