Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

TRACE: Training and Inference-Time Interpretability Analysis for Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read TRACE claims to reveal when syntactic and semantic knowledge emerges in transformer language models during training — signals that loss and accuracy curves hide.

desk verdict TRACE is a genuinely useful toolkit contribution wrapped in an under-supported single-run case study; the emergence claims need controls and seeds before they can carry the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03668 v1 pith:5CKVGB7C submitted 2025-07-04 cs.CL

Nura Aljaafari , Danilo S. Carvalho , André Freitas This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords interpretabilitytrainingdynamicslinguisticprobingintrinsicdimensionalityHessiananalysissyntheticcorpustransformerlanguagemodelsemergence
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

TRACE is a modular toolkit that attaches to a transformer training loop and measures, every N steps, four kinds of internal signals: how well small probes can read syntactic and semantic roles from hidden states, the intrinsic dimensionality of those states, the curvature of the loss landscape via Hessian approximations, and category-level output accuracy. Paired with ABSynth, a synthetic corpus generator that supplies sentences with explicit semantic-role and part-of-speech annotations, TRACE claims to expose developmental phases that loss and accuracy curves hide: syntax emerging early, core semantic roles stabilizing before adjunct roles, a dip-then-rebound in representation dimensionality, and coordinated curvature spikes. A sympathetic reader should care because, if the claim holds, researchers get a low-effort way to watch when and where linguistic knowledge appears during training, rather than only after training is complete.

What carries the argument

Four pluggable analysis modules run from hooks injected into the training loop: logistic probes that predict semantic roles and POS tags from hidden states (confidence per category), intrinsic-dimensionality estimators (TwoNN and PCA-based) that track representational complexity per layer, Lanczos-based Hessian approximations that track curvature, trace, and gradient alignment of the loss landscape, and output-level monitors that measure accuracy stratified by role and POS class. ABSynth supplies the controlled, annotated corpus: sentences generated from semantic frames with role-labelled tokens and Zipfian lexical distributions. The load-bearing identity is the temporal alignment: dips and spikes across probe confidence, dimensionality, and curvature co-occur at the same training steps, which the paper reads as a single representational-reorganisation event.

What would settle it

Train the semantic-role probes on hidden states with role labels shuffled (or on random hidden states), and check whether the same early-dip-and-recover confidence curves appear; if they do, the curves trace probe trainability, not representation content.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that monitoring hidden states, geometry, and loss curvature during training reveals a stage-structured account of language acquisition in transformers: syntactic and core predicate-argument structure emerge early and stabilize, peripheral semantic roles lag and fluctuate, and the representation passes through an early compression followed by expansion into a more abstract regime. These dynamics are claimed to be invisible to scalar training logs such as loss or accuracy, and TRACE is presented as the first low-integration-effort toolkit that surfaces them live, with diagnostics that support early stopping, architecture decisions, and detection of structural errors.

Load-bearing premise

The probe-confidence curves reflect genuine changes in the model's linguistic representations rather than artifacts of the small probe or the synthetic annotation scheme, and the single unseeded training run stands for the developmental pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Layer-wise probe and intrinsic-dimensionality curves let practitioners identify which layers compress or expand representations and when, enabling convergence-based early stopping.
  • Coordinated curvature–dimensionality signals can flag memorisation-to-generalisation transitions and structural misalignment where the model outputs the right category but wrong lexical item.
  • The observed gap between stable output accuracy and still-evolving internal probe confidence suggests external performance can look converged while internal semantics keep reorganising.
  • ABSynth's controllable frames make acquisition-order claims (core before adjunct) testable against corpus composition, since frame and complexity distributions are set by the user.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own single unseeded run leaves open whether the early-dip-and-rebound dimensionality curve is a robust property of transformer training or an artifact of the specific small model and corpus; a seed-sweep replication would settle this.
  • Because the toolkit logs hidden states at checkpoints, a natural extension is causal intervention: patch activations at identified reorganisation steps to ask whether the phase transitions are load-bearing for later output accuracy.
  • The probe-confidence dips the paper attributes to 'representational reorganisation' could alternatively reflect probe non-stationarity — a probe trained at step k may decode step k+l states suboptimally even if the model's features are stable; a probe-refresh protocol would test this.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TRACE, a modular toolkit for in-training and inference-time interpretability of transformer language models, and ABSynth, a synthetic corpus generator with token-level semantic-role and POS annotations. The authors demonstrate TRACE on a small decoder-only transformer trained on an ABSynth corpus, reporting temporal trajectories of linguistic probe confidence, intrinsic dimensionality, Hessian spectral metrics, and output-level accuracies. The central claim is that TRACE reveals developmental phenomena such as early syntactic emergence, delayed semantic acquisition, and representational compression, which the authors state are overlooked by traditional scalar metrics such as loss or accuracy.

Significance. If the reported phenomena are genuine, TRACE would fill a practical gap by providing a lightweight, modular, open-source framework for watching internal representations during training, and ABSynth would provide a useful controlled corpus for such studies. The paper's strengths include a clean modular architecture, structured logging, automated visualizations, and a released code repository with environment specifications. The main limitation is that the empirical demonstration is a single unseeded run on a synthetic corpus, and the probe-based analyses lack control baselines, so the developmental claims should be regarded as illustrative rather than established; with additional controls and replicates, the contribution could be solid.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4 vs. §A.3 vs. §B.2.2] The training configuration is internally inconsistent across the manuscript: §4 states 50K sentences, 70K steps, and learning rate 1e-3; §A.3 states 25K sentences, 500 epochs, and learning rate 1e-4; §B.2.2 states 25K sentences, 30 epochs, and learning rate 1e-3. Since all reported figures are attributed to 'the example training run,' the reader cannot determine which configuration produced Figures 2, 4-7, and the timing claims (e.g., 'steps 10k-25k' in §B.3.1) cannot be reproduced. Please provide a single authoritative configuration table and reconcile these numbers.
  2. [§B.3.1, Figure 4] The probe-confidence trajectories are interpreted as evidence of when the model acquires semantic roles, but the annotations in §B.1.2 tie roles to fixed surface positions (Agent at position 0, Patient at position 2, Location at position 4). A probe trained on hidden states can therefore achieve high confidence by exploiting positional encodings or token IDs rather than abstract role representations. The paper reports no control experiments (e.g., probes on input embeddings, probes with shuffled labels, or probes on an untrained model) to rule out these shortcuts. Without such controls, the claims of 'early syntactic emergence' and 'delayed semantic acquisition' are not established.
  3. [Figures 2, 4-7; Table 3] All developmental conclusions rest on a single unseeded training run: no error bars, no replicate seeds, and no statistical tests are reported. The phase boundaries identified in the text (e.g., the ID drop between steps 500 and 2,000, and the probe-confidence dips around 10k-25k steps) may therefore be run-specific artifacts. To support claims about developmental phenomena, at least a small number of seeds (e.g., 3-5) with variance bands, or a comparable stability analysis, is needed.
  4. [Abstract and §4] The central assertion that TRACE reveals signals 'overlooked by traditional scalar metrics such as loss or accuracy' is not directly supported: the paper never plots loss or accuracy curves alongside the TRACE metrics, nor does it quantitatively compare the information content of scalar metrics versus the proposed signals. Figure 7 shows accuracy trajectories, but no loss over time and no analysis of whether loss/accuracy would exhibit the same or different phase transitions. Please either add such a comparison or soften the claim to what the presented data actually show.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] The reference to Elena Voita contains an erroneous space ('Elena V oita'), and 'Boxua Shan' should likely be 'Boxuan Shan'; please correct these typographical errors.
  2. [Appendix B.1.3, Figure 3] The caption describes ABSynth corpus statistics (sentence-length distribution and role frequencies), but the displayed panels are labeled 'Hessian trace over training steps' and 'Gradient and Hessian norm dynamics'; the figure and caption need to be matched.
  3. [Abstract and §2.1] The phrase 'features probing' should be 'feature probing' or 'probing of features'; please revise for grammatical precision.
  4. [Section 4, Hessian discussion] The phrase 'memorisation and generalisation' in the Hessian discussion is missing a connecting verb or conjunction; please revise the sentence for clarity.
  5. [Abstract vs. §B.3.1] The abstract promises 'early syntactic emergence,' but the presented probe results in Figure 4 are for semantic roles; please clarify which figure or analysis supports the syntactic claim, or add a POS probe trajectory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: TRACE's empirical signals are defined independently of its developmental conclusions, and no derivation or fitted parameter is presented as a forced prediction.

full rationale

TRACE is a systems/tool paper whose central claims are empirical observations from instrumented training runs, not mathematical derivations that reduce to their inputs. The probe-confidence metric is a standard diagnostic: a classifier is trained on hidden states and its accuracy/confidence is reported. High confidence is not forced by construction; the probe could fail to separate roles, and the paper's claims could be falsified by showing flat or counterintuitive trajectories. The same holds for intrinsic dimensionality, Hessian curvature, and output accuracy, which are defined independently of the emergence narrative. ABSynth's annotations are produced by the authors' own generator, and the absence of controls (e.g., shuffled labels, input-embedding probes, repeated seeds) weakens the evidentiary value of the developmental conclusions, but that is a validity or robustness concern rather than a circularity. The configuration inconsistencies between Section 4, Appendix A.3, and Appendix B.2.2 are documentation errors, not circular steps. No self-citation is load-bearing, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no known result is merely renamed. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0. The reader should separately weigh correctness risk from the single-unseeded-run design and the probe-shortcut possibility, but these do not make the paper's claims equivalent to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on the validity of the measurement tools and the representativeness of the synthetic corpus. The paper provides no external validation of these measures, and the free choice of corpus distributions directly shapes the observed timing of feature acquisition.

free parameters (6)
  • Zipfian alpha = 1.05
    Governs token frequency distribution in ABSynth; chosen by authors, affects which items are easier to learn.
  • Semantic frame distribution = transitive_action 0.1, transitive_with_location 0.15, motion_with_source 0.15, temporal_action 0.15…
    Proportions of sentence templates; shapes the curriculum and hence the observed timing of feature acquisition.
  • Complexity distribution = simple 0.55, medium 0.35, complex 0.10
    Determines syntactic difficulty mix in the corpus; a free choice that influences the learning curves.
  • Corpus size = 25,000 sentences (Section 4 says 50K examples)
    Two conflicting corpus sizes appear; the inconsistency affects reproducibility of the reported dynamics.
  • Track interval = 500 steps
    Analysis frequency; affects temporal resolution of observed phenomena.
  • Hessian n_components = 10
    Number of Lanczos components; affects curvature estimate.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math TwoNN intrinsic dimension estimate is accurate for these hidden states.
    The TwoNN estimator from Facco et al. (2017) is assumed to give a faithful measure of representational complexity throughout training (Section 4).
  • domain assumption Probe classifiers on hidden states faithfully reveal feature encoding.
    Probe confidence is treated as evidence that the model has acquired a linguistic feature; no control for probe trainability is provided (Appendix B.3.1).
  • domain assumption Lanczos-based Hessian approximation captures meaningful loss landscape curvature.
    The paper assumes that a 10-component Lanczos approximation accurately reflects curvature shifts relevant to optimization dynamics (Section 4).
  • domain assumption ABSynth's frame semantics and annotations represent linguistic structure faithfully.
    The synthetic corpus is treated as a valid proxy for real linguistic structure; no external validation of the annotation schema is provided (Section 3).
  • domain assumption Single-run dynamics at these hyperparameters are representative.
    All conclusions are drawn from one training run with a fixed random seed and architecture; no multiple seeds are reported (Appendix B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TRACE: Training and Inference-Time Interpretability Analysis for Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5CKVGB7C

@misc{pith2026250703668,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TRACE: Training and Inference-Time Interpretability Analysis for Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5CKVGB7C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03668}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding when and how linguistic knowledge emerges during language model training remains a central challenge for interpretability. Most existing tools are post hoc, rely on scalar metrics, or require nontrivial integration effort, making comprehensive interpretability analysis difficult to deploy and maintain. We introduce TRACE, a modular toolkit for training and inference-time interpretability analysis of transformer models. It enables lightweight, in-training analysis of linguistic and representational signals, including features probing, intrinsic dimensionality, Hessian curvature, and output diagnostics. It integrates with ABSynth, a controllable synthetic corpus generator that provides structured annotations for precise evaluation of linguistic feature acquisition. Experiments with autoregressive transformers demonstrate that TRACE reveals developmental phenomena such as early syntactic emergence, delayed semantic acquisition, and representational compression, signals overlooked by traditional scalar metrics such as loss or accuracy. With minimal integration effort, the tool enables layer-wise diagnostics, convergence-based early stopping, and detection of structural errors, making transformer analysis interpretable, actionable, and reproducible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03668 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. TRACE system overview. ABSynth generates controlled linguistic datasets with explicit annotations, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sample TRACE visual diagnostics. (a) Semantic probe confidence per role at decoder layer 1. TRACE tracks dynamic shifts, revealing phase transitions in linguistic encoding (e.g., mid-training dips and late recovery). (b) Joint evolution of Hessian curvature and average intrinsic dimensionality, exposing compression, abstraction, and optimisation phase shifts. Together, these metrics offer temporal insights missed by… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Sample statistical visualisation of ABSynth: (Left) Distribution of sentence lengths in the generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Semantic role probe scores across training steps. Layer 1 shows alignment with core [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Intrinsic dimensionality across training steps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of curvature and norm characteristics during training. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Left) POS accuracy across training steps. (Right) Semantic role prediction accuracy. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Collin F Baker, Charles J Fillmore, and John B Lowe. 1998. The berkeley framenet project. In COLING 1998 Volume 1: The 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Yonatan Belinkov, Llu \' s M \`a rquez, Hassan Sajjad, Nadir Durrani, Fahim Dalvi, and James Glass. 2018. Evaluating layers of representation in neural machine translation on part-of-speech and semantic tagging tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07772

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Nora Belrose, Zach Furman, Logan Smith, Danny Halawi, Igor Ostrovsky, Lev McKinney, Stella Biderman, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2023. Eliciting latent predictions from transformers with the tuned lens. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08112

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Leonard Bereska and Stratis Gavves. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ePUVetPKu6 Mechanistic interpretability for AI safety - a review . Transactions on Machine Learning Research. Survey Certification, Expert Certification

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Lukas Biewald. 2020. https://www.wandb.com/ Experiment tracking with weights and biases . Software available from wandb.com

    2020

  6. [6]

    Trenton Bricken, Adly Templeton, Joshua Batson, Brian Chen, Adam Jermyn, Tom Conerly, Nick Turner, Cem Anil, Carson Denison, Amanda Askell, Robert Lasenby, Yifan Wu, Shauna Kravec, Nicholas Schiefer, Tim Maxwell, Nicholas Joseph, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Alex Tamkin, Karina Nguyen, and 6 others. 2023. Towards monosemanticity: Decomposing language models with d...

    2023

  7. [7]

    Richard Cangelosi and Alain Goriely. 2007. Component retention in principal component analysis with application to cdna microarray data. Biology direct, 2:1--21

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Elena Facco, Maria d’Errico, Alex Rodriguez, and Alessandro Laio. 2017. Estimating the intrinsic dimension of datasets by a minimal neighborhood information. Scientific reports, 7(1):12140

    work page 2017

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Fillmore

    Charles J. Fillmore. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, pages 111--137. Hanshin Publishing Co., Seoul

    1982

  2. [10]

    Michael Hanna, Ollie Liu, and Alexandre Variengien. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=p4PckNQR8k How does GPT -2 compute greater-than?: Interpreting mathematical abilities in a pre-trained language model . In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  3. [11]

    John Hewitt and Christopher D Manning. 2019. A structural probe for finding syntax in word representations. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Sho...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Subhash Kantamneni, Joshua Engels, Senthooran Rajamanoharan, Max Tegmark, and Neel Nanda. 2025. Are sparse autoencoders useful? a case study in sparse probing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16681

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Najoung Kim and Tal Linzen. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.731 COGS : A compositional generalization challenge based on semantic interpretation . In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9087--9...

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Narine Kokhlikyan, Vivek Miglani, Miguel Martin, Edward Wang, Bilal Alsallakh, Jonathan Reynolds, Alexander Melnikov, Natalia Kliushkina, Carlos Araya, Siqi Yan, and 1 others. 2020. Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for pytorch. arXiv preprint arXiv:...

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Cornelius Lanczos. 1950. An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of linear differential and integral operators. Journal of research of the National Bureau of Standards, 45(4):255--282

    1950

  8. [16]

    Xuhong Li, Haoyi Xiong, Xingjian Li, Xuanyu Wu, Zeyu Chen, and Dejing Dou. 2022. http://jmlr.org/papers/v23/21-0738.html Interpretdl: Explaining deep models in paddlepaddle . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(197):1--6

    2022

  9. [17]

    Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. 2017. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  10. [18]

    Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. 2022. Locating and editing factual associations in GPT . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36. ArXiv:2202.05262

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Neel Nanda and Joseph Bloom. 2022. Transformerlens. https://github.com/TransformerLensOrg/TransformerLens

    2022

  12. [20]

    Neel Nanda, Lawrence Chan, Tom Lieberum, Jess Smith, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=9XFSbDPmdW Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretability . In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  13. [21]

    Nostalgebraist. 2020. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AcKRB8wDpdaN6v6ru/interpreting-gpt-the-logit-lens interpreting GPT: the logit lens

    2020

  14. [22]

    Steven T Piantadosi. 2014. Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 21:1112--1130

    2014

  15. [23]

    Alethea Power, Yuri Burda, Harri Edwards, Igor Babuschkin, and Vedant Misra. 2022. Grokking: Generalization beyond overfitting on small algorithmic datasets. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.02177

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    David Saxton, Edward Grefenstette, Felix Hill, and Pushmeet Kohli. 2019. https://openreview.net/forum?id=H1gR5iR5FX Analysing mathematical reasoning abilities of neural models . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  17. [25]

    Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. 2017. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 3319--3328. PMLR

    2017

  18. [26]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, ukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  19. [27]

    Jesse Vig. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-3007 A multiscale visualization of attention in the transformer model . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 37--42, Florence, Italy. Associatio...

    2019 doi

  20. [28]

    Elena Voita, David Talbot, Fedor Moiseev, Rico Sennrich, and Ivan Titov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1580 Analyzing multi-head self-attention: Specialized heads do the heavy lifting, the rest can be pruned . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Associatio...

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.07461

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kevin Ro Wang, Alexandre Variengien, Arthur Conmy, Buck Shlegeris, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=NpsVSN6o4ul Interpretability in the wild: a circuit for indirect object identification in GPT -2 small . In The Eleventh International Conference on L...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Alex Warstadt, Alicia Parrish, Haokun Liu, Anhad Mohananey, Wei Peng, Sheng-Fu Wang, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl\_a\_00321 Blimp: The benchmark of linguistic minimal pairs for english . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics,...

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    reagent: Towards a model-agnostic feature attribution method for generative language models

    Zhixue Zhao and Boxua Shan. 2024. "reagent: Towards a model-agnostic feature attribution method for generative language models". In Proceedings of AAAI Workshop on Responsible Language Models

    2024

  25. [33]

    George Kingsley Zipf. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Addison-Wesley

    1949

  26. [34]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  27. [35]

    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.