<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Do Differentiable Simulators Give Better Policy Gradients? · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2202.00817/</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/2202.00817/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Do Differentiable Simulators Give Better Policy Gradients? — mentioned by blt</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49974026</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2202.00817:49974026</guid><pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 04:05:12 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Every few years, a derivative-free neural network optimization algorithm gets some hype. I&amp;#x27;d bet my life savings that none of them ever make an impact. Derivative-free optimization can be useful for genuinely discontinuous objectives [1], but common neural network objectives are smooth and/or Lipschitz. The gradient is useful. Instead of trying random directions and hoping that one of them is an improvement, it tells you where to go. The more parameters you have, the more useful it becomes. A strict complexity gap between gradient-based and derivative-free Lipschitz convex optimization has…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2202.00817/"&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>
