[pigscantfly]

No, I think errata would be more appropriate; the gist of my comment was in support of the idea behind the paper, but it's disingenuous to pretend that the model works as well as described on that task.

It's also disingenuous to trivialize the difference as 1-3% - that difference is more than a third of the actual error rate (7.42% vs. 11.27%) assuming you're referring to [1]. True, the IMDB dataset isn't a very important one, but it's important to clarify when you've made a mistake, especially if your paper has been cited hundreds of times.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.5335v7.pdf