Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Sample-Constrained Black Box Optimization for Audio Personalization

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hybrid queries lift audio satisfaction by 3.3 points in 30 questions

desk verdict Hybrid filter-and-dimension querying is a genuinely new idea for BO, but the paper's evidence base is thinner than the 3.3-point headline suggests, and the oracle assumption is untested in the real audio experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12773 v1 pith:P3QGTUGF submitted 2025-07-17 cs.SD cs.LGeess.AS

Rajalaxmi Rajagopalan , Yu-Lin Wei , Romit Roy Choudhury This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.LGeess.AS
keywords audiopersonalizationblack-boxoptimizationBayesiandimensionquerieshybridqueryingGaussianprocessregressionsparserandomembeddingshearingaidfitting
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 asks whether a fixed budget of user queries can personalize audio better if some queries are whole-filter ratings and some are pointwise hints about the ideal filter. Its answer is yes: an algorithm called ORACLE BO, built on sparse Gaussian-process regression, combines both query types and, in tests with real volunteers, reaches on average 3.3 points higher satisfaction than a strong baseline within a budget of $B=30$ queries. The paper deliberately offers empirical evidence rather than a convergence proof, and its synthetic experiments reveal a sweet spot in how much of the budget should be spent on pointwise hints.

What carries the argument

The machinery is ORACLE BO's two-module extension of a sparse Gaussian-process Bayesian optimizer. After a random linear embedding reduces the high-dimensional filter space to a low-dimensional one, BAF uses MCMC slice sampling to propose a batch of jointly promising candidate filters, scored by a batch expected-improvement metric; DMS then projects the batch back to filter space and picks the candidate whose coordinates best match the available pointwise hints, using a product of Gaussians centered on $h^*[j]$. The chosen filter is the one the user rates, and the rating updates the GPR posterior; the pointwise hints steer the next batch without ever being treated as full observations of the satisfaction function.

What would settle it

Run ORACLE BO on a synthetic staircase function while corrupting each dimension-query answer with independent noise (say, a few dB of error on the requested gain); if a few noisy hints eliminate the advantage over pure filter-query Bayesian optimization at the same budget, the claimed gain depends on exact oracle answers rather than on the hybrid structure itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hybrid querying—asking a user both for overall satisfaction scores on complete filters and for the best value of individual filter coordinates—outperforms either query type alone under the same total query budget. ORACLE BO incorporates the pointwise hints through two modules: a Batch Acquisition Function (BAF), which draws a batch of candidate filters that jointly maximize expected improvement, and a Dimension Matched Sampler (DMS), which scores those candidates by a product of their acquisition value and Gaussians centered at the hinted coordinates $h^*[j]$, then queries the user on the winner. The paper reports that this produces lower regret than the ALEBO-style sparsity-based baseline on staircase and standard benchmark functions, and improves real-user satisfaction scores in audio personalization experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes an oracle that answers each requested coordinate $h^*[j]$ of the true optimal filter exactly, and in the motivating hearing-aid setting the paper substitutes coarse audiogram measurements for that oracle.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a total budget of $B=30$ queries, ORACLE BO reports on average 3.3 points higher user satisfaction than the interpolated-audiogram baseline, meaning the gain is achievable with a modest home listening session.
  • On synthetic staircase functions, the best split spends roughly 15 of $B=90$ queries on dimension hints; spending too many or too few raises regret, so the allocation between query types is a tunable parameter.
  • Choosing dimension hints from coordinates where the satisfaction function varies most gives lower regret than random choices, so where the hints are taken from matters.
  • The benefit degrades gracefully as fewer dimension hints are available: with fewer hints, more whole-filter ratings are needed to reach the same satisfaction.
  • Because ORACLE BO is built on random-embedding sparsity methods, the hybrid-query idea is not tied to one embedding scheme; the same BAF/DMS design can ride other sparse Bayesian optimizers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the advantage survives noisy pointwise hints, the same hybrid design could let users correct one coordinate of a recommended filter (e.g., 'too much salt') instead of rating entire alternatives from scratch.
  • The sweet-spot observation suggests an adaptive controller that spends dimension queries early and then switches to filter queries once the posterior has narrowed, an allocation rule the paper does not explore.
  • The 3.3-point figure comes from three volunteers and a fixed budget of 30; generalizing it to larger populations and longer budgets would require a study the paper does not report.
  • In applications where the oracle is replaced by graded user attributes, the natural next formulation treats the dimension answers as noisy observations rather than exact values.
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 ORACLE BO, a hybrid querying approach for sample-constrained black-box optimization. In addition to standard filter queries Qf (full evaluations of the unknown satisfaction function), the method assumes an Oracle that can return exact coordinates h*[j] of the true minimizer h*. Building on ALEBO's sparse Gaussian-process Bayesian optimization, the method adds two modules: a Batch Acquisition Function (BAF) that produces q candidate filters in a random embedding via q-Expected Improvement, and a Dimension Matched Sampler (DMS) that selects among these candidates by matching them, through a factorized Gaussian likelihood (Eq. 20), to the oracle coordinates. The paper reports synthetic experiments on staircase satisfaction functions and claims to evaluate Branin, Hartmann6, and Rosenbrock benchmarks, plus a real audio personalization study with three volunteers in which ORACLE BO is compared against a coarse audiogram interpolation baseline. The authors explicitly state that they lack a mathematical proof and rely on empirical results, reporting an average 3.3-point satisfaction improvement within a budget of B=30 queries.

Significance. The hybrid-query formulation is a genuinely novel idea: mixing coarse, high-information oracle queries with full-objective filter queries is natural for human-in-the-loop settings and could open useful directions in Bayesian optimization. The paper is clearly written and transparent about its lack of an analytical convergence guarantee, and it ships a demo website. However, the empirical support for the central claim is narrow: the synthetic results shown are limited to one staircase function family (P1), the promised benchmark results are absent, the real-user study has N=3 with no error bars, and—most importantly—the audio experiments use oracle coordinates that are exact entries of the known corrupting filter, so the motivating application is never tested under the realistic condition that dimension queries are noisy or approximate. The idea is promising but the current evidence does not establish that hybrid querying outperforms a pure filter-query baseline in real audio personalization.

major comments (4)
  1. [Problem Formulation and Audio Personalization Experiment Details] The central motivating application is validated under an oracle that supplies exact coordinates h*[j]. The appendix states that, for the random-distortion condition, 'we generate a random corrupting filter b2' and the Qd values are the values of that filter at 7 frequencies—these are exact entries of the known h* used to synthesize the task, not measurements a user can provide. In contrast, a clinical audiogram measures hearing thresholds, not the satisfaction-maximizing gain h*[j], and the paper itself lists correlated/non-independent dimension queries as an open problem. Because Eq. 20 centers a Gaussian at h*[j] and multiplies this factor into the acquisition, any error or interaction in those dimension queries propagates directly into the chosen filter. No sensitivity analysis to dimension-query noise is reported. This makes the 3.3-point improvement claim ungrounded for the real audio setting.
  2. [Experiment: Synthetic BlackBox Functions] The manuscript promises results for the benchmark functions BRANIN, HARTMANN6, and ROSENBROCK, but no such results appear in any figure or table. Figures 4–6 and Table 1 report only the staircase function P1 (the appendix defines P2 and P3, but no results are shown for them either). The abstract and introduction claim validation on 'various synthetic satisfaction functions' and 'extensive simulations,' which overstates the evidence actually provided. The benchmark results should be added, or the claims should be restricted to the staircase family.
  3. [Audio Personalization Results, Figure 7] The real-user experiment compares ORACLE BO only against a coarse audiogram interpolation baseline, not against a pure filter-query Bayesian optimization method such as ALEBO with L=0 under the same total budget B. The central claim is that hybrid querying can outperform any single type of querying; the synthetic comparison in Figure 4 does include ALEBO(L=0), but the real audio study does not. In addition, the user study has only three volunteers, no error bars, and no repeated measures, and the raw scores in Figure 7 show large variability across users. This is too thin to support the quantitative 3.3-point claim as a general result.
  4. [Hyperparameter Selection, Table 1] The method introduces free parameters q (BAF batch size), sigma (DMS coordinate-matching variance), and d (embedding dimension), and Table 1 shows that regret varies dramatically with these settings—for example, at N=4000 the regret ranges from 1268 to 10213 depending on (q, sigma, d). The main figures appear to use a single favorable configuration, and the paper gives no guidance on how to choose these parameters in practice. Without a robustness analysis or a principled selection criterion, the reported gains may be specific to the chosen hyperparameters rather than inherent to the hybrid-query idea.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The optimization objective is written as argmin ||f(hat h) - f(h*)||2, but f is unknown and is only accessible through queries; as written this objective cannot be evaluated. Presumably the intended statement is to minimize f(h) or the expected regret of the final recommendation.
  2. [Figure 7] The figure labels are cluttered and the score values overlap, making it difficult to verify the claimed 3.3-point improvement from the plot. The authors should provide a table of per-user scores with confidence intervals or raw data.
  3. [Audio Personalization Experiment Details] The text says a clinical audiogram gives 'the user's hearing loss profile h*[j]', but audiometry measures detection thresholds at discrete frequencies; the identity between thresholds and the satisfaction-maximizing filter gains is assumed without discussion. This should be clarified or corrected.
  4. [Problem Formulation] The paper alternates between minimization of f and maximization of satisfaction; for example, Eq. (1) minimizes, while the audio experiments report higher scores as better. The notation should be made consistent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dimension oracle is an explicit problem input, and the hybrid-query gain is an empirical comparison, not a result derived from its own target.

full rationale

ORACLE BO does not derive its target from a fitted parameter or from a self-citation chain. The oracle dimension query h*[j] is declared up front in the Problem Formulation ('An Oracle is assumed to know information about the minimizer h*. The Oracle when queried can give us one dimension of the vector h*'), and the DMS selection in Eq. 20 is the intended mechanism for consuming that input. The central comparison is empirical: ORACLE BO is measured against ALEBO(L) with the same L-dimensional information and against an interpolated audiogram baseline that also uses the same 7 measured points; user satisfaction is independently rated by volunteers. The paper explicitly disclaims a proof ('We lack mathematical proof') and lists as follow-up work the case where dimension queries are not independent, so the oracle independence assumption is acknowledged rather than smuggled. The audio experiments use exact values of the simulated corrupting filter as Qd, which is a limitation on external validity (real audiograms do not reveal h*[j] exactly), but this is an explicit modeling assumption, not a derivation that reduces to its own output. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or renamed known result is present. The algorithm is self-contained against external ALEBO/GPR machinery and benchmark functions.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The method's central advantage comes from oracle coordinate answers; the rest is standard ALEBO machinery plus two hand-chosen hyperparameters (q, sigma) that strongly affect regret.

free parameters (3)
  • sigma (DMS coordinate-matching variance) = 1 in main experiments; 0.2 and 10 explored in Table 1
    Controls how strongly the selected filter is pulled toward the oracle answers h*[j]. Table 1 shows regret varies from 83 to 10213 across (q, sigma), so the choice is load-bearing and no principled selection rule is given.
  • q (BAF batch size) = 5 in main experiments; 2 and 7 explored in Table 1
    Number of candidates sampled from the posterior before DMS picks one. The sensitivity table shows it strongly affects regret.
  • d (embedding dimension) = 4 for P1-P3, Branin, Rosenbrock; 6 for Hartmann6
    ALEBO embedding dimension chosen by hand. If d is too small the optimum may not lie in the embedding; if too large query efficiency drops.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper There exists an Oracle that gives exact coordinate values h*[j] of the global minimizer.
    Introduced in Problem Formulation and used in DMS Eq. 20. It motivates the whole method but is not justified by the user study, where only coarse audiogram thresholds are available.
  • domain assumption The objective function f has low effective dimensionality compatible with random linear embeddings.
    Inherited from ALEBO (Letham et al. 2020). The paper states 'We assume our function in Eqn. 1 is sparse... low effective dimensions' under High dimensional Bayesian Optimization.
  • domain assumption User satisfaction is separable enough that coordinate-wise oracle values are informative and independent.
    The DMS Gaussian model assumes each h*[j] can be used independently. The authors list conditional or non-independent dimension queries as future work.
  • standard math Standard GPR and MCMC (slice sampling) posterior machinery is correct.
    The review section and BAF use Eq. 5 and Neal 2003. Not verified in the paper but standard background.
invented entities (1)
  • Oracle (dimension-query source)
    purpose: Provides exact values of individual coordinates h*[j] of the true minimizer to steer candidate selection in DMS.
    The Oracle is an idealization; no real measurement in the paper supplies exact h*[j]. The acoustic experiments use interpolated audiogram thresholds of L=5-7, which are coarse approximations, so independent evidence for the Oracle's existence is absent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sample-Constrained Black Box Optimization for Audio Personalization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P3QGTUGF

@misc{pith2026250712773,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sample-Constrained Black Box Optimization for Audio Personalization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P3QGTUGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12773}
}
abstract

We consider the problem of personalizing audio to maximize user experience. Briefly, we aim to find a filter $h^*$, which applied to any music or speech, will maximize the user's satisfaction. This is a black-box optimization problem since the user's satisfaction function is unknown. Substantive work has been done on this topic where the key idea is to play audio samples to the user, each shaped by a different filter $h_i$, and query the user for their satisfaction scores $f(h_i)$. A family of ``surrogate" functions is then designed to fit these scores and the optimization method gradually refines these functions to arrive at the filter $\hat{h}^*$ that maximizes satisfaction. In certain applications, we observe that a second type of querying is possible where users can tell us the individual elements $h^*[j]$ of the optimal filter $h^*$. Consider an analogy from cooking where the goal is to cook a recipe that maximizes user satisfaction. A user can be asked to score various cooked recipes (e.g., tofu fried rice) or to score individual ingredients (say, salt, sugar, rice, chicken, etc.). Given a budget of $B$ queries, where a query can be of either type, our goal is to find the recipe that will maximize this user's satisfaction. Our proposal builds on Sparse Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) and shows how a hybrid approach can outperform any one type of querying. Our results are validated through simulations and real world experiments, where volunteers gave feedback on music/speech audio and were able to achieve high satisfaction levels. We believe this idea of hybrid querying opens new problems in black-box optimization and solutions can benefit other applications beyond audio personalization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12773 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A GPR Posterior: The black “plus” symbols mark all the observed points. The dashed-blue line is the true f, and the red line is the estimated ˆf (the mean of the posterior). The light blue shaded area marks the variance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System flow: ORACLEBO consists of three modules: BAF, DMS, and GPR posterior. Green boxes denote the system inputs and hyper-parameters, and blue marks the module outputs. The right figure shows the transformation between the high and low dimensional spaces, made feasible by the random embedding matrix in ALEBO. Once Q′ has been translated to higher dimensional T ′ , DMS uses a joint likelihood measure to preferenti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Satisfaction Function P1: Discontinuous staircase structure, containing infinite zero gradient regions. Baseline and Metrics: We consider a baseline that ex￾tends ALEBO with the additional information from L di￾mensional queries. This implies that ALEBO’s search space can be reduced from RN to RN−L. Our evaluation met￾ric is Regret, which is the difference between the predicted minimum and true global minimum (f(hˆ∗… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of ORACLEBO’s regret on different Qd subsets LT op and LRand. N d (q, σ) (5,1) (2,0.2) (2,10) (7,0.2) (7,10) 500 4 83 445 316 1459 1459 10 148 166 237 760 883 20 477 551 609 1201 1255 2000 4 90 242 514 543 628 10 2166 2331 2753 2331 2753 20 2677 2764 3125 …
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance on ALEBO(L) and ORACLEBO. 0 20 40 60 80 100 Function evaluations 101 102 103 104 Regret [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Different number of Qd queries on ORACLEBO. Effect of Varying L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: User score comparison on (a) L = 5 on hearing-loss profile and random profile. (b) L = [1, 3] on random profile. experiment, and then for a “Random” filter experiment (to be described soon). The Corrupted signal obviously re￾ceives a low score, but the interpolated aud…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Al-Roomi, A. R. 2015. Unconstrained Single-Objective Benchmark Functions Repository

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Antoine Lorenzi, B. C. 2003. Human Frequency Discrimination

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Binois, M.; Ginsbourger, D.; and Roustant, O. 2020. On the choice of the low-dimensional domain for global optimization via random embeddings. Journal of global optimization, 76: 69--90

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    CDC. 2011. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data, Hyattsville, MD

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Eriksson, D.; and Jankowiak, M. 2021. High-dimensional Bayesian optimization with sparse axis-aligned subspaces. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 493--503. PMLR

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    D.; and Poloczek, M

    Eriksson, D.; Pearce, M.; Gardner, J.; Turner, R. D.; and Poloczek, M. 2019. Scalable global optimization via local Bayesian optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Frazier, P. I. 2018. A tutorial on Bayesian optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.02811

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Gardner, J.; Guo, C.; Weinberger, K.; Garnett, R.; and Grosse, R. 2017. Discovering and exploiting additive structure for Bayesian optimization. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 1311--1319. PMLR

    work page 2017

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    A.; and Hennig, P

    Garnett, R.; Osborne, M. A.; and Hennig, P. 2013. Active learning of linear embeddings for Gaussian processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.6740

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    N.; Duvenaud, D.; Hern \'a ndez-Lobato, J

    G \'o mez-Bombarelli, R.; Wei, J. N.; Duvenaud, D.; Hern \'a ndez-Lobato, J. M.; S \'a nchez-Lengeling, B.; Sheberla, D.; Aguilera-Iparraguirre, J.; Hirzel, T. D.; Adams, R. P.; and Aspuru-Guzik, A. 2018. Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation ...

    2018

  3. [11]

    Kandasamy, K.; Schneider, J.; and P \'o czos, B. 2015. High dimensional Bayesian optimisation and bandits via additive models. In International conference on machine learning, 295--304. PMLR

    2015

  4. [12]

    Kirschner, J.; Mutny, M.; Hiller, N.; Ischebeck, R.; and Krause, A. 2019. Adaptive and safe Bayesian optimization in high dimensions via one-dimensional subspaces. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 3429--3438. PMLR

    2019

  5. [13]

    Letham, B.; Calandra, R.; Rai, A.; and Bakshy, E. 2020. Re-examining linear embeddings for high-dimensional Bayesian optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1546--1558

    2020

  6. [14]

    Lu, X.; Gonzalez, J.; Dai, Z.; and Lawrence, N. D. 2018. Structured variationally auto-encoded optimization. In International conference on machine learning, 3267--3275. PMLR

    2018

  7. [15]

    P.; and Sesh Kumar, K

    Moriconi, R.; Deisenroth, M. P.; and Sesh Kumar, K. 2020. High-dimensional Bayesian optimization using low-dimensional feature spaces. Machine Learning, 109: 1925--1943

    2020

  8. [16]

    Mutny, M.; and Krause, A. 2018. Efficient high dimensional bayesian optimization with additivity and quadrature fourier features. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31

    2018

  9. [17]

    Neal, R. M. 2003. Slice sampling. The annals of statistics, 31(3): 705--767

    2003

  10. [18]

    M.; Frazier, P

    Negoescu, D. M.; Frazier, P. I.; and Powell, W. B. 2011. The knowledge-gradient algorithm for sequencing experiments in drug discovery. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 23(3): 346--363

    2011

  11. [19]

    Oh, C.; Gavves, E.; and Welling, M. 2018. BOCK: Bayesian optimization with cylindrical kernels. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 3868--3877. PMLR

    2018

  12. [20]

    Oh, C.; Tomczak, J.; Gavves, E.; and Welling, M. 2019. Combinatorial bayesian optimization using the graph cartesian product. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32

    2019

  13. [21]

    Qian, H.; Hu, Y.-Q.; and Yu, Y. 2016. Derivative-Free Optimization of High-Dimensional Non-Convex Functions by Sequential Random Embeddings. In IJCAI, 1946--1952

    2016

  14. [22]

    K.; Brant, J.; Hohman, M

    Salmon, M. K.; Brant, J.; Hohman, M. H.; and Leibowitz, D. 2022. Audiogram Interpretation

    2022

  15. [23]

    Snoek, J.; Larochelle, H.; and Adams, R. P. 2012. Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. Advances in neural information processing systems, 25

    2012

  16. [24]

    E.; Moitra, S.; and Sculley, D

    Solnik, B.; Golovin, D.; Kochanski, G.; Karro, J. E.; Moitra, S.; and Sculley, D. 2017. Bayesian optimization for a better dessert

    2017

  17. [25]

    Sonja Surjanovic, D. B. 2013. Virtual Library of Optimization Functions

    2013

  18. [26]

    D.; Hou, Z.; Mizoguchi, T.; and Tsuda, K

    Ueno, T.; Rhone, T. D.; Hou, Z.; Mizoguchi, T.; and Tsuda, K. 2016. COMBO: An efficient Bayesian optimization library for materials science. Materials discovery, 4: 18--21

    2016

  19. [27]

    Wang, J. 2020. An intuitive tutorial to Gaussian processes regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10862

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Wang, Z.; Gehring, C.; Kohli, P.; and Jegelka, S. 2018. Batched large-scale Bayesian optimization in high-dimensional spaces. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 745--754. PMLR

    2018

  21. [29]

    Wang, Z.; Hutter, F.; Zoghi, M.; Matheson, D.; and De Feitas, N. 2016. Bayesian optimization in a billion dimensions via random embeddings. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 55: 361--387

    2016

  22. [30]

    , " * 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...

  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 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.