Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Conformation Generation using Transformer Flows

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ConfFlow shows that molecular conformations can be sampled directly in coordinate space with a transformer-based continuous normalizing flow, cutting error by up to 40% on large molecules versus learned baselines.

desk verdict ConfFlow is a promising new architecture with strong empirical results, but the central SOTA claim is not established until missing contemporaneous baselines and the undefined translation-invariance layer are addressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10817 v2 pith:US7DLQZN submitted 2024-11-16 cs.LG q-bio.QMstat.ML

Sohil Atul Shah , Vladlen Koltun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGq-bio.QMstat.ML
keywords molecularconformationgenerationcontinuousnormalizingflowsgraphneuralnetworkspointtransformer3DcoordinatesGEOM-Drugsbenchmarkdrug-likemoleculestranslationinvariance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that molecular conformation generation does not need to go through predicted distances or explicit physical constraints: a continuous normalizing flow can evolve atomic coordinates directly from a simple prior into accurate 3D structures. Building on transformer-style message passing over the molecular graph, the proposed model ConfFlow treats each refinement step like a force-field update in molecular dynamics, which the authors argue makes the generative process interpretable. On the large-molecule GEOM-Drugs benchmark, the authors report accuracy improvements of up to 40% relative to leading learned methods, with ConfFlow the only learned model to consistently beat the rule-based RDKit on coverage and matching scores. This matters for drug discovery and molecular modeling, where fast, accurate conformer ensembles are needed for property prediction, docking, and screening.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a graph continuous flow (GCF), a continuous normalizing flow in which each block's time derivative is defined by a graph-conditional point transformer (GCPT). GCPT computes attention-weighted messages from neighboring atom and edge embeddings using coordinate differences, updates the embeddings, and then applies a per-atom multilayer perceptron to produce coordinate updates; integrating those updates defines the flow. The flow's invertibility comes from solving the same ODE forward for sampling and backward for likelihood, with the trace of the Jacobian estimated by Hutchinson's estimator. Two regularization integrals, one penalizing the kinetic energy of the flow and one penalizing the Jacobian Frobenius norm, stabilize training on large molecules. Translation invariance is handled by a reversible batch-normalization layer appended to each CNF block, which is the paper's mechanism for respecting physical symmetries without imposing explicit constraints.

What would settle it

For a two-atom molecule, inspect the normalization layer in the released code and compute its Jacobian: if the layer subtracts the center of mass, the Jacobian is rank-deficient on $\mathbb{R}^{3M}$, so the change-of-variables log-determinant in Eq. (2) is not exact and the reported likelihood-based training becomes an approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ConfFlow's central claim is that coordinate-space generation with an invertible, graph-conditioned continuous normalizing flow can outperform distance-based learned generators. Instead of predicting interatomic distances or their gradients and converting them to coordinates, ConfFlow samples atom positions from a Gaussian prior and integrates an ODE whose vector field is produced by point-transformer message passing over the molecular graph. The flow supports exact likelihood training because each layer is invertible, and translation invariance is delegated to a normalization layer at the end of each block rather than to equivariant network structure. On GEOM-Drugs the paper reports a mean coverage of 88.3% versus 61.5% for the strongest learning-based baseline ConfGF, a mean matching score of 0.895 Å versus 1.170 Å, and the best average rank across datasets and metrics, with improvements of up to 40%.

Load-bearing premise

The exact-likelihood machinery assumes the normalization layer that makes the model translation-invariant is a genuinely invertible transformation; if it only subtracts the molecule's center of mass, it is not one-to-one on the full coordinate space and the computed likelihoods are not exact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ConfFlow's reported results hold, large-molecule conformation ensembles become much cheaper to produce: sampling is a single forward ODE integration per graph after a one-time training cost.
  • Distance-based pipelines lose accuracy when converting predicted distances into 3D coordinates; ConfFlow's direct coordinate optimization removes that conversion step, so the advantage should grow with molecule size, matching where the paper reports its best margins.
  • Better conformations feed directly into downstream property prediction: on the paper's GEOM-Drugs property task, ConfFlow has the lowest median absolute error among learned methods on four of six ensemble properties.
  • Transformer-based message passing gives the flow a nonlocal receptive field per block, allowing long-range interactions in large molecules to be captured without explicitly adding long-range edges.
  • Because the iterative updates resemble force-field relaxation steps, the intermediate states of the flow can be read as a trajectory of how a conformer refines, not only as a final sample.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not investigated in the paper, the same coordinate-space flow could be applied to protein side-chain or coarse-grained conformation generation, where nonlocal attention over coordinates may capture interactions that local torsion samplers miss.
  • The paper's own distance-distribution results show ConfFlow trails distance-explicit models on MMD, which suggests a testable extension: adding a soft distance-consistency auxiliary loss to the coordinate-space flow might improve distribution fidelity without sacrificing the large-molecule accuracy gains; the paper does not explore this.
  • A direct check of the normalization layer's invertibility, such as computing its Jacobian on a two-atom molecule, would clarify whether the reported exact likelihood is literally exact or an approximation; the paper describes the layer only as a normalization layer and gives no explicit Jacobian formula.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ConfFlow, a continuous normalizing flow for molecular conformation generation. The model is conditioned on a molecular graph and directly samples atomic coordinates, using a point-transformer-based message passing network as the flow dynamics, without enforcing explicit geometric constraints. Training maximizes the exact log-likelihood via the change-of-variables formula, with kinetic and Jacobian regularization. Experiments on GEOM-QM9 and GEOM-Drugs compare ConfFlow against seven learning-based baselines plus RDKit, evaluating coverage, matching, mismatch, and ensemble property prediction. The central claim is that ConfFlow achieves state-of-the-art accuracy, especially on large molecules in GEOM-Drugs, improving by up to 40% over prior learning-based methods.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful empirical contribution: it shows that a non-equivariant transformer-based CNF can outperform dedicated distance- and score-based generative models and the rule-based RDKit on conformation generation for drug-like molecules, and that direct coordinate sampling can scale to molecules with up to 181 atoms. The open-source release of the code is a strength, as are the ablations over architecture size, depth, and regularization. However, the two main concerns identified below (an underspecified normalization layer and an incomplete baseline set) must be resolved before the state-of-the-art claim is credible.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2; Eq. (2); Eq. (14)] The 'normalization layer' used to obtain translation invariance is never defined. The Introduction says 'we deal with translation invariance by adding a normalization layer at the end of each CNF block,' while Section 2.1 mentions 'graph-independent reversible batch normalization layers.' If this layer subtracts the center of mass, it is not a bijection on R^{3M} and the change-of-variables formula in Eq. (2) is invalid; if it is a reversible batch norm, the mechanism by which it enforces translation invariance is not explained. Please define the transformation explicitly, state its Jacobian log-determinant, and describe how the base distribution and the coordinate space are modified so that the exact-likelihood training objective is mathematically correct.
  2. [Table 1; Section 3.2] The comparison omits GeoDiff (Xu et al., ICLR 2022) and Torsional Diffusion (Jing et al., NeurIPS 2022), which are contemporary learning-based conformer-generation methods with reported results on GEOM-Drugs. Without these baselines, the abstract's claim of 'up to 40% relative to state-of-the-art learning-based methods' is not supported, because the comparison is made only against older methods such as ConfGF. Please include these methods in Table 1, either by running their released code or by citing their reported numbers on the same split, or restrict the claim to the methods actually compared.
  3. [Tables 1, 2, and 3] No error bars or statistical significance tests are reported, and several margins are small. For example, on GEOM-QM9 ConfFlow's mean MAT of 0.278 Å is worse than ConfGF's 0.269 Å, while the COV mean differs by only 0.53 percentage points. Please report the variance over multiple training runs or perform a significance test to establish that the observed differences are not due to random seed.
  4. [Section 3.4] The property-prediction evaluation uses only 30 molecular graphs randomly drawn from the GEOM-Drugs test set. With 30 samples, the reported median absolute errors are unlikely to be stable, and the claim that ConfFlow 'is the only learning-based method that achieves lower MedAE than RDKit in four of the six properties' may be sensitive to this small sample. Please provide confidence intervals, use a larger random sample, or report the individual results for all 30 molecules.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'ConfFlow improve accuracy' is a subject-verb agreement error; it should be 'ConfFlow improves accuracy.'
  2. [Eq. (14)] The notation L=1,3,... and L=2,4,... is ambiguous. Please clarify how the discrete reversible batch normalization layers and the continuous GCF blocks are indexed and alternated, and state how the normalization layers' log-determinants are included in the first sum.
  3. [Figure 2] The 'Reversible BN' layer is shown in the architecture diagram but not labeled with its exact operation. A one-sentence definition in the caption or text would remove the ambiguity discussed in the first major comment.
  4. [Section 3.3] The statement that ConfFlow 'outperforms baselines by up to 40%' should specify the metric and the baseline (for example, MAT on GEOM-Drugs vs ConfGF), since the 40% figure is not apparent from Table 1 without this detail.
  5. [References] GeoDiff and Torsional Diffusion are not cited in the reference list. If they are deliberately excluded, please explain why; otherwise, cite them in the appropriate places.
  6. [Eqs. (16)-(18)] The set-builder notation for COV, MAT, and MIS is slightly informal; using an Iverson bracket or explicitly writing 'the number of elements in the set' would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ConfFlow's derivation is a standard normalizing-flow likelihood trained and evaluated on disjoint splits; the empirical claim is not a construction-level equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. ConfFlow is a continuous normalizing flow whose objective (Eq. 14) is assembled from standard change-of-variables log-likelihood terms (Eqs. 2, 3), Hutchinson trace estimation, and Finlay et al. kinetic/Jacobian regularizers. No parameter is fitted to the test conformations or to the reported COV/MAT/MIS scores; the model is trained on the GEOM training split (Section 3.1) and evaluated on a separate 200-molecule test split, with baseline numbers obtained by running public code. The 'up to 40%' claim is an empirical comparison in Table 1, not a quantity that is equal by construction to any training target. The translation-invariance normalization layer is under-specified and may create a validity concern for the exact-likelihood claim, but that is a correctness risk, not circularity. The omission of GeoDiff and Torsional Diffusion from Table 1 could affect the state-of-the-art ranking, but this is a benchmarking/completeness concern and is explicitly outside the circularity standard (hard rule 5). Self-citations (Point Transformer, Zhao et al. 2021) are used for an architectural component and are not load-bearing evidence for the central accuracy claim, so they do not raise the score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

ConfFlow introduces no new physical entities. The main free parameters are the hand-chosen regularization weights and architecture sizes. The key unstated assumption is the validity of the translation-invariance normalization layer within the invertible flow.

free parameters (3)
  • regularization coefficients λK, λJ = 0.2
    Chosen by hand to stabilize training; not derived from data.
  • ODE solver tolerance = 1e-3
    Set for numerical integration of continuous flow; affects accuracy of likelihood and sampling.
  • architecture sizes (S=3, R=2, L=5, embedding e=128) = 3, 2, 5, 128
    Selected by the authors; ablations show modest sensitivity for S but larger effects for L and R.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The GEOM dataset provides correct and complete reference conformations for training and evaluation.
    All claims rest on the fidelity and representativeness of the GEOM benchmark.
  • ad hoc to paper The 'normalization layer' used for translation invariance is an invertible transformation with a tractable Jacobian.
    The paper asserts translation invariance from this layer but never specifies it; if it is a center-of-mass projection, the change-of-variables formula is invalid.
  • standard math The Hutchinson trace estimator gives an unbiased estimate of the Jacobian trace in Eq. (3b).
    Used to compute log-likelihood in continuous flows; standard but approximate.
  • domain assumption The RK4(5) solver with tolerance 1e-3 accurately approximates the continuous flow integral.
    Numerical integration error is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conformation Generation using Transformer Flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/US7DLQZN

@misc{pith2026241110817,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conformation Generation using Transformer Flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/US7DLQZN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10817}
}
abstract

Estimating three-dimensional conformations of a molecular graph allows insight into the molecule's biological and chemical functions. Fast generation of valid conformations is thus central to molecular modeling. Recent advances in graph-based deep networks have accelerated conformation generation from hours to seconds. However, current network architectures do not scale well to large molecules. Here we present ConfFlow, a flow-based model for conformation generation based on transformer networks. In contrast with existing approaches, ConfFlow directly samples in the coordinate space without enforcing any explicit physical constraints. The generative procedure is highly interpretable and is akin to force field updates in molecular dynamics simulation. When applied to the generation of large molecule conformations, ConfFlow improve accuracy by up to $40\%$ relative to state-of-the-art learning-based methods. The source code is made available at https://github.com/IntelLabs/ConfFlow.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10817 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ConfFlow transforms points sampled from a simple prior to a 3D molecular conformation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of ConfFlow with an architectural overview (left), a graph continuous flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of conformations generated by CGCF, ConfGF, and ConfFlow (our ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command n...

  2. [2]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@first@sw \@firstoftwo \@ifundefined NAT@b*@#2 \@firstoftwo @num @NAT@ctr \@secondoft...

  3. [3]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibsetup #1 @NAT@ctr @ @openbib .11em \@plus.33em \@minus.07em 4000 4000 `\.\@m @bibit...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Geom: Energy-annotated molecular conformations for property prediction and molecular generation

    Simon Axelrod and Rafael Gomez-Bombarelli. Geom: Energy-annotated molecular conformations for property prediction and molecular generation. arXiv:2006.05531, 2020

    arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks

    Peter W Battaglia, Jessica B Hamrick, Victor Bapst, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Vinicius Zambaldi, Mateusz Malinowski, Andrea Tacchetti, David Raposo, Adam Santoro, Ryan Faulkner, et al. Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks. arXiv:1806.01261, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Neural ordinary differential equations

    Ricky TQ Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David Duvenaud. Neural ordinary differential equations. In Advances in neural information processing systems, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Structure-based virtual screening for drug discovery: a problem-centric review

    Tiejun Cheng, Qingliang Li, Zhigang Zhou, Yanli Wang, and Stephen H Bryant. Structure-based virtual screening for drug discovery: a problem-centric review. The AAPS journal, 14 0 (1): 0 133--141, 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Density estimation using real nvp

    Laurent Dinh, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, and Samy Bengio. Density estimation using real nvp. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2016. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=HkpbnH9lx

    work page 2016

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    A family of embedded runge-kutta formulae

    John R Dormand and Peter J Prince. A family of embedded runge-kutta formulae. Journal of computational and applied mathematics, 6 0 (1): 0 19--26, 1980

    1980

  2. [10]

    Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning

    Stefan Elfwing, Eiji Uchibe, and Kenji Doya. Sigmoid-weighted linear units for neural network function approximation in reinforcement learning. Neural Networks, 107: 0 3--11, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Automated derivation of the adjoint of high-level transient finite element programs

    Patrick E Farrell, David A Ham, Simon W Funke, and Marie E Rognes. Automated derivation of the adjoint of high-level transient finite element programs. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 35 0 (4): 0 C369--C393, 2013

    2013

  4. [12]

    Molecular docking and structure-based drug design strategies

    Leonardo G Ferreira, Ricardo N Dos Santos, Glaucius Oliva, and Adriano D Andricopulo. Molecular docking and structure-based drug design strategies. Molecules, 20 0 (7): 0 13384--13421, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    How to train your neural ode: the world of jacobian and kinetic regularization

    Chris Finlay, J \"o rn-Henrik Jacobsen, Levon Nurbekyan, and Adam Oberman. How to train your neural ode: the world of jacobian and kinetic regularization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Geomol: Torsional geometric generation of molecular 3d conformer ensembles

    Octavian Ganea, Lagnajit Pattanaik, Connor Coley, Regina Barzilay, Klavs Jensen, William Green, and Tommi Jaakkola. Geomol: Torsional geometric generation of molecular 3d conformer ensembles. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    E(n) equivariant normalizing flows

    Victor Garcia Satorras, Emiel Hoogeboom, Fabian Fuchs, Ingmar Posner, and Max Welling. E(n) equivariant normalizing flows. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Symmetry-adapted generation of 3d point sets for the targeted discovery of molecules

    Niklas Gebauer, Michael Gastegger, and Kristof Sch \"u tt. Symmetry-adapted generation of 3d point sets for the targeted discovery of molecules. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Neural message passing for quantum chemistry

    Justin Gilmer, Samuel S Schoenholz, Patrick F Riley, Oriol Vinyals, and George E Dahl. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Simple gnn regularisation for 3d molecular property prediction & beyond

    Jonathan Godwin, Michael Schaarschmidt, Alexander Gaunt, Alvaro Sanchez-Gonzalez, Yulia Rubanova, Petar Veli c kovi \'c , James Kirkpatrick, and Peter Battaglia. Simple gnn regularisation for 3d molecular property prediction & beyond. In International Conference on Learning Re...

    2022

  11. [19]

    Ffjord: Free-form continuous dynamics for scalable reversible generative models

    Will Grathwohl, Ricky TQ Chen, Jesse Bettencourt, Ilya Sutskever, and David Duvenaud. Ffjord: Free-form continuous dynamics for scalable reversible generative models. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Merck molecular force field

    Thomas A Halgren. Merck molecular force field. i. basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of mmff94. Journal of computational chemistry, 17 0 (5-6): 0 490--519, 1996

    1996

  13. [21]

    Conformation generation: the state of the art

    Paul CD Hawkins. Conformation generation: the state of the art. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 57 0 (8): 0 1747--1756, 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Forcenet: A graph neural network for large-scale quantum calculations

    Weihua Hu, Muhammed Shuaibi, Abhishek Das, Siddharth Goyal, Anuroop Sriram, Jure Leskovec, Devi Parikh, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Forcenet: A graph neural network for large-scale quantum calculations. arXiv:2103.01436, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A stochastic estimator of the trace of the influence matrix for laplacian smoothing splines

    Michael F Hutchinson. A stochastic estimator of the trace of the influence matrix for laplacian smoothing splines. Communications in Statistics-Simulation and Computation, 18 0 (3): 0 1059--1076, 1989

    1989

  16. [24]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold

    John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ronneberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin Z \' dek, Anna Potapenko, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold. Nature, 596 0 (7873): 0 583--589, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Graph normalizing flows

    Jenny Liu, Aviral Kumar, Jimmy Ba, Jamie Kiros, and Kevin Swersky. Graph normalizing flows. In Advances in neural information processing systems, 2019

    2019

  19. [27]

    Predicting molecular conformation via dynamic graph score matching

    Shitong Luo, Chence Shi, Minkai Xu, and Jian Tang. Predicting molecular conformation via dynamic graph score matching. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    Molecular geometry prediction using a deep generative graph neural network

    Elman Mansimov, Omar Mahmood, Seokho Kang, and Kyunghyun Cho. Molecular geometry prediction using a deep generative graph neural network. Scientific reports, 9 0 (1): 0 1--13, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery

    Xuan-Yu Meng, Hong-Xing Zhang, Mihaly Mezei, and Meng Cui. Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. Current computer-aided drug design, 7 0 (2): 0 146--157, 2011

    2011

  22. [30]

    Hydrogens detected by subatomic resolution protein crystallography in a [nife] hydrogenase

    Hideaki Ogata, Koji Nishikawa, and Wolfgang Lubitz. Hydrogens detected by subatomic resolution protein crystallography in a [nife] hydrogenase. Nature, 520 0 (7548): 0 571--574, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Searching for activation functions

    Prajit Ramachandran, Barret Zoph, and Quoc V Le. Searching for activation functions. arXiv:1710.05941, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Quantum chemistry structures and properties of 134 kilo molecules

    Raghunathan Ramakrishnan, Pavlo O Dral, Matthias Rupp, and O Anatole Von Lilienfeld. Quantum chemistry structures and properties of 134 kilo molecules. Scientific data, 1 0 (1): 0 1--7, 2014

    2014

  26. [34]

    Uff, a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations

    Anthony K Rapp \'e , Carla J Casewit, KS Colwell, William A Goddard III, and W Mason Skiff. Uff, a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations. Journal of the American chemical society, 114 0 (25): 0 10024--10035, 1992

    1992

  27. [35]

    Variational inference with normalizing flows

    Danilo Rezende and Shakir Mohamed. Variational inference with normalizing flows. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    Better informed distance geometry: using what we know to improve conformation generation

    Sereina Riniker and Gregory A Landrum. Better informed distance geometry: using what we know to improve conformation generation. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 55 0 (12): 0 2562--2574, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    Learning gradient fields for molecular conformation generation

    Chence Shi, Shitong Luo, Minkai Xu, and Jian Tang. Learning gradient fields for molecular conformation generation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Gregor N. C. Simm and Jos\'e Miguel Hern\'andez-Lobato. A generative model for molecular distance geometry. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2020. URL http://proceedings.mlr.press/v119/simm20a.html

    2020

  31. [39]

    Psi4: an open-source ab initio electronic structure program

    Justin M Turney, Andrew C Simmonett, Robert M Parrish, Edward G Hohenstein, Francesco A Evangelista, Justin T Fermann, Benjamin J Mintz, Lori A Burns, Jeremiah J Wilke, Micah L Abrams, et al. Psi4: an open-source ab initio electronic structure program. Wiley Interdisciplinary ...

    2012

  32. [40]

    Learning neural generative dynamics for molecular conformation generation

    Minkai Xu*, Shitong Luo*, Yoshua Bengio, Jian Peng, and Jian Tang. Learning neural generative dynamics for molecular conformation generation. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=pAbm1qfheGk

    2021

  33. [41]

    An end-to-end framework for molecular conformation generation via bilevel programming

    Minkai Xu, Wujie Wang, Shitong Luo, Chence Shi, Yoshua Bengio, Rafael Gomez-Bombarelli, and Jian Tang. An end-to-end framework for molecular conformation generation via bilevel programming. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Point transformer

    Hengshuang Zhao, Li Jiang, Jiaya Jia, Philip HS Torr, and Vladlen Koltun. Point transformer. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.