Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Unifying Streaming and Non-streaming Zipformer-based ASR

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single zipformer ASR model trained with dynamic right-context chunked masking can serve both streaming and non-streaming use; at 64 future frames it reaches 8.31% WER versus 8.26% for a non-streaming model.

desk verdict A practical unified streaming/non-streaming zipformer recipe whose central mask detail is left unspecified; the convergence result looks real but needs a precise mask spec to be verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14434 v1 pith:EWY4TLIU submitted 2025-06-17 cs.SD cs.AIeess.AS

Bidisha Sharma , Karthik Pandia Durai , Shankar Venkatesan , Jeena J Prakash , Shashi Kumar , Malolan Chetlur , Andreas Stolcke This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SDcs.AIeess.AS
keywords automaticspeechrecognitionstreamingASRnon-streamingzipformerchunkedattentionmaskingrightcontextlatency-accuracytradeoffworderrorrate
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

There is a long-standing trade-off in speech recognition: streaming models read audio as it arrives and are less accurate, while offline models wait for the whole utterance and are more accurate, so products typically train and serve both. This paper tries to establish that a single zipformer-based recognizer can cover both modes by training with a chunked attention mask that randomly grants the encoder 0, 64, 128, or 256 future frames per batch. At inference the operator chooses how many future frames to allow, trading a little latency for accuracy. On a 12,468-hour conversational corpus, the large model with 64 decoding right-context frames averages 8.31% WER versus 8.26% for the non-streaming model, and in a server-client setup both average 8.2%; the paper reports a 7.9% relative WER reduction over the no-right-context baseline. The paper also argues that the zipformer's multi-scale encoder makes right-context far more effective than in a conformer, which is why the unification works.

What carries the argument

The central object is a binary attention mask $M$ applied inside self-attention: $\mathrm{softmax}(M(QK^\top)/\sqrt{d})V^\top$. The mask selects, for each query frame, which key and value frames are visible. The paper changes $M$ so that, beyond the usual left-context and chunk boundaries, a variable number of future frames is visible; during training that number is randomly chosen per mini-batch from {0, 64, 128, 256}, and during decoding it is set freely. The zipformer, a multi-scale transformer encoder whose six blocks run at frame rates from 50 Hz to 6.25 Hz, is what makes this mask effective: the right-context reaches across several temporal resolutions, so fewer future frames carry more information. The mask is the mechanism that lets one set of weights interpolate between causal streaming behavior and near-offline behavior without retraining.

What would settle it

Re-run the small-data training experiment with two different per-layer allocations of the right-context frames, for example assigning all right-context only to the 50 Hz encoder blocks versus only to the 6.25 Hz block, and compare WER for each decoding right-context setting; the central claim requires the dynamic right-context model to keep its improvement under both allocations, and this would reveal whether the missing per-layer allocation detail is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single zipformer-based speech recognizer, trained with dynamic right-context chunked attention masking, can serve both streaming and non-streaming applications, and that the streaming accuracy gap closes as the decoding right-context grows. On a 12,468-hour conversational corpus, the model trained with right-context randomly drawn from {0, 64, 128, 256} frames per batch averages 8.31% WER at 64 decoding right-context frames, versus 8.26% for the non-streaming model; in a production server-client setup, both average 8.2%. The paper further claims that the effect is stronger for zipformer than for conformer because zipformer's six encoder blocks operate at different frame rates, from 50 Hz down to 6.25 Hz and back, so future context is exploited more efficiently.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the variable right-context frames are distributed across the six zipformer encoder blocks in a way that realizes the multi-scale benefit, but the paper never specifies that per-layer distribution; if a different distribution changes the WER gains, the central claim does not stand as stated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deployment can be switched from streaming to near-offline accuracy by raising the decoding right-context, without retraining, so one model artifact serves both modes.
  • Training cost and maintenance drop because the separate offline model can be retired; the paper reports the streaming model at 256 right-context frames closely approaching its non-streaming counterpart on LibriSpeech (2.43% versus 2.38% test-clean).
  • The latency-accuracy knob is continuous in inference: at concurrency 100, final-chunk latency rises only from 1.41 to 1.47 seconds when the decoding right-context goes from 0 to 64 frames, with RTFX essentially unchanged.
  • Multi-scale encoders such as zipformer, rather than fixed-rate conformers, are the better substrate for unified streaming and non-streaming ASR, because they convert right-context into larger WER gains per frame.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the convergence is real, it suggests the streaming/non-streaming WER gap for transducer models is mostly a missing-future-context problem, not a fundamental limitation of causal architectures; other multi-scale causal encoders could adopt the same trick.
  • The per-batch randomization of right-context may act as a form of context dropout, making the model robust across latency regimes; a natural extension is to sample right-context from a continuous distribution or tie it to chunk size during training.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same dynamic right-context mask in a decoder-only or attention-decoder ASR model; if the benefit transfers, the method is not specific to zipformer or RNN-T.
  • The paper's conformer comparison implies the advantage comes from multi-scale frame rates; adding a downsampling/upsampling path to a conformer might close the gap, which would isolate the mechanism.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes training a single Zipformer-based ASR model with chunked attention masking that dynamically incorporates right-context frames, sampled per training batch from {0, 64, 128, 256}, so that one model can serve both streaming and non-streaming use cases. At inference the user chooses the number of decoding right-context frames to trade accuracy against latency. The authors compare their right-context-trained model with a no-right-context streaming baseline and a non-streaming model on LibriSpeech and on a 12,468-hour in-house conversational corpus, using both simulated streaming and a production server-client setup. The main reported result is that the right-context streaming model approaches non-streaming accuracy (e.g., Table 4 average WER 8.2% at 64 decoding right-context frames versus 8.2% for the non-streaming model), with only a small latency penalty.

Significance. If the central result is reproducible, the paper offers a practical low-cost method for unifying streaming and non-streaming ASR in production: a training-time masking modification with no extra parameters, plus a tunable inference-time latency-accuracy knob. The evaluation is industrially strong, using a large in-house corpus, diverse domain and accent test sets, and concurrent server-client latency/RTFX measurements. The small-data tuning study in Appendix A is a useful ablation. The main weakness is that the proposed masking is not specified precisely enough for independent implementation, and the headline 7.9% relative improvement is not directly supported by the reported tables.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3 and Section 3.2.3] The paper never specifies how a chosen number of right-context frames is allocated across the six Zipformer encoder blocks, which operate at frame rates of 50, 25, 12.5, 6.25, 12.5, and 25 Hz. The description of the attention mask in Equation (2) and Figure 2 is conceptual; it does not state whether the right-context frame count is applied at the input frame rate, at each block's own frame rate, or via some per-block scaling. This matters because a frame at the 50 Hz block corresponds to 20 ms of audio, while a frame at the 6.25 Hz block corresponds to 160 ms. The ambiguity is compounded by the statement in Section 3.2.3 that 'each frame corresponds to 10 ms in both training and decoding' and by Appendix A, which says RC-64 corresponds to 1.28 seconds of context (implying 20 ms per frame). Depending on the interpretation, the future acoustic horizon seen by low-rate blocks can differ by a factor of 8 or more from that seen by high-rate blocks. Because the reported convergence of the streaming model to non-streaming WER (Table 3: 8.31% at RC=64 versus 8.26% non-streaming) depends on this allocation, the result cannot be independently verified or reimplemented without the missing detail.
  2. [Abstract and Tables 3-4] The abstract claims a 'relative 7.9%' word error reduction, but that number is not directly reproducible from the reported results. From Table 3, the average WER of LargeRC-0-64-128-256 with 64 decoding right-context frames is 8.31% versus 10.34% for the baseline at 0 right-context frames, a relative reduction of 19.6%. From Table 4, the same model improves from 9.0% to 8.2%, a relative reduction of 8.9%. The 7.9% figure does not correspond to any comparison shown in the paper, and the authors should either point to the exact source of this number or correct the abstract.
  3. [Table 5] The RTFX values in Table 5 show no variation with the number of decoding right-context frames (e.g., 82.65 and 82.66 at concurrency 100 for RC=0 and RC=64) even though the reported final-chunk latency increases from 1.41 s to 1.47 s over the same range. Since RTFX is defined in Section 3.3 as duration divided by inference time, an increase in per-request inference time should reduce RTFX unless the metric is aggregated in some concurrency-dependent way that is not described. The metric definition and the numbers in Table 5 need to be reconciled.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3] The horizontal axis label contains a typo: 'No of right-context frame' should be 'Number of right-context frames'.
  2. [Section 4.1, Table 2] The text says the Libri Baseline WER decreases from 3.33% to 2.83% as decoding right-context increases from 0 to 256, but Table 2 lists 2.81% at 256 right-context frames; please correct the inconsistency.
  3. [Section 3.2.3] The training setup says chunk size varies among [16, 32, 64] frames, while evaluation uses a chunk size of 32 frames; the paper should clarify whether the model was trained with all three chunk sizes and whether the server-client evaluation also fixed the chunk size or used the 500 ms client stream as the chunk boundary.
  4. [Appendix A] The appendix states that all models trained with right-context outperform the baseline, but the figure labels (Figure 4) are cramped and hard to read; providing exact WER values in a table or in the text would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract says 'reduces word error by relative 7.9%' but the standard term is 'word error rate' (WER); please use the full term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are empirical and its training choices are standard model selection, not fitted inputs relabeled as predictions.

full rationale

The paper proposes dynamic right-context chunked attention masking for zipformer-based ASR and evaluates it against baselines on LibriSpeech and a large in-house corpus. No derivation in the paper defines a predicted quantity in terms of the target result. The right-context training set {0,64,128,256} is selected via a small LibriSpeech-100 study in Appendix A, which is ordinary hyperparameter/model selection rather than circular fitting. The baseline and non-streaming models are independently trained, and the reported WER comparisons are external benchmark evaluations, not consequences of a fitted parameter. References to Icefall, Sherpa, and the Zipformer paper are code and architecture citations; they do not smuggle in the paper's central claim. The main weakness is an underspecified implementation detail: the paper does not state how right-context frames counted at 10 ms per frame are allocated across zipformer's six encoder blocks at different frame rates. However, underspecification and re-implementability concerns are correctness or reproducibility issues, not circularity. There is no step where an input is defined in terms of an output, a fitted value is renamed as a prediction, or a load-bearing conclusion rests solely on the authors' own prior work. The proper finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical systems paper; the central claim rests on standard ASR assumptions and on hyperparameters chosen by hand. No invented entities or mathematical axioms beyond the background assumption that the Icefall zipformer implementation is correct. The main burden is the unstated per-layer masking implementation.

free parameters (3)
  • training right-context frame set = {0, 64, 128, 256}
    Number of future frames randomly sampled per training batch; chosen based on small-data experiments (Appendix A), not from the test sets.
  • chunk size set = [16, 32, 64] frames
    Chunk sizes used during training, following the standard Icefall zipformer recipe; fixed at 32 frames at evaluation.
  • left-context frames = 128
    Fixed left-context used in evaluation; a standard recipe choice, not fitted to the target result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Zipformer encoder as implemented in Icefall is a valid, competitive ASR architecture.
    The paper relies on the Icefall zipformer recipe without re-deriving its correctness; all models are built on it.
  • domain assumption Word error rate on the selected test sets is a faithful measure of ASR accuracy.
    Standard ASR evaluation assumption; no human evaluation, confidence intervals, or statistical significance tests are provided.
  • domain assumption The in-house test sets represent production deployment conditions.
    Only domain and duration are listed; speaker distribution, channel conditions, and difficulty are not documented.
  • domain assumption Training with variable right-context transfers to arbitrary right-context settings at inference.
    The method assumes that sampling multiple right-context values during training makes the model robust to the chosen decoding right-context; this is the core hypothesis rather than a proven transfer guarantee.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unifying Streaming and Non-streaming Zipformer-based ASR." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWY4TLIU

@misc{pith2026250614434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unifying Streaming and Non-streaming Zipformer-based ASR},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWY4TLIU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14434}
}
read the original abstract

There has been increasing interest in unifying streaming and non-streaming automatic speech recognition (ASR) models to reduce development, training, and deployment costs. We present a unified framework that trains a single end-to-end ASR model for both streaming and non-streaming applications, leveraging future context information. We propose to use dynamic right-context through the chunked attention masking in the training of zipformer-based ASR models. We demonstrate that using right-context is more effective in zipformer models compared to other conformer models due to its multi-scale nature. We analyze the effect of varying the number of right-context frames on accuracy and latency of the streaming ASR models. We use Librispeech and large in-house conversational datasets to train different versions of streaming and non-streaming models and evaluate them in a production grade server-client setup across diverse testsets of different domains. The proposed strategy reduces word error by relative 7.9\% with a small degradation in user-perceived latency. By adding more right-context frames, we are able to achieve streaming performance close to that of non-streaming models. Our approach also allows flexible control of the latency-accuracy tradeoff according to customers requirements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14434 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Zipformer encoder architecture showing each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Attention masking in zipformer; (a) chun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of conventional conformer (ConformerBaseline) and zipformer (MediumBaseline) models in terms of WER(%) with different number of right-context frames during inference. ASR models. Non-streaming models do not sup￾port concurrency in our setup, as they process a conversation by splitting it into smaller segments. 4 Results 4.1 Librispeech setup In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: WER(%) of the models trained on 100 hours of clean Librispeech training data, varying the number of right￾context frames, evaluated on (a) test-clean and (b) test-other datasets. To refine the number of right-context frames that the model acquires during the training p…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ossama Abdel-Hamid, Abdel-rahman Mohamed, Hui Jiang, Li Deng, Gerald Penn, and Dong Yu. 2014. Convolutional neural networks for speech recognition. IEEE/ACM Transactions on audio, speech, and language processing, 22(10):1533--1545

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Sanyuan Chen, Chengyi Wang, Zhengyang Chen, Yu Wu, Shujie Liu, Zhuo Chen, Jinyu Li, Naoyuki Kanda, Takuya Yoshioka, Xiong Xiao, et al. 2022. Wavlm: Large-scale self-supervised pre-training for full stack speech processing. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 16(6):1505--1518

    2022

  3. [3]

    Xie Chen, Yu Wu, Zhenghao Wang, Shujie Liu, and Jinyu Li. 2021. Developing real-time streaming transformer transducer for speech recognition on large-scale dataset. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 5904--5908. IEEE

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Chung-Cheng Chiu, Tara N Sainath, Yonghui Wu, Rohit Prabhavalkar, Patrick Nguyen, Zhifeng Chen, Anjuli Kannan, Ron J Weiss, Kanishka Rao, Ekaterina Gonina, et al. 2018. State-of-the-art speech recognition with sequence-to-sequence models. In IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pages 4774--4778. IEEE

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Anmol Gulati, James Qin, Chung-Cheng Chiu, Niki Parmar, Yu Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Wei Han, Shibo Wang, Zhengdong Zhang, Yonghui Wu, and Ruoming Pang. 2020. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2020-3015 Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition . In Proc. Interspeech, pages 5036--5040

    doi:10.21437/interspeech.2020-3015 2020

  6. [6]

    Wei Han, Zhengdong Zhang, Yu Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Chung-Cheng Chiu, James Qin, Anmol Gulati, Ruoming Pang, and Yonghui Wu. 2020 a . Contextnet: Improving convolutional neural networks for automatic speech recognition with global context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.03191

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Wei Han, Zhengdong Zhang, Yu Zhang, Jiahui Yu, Chung-Cheng Chiu, James Qin, Anmol Gulati, Ruoming Pang, and Yonghui Wu. 2020 b . https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2020-2059 ContextNet: Improving Convolutional Neural Networks for Automatic Speech Recognition with Global Context . In Proc. Interspeech, pages 3610--3614

    work page doi:10.21437/interspeech.2020-2059 2020

  8. [8]

    Wei-Ning Hsu, Benjamin Bolte, Yao-Hung Hubert Tsai, Kushal Lakhotia, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Abdelrahman Mohamed. 2021. Hubert: Self-supervised speech representation learning by masked prediction of hidden units. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 29:3451--3460

    2021

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Sehoon Kim, Amir Gholami, Albert Shaw, Nicholas Lee, Karttikeya Mangalam, Jitendra Malik, Michael W Mahoney, and Kurt Keutzer. 2022. Squeezeformer: An efficient transformer for automatic speech recognition. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:9361--9373

    2022

  2. [10]

    Fangjun Kuang, Liyong Guo, Wei Kang, Long Lin, Mingshuang Luo, Zengwei Yao, and Daniel Povey. 2022. Pruned rnn-t for fast, memory-efficient asr training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.13236

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Jason Li, Vitaly Lavrukhin, Boris Ginsburg, Ryan Leary, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Jonathan M Cohen, Huyen Nguyen, and Ravi Teja Gadde. 2019. Jasper: An end-to-end convolutional neural acoustic model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03288

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Xilai Li, Goeric Huybrechts, Srikanth Ronanki, Jeff Farris, and Sravan Bodapati. 2023. Dynamic chunk convolution for unified streaming and non-streaming conformer asr. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1--5. IEEE

    2023

  5. [13]

    Daniel Povey, Vijayaditya Peddinti, Daniel Galvez, Pegah Ghahremani, Vimal Manohar, Xingyu Na, Yiming Wang, and Sanjeev Khudanpur. 2016. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2016-595 Purely Sequence-Trained Neural Networks for ASR Based on Lattice-Free MMI . In Proc. Interspee...

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Kanishka Rao, Ha s im Sak, and Rohit Prabhavalkar. 2017. Exploring architectures, data and units for streaming end-to-end speech recognition with rnn-transducer. In 2017 IEEE automatic speech recognition and understanding workshop (ASRU), pages 193--199. IEEE

    2017

  7. [15]

    Tara N Sainath, Yanzhang He, Bo Li, Arun Narayanan, Ruoming Pang, Antoine Bruguier, Shuo-yiin Chang, Wei Li, Raziel Alvarez, Zhifeng Chen, et al. 2020. A streaming on-device end-to-end model surpassing server-side conventional model quality and latency. In IEEE International C...

    2020

  8. [16]

    Yangyang Shi, Yongqiang Wang, Chunyang Wu, Ching-Feng Yeh, Julian Chan, Frank Zhang, Duc Le, and Mike Seltzer. 2021. Emformer: Efficient memory transformer based acoustic model for low latency streaming speech recognition. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech ...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Pawel Swietojanski, Stefan Braun, Dogan Can, Thiago Fraga Da Silva, Arnab Ghoshal, Takaaki Hori, Roger Hsiao, Henry Mason, Erik McDermott, Honza Silovsky, et al. 2023. Variable attention masking for configurable transformer transducer speech recognition. In IEEE International ...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Anshuman Tripathi, Jaeyoung Kim, Qian Zhang, Han Lu, and Hasim Sak. 2020. Transformer transducer: One model unifying streaming and non-streaming speech recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03192

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

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

    2017

  12. [20]

    Di Wu, Binbin Zhang, Chao Yang, Zhendong Peng, Wenjing Xia, Xiaoyu Chen, and Xin Lei. 2021. U2++: Unified two-pass bidirectional end-to-end model for speech recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.05642

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Zengwei Yao, Liyong Guo, Xiaoyu Yang, Wei Kang, Fangjun Kuang, Yifan Yang, Zengrui Jin, Long Lin, and Daniel Povey. 2023. Zipformer: A faster and better encoder for automatic speech recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11230

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Binbin Zhang, Di Wu, Zhuoyuan Yao, Xiong Wang, Fan Yu, Chao Yang, Liyong Guo, Yaguang Hu, Lei Xie, and Xin Lei. 2020 a . Unified streaming and non-streaming two-pass end-to-end model for speech recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.05481

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Qian Zhang, Han Lu, Hasim Sak, Anshuman Tripathi, Erik McDermott, Stephen Koo, and Shankar Kumar. 2020 b . Transformer transducer: A streamable speech recognition model with transformer encoders and rnn-t loss. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal P...

    2020

  16. [24]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

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

  17. [25]

    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...

  18. [26]

    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.ncblock write newline " " before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION new.nccont write " " before...

  19. [27]

    11em plus .33em minus .07em 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 \@IEEEnotcompsoconly \@IEEEcompsoconly #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEco...

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.