[sieisteinmodel]

How do you establish an exact mapping to sth that is not exact, but only a buzzword term under which different people collect different methods?

Well, not that important. It's only important that the buzzword appears in the title!

[dang]

The problem with this comment is that it doesn't teach us anything. If the article is wrong, it would be valuable to explain how it is wrong in a way that readers here can understand. But a sarcastic dismissal that leaves out the substance merely adds negativity.

[JadeNB]

I think that, if a phrase is meaningless, it is enough to explain why it is meaningless (because it proposes to make an 'exact' connexion between something rigorously defined and something that is not) without having to explain in what way the argument for it fails to fulfil that meaningless goal.

Nonetheless, it's surely also true that it would be nice to suggest a constructive remedy; and, fortunately, one need not go farther than the abstract to find (a better approximation to) the precise statement that the authors are making:

> We construct an exact mapping from the variational renormalization group, first introduced by Kadanoff, [to] deep learning architectures based on Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs).

[losername]

That was a case of not reading the link rather than asserting meaninglessness. The abstract makes clear that deep learning as an umbrella term would even fit RG, a completely unrelated concept from physics.