<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Ideas in Inference-time Scaling can Benefit Generative Pre-training Algorithms · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2503.07154/</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/2503.07154/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Ideas in Inference-time Scaling can Benefit Generative Pre-training Algorithms — mentioned by bearobear</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43340272</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2503.07154:43340272</guid><pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2025 05:44:32 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Last author here (I also did the DDIM paper, https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02502). I know this is going to be very tricky math-wise (and in the paper we just wrote the most general thing to make reviewers happy), so I tried to explain the idea more easily under the blog post (https://lumalabs.ai/news/inductive-moment-matching). If you look at how a single step of the DDIM sampler interacts with the target timestep, it is actually just a linear function. This is obviously quite inflexible if we want to use it to represent a flexible function where we can choose any target timestep. So just add…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2503.07154/"&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>
