Tensor decomposition methods are widely used for model compression and fast inference in convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Although many decompositions are conceivable, only CP decomposition and a few others have been applied in practice, and no extensive comparisons have been made between available methods. Previous studies have not determined how many decompositions are available, nor which of them is optimal. In this study, we first characterize a decomposition class specific to CNNs by adopting a flexible graphical notation. The class includes such well-known CNN modules as depthwise separable convolution layers and bottleneck layers, but also previously unknown modules with nonlinear activations. We also experimentally compare the tradeoff between prediction accuracy and time/space complexity for modules found by enumerating all possible decompositions, or by using a neural architecture search. We find some nonlinear decompositions outperform existing ones.

There are some major concerns on the paper. The main theoretical results is in Sec. However, this part is not well written, the propositions 1-4 are given without any explanations about its content. The final result in Theorem 1 is not very informative. Because it is obvious that if the inner inner indices and filter size are finite, the combinations of different tensor decompositions are finite.

This paper relates sum-product tensor operations (a.k.a. In doing so, they formally define a new kind of layer, einconv layer, that generalizes previously proposed approaches for compressing CNNs. An extensive search over the space of possible layers is performed to compare new factorized layers with existing ones. The reviewers agree that the idea is original and well executed and that the paper has potential to be significant. One concern is that the proposed enumeration algorithm used in the experiments is not practical, which is true.

Tensor decomposition methods are widely used for model compression and fast inference in convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Although many decompositions are conceivable, only CP decomposition and a few others have been applied in practice, and no extensive comparisons have been made between available methods. Previous studies have not determined how many decompositions are available, nor which of them is optimal. In this study, we first characterize a decomposition class specific to CNNs by adopting a flexible graphical notation. The class includes such well-known CNN modules as depthwise separable convolution layers and bottleneck layers, but also previously unknown modules with nonlinear activations.

Tensor decomposition methods are widely used for model compression and fast inference in convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Although many decompositions are conceivable, only CP decomposition and a few others have been applied in practice, and no extensive comparisons have been made between available methods. Previous studies have not determined how many decompositions are available, nor which of them is optimal. In this study, we first characterize a decomposition class specific to CNNs by adopting a flexible graphical notation. The class includes such well-known CNN modules as depthwise separable convolution layers and bottleneck layers, but also previously unknown modules with nonlinear activations.