Paper:
The training of stochastic neural network models with binary (±1) weights and activations via continuous surrogate networks is investigated. We derive new surrogates using a novel derivation based on writing the stochastic neural network as a Markov chain. This derivation also encompasses existing variants of the surrogates presented in the literature. Following this, we theoretically study the surrogates at initialisation. We derive, using mean field theory, a set of scalar equations describing how input signals propagate through the randomly initialised networks. The equations reveal whether so-called critical initialisations exist for each surrogate network, where the network can be trained to arbitrary depth. Moreover, we predict theoretically and confirm numerically, that common weight initialisation schemes used in standard continuous networks, when applied to the mean values of the stochastic binary weights, yield poor training performance. This study shows that, contrary to common intuition, the means of the stochastic binary weights should be initialised close to ±1, for deeper networks to be trainable.

Review:
The paper provides an in-depth exploration of stochastic binary networks, continuous surrogates, and their training dynamics with some potentially actionable insights on how to initialize weights for best performance. This topic is relevant and the paper would have more impact if its structure, presentation  and formalism could be improved. Overall it lacks clarity in the presentation of the results, the assumptions made are not always clearly stated and the split between previous work and original derivations should be improved. 
In particular in section 2.1, the author should state what exactly the mean-field approximation is and at which step it is required (e.g. independence is assumed to apply the CLT but this is not clearly stated). Section 3 should also clearly state the assumptions made. That section just follows the “background” section where different works treating different cases are mentioned and it is important to restate here which cases this paper specifically considers. Aside from making assumptions clearer, it would be helpful to highlight the specific contributions of the paper so we can easily see the distinctions between straightforward adaptations of previous work and new contributions.
Specific questions:
It might be worth double checking the equation between eq. (2) and eq. (3) , the boundary case (l=0) does not make sense to me, in particular what is S^0 ?.
What does the term hat{p}(x^l) mean in the left hand side of eq.(3)? 
In eq. (7) (8) why use the definition symbol := ?
At the beginning of section 3.1, please indicate what “matcal(M)” precisely refers to. Using the term P(mathcal(M) = M_ij) does not make much sense if the intent is to use a continuous distribution for the means. 
Just after eq. (9), please explain what Xi_{c*} means. 
Small typo: Eq. (10) is introduced as “can be read from the vector equation 31”, what is eq. (31)?
In section 5.2, why reducing the training set size to 25% of MNIST?