<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Offline Imitation Learning from Multiple Baselines with Applications to Compiler Optimization · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2403.19462/</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/2403.19462/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Offline Imitation Learning from Multiple Baselines with Applications to Compiler Optimization — mentioned by vanderZwan</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42052782</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2403.19462:42052782</guid><pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2024 16:22:57 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I find it a little annoying that in the paper[0] they show various graphs of megabytes saved in the paper, but no actual size of the binaries that these policies are applied to, as far as I can tell. So when they say the inline policies end up saving 20 MiB on the training data, and then only a few megabyte on a different binary not in the training data, I lack the context to really judge what that says. Is the other binary much smaller? The same size? What if it&amp;#x27;s bigger and therefore hides a much smaller relative size savings? At the very end of the paper do they mention one binary size…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2403.19462/"&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>
