Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Autonomous Multi-Robot Exploration Strategies for 3D Environments with Fire Detection Capabilitie

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 This paper argues that a modular pipeline combining online OctoMap mapping, GPS-derived ellipse targets, and potential-field obstacle avoidance can let a single UAV explore an unknown 3D building for fire detection.

desk verdict A reasonable survey of multi-robot exploration, but the claimed modular system with fire detection is unsupported: the GPS-ellipse target rule cannot explore building interiors, and there are no experiments. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15953 v1 pith:VM4EXLHM submitted 2024-11-24 cs.RO

Ankit Shaw This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords multi-robotexploration3DmappingOctoMapfrontier-basedpotentialfieldsobstacleavoidancefiredetectionUAV
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 argues that 3D building exploration for fire detection can be assembled from modular pieces instead of a single monolithic planner: localize and map online, turn the point-cloud map into an OctoMap, compute a trajectory, and correct that trajectory locally with potential-field obstacle avoidance. It reviews 2D frontier-based and cost-utility exploration methods and explains why these do not simply transfer to 3D, where memory and computation become the limiting resources. The proposed system is meant to work without prior knowledge of the building, using only a GPS fix on the building center to draw elliptical target points for the trajectory planner. The larger goal is a foundation for decentralized multi-UAV exploration with shared maps and coordinated task allocation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the OctoMap: an octree of voxels, each holding a probability of being occupied, built from point clouds and used as the single map representation for trajectory planning. Around it sits a four-stage pipeline—local mapping from sensor data, OctoMap generation, trajectory planning to GPS-ellipse target points, and potential-field obstacle avoidance for local correction. For the 2D methods it reviews, the paper frames exploration through the cost-utility score $\mathrm{BCU}(a) = U(a) - \lambda_{CU} C(a)$, trading expected information gain against travel cost; in the 3D pipeline this trade-off is replaced by fixed geometric targets, with safety handled separately by the potential field.

What would settle it

Fly the described system in a building with no GPS signal or with a non-convex layout, and check whether the ellipse-derived trajectories reach and map the interior rooms. If the robot repeatedly hits walls, flies outside the building, or leaves large interior spaces unmapped, then the central exploration claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the 3D exploration problem is best handled by separating map representation from planning: a SLAM system produces point clouds, an OctoMap stores those points as probabilistic free/occupied voxels in a memory-efficient octree, and a trajectory planner steers the robot toward GPS-derived ellipse targets while a potential-field layer locally deforms the trajectory around obstacles detected by laser data. The paper positions this as a response to traditional map-dependent algorithms failing in changing environments, because the map is built online rather than assumed in advance. It also claims that the same architecture is the natural base for multi-robot and multi-UAV extensions through decentralized map merging and coordinated exploration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the GPS coordinates of the building center are available and accurate enough that an ellipse drawn around them provides target points that lead the robot through the parts of the building that need exploring; the paper does not test this in GPS-denied or cluttered environments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A robot can start exploring a building with no prior map: the map is built online from point-cloud data, so stale or unavailable maps do not invalidate the system.
  • The potential-field obstacle-avoidance layer lets the robot react to obstacles the planner did not know about, because trajectory execution is locally validated against live laser data.
  • The OctoMap keeps memory use low enough for onboard 3D planning, since only free and occupied voxels are stored in a tree rather than a dense volumetric grid.
  • The same modular design is a plausible base for a multi-UAV team, with decentralized map creation, map sharing, and coordinated task allocation as the paper's stated next steps.
  • For 2D teams, cost-utility frontier allocation remains the reference method, but the review's comparison implies 3D systems should be judged by memory and computation as much as by exploration time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test the paper does not run is to replace the GPS-ellipse targets with frontier or next-best-view targets generated from the OctoMap itself; that would remove the dependency on GPS and likely improve interior coverage in cluttered buildings.
  • The fire-detection capability is asserted but never measured; attaching a thermal camera and reporting detection latency and coverage during the same exploration would turn the claim into a benchmarkable one.
  • Because trajectory planning does not replan online, the potential-field layer is the only safety net; one could test how often local corrections are needed and whether they suffice in dense obstacle fields, which the paper leaves open.
  • The modular framing suggests the survey contribution may outlive the specific implementation: the same OctoMap-plus-obstacle-avoidance architecture could host any target generator, so a planner swap is an obvious extension.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript surveys 2D and 3D exploration strategies for multi-robot systems and then describes a modular 3D exploration framework built around Google Cartographer, an OctoMap representation, GPS-derived elliptical target points, and a potential-field obstacle avoidance module. The stated goal is effective autonomous exploration of building environments with eventual application to fire detection. No experiments, quantitative metrics, or comparisons to existing methods are reported; the only supporting visual is a Gazebo/RViz snapshot in Fig. 6.

Significance. If the described framework were demonstrated to explore 3D building interiors effectively, it would be relevant to search-and-rescue and inspection applications. The survey portion is organized and cites a reasonable set of prior works, and the use of OctoMap plus potential-field avoidance is a plausible starting point. However, the paper does not establish that the proposed system works: there is no experimental evidence, no coverage or mapping quality metrics, and the target-point generation rule appears geometrically unable to produce interior exploration. The title and abstract promise multi-robot operation and fire detection, but the described system is single-robot and fire detection is not addressed beyond the title. As submitted, the contribution is a broad overview plus an underspecified, untested architecture, so its significance as a research paper is limited.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-B, Fig. 5] The target-point generation rule cannot support the central claim of effective interior exploration. The text states that target points are obtained from the GPS location of the building and form an ellipse around the building center, and that trajectory planning does not involve replanning during execution. An elliptical exterior trajectory observes only outer walls and roof; it has no mechanism for generating goal points inside the building or even at detected openings. The potential-field obstacle avoidance only locally corrects the current path and cannot insert new interior goals. Therefore the pipeline, as described, cannot explore a closed or partially enclosed building's interior, and the abstract's claim that the framework facilitates effective exploration is unsupported.
  2. [Section III (overall), Fig. 6] The paper contains no experiments, no exploration-time measurements, no coverage ratio, no map-accuracy evaluation, and no comparison against baseline exploration algorithms. Figure 6 is a single Gazebo/RViz snapshot and does not demonstrate that the environment was explored or that the map is complete. Without quantitative evidence, the phrases 'effective exploration' and 'autonomous exploration of 3D environments using a single robot' in Section IV are not substantiated.
  3. [Section IV and title/abstract] There is a scope mismatch between the stated contribution and the actual content. The title promises 'Multi-Robot Exploration Strategies' with 'Fire Detection Capabilities,' and the abstract repeats this framing, but Section IV explicitly limits the described contribution to exploration using a single robot and lists multi-robot coordination and map sharing as future work. Fire detection is not described in any part of the system. This mismatch misrepresents the paper's contribution and should be corrected if the paper is revised.
  4. [Section III-B] The relationship between the online OctoMap and trajectory generation is inconsistent. The paper says the resulting OctoMap is used for trajectory planning and execution, but it also says the target points come from GPS and that replanning does not occur during execution. Since the trajectory is fixed before execution and only locally modified by potential fields, the online map appears not to influence global exploration decisions. The manuscript should clarify how the OctoMap actually guides the generation of exploration goals, or remove the implication that it does.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The manuscript switches between 'we' and 'I' (e.g., 'We explore' in the abstract, then 'I propose' and 'our work' later). The voice should be made consistent.
  2. [Section II-B, Eq. (1)] The formatting in the text is broken in places, such as 'Theparameter' and 'thecell.Theparameter'. The equation itself is a standard cost-utility formulation and is adequately attributed to prior work, but the surrounding text should be cleaned up.
  3. [References] Several bibliographic entries are incomplete, notably Refs. [6], [10], and [12], which lack full publication data. Please complete all references according to the journal style.
  4. [Figures] Figures 3, 4, and 6 are referenced in the text but not numbered consistently with their captions, and Figure 3 appears before the paragraph that introduces it. Please recheck figure placement and numbering.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a survey and an architecture sketch, with no fitted-parameter derivation, no prediction forced by construction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a formal derivation from first principles. Its only equation, BCU(a) = U(a) - lambda_CU * C(a), is a standard cost-utility definition borrowed from the literature and is not fitted to the paper's own outputs. The proposed 3D exploration pipeline uses an OctoMap built from Google Cartographer point clouds and a fixed set of GPS-derived elliptical target points, with local potential-field obstacle avoidance. The target points are chosen from the GPS location of the building center, not from the OctoMap, so the exploration claim is not equivalent to the mapping input by construction. The paper itself states that 'trajectory planning does not involve replanning during execution,' and the conclusion narrows the contribution to 'a single robot' despite the title mentioning multi-robot exploration; these are limitations and mismatches between claims and implementation, but they are not circularity. There are no self-citations, no uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work, and no renamed known result presented as a new derivation. The central concern raised by a skeptical reader is that a fixed exterior ellipse cannot produce interior exploration, but that is an insufficiency or correctness problem, not a circularity problem: the paper does not derive its effectiveness claim from the GPS waypoints by definition. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper contributes no numerical parameters or new entities; its assumptions are standard robotics design choices. The two main unstated assumptions are that the SLAM and obstacle avoidance components compose correctly and that GPS-based target points cover the building interior.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption OctoMap is an appropriate map representation for 3D exploration.
    The framework relies on OctoMap generated from point clouds (Section III), without comparing to alternative representations.
  • domain assumption Potential fields provide safe obstacle avoidance in dynamic environments.
    Section III-B assumes potential fields modify trajectories safely, but potential fields can suffer from local minima, and no validation is given.
  • domain assumption Google Cartographer provides reliable SLAM for building the OctoMap.
    The pipeline trusts Cartographer's submap output (Section III-B) with no experiments in the target environment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Autonomous Multi-Robot Exploration Strategies for 3D Environments with Fire Detection Capabilitie." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VM4EXLHM

@misc{pith2026241115953,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Autonomous Multi-Robot Exploration Strategies for 3D Environments with Fire Detection Capabilitie},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VM4EXLHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15953}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive overview of exploration strategies utilized in both 2D and 3D environments, focusing on autonomous multi-robot systems designed for building exploration and fire detection. We explore the limitations of traditional algorithms that rely on prior knowledge and predefined maps, emphasizing the challenges faced when environments undergo changes that invalidate these maps. Our modular approach integrates localization, mapping, and trajectory planning to facilitate effective exploration using an OctoMap framework generated from point cloud data. The exploration strategy incorporates obstacle avoidance through potential fields, ensuring safe navigation in dynamic settings. Additionally, I propose future research directions, including decentralized map creation, coordinated exploration among unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and adaptations to time-varying environments. This work serves as a foundation for advancing coordinated multi-robot exploration algorithms, enhancing their applicability in real-world scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15953 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the octree data-structure. Left: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) exploring a 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diagram of the implemented 3D exploration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Execution of the generated trajectory using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ellipse-shaped target points generated from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Execution of the generated trajectory in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Human–robot interaction in rescue robotics,

    R. Murphy, “Human–robot interaction in rescue robotics,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 138–153, May 2004. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tsmcc.2004.826267

    arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    Field test of a navigation system: autonomous cleaning in supermarkets,

    H. Endres, W. Feiten, and G. Lawitzky, “Field test of a navigation system: autonomous cleaning in supermarkets,” in Proceedings. 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.98CH36146) . IEEE. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/robot.1998.677424

    work page arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Coordinating hundreds of cooperative, autonomous vehicles in warehouses,

    P. R. Wurman, R. D’Andrea, and M. Mountz, “Coordinating hundreds of cooperative, autonomous vehicles in warehouses,” AI Magazine, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 9–20, March 2008

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Task-allocation and coordination of multiple robots for planetary exploration,

    M. J. Mataric and G. S. Sukhatme, “Task-allocation and coordination of multiple robots for planetary exploration,” inIn Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advanced Robotics, 2001, pp. 61–70

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    A comparison of path planning strategies for autonomous exploration and mapping of unknown environments,

    M. Juliá, A. Gil, and O. Reinoso, “A comparison of path planning strategies for autonomous exploration and mapping of unknown environments,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 427–444, May 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-012-9298-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10514-012-9298-8 2012

  6. [6]

    A free market architecture for distributed control of a multirobot system,

    M. Bernardine Dias and A. Stentz, “A free market architecture for distributed control of a multirobot system,” 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //figshare.com/articles/A_Free_Market_Architecture_for_ Distributed_Control_of_a_Multirobot_System/6550274/1

    work page arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Coordinated multi- robot exploration using a segmentation of the environment,

    K. Wurm, C. Stachniss, and W. Burgard, “Coordinated multi- robot exploration using a segmentation of the environment,” in 2008 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. IEEE, Sep. 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.2008.4650734

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Market-based multirobot coordination: A survey and analysis,

    M. Dias, R. Zlot, N. Kalra, and A. Stentz, “Market-based multirobot coordination: A survey and analysis,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 1257–1270, July 2006. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/jproc.2006.876939

    work page arXiv 2006

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    High resolution maps from wide angle sonar,

    H. Moravec and A. Elfes, “High resolution maps from wide angle sonar,” in Proceedings. 1985 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 1109/robot.1985.1087316

    1985

  2. [10]

    A frontier-based approach for autonomous exploration,

    B. Yamauchi, “A frontier-based approach for autonomous exploration,” in Proceedings 1997 IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Robotics and Automation CIRA97. Towards New Computational Principles for Robotics and Automation. IEEE Comput. Soc. Press. [On...

    1997

  3. [11]

    A survey and analysis of multi-robot coordination,

    Z. Yan, N. Jouandeau, and A. A. Cherif, “A survey and analysis of multi-robot coordination,”International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 10, no. 12, p. 399, January 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5772/57313

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Multi-robot exploration controlled by a market economy,

    R. Zlot, A. Stentz, M. B. Dias, and S. Thayer, “Multi-robot exploration controlled by a market economy,” 2002, pp. 3016– 3023

    2002

  5. [13]

    Coordinated multi-robot exploration,

    W. Burgard, M. Moors, C. Stachniss, and F. Schneider, “Coordinated multi-robot exploration,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 376–386, June 2005. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/tro.2004.839232

    2005

  6. [14]

    Efficient dense frontier detection for 2d graph SLAM based on occupancy grid submaps,

    J. Orsulic, D. Miklic, and Z. Kovacic, “Efficient dense frontier detection for 2d graph SLAM based on occupancy grid submaps,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, pp. 1–1, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/lra.2019.2928203

    2019

  7. [15]

    Navigation strategies for exploring indoor environments,

    H. H. González-Baños and J.-C. Latombe, “Navigation strategies for exploring indoor environments,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 21, no. 10-11, pp. 829–848, October 2002. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0278364902021010834

    2002

  8. [16]

    Techniques for multi-robot coordination and navigation,

    K. M. Wurm, “Techniques for multi-robot coordination and navigation,” inTechnische Fakultät Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau. Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademis- chen Grades Doktor der Naturwissenschaften, January 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Efficient autonomous robotic exploration with semantic road map in indoor environments,

    C. Wang, D. Zhu, T. Li, M. Q.-H. Meng, and C. W. de Silva, “Efficient autonomous robotic exploration with semantic road map in indoor environments,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2989–2996, July 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/lra.2...

    2019

  10. [18]

    Autonomous exploration for 3d map learning,

    D. Joho, C. Stachniss, P. Pfaff, and W. Burgard, “Autonomous exploration for 3d map learning,” inAutonome Mobile Systeme

  11. [19]

    Autonomous flight in unknown indoor environments,

    A. Bachrach, R. He, and N. Roy, “Autonomous flight in unknown indoor environments,”International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 217–228, December 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1260/175682909790291492

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    A frontier-void-based approach for autonomous exploration in 3d,

    C. Dornhege and A. Kleiner, “A frontier-void-based approach for autonomous exploration in 3d,” Advanced Robotics, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 459–468, January 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1080/01691864.2013.763720

    2013

  13. [21]

    Autonomous exploration of large unknown indoor environments for dense 3d model building,

    I. Maurović, M. Ðakulović, and I. Petrović, “Autonomous exploration of large unknown indoor environments for dense 3d model building,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 10188–10193, 2014. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.3182/20140824-6-za-1003.01275

    2014

  14. [22]

    Volumetric next-best-view planning for 3d object reconstruction with positioning error,

    J. I. Vasquez-Gomez, L. E. Sucar, R. Murrieta-Cid, and E. Lopez-Damian, “Volumetric next-best-view planning for 3d object reconstruction with positioning error,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 11, no. 10, p. 159, October 2014. [Online]. Available: http...

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    Receding horizon

    A. Bircher, M. Kamel, K. Alexis, H. Oleynikova, and R. Siegwart, “Receding horizon "next-best-view" planner for 3d exploration,” in 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, May 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/icra.2016.7487281

    2016

  16. [24]

    A target point based MAV 3d exploration method,

    T. Baiming, S. Jicheng, D. Chaofan, and L. Qingbao, “A target point based MAV 3d exploration method,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA). IEEE, August 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/icma.2018.8484481

    2018

  17. [25]

    Towards autonomous 3d exploration using surface frontiers,

    P. G. C. N. Senarathne and D. Wang, “Towards autonomous 3d exploration using surface frontiers,” in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR). IEEE, October 2016. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ssrr.2016.7784274

    2016

  18. [26]

    Efficient Mobile Robot Exploration with Gaussian Markov Random Fields in 3D Environments,

    C. Wang, T. Li, M. Q.-H. Meng, and C. D. Silva, “Efficient Mobile Robot Exploration with Gaussian Markov Random Fields in 3D Environments,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, May 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/icr...

    2018

  19. [27]

    Point cloud based autonomous area exploration algorithm,

    D. Priyasad, Y. Jayasanka, H. Udayanath, D. Jayawardhana, S. Sooriyaarachchi, C. Gamage, and N. Kottege, “Point cloud based autonomous area exploration algorithm,” in2018 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon). IEEE, May 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10...

    2018

  20. [28]

    A 3d frontier- based exploration tool for MAVs,

    C. Zhu, R. Ding, M. Lin, and Y. Wu, “A 3d frontier- based exploration tool for MAVs,” in 2015 IEEE 27th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI). IEEE, November 2015. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1109/ictai.2015.60

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    An autonomous loop-closure approach for simultaneous exploration and coverage of unknown infrastructure using MAVs,

    D. G. Vutetakis and J. Xiao, “An autonomous loop-closure approach for simultaneous exploration and coverage of unknown infrastructure using MAVs,” in2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, May 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/i...

    2019

  22. [30]

    Cooperative multi- robot systems: a study of vision-based 3-D mapping using information theory,

    R. Rocha, J. Dias, and A. Carvalho, “Cooperative multi- robot systems: a study of vision-based 3-D mapping using information theory,”Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 53, no. 3-4, pp. 282–311, December 2005. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2005.09.008

    2005 doi

  23. [2007]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp. 22–28. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74764-2_4

    2007 doi

Pith tools

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