Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Two-Sided Manipulation Games in Stable Matching Markets

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Every accomplice manipulation game in a two-sided matching market has a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium, computable in polynomial time, and the equilibrium produced by push-up dynamics is stable under the agents' true preferences.

desk verdict A promising new game and construction, but the stability proof has a false DA assertion and the appendix proofs are scrambled. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00554 v1 pith:CML2T7EI submitted 2025-05-31 cs.GT cs.MA

Hadi Hosseini , Grzegorz Lisowski , Shraddha Pathak This is my paper
classification cs.GTcs.MA MSC 91B6891A10
keywords stablematchingdeferredacceptanceaccomplicemanipulationtwo-sidedNashequilibriumpush-updynamicsone-for-manymarket
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

Stable matching markets, such as school choice and medical residency matching, are usually run with the deferred acceptance (DA) algorithm, which returns a matching that no pair of agents prefers to leave. DA resists strategic misreporting by the proposing side but not by the receiving side, and previous work on manipulation mostly considered single agents or coalitions from one side of the market. This paper introduces the accomplice manipulation game, in which a set of strategic man-woman pairs lets each man misreport his preferences to improve his paired woman's partner as long as he does not hurt himself. The paper proves that this game always has a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium, that one such equilibrium can be computed in polynomial time by a restricted best-response dynamic called push-up dynamics, and that the equilibrium so constructed is stable with respect to the true preferences. It further shows that no strategic pair can block an equilibrium matching, and that the same technique gives polynomial-time equilibria for one-for-many manipulation and for the classic woman self-manipulation game.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the push-up operation on a man's reported preference list. Given a profile p and its DA outcome μ_p, a man m moves a set X of women from below μ_p(m) to above it, keeping μ_p(m) in place. This operation carries the argument because every accomplice manipulation can be performed as a one-woman push-up; because a no-regret push-up keeps the new stable set inside the old one, making every woman weakly better off and every man weakly worse off; and because permuting the women above or below the DA partner does not change the DA outcome. The push-up dynamics built from these operations starts at the truthful profile, and since women's true preferences are fixed, every step strictly improves at least one woman, bounding the number of steps by n². The same idea, with a woman promoting one man to the top of her list, drives the inconspicuous dynamics for the self-manipulation game.

What would settle it

Enumerate all pure-strategy Nash equilibria for small matching instances (say n = 3 or 4), run DA on each equilibrium profile, and check whether any blocking pair lies outside the strategic set P; a single such pair refutes the (M×W)\P-stability theorem. For a more targeted check of the proof's step, take a blocking pair (m,w) in an equilibrium profile, re-run DA with w moved to the top of m's list, and see whether m is actually matched to w.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Theorem 1: for every accomplice manipulation game with strategic pairs P ⊆ M×W, a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium exists and can be found in polynomial time. The construction is push-up dynamics: starting from the truthful profile, repeatedly let a strategic pair (m,w) perform a no-regret push-up accomplice manipulation, which moves w above m's current DA partner in m's reported list. Because women report truthfully and each such step strictly improves at least one woman, the process terminates in at most n² steps; the containment of stable sets along the way and the fact that permuting a list above or below the DA partner does not change the DA outcome imply the fixed point is an NE. Theorem 2 states two stability facts: the NE produced by this dynamics yields a DA matching that is stable under the true preferences, and although not every NE profile yields a stable matching, every NE matching is X-stable for X = (M×W)\P, meaning any blocking pair must lie outside P. Hence when P = M×W every NE matching is stable. The same dynamic technique is applied to one-for-many manipulation games and to woman self-manipulation games, yielding polynomial-time NE in both.

Load-bearing premise

The proof that no strategic pair can block an equilibrium matching assumes that, when a strategic man puts a blocking woman at the top of his reported list, the deferred acceptance run will give him that woman; if a man she prefers also proposes, she may reject him, and the claimed manipulation might not exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The accomplice manipulation game always has a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium, so the non-cooperative description of two-sided manipulation is not vacuous.
  • A Nash equilibrium can be found in polynomial time through push-up dynamics, which means agents following no-regret, one-step improvements can reach equilibrium efficiently from the truthful profile.
  • The equilibrium produced by the algorithm is stable under true preferences, so the market's central stability guarantee survives strategic reporting in the computed equilibrium.
  • No strategic pair can block a Nash equilibrium matching; when P contains every man-woman pair, all equilibrium matchings are stable.
  • The same construction computes a Nash equilibrium in polynomial time for one-for-many manipulation games and for woman self-manipulation games.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A corollary the paper does not spell out in words: the set of non-strategic pairs acts as an allowed-instability budget, and the paper's price-of-anarchy bound n²/|P| shows the worst-case loss in stable pairs shrinks as the strategic set grows.
  • A testable extension of the experiments: check whether the negative net welfare observed under Mallows-correlated preferences persists under other preference distributions; if it does, two-sided manipulation in DA destroys aggregate value rather than only redistributing it.
  • A boundary question worth attacking: because the convergence proof starts at the truthful profile and uses women's true preferences as a potential, whether the dynamics also converge from arbitrary initial reports remains open and would determine whether the process models decentralized learning.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces two-sided manipulation games in stable matching markets, focusing on the accomplice manipulation game in which a man misreports to help a woman obtain a better partner without harming himself. The central claims are that every such game admits a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium that is polynomially computable via a push-up best-response dynamic (Theorem 1); that the constructed equilibrium is stable while all equilibria are approximately stable in a specified sense (Theorem 2); and that the technique extends to one-for-many and woman self-manipulation games (Theorems 3 and 4). The paper also reports simulation results on dynamics length and welfare. The main constructive idea is to restrict attention to no-regret push-up manipulations, show that the stable-matching lattice shrinks along the dynamics, and use a potential argument for convergence.

Significance. If the main theorems were established rigorously, the paper would make a useful contribution by initiating the study of two-sided manipulation games, providing a polynomial-time construction of a Nash equilibrium, and relating equilibrium outcomes to stability. The push-up dynamics is a natural and potentially reusable technique, and the welfare experiments address an interesting empirical question. However, the current manuscript contains a load-bearing gap in the proof of approximate stability, and the central convergence lemma is not rigorously proved as written, so the value of the contribution depends on whether these proofs can be repaired.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, proof of Theorem 2(ii)] The proof asserts that if (m,w) blocks at an NE profile and m changes his report to place w at the top, then in the new DA outcome m is matched to w. This is not a general property of DA. For example, take true preferences m1: w1>w2>w3, m2: w1>w3>w2, m3: w3>w1>w2; and w1: m3>m1>m2, w2: m1>m2>m3, w3: m2>m3>m1. At the profile where m1 reports w2>w3>w1 and all others report truthfully, DA yields m1-w2, m2-w1, m3-w3, and (m1,w1) blocks the true preferences. If m1 instead reports w1 first, DA yields m1-w2, m2-w3, m3-w1, so m1 is not matched to w1. The proof supplies no NE-specific property that rules out this phenomenon at equilibrium, and the inference that 'm incurs no-regret and w benefits' does not follow. This step is load-bearing: the (M×W)\P-stability statement of Theorem 2(ii) and the POA bound in Theorem 5 both rely on it.
  2. [Appendix B, proof of Lemma 1] The induction proof is garbled and contains a false statement: 'For the manipulator m′′, no regret so µpt+1 = µpt.' No-regret with respect to the true preferences means µp(t+1) ⪰m µp(t), which does not imply that the DA outcome is unchanged. The proof also contains incomplete expressions, such as 'R(p(t+1)_m, w ∈ R(p(t+1)_m, w))', and the base-case reasoning is not fully written. Since Lemma 1 is used in the proofs of Lemma 2, Theorem 1, and Theorem 2(i), the convergence and stability results are not rigorously established as written.
  3. [Appendix C, proof of Theorem 4] The proof of Theorem 4 is not self-contained: it references a nonexistent 'Lemma 17 (ii)', uses the undefined notation R(≻, p(t), w), and concludes that a general self-manipulation at the fixed point contradicts the absence of inconspicuous manipulations without invoking Proposition 7 or an equivalent reduction. Since Theorem 4 is a stated contribution and is used to justify polynomial-time NE computation for the woman self-manipulation game, this proof needs to be repaired or the statement clearly attributed to prior work with a correct argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References and text throughout] The reference list contains incomplete entries, e.g., '[Hosseini et al., 0]' in the introduction, and the same Roth and Rothblum reference appears twice. These should be cleaned up.
  2. [Section 4, Proposition 2] Proposition 2 is stated twice with the same number: once in the main text of Section 4 and again in Appendix B. The numbering should be fixed.
  3. [Section 6, Figure 2] In Figure 2(b) and 2(c), the axes labeled 'w' and 'm' should be identified as the dispersion parameters φ_w and φ_m of the Mallows model, respectively.
  4. [Appendix B, Theorem 5 example] The five-agent example for the POA lower bound would be easier to verify if the authors explicitly stated the DA matching under the NE profile and the list of blocking pairs, rather than relying on the underlining and asterisk notation alone.
  5. [Section 5.1] The paper alternates between 'one-for-many' and 'one-for-all' terminology; the text should consistently use one term, as defined in Section 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the main NE existence proof is a dynamic-potential derivation, and the self-cited push-up characterization is an independent prior theorem rather than a restatement of the paper's conclusions.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. Theorem 1's push-up dynamics is defined independently of the conclusion: each step is a no-regret push-up accomplice manipulation, and convergence is proved by a woman-improvement potential argument (at most n^2 steps). The fixed point is then shown to be an NE via Proposition 1, which states that any accomplice manipulation can be replaced by a push-up manipulation; this is a parameter-free theorem from Hosseini et al. [2021] whose assumptions do not include the existence of NE or the stability results, so citing it is ordinary mathematical reliance and not a circular reduction. Lemma 1 and Theorem 2(i) likewise follow from the stable-lattice containment S_p(t) ⊆ S_p(t-1) ⊆ S_≻, imported from classical DA facts and Proposition 1; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no equation is defined in terms of the paper's own conclusions. I do flag a genuine correctness gap, not a circularity, in the proof of Theorem 2(ii) at Section 4.2: the assertion 'In µ≻′ = DA(≻′), m is matched to w' is not a consequence of DA and no replacement argument is given, so that proof step is unsupported; however, an invalid step is not a circular reduction, and therefore the circularity score remains 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical results are not fitted to data. The model has no free parameters; the game definition and algorithms introduce no new entities. The main dependence is on prior characterization theorems about accomplice manipulation (the authors' own earlier work) and classical DA properties.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Any accomplice manipulation can be performed through an inconspicuous push-up operation, and no-regret push-ups yield stable lattice containment (Proposition 1, Hosseini et al. 2021)
    Imported from prior work by the same research group; used in the proofs of Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 without reproving.
  • standard math Permuting the preference list of a man above and below his DA partner does not change the DA outcome (Proposition 6, Huang 2006)
    Used to justify the NE verification procedure and the sufficiency of pushing a single woman to the top.
  • standard math For woman self-manipulation, any optimal manipulation can be performed inconspicuously and preserves the stable lattice (Proposition 7, Vaish and Garg 2017)
    Used in Section 5.2 to construct the inconspicuous dynamics.
  • standard math DA is strategyproof for men and men-optimal/women-pessimal; the set of stable matchings forms a distributive lattice
    Background facts from Gale-Shapley, Dubins-Freedman, McVitie-Wilson; used throughout.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-Sided Manipulation Games in Stable Matching Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CML2T7EI

@misc{pith2026250600554,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-Sided Manipulation Games in Stable Matching Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CML2T7EI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00554}
}
read the original abstract

The Deferred Acceptance (DA) algorithm is an elegant procedure for finding a stable matching in two-sided matching markets. It ensures that no pair of agents prefers each other to their matched partners. In this work, we initiate the study of two-sided manipulations in matching markets as non-cooperative games. We introduce the accomplice manipulation game, where a man misreports to help a specific woman obtain a better partner, whenever possible. We provide a polynomial time algorithm for finding a pure strategy Nash equilibrium (NE) and show that our algorithm always yields a stable matching - although not every Nash equilibrium corresponds to a stable matching. Additionally, we show how our analytical techniques for the accomplice manipulation game can be applied to other manipulation games in matching markets, such as one-for-many and the standard self-manipulation games. We complement our theoretical findings with empirical evaluations of different properties of the resulting NE, such as the welfare of the agents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00554 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Push-up operations by man m in strategy profile p. Proposition 1 (Hosseini et al. [2021]). Let p be a strategy profile. For any accomplice manipulation p’ by accomplice man m such that µp’ := DA(p’), we have the following: (i) p’ can be performed through an inconspicuous push-up operation on p, i.e., p’ := (p−m, p X↑ m ) where |X| = 1. (ii) For a p’ := (p−m, p X↑ m ), we have Sp’ ⊆ Sp as long as m incurs no regret w… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Welfare of agents in NE of accomplice manipulation and woman self-manipulation games as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustrating push-up operations by man m in strategy profile p. In fact, L(pm, µp) and R(pm, µp) can generalized to L(p’m, µp) and R(p’m, µp). Here, the axis represents the preference list of m in profile p’. As before, µp(m) is m’s match under profile p, and R(p’m, µp) is the set of less-preferred women than µp(m) in the profile p’m and L(p’m, µp) is the set of those women who are more preferred than µp(m) in p’m. … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustrating the notation L(p’m, µp) and R(p’m, µp). B Omitted Material from Section 4 B.1 From Section 4.1 Proposition 5. [Gale and Shapley [1962]; McVitie and Wilson [1971]] Given any preference profile ≻, let µ≻ := DA(≻). Then, for any stable matching µ ′ ∈ S≻, µ≻ ⪰…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Length of the constructed dynamics as a function of the instance size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Length of push-up dynamics in accomplice manipulation games as a function of the dispersion parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Length of inconspicuous dynamic in woman self-manipulation games as a function of dispersion parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Accomplice manipulation game: Women’s gain and men’s loss in NE profile as a function of the instance size. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Woman self-manipulation game: Women’s gain and men’s loss in NE profile as a function of the instance size. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average gain by women in NE as a function of the dispersion parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The New York City High School Match

    Atila Abdulkadiro g lu, Parag A Pathak, and Alvin E Roth. The New York City High School Match . American Economic Review , 95(2):364--367, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    The Boston Public School Match

    Atila Abdulkadiro g lu, Parag A Pathak, Alvin E Roth, and Tayfun S \"o nmez. The Boston Public School Match . American Economic Review , 95(2):368--371, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Unbalanced random matching markets: The stark effect of competition

    Itai Ashlagi, Yash Kanoria, and Jacob D Leshno. Unbalanced random matching markets: The stark effect of competition. Journal of Political Economy , 125(1):69--98, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Ride Sharing

    Siddhartha Banerjee and Ramesh Johari. Ride Sharing . In Sharing Economy , pages 73--97. Springer, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Partners in Crime: Manipulating the Deferred Acceptance Algorithm through an Accomplice

    Theodora Bendlin and Hadi Hosseini. Partners in Crime: Manipulating the Deferred Acceptance Algorithm through an Accomplice . In Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 9917--9918, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Fair stable matching meets correlated preferences

    Angelina Brilliantova and Hadi Hosseini. Fair stable matching meets correlated preferences. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems , pages 190--198, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Machiavelli and the G ale- S hapley algorithm

    Lester E Dubins and David A Freedman. Machiavelli and the G ale- S hapley algorithm. The American Mathematical Monthly , 88(7):485--494, 1981

    work page 1981

  8. [8]

    Using stable matching to optimize the balance between accuracy and diversity in recommendation

    Farzad Eskandanian and Bamshad Mobasher. Using stable matching to optimize the balance between accuracy and diversity in recommendation. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization , pages 71--79, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    College admissions and the stability of marriage

    David Gale and Lloyd S Shapley. College admissions and the stability of marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly , 69(1):9--15, 1962

    1962

  2. [10]

    Total stability in stable matching games

    Sushmita Gupta, Kazuo Iwama, and Shuichi Miyazaki. Total stability in stable matching games. In 15th Scandinavian Symposium and Workshops on Algorithm Theory (SWAT 2016) . Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2016

    2016

  3. [11]

    Total Stability in Stable Matching Games

    Sushmita Gupta, Kazuo Iwama, and Shuichi Miyazaki. Total Stability in Stable Matching Games . In Proceedings of the 15th Scandinavian Symposium and Workshops on Algorithm Theory , pages 23:1--23:12, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Improving Schools through School Choice: A Market Design Approach

    John William Hatfield, Fuhito Kojima, and Yusuke Narita. Improving Schools through School Choice: A Market Design Approach . Journal of Economic Theory , 166:186--211, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    Strategic aspects of stable matching markets: A survey

    Hadi Hosseini and Shraddha Pathak. Strategic aspects of stable matching markets: A survey. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-24) , 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Accomplice Manipulation of the Deferred Acceptance Algorithm

    Hadi Hosseini, Fatima Umar, and Rohit Vaish. Accomplice Manipulation of the Deferred Acceptance Algorithm . In Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 231--237, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Two for one & one for all: Two-sided manipulation in matching markets

    Hadi Hosseini, Fatima Umar, and Rohit Vaish. Two for one & one for all: Two-sided manipulation in matching markets. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 321--327, 7 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Cheating by men in the gale-shapley stable matching algorithm

    Chien-Chung Huang. Cheating by men in the gale-shapley stable matching algorithm. In European Symposium on Algorithms , pages 418--431. Springer, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    Stable Marriage and its Relation to Other Combinatorial Problems: An Introduction to the Mathematical Analysis of Algorithms , volume 10

    Donald Knuth. Stable Marriage and its Relation to Other Combinatorial Problems: An Introduction to the Mathematical Analysis of Algorithms , volume 10. American Mathematical Society, 1997

    1997

  10. [18]

    Novel uses of the Mallows model in coloring and matching

    Avi William Levy. Novel uses of the Mallows model in coloring and matching . PhD thesis, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    Non-null ranking models

    Colin L Mallows. Non-null ranking models. i. Biometrika , 44(1/2):114--130, 1957

    1957

  12. [20]

    The stable marriage problem

    David G McVitie and Leslie B Wilson. The stable marriage problem. Communications of the ACM , 14(7):486--490, 1971

    1971

  13. [21]

    The average number of stable matchings

    Boris Pittel. The average number of stable matchings. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics , 2(4):530--549, 1989

    1989

  14. [22]

    The redesign of the matching market for american physicians: Some engineering aspects of economic design

    Alvin E Roth and Elliott Peranson. The redesign of the matching market for american physicians: Some engineering aspects of economic design. American economic review , 89(4):748--780, 1999

    1999

  15. [23]

    Truncation Strategies in Matching Markets---In Search of Advice for Participants

    Alvin E Roth and Uriel G Rothblum. Truncation Strategies in Matching Markets---In Search of Advice for Participants . Econometrica , 67(1):21--43, 1999

    1999

  16. [24]

    Truncation strategies in matching markets—in search of advice for participants

    Alvin E Roth and Uriel G Rothblum. Truncation strategies in matching markets—in search of advice for participants. Econometrica , 67(1):21--43, 1999

    1999

  17. [25]

    The economics of matching: Stability and incentives

    Alvin E Roth. The economics of matching: Stability and incentives. Mathematics of operations research , 7(4):617--628, 1982

    1982

  18. [26]

    Misrepresentation and stability in the marriage problem

    Alvin E Roth. Misrepresentation and stability in the marriage problem. Journal of Economic theory , 34(2):383--387, 1984

    1984

  19. [27]

    Coalition manipulation of gale-shapley algorithm

    Weiran Shen, Pingzhong Tang, and Yuan Deng. Coalition manipulation of gale-shapley algorithm. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 32, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Coalitional permutation manipulations in the gale-shapley algorithm

    Weiran Shen, Yuan Deng, and Pingzhong Tang. Coalitional permutation manipulations in the gale-shapley algorithm. Artificial Intelligence , 301:103577, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Gale-shapley stable marriage problem revisited: Strategic issues and applications

    Chung-Piaw Teo, Jay Sethuraman, and Wee-Peng Tan. Gale-shapley stable marriage problem revisited: Strategic issues and applications. Management Science , 47(9):1252--1267, 2001

    2001

  22. [30]

    Manipulating gale-shapley algorithm: Preserving stability and remaining inconspicuous

    Rohit Vaish and Dinesh Garg. Manipulating gale-shapley algorithm: Preserving stability and remaining inconspicuous. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence , pages 437--443, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Stable matchings and equilibrium outcomes of the gale-shapley's algorithm for the marriage problem

    Lin Zhou. Stable matchings and equilibrium outcomes of the gale-shapley's algorithm for the marriage problem. Economics Letters , 36(1):25--29, 1991

    1991

  24. [32]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.