HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
tensorflow
adanet
Jupyter Notebook2018–2021
tensorflow / adanet · Archived

adanet

Fast and flexible AutoML with learning guarantees.

6Distinct people
7Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
3.5KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Fast and flexible AutoML with learning guarantees.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 12:54:37 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year7 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2018-10-30 17:16:19 UTC to 2021-11-13 14:10:46 UTC.

0123452018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 5 mentions; 1 submissions, 4 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC514
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

7 sources
I disagree, PAC bounds are usually way too loose to be useful in practice when it comes to NNs. I think part of the reason is that the way we measure model complexity for NNs does not correspond very well with their ability to generalize, as we've seen with recent papers like deep double descent [1]. Anecdotally, I was of the main authors of the AdaNet framework [2] where we used (approximate) Rademacher complexity (closely related to PAC) to bound the complexity of our learned ensemble models. We never got good results using the complexity measure and would basically turn it off for any practical problem we solved. [1]: https://openai.com/blog/deep-double-descent [2]: https://github.com/tensorflow/adanet
In When to assume neural networks can solve a problem

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.