Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 34 references

PATENTWRITER: A Benchmarking Study for Patent Drafting with LLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Given only a patent's first claim, modern LLMs generate abstracts with BERTScore above 0.85 against the human original, and these abstracts match or exceed the originals in downstream patent classification and retrieval.

desk verdict A useful benchmark resource whose central BERTScore claim likely measures claim paraphrasing rather than abstract drafting; worth refereeing with revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22387 v1 pith:5WFVFCZ4 submitted 2025-07-30 cs.CL cs.LG

Homaira Huda Shomee , Suman Kalyan Maity , Sourav Medya This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords patentabstractgenerationlargelanguagemodelsbenchmarkingBERTScorechain-of-thoughtpromptingclassificationretrievalCPCsubclasses
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 introduces PATENTWRITER, a unified benchmark for testing whether large language models can draft patent abstracts from the first claim of a patent. Across six LLMs, three prompting strategies, and three technical classes of US patents, it measures generation quality with standard NLP metrics (including the semantic-similarity metric BERTScore), robustness to noisy inputs, and usefulness in classification and retrieval. The central finding is that modern LLMs, especially GPT-4o and Llama 3, generate abstracts with BERTScore above 0.85 relative to human-written originals in every class, and these abstracts preserve enough class-specific information to match or exceed the original abstracts in downstream patent tasks. The authors argue this gives the field a reproducible standard for comparing drafting models and supports using LLMs as drafting aids under human supervision.

What carries the argument

The central object is the PATENTWRITER benchmark: a dataset of roughly 21,000 claim-abstract pairs from US patents granted in 2022 across 21 CPC subclasses in three classes, paired with a fixed task (generate the abstract from the first claim), three prompting protocols (zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought), three input perturbations, and a multipart evaluation pipeline covering NLP similarity, robustness, classification, retrieval, and stylistic attributes. This standardized setup lets the authors compare models and prompting strategies on equal footing and separates surface-level similarity from domain utility.

What would settle it

Take patents whose first claim omits information that appears in the abstract, such as the point-cloud and boundary-extraction details in the Figure 5 example; ask patent attorneys or examiners to judge whether the LLM-generated abstracts disclose the full invention, and check whether their assessments of material omissions correlate with the high BERTScore the benchmark reports.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLM-generated patent abstracts are high-fidelity substitutes for human-written abstracts when evaluated under a single controlled framework. Given only the first claim of a patent, the six evaluated LLMs produce abstracts that reach BERTScore values between 0.85 and 0.89 against the original abstract in the A61, G06, and H04 CPC classes, and the best models retain this performance under typo, contextual-substitution, and word-swap perturbations. The same generated abstracts, when used as inputs to a fine-tuned transformer classifier, match or slightly exceed the classification accuracy of the original abstracts, and in retrieval they reproduce the original's top-k ranking with Spearman correlations around 0.6. The paper further finds that LLM outputs are stylistically more uniform and longer than human abstracts, with less passive-voice variation, which it interprets as a limitation to be addressed by domain-specific fine-tuning.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark assumes that a patent's first claim contains enough information to write a complete, accurate abstract, and that similarity to the human-written abstract is the right measure of quality.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, LLM-based drafting tools can produce usable first-draft abstracts directly from claims, cutting attorney time on the filing process.
  • Generated abstracts that match or beat original abstracts on classification and retrieval can be dropped into patent analytics pipelines without retraining the downstream models.
  • The benchmark gives patent-generation research a fixed yardstick, so new models or prompting methods can be compared against GPT-4o and Llama 3 rather than against each study's own setup.
  • The stylistic uniformity and lower readability of LLM outputs point to a concrete improvement target: fine-tuning for the patent register rather than only semantic fidelity.
  • Because the best models hold up under typos and word swaps, drafting assistants can tolerate imperfect user-supplied claims in real-world use.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same benchmark structure could be inverted to generate claims from abstracts, or to evaluate drafting of other patent sections, since the protocol only requires a fixed input-output pair.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's own Figure 5 example shows a generated abstract that paraphrases the claim nearly sentence-by-sentence, while the human abstract adds context such as 'point cloud data points' and 'extracting data inside the boundary surface'; a natural next experiment is measuring how much unique information from the full specification is lost when the input is restricted to the f
  • Editorial inference: because the benchmark treats the human abstract as ground truth, a legally sufficient but stylistically different abstract could score low; testing generated abstracts against patent-office drafting guidelines or examiner review would show whether BERTScore tracks legal adequacy.
  • Editorial inference: the uniformly high BERTScore across all models suggests the metric may be saturating; a more discriminating evaluation could count specific error types such as missing limitations or added unsupported features.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents PATENTWRITER, a benchmarking framework for evaluating LLMs on the task of generating a patent abstract from the first claim of a patent. Six LLMs (Llama 2, Llama 3, DeepSeek, GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1) are tested under zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting on a dataset of about 21,000 patents from three CPC classes. Evaluation includes standard NLP metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore, cosine similarity), robustness to three input perturbation types, two downstream tasks (patent classification and retrieval), and stylistic analysis. The central finding is that all models achieve BERTScore above 0.85 against the original abstracts, which the authors interpret as strong fidelity, and that GPT-4o generated abstracts perform slightly better than original abstracts in classification and retrieval.

Significance. If the benchmark is valid, PATENTWRITER would be a useful, unified, and openly available resource for comparing LLMs on a concrete patent-drafting subtask. The paper ships code and data, uses a consistent evaluation framework across models, and goes beyond surface metrics with robustness and downstream-task analysis. These are genuine strengths. However, the validity of the central fidelity claim is currently undermined by the task formulation: generating from only the first claim makes it likely that high BERTScore reflects claim paraphrasing rather than abstract drafting. The abstract's additional claim of surpassing domain-specific baselines is entirely unsupported by any experiment. The paper is valuable as a resource, but its headline conclusions need to be substantially qualified or re-tested.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 1] The abstract and introduction claim that LLMs 'often surpass domain-specific baselines,' but no domain-specific baseline model (e.g., PatentTransformer, PGT, PatentGPT) appears in any experiment in Section 4. All comparisons are against other general-purpose LLMs, human-written abstracts, or a shuffled random baseline. This unsupported claim should be removed from the abstract and introduction, or the experiments should include a domain-specific generation baseline.
  2. [Section 4.1 and Figure 5 (Appendix A.3)] The interpretation of BERTScore > 0.85 as evidence of high-fidelity abstract generation is not justified given that the input is only the first claim (Section 3.2). The example in Figure 5 shows that the original abstract contains information not present in the claim, such as 'point cloud data points' and identification of data 'inside the boundary surface' as an alternative embodiment, while the generated abstract closely paraphrases the claim and omits that content. Appendix C reinforces this concern: generated abstract length correlates with claim length (r = 0.61) much more strongly than human abstracts do (r = 0.27), which is consistent with claim paraphrasing rather than independent abstract composition. Without human evaluation of informativeness/completeness, or a measurement of content coverage against the full patent description, the high BERTScore may simply reflect lexical and semantic overlap between the claim and the original abstract. The paper should either add such validation or reframe the benchmark as 'claim-to-abstract generation' with correspondingly weaker claims about abstract-drafting quality.
  3. [Section 4.4 and Appendix A.4.1] The patent classification experiment is under-specified in a way that makes the results uninterpretable. The text does not state whether the classifier is trained on original abstracts, generated abstracts, or both; how the train/test split is constructed; or how many training instances per subclass are used. If the classifier is fine-tuned on original abstracts and then evaluated on generated abstracts, a performance gap could reflect distribution shift rather than preservation of class-specific information. Additionally, only GPT-4o and Llama 3 are evaluated in this downstream task, while six models are benchmarked in Table 2, weakening the 'unified benchmark' claim. The experimental setup and the specific claim that generated abstracts 'preserve class specific information better' need to be clarified and supported.
  4. [Section 4.5 and Table 6] The retrieval experiment compares generated-query retrieval against a shuffled random baseline, but it does not report the reference level of original-abstract-to-original-abstract retrieval agreement. Without this upper bound, the overlap@k values (around 0.25 for k=5) cannot be interpreted: they might indicate good or poor fidelity depending on how consistent original abstracts are with themselves. The paper should report the original-to-original retrieval agreement as a calibration baseline and, ideally, use standard IR metrics such as recall@k or nDCG against gold-standard relevant patents. The current design supports the weak claim that generated abstracts retrieve better than random, but not the stronger claim that they retrieve a similar set of patents as the original abstracts.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix A] The title of Appendix A contains a typo: 'Framewrok' should be 'Framework.'
  2. [Section 4.3] The text states 'the models used here are Llama 3 and GPT-4o,' but Table 4 reports results only for GPT-4o. Either add Llama 3 results or correct the sentence.
  3. [Section 4.5] No statistical significance tests or confidence intervals are provided for the differences in Tables 5 and 6, which are often small (e.g., F1 0.56 vs 0.53). The paper should report whether these differences are reliable.
  4. [Section 4.1] The statement 'Llama 3 and GPT-4o produce similar outputs and are efficient among all models in Table 2' is vague; Table 2 does not report efficiency or inference time, and the inference-time discussion in Appendix D does not support a simple efficiency ranking.
  5. [Appendix A.4.2] The retrieval embeddings are generated with all-MiniLM-L6-v2, but the paper does not cite the Sentence-BERT model (Reimers and Gurevych, 2019). Please add the reference.
  6. [Section 4.6] The statement 'Readability: shows the linguistic complexity of a text. Higher scores indicatest more intricate sentence structures' is confusing, as higher readability scores typically indicate easier text; clarify the direction of the metric.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PATENTWRITER is an empirical benchmark with a priori evaluation metrics and external downstream tasks; no fitted parameter or self-citation chain is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical benchmarking result: given the first claim of a patent, six LLMs generate abstracts that are then scored against the original human-written abstract using BERTScore, ROUGE, BLEU, cosine similarity, downstream classification, and retrieval. The evaluation criteria are defined in advance in Sections 3.5-3.7 and are not fitted to the generated outputs. The downstream classification and retrieval tasks use external models (Sentence-BERT, fine-tuned classifiers) and compare generated abstracts against original abstracts or a shuffled baseline, so they do not reduce to the generation procedure itself. There are no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no fitted parameters later renamed as predictions. The closest issue is a construct-validity concern: because the input is the first claim and the gold target is the original abstract, high BERTScore may partly reflect overlap between claim language and abstract language rather than independent drafting ability; Appendix C's length-correlation analysis (r=0.61 for generated vs r=0.27 for human abstracts) supports the interpretation that models often paraphrase claims. However, this is a limitation of the evaluation design, not circular reasoning: the paper does not define its inputs in terms of its outputs, and no stated result is forced by construction. Therefore, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. The central claims rest on three domain assumptions about the task definition and evaluation metrics, plus two hand-chosen experimental settings (few-shot count and training epochs).

free parameters (2)
  • Number of few-shot examples = 3
    Section 3.3 fixes three examples for few-shot prompting. The choice is arbitrary and not swept, but the zero-shot results already support the main BERTScore finding.
  • Fine-tuning epochs for the classification encoder = 4
    Appendix A.4.1 fixes four epochs with early stopping disabled. The classification result may depend on this choice; no epoch sweep is reported.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Original human-written abstracts are the appropriate reference for evaluating generated abstracts.
    Section 4.1 scores all generated abstracts against original abstracts using similarity metrics; this presumes fidelity to the human abstract is the goal of patent abstract drafting.
  • domain assumption The first claim contains sufficient information to produce a complete patent abstract.
    Sections 3.2 and 4.1 use only the first claim as input. Patent abstracts typically also summarize the technical field, problem, and advantages that may not be fully present in claim 1.
  • domain assumption BERTScore and the other automatic metrics correlate with human-judged quality for patent abstracts.
    The paper relies exclusively on automatic metrics and includes no human evaluation, so the validity of the quality measurement is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PATENTWRITER: A Benchmarking Study for Patent Drafting with LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5WFVFCZ4

@misc{pith2026250722387,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PATENTWRITER: A Benchmarking Study for Patent Drafting with LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5WFVFCZ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22387}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as transformative approaches in several important fields. This paper aims for a paradigm shift for patent writing by leveraging LLMs to overcome the tedious patent-filing process. In this work, we present PATENTWRITER, the first unified benchmarking framework for evaluating LLMs in patent abstract generation. Given the first claim of a patent, we evaluate six leading LLMs -- including GPT-4 and LLaMA-3 -- under a consistent setup spanning zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought prompting strategies to generate the abstract of the patent. Our benchmark PATENTWRITER goes beyond surface-level evaluation: we systematically assess the output quality using a comprehensive suite of metrics -- standard NLP measures (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE, BERTScore), robustness under three types of input perturbations, and applicability in two downstream patent classification and retrieval tasks. We also conduct stylistic analysis to assess length, readability, and tone. Experimental results show that modern LLMs can generate high-fidelity and stylistically appropriate patent abstracts, often surpassing domain-specific baselines. Our code and dataset are open-sourced to support reproducibility and future research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22387 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of Input (Claim1), and Generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of PATENTWRITER for assessing abstract generation from patent claims using large language models (LLMs). The left block shows the input–output setting where patent claims are used to generate abstracts through 6 LLMs variants. The generated outputs are evaluated using three key dimensions: (1) 4 NLP metrics such as BERTScore, ROUGE, BLEU, and Cosine Similarity to measure surface-level and semantic similarit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of stylistic metrics (Length, Read [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of input perturbations applied to patent claims. The original claim is modified using three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of Claim, Generated Abstract (by GPT4o) and Original Abstract. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Correlation between the lengths of the original abstract and the first claim where the correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top 10 most frequent words in original and generated abstracts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. 2019. Scibert: A pretrained language model for scientific text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10676

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, and 1 others. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877--1901

    2020

  3. [3]

    Canyu Chen and Kai Shu. 2024. Combating misinformation in the age of llms: Opportunities and challenges. AI Magazine, 45(3):354--368

    2024

  4. [4]

    Dimitrios Christofidellis, Antonio Berrios Torres, Ashish Dave, Manuel Roveri, Kristin Schmidt, Sarath Swaminathan, Hans Vandierendonck, Dmitry Zubarev, and Matteo Manica. 2022. Pgt: a prompt based generative transformer for the patent domain. In ICML 2022 Workshop on Knowledge Retrieval and Language Models

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Akshay Goel, Almog Gueta, Omry Gilon, Chang Liu, Sofia Erell, Lan Huong Nguyen, Xiaohong Hao, Bolous Jaber, Shashir Reddy, Rupesh Kartha, and 1 others. 2023. Llms accelerate annotation for medical information extraction. In Machine Learning for Health (ML4H), pages 82--100. PMLR

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Dani Gunawan, CA Sembiring, and Mohammad Andri Budiman. 2018. The implementation of cosine similarity to calculate text relevance between two documents. In Journal of physics: conference series, volume 978, page 012120. IOP Publishing

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Keyan Guo, Alexander Hu, Jaden Mu, Ziheng Shi, Ziming Zhao, Nishant Vishwamitra, and Hongxin Hu. 2024. An investigation of large language models for real-world hate speech detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03346

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Scherz, and Stefan Goetz

    Lekang Jiang, Caiqi Zhang, Pascal A. Scherz, and Stefan Goetz. 2025. https://aclanthology.org/2025.findings-naacl.70/ Can large language models generate high-quality patent claims? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, pages 1272--1287, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page 2025

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    u chemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan G \

    Enkelejda Kasneci, Kathrin Se ler, Stefan K \"u chemann, Maria Bannert, Daryna Dementieva, Frank Fischer, Urs Gasser, Georg Groh, Stephan G \"u nnemann, Eyke H \"u llermeier, and 1 others. 2023. Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for edu...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Ralf Krestel, Renukswamy Chikkamath, Christoph Hewel, and Julian Risch. 2021. A survey on deep learning for patent analysis. World Patent Information, 65:102035

    2021

  3. [11]

    Jieh-Sheng Lee. 2020 a . Controlling patent text generation by structural metadata. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pages 3241--3244

    2020

  4. [12]

    Jieh-Sheng Lee. 2020 b . Patent transformer: A framework for personalized patent claim generation. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, volume 2598. CEUR-WS

    2020

  5. [13]

    Jieh-Sheng Lee and Jieh Hsiang. 2020. Patent claim generation by fine-tuning openai gpt-2. World Patent Information, 62:101983

    2020

  6. [14]

    Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74--81

    2004

  7. [15]

    Fenglin Liu, Hongjian Zhou, Boyang Gu, Xinyu Zou, Jinfa Huang, Jinge Wu, Yiru Li, Sam S Chen, Yining Hua, Peilin Zhou, and 1 others. 2025. Application of large language models in medicine. Nature Reviews Bioengineering, pages 1--20

    2025

  8. [16]

    Xiaoxia Liu, Jingyi Wang, Jun Sun, Xiaohan Yuan, Guoliang Dong, Peng Di, Wenhai Wang, and Dongxia Wang. 2023. Prompting frameworks for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12785

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zhuang Liu, Degen Huang, Kaiyu Huang, Zhuang Li, and Jun Zhao. 2021. Finbert: A pre-trained financial language representation model for financial text mining. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth international conference on international joint conferences on artificial intellige...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Edward Ma. 2019. Nlp augmentation. https://github.com/makcedward/nlpaug

    2019

  11. [19]

    Hina Mehta, Lille Tidwell, and Lance A Liotta. 2017. Inventions and patents: a practical tutorial. Molecular Profiling: Methods and Protocols, pages 379--397

    2017

  12. [20]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311--318

    2002

  13. [21]

    Cheng Peng, Xi Yang, Aokun Chen, Kaleb E Smith, Nima PourNejatian, Anthony B Costa, Cheryl Martin, Mona G Flores, Ying Zhang, Tanja Magoc, and 1 others. 2023. A study of generative large language model for medical research and healthcare. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13523

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Runtao Ren and Jian Ma. 2024. Patentgpt: A large language model for patent drafting using knowledge-based fine-tuning method. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00092

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Julian Risch, Nicolas Alder, Christoph Hewel, and Ralf Krestel. 2021. Patentmatch: A dataset for matching patent claims & prior art. In PatentSemTech@SIGIR

    2021

  16. [24]

    Gwilym Roberts. 2007. Modern patenting--quantity and quality

    2007

  17. [25]

    Walid Shalaby and Wlodek Zadrozny. 2019. Patent retrieval: a literature review. Knowledge and Information Systems, 61:631--660

    2019

  18. [26]

    Tamara Tate, Shayan Doroudi, Daniel Ritchie, Ying Xu, and 1 others. 2023. Educational research and ai-generated writing: Confronting the coming tsunami

    2023

  19. [27]

    Amy JC Trappey, Charles V Trappey, Jheng-Long Wu, and Jack WC Wang. 2020. Intelligent compilation of patent summaries using machine learning and natural language processing techniques. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 43:101027

    2020

  20. [28]

    Qiyao Wang, Shiwen Ni, Huaren Liu, Shule Lu, Guhong Chen, Xi Feng, Chi Wei, Qiang Qu, Hamid Alinejad-Rokny, Yuan Lin, and 1 others. 2024. Autopatent: A multi-agent framework for automatic patent generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09796

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    WIPO. 1994. Handbook on industrial property information and documentation. https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/standards/en/pdf/03-12-a.pdf

    1994

  22. [30]

    Hongyang Yang, Xiao-Yang Liu, and Christina Dan Wang. 2023. Fingpt: Open-source financial large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.06031

    2023

  23. [31]

    Suchow, Zhenyu Cui, Rong Liu, Zhaozhuo Xu, Denghui Zhang, Koduvayur Subbalakshmi, Guojun Xiong, Yueru He, Jimin Huang, Dong Li, and Qianqian Xie

    Yangyang Yu, Zhiyuan Yao, Haohang Li, Zhiyang Deng, Yuechen Jiang, Yupeng Cao, Zhi Chen, Jordan W. Suchow, Zhenyu Cui, Rong Liu, Zhaozhuo Xu, Denghui Zhang, Koduvayur Subbalakshmi, Guojun Xiong, Yueru He, Jimin Huang, Dong Li, and Qianqian Xie. 2024. https://proceedings.neurip...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2019. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09675

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    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...

  26. [34]

    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 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.