from May 23. Less than a week between them! And it's with good reason too, because they want to compare with state of the art on a certain problem/dataset, and that improved five days ago.
Both of these papers are about very basic advances, in a sense: If you have a residual network implementation lying around (and there are plenty of open source ones), it's trivial to implement the improvements they propose. So it's not as crazy to cite a 5 day old paper as it seems.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08831
from May 28, cites this paper, "Wide Residual Networks"
https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.07146
from May 23. Less than a week between them! And it's with good reason too, because they want to compare with state of the art on a certain problem/dataset, and that improved five days ago.
Both of these papers are about very basic advances, in a sense: If you have a residual network implementation lying around (and there are plenty of open source ones), it's trivial to implement the improvements they propose. So it's not as crazy to cite a 5 day old paper as it seems.