  The uniqueness issue of SDE decomposition theory proposed by Ao and his
co-workers has recently been discussed. A comprehensive study to investigate
connections among different landscape theories [J. Chem. Phys. 144, 094109
(2016)] has pointed out that the decomposition is generally not unique, while
Ao et al. (arXiv:1603.07927v1) argues that such conclusions are "incorrect"
because of the missing boundary conditions. In this comment, we will combine
literatures research and concrete examples to show that the concrete and
effective boundary conditions have not been proposed to guarantee the
uniqueness, hence the arguments in [arXiv:1603.07927v1] are not sufficient.
Moreover, we show that the "uniqueness" of the O-U process decomposition
referred by YTA paper is unable to serve as a counterexample to ZL's result
since additional assumptions have been made implicitly beyond the original SDE
decomposition framework, which cannot be applied to general nonlinear cases.
Some other issues such as the failure of gradient expansion method will also be
discussed. Our demonstration contributes to better understanding of the
relevant papers as well as the SDE decomposition theory.
