OwO

the AC is usually an experienced researcher and is more senior than the reviewers, who can be PhD students that got assigned papers to review by their supervisors. I would trust the AC metareview more than the reviewers.

That's total horseshit when the architecture in the paper is almost the same as the original LSTM. I'm not talking about modern papers. If they cite GRU, they should cite LSTM as well. I dont agree with the saying GRU cite LSTM so it's fine to cite GRU but not LSTM. That's shouldnt be how credit assignment work.

Have you ever read some random RNN paper from LeCun's group and noticed they didn't cite the LSTM paper but instead cited the GRU paper, which is a watered-down version of the LSTM?

I thought not. It’s not a paper Yann LeCun would cite. It’s an RNN legend.

I expected bigger drama but it turned out to be just some similarities in a couple of sentences. give us a break. lol.

I'm grabbing the popcorn and the front seat on this one.