>>11598682Unlikely at best, much simpler neural network models than cnns don't have a cohesive theory and they have been around since the 80s.
Plus theory has very little to do with the daily work (and interests) of practitioners.
Most of the field's growth is due to money coming from industries where it can be used, but there isn't a lot of money for theory. There are a few concepts with are important, but they are just that.
You get grants and found startups by recognizing cars on satellite photos and segmenting cells on microscope images, not by creating theory that is unlikely to bear monetary fruit in less than 40 years
