<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>On the Equivalence Between Deep NADE and Generative Stochastic Networks · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1409.0585/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1409.0585/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>On the Equivalence Between Deep NADE and Generative Stochastic Networks — mentioned by koningrobot</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45648253</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1409.0585:45648253</guid><pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2025 19:38:26 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;It goes further back than that. In 2014, Li Yao et al (https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0585) drew an equivalence between autoregressive (next token prediction, roughly) generative models and generative stochastic networks (denoising autoencoders, the predecessor to difussion models). They argued that the parallel sampling style correctly approximates sequential sampling. In my own work circa 2016 I used this approach in Counterpoint by Convolution (https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.07227), where we in turn argued that despite being an approximation, it leads to better results. Sadly being dressed up as…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1409.0585/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>stat.ML</category></item></channel></rss>
