Venue: ML_Reproducibility_Challenge 2021 Fall

Reviews:

final_score: rating: 6: Marginally above acceptance threshold
review_content: According to the report, the authors have fulfilled all the minimum requirements such as verifying the claims, doing hyper parameter search, and providing their codes. However, I found that the authors were limited to what has already been done in the original paper and focused on them. I found the paper to lack significant ablation studies as well as any recommendation for the original authors. I also found a few grammatical mistakes as well. 

So, I believe that this report is on the par with acceptance threshold, but not an excellent one. 
review_title: Well verified claims but lack of ablation studies

Meta-review: metareview: Good reproduction effort, with thorough experiments. However, the report lacks thorough discussion on the results, and since the code was available the authors could have perform ablation studies along with hyperparameter search. Thus, I cannot recommend the paper for acceptance.
confidence: 5: The area chair is absolutely certain
Decision: Reject