<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>The jamming transition as a paradigm to understand the loss landscape of deep neural networks · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.09349/</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/1809.09349/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The jamming transition as a paradigm to understand the loss landscape of deep neural networks — mentioned by cs702</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24842384</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1809.09349:24842384</guid><pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2020 21:11:34 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;TL;DR: For high-dimensional models (say, with millions to billions of parameters), there&amp;#x27;s always a good set parameters nearby, and when we start descending towards it, we are highly unlikely to get stuck, because almost always there&amp;#x27;s at least one path down along at least one among of all those dimensions -- i.e., there are no local optima. Once we&amp;#x27;ve stumbled upon a good set of parameters, as measured by validation, we can stop. These intuitions are consistent with my experience... but I think there&amp;#x27;s more to deep learning. For instance, these intuitions fail to explain &amp;quot;weird&amp;quot; phenomena…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1809.09349/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cond-mat.dis-nn</category></item></channel></rss>
