I'm serious that the similarities between the papers are superficial.

I don't think it's fair of you to criticize the authors for not citing some obscure preprint, when that manuscript itself neglected to cite decades of prior, relevant work.

I have some other comment on this thread where I point out why I don’t think it’s superficial. Would love to get your feedback on that if you feel like spending more time on this thread.

But it’s not obscure? FlashText was a somewhat popular paper at the time (2017) with a popular repo (https://github.com/vi3k6i5/flashtext). Their paper was pretty derivative of Aho-Corasick, which they cited. If you think they genuinely fucked up, leave an issue on their repo (I’m, maybe to your surprise lol, not the author).

Anyway, I’m not a fan of the whatabboutery here. I don’t think OG’s paper is up to snuff on its lit review - do you?

> I don’t think OG’s paper is up to snuff on its lit review - do you?

Not in the slightest. Caching the logit masks and applying the right one based on where you are in your grammar is obvious. This is what I'd expect some bright undergrads to come up with for a class project. This manuscript could've been a blog post.

Although arXiv is displacing some traditional publishing, I think it's a little silly to try to hold it to the same standards.

I saw your argument for why you think it's relevant and I think you're overstating the case. There are a _heap_ of papers they could've cited.

As an aside, when can we stop citing _Attention is All You Need_?