Machine learning models from diverse modalities and architectures are being trained to predict molecular, material, and protein behaviors, yet it’s unclear if they develop similar internal representations of matter. Research shows that nearly sixty scientific models, including string-, graph-, 3D atomistic, and protein-based modalities, exhibit highly aligned representations across various chemical systems. Despite different training datasets, models converge in representation space as they improve, suggesting a common underlying representation of physical reality. However, when faced with unfamiliar inputs, models tend to collapse into low-information states, indicating current limitations in training data and inductive biases. This research highlights representational alignment as a benchmark for evaluating the generality of scientific models, with implications for tracking universal representations and improving model transferability across scientific tasks. Understanding the convergence of representations in scientific models is crucial for developing reliable foundation models that generalize beyond their training data.
Machine learning models have made significant strides in predicting the behavior of molecules, materials, and proteins. However, a key question remains: do these models, despite their varied architectures and modalities, learn similar internal representations of matter? This is crucial because understanding the latent structure of these models is essential for developing scientific foundation models that can generalize beyond their specific training domains. While convergence in representations has been observed in fields like language and vision, its exploration in the sciences is still in the early stages. Recent findings indicate that models trained on different data sets exhibit highly aligned representations of small molecules, suggesting a shared underlying representation of physical reality.
The research highlights that as machine learning models improve in performance, particularly in predicting interatomic potentials, they tend to converge in representation space. This convergence implies that despite the diversity in training data and model architectures, there is a commonality in how these models understand and represent the physical world. This is significant because it suggests that foundation models might be capturing a universal structure of matter, which could lead to more reliable and generalizable scientific models. The ability to identify and quantify this representational alignment could serve as a benchmark for assessing the generality of scientific models.
However, the study also reveals limitations in the current models. When faced with inputs vastly different from those seen during training, most models revert to low-information representations. This collapse indicates that despite their advancements, today’s models are still constrained by the data they are trained on and the inductive biases inherent in their design. It underscores the need for more diverse and comprehensive training datasets and the development of models that can truly encode universal structures, beyond the confines of their initial training domains.
Overall, the findings provide a pathway for tracking the emergence of universal representations of matter as models scale. This has broader implications for selecting and refining models whose learned representations are most effective across different scientific modalities, domains, and tasks. By understanding and leveraging representational convergence, the scientific community can better harness machine learning to push the boundaries of discovery and innovation in the study of matter. This research not only advances the field of machine learning in the sciences but also sets the stage for future developments in creating more robust and generalizable scientific models.
Read the original article here
Comments
One response to “Converging Representations in Scientific Models”
The observation that disparate machine learning models converge on similar representations despite varying training datasets provides a fascinating glimpse into the potential universality of data-driven insights into the physical world. This convergence raises compelling questions about the nature of these underlying representations and their implications for predictive accuracy across different scientific domains. What strategies do you suggest for expanding the diversity of training data to mitigate the models’ collapse into low-information states when encountering unfamiliar inputs?