Closed JustinBakerMath closed 1 year ago
@JustinBakerMath we need to resolve some conflicts with the new version of the branch since I merged PR#195 (activation functions). Let me know if you want me to take care of the rebasing myself. Hopefully, this will be pretty straightforward to take care of.
I was able to run a few examples without errors. But, I am not sure if I really tested this new equivariance feature. I am just wondering if there is any example in the list of our examples to check this new feature. I am thinking simply turning on "equivariance: true" and changing "model_type: EGNN or SchNet".
Otherwise, it looks good. I ran unit tests (no mpi) and they went ok in my local machine.
I was able to run a few examples without errors. But, I am not sure if I really tested this new equivariance feature. I am just wondering if there is any example in the list of our examples to check this new feature. I am thinking simply turning on "equivariance: true" and changing "model_type: EGNN or SchNet".
Otherwise, it looks good. I ran unit tests (no mpi) and they went ok in my local machine.
@jychoi-hpc
yes, we can use the equivariant
for the QM9 dataset.
@JustinBakerMath we need to resolve some conflicts with the new version of the branch since I merged PR#195 (activation functions). Let me know if you want me to take care of the rebasing myself. Hopefully, this will be pretty straightforward to take care of.
I have now merged the changes to the activation functions to the changes for equivariance.
@JustinBakerMath we need to resolve some conflicts with the new version of the branch since I merged PR#195 (activation functions). Let me know if you want me to take care of the rebasing myself. Hopefully, this will be pretty straightforward to take care of.
I have now merged the changes to the activation functions to the changes for equivariance.
@JustinBakerMath Thanks. I will run the equivariance
with the QM9 dataset. @jychoi-hpc would you mind doing the same?
The best example for this would be the GDB-9-Ex
dataset. However, the GDB-9-Ex dataset is not updated in the current version of he main branch. So I think that using the standard QM9 is the best thing to do.
Looks good to me, thanks!
@pzhanggit, thanks! I just asked @JustinBakerMath to move unsorted_segment_mean
into hydragnn/utils/models.py
.
I was able to run a few examples without errors. But, I am not sure if I really tested this new equivariance feature. I am just wondering if there is any example in the list of our examples to check this new feature. I am thinking simply turning on "equivariance: true" and changing "model_type: EGNN or SchNet". Otherwise, it looks good. I ran unit tests (no mpi) and they went ok in my local machine.
@jychoi-hpc yes, we can use the
equivariant
for the QM9 dataset.
@jychoi-hpc I ran the QM9 example in debug mode using PyCharm with model_type = "EGNN"
and equivariance = True
. I could see the equivariant message passing being activated.
Great. I was able to run too with model_type = "EGNN"
and equivariance = True
for QM9. This PR looks good to me.
A reformatting of the Base class and the inherited classes to support equivariance through updating positional data (
data.pos
) in each graph convolution.