Submitting author: @dhairyagandhi96 (Dhairya Gandhi)
Status badge code:
Reviewers and authors:
Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)
Reviewer instructions & questions
@denizyuret, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:
Review checklist for @denizyuret
Conflict of interest
Code of Conduct
If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/JuliaCon/proceedings-review) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews
To fix this do the following two things:
For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:
For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:
Some questions / suggestions:
Thanks for the review. Following this, we've made some changes to address some of the suggestions.
Re the AlphaGo point; we couldn't converge it for Go.
Per section 3; the GPU functionality, as well as the AD are mature. The acceleration with TPUs, outputting with JS and batching are working prototypes as of now. We plan to expand this functionality in the future.
With regards to Listing 7, it is not meant as a motivating example, rather an illustrative one. Broadcasting would do the same work internally, the vectorisation of the code is the larger question that we've tried to address in that section.
The missing cite to Knet is unintentional and we shall remedy that.
@whedon generate pdf