<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Second-Order Neural ODE Optimizer · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2109.14158/</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/2109.14158/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Second-Order Neural ODE Optimizer — mentioned by ChrisRackauckas</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28955550</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2109.14158:28955550</guid><pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:37:14 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, that&amp;#x27;s mostly right (instead of PETSc put FATODE since PETSc TS Adjoint was only published in 2019, but it&amp;#x27;s based heavily on FATODE&amp;#x27;s techniques https://epubs.siam.org/doi/10.1137/130912335?mobileUi=0). And that&amp;#x27;s why the Julia tools were so ready for it: we already had adjoint sensitivity analysis (implemented for parameter estimation in systems pharmacology), so neural ODEs were a freebee. Similar to DEQs using the adjoint of a nonlinear solve: that means a DEQ is just a neural network inside of a Julia nonlinear solver and you call the gradients and you&amp;#x27;ll hit the right overloads…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2109.14158/"&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>
