* Lack of Training Details: The paper lacks sufficient information regarding the training process of the policy. It should provide more details on the training data used, the methodology for updating parameters, and the specific hyperparameters employed in the process.
* Unclear Literature Review: The literature review in the paper needs improvement. It is not adequately clear what the main contribution of the proposed method is, and how it distinguishes itself from existing work, particularly in relation to the utilization of GFlowNet for sequence generation. The paper should provide a more explicit and comparative analysis of related work.
* Ambiguity in Key Innovation: The claim that GFNSeqEditor can produce novel sequences with improved properties lacks clarity regarding the key innovation driving these contributions. The paper should better articulate what novel techniques or insights lead to the claimed improvements, thereby enhancing the reader's understanding of the method's unique value.
* Unclear Literature Review: The literature review in the paper needs improvement. It is not adequately clear what the main contribution of the proposed method is, and how it distinguishes itself from existing work, particularly in relation to the utilization of GFlowNet for sequence generation. The paper should provide a more explicit and comparative analysis of related work.