Category Archives: AI

Attention Is All You Need – A Moral Case

It turns out that giving neural networks attention gives you some pretty amazing results. The attention mechanism allowed neural language models to ingest vast amounts of data in a highly parallelised manner, efficiently learning what to pay the most attention to in a contextually aware manner. This computational breakthrough launched the LLM-powered AI revolution we’re living through. But what if attention isn’t just a computational trick? What if the same principle that allows transformers to focus on what matters from a sea of information also lies at the heart of consciousness, perception, and even morality itself? (Ok, maybe this is a bit of a stretch, but hear me out.)

To understand the connection, we need to look at how perception really works. Modern neuroscience reveals that experience is fundamentally subjective and generative. We’re not passive receivers of objective reality through our senses, we’re active constructors of our own experience. According to predictive processing theory, our minds constantly generate models of reality, and our sensory input is then used to provide an ‘error’ of these predictions. But the extraordinary point here is that we never ‘see’ these sensory inputs, only our mind’s best guess of how the world should be, updated by sensory feedback. As consciousness researcher Anil Seth puts it “Reality is a controlled hallucination… an action-oriented construction, rather than passive registration of an objective external reality”, or in the words of Anaïs Nin, half a century earlier, “We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are.”

Continue reading →

ChatGPT can now use RDKit!

All chemistry LLM enthusiasts were treated to a pleasant surprise on Friday when Greg Brockman tweeted that ChatGPT now has access to RDKit. I’ve spent a few hours playing with the updated models and I have summarized some of my findings in this blog.

Continue reading →

Attending LMRL @ ICLR 2025

I recently attended the Learning Meaningful Representations of Life (LMRL) workshop at ICLR 2025. The goal of LMRL is to highlight machine learning methods which extract meaningful or useful properties from unstructured biological data, with an eye towards building a virtual cell. I presented my paper which demonstrates how standard Transformers can learn to meaningfully represent 3D coordinates when trained on protein structures. Each paper submitted to LMRL had to include a “meaningfulness statement” – a short description of how the work presents a meaningful representation.

Continue reading →

Featurisation is Key: One Version Change that Halved DiffDock’s Performance

1. Introduction 

Molecular docking with graph neural networks works by representing the molecules as featurized graphs. In DiffDock, each ligand becomes a graph of atoms (nodes) and bonds (edges), with features assigned to every atom using chemical properties such as atom type, implicit valence and formal charge. 
 
We recently discovered that a change in RDKit versions significantly reduces performance on the PoseBusters benchmark, due to changes in the “implicit valence” feauture. This post walks through: 

  • How DiffDock featurises ligands 
  • What happened when we upgraded RDKit 2022.03.3 → 2025.03.1 
  • Why training with zero-only features and testing on non-zero features is so bad 

TL:DR: Use the dependencies listed in the environment.yml file, especially in the case of DiffDock, or your performance could half!  

Continue reading →

AI generated linkers™: a tutorial

In molecular biology cutting and tweaking a protein construct is an often under-appreciated essential operation. Some protein have unwanted extra bits. Some protein may require a partner to be in the correct state, which would be ideally expressed as a fusion protein. Some protein need parts replacing. Some proteins disfavour a desired state. Half a decade ago, toolkits exists to attempt to tackle these problems, and now with the advent of de novo protein generation new, powerful, precise and way less painful methods are here. Therefore, herein I will discuss how to generate de novo inserts and more with RFdiffusion and other tools in order to quickly launch a project into the right orbit.
Furthermore, even when new methods will have come out, these design principles will still apply —so ignore the name of the de novo tool used.

Continue reading →

AI in Academic Writing: Ethical Considerations and Best Practices

I don’t need to tell you how popular AI, in particular LLMs, have become in recent years. Alongside this rapid growth comes uncharted territory, especially with respect to plagiarism and integrity. As we adapt to a rapidly changing technological climate, we become increasingly reliant on AI. Need some help phrasing an email? Ask ChatGPT. Need to create a packing list for an upcoming camping trip? Get an AI-based task manager. So naturally when we’re faced with the daunting, and admittedly tedious task of writing papers, we question whether we can offload some of that work to a machine. As with many things, the question is not simply whether or not you should use AI in your writing process, it’s how you choose to do so.

When To Use AI

  1. Grammar and readability
    Particularly useful for those who are writing in a second language, or for those who struggle to write in their first language (my high school English teachers would place me firmly in this category), LLMs can be used beneficially to identify awkward phrasing, flag excessively complex sentences, and identify and fix grammatical errors.
  2. Formatting and structure
    LLMs can take care of some of the tedious, repetitive work with respect to formatting and structure. They are particularly useful for generating LaTeX templates for figures, tables, equations, and general structure. You can also use them to check that you’re matching a specific journal’s standards. For example, you can give an LLM a sample of articles from a target publication, and ask it to note the structure of these papers. Then, give it your work and ask it to make general, larger-scale suggestions to ensure that your work aligns structurally with articles typical of that journal.
  3. Reference management
    Although the references should be read and cited by an author, various management tasks like creating properly formatted BibTeX entries can be handled by LLMs. Additionally, you can use LLMs to do a sanity check to ensure that your references are an accurate reflection of the source material they are referring to. However, they should not to be used to summarise the source and create references on their own. 
  4. Summarising large volumes of literature
    If you’re reviewing large volumes of literature, LLMs can help summarise papers efficiently and point you in the right direction. Although you should always cite and refer back to the original source, LLMs can distill key points from long, dense papers, organise notes, and extract important takeaways from datasets and figures.

Regardless of how you use AI, it is importance to keep a record of all instances of such AI use throughout your research, including use during coding, Some journals will make you explicitly declare the use of AI tools, but even if it is not required this kind of record-keeping is considered good practice. 

When Not to Use AI

  1. Big-picture thinking and narrative development
    Academic papers are not solely about presenting information, they are about constructing an argument, building a narrative flow, and presenting a compelling case. LLMs are not particularly good at replicating human creativity, that work is best left to the authors. Additionally, it is dishonest to claim these important aspects of writing as your own if they are not written directly by you.
  2. Direct copy-paste
    Although AI tools may suggest minor edits, you should never directly copy-and-paste larger selections of AI-generated text. If the ethical concerns described in (1) do not persuade you as they should, there are now plenty of tools being used to detect AI-generated text by various academic institutions and journals. Although some scholars do tend to lean on AI as a more collaborative tool, transparency is key. 
  3. Source of knowledge
    LLMs don’t actually “know” anything; they generate responses based on probability. As a result, they have a tendency to “hallucinate,” or present false information as fact, misrepresent or oversimplify complex concepts, and do not have precise technical accuracy. They may also be biased based on the sources they were trained on. Peer-reviewed sources should be the go-to for actual information. If you use LLMs to summarise something, always refer back to the original text when using that information in your work.
  4. Full citation generation
    As discussed above, although AI can be used to summarise sources, it is not a reliable source of direct citations. All references should be created by hand and verified manually.
  5. General over-reliance
    From the research design process to the final stages of writing and editing, you should generally refrain from an over-reliance on AI. Although LLMs can be powerful tools that can be used to automate various lower-level tasks, they are not a substitute for critical thinking, originality, or domain expertise, and they are not a full-fledged co-author of your work. The intellectual contribution and ownership of ideas remains in the hands of the human authors. 

For further and more official guidance, check out the ethical framework for the use of AI in academic research published in Nature Machine Intelligence. This framework outlines three criteria for the responsible use of LLMs in scholarship, summarised as follows:

  1. Human vetting and guaranteeing the accuracy and integrity 
  2. Substantial human contribution across all areas of the work
  3. Acknowledgement and transparency of AI use

Confidence in ML models

Recently, I have been interested in adding a confidence metric to the predictions made by a machine learning model I have been working on. In this blog post, I will outline a few strategies I have been exploring to do this. Powerful deep learning models like AlphaFold are great, not only for the predictions they make, but they also generate confidence measures to give the user a sense of how much to trust the prediction.

Continue reading →

Geometric Deep Learning meets Forces & Equilibrium

Introduction

Graphs provide a powerful mathematical framework for modelling complex systems, from molecular structures to social networks. In many physical and geometric problems, nodes represent particles, and edges encode interactions, often acting like springs. This perspective aligns naturally with Geometric Deep Learning, where learning algorithms leverage graph structures to capture spatial and relational patterns.

Understanding energy functions and the forces derived from them is fundamental to modelling such systems. In physics and computational chemistry, harmonic potentials, which penalise deviations from equilibrium positions, are widely used to describe elastic networks, protein structures, and even diffusion processes. The Laplacian matrix plays a key role in these formulations, linking energy minimisation to force computations in a clean and computationally efficient way.

By formalising these interactions using matrix notation, we gain not only a compact representation but also a foundation for more advanced techniques such as Langevin dynamics, normal mode analysis, and graph-based neural networks for physical simulations.

Continue reading →

The Good (and limitations) of using a Local CoPilot with Ollama

Interactive code editors have been around for a while now, and tools like GitHub Copilot have woven their way into most development pipelines, and for good reason. They’re easy to use, exceptionally helpful (at certain tasks), and have undeniably made life as a developer smoother. Recently, I decided to switch away from relying on GitHub Copilot in favour of a local model for a few key reasons. While I don’t use it all the time, it has proven to be a useful option in many situations. In this blog post, I’ll go over why I made the switch, how I set it up, and share a bit about my experience so far.

Continue reading →

Narrowing the gap between machine learning scoring functions and free energy perturbation using augmented data

I’m delighted to report our collaboration (Ísak Valsson, Matthew Warren, Aniket Magarkar, Phil Biggin, & Charlotte Deane), on “Narrowing the gap between machine learning scoring functions and free energy perturbation using augmented data”, has been published in Nature’s Communications Chemistry (https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-025-01428-y).


During his MSc dissertation project in the Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, OPIG member Ísak Valsson developed an attention-based GNN to predict protein-ligand binding affinity called “AEV-PLIG”. It featurizes a ligand’s atoms using Atomic Environment Vectors to describe the Protein-Ligand Interactions found in a 3D protein-ligand complex. AEV-PLIG is free and open source (BSD 3-Clause), available from GitHub at https://github.com/oxpig/AEV-PLIG, and forked at https://github.com/bigginlab/AEV-PLIG.

Continue reading →