text: This paper is based on the theory of group equivariant CNNs (G-CNNs), proposed by Cohen and Welling ICML'16. Regular convolutions are translation-equivariant, meaning that if an image is translated, its convolution by any filter is also translated.  They are however not rotation-invariant for example.   G-CNN introduces G-convolutions, which are equivariant to a given transformation group G. This paper proposes an efficient implementation of G-convolutions for 6-fold rotations (rotations of multiple of 60 degrees), using a hexagonal lattice.  The approach is evaluated on CIFAR-10 and AID, a dataset of aerial scene classification.  The approach outperforms G-convolutions implemented on a squared lattice, which allows only 4-fold rotations on AID by a short margin.  On CIFAR-10, the difference does not seem significative (according to Tables 1 and 2). I guess this can be explained by the fact that rotation equivariance makes sense for aerial images, where the scene is mostly fronto-parallel, but less for CIFAR (especially in the upper layers), which exhibits 3D objects. I like the general approach of explicitly putting desired equivariance in the convolutional networks.  Using a hexagonal lattice is elegant, even if it is not new in computer vision  (as written in the paper).  However, as the transformation group is limited to rotations,  this is interesting in practice mostly for fronto-parallel scenes, as the experiences seem to show.  It is not clear how the method can be extended to other groups than 2D rotations. Moreover, I feel like the paper sometimes tries to mask the fact that the proposed method is limited to rotations.  It is admittedly clearly stated in the abstract and introduction, but much less in the rest of the paper. The second paragraph of Section 5.1 is difficult to keep in a paper.  It says that "From a qualitative inspection of these hexagonal interpolations we conclude that no information is lost during the sampling procedure."   "No information is lost" is a strong statement from a qualitative inspection, especially of a hexagonal image.   This statement should probably be removed.  One way to evaluate the information lost could be to iterate interpolation between hexagonal and squared lattices to see if the image starts degrading at some point.