I've been interested in Graph Neural Networks but haven't found many good resources to help me learn and implement them. Anyone got some pointers?
this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Machine Learning
1 readers
1 users here now
Community Rules:
- Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
- Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
- Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
- Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
Practical intro: https://huggingface.co/blog/intro-graphml
Academic overview: https://towardsdatascience.com/graph-ml-in-2023-the-state-of-affairs-1ba920cb9232
I am currently doing my PhD in physics using Graph Neural Networks to reconstruct top quark like particles. I wrote a whole framework with custom cuda kernels dedicated for GNNs :)
As long as they name the Linux package something else I'm happy. Gnome is taken lol
Is there a materials scientist who can explain the significance of this to a reformed computational chemist?
What does it actually mean when they say they have "found" 2.2 million new stable materials and they think 380,000 are candidates for validation? They say 736 were experimentally validated, but from looking at the paper those 736 were found independently during the time they were developing GNoME, not picked by them as an actual test of their abilities.
How many of the 380,000 candidates have been experimentally validated by the authors of the paper?
To put it in small molecule drug discovery terms, if I said I had created 2.2 million new drugs in silico, and suggested 380,000 for validation I don't think anyone would be very impressed -- pretty much any virtual screening tool can do that and has done for decades without the need for deep learning. If 736 molecules turned up in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry as having been synthesized and found to really be biologically active or whatever during my research that's cool, but also that still leaves 379,264 to go before we know my hit rate.
I assume what they have done is actually more impressive than the analogy I have made above...
I don't think it's more impressive than that - it's simply very very hard to this kind of discovery for natural sciences without a wet lab to verify results and streamline the process. This is gaining traction in medicine now (at least in some industry labs/startups), so this could be the start of more collaboration for material sciences. Definitely a "first step" kind of result, though, that won't have much real-world impact on its own without such collaboration...
They are all known to be stable, because they have a ground-truth simulator to test with. Stable doesn't necessarily mean useful, but that wasn't the point.
The benefit here is that training a neural network on simulator data allows you to generate instead of search. The simulator is very computationally expensive (even compared to a deep neural network) and the search space is large and high-dimensional.
Meanwhile people discuss how Google wasn't capable of striking back at OpenAI with a good conversational agent, "thus loosing its status as ML behemoth". It's interesting how LLMs bring out accelerationist and xrisk debates of science fiction/fabrication, and at best debates on economy, while research on materials and climate science warms few minds and arts (at least looks so on X/Mastodon/Reddit)
I think a lot of people (myself included) don't really think Google fell behind in the ml space but rather didn't manage to capitalize on their own invention.
It's more a business side issue rather than a R&D one.
Also deep mind, although owned by Google is a separate entity.
My guess is that people tend to anthropomorphise many things, especially those they don’t really understand. A language model comes across as “smart” because we can converse with it in human ways. Thinking about material discovery is so distant for most that they don’t really grasp impressive and impactful this work can be.
Now, to me what’s happening here is extremely impressive and I’ve been a fan of deepmind their stem related work for a while. Seems like we could see some big acceleration in stem fields over next years, which will arguably have a bigger impact on people their lives than the things LLMs are used for right now.
Engineers comprise 0.06% of US population for example. Managers around 20%. Also, narrow AI systems aren't so fascinating.
I agree. I honestly don't see the advantage of LLMs beyond a better Google search response. It needs to be said that ai is so much more than a chat bot.
Google has made significant strides in many meaningful ways that shouldn't be understated.
Alpha* ( or maybe MCTX ) is in my mind one of those advances that is truly bringing us closer to real world improvements. I shouldn't discount GNNs like used here too but I don't think this is their big win like MCTX is yet.
Overall maybe a lot less hype and a lot more real world application is what ai and ml need now.