<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Neural Kernels Without Tangents · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2003.02237/</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/2003.02237/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Neural Kernels Without Tangents — mentioned by vladf</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31053031</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2003.02237:31053031</guid><pubDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2022 15:23:28 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;This comment is making a &amp;quot;slight of hand&amp;quot; itself: how do we define the metric for kNN? That will directly impact kNN performance. Using Euclidean norm over pixels on imagenet will not get you anywhere. By recasting classification into a kNN lens you&amp;#x27;re basically (in the large data regime) recasting the problem to kernel learning under some underspecified RBF kernel with an unknown &amp;quot;proximity&amp;quot; metric instead of Euclidean. In grad school, someone in my lab actually tried scaling kernel methods directly to imagenet too. I don&amp;#x27;t think that ended up working naively (an interesting neural variant…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2003.02237/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
