Review for NeurIPS paper: RetroXpert: Decompose Retrosynthesis Prediction Like A Chemist

Clarity: The language throughout the paper could be improved (set notation used when referring to sets, poor grammar in many sentences, spelling out "ground truth" instead of GT). The work also does not have a real discussion section or conclusion, likely due to length restrictions. I have some pickier comments about the contextualization of the work: - L28: Only one of the previous methods the authors cite used hand-coded reaction templates; the others algorithmically extract them. The authors could revise the discussion of template-based methods to more clearly separate inherent limitations in template-based methods from limitations due to manual encoding (L34-35). The use of "total number of reactions" is a little confusing because this is one-step retrosynthesis where there is, by definition, one reaction.