Comment on "Why does deep and cheap learning work so well?" [arXiv:1608.08225]

09/12/2016 ∙ by David J. Schwab, et al. ∙ Boston University Northwestern University 0

In a recent paper, "Why does deep and cheap learning work so well?", Lin and Tegmark claim to show that the mapping between deep belief networks and the variational renormalization group derived in [arXiv:1410.3831] is invalid, and present a "counterexample" that claims to show that this mapping does not hold. In this comment, we show that these claims are incorrect and stem from a misunderstanding of the variational RG procedure proposed by Kadanoff. We also explain why the "counterexample" of Lin and Tegmark is compatible with the mapping proposed in [arXiv:1410.3831].



There are no comments yet.


page 1

page 2

This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

Appendix A Appendix: Trace condition is violated by “counterexample” of Lin and Tegmark

In their appendix, Lin and Tegmark construct a model that consists of visible (microscopic) degrees of freedom and hidden degrees of freedom . The original distribution of visible variables is , with

. The joint distribution is given by

, where , , and . Thus, the coupling operator . Importantly, they require to be non-constant. This immediately implies that is non-constant, and thus the trace condition in Eq. 1 is not satisfied for any of the distributions they consider.