Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 33 references

Layerwise Importance Analysis of Feed-Forward Networks in Transformer-based Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that placing all feed-forward network capacity in a contiguous middle block covering 70% of layers, at a fixed total parameter count, consistently beats the standard uniform Transformer configuration across model sizes and

desk verdict Clever experimental design that deserves a proper look, but the headline 70% figure is unsubstantiated without error bars and selection disclosure. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17734 v1 pith:BZLA55XC submitted 2025-08-25 cs.CL

Wataru Ikeda , Kazuki Yano , Ryosuke Takahashi , Jaesung Lee , Keigo Shibata , Jun Suzuki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords layerwiseimportancefeed-forwardnetworksTransformerarchitectureparameterallocationpretrainingfromscratchdownstreamtaskevaluationmiddlelayerslanguagemodels
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

The paper asks whether feed-forward networks in a Transformer matter equally at every layer, and answers no. Keeping total parameter count fixed, the authors train models from scratch with FFNs removed from some layers and enlarged in others, across three model sizes and three depths. They report that placing all FFN capacity in a contiguous block covering 70% of the middle layers beats the standard uniform configuration on multiple downstream tasks. If true, where FFN capacity sits is an architectural decision in its own right, not just how much capacity exists.

What carries the argument

The experimental intervention is layerwise FFN reallocation: each layer is either FFN-free (attention and residual connections only) or has its FFN hidden dimension enlarged, with total parameter count held constant. This isolates the position of FFN capacity as the independent variable, and the paper's index of interest is downstream task performance as a function of where the enlarged FFN block is placed.

What would settle it

Run the same reallocation with the 70% FFN block placed in the earliest layers instead of the middle; if that configuration matches the middle-block result on the same downstream tasks, the claim that middle layers are the important ones fails. Alternatively, sweep the concentration ratio (e.g., 0%, 50%, 70%, 90%, 100%) on a held-out task; the claim requires 70% to be at or near the optimum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that layerwise FFN importance is non-uniform and peaks in the middle of the network. The evidence is a controlled parameter-allocation experiment: at a fixed total parameter budget, removing FFNs entirely from the first and last layers while increasing FFN dimension in the middle 70% of layers improves downstream task performance compared with the standard Transformer. This holds for models of 285M, 570M, and 1.2B parameters with 12, 24, and 40 layers, all trained from scratch, and is the paper's central discovery.

Load-bearing premise

Reallocating all FFN parameters out of some layers and into others leaves everything else about how the model trains unchanged, so the observed gains reflect where FFNs sit rather than how the altered architecture learns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, Transformer designs can reallocate FFN parameters to the middle layers and get better performance at the same parameter count.
  • Early and late layers appear to function adequately without FFNs, so MLP computation can be concentrated away from the input and output ends.
  • The advantage of the 70% middle configuration means layerwise importance should be a factor in scaling studies, not just total depth and width.
  • The result gives a simple default for pretraining architectures: place roughly 70% of contiguous mid-layer capacity as FFNs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We would test whether contiguity matters by spreading the same 70% of layers non-contiguously; the paper's design does not separate a 'middle' effect from a 'consecutive' effect.
  • We would also test whether the 70% ratio is stable across task families; if different ratios win on different tasks, the claim may point to a robust middle region rather than an exact figure.
  • A practical corollary is that FFN-free layers cost less compute per token, so the configuration may improve throughput as well as accuracy at equal parameter count.
  • Because the paper trains from scratch, the ranking may be specific to pretraining dynamics and not directly transfer to fine-tuned or instruction-tuned models.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to study the layerwise importance of feed-forward networks (FFNs) in Transformer language models by an architectural intervention: while keeping the total parameter count fixed, it increases the FFN dimensions in some layers and completely removes FFNs from other layers. Models are trained from scratch across three sizes (285M, 570M, 1.2B parameters) and three depths (12, 24, 40 layers). The central claim is that concentrating FFNs in 70% of the consecutive middle layers consistently outperforms standard configurations on multiple downstream tasks.

Significance. If substantiated, the claim would be a practical and conceptual contribution: it would show that the placement of FFN capacity is a first-order architectural decision, not merely a uniform default. Training from scratch is a strength: it avoids confounding the analysis with properties of pre-trained checkpoints. The parameter-matched comparison across sizes and depths is also a sensible design. However, the current evidence as presented is insufficient to establish the headline claim: no statistical variability, seed counts, significance tests, or selection protocol are reported. The significance therefore remains conditional on additional experimental evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that "concentrating FFNs in 70% of the consecutive middle layers consistently outperforms standard configurations," but reports no number of seeds, no error bars, and no significance tests. For a claim of consistent superiority across three model sizes and multiple tasks, at least per-condition mean and variance over multiple training runs, plus a statistical comparison (e.g., paired test per task) are needed. Without these, the observed ordering could be within run-to-run noise.
  2. [Abstract (method description)] The selection of the 70% concentration is not disclosed. If the 70% ratio and the "consecutive middle" placement were chosen after evaluating several alternatives on the same downstream tasks used in the final comparison, then the reported result is a selected maximum, not a principled architectural finding. Please report the selection protocol: whether 70% was pre-registered, determined on a development set separate from the evaluation tasks, or found through a search. If a search was used, the evaluation tasks must be treated as held out, or the reported numbers must be corrected for selection.
  3. [Abstract (experimental design)] Moving all FFN parameters out of some layers and into others changes optimization dynamics in addition to FFN capacity placement. Gradient flow, activation statistics, and effective representational bottlenecks in FFN-free layers differ from the uniform baseline. The comparison may therefore partly measure trainability or optimization difficulty, not solely the layerwise importance of FFNs. The paper should include diagnostics or ablations that separate these effects, for example by comparing the proposed layouts with matched parameter counts but different optimization curricula, or by reporting gradient/activation statistics across layers.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "consecutive middle layers" is ambiguous for even layer counts (e.g., 12 or 24 layers). Please define precisely whether "middle" is centered, rounded, and how contiguous intervals are chosen.
  2. [Abstract] The downstream tasks are not named. Listing the tasks and the evaluation metric would help readers judge whether the claim of "multiple downstream tasks" is broad enough to support the architectural conclusion.
  3. [Abstract] The paper would benefit from stating the pretraining data size, token budget, and hyperparameter settings to confirm that the three model sizes are trained under comparable conditions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the paper is an empirical comparison, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The only substantive claim in the provided excerpt is the abstract's empirical assertion: 'concentrating FFNs in 70% of the consecutive middle layers consistently outperforms standard configurations for multiple downstream tasks.' This is a comparative experimental result, not a derived quantity. There is no equation in the abstract that defines an output in terms of an input, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no cited 'uniqueness theorem' or prior-work ansatz that forces the conclusion. The concern that the 70% ratio may have been selected on the same tasks used for evaluation is a potential selection-bias or reproducibility issue, not a circularity failure under the given rubric: the manuscript does not claim to 'predict' the 70% value from independent data, and the abstract does not present a formal derivation that could be equivalent to its assumptions by construction. Since the full text is not available beyond the abstract, there is no quoted evidence of a specific circular reduction. Therefore the honest finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

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

The central claim rests on three domain assumptions: that the parameter-reallocation experiment isolates importance rather than changing training dynamics, that downstream task scores measure layerwise importance, and that the tested scale grid generalizes. The one hand-chosen quantity that carries the headline claim is the 70% concentration ratio, whose selection protocol is undisclosed in the abstract. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • FFN concentration ratio = 0.7 (70% of consecutive middle layers hold all FFN capacity)
    The paper's central empirical claim is that this ratio, with all FFN capacity placed in the middle 70% of consecutive layers, beats the uniform baseline. Whether 0.7 was fixed a priori or selected after trying several layouts is not disclosed in the abstract; if selected on the same downstream tasks used for evaluation, the headline effect is partly an in-sample optimum.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Fixed total parameter count is a sufficient control: reallocating FFN capacity across layers isolates layerwise importance and does not change optimization dynamics in confounding ways.
    The experimental method's validity depends on the reallocation being a clean counterfactual for importance; if removing FFNs from a layer changes gradient flow or creates representational bottlenecks, the comparison measures training dynamics, not importance. This is implicit in the abstract's method description.
  • domain assumption Downstream task performance is a valid measure of FFN importance at each layer.
    The paper equates 'importance' with contributions to downstream task performance; this assumes the chosen tasks are representative and that pretraining quality is faithfully reflected by these benchmarks. The abstract names 'multiple downstream tasks' but not which ones.
  • domain assumption Results at the tested scales (up to 1.2B parameters, 40 layers) support the generality implied by 'consistently outperforms standard configurations'.
    The headline claim is about configurations in general, but evidence is limited to the tested scale and layer grid; extension to larger models or other regimes is assumed without evidence in the abstract.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Layerwise Importance Analysis of Feed-Forward Networks in Transformer-based Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZLA55XC

@misc{pith2026250817734,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Layerwise Importance Analysis of Feed-Forward Networks in Transformer-based Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZLA55XC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17734}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates the layerwise importance of feed-forward networks (FFNs) in Transformer-based language models during pretraining. We introduce an experimental approach that, while maintaining the total parameter count, increases the FFN dimensions in some layers and completely removes the FFNs from other layers. Furthermore, since our focus is on the importance of FFNs during pretraining, we train models from scratch to examine whether the importance of FFNs varies depending on their layer positions, rather than using publicly available pretrained models as is frequently done. Through comprehensive evaluations of models with varying sizes (285M, 570M, and 1.2B parameters) and layer counts (12, 24, and 40 layers), we demonstrate that concentrating FFNs in 70% of the consecutive middle layers consistently outperforms standard configurations for multiple downstream tasks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Qwen technical report, 2023

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, Binyuan Hui, Luo Ji, Mei Li, Junyang Lin, Runji Lin, Dayiheng Liu, Gao Liu, Chengqiang Lu, Keming Lu, Jianxin Ma, Rui Men, Xingzhang Ren, Xuancheng Ren, Chuanqi Tan, Sinan Tan, Jianhong Tu, Peng Wang, Shijie Wang, Wei Wang, Shengguang Wu, Benfeng X...

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling, 2023

    Stella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Anthony, Herbie Bradley, Kyle O'Brien, Eric Hallahan, Mohammad Aflah Khan, Shivanshu Purohit, USVSN Sai Prashanth, Edward Raff, Aviya Skowron, Lintang Sutawika, and Oskar van der Wal. Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.01373

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language

    Yonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le Bras, Jianfeng Gao, and Yejin Choi. Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language. In Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    Editing factual knowledge in language models

    Nicola De Cao, Wilker Aziz, and Ivan Titov. Editing factual knowledge in language models. In Marie - Francine Moens, Xuanjing Huang, Lucia Specia, and Scott Wen - tau Yih (eds.), Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 November, 2021 , pp.\ 649...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.522 2021

  5. [5]

    Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the AI2 reasoning challenge

    Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the AI2 reasoning challenge. CoRR, abs/1803.05457, 2018. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.05457

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Knowledge neurons in pretrained transformers

    Damai Dai, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Zhifang Sui, Baobao Chang, and Furu Wei. Knowledge neurons in pretrained transformers. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio (eds.), Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2022, Dublin, Ireland, May 22-27, 2022 , pp.\ 8493--850...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.581 2022

  7. [7]

    A framework for few-shot language model evaluation, 07 2024

    Leo Gao, Jonathan Tow, Baber Abbasi, Stella Biderman, Sid Black, Anthony DiPofi, Charles Foster, Laurence Golding, Jeffrey Hsu, Alain Le Noac'h, Haonan Li, Kyle McDonell, Niklas Muennighoff, Chris Ociepa, Jason Phang, Laria Reynolds, Hailey Schoelkopf, Aviya Skowron, Lintang Sutawika, Eric Tang, Anish Thite, Ben Wang, Kevin Wang, and Andy Zou. A framework...

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories

    Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories. In Marie - Francine Moens, Xuanjing Huang, Lucia Specia, and Scott Wen - tau Yih (eds.), Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2021, Virtual Event / Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 7-11 No...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.446 2021

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Art...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Rae, and Laurent Sifre

    Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Tom Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katherine Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon ...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Mini CPM : Unveiling the potential of small language models with scalable training strategies

    Shengding Hu, Yuge Tu, Xu Han, Ganqu Cui, Chaoqun He, Weilin Zhao, Xiang Long, Zhi Zheng, Yewei Fang, Yuxiang Huang, Xinrong Zhang, Zhen Leng Thai, Chongyi Wang, Yuan Yao, Chenyang Zhao, Jie Zhou, Jie Cai, Zhongwu Zhai, Ning Ding, Chao Jia, Guoyang Zeng, dahai li, Zhiyuan Liu,...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Analyzing feed-forward blocks in transformers through the lens of attention maps

    Goro Kobayashi, Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Sho Yokoi, and Kentaro Inui. Analyzing feed-forward blocks in transformers through the lens of attention maps. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024 . OpenReview.net,...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Zero-shot relation extraction via reading comprehension

    Omer Levy, Minjoon Seo, Eunsol Choi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Zero-shot relation extraction via reading comprehension. CoRR, abs/1706.04115, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04115

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fineweb-edu: the finest collection of educational content, 2024

    Anton Lozhkov, Loubna Ben Allal, Leandro von Werra, and Thomas Wolf. Fineweb-edu: the finest collection of educational content, 2024. URL https://huggingface.co/datasets/HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu

    2024

  7. [15]

    Locating and editing factual associations in GPT

    Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. Locating and editing factual associations in GPT . In Sanmi Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neura...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Pointer sentinel mixture models

    Stephen Merity, Caiming Xiong, James Bradbury, and Richard Socher. Pointer sentinel mixture models. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings . OpenReview.net, 2017. URL https://openr...

    2017

  9. [17]

    Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D. Manning. Fast model editing at scale. In The Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022 . OpenReview.net, 2022. URL https://openreview.ne...

    2022

  10. [18]

    Team OLMo, Pete Walsh, Luca Soldaini, Dirk Groeneveld, Kyle Lo, Shane Arora, Akshita Bhagia, Yuling Gu, Shengyi Huang, Matt Jordan, Nathan Lambert, Dustin Schwenk, Oyvind Tafjord, Taira Anderson, David Atkinson, Faeze Brahman, Christopher Clark, Pradeep Dasigi, Nouha Dziri, Mi...

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The lambada dataset, Aug 2016

    Denis Paperno, Germán Kruszewski, Angeliki Lazaridou, Quan Ngoc Pham, Raffaella Bernardi, Sandro Pezzelle, Marco Baroni, Gemma Boleda, and Raquel Fernández. The lambada dataset, Aug 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale

    Keisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, and Yejin Choi. Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale. In The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2020, The Thirty-Second Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligenc...

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    GLU variants improve transformer

    Noam Shazeer. GLU variants improve transformer. CoRR, abs/2002.05202, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.05202

    2002 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Layer by Layer: Uncovering Hidden Representations in Language Models , 2025

    Oscar Skean, Md Rifat Arefin, Dan Zhao, Niket Patel, Jalal Naghiyev, Yann LeCun, and Ravid Shwartz-Ziv. Layer by Layer: Uncovering Hidden Representations in Language Models , 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.02013

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie - Anne Lachaux, Timoth \' e e Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi \` e re, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aur \' e lien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. Llama: Open and efficient fo...

    2023 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    Attention is all you need

    A Vaswani. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    On layer normalization in the transformer architecture

    Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tie - Yan Liu. On layer normalization in the transformer architecture. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2020, 13-18 ...

    2020

  18. [26]

    On layer normalization in the transformer architecture, 2020 b

    Ruibin Xiong, Yunchang Yang, Di He, Kai Zheng, Shuxin Zheng, Chen Xing, Huishuai Zhang, Yanyan Lan, Liwei Wang, and Tie-Yan Liu. On layer normalization in the transformer architecture, 2020 b . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.04745

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Qwen3 technical report, 2025

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, Chujie Zheng, Dayiheng Liu, Fan Zhou, Fei Huang, Feng Hu, Hao Ge, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jia...

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019

    Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models, 2022

    Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher Dewan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, Todor Mihaylov, Myle Ott, Sam Shleifer, Kurt Shuster, Daniel Simig, Punit Singh Koura, Anjali Sridhar, Tianlu Wang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. O...

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    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...

  23. [31]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  24. [32]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  25. [33]

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.