Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 29 references

DSGram: Dynamic Weighting Sub-Metrics for Grammatical Error Correction in the Era of Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper argues that GEC evaluation should use per-sentence dynamic weights over semantic coherence, edit level, and fluency, derived by an LLM through AHP, and that this outperforms fixed-weight and reference-based metrics on human…

desk verdict DSGram is a serious, well-engineered GEC metric with a genuinely useful over-correction sub-metric and released code/data, but its claims against SOME are overstated and it lacks significance testing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12832 v2 pith:24QZZEOX submitted 2024-12-17 cs.CL cs.AI

Jinxiang Xie , Yilin Li , Xunjian Yin , Xiaojun Wan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords grammaticalerrorcorrectionevaluationmetricdynamicweightingAnalyticHierarchyProcesslargelanguagemodelsover-correctionhumanalignmentGEC
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

Evaluating grammatical error correction has become unreliable because LLM-based systems often produce fluent corrections that diverge from gold references. DSGram addresses this by scoring each corrected sentence on three qualities—semantic coherence, edit level, and fluency—and, crucially, weighing those qualities differently for every sentence. The weights come from an LLM that builds a pairwise comparison matrix, converted into normalized weights by the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The authors claim that on the SEEDA human-annotated benchmark, DSGram agrees with human rankings better than conventional reference-based metrics and better than equal-weight versions of itself, while the new Edit Level sub-metric specifically penalizes the over-correction that LLM-based GEC systems tend to produce. If true, automatic GEC evaluation can remain meaningful even when model outputs diverge from any single gold reference.

What carries the argument

The central object is the per-sentence judgment matrix $A = (a_{ij})$, where $a_{ij}$ is the relative importance the LLM assigns to criterion $i$ over criterion $j$ on a 1–9 scale. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) converts this matrix into a normalized weight vector by computing the principal eigenvector, after discarding matrices whose consistency ratio exceeds 0.1. These dynamic weights are then applied to LLM-generated sub-metric scores, so the overall score is context-sensitive: a formal legal sentence receives heavier Edit Level and Semantic Coherence weights, while casual dialogue emphasizes Fluency. The mechanism thus turns a set of pairwise linguistic judgments into valid weights while making the evaluation adapt to each sentence's context.

What would settle it

Compute DSGram on a held-out set of LLM over-corrections with per-sentence GPT-4 weights and with uniform 1/3 weights, comparing both against human overall scores at both system and sentence level; if the dynamic-weight version does not beat the uniform version in human correlation, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that GEC quality is best modeled as a weighted sum of three sub-metric scores, $S = w_s s_s + w_e s_e + w_f s_f$, where the weights are not fixed constants but are recomputed per sentence from an LLM-built judgment matrix via the Analytic Hierarchy Process. An LLM rates the relative importance of Semantic Coherence, Edit Level, and Fluency for each sentence pair; after a consistency check requiring a consistency ratio below 0.1, the principal eigenvector of the matrix yields normalized weights. The paper reports a Pearson correlation of 0.876 between this dynamically weighted score and human overall scores, versus 0.854 under equal weighting, and system-level correlations on SEEDA that it states surpass all conventional reference-based and reference-free baselines. The accompanying novelty is Edit Level, a sub-metric designed to detect unnecessary or excessive edits, targeting the over-correction behavior observed in ChatGPT and other LLM-based GEC systems.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that the pairwise importance judgments an LLM makes for a sentence reflect the relative weights human annotators actually use when scoring that sentence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DSGram should rank LLM-based GEC systems in closer agreement with human judges than metrics like BLEU, M2, ERRANT, GLEU, and equal-weight DSGram, particularly when systems over-correct.
  • The Edit Level sub-metric exposes over-correction that fluency-only or reference-based metrics miss, because a fluent but excessively rewritten sentence is explicitly penalized.
  • Fine-tuning small open-weight LLMs on the DSGram-LLMs dataset yields scores closer to human ratings than few-shot prompting, making the metric more affordable to deploy at scale.
  • The dynamic weighting approach could be incorporated into GEC training losses to steer models away from over-editing, as the paper suggests in its discussion of applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the main benefit of DSGram may come from the Edit Level sub-metric rather than from dynamic weighting; ablating the weights to uniform values on a broader corpus would separate these contributions.
  • If LLM-generated weights truly mirror human priorities, then human GEC judgments are context-dependent, and fixed-weight evaluation benchmarks may systematically misrank systems on specialized text types such as legal or clinical language.
  • The same AHP-plus-LLM weighting procedure could transfer to other text-generation evaluation tasks, such as summarization or style transfer, where over-editing is also a concern.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DSGram, a reference-free grammatical error correction (GEC) evaluation metric that combines three sub-metrics—Semantic Coherence, Edit Level, and Fluency—with per-sentence weights generated by an LLM through an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) judgment matrix. The authors introduce two datasets, DSGram-Eval (human-scored) and DSGram-LLMs (GPT-4-labeled for fine-tuning), and validate the metric against human judgments on SEEDA, comparing with reference-based and reference-free baselines. The main claims are that DSGram's correlation with human feedback surpasses all conventional reference-based metrics and reference-free metrics such as GLEU, Scribendi Score, and uniformly weighted DSGram, and that the dynamic weighting mechanism outperforms equal weighting.

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, DSGram would be a useful contribution: it addresses a real gap—evaluating LLM-based GEC systems that over-correct relative to gold references—and it introduces a plausible mechanism (AHP-driven dynamic weights) for adapting evaluation criteria to sentence context. The paper also contributes reusable resources: the DSGram-Eval human-annotated dataset, the DSGram-LLMs training set, and code/dataset releases, which enable reproducibility. The idea of using GPT-4 to generate per-sentence weights rather than fitting fixed parameters is a fresh direction, and the fine-tuning experiments for cost-effective LLaMA scorers are a practical addition. However, the empirical support is presently weaker than the claims, mainly because the headline 'surpasses all' statement is contradicted by the paper's own Table 3 and because the dynamic-weight advantage is reported without statistical inference.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Table 3] The claim that DSGram's correlation with human feedback 'surpasses that of all conventional reference-based metrics, as well as reference-free metrics' is not supported by the numbers in Table 3. On sentence-level SEEDA-S, DSGram (G.w) has Kendall tau = 0.551 while SOME has 0.555; on SEEDA-E, DSGram has 0.499 while SOME has 0.512. On system-level SEEDA-E Spearman, DSGram (G.w) = 0.944 vs SOME = 0.951. The advertised conclusion should be narrowed to 'competitive with, and sometimes better than, existing metrics', or the authors should provide significance tests or confidence intervals that justify the 'surpasses all' phrasing for the particular configurations where DSGram is numerically ahead.
  2. [Section 4.4] The dynamic-weighting advantage is the paper's central novelty, but the supporting evidence is reported as a single pair of Pearson correlations: 0.8764 for AHP-weighted human sub-scores versus 0.8544 for equal weighting, with the statement that the difference is 'significant at a relaxed significance level.' No test statistic, p-value, confidence interval, resampling procedure, or significance level is given. Without this information, the reader cannot verify that the 0.022 difference is real rather than sampling noise. Please report the exact test, the p-value, and ideally a bootstrap confidence interval for the difference.
  3. [Section 3.2, Algorithm 1] The consistency-check step is underspecified: line 8 says 'Adjust ratings in A until CR < θ' but does not state how the adjustment is performed—whether the LLM is re-prompted, whether a deterministic correction is applied, or whether the threshold is relaxed. This matters because the adjustment procedure could materially change the resulting weights and therefore the DSGram scores. In addition, because GPT-4 generates both the sub-scores and the judgment-matrix weights, the improved correlation with human overall scores could partly reflect self-consistency within a single model rather than alignment with human priorities. An ablation with scores from one LLM and weights from another would strengthen the causal interpretation.
  4. [Section 4.3 and DSGram-Eval appendix] The human annotation protocol for DSGram-Eval is deferred entirely to an appendix, but the main-text validation in Section 4.3 and the dynamic-weight comparison in Section 4.4 depend on these human scores. The paper should report in the main text how many annotators were used, what instructions they received, how scores were aggregated, and what inter-annotator agreement was. Without this information, the human-alignment claims lack a reproducibility baseline.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 5] The text contains several typos, including 'arguement' for 'argument' and the malformed '486755' which appears to be a truncation of '0.486755'.
  2. [References] The reference list item beginning '1987' has no author name, and in Section 1 the citation is rendered as '(Ana 1987)'; this should be corrected to the full author and year.
  3. [Table 2] The caption says the comparison indicates a favorable correlation, but the table includes a 'GEC Model Human Score' column whose provenance and normalization are unclear; please clarify how the human scores are averaged and ranked, and whether the fourteen models listed are exactly the set used for correlation computation in Table 3.
  4. [Section 4.4] The use of Cronbach's Alpha on weights generated for three text corpora is unusual; the paper should clarify the unit of analysis (individual sentences? datasets?) and whether alpha is computed on the sub-scores, the weights, or the weighted scores.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: DSGram's validation targets external human judgments; its weights are generated by LLM/AHP and not fitted to the human overall scores used in meta-evaluation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: LLM prompts produce three sub-scores (Semantic Coherence, Edit Level, Fluency); LLM pairwise comparisons combined with AHP produce per-sentence dynamic weights; the weighted sum is the DSGram overall score; and DSGram is validated against external human judgments on SEEDA and on the newly collected DSGram-Eval. No parameter is fitted to the human overall scores used in validation. The AHP weights are generated by GPT-4 (or LLaMA3-70B) before any correlation with human scores is computed, and the Section 4.4 'AHP Human Score' applies those weights to independently human-annotated sub-scores, then correlates the result with a separate human overall score. This is an external criterion, not a fitted target. The fine-tuning of LLaMA models uses GPT-4 annotations on BEA-2019 outputs, while validation uses human DSGram-Eval annotations, so the distillation is standard and not circular. There are no load-bearing self-citations from the present authors. The 'Edit Level' sub-metric does by construction penalize over-editing, but this is a stated design choice rather than a derived empirical prediction, so it is not an instance of circularity. The discrepancy between the Section 4.2 'surpasses all' wording and Table 3—where SOME has higher sentence-level Kendall on both SEEDA-S and SEEDA-E—concerns the accuracy and evidentiary support of the claim, not whether the derivation reduces to its own inputs; it is therefore a correctness risk, not a circularity finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about the completeness of the three sub-metrics and the validity of LLM-generated AHP weights as proxies for human priorities. No fitted parameters are introduced, but the method depends on the unproven premise that dynamic weights add signal over a fixed average weighting.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The three sub-metrics, Semantic Coherence, Edit Level, and Fluency, comprehensively cover the key aspects of GEC evaluation.
    Section 3.1 states this without external validation that these three dimensions are sufficient for capturing all relevant aspects of correction quality.
  • domain assumption Human judges implicitly assign varying weights to sub-metrics according to the sentence context.
    Section 3.2 introduces this to motivate dynamic weights; no behavioral study is cited to support the claim that humans vary weights per sentence.
  • domain assumption The LLM-generated pairwise comparison matrix for AHP accurately reflects the relative importance of criteria for a given sentence.
    Section 3.2 relies on GPT-4 constructing the judgment matrix; the validation in Section 4.4 tests this indirectly on a small sample.
invented entities (1)
  • Edit Level sub-metric independent evidence
    purpose: Measures whether a GEC system over-corrects or unnecessarily alters the original sentence, addressing a known weakness of LLM-based systems.
    The paper provides correlational evidence with human sub-scores in Figure 4 and LLM scores correlating with human scores in Table 4, though the metric itself is defined by the authors rather than being an independently verified construct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DSGram: Dynamic Weighting Sub-Metrics for Grammatical Error Correction in the Era of Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24QZZEOX

@misc{pith2026241212832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DSGram: Dynamic Weighting Sub-Metrics for Grammatical Error Correction in the Era of Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24QZZEOX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12832}
}
read the original abstract

Evaluating the performance of Grammatical Error Correction (GEC) models has become increasingly challenging, as large language model (LLM)-based GEC systems often produce corrections that diverge from provided gold references. This discrepancy undermines the reliability of traditional reference-based evaluation metrics. In this study, we propose a novel evaluation framework for GEC models, DSGram, integrating Semantic Coherence, Edit Level, and Fluency, and utilizing a dynamic weighting mechanism. Our framework employs the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in conjunction with large language models to ascertain the relative importance of various evaluation criteria. Additionally, we develop a dataset incorporating human annotations and LLM-simulated sentences to validate our algorithms and fine-tune more cost-effective models. Experimental results indicate that our proposed approach enhances the effectiveness of GEC model evaluations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Running examples and evaluation results of several [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the DSGram method. It begins with the input of sentence pairs (original and corrected). Large language [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Heat map of the correlations among the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Heat map of our three sub-metrics correlations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The DSGram score computation processes for two different sentences. Sentence (a) represents a casual daily dialogue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Analytic Hierarchy Process---What It Is and How It Is Used

    1987. The Analytic Hierarchy Process---What It Is and How It Is Used. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5): 161--176

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    Asano, H.; et al. 2017. Reference-Based Metrics Can Be Replaced with Reference-less Metrics in Evaluating Grammatical Error Correction Systems . In Kondrak, G.; and Watanabe, T., eds., Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing ( Volume 2: Short Papers ) , 343--348. Taipei, Taiwan: Asian Federation of Natural L...

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Awasthi, A.; Sarawagi, S.; Goyal, R.; Ghosh, S.; and Piratla, V. 2019. Parallel Iterative Edit Models for Local Sequence Transduction . In Inui, K.; Jiang, J.; Ng, V.; and Wan, X., eds., Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing ( EMNLP-I...

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Brown, T. B.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Agarwal, S.; Herbert-Voss , A.; Krueger, G.; Henighan, T.; Child, R.; Ramesh, A.; Ziegler, D. M.; Wu, J.; Winter, C.; Hesse, C.; Chen, M.; Sigler, E.; Litwin, M.; Gray, S.; Chess, B.; Clark, J.; Berner, C.; McCandlish, S.; Radford,...

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Bryant, C.; et al. 2017. Automatic Annotation and Evaluation of Error Types for Grammatical Error Correction . In Barzilay, R.; and Kan, M.-Y., eds., Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics ( Volume 1: Long Papers ) , 793--805. Vancouver, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Choshen, L.; et al. 2018. Inherent Biases in Reference-based Evaluation for Grammatical Error Correction . In Gurevych, I.; and Miyao, Y., eds., Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics ( Volume 1: Long Papers ) , 632--642. Melbourne, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Chu, K.; et al. 2024. A Better LLM Evaluator for Text Generation : The Impact of Prompt Output Sequencing and Optimization . arXiv:2406.09972

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Coyne, S.; Sakaguchi, K.; Galvan-Sosa , D.; Zock, M.; and Inui, K. 2023. Analyzing the Performance of GPT-3 .5 and GPT-4 in Grammatical Error Correction . arXiv:2303.14342

    arXiv 2023

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika, 16(3): 297--334

    1951

  2. [10]

    Dahlmeier, D.; et al. 2012. Better Evaluation for Grammatical Error Correction . In Fosler-Lussier , E.; Riloff, E.; and Bangalore, S., eds., Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics : Human Language Tech...

    2012

  3. [11]

    F.; Zhan, R.; Ding, L.; Chao, L

    Fang, T.; Liu, X.; Wong, D. F.; Zhan, R.; Ding, L.; Chao, L. S.; Tao, D.; and Zhang, M. 2023 a . TransGEC : Improving Grammatical Error Correction with Translationese . In Rogers, A.; Boyd-Graber , J.; and Okazaki, N., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Lingui...

    2023

  4. [12]

    F.; Hu, J.; Chao, L

    Fang, T.; Yang, S.; Lan, K.; Wong, D. F.; Hu, J.; Chao, L. S.; and Zhang, Y. 2023 b . Is ChatGPT a Highly Fluent Grammatical Error Correction System ? A Comprehensive Evaluation . arXiv:2304.01746

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Grundkiewicz, R.; et al. 2015. Human Evaluation of Grammatical Error Correction Systems . In M \`a rquez, L.; Callison-Burch , C.; and Su, J., eds., Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 461--470. Lisbon, Portugal: Association...

    2015

  6. [14]

    Kaneko, M.; Mita, M.; Kiyono, S.; Suzuki, J.; and Inui, K. 2020. Encoder- Decoder Models Can Benefit from Pre-trained Masked Language Models in Grammatical Error Correction . In Jurafsky, D.; Chai, J.; Schluter, N.; and Tetreault, J., eds., Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeti...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Kiyono, S.; Suzuki, J.; Mita, M.; Mizumoto, T.; and Inui, K. 2019. An Empirical Study of Incorporating Pseudo Data into Grammatical Error Correction . In Inui, K.; Jiang, J.; Ng, V.; and Wan, X., eds., Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Kobayashi, M.; et al. 2024. Revisiting Meta-evaluation for Grammatical Error Correction . arXiv:2403.02674

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Liu, Y.; Iter, D.; Xu, Y.; Wang, S.; Xu, R.; and Zhu, C. 2023. G- Eval : NLG Evaluation Using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment . arXiv:2303.16634

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Maeda, K.; Kaneko, M.; and Okazaki, N. 2022. IMPARA : Impact-Based Metric for GEC Using Parallel Data. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 3578--3588. Gyeongju, Republic of Korea: International Committee on Computational Linguistics

    2022

  11. [19]

    Napoles, C.; Sakaguchi, K.; Post, M.; and Tetreault, J. 2015. Ground Truth for Grammatical Error Correction Metrics . In Zong, C.; and Strube, M., eds., Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conf...

    2015

  12. [20]

    Omelianchuk, K.; Atrasevych, V.; Chernodub, A.; and Skurzhanskyi, O. 2020. GECToR -- Grammatical Error Correction : Tag , Not Rewrite . In Burstein, J.; Kochmar, E.; Leacock, C.; Madnani, N.; Pil \'a n, I.; Yannakoudakis, H.; and Zesch, T., eds., Proceedings of the Fifteenth W...

    2020

  13. [21]

    Papineni, K.; Roukos, S.; Ward, T.; and Zhu, W.-J. 2002. Bleu: A Method for Automatic Evaluation of Machine Translation . In Isabelle, P.; Charniak, E.; and Lin, D., eds., Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 311--318. Phila...

    2002

  14. [22]

    Rothe, S.; Mallinson, J.; Malmi, E.; Krause, S.; and Severyn, A. 2021. A Simple Recipe for Multilingual Grammatical Error Correction . In Zong, C.; Xia, F.; Li, W.; and Navigli, R., eds., Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics a...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Sellam, T.; et al. 2020. BLEURT : Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generation . In Jurafsky, D.; Chai, J.; Schluter, N.; and Tetreault, J., eds., Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 7881--7892. Online: Association for Compu...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Sottana, A.; Liang, B.; Zou, K.; and Yuan, Z. 2023. Evaluation Metrics in the Era of GPT-4 : Reliably Evaluating Large Language Models on Sequence to Sequence Tasks . arXiv:2310.13800

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Bosma, M.; Ichter, B.; Xia, F.; Chi, E.; Le, Q.; and Zhou, D. 2023. Chain-of- Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models . arXiv:2201.11903

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Wu, H.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, Y.; and Zhao, H. 2023. Rethinking Masked Language Modeling for Chinese Spelling Correction . arXiv:2305.17721

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Yoshimura, R.; Kaneko, M.; Kajiwara, T.; and Komachi, M. 2020. SOME : Reference-less Sub-Metrics Optimized for Manual Evaluations of Grammatical Error Correction . In Scott, D.; Bel, N.; and Zong, C., eds., Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Ling...

    2020

  20. [28]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  21. [29]

    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.