Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Semantics-aware BERT for Language Understanding

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read SemBERT shows that explicit semantic role labels, added to BERT as extra embeddings, improve results on ten reading comprehension and inference tasks, including a new state of the art on SNLI.

desk verdict SemBERT is a clean, reproducible study showing that adding SRL label embeddings to BERT gives consistent gains across several NLU benchmarks, but the 'state-of-the-art' claim is overblown and the paper never proves it's the semantics rather than the extra label-stream capacity. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02209 v3 pith:QAQ4PYZM submitted 2019-09-05 cs.CL

Zhuosheng Zhang , Yuwei Wu , Hai Zhao , Zuchao Li , Shuailiang Zhang , Xi Zhou , Xiang Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords semanticrolelabelingBERTlanguagerepresentationnaturalunderstandingreadingcomprehensioninferenceGLUEbenchmarkSQuAD2.0
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

This paper claims that a language model can be made better by explicitly feeding it structured semantics rather than relying only on the implicit semantics learned during language-model pretraining. Concretely, it proposes SemBERT, which takes a BERT model and, during fine-tuning, also gives it semantic role labels—markers of who did what to whom, when, and why—produced by a pre-trained labeler. The authors report that this addition improves over BERT on ten benchmarks spanning reading comprehension, natural language inference, similarity, and classification, and reaches a new state of the art on SNLI. The practical point is that explicit semantics can be added as a lightweight, plug-in embedding without modifying BERT's task-specific heads, so the gains come almost for free in terms of architecture change.

What carries the argument

The central object is SemBERT, a BERT variant that runs each input sentence through a pre-trained semantic role labeler, encodes the resulting predicate-argument label sequences with a BiGRU, and concatenates those embeddings with BERT's contextual word representations. Because BERT operates on subword tokens while semantic role labels apply to whole words, a convolutional layer with max pooling aligns the two sequences; the aligned word representations and the distilled semantic embeddings are then concatenated and fed to the same task-specific heads as BERT. This machinery lets the model see explicit who-did-what-to-whom structure during fine-tuning, with the semantic stream adding less than 15 percent extra parameters.

What would settle it

Run SemBERT on a battery of out-of-domain tasks, such as biomedical or conversational text, where the pre-trained semantic role labeler's accuracy is measured to be low, and compare against BERT with the same number of added parameters but random role labels; if the random-label control matches SemBERT or the gain disappears where labeler F1 drops below a threshold, the claimed benefit of explicit semantics is not general.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SemBERT's central claim is that contextualized word representations and explicit predicate-argument semantics are complementary, and that concatenating them produces a better joint representation for natural language understanding. The paper demonstrates this by keeping BERT exactly as is, adding a semantic encoding stream that runs each sentence through a frozen semantic role labeler, encodes the label sequences with a BiGRU, maps them through a linear layer, and concatenates the result with BERT's word-level representations after a CNN-based subword-to-word alignment. Across ten tasks, this fusion improves over BERT at the same model scale: SQuAD 2.0 F1 rises from 83.6 to 85.2, SNLI test accuracy from 91.1 to 91.6, and GLUE scores improve especially on smaller datasets like RTE and MRPC. The authors argue this shows the model is not just memorizing surface patterns but is using explicit semantic structure to find better answer spans and inference decisions.

Load-bearing premise

The whole gain rests on the assumption that a single frozen semantic-role labeler trained on OntoNotes produces accurate and transferable who-did-what-to-whom labels across the diverse domains of GLUE, SQuAD 2.0, and SNLI; if those labels are noisy or out of domain, the improvements could shrink or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any BERT-based system can be upgraded to SemBERT by adding a semantic role labeling step and a small embedding block, with less than 15 percent extra parameters and no change to the task-specific layers.
  • On small training sets, the explicit semantics help most, so tasks with limited annotated data are the likeliest beneficiaries.
  • The robustness experiment implies that even imperfect semantic labels still help, so the approach tolerates noisy automatic annotations.
  • Because the semantics are word-level while BERT is subword-level, the alignment component is essential; changing the alignment method would change the results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to swap the semantic role stream for other structured annotations, such as dependency syntax, coreference chains, or discourse relations, using the same BiGRU-plus-concatenation machinery; the paper's results predict each should add a complementary gain, which is not claimed by the paper itself.
  • The noise analysis suggests a saturation point: if semantic labels are helpful mostly by segmenting sentences into role-bearing spans, then cheaper span segmentation might capture part of the gain at lower cost.
  • The paper's own example errors suggest SemBERT's main advantage on SQuAD 2.0 is producing semantically complete answer spans; this could be tested directly by measuring how often baseline BERT's wrong answers are substrings or paraphrases of the gold span.
  • One limitation the authors do not explore is domain shift of the semantic role labeler: their benchmarks are mostly news and web text, so applying SemBERT to informal or specialized text would require measuring labeler accuracy and gain jointly.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SemBERT, a variant of BERT that incorporates explicit semantic role labeling (SRL) into the representation. A frozen SRL labeler annotates each sentence with up to m predicate-argument structures; the label sequences are embedded, passed through a BiGRU and a linear projection, and then concatenated with BERT's word-level representations, which are obtained from subwords via a CNN with max pooling. The model is fine-tuned on GLUE tasks, SQuAD 2.0, and SNLI. The paper reports consistent gains over BERT on most tasks, including improvements on SNLI and SQuAD 2.0, and claims new state-of-the-art results. Ablations show that adding SRL to BERT improves over BERT and that the full SemBERT integration further improves over simple concatenation.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper makes a useful contribution: it shows a lightweight way to inject explicit predicate-argument semantics into a pre-trained language model, with a publicly available implementation and a fairly broad evaluation across ten datasets. The paper's strengths are the simple architecture, the across-task evaluation, and the released code. However, the causal claim that the semantic content of the SRL labels, rather than the additional input stream and parameters, drives the gains is not fully supported by the current experiments. In addition, several claims of state-of-the-art performance are not supported by the paper's own tables, notably Table 1, where ALBERT, RoBERTa, and XLNet all have higher GLUE averages than SemBERT. These issues are fixable but require new experiments or careful rewriting.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, §3.3, §6.1 (Table 6)] The central claim that explicit semantic roles cause the improvement lacks a control for the auxiliary input stream itself. The ablation in Table 6 compares BERT, BERT+SRL (simple concatenation), and SemBERT; each step adds parameters and an additional input channel, but no condition replaces the SRL labels with a non-semantic or random label stream. The noise analysis in Section 6.4 is not a substitute: corrupting 20% or 40% of SRL labels drops SQuAD F1 by only 0.62 and 0.69 points, which is compatible with the model relying mostly on the presence and format of the label stream rather than on its semantic content. To support the 'semantics-aware' claim, the authors should add a control using random labels sampled from the same marginal distribution, or a non-semantic auxiliary label stream (e.g., part-of-speech tags or random spans), matched in architecture and parameter count.
  2. [§5.3, Table 1, Conclusion] The paper overstates its results relative to its own Table 1. The text says SemBERT 'outperforms all the previous state-of-the-art models in literature' and the conclusion says it 'has surpassed all the published works in all of the concerned NLU tasks,' yet Table 1 lists ALBERT (89.4), RoBERTa (88.5), and XLNet (88.4) with higher GLUE averages than SemBERT_LARGE (82.9). The comparison is only defensible if explicitly restricted to the April 2019 literature block. The abstract and conclusion should be qualified accordingly, and the GLUE leaderboard comparison should state clearly which version of each competing model is used.
  3. [§6.4, §6.1, Tables 2 and 6] The noise-robustness analysis in Section 6.4 is not clearly tied to the baseline in Section 6.1. Section 6.4 reports SQuAD F1 of 87.93 for the 0% corruption condition, whereas Table 6 reports 83.6 for SemBERT_LARGE; the difference is presumably due to the use of SemBERT* with synthetic self-training (Table 2), but this is not stated in Section 6.4. Because the noise robustness result is one of the few pieces of evidence about the role of label content, the model and training settings must be identified precisely, and the corruption analysis should be repeated on the standard SemBERT_LARGE model used in Table 6.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §5.2] The abstract says 'ten reading comprehension and language inference tasks' while the introduction says '11 benchmark datasets' and Section 5.2 says 'ten NLU benchmark datasets'; please count consistently (the table uses 8 GLUE tasks plus SNLI and SQuAD 2.0).
  2. [§5.1] The CNN kernel size k is listed as a hyperparameter but no value is reported in the setup; please state the value used for all experiments.
  3. [§3.2, Eq. (1)] The notation e(Li) = {e(t1),...,e(tm)} is overloaded and unclear because Li already denotes the label sequence for token xi; please use distinct symbols for the label sequence and the set of its encoded representations.
  4. [§5.3, footnote 7] The detail that MNLI fine-tuning is used as initialization for RTE and MRPC is significant for reproducibility; it should be moved into the main setup text rather than a footnote.
  5. [§4.1] Please specify that the SRL labeler is frozen and applied at preprocessing time, and indicate whether the same 104-label inventory is used across all target domains without adaptation.
  6. [§6.4 and elsewhere] There are typographical errors: 'Infulence' should be 'Influence', and 'normanized' should be 'normalized' in footnote 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SemBERT's gains are measured on held-out benchmarks using an external, frozen SRL labeler, and the core derivation does not reduce to fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that adding explicit SRL label embeddings over a BERT backbone improves NLU performance. This claim is tested on held-out test sets (GLUE, SQuAD 2.0, SNLI), against published baselines, using a frozen pre-trained SRL labeler trained on OntoNotes v5.0. The SRL labeler is external to the target datasets, and the paper's own ablation (Table 6) compares BERT, BERT+SRL, and SemBERT, showing incremental gains. The hyperparameters (learning rate, batch size, m, SRL embedding dimension, tau) are selected on dev sets, which is standard model selection rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. No equation in the paper reduces the reported test performance to a fitted quantity, and no load-bearing premise is justified exclusively by self-citation. The self-citations appear in related work and in references to the authors' other models (e.g., SG-Net, LIMIT-BERT), but they do not carry the argument for SemBERT's improvement. The absence of a control for non-semantic label-stream capacity is a legitimate experimental-design concern, but it is not circularity: the model still makes genuine predictions on held-out data with inputs derived from an independent semantic role labeler. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

No new entities are introduced. The central claim rests on the availability and quality of external resources (BERT, SRL labeler, PropBank) and on several hand-set hyperparameters. The most important free parameters are the SRL embedding dimension, the maximum number of predicate structures, and the SQuAD threshold, all of which are tuned on development data.

free parameters (4)
  • dimension of SRL embedding = 10
    Set in Section 5.1 without justification or search; this is a hand-chosen model dimension.
  • maximum number of predicate-argument structures m = 3
    Default set in Section 5.1 and tuned in Table 7, where m=3 gives the best dev accuracy on SNLI. This is a free parameter affecting the model.
  • SQuAD answer threshold tau = selected on dev set
    Section 4.2 states tau is selected on the dev set to maximize F1, a data-fitted parameter.
  • CNN kernel size k = not reported explicitly
    Used in Equation 2 for subword-to-word alignment; the kernel size is not specified, leaving an unstated tuning choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pre-trained BERT weights provide a strong backbone representation that is amenable to fine-tuning.
    The paper relies on BERT's pretrained representations without training them from scratch; this is a standard assumption in the field.
  • domain assumption The pre-trained SRL labeler (Peters et al. 2018, F1 84.6 on OntoNotes) produces sufficiently accurate and transferable semantic role labels for the target tasks.
    The whole method depends on the quality of the SRL labeler. The paper tests robustness to noise but cannot guarantee transfer to all domains.
  • domain assumption PropBank-style semantic role labels capture meaningful predicate-argument structure useful for NLU.
    The paper assumes that SRL roles like ARG0, ARG1, and adjuncts are relevant for tasks like question answering and inference.
  • ad hoc to paper CNN with max pooling over subwords preserves the information needed from BERT representations.
    The alignment method in Section 3.3 is a design choice without a theoretical guarantee; the paper only gives empirical support.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Semantics-aware BERT for Language Understanding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QAQ4PYZM

@misc{pith2026190902209,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Semantics-aware BERT for Language Understanding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QAQ4PYZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02209}
}
read the original abstract

The latest work on language representations carefully integrates contextualized features into language model training, which enables a series of success especially in various machine reading comprehension and natural language inference tasks. However, the existing language representation models including ELMo, GPT and BERT only exploit plain context-sensitive features such as character or word embeddings. They rarely consider incorporating structured semantic information which can provide rich semantics for language representation. To promote natural language understanding, we propose to incorporate explicit contextual semantics from pre-trained semantic role labeling, and introduce an improved language representation model, Semantics-aware BERT (SemBERT), which is capable of explicitly absorbing contextual semantics over a BERT backbone. SemBERT keeps the convenient usability of its BERT precursor in a light fine-tuning way without substantial task-specific modifications. Compared with BERT, semantics-aware BERT is as simple in concept but more powerful. It obtains new state-of-the-art or substantially improves results on ten reading comprehension and language inference tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02209 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Semantics-aware BERT. * denotes the pre-trained labeler which will not be fine-tuned in our framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The input representation flow. tion e t in dimension d: e 0 (Li) = W2 [e(t1), e(t2), . . . , e(tm)] + b2, e t = {e 0 (L1), ..., e0 (Ln)}, (1) where W2 and b2 are trainable parameters. 3.3 Integration This integration module fuses the lexical text embedding and label representations. As the original pre-trained BERT is based on a sequence of subwords, while our introduced se￾mantic labels are on words, we need to ali… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Named Entity Recognition Only from Word Embeddings

    cs.IR 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An unsupervised named-entity recognition pipeline using only pre-trained word embeddings achieves 68.64 F1 on CoNLL-2003 English and 54.31 on CoNLL-2002 Spanish.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    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 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTIO...

  2. [2]

    F.; Fillmore, C

    Baker, C. F.; Fillmore, C. J.; and Lowe, J. B. 1998. The berkeley framenet project. In COLING

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Bentivogli, L.; Clark, P.; Dagan, I.; and Giampiccolo, D. 2009. The fifth pascal recognizing textual entailment challenge. In ACL-PASCAL

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    R.; Angeli, G.; Potts, C.; and Manning, C

    Bowman, S. R.; Angeli, G.; Potts, C.; and Manning, C. D. 2015. A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference. In EMNLP

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Cer, D.; Diab, M.; Agirre, E.; Lopez-Gazpio, I.; and Specia, L. 2017. Semeval-2017 task 1: Semantic textual similarity-multilingual and cross-lingual focused evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00055

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Chen, Z.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, X.; and Zhao, L. 2018. Quora question pairs

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Clark, K.; Khandelwal, U.; Levy, O.; and Manning, C. D. 2019. What does BERT look at? an analysis of bert's attention. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.04341

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Devlin, J.; Chang, M.-W.; Lee, K.; and Toutanova, K. 2018. BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805

    arXiv 2018

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    B., and Brockett, C

    Dolan, W. B., and Brockett, C. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In IWP2005

    2005

  2. [10]

    He, L.; Lee, K.; Lewis, M.; Zettlemoyer, L.; He, L.; Lee, K.; Lewis, M.; Zettlemoyer, L.; He, L.; and Lee, K. 2017. Deep semantic role labeling: What works and what’s next. In ACL

    2017

  3. [11]

    He, L.; Lee, K.; Levy, O.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2018. Jointly predicting predicates and arguments in neural semantic role labeling. In ACL

    2018

  4. [12]

    Hu, M.; Peng, Y.; Huang, Z.; Yang, N.; Zhou, M.; et al. 2018. Read+ verify: Machine reading comprehension with unanswerable questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.05759

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Jia, R., and Liang, P. 2017. Adversarial examples for evaluating reading comprehension systems. In EMNLP

    2017

  6. [14]

    Kim, S.; Hong, J.-H.; Kang, I.; and Kwak, N. 2018. Semantic sentence matching with densely-connected recurrent and co-attentive information. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.11360

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Li, Z.; He, S.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, X.; and Zhou, X. 2019. Dependency or span, end-to-end uniform semantic role labeling. In AAAI . arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.05280

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Liu, X.; He, P.; Chen, W.; and Gao, J. 2019. Multi-task deep neural networks for natural language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.11504

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S.; and Dean, J

    Mikolov, T.; Sutskever, I.; Chen, K.; Corrado, G. S.; and Dean, J. 2013. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In NIPS

    2013

  10. [18]

    K.; Taly, A.; Sundararajan, M.; and Dhamdhere, K

    Mudrakarta, P. K.; Taly, A.; Sundararajan, M.; and Dhamdhere, K. 2018. Did the model understand the question? In ACL

    2018

  11. [19]

    Nangia, N.; Williams, A.; Lazaridou, A.; and Bowman, S. R. 2017. The repeval 2017 shared task: Multi-genre natural language inference with sentence representations. In RepEval

    2017

  12. [20]

    Palmer, M.; Gildea, D.; and Kingsbury, P. 2005. The proposition bank: An annotated corpus of semantic roles. Computational linguistics 31(1):71--106

    2005

  13. [21]

    E.; Neumann, M.; Iyyer, M.; Gardner, M.; Clark, C.; Lee, K.; and Zettlemoyer, L

    Peters, M. E.; Neumann, M.; Iyyer, M.; Gardner, M.; Clark, C.; Lee, K.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2018. Deep contextualized word representations. In NAACL-HLT

    2018

  14. [22]

    T.; Bj \"o rkelund, A.; Uryupina, O.; Zhang, Y.; and Zhong, Z

    Pradhan, S.; Moschitti, A.; Xue, N.; Ng, H. T.; Bj \"o rkelund, A.; Uryupina, O.; Zhang, Y.; and Zhong, Z. 2013. Towards robust linguistic analysis using OntoNotes . In CoNLL

    2013

  15. [23]

    Radford, A.; Narasimhan, K.; Salimans, T.; and Sutskever, I. 2018. Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. Technical report

    2018

  16. [24]

    Rajpurkar, P.; Zhang, J.; Lopyrev, K.; and Liang, P. 2016. SQuAD : 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In EMNLP

    2016

  17. [25]

    Rajpurkar, P.; Jia, R.; and Liang, P. 2018. Know what you don't know: Unanswerable questions for SQuAD . In ACL

    2018

  18. [26]

    F., and De Meulder, F

    Sang, E. F., and De Meulder, F. 2003. Introduction to the conll-2003 shared task: Language-independent named entity recognition. arXiv preprint cs/0306050

    2003 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D.; Ng, A.; and Potts, C

    Socher, R.; Perelygin, A.; Wu, J.; Chuang, J.; Manning, C. D.; Ng, A.; and Potts, C. 2013. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In EMNLP

    2013

  20. [28]

    Sun, F.; Li, L.; Qiu, X.; and Liu, Y. 2018. U-net: Machine reading comprehension with unanswerable questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.06638

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Wang, A.; Singh, A.; Michael, J.; Hill, F.; Levy, O.; and Bowman, S. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP

    2018

  22. [30]

    Warstadt, A.; Singh, A.; and Bowman, S. R. 2018. Neural network acceptability judgments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.12471

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Yang, Z.; Dai, Z.; Yang, Y.; Carbonell, J.; Salakhutdinov, R.; and Le, Q. V. 2019. XLNet : Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.08237

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zhang, Z.; Li, J.; Zhu, P.; and Zhao, H. 2018. Modeling multi-turn conversation with deep utterance aggregation. In COLING . arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.09102

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zhang, Z.; Wu, Y.; Li, Z.; and Zhao, H. 2019. Explicit contextual semantics for text comprehension. In PACLIC 33 . arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.02794

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zhang, S.; Zhao, H.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, X.; and Zhou, X. 2020a. Dual co-matching network for multi-choice reading comprehension. In AAAI . arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.09381

    1901 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zhang, Z.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, J.; Duan, S.; and Zhao, H. 2020b. SG-Net: Syntax-guided machine reading comprehension . In AAAI . arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05147

    1908 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Zhao, H.; Chen, W.; and Kit, C. 2009. Semantic dependency parsing of nombank and propbank: An efficient integrated approach via a large-scale feature selection. In EMNLP

    2009

  29. [37]

    Zhao, H.; Zhang, X.; and Kit, C. 2013. Integrative semantic dependency parsing via efficient large-scale feature selection. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 46:203--233

    2013

  30. [38]

    Zhou, J.; Zhang, Z.; and Zhao, H. 2019. LIMIT-BERT : Linguistic informed multi-task bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.14296

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.