<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Understanding GANs: the LQG Setting · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1710.10793/</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/1710.10793/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Understanding GANs: the LQG Setting — mentioned by currymj</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18317201</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1710.10793:18317201</guid><pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2018 19:04:02 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;You are right that they are very closely related. For variational autoencoders (one baseline technique for this sort of thing) if you make your neural network have one layer without a nonlinearity, and train it, it ends up minimizing the same objective as PCA (i.e. finding the eigenfaces). I believe this is also true of GANs where you similarly restrict the generator and discriminator to be very simple. I bet there is a nonlinear non-NN approach that could perform well, but we may not have the investment in hardware, well-optimized algorithms, etc to train big models fast. edit: here&amp;#x27;s a…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1710.10793/"&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>
