<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Implementation Matters in Deep Policy Gradients: A Case Study on PPO and TRPO · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2005.12729/</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/2005.12729/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Implementation Matters in Deep Policy Gradients: A Case Study on PPO and TRPO — mentioned by NalNezumi</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37022291</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2005.12729:37022291</guid><pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2023 14:24:45 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Imo, A more realistic thing to do is &amp;quot;replicability review&amp;quot; and/or requirement to submit &amp;quot;methodology map&amp;quot; to each paper. The former would be a back and forth between a reviewer that inquire and ask questions (based on the paper) with the goal to reproduce the result, but don&amp;#x27;t have to actually reproduce it. This is usually good to find out missing details in the paper that the writer just took for granted everyone in the field knows (I&amp;#x27;ve met Bio PHD that have wasted Months of their life tracking up experimental details not mentioned in a paper) The latter would be the result of the former.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2005.12729/"&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>
