[Computer-go] AGZ Policy Head

Brian Sheppard sheppardco at aol.com
Fri Dec 29 11:53:00 PST 2017


I agree that having special knowledge for "pass" is not a big compromise, but it would not meet the "zero knowledge" goal, no?

-----Original Message-----
From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Rémi Coulom
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 7:50 AM
To: computer-go at computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] AGZ Policy Head

I also wonder about this. A purely convolutional approach would save a lot of weights. The output for pass can be set to be a single bias parameter, connected to nothing. Setting pass to a constant might work, too. I don't understand the reason for such a complication.

----- Mail original -----
De: "Andy" <andy.olsen.tx at gmail.com>
À: "computer-go" <computer-go at computer-go.org>
Envoyé: Vendredi 29 Décembre 2017 06:47:06
Objet: [Computer-go] AGZ Policy Head



Is there some particular reason AGZ uses two 1x1 filters for the policy head instead of one? 


They could also have allowed more, but I guess that would be expensive? I calculate that the fully connected layer has 2*361*362 weights, where 2 is the number of filters. 


By comparison the value head has only a single 1x1 filter, but it goes to a hidden layer of 256. That gives 1*361*256 weights. Why not use two 1x1 filters here? Maybe since the final output is only a single scalar it's not needed? 










_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go at computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go at computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go



More information about the Computer-go mailing list