Just from the way this paper is written (badly, all kinds of LaTeX errors), my belief that something meaningful was proved here, that some nice mathematical theory has been developed, is low.
Sorry but you're just wrong. There are issues but the paper is written well enough. The content (whether this is really a novel enough idea) is debateable because anyone could have told you that LLMs aren't going to develop the halting algorithm.
Have you actually read the paper/know how a ML paper should be written?
Here are some of the issues:
- section 1.4.3: Can you explain how societal consequences of LLM hallucinations are in any way relevant for a paper that claims in the abstract to use mathematical theories ("computational theory", although that is an error too, they probably mean computability theory)?
At best, such a section should be in the appendix, if not a separate paper.
- section 1.2.2: What is with the strange subsections 1.2.2.1, 1.2.2.2 that they use for enumeration?
- basic LaTeX errors, e.g. page 19, at L=, spacing is all messed up, authors confuse using "<" with "\langle", EFC.
So no, I'm afraid you are wrong. The paper violates many of the unspoken rules of how a paper should be written (which can be learned by reading a lot of ML papers, which I guess the authors haven't done) and based on this alone, as it is, wouldn't make it into a mediocre conference, let alone the ICML, ICLR, NeurIPS.
Example: The first 10 pages are meaningless bla