HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
google-deepmind
deepmind-research
Jupyter Notebook2020–2022
google-deepmind / deepmind-research

deepmind-research

This repository contains implementations and illustrative code to accompany DeepMind publications

13Distinct people
14Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
15.3KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

This repository contains implementations and illustrative code to accompany DeepMind publications

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:03:16 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month14 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2020-01-20 13:14:40 UTC to 2022-02-24 18:53:01 UTC.

01232020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 commentsJan 20202020-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2020-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsJan 20212021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsFeb 2022

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jan 20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-02-01 00:00:00 UTC303
Feb 20202020-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20202020-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20202020-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20202020-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20202020-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20202020-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-08-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Aug 20202020-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20202020-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20202020-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20202020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Dec 20202020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20212021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Mar 20212021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20212021-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20212021-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20212021-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20212021-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Aug 20212021-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Sep 20212021-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Oct 20212021-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Nov 20212021-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Dec 20212021-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20222022-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-03-01 00:00:00 UTC110

What Hacker News says

14 sources
>if it’s good enough to do protein folding for Google and video classification for Tesla, it’s good enough for me. That's funny, since protein folding uses the methods I described to achieve it's results. Multiple stages in their work [1] uses physical modeling, not NNs, to do protein folding, most likely because the problem becomes currently intractable to solve with simple Python + TF. NNs are a step to adjust the physical model, exactly like I described above. Simply read their paper and note all the physics models incorporated at about every step of the process to enforce physical constraints - this means vastly less parameters, less training time, less training data, faster evolution of the process, etc. Here's their repo [2]. They did that work in Python and TF, likely because it was started years ago. As Julia becomes a much faster
Read the rest
develop tool for this type of work I expect this will change. They also used TF 1.14 - showing the age of their development. They did not release the feature generation code which is a significant component; the released code only works on the specific dataset they provide. This is likely because this component is not simply simple python they wrote, but an amalgam of things written to make the physics parts of the chain fast enough. But they don't clearly state either way. Also, by your argument, since it's possible to solve any NN problem with a network only 3 layers deep, why not just claim that's all one needs? Because it's also not computationally feasible. The point is that by adding outside knowledge, such as physics models, you can have vastly smaller networks, require less training data, train and infer faster, with the end result of being able to solve a much larger class of problems efficiently. So yes, you can do it in python, or any language, if you want to waste orders of magnitude more effort and resources to do it, effectively limiting the things you can practically do. This is why Python incurs a unnecessary cost for such development. By willfully ignoring learning about these methods and being ignorant about even the results you cited you will miss out on extremely useful knowledge. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1923-7.epdf?autho... [2] https://github.com/deepmind/deepmind-research/tree/master/al...
In Swift for TensorFlow Shuts Down
The method relies on multiple-sequence-alignment (MSA) of homologous proteins. This cannot fold arbitrary proteins, only biologically relevant ones that have high quality MSAs available. It's also worth pointing out that the gold-standard for validating MSAs relies on PDBs of folded proteins. This is exciting work that will assist NMR and XRay crystallographers, but it's not a panacea of protein folding. https://github.com/deepmind/deepmind-research/issues/18
In AlphaFold: a solution to a 50-year-old grand challenge in biology

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.