Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

SwissADT: An Audio Description Translation System for Swiss Languages

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SwissADT is the first audio-description translation system covering German, French, Italian and English, and it shows that adding video frames to a GPT-4 translator generally improves quality.

desk verdict The SwissADT system and dataset are real contributions, but the headline claim that video frames improve translation quality is not supported by the reported evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14967 v1 pith:JR4NOKM4 submitted 2024-11-22 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CVcs.HC

Lukas Fischer , Yingqiang Gao , Alexa Lintner , Sarah Ebling This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CVcs.HC
keywords audiodescriptiontranslationmultimodalmachinelargelanguagemodelsSwisslanguagesvideogroundingaccessibilityzero-shotDeepLsyntheticdata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Audio description (AD) is the narrated soundtrack that makes visual media usable for blind and visually impaired viewers, and in multilingual Switzerland those narrations currently have to be produced separately in German, French, and Italian. SwissADT is a system that translates existing AD scripts among those three languages plus English using GPT-4 models, with a video-grounding step that feeds relevant frames to the translator. The paper's central claim is that video-augmented input generally produces better AD translations than text alone, backed by automatic metrics and by ratings from professional AD experts. If the claim holds, broadcasters and accessibility services could translate rather than re-author AD scripts, lowering the cost of serving roughly 55,000 blind and 327,000 visually impaired people in Switzerland.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the multimodal translation loop: a temporal video-grounding model (CG-DETR) selects the most relevant sequence of consecutive frames for each AD segment, using a ten-second buffer before onset and after offset to absorb synchronization shifts; a frame sampler linearly extracts four frames or every 50th frame from that moment; and a zero-shot GPT-4 model (gpt-4o or gpt-4-turbo) translates the AD script with the frames attached. The prompt tells the model to ignore the image if it does not match the AD, which prevents irrelevant frames from hurting output. The frames supply disambiguating visual context that text alone cannot provide, and this is what makes the system multimodal rather than text-only.

What would settle it

Compare gpt-4o text-plus-frames against text-only on a held-out set of professionally human-translated AD scripts in German, French, and Italian; if the frame-augmented outputs do not beat text-only on BLEU, METEOR, or chrF, or do not receive higher SQM ratings from professional AD experts, the central claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that zero-shot GPT-4 can translate AD scripts between English and German, French, and Italian at quality levels that automated metrics and professional audio describers both rate highly, and that adding sampled video frames to the prompt improves fluency and adequacy over text-only translation (e.g., EN→DE BLEU 58.20 vs 56.95 with gpt-4o; human fluency 5.38 vs 5.24 and adequacy 5.70 vs 5.68 on a 0–6 scale). It presents this as the first ADT system covering the three main Swiss languages plus English, and it argues that integrating visual input is generally beneficial, with the one EN→IT text-only result being a statistically nonsignificant exception. The visual signal helps most when the text alone is ambiguous, such as resolving French 'phare' as 'spotlight' rather than 'lighthouse' or Italian 'volta' as third-person rather than imperative.

Load-bearing premise

The entire parallel evaluation rests on DeepL-generated German, French, and Italian AD scripts being close enough to real human-authored AD scripts that scores against them mean what they appear to mean.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Broadcasters can translate existing AD scripts instead of re-authoring them, cutting cost and lead time for multilingual accessibility.
  • The text-plus-frames configuration works in zero-shot mode with gpt-4o, so usable translations do not require fine-tuning or a large parallel AD corpus.
  • Professional post-editors can polish machine output rather than recreate AD scripts from scratch, since expert fluency and adequacy ratings already land near the top of the 0–6 scale.
  • The modular pipeline means future improvements in moment retrieval or in multilingual LLMs can be dropped in without redesigning the system.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the visual benefit is likely concentrated in ambiguous AD segments, so a routing policy that sends only ambiguous segments through the frame-augmented path could retain most of the quality gain at near-text-only cost.
  • Beyond the paper: because all silver references were synthesized by DeepL, the reported automatic-score improvements may partly measure agreement with DeepL style; human-authored references for French and Italian are the clean test of whether the multimodal advantage is real there.
  • Beyond the paper: at the paper's own pricing, frame-augmented gpt-4o translation costs about $4.33 per 190 ADs versus $0.11 text-only, so selective use of frames is the economically interesting production variant.
  • Beyond the paper: the same pipeline could be repurposed for other low-resource language pairs once a moment retriever and an LLM with sufficient multilingual ability exist.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents SwissADT, an audio description translation (ADT) system for German, French, Italian, and English, built from AD scripts and video clips aggregated from Swiss TV stations. Parallel training and test data are synthesized using DeepL, and the system translates AD segments with GPT-4 models, optionally conditioning on video frames retrieved by CG-DETR and a linear frame sampler. The evaluation combines automatic metrics (BLEU, METEOR, chrF) against DeepL-generated references and a human study with three AD professionals on German only. The central claims are that SwissADT is the first multilingual and multimodal ADT system for Swiss languages and that adding video frames 'generally enhances translation quality.'

Significance. If the multimodal benefit were convincingly established, this would be a practically valuable system for producing audio descriptions in Switzerland's multilingual context, and the released code and data could serve as a resource for future research. The paper's strengths include the collection of real-world AD data from Swiss broadcasters, the use of professional AD experts for evaluation, a modular system architecture, and public availability of the implementation. However, the central claim of multimodal improvement is currently supported only by small, unpaired, and statistically untested differences; the significance as presented is therefore not yet demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1, Table 4] The claim that 'Augmenting source ADs with corresponding video frames generally enhances translation quality' is not supported by the reported numbers. For gpt-4o, text+4 frames improves over text-only on all three metrics for EN→DE (BLEU +1.25, METEOR +0.79, chrF +1.00), but for EN→FR METEOR drops by 0.21, and for EN→IT BLEU drops by 0.15 and chrF by 0.35. For gpt-4-turbo, the effect is inconsistent across all language pairs and metrics, with several decreases. No confidence intervals or significance tests are reported anywhere in the table, and the admission that 'the differences are not statistically significant' is confined to one language pair. Please report paired bootstrap confidence intervals or a significance test for each metric, and either provide quantitative support for the general claim or reframe it as a preliminary observation.
  2. [Section 5.3, Table 5] The human evaluation cannot establish the multimodal benefit. Because the paper states that 'we randomly select one of two strategies for each segment,' each segment is evaluated under only one condition; the two condition means are therefore unpaired and confounded by segment difficulty. Moreover, Limitation 3 states that the raters did not see the video frames, so their ratings cannot reflect whether the translation is consistent with the visual context, which is the hypothesized mechanism of improvement. The observed differences are tiny (fluency +0.14, adequacy +0.02, usefulness –0.05) and no significance test is provided. The conclusion in Section 6.2 that 'These results verify our hypothesis that multimodal input improves translation quality' overstates the evidence. A paired or crossover design, or at least a test statistic, is needed before drawing this conclusion.
  3. [Section 4.2 and 5.1] The evaluation anchor is a silver standard: all parallel data and test references are generated by DeepL, so the automatic scores measure agreement with a specific MT system rather than with human-quality AD. The GEMBA-MQM quality check in Section 5.1 uses GPT-4, the same model family as the translator, and the threshold of 4 for 'acceptable' errors is arbitrary and not independently calibrated. This does not invalidate the system, but the paper should state explicitly that all automatic scores are relative to synthetic references, and ideally validate a sample of the references with human experts or report the GEMBA-MQM weights alongside the main automatic metrics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The French character count reads '569, 535' with an internal space; it should be '569,535'.
  2. [Table 4] The labels 'gpt-4-turbotext + 4 frames' and 'gpt-4-turbotext +nframes' are missing spaces and should be 'gpt-4-turbo text + 4 frames' and 'gpt-4-turbo text + n frames', respectively.
  3. [Table 6 and Section 5.3] There are several typos: 'lenght' should be 'length' (Table 6 caption), 'betweeen' should be 'between' (Section 5.3), and the table header 'CHR F' is inconsistent with the text's 'chrF'.
  4. [Appendix A] The example AD script contains 'Rolls Roice' (likely 'Rolls-Royce') and 'V oltala' with an extra space; these should be corrected.
  5. [Section 5.3] The human evaluation sources are 'English silver AD segments' translated back to German; this should be stated clearly in the main text, as it is easy to misread as evaluating the original German AD translations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central comparisons use fixed references and involve no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's core claims are that GPT-4-based translation of audio descriptions is effective and that adding video frames generally improves translation quality. Neither claim reduces to its inputs by construction. The automatic evaluation compares SwissADT outputs against DeepL-generated silver-standard references using BLEU, METEOR, and chrF; the text-only and text-plus-frames conditions use exactly the same references, so the multimodal comparison is not forced by the reference construction. The GEMBA-MQM validation of the DeepL references does use GPT-4, but that validation is not the evaluation of SwissADT outputs, and the same-model concern is a data-quality issue rather than a definitional circularity. The human evaluation is limited by the small number of raters, the unpaired per-segment strategy assignment, and the fact that raters did not see the frames (stated in Limitation 3), but these are evidence-quality limitations, not circular reasoning. There are no fitted parameters that are later renamed as predictions, and the paper does not rely on self-citations or uniqueness theorems from the authors' own prior work. The appendix examples of visual disambiguation are illustrative and not used to compute the reported scores. Overall, the derivation is self-contained: the reported differences, while small and not shown to be statistically significant, are genuine experimental outcomes rather than artifacts of the evaluation setup.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system introduces no fitted model parameters and no invented entities. Its central inference rests on the quality of DeepL synthetic AD data, the cross-lingual transfer of CG-DETR, the zero-shot competence of GPT-4 for this task, and the generalizability of German-only human evaluation. The frame-count and buffer choices are hand-chosen configuration parameters that affect the visual input but are not fitted to the test set.

free parameters (2)
  • Video frame count for visual input = 4 or n (every 50th frame)
    The system samples either four frames or every 50th frame from the retrieved moment, a hand-chosen configuration reported in Section 3 and Section 6.1. The visual-improvement claim depends on this choice, and no ablation over frame counts is reported.
  • Moment retrieval buffer = 10 seconds before and after AD runtime
    The moment retriever window is padded by ten seconds on each side, recommended by AD experts in Section 3. This heuristic affects which frames are available to the translator but is not fitted or ablated.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption DeepL-generated AD scripts are an acceptable silver standard for training and for reference translations in automatic evaluation.
    Section 4.2 states that parallel data is lacking and DeepL is used to synthesize AD scripts; Section 5.1 judges DeepL errors acceptable because all weights are below 4. If DeepL output is biased, BLEU, METEOR, and chrF scores against these references may not reflect quality against professional human AD.
  • domain assumption CG-DETR, trained on English temporal grounding, can retrieve relevant moments for Swiss video content after English pivot translation.
    Section 3 uses CG-DETR, which was trained on English data, and requires English as an intermediary language. The quality of retrieved moments under cross-lingual and cross-domain video conditions is not separately evaluated.
  • domain assumption Zero-shot GPT-4 multilingual translation competence transfers to AD scripts and to the visual instruction prompt.
    The system applies GPT-4o and GPT-4-turbo zero-shot with hand-written prompts in Appendix C. No fine-tuning or few-shot conditioning is tested, so all task adaptation is assumed to come from the model's existing capabilities.
  • domain assumption German human AD evaluations generalize to French and Italian AD quality.
    The human study covers only German AD scripts because of expert availability, as stated in Section 5.3 and the Limitations. The authors extrapolate to French and Italian on the basis of similar automatic scores.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SwissADT: An Audio Description Translation System for Swiss Languages." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JR4NOKM4

@misc{pith2026241114967,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SwissADT: An Audio Description Translation System for Swiss Languages},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JR4NOKM4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14967}
}
read the original abstract

Audio description (AD) is a crucial accessibility service provided to blind persons and persons with visual impairment, designed to convey visual information in acoustic form. Despite recent advancements in multilingual machine translation research, the lack of well-crafted and time-synchronized AD data impedes the development of audio description translation (ADT) systems that address the needs of multilingual countries such as Switzerland. Furthermore, since the majority of ADT systems rely solely on text, uncertainty exists as to whether incorporating visual information from the corresponding video clips can enhance the quality of ADT outputs. In this work, we present SwissADT, the first ADT system implemented for three main Swiss languages and English. By collecting well-crafted AD data augmented with video clips in German, French, Italian, and English, and leveraging the power of Large Language Models (LLMs), we aim to enhance information accessibility for diverse language populations in Switzerland by automatically translating AD scripts to the desired Swiss language. Our extensive experimental ADT results, composed of both automatic and human evaluations of ADT quality, demonstrate the promising capability of SwissADT for the ADT task. We believe that combining human expertise with the generation power of LLMs can further enhance the performance of ADT systems, ultimately benefiting a larger multilingual target population.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14967 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Overview of SwissADT: An end-to-end pipeline that translates a given AD segment from English to the three main languages of Switzerland with the most salient video frames; (b) Detail of the moment retriever: it selects a moment, i.e., the most salient sequence of consecutive frames, to augment the translation inputs; (c) Detail of the frame sampler: it linearly interpolates the retrieved moment to obtain a casca… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of a German AD script with spo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two examples of ambiguity that require ad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: User interaction interface for SwissADT. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multimodal Large Language Models for Image, Text, and Speech Data Augmentation: A Survey

    cs.CV 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A literature review cataloging LLM-based augmentation methods across image, text, and speech, with a taxonomy of techniques, limitations, and suggested fixes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. GPT-4 technical report . arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. 2005. METEOR: An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments . In Proceedings of the ACL workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summarization, pages 65--72

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Floriane Bardini. 2020. Audio description and the translation of film language into words . Ilha do Desterro, 73:273--295

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners . Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877--1901

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    David Chen and William B Dolan. 2011. Collecting highly parallel data for paraphrase evaluation . In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, pages 190--200

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Jacob Cohen. 1968. Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological bulletin, 70(4):213

    work page 1968

  7. [7]

    Luque Colmenero, M Olalla, and Silvia Soler Gallego. 2019. Training audio describers for art museums . Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 18:166--181

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Anna Fern \'a ndez-Torn \'e and Anna Matamala. 2016. Machine translation in audio description? Comparing creation, translation and post-editing efforts . SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation, 9(1):64--87

    work page 2016

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Markus Freitag, George Foster, David Grangier, Viresh Ratnakar, Qijun Tan, and Wolfgang Macherey. 2021. Experts, Errors, and Context: A Large-Scale Study of Human Evaluation for Machine Translation . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1460--1474

    2021

  2. [10]

    Tengda Han, Max Bain, Arsha Nagrani, Gul Varol, Weidi Xie, and Andrew Zisserman. 2023 a . Autoad ii: The sequel-who, when, and what in movie audio description . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 13645--13655

    2023

  3. [11]

    Tengda Han, Max Bain, Arsha Nagrani, G \"u l Varol, Weidi Xie, and Andrew Zisserman. 2023 b . AutoAD: Movie description in context . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18930--18940

    2023

  4. [12]

    Anna Jankowska. 2017. Blended learning in audio description training . Mi e dzy Orygina em a Przek adem , (38):101--124

    2017

  5. [13]

    Tom Kocmi and Christian Federmann. 2023. GEMBA-MQM: Detecting Translation Quality Error Spans with GPT-4 . In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Machine Translation, pages 768--775

    2023

  6. [14]

    Jiaoda Li, Duygu Ataman, and Rico Sennrich. 2021. Vision Matters When It Should: Sanity Checking Multimodal Machine Translation Models . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8556--8562

    2021

  7. [15]

    Pierre Lison and J \"o rg Tiedemann. 2016. OpenSubtitles2016: Extracting Large Parallel Corpora from Movie and TV Subtitles . In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16), pages 923--929

    2016

  8. [16]

    Pierre Lison, J \"o rg Tiedemann, and Milen Kouylekov. 2018. OpenSubtitles2018: Statistical rescoring of sentence alignments in large, noisy parallel corpora . In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Yinhan Liu, Jiatao Gu, Naman Goyal, Xian Li, Sergey Edunov, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Mike Lewis, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020. Multilingual Denoising Pre-training for Neural Machine Translation . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:726--742

    2020

  10. [18]

    Anna Matamala and Pilar Orero. 2007. Designing a course on audio description and defining the main competences of the future professional . Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series--Themes in Translation Studies, 6

    2007

  11. [19]

    Iwona Mazur. 2020. Audio description: Concepts, theories and research approaches . The Palgrave handbook of audiovisual translation and media accessibility, pages 227--247

    2020

  12. [20]

    WonJun Moon, Sangeek Hyun, SuBeen Lee, and Jae-Pil Heo. 2023. Correlation-guided Query-Dependency Calibration in Video Representation Learning for Temporal Grounding . arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08835

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Andreea-Maria Oncescu, Joao F Henriques, Yang Liu, Andrew Zisserman, and Samuel Albanie. 2021. Queryd: A video dataset with high-quality text and audio narrations . In ICASSP 2021-2021 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 226...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation . In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311--318

    2002

  15. [23]

    Maja Popovi \'c . 2015. chrF: character n-gram F-score for automatic MT evaluation . In Proceedings of the tenth workshop on statistical machine translation, pages 392--395

    2015

  16. [24]

    Joel Snyder. 2005. Audio description: The visual made verbal . In International congress series, volume 1282, pages 935--939. Elsevier

    2005

  17. [25]

    Mattia Soldan, Alejandro Pardo, Juan Le \'o n Alc \'a zar, Fabian Caba, Chen Zhao, Silvio Giancola, and Bernard Ghanem. 2022. MAD: A scalable dataset for language grounding in videos from movie audio descriptions . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision a...

    2022

  18. [26]

    orsehbehinderung: Entwicklung in der Schweiz. Eine Publikation zur Frage: Wie viele sehbehinderte, blinde und h\

    Stefan Spring. 2020. Sehbehinderung, Blindheit und H\"orsehbehinderung: Entwicklung in der Schweiz. Eine Publikation zur Frage: Wie viele sehbehinderte, blinde und h\"orsehbehinderte Menschen gibt es in der Schweiz? -- Berechnungen 2019 . Technical report, Schweizerischer Zent...

    2020

  19. [27]

    Gert Vercauteren, Nina Reviers, and Kim Steyaert. 2021. Evaluating the effectiveness of machine translation of audio description: the results of two pilot studies in the English-Dutch language pair= Avaluaci \'o de l'efectivitat de la traducci \'o autom \`a tica de l' \`a udio...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Yujia Wang, Wei Liang, Haikun Huang, Yongqi Zhang, Dingzeyu Li, and Lap-Fai Yu. 2021. Toward automatic audio description generation for accessible videos . In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1--12

    2021

  21. [29]

    Jun Xu, Tao Mei, Ting Yao, and Yong Rui. 2016. Msr-vtt: A large video description dataset for bridging video and language . In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5288--5296

    2016

  22. [30]

    Linting Xue, Noah Constant, Adam Roberts, Mihir Kale, Rami Al-Rfou, Aditya Siddhant, Aditya Barua, and Colin Raffel. 2021. mT5: A Massively Multilingual Pre-trained Text-to-Text Transformer . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Associatio...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Xiaojun Ye, Junhao Chen, Xiang Li, Haidong Xin, Chao Li, Sheng Zhou, and Jiajun Bu. 2024. MMAD: Multi-modal Movie Audio Description . In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), p...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Qi Zhang, Zihao Yue, Anwen Hu, Ziheng Wang, and Qin Jin. 2022. MovieUN: A Dataset for Movie Understanding and Narrating . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pages 1873--1885

    2022

  25. [33]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  26. [34]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.