Search for: All records

Strategic interactions between a group of individuals or organisations can be modelled as games played on networks, where a player’s payoff depends not only on their actions but also on those of their neighbours. Inferring the network structure from observed game outcomes (equilibrium actions) is an important problem with numerous potential applications in economics and social sciences. Existing methods mostly require the knowledge of the utility function associated with the game, which is often unrealistic to obtain in real-world scenarios. We adopt a transformer-like architecture which correctly accounts for the symmetries of the problem and learns a mapping from the equilibrium actions to the network structure of the game without explicit knowledge of the utility function. We test our method on three different types of network games using both synthetic and real-world data, and demonstrate its effectiveness in network structure inference and superior performance over existing methods. 

Deep neural networks have achieved state-of-the-art accuracy at classifying molecules with respect to whether they bind to specific protein targets. A key breakthrough would occur if these models could reveal the fragment pharmacophores that are causally involved in binding. Extracting chemical details of binding from the networks could enable scientific discoveries about the mechanisms of drug actions. However, doing so requires shining light into the black box that is the trained neural network model, a task that has proved difficult across many domains. Here we show how the binding mechanism learned by deep neural network models can be interrogated, using a recently described attribution method. We first work with carefully constructed synthetic datasets, in which the molecular features responsible for “binding” are fully known. We find that networks that achieve perfect accuracy on held-out test datasets still learn spurious correlations, and we are able to exploit this nonrobustness to construct adversarial examples that fool the model. This makes these models unreliable for accurately revealing information about the mechanisms of protein–ligand binding. In light of our findings, we prescribe a test that checks whether a hypothesized mechanism can be learned. If the test fails, it indicates that the model must be simplified or regularized and/or that the training dataset requires augmentation.