Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Shifting NER into High Gear: The Auto-AdvER Approach

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 605-ad English dataset with a Condition–Historic–Sales Options schema is offered as the first NER benchmark for car advertisements, and GPT-4o tops it.

desk verdict A genuinely new domain NER dataset with a reasonable first model comparison, but the headline LLM-vs-encoder result is scoped to a template-heavy sample and needs per-source reporting before the claim stands for car ads broadly. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05655 v1 pith:2M4WSOAH submitted 2024-12-07 cs.CL

Filippos Ventirozos , Ioanna Nteka , Tania Nandy , Jozef Baca , Peter Appleby , Matthew Shardlow This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords namedentityrecognitioncaradvertisementsAuto-AdvERannotationschemalargelanguagemodelsencoder-onlytransformersinter-annotatoragreementin-contextlearning
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

This paper is trying to establish that car advertisements are a distinct text genre for named entity recognition (the task of finding and labelling key facts in text), with their own important facts — the vehicle's current condition, its past events, and the extras offered in the sale — and that a three-label schema built with industry input can capture them reliably. It introduces Auto-AdvER, a 605-ad English dataset annotated with Condition, Historic, and Sales Options labels, and reports 92% partial-match F1 between annotators. On that dataset, decoder-only large language models outperform encoder-only transformers, with GPT-4o reaching 62.0 F1 compared with 32.0 for BERT-base, though all models remain far from perfect. If these results hold, the automotive industry gains a reusable benchmark and a data foundation for downstream work such as entity linking, market analysis, and predictive maintenance.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the Auto-AdvER annotation schema, a three-label scheme — Condition (present state of the car), Historic (past events affecting it), and Sales Options (tangible offers or services beyond the car itself) — with detailed span definitions and exclusion rules produced through DevOps-style iterations, an iterative collaboration model in which academic and industry teams alternate design and feedback. Evaluation runs on partial-match F1 from Segura-Bedmar et al. (2013), which gives half credit for overlapping spans and is used for both inter-annotator agreement and model ranking. For the decoder-only LLMs, the paper uses an in-context learning protocol with 100 training examples, label definitions in the prompt, and @@/## delimiters to mark entities, while encoder-only models are fine-tuned for token classification.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to sample a fresh corpus of car advertisements uniformly across all trader sizes and private sellers, run the same eight models under the same three-fold protocol, and compare the ranking; if a fine-tuned encoder-only model matches or beats GPT-4o, or if the LLM advantage shrinks, the paper's central empirical claim that decoder-only LLMs outperform encoder-only models for car-ad NER would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims to be the first to offer an English-language annotation schema and dataset for car advertisements, created through an industry-academia collaboration. Its central empirical finding is that on this dataset decoder-only LLMs beat encoder-only models: GPT-4o scores 62.0 F1, Gemini 1.5 Flash 58.7, Llama 3.1 70B 55.7, and Qwen2.5 72B 47.7, while fine-tuned BERT and DeBERTaV3 models range from 32.0 to 36.3 F1. The authors present this not as a solved task but as a first benchmark: the schema is intended to be extended, and the labels to be refined into finer entities through entity linking. The paper also notes that closed-source LLM results should be read with caution because undisclosed training data may contaminate evaluations.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's usefulness depends on its 605-ad sample representing car advertisements broadly, but traders were chosen by listing volume, favouring template texts, and private ads were stratified only by UK region, so a different sample composition could change both the model ranking and the schema's value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The three-label schema gives the automotive industry a common vocabulary for extracting facts from car ads, and the dataset can serve as a benchmark for future NER work in the genre.
  • For organizations choosing a model, the results suggest decoder-only LLMs, particularly GPT-4o-class systems, are a stronger starting point than fine-tuned BERT-scale encoders when labelled data are limited.
  • The dataset's noisy, telegraphic language positions it alongside WNUT16 and Twitter NER, making it a candidate stress test for robustness to non-standard user-generated text.
  • The authors' planned entity linking would turn coarse labels into fine-grained slots (e.g., number of owners, service history, warranty length), enabling market-dynamics and predictive-maintenance applications described in the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors only hint at: because Qwen2.5 72B has the highest precision (75.7) while GPT-4o has the highest recall (54.7), a voting or ensemble system combining them could plausibly beat either single model; the paper lists boosting and voting as possible improvements but does not test this specific combination.
  • The exclusion rules in Appendix B — no optional or standard features, no custom-fitted parts, no car identifiables — mean the benchmark deliberately sidesteps some price-relevant information; a testable extension is to add a Features label and see whether LLMs can handle it consistently.
  • The 92% inter-annotator agreement uses partial-match F1, which gives 0.5 credit for overlapping spans; a stricter boundary-exact F1 might be lower, so consumers of the benchmark should report both metrics.
  • Because traders were sampled by listing volume and private sellers by region, the schema's portability beyond the UK and beyond template-based dealership ads remains untested; re-applying the guidelines to US or EU car adverts would clarify how much of the benchmark is genre-specific versus region-specific.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Auto-AdvER, a three-label NER schema (Condition, Historic, Sales Options) for English-language car advertisements, developed through an industry-academia collaboration. The authors annotate 605 advertisements (104,382 tokens), report an inter-annotator agreement of 92% F1 from a double-annotated subset, and compare eight models—BERT-base/large, DeBERTaV3-base/large, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Flash, Llama 3.1 70B, and Qwen 2.5 72B—in a three-fold setup. Their headline result is that decoder-only LLMs outperform the smaller encoder-only models, with GPT-4o achieving the best F1 (62.0) and DeBERTaV3-base the best encoder F1 (36.3). The paper also discusses downstream applications such as market dynamics, predictive maintenance, and consumer protection.

Significance. If the dataset, schema, and evaluation are made available, Auto-AdvER would fill a genuine gap: there is currently no established English-language car-advertisement NER benchmark, and the industry partnership gives the schema practical face validity. The manuscript has notable strengths: detailed annotation guidelines in Appendices A and B, explicit hyperparameters and model versions in Appendix C, a partial-match F1 protocol with an alignment step for LLM outputs, and a candid Limitations section acknowledging closed-source LLM contamination. The three-fold comparison of eight models is a useful data point for practitioners. However, the dataset is not yet released, the evaluation metric definition contains an algebraic inconsistency, the IAA count is internally contradictory, and the reported model ranking may be confounded by the deliberately template-heavy trader sample. These issues prevent the current version from fully supporting the central claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.1, Eqs. (2)–(3)] The equalities "Precision = (COR + 0.5 × PAR)/ACT = TP/(TP+FP)" and "Recall = (COR + 0.5 × PAR)/POS = TP/(TP+FN)" cannot both hold given the definitions of POS and ACT in the same paragraph: INC appears in the denominators but not in the numerators, and PAR is counted only half in the numerator. The reported F1 values therefore depend on an unstated decision about how incorrect-label and partial matches are treated. Please state explicitly whether the implementation used (COR + 0.5×PAR)/(COR+INC+PAR+SPU) and (COR + 0.5×PAR)/(COR+INC+PAR+MIS) or a TP/FP formulation, and recompute Table 3 if the formula changes.
  2. [§4.2 and Table 2] The text states that 86 advertisements were double-annotated, while the caption of Table 2 says 82 double-annotated documents. In addition, the 92% agreement is a single point estimate from one annotator pair, with no confidence interval or variance information. Since the reliability of the schema is a central claim, the exact document count must be corrected and the IAA should be reported with a more informative analysis, such as bootstrap intervals or per-label counts.
  3. [§3.3 and §4.4] The sampling design deliberately over-represents template-based trader advertisements: the trader subsample was selected by sorting dealers by listing volume and choosing high-volume dealers "as they typically follow a template." The paper itself notes a clear trader/private divide in §3.5, but Table 3 reports only aggregate results. The 30-point F1 gap between GPT-4o and BERT-base may be inflated by the template-heavy trader subset, since in-context learning tends to exploit such regular templates well. Please report trader versus private performance and discuss how the sampling design affects the conclusion that "the class of LLMs outperforms the smaller encoder-only models."
  4. [Table 3 and §3.5] The label distribution is strongly imbalanced, with 2,134 Sales Options labels versus 573 Condition and 794 Historic labels. Aggregate F1 can be dominated by the majority label, so the reported model ranking may not hold for the minority labels. Please provide per-label precision, recall, and F1 for each model, or at minimum for the best encoder and the best LLM, so that readers can see whether the LLM advantage is uniform across Condition, Historic, and Sales Options.
  5. [§3.5 and footnote 1] The dataset is described as "will be made available upon publication," but no repository link, data sample, or complete annotation guideline document is provided in the manuscript. For a contribution whose central deliverable is a new dataset, this prevents readers from using or validating the resource. A permanent link with a stable version, or an explicit statement of proprietary restrictions, and the complete annotation guidelines should be included in the revised manuscript.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The word "consesus" should be "consensus."
  2. [§4.3] The statement "we employed 100 samples from the training data in an in-context learning (ICL) scenario" is ambiguous: it is not clear whether this means 100 examples per label or 100 examples in total. This detail is important for reproducing the LLM evaluation and for judging the fairness of the comparison.
  3. [Appendix A] The Historic label definition includes "new tyres, brake discs" under component change, while the Condition label also covers tyre condition (e.g., "tyre condition"). The boundary between these two labels should be clarified, since it directly affects the reported inter-annotator agreement.
  4. [§6] The claim "first-ever English-language annotation schema and dataset for car advertisements" is strong. Since only one prior automotive NER study (Hu and Ma, 2024) is cited, please add a brief statement of the literature search used to support the claim, or soften the wording.
  5. [Table 2] The row percentages do not all sum to 100 due to rounding (e.g., CONDITION sums to 99). Reporting raw counts in addition to percentages would remove ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical dataset-and-benchmark study; model rankings are measured on held-out folds, not derived from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The central claims—a new three-label NER schema, inter-annotator agreement of 92% F1, and decoder-only LLMs outperforming encoder-only models on the Auto-AdvER dataset—are empirical measurements, not derivations. The schema was developed through an iterative DevOps-style collaboration between university and industry partners (Sections 3.1–3.2), and the reported IAA is computed between two annotators on 86 double-annotated advertisements (Section 4.2). The model comparison uses three-fold cross-validation with mutually exclusive test sets: encoder models are fine-tuned on 70% of instances per fold, and decoder LLMs use 100 in-context examples drawn from the training portion (Sections 4.3–4.4). No equation in the paper expresses a predicted result as a function of a fitted parameter that is then renamed as a finding; the F1 scores in Table 3 are measured on test folds. The decision to oversample template-based trader ads (Section 3.3) is a sampling-design choice that may limit external validity and could affect the ranking on other car-advertisement genres, but it does not make the reported scores true by construction—that is a correctness or robustness concern, not circularity under the given criteria. The paper also contains no load-bearing self-citation: none of the cited works are by the present authors, and the 'first-ever' novelty claim rests on the authors' stated literature review, which acknowledges only Hu and Ma (2024) for automotive NER in Chinese. The Limitations paragraph about closed-source LLM data contamination further shows the authors flagging an independent interpretability risk rather than importing an unverified premise. I find no step where a prediction reduces to its inputs by definition, no fitted input renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation chain, so the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper is an empirical dataset/benchmark contribution; its central claims rest on the representativeness of the sample, the reliability of the annotation schema, and the fairness of the model comparison, rather than on fitted physical parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • Number of in-context examples for LLMs = 100 per fold
    Section 4.3 states that 100 samples from the training data were used for in-context learning 'to maintain fairness' and reduce cost; the LLM results depend on this hand-chosen number and no sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The three-label schema (Condition, Historic, Sales Options) captures the information relevant to car advertisement analysis.
    Section 3.2 defines the labels based on industry input; the schema is not validated against an external taxonomy or a downstream task, so the usefulness of the benchmark depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The sampled 605 advertisements are representative of the car advertisement genre.
    Section 3.3 describes sampling traders by listing volume and private ads stratified by UK region; representativeness is asserted, not demonstrated, and generalization of the model ranking depends on it.
  • domain assumption One annotator's labels can serve as a reliable gold standard for computing inter-annotator agreement.
    Section 4.2 computes 92% F1 using the dev annotator as gold against the ops annotator; this assumes that annotator is not systematically biased relative to the intended schema.
  • standard math Partial-match F1 with 0.5 credit for partial spans is a valid metric for NER agreement and performance.
    The metric follows Segura-Bedmar et al. (2013), but the 0.5 weight is a convention, and the IAA result depends on it.
invented entities (1)
  • Auto-AdvER label schema (Condition, Historic, Sales Options)
    purpose: Categorize spans in car advertisements for NER
    The schema is the paper's central artifact; its three labels are defined by the authors and supported only by the internal annotation study, without independent external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shifting NER into High Gear: The Auto-AdvER Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2M4WSOAH

@misc{pith2026241205655,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shifting NER into High Gear: The Auto-AdvER Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2M4WSOAH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05655}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a case study on the development of Auto-AdvER, a specialised named entity recognition schema and dataset for text in the car advertisement genre. Developed with industry needs in mind, Auto-AdvER is designed to enhance text mining analytics in this domain and contributes a linguistically unique NER dataset. We present a schema consisting of three labels: "Condition", "Historic" and "Sales Options". We outline the guiding principles for annotation, describe the methodology for schema development, and show the results of an annotation study demonstrating inter-annotator agreement of 92% F1-Score. Furthermore, we compare the performance by using encoder-only models: BERT, DeBERTaV3 and decoder-only open and closed source Large Language Models (LLMs): Llama, Qwen, GPT-4 and Gemini. Our results show that the class of LLMs outperforms the smaller encoder-only models. However, the LLMs are costly and far from perfect for this task. We present this work as a stepping stone toward more fine-grained analysis and discuss Auto-AdvER's potential impact on advertisement analytics and customer insights, including applications such as the analysis of market dynamics and data-driven predictive maintenance. Our schema, as well as our associated findings, are suitable for both private and public entities considering named entity recognition in the automotive domain, or other specialist domains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05655 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of the annotation interface. It is a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alex Brandsen, Suzan Verberne, Milco Wansleeben, and Karsten Lambers. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.562 Creating a dataset for named entity recognition in the archaeology domain . In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 4573--4577, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Nancy Chinchor and Beth Sundheim. 1993. https://aclanthology.org/M93-1007 MUC -5 evaluation metrics . In Fifth Message Understanding Conference ( MUC -5): Proceedings of a Conference Held in Baltimore, M aryland, August 25-27, 1993

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    Chiu and Eric Nichols

    Jason P.C. Chiu and Eric Nichols. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00104 Named entity recognition with bidirectional LSTM - CNN s . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 4:357--370

    doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00104 2016

  4. [4]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long a...

    doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 2019

  5. [5]

    Elena Epure and Romain Hennequin. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.92 A human subject study of named entity recognition in conversational music recommendation queries . In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1281--1296, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Comput...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.eacl-main.92 2023

  6. [6]

    Gemini Team et al. 2024 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11805 Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models . Preprint, arXiv:2312.11805

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Llama Team et al. 2024 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783 The llama 3 herd of models . Preprint, arXiv:2407.21783

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Zihao Fu, Yixuan Su, Zaiqiao Meng, and Nigel Collier. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.903 Biomedical named entity recognition via dictionary-based synonym generalization . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 14621--14635, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.903 2023

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Veena G., Vani Kanjirangat, and Deepa Gupta. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120440 Agroner: An unsupervised agriculture named entity recognition using weighted distributional semantic model . Expert Systems with Applications, 229:120440

    2023

  2. [10]

    Moreno, and Senja Pollak

    Tran Thi Hong Hanh, Antoine Doucet, Nicolas Sidere, Jose G. Moreno, and Senja Pollak. 2021. Named entity recognition architecture combining contextual and global features. In Towards Open and Trustworthy Digital Societies, pages 264--276, Cham. Springer International Publishing

    2021

  3. [11]

    Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.09543 Debertav3: Improving deberta using electra-style pre-training with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing . Preprint, arXiv:2111.09543

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Pengcheng He, Xiaodong Liu, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021 b . https://openreview.net/forum?id=XPZIaotutsD Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2021

  5. [13]

    Songhua Hu and Ruhu Ma. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/NNICE61279.2024.10499162 Named entity recognition of automotive parts based on roberta-crf model . In 2024 4th International Conference on Neural Networks, Information and Communication Engineering (NNICE), pages 604--612

    2024

  6. [14]

    Ramtin Jabbari, Nauman bin Ali, Kai Petersen, and Binish Tanveer. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1145/2962695.2962707 What is D ev O ps? A systematic mapping study on definitions and practices . In Proceedings of the Scientific Workshop Proceedings of XP2016, XP Workshops, pages 1--...

    2016

  7. [15]

    Basra Jehangir, Saravanan Radhakrishnan, and Rahul Agarwal. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100017 A survey on named entity recognition — datasets, tools, and methodologies . Natural Language Processing Journal, 3:100017

    2023

  8. [16]

    Imed Keraghel, Stanislas Morbieu, and Mohamed Nadif. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10825 Recent advances in named entity recognition: A comprehensive survey and comparative study . Preprint, arXiv:2401.10825

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Jing Li, Aixin Sun, Jianglei Han, and Chenliang Li. 2020. A survey on deep learning for named entity recognition. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 34(1):50--70

    2020

  10. [18]

    Mary L. McHugh. 2012. https://doi.org/biochem_med-22-3-276-4 Interrater reliability: T he kappa statistic . Biochemia medica, 22:276--282

    2012

  11. [19]

    John Molineux. 2018. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:158416550 Using action research for change in organizations: processes, reflections and outcomes . Journal of Work-Applied Management

    2018

  12. [20]

    Ines Montani and Matthew Honnibal. 2017. https://prodi.gy/ Prodigy: A modern and scriptable annotation tool for creating training data for machine learning models . Explosion

    2017

  13. [21]

    OpenAI. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 GPT -4 technical report . Preprint, arXiv:2303.08774

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Russell Richie, Sachin Grover, and Fuchiang (Rich) Tsui. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.bionlp-1.26 Inter-annotator agreement is not the ceiling of machine learning performance: Evidence from a comprehensive set of simulations . In Proceedings of the 21st Workshop on B...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Alan Ritter, Sam Clark, Mausam , and Oren Etzioni. 2011. https://aclanthology.org/D11-1141 Named entity recognition in tweets: An experimental study . In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1524--1534, Edinburgh, Scotla...

    2011

  16. [24]

    Isabel Segura-Bedmar, Paloma Mart \' nez, and Mar \' a Herrero-Zazo. 2013. https://aclanthology.org/S13-2056 S em E val-2013 task 9 : Extraction of drug-drug interactions from biomedical texts ( DDIE xtraction 2013) . In Second Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Sem...

    2013

  17. [25]

    Benjamin Strauss, Bethany Toma, Alan Ritter, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, and Wei Xu. 2016. https://aclanthology.org/W16-3919 Results of the WNUT 16 named entity recognition shared task . In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text ( WNUT ) , pages 138--144...

    2016

  18. [26]

    Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder

    Erik F. Tjong Kim Sang and Fien De Meulder. 2003. https://aclanthology.org/W03-0419 Introduction to the C o NLL -2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition . In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Natural Language Learning at HLT - NAACL 2003 , pages 142--147

    2003

  19. [27]

    Shuhe Wang, Xiaofei Sun, Xiaoya Li, Rongbin Ouyang, Fei Wu, Tianwei Zhang, Jiwei Li, and Guoyin Wang. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10428 Gpt-ner: Named entity recognition via large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2304.10428

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mari...

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jialin Wang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Ma, Jianxin Yang, Jin Xu, Jingren Zhou, Jinze...

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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...

  23. [31]

    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 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.