Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

This paper claims that a zero-shot, guidance-based MLLM scoring method—using a VPR-specific chain-of-thought prompt and structured JSON output—achieves higher recall for visual place recognition at a fraction of the cost of description-base

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Prompting a multimodal LLM to output a JSON similarity score directly, plus a mean-minus-standard-deviation consistency penalty, raises Tokyo247 R@1 from 77.1% (DINOv2 GeM) to 91.1% without fine-tuning.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Prompt-based direct scoring is a promising VPR idea, but the efficiency gains are inflated by unit confusion; the accuracy results look real. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.02129 v1 pith:3MMJFBHK submitted 2025-09-02 cs.LG cs.CV

Scale, Don't Fine-tune: Guiding Multimodal LLMs for Efficient Visual Place Recognition at Test-Time

Jintao Cheng , Weibin Li , Jiehao Luo , Xiaoyu Tang , Zhijian He , Jin Wu , Yao Zou , Wei Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.CV
keywords Visual Place RecognitionMultimodal Large Language ModelsTest-Time ScalingZero-shot LearningChain-of-Thought PromptingSelf-ConsistencyUncertainty-Aware ScoringImage Retrieval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tries to settle a practical question: can a large multimodal model recognize a place from images it was never trained on? It argues yes, if the model is guided to score the query and candidate images directly instead of first turning each image into a text description. The authors call this Guidance-based re-ranking and add an Uncertainty-Aware Self-Consistency step that penalizes scores with high variance across repeated samples. On the Tokyo247 benchmark, their best variant reaches 91.11% recall@1, a 12.42-point gain over the DINOv2 GeM vision baseline; on Pittsburgh30K, the method also improves recall over the strongest vision baseline. The speedup comes before the fivefold UASC sampling: the plain guided version emits roughly 174 times fewer output tokens and runs about 210 times faster than a description-based MLLM re-ranker.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the two-stage description-based recipe—where an MLLM describes each candidate image in free-form text and a second model reads that text—is the wrong way to use MLLMs for visual place recognition. By replacing the free-form description with a VPR-specific chain-of-thought prompt that forces the model to ignore transient objects, compare permanent static features, and return a single raw JSON object, the same models become direct pair-scoring engines with higher recall. The evidence is the Tokyo247 table: Qwen-7B goes from 71.75% R@1 in the description-based mode to 83.81% in the guided mode, Qwen-32B goes from 74.60% to 89.52%, and the UASC penalty (a lambda

What carries the argument

The central object is the VPR-CoT prompt plus the UASC scoring rule. The prompt constrains the MLLM to permanent static features, provides a 0.0-1.0 similarity rubric, and demands a single raw JSON object with similarity_score, justification, and key matching/mismatched objects. For UASC, the model samples N=5 stochastic responses for the same query-candidate pair, parses the similarity scores, and computes the mean minus lambda times the sample standard deviation, clamped to [0,1]; the standard deviation is intended to quantify heteroscedastic aleatoric uncertainty so that ambiguous pairs are discounted.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the standard deviation of five repeated MLLM scores for an image pair is a faithful measure of that pair's true ambiguity; if it is only decoding noise, the UASC penalty has no principled basis and the extra recall it reports is not explained by the claimed mechanism.

What would settle it

Run a shuffled-variance control: rerank the same Tokyo247 candidates using the observed five-sample standard deviations but randomly permuted across pairs, keeping each pair's mean score fixed. If the shuffled penalty preserves the UASC R@1 gain over mean-only ranking, the variance term is not carrying information about pair difficulty. A second check is to measure whether the five-sample standard deviation correlates with human-rated ambiguity of the query-candidate pairs; near-zero correlation would contradict the heteroscedastic aleatoric-uncertainty story.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Re-ranking with guided JSON scoring lifts R@1 by 6.67 points with Qwen-7B and 12.42 points with Qwen-32B over the DINOv2 GeM baseline on Tokyo247, and improves over the strongest vision baseline on Pitts30k.
  • The UASC uncertainty penalty adds further R@1 gains—1.59 points on Tokyo247 with Qwen-32B and 0.73 points on Pitts30k with Qwen-7B—at roughly five times the sampling cost.
  • The guidance-based re-ranker emits roughly 112-130 output tokens per sample versus about 19,500-27,400 for the description-based baseline, translating to roughly 174-210x fewer tokens and 210-259x faster inference in its non-UASC form.
  • Because the re-ranker only sees the VFM's top-20 candidates, R@5 and R@10 saturate; the method's gains are concentrated at R@1.
  • If the results hold, zero-shot MLLM-based visual place recognition becomes practical for resource-constrained robots and vehicles that cannot afford fine-tuning per environment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An extension the paper does not make: the UASC variance penalty's informativeness could be checked by correlating the five-sample standard deviation with human-rated pair ambiguity, or by shuffling the standard deviations and seeing whether the R@1 gain survives.
  • A neighboring problem this opens up: the static-feature guidance is task-agnostic and could be carried over to loop closure or geo-localization by swapping which persistent cues the model must compare.
  • A testable extension implied by the efficiency table: since free-form description generation was the main token cost, even leaner structured outputs—such as a numeric score with no justification—may retain most of the gain at lower cost.
  • Because the paper itself identifies the top-20 retrieval bound, a natural next step is to pair the guided re-ranker with a stronger coarse retriever; the re-ranker's R@5/R@10 ceiling should rise without retraining the LLM stage.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a zero-shot, training-free framework for visual place recognition (VPR) re-ranking. Instead of the two-stage description-based paradigm that first converts candidate images to text and then ranks with an LLM, the authors use a multimodal LLM (Qwen2.5-VL-7B/32B) in a single stage: a carefully engineered Chain-of-Thought prompt asks the model to compare a query image with a candidate image and output a structured JSON containing a similarity score, justification, and matching/mismatched objects. The paper also introduces Uncertainty-Aware Self-Consistency (UASC), which samples N=5 stochastic scores, computes their mean and sample standard deviation, and scores each pair as mean − λ·std with λ=0.5. Experiments on Tokyo247 and Pittsburgh30K report R@1 improvements over DINOv2 baselines, with Qwen-32B-UASC reaching 91.11% R@1 on Tokyo247, and the paper claims up to 210× computational speedups and 174× token reductions over description-based re-ranking.

Significance. The central idea is interesting and practically motivated: direct structured-JSON similarity scoring with a visual MLLM avoids the information bottleneck of intermediately generating free-form text, and the zero-shot setting is appealing for deployment. The prompt design is detailed and reproducible from Appendix A, and the paper is honest that gains are concentrated at R@1. However, the current evidence is not yet sufficient. The headline efficiency gains rest on a unit mismatch (per-query vs. per-pair timings), the UASC mechanism is asserted rather than validated, and the experimental comparisons lack error bars, hyperparameter sensitivity, and strong published baselines. If these issues are corrected, the paper could make a useful contribution; in its present form, the main quantitative claims are overstated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Table 3, and Appendix B] The efficiency comparison is not apples-to-apples. Description-based times (e.g., 772.95 s for Qwen-7B) are per query, since LLM4VPR processes a whole query by generating descriptions for top-20 candidates and then ranking. Guidance-based times (e.g., 3.67 s for Qwen-7B) are per query-candidate pair: Appendix B reports inference_time_seconds=17.8513 for a single pair ('Query.png vs Top3_True.png'), matching the per-pair scale of Table 3. Since a query must be compared against all top-20 candidates, the per-query Guidance cost is 20× the table values. Corrected speedups are ~10.5× for Qwen-7B and ~13× for Qwen-32B, not 210× and 259×; with UASC N=5 they drop to ~2.4× and ~2.8×. Corrected token reductions are ~8.7× and ~10.5×, not 174× and 210×; with UASC, token reduction is only ~1.3–1.7×. The abstract's 'up to 210×' and the conclusion's 'staggering computational efficiency gains' are ther
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (4), and Table 1] UASC's core assumption—that the sample standard deviation of N=5 stochastic MLLM scores faithfully estimates heteroscedastic aleatoric uncertainty—is not empirically supported. No calibration analysis, reliability diagram, or ablation of λ is provided, and Appendix B shows λ=0.5 as a fixed choice. The R@1 gain attributed to UASC (Qwen-32B: 89.52→91.11) could easily be within stochastic sampling noise, yet no error bars or repeated-seed results are reported. Given that UASC also multiplies the computational cost by N=5, the paper should demonstrate with a λ sweep, an N sweep, and variance estimates that the penalty consistently improves ranking rather than merely adding a free parameter.
  3. [§4.1–4.2, Tables 1–2] The baseline set is too narrow to support the paper's generalization and superiority claims. The text attributes the Description-based underperformance to the use of Qwen rather than GPT-4V, but the LLM4VPR numbers with GPT-4V are not reported. Strong learned VPR descriptors cited in the related work (MixVPR, EigenPlaces, NetVLAD, BoQ) are also absent from the comparisons. Without these, the claim that the method achieves 'superior generalization across diverse environments' is not contextualized. At minimum, report the cited strong baselines on the same splits, or explicitly restrict the claim to zero-shot re-ranking over a VFM retriever.
  4. [§4.2, Tables 1–2] The performance gains appear only at R@1; R@5/R@10 are flat or even slightly worse with UASC (e.g., Qwen-7B-UASC R@10 drops from 93.65 to 93.33). The paper acknowledges the upper-bound limitation of a two-stage pipeline, but does not discuss whether UASC actively harms higher-recall metrics. Reporting per-K breakdowns and a statistical test (e.g., paired bootstrap across queries) would clarify whether the R@1 improvements are robust and whether UASC's penalty is beneficial across the whole ranking, not just the top match.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] There are typos: 'accrodingly' and 'recoginition'. Please proofread.
  2. [Fig. 3] The notation 'ß[0.6, 0.000]' is unclear. Do these denote [mean, std]? Please explain the notation in the caption or text.
  3. [Appendix B] The JSON example includes fields such as 'inference_time_seconds' and 'query_image' that are clearly instrumentation added by the authors, not model outputs. Please separate model-generated JSON from the surrounding bookkeeping, or state that these fields are injected.
  4. [References] The citation Marjanović et al. (2025) for DeepSeek-R1 is to a secondary 'Thoughtology' paper. If possible, cite the original DeepSeek-AI technical report for the R1 model.
  5. [§4.3] The efficiency table reports averages over 10 runs, but no standard deviations. Given the high variability of LLM inference times, please report variance or at least the range.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the method is a self-contained empirical pipeline; the efficiency table's unit inconsistency is a reporting concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central pipeline (DINOv2 coarse retrieval -> per-pair MLLM scoring via a VPR-CoT JSON prompt -> UASC mean-minus-lambda*std penalty -> rerank -> R@K) is self-contained and empirical. The UASC score in Eq. (4) is a deterministic transform of the same sampled scores; it is a ranking heuristic, not a derivation of a target quantity from a fitted input, and lambda is a stated hyperparameter rather than a parameter fitted to the evaluation metric. The only self-citations (Cheng et al. 2024; Luo et al. 2025) appear in the introduction and related work as contextual mentions of SLAM and LiDAR place recognition; neither feeds the method's equations nor supplies a uniqueness/justification theorem, so they are not load-bearing. CoT and Self-Consistency are cited to independent prior work. The paper explicitly acknowledges the top-20 recall bound limiting R@5/R@10, an honest limitation, not a circular step. The efficiency comparison in Table 3 may mix per-query and per-pair 'sample' definitions (Appendix B shows a single pair), but that is a measurement/unit-consistency concern, not a circular reduction of a prediction to its inputs. Therefore no step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. It does introduce a new algorithmic object, UASC (mean minus 0.5*std), whose core assumption is not validated.

free parameters (2)
  • lambda (uncertainty penalty weight) = 0.5
    Eq. (4): s_calibrated = mean - lambda * std. Chosen without sensitivity analysis or grid search; no ablation on either dataset.
  • N (self-consistency sample count) = 5
    Sec. 4.3 sets N=5, incurring about 5x overhead; no ablation of N or cost-accuracy tradeoff.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption MLLM JSON similarity scores are comparable across different query-candidate pairs and rank-correlated with geographic proximity
    Re-ranking in Sec. 3.2 depends on scores from different pairs being on the same scale; no calibration is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper Variance of N stochastic samples measures aleatoric, input-dependent uncertainty
    Sec. 3.3 asserts this; no theoretical or empirical justification that sampling noise equals data ambiguity.
  • domain assumption DINOv2 GeM top-20 candidate set contains the ground-truth match
    Authors acknowledge in Sec. 4.2 that the LLM cannot recover misses from the coarse stage; this upper-bounds R@K.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scale, Don't Fine-tune: Guiding Multimodal LLMs for Efficient Visual Place Recognition at Test-Time." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3MMJFBHK

@misc{pith2026250902129,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scale, Don't Fine-tune: Guiding Multimodal LLMs for Efficient Visual Place Recognition at Test-Time},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3MMJFBHK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02129}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Visual Place Recognition (VPR) has evolved from handcrafted descriptors to deep learning approaches, yet significant challenges remain. Current approaches, including Vision Foundation Models (VFMs) and Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), enhance semantic understanding but suffer from high computational overhead and limited cross-domain transferability when fine-tuned. To address these limitations, we propose a novel zero-shot framework employing Test-Time Scaling (TTS) that leverages MLLMs' vision-language alignment capabilities through Guidance-based methods for direct similarity scoring. Our approach eliminates two-stage processing by employing structured prompts that generate length-controllable JSON outputs. The TTS framework with Uncertainty-Aware Self-Consistency (UASC) enables real-time adaptation without additional training costs, achieving superior generalization across diverse environments. Experimental results demonstrate significant improvements in cross-domain VPR performance with up to 210$\times$ computational efficiency gains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.02129 by Jiehao Luo, Jintao Cheng, Jin Wu, Weibin Li, Wei Zhang, Xiaoyu Tang, Yao Zou, Zhijian He.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison between traditional Description-based method and our proposed approach for VPR. Our method better leverages MLLM’s vision-language alignment capabilities through one-stage direct multimodal reasoning, while structured JSON output enables more controlled thinking pathways and reduces computational overhead compared to free-form text generation. Taking a step further, NAVIG by Zhang et al. (2025) … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overall architecture of our proposed framework. The framework integrates vision-based coarse retrieval with Guidance-based re-ranking, where MLLMs generate structured JSON outputs through VPR-specific prompts and self-consistency mechanisms. cognitive processes that engage deeper thinking for com￾plex problems. Early approaches focused on inference-time methods, with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting by Wei… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Case Study of Guidance-based Similarity Scoring. Examples showing our prompt, calculating pattern and structured JSON outputs with similarity scores and justifications. True matches achieve high scores of 0.6 while false matches receive low scores of 0.26 based on permanent static feature analysis. 4. EXPERIMENT 4.1 Experiment Setup Datasets We evaluated our approach on the Tokyo247 dataset by Torii et al.… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Ali-Bey, A., Chaib-Draa, B., and Giguere, P. (2023). Mixvpr: Feature mixing for visual place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, 2998--3007

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Ali-Bey, A., Chaib-draa, B., and Giguere, P. (2024). Boq: A place is worth a bag of learnable queries. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 17794--17803

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Bay, H., Ess, A., Tuytelaars, T., and Van Gool, L. (2008). Speeded-up robust features (surf). Computer vision and image understanding, 110(3), 346--359

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Berton, G., Trivigno, G., Caputo, B., and Masone, C. (2023). Eigenplaces: Training viewpoint robust models for visual place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 11080--11090

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Cheng, J., Zeng, K., Huang, Z., Tang, X., Wu, J., Zhang, C., Chen, X., and Fan, R. (2024). Mf-mos: A motion-focused model for moving object segmentation. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 12499--12505. doi:10.1109/ICRA57147.2024.10611400

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Cruz-Mota, J., Bogdanova, I., Paquier, B., Bierlaire, M., and Thiran, J.P. (2012). Scale invariant feature transform on the sphere: Theory and applications. International journal of computer vision, 98(2), 217--241

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Feng, X., Wan, Z., Wen, M., McAleer, S.M., Wen, Y., Zhang, W., and Wang, J. (2023). Alphazero-like tree-search can guide large language model decoding and training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Hausler, S., Garg, S., Xu, M., Milford, M., and Fischer, T. (2021). Patch-netvlad: Multi-scale fusion of locally-global descriptors for place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 14141--14152

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Hu, J., Mao, C., Tan, C., Li, H., Liu, H., and Zheng, M. (2024). Progeo: Generating prompts through image-text contrastive learning for visual geo-localization. In International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, 448--462. Springer

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Lowry, S., S \"u nderhauf, N., Newman, P., Leonard, J.J., Cox, D., Corke, P., and Milford, M.J. (2015). Visual place recognition: A survey. ieee transactions on robotics, 32(1), 1--19

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Lu, F., Lan, X., Zhang, L., Jiang, D., Wang, Y., and Yuan, C. (2024). Cricavpr: Cross-image correlation-aware representation learning for visual place recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 16772--16782

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Luo, J., Cheng, J., Xiang, Q., Wu, J., Fan, R., Chen, X., and Tang, X. (2025). Overlapmamba: A shift state space model for lidar-based place recognition. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 10(8), 8380--8387. doi:10.1109/LRA.2025.3582109

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Lyu, Z., Zhang, J., Lu, M., Li, Y., and Feng, C. (2024). Tell me where you are: Multimodal llms meet place recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17520

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Marjanovi \'c , S.V., Patel, A., Adlakha, V., Aghajohari, M., BehnamGhader, P., Bhatia, M., Khandelwal, A., Kraft, A., Krojer, B., L \`u , X.H., et al. (2025). Deepseek-r1 thoughtology: Let's think about llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07128

    arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Qiu, J., Lu, Y., Zeng, Y., Guo, J., Geng, J., Wang, H., Huang, K., Wu, Y., and Wang, M. (2024). Treebon: Enhancing inference-time alignment with speculative tree-search and best-of-n sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Snell, C., Lee, J., Xu, K., and Kumar, A. (2024). Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03314

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Torii, A., Arandjelovic, R., Sivic, J., Okutomi, M., and Pajdla, T. (2015). 24/7 place recognition by view synthesis. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Torii, A., Sivic, J., Pajdla, T., and Okutomi, M. (2013). Visual place recognition with repetitive structures. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Vivanco Cepeda, V., Nayak, G.K., and Shah, M. (2023). Geoclip: Clip-inspired alignment between locations and images for effective worldwide geo-localization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 8690--8701

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., and Le, Q.V. (2023). H. chi, sharan narang, aakanksha chowdhery, and denny zhou. self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 1

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q.V., Zhou, D., et al. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35, 24824--24837

    2022

  22. [22]

    Xu, S., Zhang, C., Fan, L., Meng, G., Xiang, S., and Ye, J. (2024). Addressclip: Empowering vision-language models for city-wide image address localization. In European Conference on Computer Vision, 76--92. Springer

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Xu, Y., Shamsolmoali, P., Granger, E., Nicodeme, C., Gardes, L., and Yang, J. (2023). Transvlad: Multi-scale attention-based global descriptors for visual geo-localization. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, 2840--2849

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Yao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T., Cao, Y., and Narasimhan, K. (2023). Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36, 11809--11822

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Zhang, X., Wang, L., and Su, Y. (2021). Visual place recognition: A survey from deep learning perspective. Pattern Recognition, 113, 107760

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Zhang, Z., Li, R., Kabir, T., and Boyd-Graber, J. (2025). Navig: Natural language-guided analysis with vision language models for image geo-localization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14638

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

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

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sent...

  28. [28]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.