pith. sign in

arxiv: 2409.12059 · v6 · submitted 2024-09-18 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.LG

MeTHanol: Modularized Thinking Language Models with Intermediate Layer Thinking, Decoding and Bootstrapping Reasoning

Ningyuan Xi , Xiaoyu Wang , Yetao Wu , Teng Chen , Qingqing Gu , Yue Zhao , Jinxian Qu , Zhonglin Jiang
show 2 more authors
Yong Chen Luo Ji
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 20:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords modular thinkingintermediate layerdual-layer fine-tuningtwo-pass inferenceTheory of MindLLM reasoningcognitive behaviors
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fine-tuning one intermediate attention layer lets LLMs generate thoughts in a two-pass process that boosts cognitive reasoning.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to show that LLMs can develop modular thinking by training a specific intermediate attention layer to decode thoughts using dual-layer fine-tuning on query-thought-answer examples. This setup creates a two-pass inference where the layer first produces thoughts and then the model generates responses. If successful, it would improve performance on tasks measuring theory of mind and vignette reasoning, and enable planning and self-reflection even without prior exposure to the tasks. Readers might care as it points to a way to build more capable models by targeting internal layers rather than just scaling or prompting.

Core claim

By selecting an intermediate attention layer and implementing new language heads, dual-layer fine-tuning on (query, thought, answer) samples allows that layer to decode fluent and reasonable language tokens. The resulting two-pass inference mechanism generates thoughts followed by formal responses, which enhances the LLM's cognitive behaviors as shown in Theory of Mind and vignette experiments. The framework also supports planning, self-reflection, and adaptation to personalized prompts on unseen and open-domain tasks.

What carries the argument

Dual-layer fine-tuning of an intermediate attention layer with added language heads to enable thought decoding in a two-pass inference process.

If this is right

  • The model demonstrates enhanced Theory of Mind capabilities.
  • Performance improves on vignette-based experiments.
  • The approach enables planning and self-reflection on unseen tasks.
  • It supports persona adaptation through personalized prompts.
  • The method provides a modular perspective for cognitive gains in LLMs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the layer-specific thinking works, multiple layers could potentially be specialized for different aspects of reasoning.
  • This might reduce reliance on external prompting techniques by internalizing the thinking step.
  • Testing on a wider range of tasks could reveal if the gains generalize beyond the reported experiments.
  • Combining this with other training methods could further enhance the bootstrapping of reasoning abilities.

Load-bearing premise

The gains on Theory of Mind and vignette tasks stem from the modular thinking enabled by the intermediate layer rather than memorization of the training distribution or the two-pass format alone.

What would settle it

An ablation experiment that fine-tunes the full model without isolating the intermediate layer's decoding and shows comparable results on the cognitive tasks would indicate that the modular mechanism is not the key factor.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2409.12059 by Jinxian Qu, Luo Ji, Ningyuan Xi, Qingqing Gu, Teng Chen, Xiaoyu Wang, Yetao Wu, Yong Chen, Yue Zhao, Zhonglin Jiang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Paradigm of MeTHanol with modular correspondence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Comparison of the MeTHanol framework to standard LLM fine-tuning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Training loss curves and special case performances according to different steps. The thinking layer initially can not [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of Sensitivity studies. Left: Stable loss (step [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visualization of model parameter differentiation, between Llama3-8B and Llama3-8B-Instruct, with respect to all layers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of model parameter differentiation, between Llama3-8B-Instruct and MeTHanol, with respect to all layers. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Current research efforts are focused on enhancing the thinking and reasoning capability of large language model (LLM) by prompting, data-driven emergence and inference-time computation. In this study, we consider stimulating language model's thinking and cognitive abilities from a modular perspective, which mimics the human brain architecture. We select a specific intermediate attention layer with newly implemented language heads. We conduct dual-layer fine-tuning by annotated (query, thought, answer) samples and show that the intermediate layer can also learn to decode fluent and reasonable language tokens. A two-pass inference mechanism is designed to generate thoughts then formal responses. The entire framework is called modularized thinking language model (MeTHanol) which can enhance LLM's cognitive behaviors as indicated by Theory of Mind (ToM) and Vignette-based experiments. Case studies also show that MeTHanol can plan and self-reflect and generate human-like thoughts and answers, even on unseen and open-domain tasks. MeTHanol can also adapt to a personalized prompt and behave as the specified character. Our study holds promise for significant cognitive gains from a modular perspective. Our code, model and data are available at https://bachozean.github.io/methanol-page

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MeTHanol, a framework that selects one intermediate attention layer in an LLM, equips it with new language heads, and performs dual-layer fine-tuning on annotated (query, thought, answer) samples so that the chosen layer learns to decode fluent thoughts. A two-pass inference procedure first generates thoughts from the intermediate layer and then produces the final response from the model; the authors report that this yields improved performance on Theory of Mind and vignette-based tasks, enables planning and self-reflection, and supports persona adaptation even on unseen tasks.

Significance. If the reported gains are shown to arise specifically from the intermediate-layer decoding mechanism rather than from the fine-tuning distribution or the two-pass format alone, the work would supply a concrete, layer-targeted route to modular reasoning in LLMs that parallels biological modularity and could improve both efficiency and interpretability. The public release of code, model, and data is a clear strength that supports reproducibility and follow-up experiments.

major comments (1)
  1. [Experiments] The central claim attributes cognitive gains on ToM and vignette tasks to the modular intermediate-layer thinking enabled by dual-layer fine-tuning. However, the experimental section provides no ablation that holds the (query, thought, answer) training data and the two-pass inference procedure fixed while varying only the source of the thought tokens (intermediate-layer heads vs. final-layer output vs. no layer-specific intervention). Without this control, it remains unclear whether the observed improvements are due to the claimed modular mechanism or to memorization of the thought-augmented training distribution or to the extra inference compute supplied by any two-pass format.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that experiments demonstrate improvement but supplies no quantitative metrics, baselines, error bars, or statistical tests; a brief summary of these results would strengthen the abstract.
  2. [Method] The selection of the particular intermediate layer index is treated as a free hyperparameter; a short sensitivity analysis or justification for the chosen index would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment on the experimental design below and will revise the paper to incorporate the suggested control.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Experiments] The central claim attributes cognitive gains on ToM and vignette tasks to the modular intermediate-layer thinking enabled by dual-layer fine-tuning. However, the experimental section provides no ablation that holds the (query, thought, answer) training data and the two-pass inference procedure fixed while varying only the source of the thought tokens (intermediate-layer heads vs. final-layer output vs. no layer-specific intervention). Without this control, it remains unclear whether the observed improvements are due to the claimed modular mechanism or to memorization of the thought-augmented training distribution or to the extra inference compute supplied by any two-pass format.

    Authors: We agree that the current experimental section does not contain the precise ablation requested, which would hold the annotated (query, thought, answer) training distribution and the two-pass inference procedure fixed while varying only whether thoughts are decoded from the newly added intermediate-layer heads, from the model's original final-layer output, or from a no-intervention baseline. The existing comparisons are to standard prompting and conventional fine-tuning on (query, answer) pairs, which do not isolate the layer-specific mechanism in the manner described. We acknowledge that this leaves open the possibility that gains arise from the thought-augmented data distribution or the two-pass format itself. In the revised manuscript we will add the requested ablation, training a final-layer thought-generation baseline on the identical data and performing the same two-pass inference, along with a no-layer-intervention two-pass control. The results will be reported alongside the existing ToM and vignette evaluations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical method with external task benchmarks

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical architecture (intermediate-layer heads + dual-layer fine-tuning on (query, thought, answer) triples + two-pass inference) and reports performance gains on ToM and vignette tasks. No equations, uniqueness theorems, or predictions are presented that reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-citations, or ansatzes defined inside the work. All load-bearing claims rest on external experimental outcomes rather than internal redefinitions or self-referential derivations, satisfying the self-contained criterion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that an intermediate transformer layer can be made to produce coherent language output when given new heads and appropriate supervision; no new physical entities or mathematical axioms are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • choice of intermediate layer index
    The paper selects one specific attention layer; its index is a modeling choice that must be validated experimentally.
  • fine-tuning hyperparameters
    Learning rate, batch size, and number of epochs for the dual-layer training are fitted or chosen to obtain the reported behavior.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Transformer attention layers can be fine-tuned independently when new output heads are attached.
    The method presupposes that gradient updates to one layer plus new heads will not destroy the rest of the network's capabilities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5774 in / 1391 out tokens · 41561 ms · 2026-05-23T20:59:56.556690+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A Comprehensive Overview of Large Language Models

    H. Naveed, A. U. Khan, S. Qiu, M. Saqib, S. Anwar, M. Usman, N. Akhtar, N. Barnes, and A. Mian, “A comprehensive overview of large language models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2307.06435

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function

    A. D. Friederici, “The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function.” Physiological reviews , vol. 91(4), pp. 1357–92, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:3224368

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Improving coherence and consistency in neural sequence models with dual-system, neuro-symbolic reasoning,

    M. Nye, M. Tessler, J. Tenenbaum, and B. M. Lake, “Improving coherence and consistency in neural sequence models with dual-system, neuro-symbolic reasoning,” in Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems , vol. 34, 2021, pp. 25 192–25 204

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Dissociating language and thought in large language models,

    K. Mahowald, A. A. Ivanova, I. A. Blank, N. Kanwisher, J. B. Tenen- baum, and E. Fedorenko, “Dissociating language and thought in large language models,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences , vol. 28, pp. 517–540, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey

    Y . Gao, Y . Xiong, X. Gao, K. Jia, J. Pan, Y . Bi, Y . Dai, J. Sun, M. Wang, and H. Wang, “Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Learn beyond the answer: Training language models with reflection for mathematical reasoning,

    Z. Zhang, T. Ge, Z. Liang, W. Yu, D. Yu, M. Jia, D. Yu, and M. Jiang, “Learn beyond the answer: Training language models with reflection for mathematical reasoning,” in Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Nov. 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Self-reflection in llm agents: Effects on problem-solving performance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06682, 2024

    M. Renze and E. Guven, “Self-reflection in llm agents: Effects on problem-solving performance,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2405.06682

    work page arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models

    D. S. M. B. B. I. F. X. E. C. Q. L. D. Z. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Language as an instrument of thought,

    E. Asoulin, “Language as an instrument of thought,” Glossa: a journal of general linguistics , vol. 1, 11 2016

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Language and the mind: how language shapes our thinking,

    X. Zhou, “Language and the mind: how language shapes our thinking,” Journal of World Languages , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 505–529, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1515/jwl-2023-0018

    work page doi:10.1515/jwl-2023-0018 2023

  11. [11]

    Frontal lobe: Functional neuroanatomy of its circuitry and related disconnection syndromes,

    R. B. João and R. M. Filgueiras, “Frontal lobe: Functional neuroanatomy of its circuitry and related disconnection syndromes,” in Prefrontal Cortex. IntechOpen, 2018, ch. 3

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    ‘theory of mind’ impairments and their relationship to executive functioning following frontal lobe excisions,

    A. D. Rowe, P. R. Bullock, C. E. Polkey, and R. G. Morris, “‘theory of mind’ impairments and their relationship to executive functioning following frontal lobe excisions,” Brain, vol. 124, no. 3, pp. 600–616, 03 2001

    work page 2001

  13. [13]

    A. D. Friederici, Language in Our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity . The MIT Press, 11 2017

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Think twice: Perspective-taking improves large language models’ theory-of-mind capabilities,

    P. P. L. L.-P. M. Alex Wilf, Sihyun Shawn Lee, “Think twice: Perspective-taking improves large language models’ theory-of-mind capabilities,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.10227

    work page arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Using cognitive psychology to understand gpt- 3,

    M. Binz and E. Schulz, “Using cognitive psychology to understand gpt- 3,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 120, no. 6, Feb. 2023

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    The llama 3 herd of models,

    A. Grattafiori et al. , “The llama 3 herd of models,” 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models,

    Y . Zheng, R. Zhang, J. Zhang, Y . Ye, Z. Luo, Z. Feng, and Y . Ma, “Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models,” in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , Bangkok and Thailand, 2024

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?

    D. Premack and G. Woodruff, “Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?” Behavioral and brain sciences , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 515–526, 1978

    work page 1978

  19. [19]

    Revisiting the evaluation of theory of mind through question answering,

    M. Le, Y .-L. Boureau, and M. Nickel, “Revisiting the evaluation of theory of mind through question answering,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), Hong Kong, China, Nov. 2019, pp. 5872–5877

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Under- standing social reasoning in language models with language models,

    K. Gandhi, J.-P. Fränken, T. Gerstenberg, and N. D. Goodman, “Under- standing social reasoning in language models with language models,” in Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    GPT-4 Technical Report,

    O. Team, “GPT-4 Technical Report,” OpenAI, Technical Report, 2024

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning,

    J. M. N. D. G. Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, “Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning,” 2022

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking,

    Y . S. V . J. N. H. N. D. G. Eric Zelikman, Georges Harik, “Quiet-star: Language models can teach themselves to think before speaking,”

    work page

  24. [24]

    Quiet-STaR: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Think Before Speaking

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.09629

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Think before you speak: Training language models with pause tokens.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02226,

    S. Goyal, Z. Ji, A. S. Rawat, A. K. Menon, S. Kumar, and V . Nagarajan, “Think before you speak: Training language models with pause tokens,” ArXiv, vol. abs/2310.02226, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space

    S. Hao, S. Sukhbaatar, D. Su, X. Li, Z. Hu, J. Weston, and Y . Tian, “Training large language models to reason in a continuous latent space,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06769

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Language and thought are not the same thing: evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients,

    E. Fedorenko and R. Varley, “Language and thought are not the same thing: evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , vol. 1369, no. 1, p. 132—153, April

    work page

  28. [28]

    Available: https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4874898

    [Online]. Available: https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4874898

    work page

  29. [29]

    Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought,

    E. Fedorenko, S. Piantadosi, and E. Gibson, “Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought,” Nature, vol. 630, pp. 575– 586, 06 2024

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Think twice: A human-like two-stage conversational agent for emotional re- sponse generation,

    S. M. W. B. S. Z. D. Z. K. H. Y . H. Yushan Qian, Bo Wang, “Think twice: A human-like two-stage conversational agent for emotional re- sponse generation,” 2023

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Language models, like humans, show content effects on reasoning tasks,

    A. K. Lampinen, I. Dasgupta, S. C. Y . Chan, H. R. Sheahan, A. Creswell, D. Kumaran, J. L. McClelland, and F. Hill, “Language models, like humans, show content effects on reasoning tasks,” PNAS Nexus, vol. 3, no. 7, p. pgae233, 07 2024

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Towards emotional support dialog systems,

    S. Liu, C. Zheng, O. Demasi, S. Sabour, Y . Li, Z. Yu, Y . Jiang, and M. Huang, “Towards emotional support dialog systems,” in ACL, 2021. APPENDIX A LIMITATION Among the efforts of thinking and reasoning LLMs, our methodology is orthogonal to those with mechanism inno- vation ( e.g., PPO, RLHF and RLAIF) and inference-time optimization (e.g., LLM-MCTS and...

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    {{Answer}}

    Rule-Based Extraction: Thoughts and answers can be easily dissociated from explicit COT-prompted datasets, such 2For simplicity, here we omit the expression of the system prompt, which can be treated as part of the query. as Reflection and Gsm8K. COT usually encourages LLM to generate rationale content before outputting the final answer, by some prompt su...

    work page

  34. [34]

    A character knows about all events that they do

    work page

  35. [35]

    This includes other characters leaving or exiting the location, the locations of objects in that location, and whether somebody moves an object to another place

    If a character is in a certain room/location, that character knows about all other events that happens in the room. This includes other characters leaving or exiting the location, the locations of objects in that location, and whether somebody moves an object to another place

    work page

  36. [36]

    {{Answer}}

    If a character leaves a location, and is NOT in that location, they no longer know about any events that happen within that location. However, they can re-enter the location.’}, {‘role’: ‘user’, ‘content’: ‘Story: {{Story}} You are {{Character}}. Based on the above information, answer the following question: {{Question}}’}, {‘role’: ‘think’, ‘content’: ‘I...

    work page

  37. [37]

    Bootstrap Reasoning of LLM: The following prompt is utilized to generate the content of thought given an open- domain multi-turn dialogue. Template of Thoughts Auto-Generation [ {‘role’: ‘user’, ‘content’: ‘Please describe in the first-person perspective mental activity of each character in the following dialogue before each statement. Please try to be co...

    work page

  38. [38]

    Hello, World!

    Human Annotation: We develop an annotation tool for human labelers to efficiently annotate human thoughts, as a complement of auto-generation of thoughts. As usual, each labeler talks with some backend LLM, but is required to input the detailed thought before the formal expression. It is asked that the thought should be content-related with the expression...

    work page

  39. [39]

    Recall the basic structure of a C program

    work page

  40. [40]

    Explain each component of the code

    work page

  41. [41]

    Provide a clear explanation of the code I’ll start by outlining the basic structure, then break down each component, and finally explain how they work together

    work page

  42. [42]

    Brief introduction to reinforcement learning

    work page

  43. [43]

    Comparison with other machine learning models

    work page

  44. [44]

    Applications and advantages

    work page

  45. [45]

    The algorithm is important

    Step-by-step process for implementation Upon reflection, I realize I should also mention the importance of the function (e.g., "The algorithm is important") in the explanation. Additionally, I should clarify that the basic structure is not just a basic class or Kecid’s algorithm, but a simple C program for finding the number of food classes to check for t...

    work page

  46. [46]

    ‘#include <stdio.h>‘: This line includes the standard input/output header file, which provides functions like ‘printf()‘

    work page

  47. [47]

    ‘int main()‘: This declares the main function, which is the entry point of the program

    work page

  48. [48]

    ‘: These braces enclose the body of the main function

    ‘ ... ‘: These braces enclose the body of the main function

    work page

  49. [49]

    Hello, World!\n

    ‘printf("Hello, World!\n");‘: This line uses the ‘printf()‘ function to print the string "Hello, World!" to the console. The ‘\n‘ at the end adds a newline character for proper formatting

    work page

  50. [50]

    This program demonstrates basic C syntax and usage of the ‘printf()‘ function

    ‘return 0;‘: This line returns 0 from the main function, indicating successful execution of the program. This program demonstrates basic C syntax and usage of the ‘printf()‘ function. It’s a fundamental example often used to introduce new programmers to the language. Some related concepts you might find interesting are:

    work page

  51. [51]

    Command-line arguments in C programs

    work page

  52. [52]

    empathetic

    Using functions for modular programming Would you like me to explain any part of the code in more detail? Layer 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Difference 0.000500 0.000546 0.001427 0.001686 0.001434 0.001770 0.001755 0.001785 0.001884 0.001923 0.001999 0.002060 0.001816 0.002167 0.002197 0.002014 0.00...

    work page