<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The Fundamental Incompatibility of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and Data Subsampling · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1502.01510/</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/1502.01510/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The Fundamental Incompatibility of Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and Data Subsampling — mentioned by tMcGrath</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15668928</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1502.01510:15668928</guid><pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 09:55:22 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d like to flag up this paper on HMC and minibatch inference: https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01510v1. It seems that SGHMC might not always behave as well as you might like. I should say this isn&amp;#x27;t to pour cold water on the idea of Bayesian deep learning - I think it&amp;#x27;s an extremely sensible idea and undoubtedly a good direction for research, but just wanted to caution that this particular MCMC method might have subtle flaws.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1502.01510/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>stat.ME</category></item></channel></rss>
