Review for NeurIPS paper: Dual-Resolution Correspondence Networks

Weaknesses: Although the evaluation datasets are sound and reliable, I am concerned with overclaiming. The paper claims at multiple occasions to achieve state-of-the-art results (lines 14, 63, 273) or even substantially outperform them (line 199). These claims seem reasonable given the reported results, but I think that they are actually not valid: 1. The baselines that are compared against are mostly other dense matching networks (Sparse-/NCNet in Figures 3, 6, and 7) or learned local features (D2Net, R2D2, SuperPoint in Figures 5 and 7). The evaluation does not include deep neural networks for sparse feature matching, which, similarly to DRC-Net, leverage information from both images, and are already referenced in the related work (line 76).