I'm reviewing a conference manuscript (computer science) and i found 2 other recent methods related to the same problem which were published on Arxiv. So, i think it is highly recommended to compare their method to those ones. The Arxiv papers also claimed to beat the state-of-the-art, but on different datasets, so one cannot compare them based on the reported numerical results.

So, should/could i say that it is a weak point that the authors have not included/used those recent relevant works in their introduction or evaluation basis? Or they do not have such an obligation as those papers have not been yet published in any proceedings?

I'm reviewing a conference manuscript (computer science) and i found 2 other recent methods related to the same problem which were published on arXiv. So, i think it is highly recommended to compare their method to those ones. The arXiv papers also claimed to beat the state-of-the-art, but on different datasets, so one cannot compare them based on the reported numerical results.

So, should/could i say that it is a weak point that the authors have not included/used those recent relevant works in their introduction or evaluation basis? Or they do not have such an obligation as those papers have not been yet published in any proceedings?