The paper is accused of being simply a rehash of previous work (which is much stronger than "misleading (presentation of) contributions"). The accuser supported his claim with detailed technical arguments, which I find to be rather convincing, but of course I would prefer to hear from the authors and especially from other experts before drawing any conclusions.

In general I believe that "misleading contributions" should not be tolerated in academic research.

Whatever the results will turn out, I love the openness of ICLR. There is a paper accepted at NeurIPS 2022 that is presented in a quite misleading manner (even though related work had been privately communicated to the authors via email during the review process). I would have loved to post a comment not to accuse of anything but to point out previous work and provide technical clarifications that I think would be beneficial to the readers (including the reviewers). Unfortunately this is not possible.

P/s: Some previous comments question the use of the word "misinformation". I would have used "misleading" (which is more common in academia, but perhaps a bit light if the accusation is true), though I don't feel too much difference when hearing "misinformation" over "misleading" (being a non-native English speaker). According to Oxford Dictionary, they are more or less the same:

>misinformation: the act of giving wrong information about something; the wrong information that is given
>
>misleading: giving the wrong idea or impression and making you believe something that is not true

The point here is that the accuser may not be a native English speaker either, and thus his technical arguments should not be overlooked because of this wording.