Paper:
The concepts of unitary evolution matrices and associative memory have boosted the field of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) to state-of-the-art performance in a variety of sequential tasks. However, RNN still have a limited capacity to manipulate long-term memory. To bypass this weakness the most successful applications of RNN use external techniques such as attention mechanisms. In this paper we propose a novel RNN model that unifies the state-of-the-art approaches: Rotational Unit of Memory (RUM). The core of RUM is its rotational operation, which is, naturally, a unitary matrix, providing architectures with the power to learn long-term dependencies by overcoming the vanishing and exploding gradients problem. Moreover, the rotational unit also serves as associative memory. We evaluate our model on synthetic memorization, question answering and language modeling tasks. RUM learns the Copying Memory task completely and improves the state-of-the-art result in the Recall task. RUM's performance in the bAbI Question Answering task is comparable to that of models with attention mechanism. We also improve the state-of-the-art result by 0.001 to 1.189 bits-percharacter (BPC) test loss in the Character Level Penn Treebank (PTB) task. Moreover, our models achieve 0.002 BPC improvement to the validation too, which is to signify the applications of RUM to real-world sequential data. The universality of our construction, at the core of RNN, establishes RUM as a promising approach to language modeling, speech recognition and machine translation.

Review:
Summary:
This paper proposes a way to incorporate rotation memories into gated RNNs. They use a specific parametrization of the rotation matrices. They run experiments on several toy tasks and on language modelling with PTB character-level language modeling (which I would still consider to be toyish.)
Question:
Can the rotation proposed here cause unintentional forgetting by interleaving the memories? Because in some sense rotations are glorified summation in high-dimensions, if you do a full-rotation of a vector (360 degrees) you can end up in the same location. Thus the model might overwrite into its past memories.
Pros:
Proposes an interesting way to incorporate the rotation operations into the gated architectures.
Cons:
The specific choice of rotation operation is not very well justified.
This paper more or less uses the same architecture from Jing et al 2017 from EU-RNNs with a different parametrization for the rotation matrices.
The experiments are still limited to simple small-scale tasks.
General Comments:
The idea and the premise of this paper is interesting. In general the paper seems to be well-written. However the most important part of the paper section 3.1 is not very well justified. Why this particular parameterization of the rotation matrices is used and where does actually that come from? Can you point out to some citation? I think the RUM architecture section also requires better explanation on for instance why why R_t is parameterized that way (as a multiplicative function of R_{t-1}). A detailed ablation study would help too.
The model seems to perform really close to the GORU on Copying Task. I would be interested in seeing comparisons to GORU on “Associative Recall” as well. On QA task, which subset of bAbI dataset have you used? 1k or 10k training sets? 
On language modelling there is only insignificant difference between the FS-LSTM-2 with FS-RUM model. This does not tell us much.