Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 22 references

Polymetis:Large Language Modeling for Multiple Material Domains

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single 9-billion-parameter model fine-tuned on two million automatically extracted materials instructions can beat four general-purpose chatbots on multi-domain materials reasoning, as measured by semantic similarity to…

desk verdict A thin evaluation sinks an otherwise plausible materials-domain LLM paper: three questions, no error bars, and a benchmark partly built from AI outputs cannot support the claimed edge. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08728 v1 pith:VV556K6U submitted 2024-11-13 cs.AI

Chao Huang , Huichen Xiao , Chen Chen , Chunyan Chen , Yi Zhao , Shiyu Du , Yiming Zhang , He Sha
show 1 more author
Ruixin Gu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords largelanguagemodelsmaterialssciencemulti-domainquestionansweringLoRAfine-tuninginstructiondatasetconstructionknowledgeextractionsemanticsimilarityPolymetis
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

The paper aims to show that a single, parameter-efficiently fine-tuned language model can give professional answers across the many subfields of materials science rather than requiring a separate model per domain. The authors construct a training set of roughly two million instruction pairs by automatically extracting question–answer pairs from about one hundred thousand papers using their own extraction model, IELM, and then fine-tune the 9-billion-parameter GLM4-9B base with LoRA plus a structured system prompt. On three test questions, they report cosine-similarity scores against benchmark answers synthesized by a materials expert, and Polymetis scores 0.9157, 0.9342, and 0.9254, higher than ChatGPT-3.5, Qwen, Ernie Bot, and ChatGLM on each. The authors conclude that this approach significantly improves reasoning in materials science tasks while avoiding the catastrophic forgetting and limited-domain coverage they attribute to earlier materials-specific models. A sympathetic reader would care because, if the claim holds, a small tuned model could serve as a low-cost, quickly reusable knowledge assistant for energy, functional, alloy, physical-chemistry, and biomaterials research.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-stage use of the same base model: a first LoRA-tuned instance (IELM) transforms scientific text into structured question–answer pairs, and a second LoRA-tuned instance (Polymetis) learns from those pairs to answer as a materials expert. The data-generation stage is the load-bearing part of the pipeline, because it converts about one hundred thousand papers into roughly two million instructions without manual annotation. The other named component is the enhanced prompt strategy, a system-prompt template that fixes the model's role, the structure of the reply (detailed expansion followed by a conclusion), and boundary conditions such as avoiding vague or filler wording. The evaluation relies on cosine similarity of BERT sentence embeddings to measure closeness between model answers and expert-synthesized benchmark answers.

What would settle it

Have a panel of materials-science experts blindly rate the full answers of Polymetis and the four baselines to the paper's three questions for factual correctness, completeness, and usefulness; if the human ranking does not match the ranking by cosine similarity to the AI-blended benchmarks, the evaluation metric does not support the reported edge. A second check: rebuild the three benchmarks solely from printed textbooks or standard reference works with no AI blending and recompute the table; if Polymetis no longer leads, the result depends on the AI-influenced benchmark.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Polymetis is a materials-science language model built by LoRA fine-tuning the open-weight GLM4-9B base on an instruction set of about two million question–answer pairs, most generated automatically from roughly one hundred thousand papers by the authors' Intelligent Extraction Large Model (IELM). The base model was first used to create IELM by training it on high-quality QA pairs that were originally seeded by passing paper segments through the GPT-4 API with structured prompts; then IELM produced the bulk of the training data, and a further fine-tuned instance of GLM4-9B became Polymetis itself. The final system prompt instructs the model to act as a materials expert, expand details first, and end with a concise conclusion. The reported evaluation compares the cosine similarity of BERT embeddings of each model's answers to expert-synthesized benchmarks on three questions, and the paper states that Polymetis exceeds all four general baselines on all three questions, with the conclusion that the model significantly improves reasoning in materials science tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The entire performance comparison stands on the assumption that the benchmark answers—synthesized by one expert blending outputs from several AI tools—are an unbiased gold standard for materials-science correctness; if those blended answers are skewed, every similarity score in Table 1 measures closeness to a machine-made mix, not to ground truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single LoRA-tuned 9-billion-parameter model can plausibly deliver organized answers across energy materials, functional materials, alloys, physical chemistry, and biomaterials instead of needing a separate model per domain.
  • The IELM-based dataset pipeline offers a low-annotation-cost route to building domain-specific assistants for other fields, starting from raw paper text.
  • The enhanced prompt strategy improves answer structure and professionalism without changing model weights, so it can be layered onto other fine-tuned models.
  • On the paper's own three-question benchmark, Polymetis ranks first against ChatGPT-3.5, Qwen, Ernie Bot, and ChatGLM by cosine similarity to the synthesized answers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the reported score gaps (about 0.01–0.06 in cosine similarity) are small, so the practical difference in answer quality may be imperceptible; a human read of full answers would be needed to know whether the measured edge matters.
  • Editorial inference: because the benchmark answers were created by blending AI outputs, the comparison may be as much about stylistic convergence with that AI-driven blend as about materials-science truth.
  • Editorial inference: the same automatic extraction pipeline could be re-run on newly published papers to keep the model current, directly addressing the coverage limitation the authors list.
  • Editorial inference: extending the evaluation from three questions to a stratified set across the ten claimed material domains, with human expert grading, would show whether the reported superiority holds beyond the examples chosen.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Polymetis, a materials-science large language model obtained by LoRA fine-tuning GLM4-9B on roughly two million instruction QA pairs covering energy, functional, alloy, physical-chemistry, and biomaterials domains. The training data are generated by GPT-4 and by an in-house extraction model (IELM) that is itself trained on GPT-4-produced QA pairs. An 'enhanced prompt' strategy is added at inference time. The reported evaluation compares Polymetis against ChatGPT-3.5, Qwen, Ernie Bot, and ChatGLM on three materials-science questions, scoring semantic similarity to benchmark answers that an expert synthesized by blending the outputs of multiple AI tools. The paper claims that Polymetis significantly improves reasoning in materials-science tasks and outperforms the baselines on the three questions.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the contribution would be of practical interest: a single LoRA-tuned 9B model that answers across several materials sub-domains, together with an automated pipeline (IELM) for constructing structured instruction data at scale, could lower the cost of domain-LLM development. However, the paper currently provides no released code, data, or model weights, and the evaluation is too thin and methodologically compromised to establish the claimed advantage. The potential value of the data pipeline and the multi-domain coverage is real, but it is not yet demonstrated in a way that would support publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2 and §2.1.1] The benchmark answers used in Table 1 are synthesized by an expert who 'combines the outputs of multiple AI tools to synthesize the answer that best matches the domain knowledge.' The training data themselves are generated by GPT-4 and IELM (Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2). Thus the yardstick is not independent of the models being compared: high cosine similarity to such a benchmark may reflect stylistic or distributional agreement with AI-generated text rather than materials-science correctness. The claim in Section 5 that Polymetis 'significantly improves reasoning in materials science tasks' is not supported unless the benchmark answers are validated against an independent, human-curated gold standard.
  2. [§4, Table 1] The entire comparative evaluation rests on three questions. There are no error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical tests, and the reported margins over the baselines (0.02–0.10 in cosine similarity) are within the range of typical run-to-run variability for LLM decoding. Moreover, there is no comparison against the GLM4-9B base model, so the improvement cannot be attributed to the fine-tuning or to the prompt strategy; without this baseline, the central claim is unsubstantiated.
  3. [§2.2.3, §2.2.4, §2.1.2] The method section omits details that are load-bearing for the claimed improvements. The LoRA configuration is not fully specified (no rank, alpha, or target modules), so the fine-tuning is not reproducible. The enhanced prompt strategy is described qualitatively but never ablated, so its contribution to the reported scores is unknown. Finally, IELM is asserted to produce high-quality structured data, but no evaluation of IELM's extraction quality is provided; the only evidence is anecdotal. Without these details, the internal mechanism behind the claimed performance gains cannot be assessed.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Abstract and §2.1.2] The model name is written inconsistently: 'Intellectual Extractive Large Model' in the abstract and 'Intelligent Extraction Large Model' in Section 2.1.2; the phrase 'Wisdom Diaspora Big Model' in Section 2.1.3 is unclear and should be removed or explained.
  2. [§3.1] ChatGLM is described as 'Developed by Zhihu AI'; the correct developer is Zhipu AI (Zhipu AI / Tsinghua).
  3. [§2.1.2] The phrase 'compared to the charm modeling platform' is unclear; presumably 'ChatGLM modeling platform' is meant.
  4. [§2.2.2 and Figure 2] Figure 2 ('QA data distribution') is not described in the text, and the figure lacks axis labels and domain counts; the reader cannot verify the claim that the data cover about ten material domains.
  5. [Appendix A and B] The appendices containing instruction examples and model outputs are referenced but not included in the arXiv manuscript, so the qualitative comparisons in the text cannot be inspected.
  6. [§3.2] The semantic similarity metric is underspecified: the authors do not state which BERT model is used, in which language the inputs are embedded, or how the sentence-level embeddings are pooled; this makes the numerical scores in Table 1 irreproducible.
  7. [§2.2.3] LoRA is used but not cited; please cite Hu et al., 2021 (LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models) so readers can identify the method.
  8. [§1] The statement that GPT-4 has '18 trillion parameters' is not verified in any public source and should be attributed carefully or removed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Table 1's benchmark answers are synthesized by an expert from multiple AI-tool outputs (Section 3.2), while Polymetis is trained on GPT-4/IELM-generated QA; the evaluation thus measures proximity to an AI-generated blend rather than independent materials-science ground truth.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2 (Metrics), with training data defined in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.2]
    "To ensure the objectivity and accuracy of the assessment, our benchmark answers are obtained through a series of carefully designed processes. Specifically, the expert first conducts an in-depth data review of each question and combines the outputs of multiple AI tools to synthesize the answer that best matches the domain knowledge. In this process, the expert does not know which model corresponds to each output result, thus avoiding the influence of human bias."

    The gold standard used for the central claim ('Polymetis significantly improves reasoning') is, by construction, a blend of outputs from multiple AI tools. Polymetis's training data are also AI-generated: GPT-4 produces the initial QA pairs (Section 2.1.1) and IELM, itself trained on those pairs, mass-generates the ~2M instructions used for fine-tuning (Sections 2.1.2-2.2.2). The evaluation therefore scores models by cosine similarity to an AI-synthesized reference, not to an independently verified materials-science answer. Because Polymetis is fine-tuned to imitate AI-generated domain text, its higher similarity to the AI-blend benchmark is partly a distributional match to its own training source, not an independent confirmation of reasoning quality.

full rationale

The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: the reference list contains no works by the current authors, and no uniqueness theorem or prior-work constraint is invoked to force the model choice. The LoRA fine-tuning of GLM4-9B is a standard, externally checkable procedure and is not itself circular. However, the evaluative chain is partially self-referential. Section 3.2 defines the benchmark answers as expert-synthesized blends of 'the outputs of multiple AI tools'; Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 show the training data are generated by GPT-4 and by IELM, an LLM trained on GPT-4 output. Thus the reported superiority in Table 1 is measured against a yardstick that shares its generative source with the training distribution. This does not make the result wholly forced (the baseline LLMs are also AI outputs and score lower), but it does mean the central claim of improved 'reasoning in materials science tasks' rests on a metric that is, by construction, proximity to AI-generated text rather than to independently established materials-science ground truth. Additional evaluation weaknesses (three questions, no error bars, unreleased data) are correctness/robustness concerns rather than circularity; the Limitations section acknowledges dataset coverage and cross-domain reasoning limits but does not address the AI-constructed benchmark.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper has no explicit fitted parameters in a derivation sense; the listed training hyperparameters are standard choices. The central evaluation depends on two unverified assumptions: that LLM-generated training QA pairs are high quality, and that expert-blended AI outputs form a valid gold standard. The IELM and Polymetis are introduced as new artifacts but are not independently evidenced.

free parameters (4)
  • learning_rate = 1e-5
    Stated in Section 2.2.3; chosen by hand after testing, not the subject of the central claim.
  • batch_size = 4
    Stated in Section 2.2.3; chosen by hand.
  • epochs = 3
    Stated in Section 2.2.3; chosen by hand.
  • LoRA rank
    Not specified in the paper; a needed hyperparameter for LoRA fine-tuning that is missing from the training description.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GLM4-9B is a suitable base model for fine-tuning and has sufficient general knowledge (Section 2.2.1).
    The paper does not compare alternatives beyond selecting GLM4-9B after 'comparing the inference performance of multiple open-source models'; no details given.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 and the trained IELM produce high-quality QA pairs from scientific text (Section 2.1).
    Human review is mentioned only for the seed QA pairs; the two-million-scale generated dataset is not quality-audited, so the training data quality is assumed.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity of BERT-derived sentence embeddings is a valid measure of answer quality in materials QA (Section 3.2).
    The paper assumes semantic similarity to the benchmark corresponds to accuracy and comprehensiveness; no human correlation study is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Expert-synthesized benchmark answers, formed by blending outputs from multiple AI tools, approximate correct materials science answers (Section 3.2).
    This is the evaluation yardstick; if invalid, all reported scores are uninterpretable. No independent verification of the benchmark is provided.
invented entities (2)
  • IELM (Intelligent Extraction Large Model)
    purpose: Automatically generate QA pairs from materials science text at scale, replacing manual annotation
    No model weights, code, or dataset released; no independent benchmark of extraction quality is provided.
  • Polymetis model
    purpose: Provide multi-domain materials science QA answers
    No model weights or API released; performance claimed only on three questions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polymetis:Large Language Modeling for Multiple Material Domains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VV556K6U

@misc{pith2026241108728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polymetis:Large Language Modeling for Multiple Material Domains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VV556K6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08728}
}
read the original abstract

As the application of large language models in various fields continues to expand, materials science also ushers in opportunities for AI-driven innovation. The traditional way of relying on manual search for materials science-related information is now using artificial intelligence technology as an auxiliary tool to improve the efficiency of materials science research. To accelerate researchers' knowledge acquisition and intelligent decision-making support in materials science research, this paper proposes a large language model Polymetis model for a variety of materials fields, aiming to provide highly professional knowledge answers in the field of materials, covering energy materials, functional materials, alloy materials, physical chemistry, biology, and other material directions. The model uses a dataset of about 2 million material knowledge instructions, and in the process of building the dataset, we developed the Intelligent Extraction Large Model (IELM), which is specially used to extract and form structured knowledge from scientific texts, avoiding a large number of costs that need to be manually annotated, and improving efficiency. We inject this data into the GLM4-9B model for learning to enhance its inference capabilities in a variety of material domains. In addition, we have introduced enhanced prompt strategies to ensure that the answers to the model are more organized and comprehensive, providing efficient and comprehensive intelligent support for the diverse needs of materials science exploration, and promoting the development of material science.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Polymetis model development process. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. QA data distribution. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Matchat: A large language model and application service platform for materials science

    Zi-Yi Chen, Fan-Kai Xie, Meng Wan, Yang Yuan, Miao Liu, Zong-Guo Wang, Sheng Meng, and Yan-Gang Wang. Matchat: A large language model and application service platform for materials science. Chinese Physics B, 32 0 (11): 0 118104, 2023

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90\ See https://vicuna

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90\ See https://vicuna. lmsys. org (accessed 14 April 2023), 2 0 (3): 0 6, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Word2vec

    Kenneth Ward Church. Word2vec. Natural Language Engineering, 23 0 (1): 0 155--162, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Glm: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling

    Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. Glm: General language model pretraining with autoregressive blank infilling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.10360, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Mol-instructions: A large-scale biomolecular instruction dataset for large language models

    Yin Fang, Xiaozhuan Liang, Ningyu Zhang, Kangwei Liu, Rui Huang, Zhuo Chen, Xiaohui Fan, and Huajun Chen. Mol-instructions: A large-scale biomolecular instruction dataset for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08018, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Is gpt-3 all you need for low-data discovery in chemistry? 2023

    Kevin Maik Jablonka, Philippe Schwaller, Andres Ortega-Guerrero, and Berend Smit. Is gpt-3 all you need for low-data discovery in chemistry? 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Opportunities and challenges of text mining in materials research

    Olga Kononova, Tanjin He, Haoyan Huo, Amalie Trewartha, Elsa A Olivetti, and Gerbrand Ceder. Opportunities and challenges of text mining in materials research. Iscience, 24 0 (3), 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 0 2...

    2022

  3. [11]

    Rwkv: Reinventing rnns for the transformer era

    Bo Peng, Eric Alcaide, Quentin Anthony, Alon Albalak, Samuel Arcadinho, Stella Biderman, Huanqi Cao, Xin Cheng, Michael Chung, Matteo Grella, et al. Rwkv: Reinventing rnns for the transformer era. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13048, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Ernie: Enhanced representation through knowledge integration

    Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Yukun Li, Shikun Feng, Xuyi Chen, Han Zhang, Xin Tian, Danxiang Zhu, Hao Tian, and Hua Wu. Ernie: Enhanced representation through knowledge integration. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09223, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ernie 2.0: A continual pre-training framework for language understanding

    Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Yukun Li, Shikun Feng, Hao Tian, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. Ernie 2.0: A continual pre-training framework for language understanding. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 8968--8975, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Ernie 3.0: Large-scale knowledge enhanced pre-training for language understanding and generation

    Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Shikun Feng, Siyu Ding, Chao Pang, Junyuan Shang, Jiaxiang Liu, Xuyi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Yuxiang Lu, et al. Ernie 3.0: Large-scale knowledge enhanced pre-training for language understanding and generation. arxiv 2021. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02137, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model, 2023

    Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Xuechen Li, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Llama: open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth \'e e Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi \`e re, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: open and efficient foundation language models. arxiv. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Looking through glass: Knowledge discovery from materials science literature using natural language processing

    Vineeth Venugopal, Sourav Sahoo, Mohd Zaki, Manish Agarwal, Nitya Nand Gosvami, and NM Anoop Krishnan. Looking through glass: Knowledge discovery from materials science literature using natural language processing. Patterns, 2 0 (7), 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Evaluating word embedding models: Methods and experimental results

    Bin Wang, Angela Wang, Fenxiao Chen, Yuncheng Wang, and C-C Jay Kuo. Evaluating word embedding models: Methods and experimental results. APSIPA transactions on signal and information processing, 8: 0 e19, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions

    Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-instruct: Aligning language models with self-generated instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10560, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Named entity recognition and normalization applied to large-scale information extraction from the materials science literature

    Leigh Weston, Vahe Tshitoyan, John Dagdelen, Olga Kononova, Amalie Trewartha, Kristin A Persson, Gerbrand Ceder, and Anubhav Jain. Named entity recognition and normalization applied to large-scale information extraction from the materials science literature. Journal of chemica...

    2019

  13. [21]

    Darwin series: Domain specific large language models for natural science

    Tong Xie, Yuwei Wan, Wei Huang, Zhenyu Yin, Yixuan Liu, Shaozhou Wang, Qingyuan Linghu, Chunyu Kit, Clara Grazian, Wenjie Zhang, et al. Darwin series: Domain specific large language models for natural science. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13565, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    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 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.