Paper:
Deep neural networks have achieved outstanding performance in many real-world applications with the expense of huge computational resources. The DenseNet, one of the recently proposed neural network architecture, has achieved the state-of-the-art performance in many visual tasks. However, it has great redundancy due to the dense connections of the internal structure, which leads to high computational costs in training such dense networks. To address this issue, we design a reinforcement learning framework to search for efficient DenseNet architectures with layer-wise pruning (LWP) for different tasks, while retaining the original advantages of DenseNet, such as feature reuse, short paths, etc. In this framework, an agent evaluates the importance of each connection between any two block layers, and prunes the redundant connections. In addition, a novel reward-shaping trick is introduced to make DenseNet reach a better trade-off between accuracy and float point operations (FLOPs). Our experiments show that DenseNet with LWP is more compact and efficient than existing alternatives.

Review:
The paper introduces RL based approach to prune layers in a DenseNet. This work extends BlockDrop to DenseNet architecture making the controller independent form the input image. The approach is evaluated on CIFAR10 and CIFAR100 datasets as well as on ImageNet showing promising results.
In order to improve the paper, the authors could take into consideration the following points:
1. Given the similarity of the approach with BlockDrop, I would suggest to discuss it in the introduction section clearly stating the similarities and the differences with the proposed approach. 
2. BlockDrop seems to introduce a general framework of policy network to prune neural networks. However, the authors claim that BlockDrop "can only be applied to ResNets or its variants". Could the authors comment on this? 
3. In the abstract, the authors claim: "Our experiments show that DenseNet with LWP is more compact and efficient than existing alternatives". It is hard to asses if the statement is correct given the evidence presented in the experimental section. It is not clear if the method is more efficient and compact than others, e. g.  CondenseNet. 
4. In the experimental section, addressing the following questions would make the section stronger: What is more important FLOPs or number of parameters? What is the accuracy drop we should allow to pay for reduction in number of parameters or FLOPs?
5. For the evaluation, I would suggest to show that the learned policy is better than a random one: e. g. not using the controller to define policy (in line 20 of the algorithm) and using a random random policy instead.
6. In Table 1, some entries for DenseNet LWP are missing. Is the network converging for this setups? 
7. \sigma is not explained in section 3.3. What is the intuition behind this hyper parameter?
8. I'd suggest moving related work section to background section and expanding it a bit.
9. In the introduction: "... it achieved state-of-the-art results across several highly competitive datasets". Please add citations accordingly.
Additional comments:
1. It might be interesting to compare the method introduced in the paper to a scenario where the controller is conditioned on an input image and adaptively selects the connections/layers in DenseNet at inference time.
2. It might be interesting to report the number of connections in Table 1 for all the models.
Overall, I liked the ideas presented in the paper. However, I think that the high degree of overlap with BlockDrop should be addressed by clearly stating the differences in the introduction section. Moreover, I encourage the authors to include missing results in Table 1 and run a comparison to random policy. In the current version of the manuscript, it is hard to compare among different methods, thus, finding a metric or a visualization that would clearly outline the "efficiency and compactness" of the method would make the paper stronger.