Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 42 references

Even with an external 3D imagery tool that can render and rotate models, frontier multimodal LLMs still fail mental-rotation tasks, topping out at 62.5% accuracy.

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 ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 19:18 UTC pith:C23K2TVD

load-bearing objection We only have the abstract for the spatial-imagery paper; the cached body is TED (2603.26778), so the dual-module causal claim cannot be checked. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.26779 v2 pith:C23K2TVD submitted 2026-03-25 cs.CV cs.AI

Limits of Spatial Imagery Reasoning in Frontier LLM Models

Sergio Y. Hayashi , Nina S. T. Hirata This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AI
keywords spatial reasoningmental rotationmultimodal LLMsimagery modulecognitive prostheticvisual-spatial primitives3D model rotationdepth and motion
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.

This paper tests whether an external Imagery Module—a tool that renders and rotates 3D models—can act as a cognitive prosthetic for multimodal language models that struggle with mental simulation. In a dual-module setup, a reasoning model queries the tool on 3D rotation tasks, outsourcing the burden of maintaining a holistic 3D state. Performance stays unexpectedly low, at most 62.5%. The authors conclude that the bottleneck is not merely state management: current frontier models lack the foundational visual-spatial primitives needed to use imagery effectively, including sensitivity to depth, motion, and short-horizon dynamics, and the ability to reason contemplatively over images while balancing visual focus with symbolic information.

Core claim

Outsourcing 3D state maintenance and rotation to an external Imagery Module does not close the spatial-reasoning gap. Dual-module systems still reach at most 62.5% accuracy on mental-rotation-style tasks, which the authors interpret as evidence that frontier models lack low-level spatial signal extraction (depth, motion, short-horizon dynamic prediction) and contemplative, focus-shifting visual reasoning that integrates imagery with symbolic and associative cues.

What carries the argument

The dual-module architecture: a reasoning MLLM interfacing with an external Imagery Module that can render and rotate 3D models, intended as a cognitive prosthetic that externalizes holistic 3D state manipulation.

Load-bearing premise

That failures under this dual-module interface mainly diagnose missing visual-spatial primitives in the model, rather than interface design, prompts, tool limits, task construction, or scoring choices.

What would settle it

Re-run the same 3D rotation suite with a redesigned interface or stronger visual-feedback protocol and check whether accuracy substantially exceeds 62.5%; if it does, the original failures were interface-bound rather than primitive-bound.

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

If this is right

  • Simply giving models a 3D render-and-rotate tool is insufficient to fix mental-rotation deficits.
  • Progress on spatial mental simulation will require building or training low-level sensitivity to depth, motion, and short-horizon dynamics.
  • Models also need better contemplative visual reasoning: dynamic focus shifts and balancing imagery against symbolic information.
  • Cognitive-prosthetic designs for spatial tasks must target these primitives, not only externalize 3D state.
  • Reported ceilings around 62.5% set a concrete bar for future imagery-augmented systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the primitives diagnosis holds, scaling text-centric pretraining alone is unlikely to produce reliable mental rotation without targeted visual-spatial objectives.
  • The same gap may appear in other imagery-tool setups (robotics planning, CAD, navigation) where models must interpret tool-rendered views rather than only call tools.
  • A useful next measurement would isolate whether failures are mostly in reading depth/motion from renders versus in planning which rotations to request.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission under review (claimed as arXiv:2603.26779) asserts that frontier MLLMs fail mental-rotation-style spatial tasks even when given an external “Imagery Module” that can render and rotate 3D models as a cognitive prosthetic. In a dual-module setup (reasoning MLLM + imagery tool), accuracy reaches at most 62.5%. The authors interpret residual failures as evidence that models lack foundational visual-spatial primitives: low-level sensitivity to depth, motion, and short-horizon dynamic prediction, plus the ability to reason contemplatively over images while balancing imagery with symbolic information. The body supplied in the review package, however, is a different manuscript (TED: Training-Free Experience Distillation for Multimodal Reasoning, arXiv:2603.26778), so the dual-module methods, tasks, models, and error analyses that would support the spatial-imagery claim are not available for evaluation.

Significance. If the dual-module result and the primitive-deficit interpretation were established with controlled experiments, the paper would be a useful negative result for tool-augmented multimodal reasoning: it would show that outsourcing 3D state maintenance is not sufficient and would motivate work on low-level spatial signal extraction and image-focused deliberation. That contribution cannot be assessed from the abstract alone, and the supplied full text is an unrelated training-free distillation paper, so the claimed significance remains unverified.

major comments (3)
  1. Manuscript identity mismatch: the review package title/abstract describe “Limits of Spatial Imagery Reasoning in Frontier LLM Models” (dual-module Imagery Module, mental rotation, ≤62.5% accuracy, primitive-deficit claims), but the full text is TED (training-free experience distillation on MathVision/VisualPuzzles/AIME). None of the load-bearing elements of the spatial paper—Imagery Module API, interaction protocol, task construction, tool-call success rates, model list, human/oracle ceilings with the same tool, or error analyses separating interface failures from spatial-signal deficits—are present. The central claim cannot be refereed on this package.
  2. Even restricting attention to the abstract of the claimed paper, the causal leap from residual tool-augmented failure to “lack of foundational visual-spatial primitives (depth, motion, short-horizon prediction, contemplative image reasoning)” is load-bearing and unsecured without methods. Fairness of the cognitive-prosthetic test requires evidence that failures are not driven by prompt protocol, tool API design, inability to issue correct render/rotate calls, scoring choices, or task construction. Those controls are not in the provided materials.
  3. Without the correct methods section, baselines, and ablations, the reported ceiling of 62.5% cannot be interpreted: chance level, number of alternatives, human performance with the same tool, and success rate of tool invocations are unknown. The abstract’s “lower than expected” framing and the primitive-deficit list therefore remain interpretive rather than demonstrated.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract alone is insufficient for journal review of an empirical systems claim; full methods, figures, and tables for the spatial-imagery experiments are required.
  2. If the correct manuscript is resubmitted, the abstract’s numbered list of missing primitives should be tied to specific diagnostic probes (e.g., depth-only, motion-only, short-horizon prediction tasks) rather than only overall accuracy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No derivation circularity: abstract is an empirical failure report; cached body is the wrong paper (TED), so no load-bearing equations or self-citation chain can be reduced to inputs.

full rationale

The target abstract (Limits of Spatial Imagery Reasoning) claims an empirical result: dual-module MLLM + external Imagery Module reaches at most 62.5% on 3D rotation tasks, then interprets that failure as missing visual-spatial primitives. That is not a first-principles derivation, fitted-parameter prediction, uniqueness import, or ansatz smuggled via self-citation; accuracy is a measured outcome, not defined by construction from the inputs. The CACHEABLE full manuscript is TED (arXiv 2603.26778), a different empirical distillation paper with benchmark tables and ablations, not the dual-module spatial study. TED itself also shows no circularity patterns (no self-definitional equations, no fitted inputs relabeled as predictions, no uniqueness theorems from overlapping authors forcing the result). Residual risk is interpretive overclaim (labeling tool-augmented errors as primitive deficits without independent depth/motion probes), which is not circularity under the stated criteria. Honest finding: score 0; steps empty.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 2 invented entities

Abstract-only review of an empirical MLLM tool-use study. Load-bearing background assumptions are standard for the domain (mental rotation as a spatial-reasoning probe; tool-augmented MLLMs as a valid prosthetic testbed). No free parameters or invented physical entities appear in the abstract. The main paper-specific constructs are the Imagery Module and the dual-module architecture, which are experimental apparatus rather than ontological inventions.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Mental rotation / 3D model rotation tasks are a valid probe of spatial imagery reasoning in MLLMs.
    The abstract treats failure on these tasks as evidence about spatial imagery limits; this is standard in cognitive/AI spatial benchmarks but is still an evaluative assumption.
  • domain assumption An external module that renders and rotates 3D models can, in principle, outsource holistic 3D state maintenance for the reasoning model.
    Required for the cognitive-prosthetic framing and for interpreting residual failure as not due to 3D state burden.
  • ad hoc to paper Observed residual failures under tool use indicate missing foundational visual-spatial primitives (depth, motion, short-horizon dynamic prediction, contemplative image reasoning) rather than only interface or prompt failures.
    This is the paper’s interpretive leap from performance numbers to mechanism; it is not forced by the accuracy figure alone.
invented entities (2)
  • Imagery Module (external render-and-rotate tool as cognitive prosthetic) no independent evidence
    purpose: Outsource 3D rendering/rotation so the MLLM can reason with external imagery instead of pure mental simulation.
    Experimental system component introduced to test the prosthetic hypothesis; not a new natural entity, but a paper-defined apparatus central to the claim.
  • Dual-module architecture (reasoning MLLM + imagery module) no independent evidence
    purpose: Operationalize interaction between symbolic/associative reasoning and external spatial imagery on rotation tasks.
    Architectural setup for the experiments; existence is by construction of the study.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 20901 in / 2906 out tokens · 33757 ms · 2026-07-13T19:18:36.840173+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities, yet they struggle with spatial tasks that require mental simulation, such as mental rotation. This paper investigates whether equipping an LLM with an external ``Imagery Module'' -- a tool capable of rendering and rotating 3D models -- can bridge this gap, functioning as a ``cognitive prosthetic.'' We conducted experiments using a dual-module architecture in which a reasoning module (an MLLM) interacts with an imagery module on 3D model rotation tasks. Performance was lower than expected, with accuracy reaching at most 62.5%. Further investigation suggests that even when the burden of maintaining and manipulating a holistic 3D state is outsourced, the system still fails. This reveals that current frontier models lack the foundational visual-spatial primitives required to interface with imagery. Specifically, they lack: (1) the low-level sensitivity to extract spatial signals such as (a) depth, (b) motion, and (c) short-horizon dynamic prediction; and (2) the capacity to reason contemplatively over images, dynamically shifting visual focus and balancing imagery with symbolic and associative information.

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

42 extracted references · 12 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Rishabh Agarwal, Nino Vieillard, Yongchao Zhou, Piotr Stanczyk, Sabela Ramos Garea, Matthieu Geist, and Olivier Bachem. 2024. On-policy distillation of lan- guage models: Learning from self-generated mistakes. InThe twelfth international conference on learning representations

    2024

  2. [2]

    Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, Zesen Cheng, Lianghao Deng, Wei Ding, Chang Gao, Chunjiang Ge, Wenbin Ge, Zhifang Guo, Qidong Huang, Jie Huang, Fei Huang, Binyuan Hui, Shutong Jiang, Zhaohai Li, Mingsheng Li, Mei Li, Kaixin Li, Zicheng Lin, Junyang Lin, Xuejing Liu, Jiawei Liu, Chenglong Liu, Yang Liu, Dayiheng Liu, Shixuan ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Amanda Bertsch, Maor Ivgi, Emily Xiao, Uri Alon, Jonathan Berant, Matthew R Gormley, and Graham Neubig. 2025. In-context learning with long-context models: An in-depth exploration. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers...

    2025

  4. [4]

    Max Biggs, Wei Sun, and Markus Ettl. 2021. Model distillation for revenue optimization: Interpretable personalized pricing. InInternational conference on machine learning. PMLR, 946–956

    2021

  5. [5]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners.Advances in neural information processing systems33 (2020), 1877–1901

    2020

  6. [6]

    Lin Chen, Jinsong Li, Xiaoyi Dong, Pan Zhang, Conghui He, Jiaqi Wang, Feng Zhao, and Dahua Lin. 2024. Sharegpt4v: Improving large multi-modal models with better captions. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 370– 387

    2024

  7. [7]

    Luyang Fang, Xiaowei Yu, Jiazhang Cai, Yongkai Chen, Shushan Wu, Zhengliang Liu, Zhenyuan Yang, Haoran Lu, Xilin Gong, Yufang Liu, et al. 2026. Knowledge distillation and dataset distillation of large language models: Emerging trends, challenges, and future directions.Artificial Intelligence Review59, 1 (2026), 17

    2026

  8. [8]

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al . 2025. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. 2015. Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network.Computer Science14, 7 (2015), 38–39

    2015

  10. [10]

    Cheng-Yu Hsieh, Chun-Liang Li, Chih-Kuan Yeh, Hootan Nakhost, Yasuhisa Fujii, Alex Ratner, Ranjay Krishna, Chen-Yu Lee, and Tomas Pfister. 2023. Distilling step-by-step! outperforming larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023. 8003–8017

    2023

  11. [11]

    Devvrit Khatri, Pranamya Kulkarni, Nilesh Gupta, Yerram Varun, Liqian Peng, Jay Yagnik, Praneeth Netrapalli, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Alec Go, Inderjit S Dhillon, et al. 2025. Compressing Many-Shots in In-Context Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16092 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Jinyang Li, Jack Williams, Nick McKenna, Arian Askari, Nicholas Wilson, and Reynold Cheng. [n. d.]. Agents Help Agents: Exploring Training-Free Knowledge Distillation for Small Language Models in Data Science Code Generation. ([n. d.])

  13. [13]

    Huanxuan Liao, Shizhu He, Yao Xu, Yuanzhe Zhang, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. 2025. Neural-symbolic collaborative distillation: Advancing small language models for complex reasoning tasks. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 39. 24567–24575

    2025

  14. [14]

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. 2023. Visual in- struction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems36 (2023), 34892–34916

    2023

  15. [15]

    Math-AI. 2024. American Invitational Mathematics Examination (AIME) 2024. Hugging Face dataset

    2024

  16. [16]

    OpenAI. 2025. Introducing GPT-5.2. https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt- 5-2/. Accessed: 2026

    2025

  17. [17]

    Jiahao Qiu, Xinzhe Juan, Yimin Wang, Ling Yang, Xuan Qi, Tongcheng Zhang, Jiacheng Guo, Yifu Lu, Zixin Yao, Hongru Wang, et al . 2025. AgentDistill: Training-Free Agent Distillation with Generalizable MCP Boxes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.14728(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Ohad Rubin, Jonathan Herzig, and Jonathan Berant. 2022. Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. InProceedings of the 2022 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies. 2655–2671

    2022

  19. [19]

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36 (2023), 8634–8652

    2023

  20. [20]

    Yueqi Song, Tianyue Ou, Yibo Kong, Zecheng Li, Graham Neubig, and Xiang Yue

  21. [21]

    Visualpuzzles: Decoupling multimodal reasoning evaluation from domain knowledge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10342(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Hashimoto

    Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2023. Stanford Alpaca: An Instruction-following LLaMA model. https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_ alpaca

    2023

  23. [23]

    Kimi Team, Tongtong Bai, Yifan Bai, Yiping Bao, SH Cai, Yuan Cao, Y Charles, HS Che, Cheng Chen, Guanduo Chen, et al . 2026. Kimi K2. 5: Visual Agentic Intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.02276(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Yijun Tian, Yikun Han, Xiusi Chen, Wei Wang, and Nitesh V. Chawla. 2024. Beyond Answers: Transferring Reasoning Capabilities to Smaller LLMs Using Multi-Teacher Knowledge Distillation. arXiv:2402.04616 [cs.CL] https://arxiv. org/abs/2402.04616

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Bin Wang, Fan Wu, Xiao Han, Jiahui Peng, Huaping Zhong, Pan Zhang, Xiaoyi Dong, Weijia Li, Wei Li, Jiaqi Wang, et al. 2024. Vigc: Visual instruction generation and correction. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 38. 5309–5317

    2024

  26. [26]

    Ke Wang, Junting Pan, Weikang Shi, Zimu Lu, Houxing Ren, Aojun Zhou, Mingjie Zhan, and Hongsheng Li. 2024. Measuring multimodal mathematical reasoning with math-vision dataset.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37 (2024), 95095–95169

    2024

  27. [27]

    Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi

    Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructions. arXiv:2212.10560 [cs.CL] https://arxiv. org/abs/2212.10560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models.Advances in neural information processing systems35 (2022), 24824–24837

    2022

  29. [29]

    Yijia Xiao, Edward Sun, Tianyu Liu, and Wei Wang. 2024. Logicvista: Mul- timodal llm logical reasoning benchmark in visual contexts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04973(2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. 2025. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, ..., and Mingxuan Wang. 2025. DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale. arXiv:2503.14476 [cs.LG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Renrui Zhang, Dongzhi Jiang, Yichi Zhang, Haokun Lin, Ziyu Guo, Pengshuo Qiu, Aojun Zhou, Pan Lu, Kai-Wei Chang, Yu Qiao, et al. 2024. Mathverse: Does your multi-modal llm truly see the diagrams in visual math problems?. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 169–186

    2024

  33. [33]

    Yifan Zhang and Math-AI Team. 2025. American Invitational Mathematics Examination (AIME) 2025. Hugging Face dataset

    2025

  34. [34]

    Huichi Zhou, Yihang Chen, Siyuan Guo, Xue Yan, Kin Hei Lee, Zihan Wang, Ka Yiu Lee, Guchun Zhang, Kun Shao, Linyi Yang, et al. 2025. Memento: Fine- tuning llm agents without fine-tuning llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.16153 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Deyao Zhu, Jun Chen, Xiaoqian Shen, Xiang Li, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2023. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understanding with advanced large lan- guage models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592(2023). ACM MM’26, June 03–05, 2026, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Shuozhi Yuan,et al. A Limitation and discussion Despite the promising results, TED also has several li...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    - Analyze how critical decision points, ambiguities, and potential pitfalls are resolved

    Comparative Trajectory Analysis Teacher Trajectories: - Identify the key strategic decisions and pivotal reasoning steps. - Analyze how critical decision points, ambiguities, and potential pitfalls are resolved. - Distill recurring reasoning patterns that contribute to correctness. Student Trajectories: Positive Trajectories (reward = 1): - Identify strat...

  37. [37]

    modify": refine an existing experience to improve clarity or correctness. -

    Updating the Experience Set Teacher trajectories may include both correct and incorrect reasoning paths. Only extract experiences that reliably promote correct strategic reasoning. You may perform one of the following operations: - "modify": refine an existing experience to improve clarity or correctness. - "add": introduce a new generalizable experience....

  38. [38]

    - Emphasize strategic reasoning patterns rather than specific computations

    Experience Formulation Requirements TED: Training-Free Experience Distillation for Multimodal Reasoning ACM MM’26, June 03–05, 2026, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Each experience must: - Begin with a concise description of the general problem context. - Emphasize strategic reasoning patterns rather than specific computations. - Highlight reusable decision points...

    2026

  39. [39]

    It must express a clear and generalizable strategic lesson, within 32 words. 2. It must begin with a concise general background context. 3. It must focus on reasoning strategies rather than specific computations. 4. It must emphasize transferable decision points applicable to similar problems. 5. It must avoid semantic overlap with other retained experien...

  40. [40]

    - Detect overlap in decision logic, structural reasoning, or error prevention themes

    Redundancy Analysis - Identify experiences expressing similar strategic principles. - Detect overlap in decision logic, structural reasoning, or error prevention themes. - Group experiences that differ superficially but share core reasoning patterns

  41. [41]

    - Remove problem-specific language

    Strategic Abstraction - Generalize grouped experiences into a higher-level strategic principle. - Remove problem-specific language. - Preserve critical decision-point structure

  42. [42]

    modify": refine an existing experience to improve abstraction and generality. -

    Compression Operations You may use the following update operations: - "modify": refine an existing experience to improve abstraction and generality. - "merge": combine multiple similar experiences into one more general and strategically expressive experience. (Merge is the primary mechanism for reducing count.) C Some examples of experience Some examples ...

    2026