<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>On the Compactness, Efficiency, and Representation of 3D Convolutional Networks: Brain Parcellation as a Pretext Task · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1707.01992/</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/1707.01992/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>On the Compactness, Efficiency, and Representation of 3D Convolutional Networks: Brain Parcellation as a Pretext Task — mentioned by D-Machine</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45299512</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1707.01992:45299512</guid><pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 09:03:04 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yeah, I am aware that there are sort of long residuals even in classic ViTs, and that, as you say, you can sort of even skip the whole transformer. Like you said, though, this seems very unlikely in practice, and at least, this is a different kind of long residual as in DenseNets or U-Nets though (and yes, Dense Transformers - though I know very, very little about these). I.e. the long residual connections in these seem to be far more &amp;quot;direct&amp;quot; and less &amp;quot;sequential&amp;quot; than the &amp;quot;long residuals&amp;quot; in a classic transformer. It is hard for me to say what the different consequences for training and…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1707.01992/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CV</category></item></channel></rss>
