To be clear, I am not claiming they stole an idea. They have made significant independent research. However, a specific part regarding the treatment of rotation with bias correction relates to prior work, and it would be appropriate to have that recognized.

If they didn't at least cite it, it is complete bullshit.

If they cited it, but you feel you deserved more credit than that... I feel you, but it's less clear cut.

Doesn't matter, you should still cite. It's basic manners in science.

Exactly, that's why the section is called "Related Work".

> But if they read your paper enough that they invited you to a talk, that probably means they were far enough along to independently inventing it

That's more than a stretch. They likely invited them because someone thought the abstract sounded interesting, or something like that.

That's rationalizing like crazy. If they knew about it they should have cited it.

That's what I'm saying - not citing is total bullshit.

But if they invited a talk, and published a paper and cited it, it might be a little off, but not horrible.

The earlier paper was from 2021!