AlphaGo Architecture Skill

Decision Points

When to Use Single vs. Cascaded Evaluators

Problem characteristics:
├── Search space tractable (b^d < 10^9)
│   └── Use single best evaluator → standard optimization
└── Search space intractable (b^d > 10^12)
    ├── Uniform evaluation budget available
    │   └── Use cascading approximation:
    │       1. Fast pruning (policy network) → narrow beam
    │       2. Medium evaluation (value network) → estimate quality
    │       3. Cheap exploration (rollouts) → breadth coverage
    └── Non-uniform evaluation budget
        └── Adaptive allocation:
            ├── Critical positions → expensive evaluation
            └── Routine positions → cheap heuristics

Accuracy vs. Latency Requirements Decision Tree

System requirements:
├── Latency critical (<1ms response)
│   ├── Accuracy tolerance high (>10% error acceptable)
│   │   └── Fast rollouts only (2µs/evaluation)
│   └── Accuracy tolerance low (<5% error)
│       └── Cached policy network + heuristic fallback
├── Latency moderate (1-100ms response)
│   ├── High accuracy needed
│   │   └── Value network (3ms) + policy network guidance
│   └── Balanced accuracy/speed
│       └── Mixed evaluation: λ=0.5 value + rollouts
└── Latency tolerant (>100ms)
    └── Full cascade: policy → value → rollouts with MCTS

Error Mode Diversity Assessment

When choosing multiple evaluators:
├── All evaluators have similar failure modes
│   └── Use single best evaluator (no diversity benefit)
├── Evaluators have complementary errors
│   ├── Fast/noisy + slow/accurate pairing
│   │   └── Mix at λ=0.3-0.7 (bias toward accurate)
│   ├── Conservative + exploratory pairing
│   │   └── Mix at λ=0.5 (equal weighting)
│   └── Learned + handcrafted pairing
│       └── Dynamic mixing based on confidence scores
└── Unknown error correlation
    └── Empirical testing: measure performance on holdout set

Failure Modes

Schema Bloat (Detection: >5 approximation layers)

Symptom: Adding more approximation layers but seeing diminishing returns Root cause: Each layer adds overhead without proportional accuracy gain Fix: Profile computational cost vs. accuracy improvement; remove layers with poor ROI Detection rule: If adding layer N improves accuracy <5% but increases latency >20%, you have schema bloat

Synchronous Coupling (Detection: Fast components waiting idle)

Symptom: CPU utilization drops while waiting for GPU evaluation Root cause: Tight coupling between fast search and slow neural network evaluation Fix: Implement asynchronous queuing with stale value tolerance Detection rule: If fast components (search, rollouts) have >50% idle time, you have synchronous coupling

Proxy Metric Fixation (Detection: Metric improving but performance degrading)

Symptom: Move prediction accuracy improves but win rate decreases Root cause: Optimizing for human imitation instead of objective success Fix: Switch from supervised learning to reinforcement learning with true objective Detection rule: If proxy metric and outcome metric trend in opposite directions >10 evaluations, you have proxy fixation

Single Evaluator Fallacy (Detection: Rejecting "worse" individual components)

Symptom: Discarding rollouts because value network has higher individual accuracy Root cause: Assuming best individual component makes best system component Fix: Test mixture performance empirically; diversity often beats individual quality Detection rule: If you're selecting components by individual performance without testing combinations, you have single evaluator fallacy

Uniform Budget Allocation (Detection: Same computation for all decisions)

Symptom: Spending equal evaluation time on obvious moves and critical positions Root cause: Not adapting computational budget to decision importance Fix: Implement adaptive allocation based on position uncertainty and outcome sensitivity Detection rule: If evaluation time variance across positions <20% of mean, you have uniform allocation

Worked Examples

Implementing Cascading Approximation for Code Review

Scenario: Design AI system for reviewing pull requests with 50-500 changed lines, need <10s response time, must catch 95% of bugs.

Step 1: Analyze computational constraints

• Static analysis: 10ms per file
• ML bug detector: 2s per file
• Deep semantic analysis: 30s per file
• Available budget: 10s total

Step 2: Apply cascading decision tree Following "search space intractable" path since exhaustive analysis exceeds budget:

1. Fast pruning layer (static analysis): Eliminate files with no complexity changes
2. Medium evaluation layer (ML detector): Score remaining files for bug likelihood
3. Expensive analysis layer (semantic): Deep dive on highest-scoring files only

Step 3: Budget allocation strategy

• Reserve 2s for ML evaluation of all remaining files
• Allocate remaining 8s to semantic analysis based on ML scores
• Files scoring >0.8: get 4s each (max 2 files)
• Files scoring 0.5-0.8: get 2s each
• Files scoring <0.5: get ML score only

Step 4: Mixture evaluation implementation Instead of using "best" evaluator (semantic analysis), mix ML + semantic scores:

• ML detector: fast, good at pattern matching, misses novel bugs
• Semantic analysis: slow, catches complex logic errors, high false positive rate
• Mixture at λ=0.6: final_score = 0.6 * semantic + 0.4 * ml

Novice approach: Run semantic analysis on everything → timeout after first few files Expert insight: The cascade allows spending expensive compute only where it matters most, while ensuring every file gets some evaluation

Quality Gates

[ ] N evaluators tested: Minimum 3 evaluators with different speed/accuracy profiles implemented and benchmarked [ ] Error correlation measured: Pairwise correlation matrix computed showing evaluators have <0.7 correlation on test set
[ ] Mixture vs. single evaluated: Empirical comparison showing mixture outperforms best individual component by >5% [ ] Latency requirements met: 95th percentile response time under specified threshold with full cascade [ ] Accuracy requirements met: Error rate on holdout set meets specified threshold (e.g., <5% false negative rate) [ ] Budget allocation profiled: Computational cost breakdown shows budget distributed according to decision importance [ ] Failure mode testing: System tested under adversarial conditions (distribution shift, resource constraints, edge cases) [ ] Asynchronous coordination verified: Fast components maintain >80% utilization even when slow components are saturated [ ] Scalability validated: Performance degrades gracefully when increasing load 10x beyond nominal capacity [ ] Monitoring instrumentation: Metrics track proxy vs. outcome alignment, component utilization, and cascade effectiveness

NOT-FOR Boundaries

Do NOT use this skill for:

• Simple optimization problems with tractable search spaces → use standard-optimization instead
• Single-model training or tuning → use deep-learning-training instead
• Real-time systems requiring <1ms latency → use low-latency-systems instead
• Problems where one evaluator is clearly superior and others add no value → use single-model-deployment instead
• Sequential decision processes without search tree structure → use reinforcement-learning-fundamentals instead

Delegate to other skills when:

• Need to implement specific neural network architectures → deep-learning-architectures
• Designing distributed systems infrastructure → distributed-systems-design
• Optimizing individual component performance → performance-optimization
• Handling training data collection and labeling → data-engineering
• Implementing specific search algorithms → search-algorithms

This skill focuses specifically on: Architectural patterns for coordinating multiple imperfect evaluators under computational constraints, not the implementation details of individual components.