Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Proper Noun Diacritization for Arabic Wikipedia: A Benchmark Dataset

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that Arabic Wikipedia proper-noun diacritization is a hard, undertooled task, and backs the claim with a manually diacritized 3,362-pair gold dataset on which GPT-4o attains 73.0% exact-match accuracy.

desk verdict A genuinely useful Arabic NLP resource—a manually diacritized proper-noun dataset with English glosses—but the gold labels were seeded by the very model being benchmarked, so the headline accuracy and IAA should be read with that in mind. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02656 v3 pith:Y5ZB7GL2 submitted 2025-05-05 cs.CL

Rawan Bondok , Mayar Nassar , Salam Khalifa , Kurt Micallef , Nizar Habash This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords ArabicdiacritizationpropernounstransliterationWikipediabenchmarkdatasetGPT-4olemmatizationnamedentities
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 tries to establish that diacritizing Arabic Wikipedia proper nouns can be turned into a measurable benchmark task by pairing each undiacritized Arabic name with its English Wikipedia gloss, and that even a strong large language model falls well short of mastery. It introduces a gold-standard dataset of 3,000 unique Arabic proper nouns, expanded to 3,362 Arabic-gloss pairs, with manual lemma-level diacritizations and English equivalents. Benchmarking GPT-4o on recovering the full diacritization, the paper reports 73.0% exact-match accuracy in the best setting, arguing that the task is genuinely difficult and that better resources and models are needed. If the claim is right, the field gains the first public benchmark of this scale for the intersection of Arabic diacritization, transliteration, and proper-noun lemmatization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the annotated dataset CP-WIKI-D3K, which pairs undiacritized Arabic proper nouns with English glosses and gold lemma-level diacritizations. The task is framed as a mapping from (Arabic input, English gloss) to a fully diacritized Arabic lemma, guided by an explicit annotation scheme: retain input spelling except for required Hamza corrections, allow consonant clusters in foreign names, and remove definite articles and plural suffixes. The evaluation machinery is exact-match accuracy plus Levenshtein edit distance, applied after a post-processing pipeline that enforces well-formedness rules such as inserting Fatha before Alif, normalizing Shadda-vowel order, and removing final diacritics.

What would settle it

Have a fresh annotator independently diacritize a random 500-entry sample from the raw Arabic-plus-gloss inputs with no model suggestion, then measure agreement with the published gold labels; if agreement falls materially below the reported 92.4%, the gold standard is partly anchored to the initial GPT-4o proposals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that CP-WIKI-D3K, a randomly sampled subset of 3,000 unique Arabic-script proper nouns from Arabic Wikipedia paired with 3,362 English glosses, is a reliable gold-standard resource for the joint task of diacritizing and lemmatizing proper nouns. Each entry was annotated with a fully diacritized Arabic lemma following a maximal-diacritization scheme adapted to foreign names, with clitics such as the definite article removed and plural demonym endings stripped. The paper further claims that GPT-4o, when given the undiacritized Arabic and the English gloss plus a few examples, reaches only 73.0% exact-match accuracy, demonstrating that the task resists current models. Error analysis shows most failures are plausible alternative diacritizations rather than consonant errors, with systematic overuse of Fatha and Shadda and underuse of Kasra and Sukun.

Load-bearing premise

The gold labels are assumed to be correct and unbiased, but they rest on a single primary annotator who edited GPT-4o-generated proposals, with only 500 of 3,362 entries independently re-annotated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Adding the English gloss substantially helps: few-shot accuracy rises from 55.9% with Arabic only to 73.0% with Arabic plus gloss.
  • Frequency is a strong predictor: accuracy climbs from 64.8% in the lowest-frequency quartile to 79.7% in the highest.
  • Phonetically dissimilar but frequent names, such as 'Egypt', are still predicted accurately, so pure transliteration similarity is not the only useful signal.
  • Many of the remaining errors are defensible alternative diacritizations, implying that a single-reference exact-match score underestimates the model's linguistic plausibility.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A multi-reference or human-acceptability evaluation would likely raise reported performance well above 73%, since the paper itself shows many mismatches are plausible variants.
  • The same Arabic-English pair structure could support fine-tuned smaller models, which may surpass prompt-only GPT-4o at lower cost, though the paper does not test this.
  • The systematic overuse of Fatha and Shadda points to a concrete modeling fix: training or prompting that explicitly penalizes gemination and favors Kasra/Sukun in foreign names.
  • The dataset could double as a testbed for transliteration evaluation, since the gloss provides a Romanization target that constrains the Arabic vowelization.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CP-WIKI-D3K, a dataset of 3,000 unique Arabic Wikipedia proper nouns (3,362 Arabic--English gloss pairs) with manual lemma-level diacritizations, English glosses, and detailed annotation guidelines. The authors report 92.4% inter-annotator agreement on 500 samples and benchmark GPT-4o under several prompting conditions, achieving 73.0% exact-match accuracy with few-shot Arabic+Gloss prompting. They analyze the interplay of frequency, phonological similarity, and accuracy, and provide an error taxonomy. The stated contribution is a publicly available gold-standard dataset for Arabic proper noun diacritization paired with transliteration, along with a baseline benchmark.

Significance. If the dataset is genuinely gold-standard, this is a valuable resource: it is the first publicly available benchmark of its size for Arabic proper noun diacritization with English glosses, and it ships annotation guidelines, automated well-formedness checks, and a detailed, honest error analysis. The paper also makes a clear methodological point about the difficulty of the task and the value of English-gloss information. However, the strength of the contribution depends on the gold labels being independent of the benchmarked model, which is currently not demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.2–§5.4] The gold-standard claim rests on annotations that are not independent of the model being benchmarked. Section 5.2 states that the primary annotator received a GPT-4o proposal for every entry, and Section 5.3 reports that only 909 of 3,362 proposals (27%) were changed. Section 5.4 then describes the IAA study as using "the same annotation process," meaning the second annotator also saw GPT-4o proposals. The 92.4% agreement therefore measures consistency under a shared anchor, not independent correctness, and the 73.0% exact-match accuracy in Table 8 is computed against gold labels of which 73% are verbatim GPT-4o outputs. This is a form of circularity: the benchmark score is inflated whenever the annotator accepts a plausible but non-unique GPT-4o vowelization, and the paper's own Limitations section concedes that multiple correct variants exist. I request that the authors: (a) run an additional IAA study on a random sample where the second annotator diacritizes from scratch without the GPT-4o proposal; (b) report the overlap between the final gold and the initial GPT-4o proposals, with an analysis of the 27% changes; or (c) if such validation is not feasible, reframe the resource as a human-verified corpus and temper the "gold-standard" claim accordingly.
  2. [§6.2, §6.4] The evaluation metric is not aligned with the paper's own acknowledgement of multiple valid diacritizations. The Limitations section states that "multiple correct variants may exist depending on regional, historical, or phonetic conventions," and Section 6.4 says of the non-matching outputs that they "are plausible and acceptable alternatives in most cases." Nevertheless, Table 8 reports exact-match accuracy as the headline result, and the Levenshtein distance used alongside it still treats the gold form as the only correct output. Under this metric, a valid regional variant is counted as an error, so the 73.0% figure does not cleanly measure task difficulty or model quality. The authors should either (a) have a human judge assess the acceptability of a sample of non-matching outputs and report an adjusted accuracy, (b) mark entries with multiple valid forms and allow multiple gold references, or (c) explicitly restrict the claim to "exact match against the corpus convention" rather than "correct diacritization."
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 5] The class percentages sum to over 100% (77.1+25.5+2.0 = 104.6 for CP-WIKI and 85.2+35.0+2.0 = 122.2 for CP-WIKI-D3K), which suggests the classes are not mutually exclusive; please state this explicitly and consider reporting a multi-label breakdown. The shift in the Name category from 25.5% to 35.0% is also larger than "broadly similar" suggests; please test or discuss whether the random sample is representative.
  2. [Introduction] The claim that "99.45% of all entries had no diacritics" is stated without specifying the dataset or the detection method; please clarify whether this refers to CP-WIKI or CP-WIKI-D3K and how diacritics were detected.
  3. [§5.2] The bullet list of postprocessing operations contains a typo ("consoant") and the final bullet, "Mapping Non-Arabic Arabic-script letters," would benefit from concrete examples of the mapped letters; please add them for reproducibility.
  4. [§5.4] Reporting only a raw agreement percentage without a chance-corrected measure (e.g., Cohen's kappa) or a confidence interval makes the 92.4% figure harder to interpret; please add such statistics, and state how the 38 disagreements were resolved in the final gold.
  5. [§6.1] The few-shot examples are "manually manipulated" from CP-SAMA; please document exactly how many examples were altered and what the manipulations were, so that other researchers can replicate the prompt setup.
  6. [§6.3] The reported correlation of -0.95 between accuracy and edit distance is expected because the same reference is used for both; consider removing this correlation or rephrasing it as a sanity check rather than an empirical finding.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the benchmark and dataset claims rest on human-annotated gold labels, not on fitting or on a self-citation chain.

full rationale

This is a resource-creation paper rather than a derivation, so the main circularity patterns do not apply. The gold labels were produced by a trained human annotator who reviewed and corrected GPT-4o proposals, changing 909 of 3,362 entries, and a second annotator re-annotated 500 entries with 92.4% agreement. The evaluation then compares fresh GPT-4o outputs, after a shared post-processing pipeline, against these human-corrected gold labels. The gold is not defined as the model's output, and no parameter is fitted to the test set; the measured 73% accuracy is not an equation following from the 73% of proposals left unchanged. The fact that GPT-4o was used as an annotation starting point is disclosed and is an annotation-efficiency choice, not a reduction of the benchmark to the model's own predictions. Self-citations to CAMeL Tools, CamelMorph, the frequency lists, and the diacritization guidelines are uses of prior resources, not load-bearing arguments that force a conclusion. No uniqueness theorem, imported ansatz, or renamed known result appears. Possible annotator anchoring is an empirical validity concern, not a circularity by construction, so no circular step is identified.

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

The paper makes no mathematical derivation. It rests on domain conventions for Arabic diacritization and lemmatization, the correctness of the CP-WIKI source data, and the stability of the GPT-4o API snapshot. The benchmark's few-shot examples are an arbitrary but fixed design choice that could influence results. There are no fitted parameters or invented entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Arabic maximal diacritization and lemmatization conventions (this paper, Elgamal et al. 2024) define the correct output.
    The gold standard labels are produced under these conventions; different conventions (dialectal, historical, or alternative annotation schemas) would yield different gold labels.
  • domain assumption The CP-WIKI source data (Khairallah et al. 2024), including single-word proper nouns, entity classes, and English glosses, is accurate and representative.
    The 3,000 annotated entries are sampled from CP-WIKI; source-level spelling or gloss errors propagate into the gold and benchmark.
  • domain assumption The gpt-4o-2024-11-20 snapshot with default settings is treated as a stable, representative instantiation of GPT-4o.
    Single-run results on one snapshot cannot bound API stochasticity or cross-version drift; the paper reports no variance.
  • domain assumption Inter-annotator agreement measured on 500 random samples (92.4%) is representative of the full 3,362-entry gold standard.
    The full dataset was annotated by a single primary annotator; the remainder is not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Proper Noun Diacritization for Arabic Wikipedia: A Benchmark Dataset." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5ZB7GL2

@misc{pith2026250502656,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Proper Noun Diacritization for Arabic Wikipedia: A Benchmark Dataset},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5ZB7GL2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02656}
}
read the original abstract

Proper nouns in Arabic Wikipedia are frequently undiacritized, creating ambiguity in pronunciation and interpretation, especially for transliterated named entities of foreign origin. While transliteration and diacritization have been well-studied separately in Arabic NLP, their intersection remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce a new manually diacritized dataset of Arabic proper nouns of various origins with their English Wikipedia equivalent glosses, and present the challenges and guidelines we followed to create it. We benchmark GPT-4o on the task of recovering full diacritization given the undiacritized Arabic and English forms, and analyze its performance. Achieving 73% accuracy, our results underscore both the difficulty of the task and the need for improved models and resources. We release our dataset to facilitate further research on Arabic Wikipedia proper noun diacritization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02656 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Four Arabic Wikipedia entries: (a) àAÔ« ςmAn ‘Oman’, (b) àAÔ« ςmAn ‘Amman’, (c) àY JË lndn ‘Lon￾don’, and (d) à@ñj [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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 INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Abandah, Alex Graves, Balkees Al-Shagoor, Alaa Arabiyat, Fuad Jamour, and Majid Al-Taee

    Gheith A. Abandah, Alex Graves, Balkees Al-Shagoor, Alaa Arabiyat, Fuad Jamour, and Majid Al-Taee. 2015. Automatic diacritization of A rabic text using recurrent neural networks. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition (IJDAR), 18(2):183--197

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Nasreen Abduljaleel and Leah Larkey. 2004. English to A rabic transliteration for information retrieval: A statistical approach

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Sawsan Alqahtani, Ajay Mishra, and Mona Diab. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1151 Efficient convolutional neural networks for diacritic restoration . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 1442--1448, Ho...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1151 2019

  6. [6]

    Sawsan Alqahtani, Ajay Mishra, and Mona Diab. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.732 A multitask learning approach for diacritic restoration . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 8238--8247, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.732 2020

  7. [7]

    Yowell Aziz. 1983. https://doi.org/10.7202/001931ar Transliteration of E nglish proper nouns into A rabic . Meta, 28(1):70--84

    work page doi:10.7202/001931ar 1983

  8. [8]

    Kenneth R. Beesley. 1997. Romanization, Transcription and Transliteration . Http://www.xrce.xerox.com/Research-Development/Historical-projects/Linguistic-Demos/ A rabic-Morphological-Analysis-and-Generation/Romanization-Transcription-and-Transliteration

    work page 1997

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Fernando Benites, Gilbert Fran c ois Duivesteijn, Pius von D \"a niken, and Mark Cieliebak. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.399 TRANSLIT : A large-scale name transliteration resource . In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Banchs, Min Zhang, Xiangyu Duan, and Haizhou Li

    Nancy Chen, Rafael E. Banchs, Min Zhang, Xiangyu Duan, and Haizhou Li. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-2409 Report of NEWS 2018 named entity transliteration shared task . In Proceedings of the Seventh Named Entities Workshop, pages 55--73, Melbourne, Australia. Associati...

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Peter T Daniels. 2013. The A rabic writing system. The Oxford handbook of Arabic linguistics, pages 422--431

    2013

  4. [12]

    Kareem Darwish, Hamdy Mubarak, and Ahmed Abdelali. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-1302 A rabic diacritization: Stats, rules, and hacks . In Proceedings of the Third A rabic Natural Language Processing Workshop , pages 9--17, Valencia, Spain. Association for Computationa...

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Salman Elgamal, Ossama Obeid, Mhd Kabbani, Go Inoue, and Nizar Habash. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.792 Arabic diacritics in the wild: Exploiting opportunities for improved diacritization . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Com...

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Fadhl Eryani and Nizar Habash. 2021. https://aclanthology.org/2021.wanlp-1.23 Automatic R omanization of A rabic bibliographic records . In Proceedings of the Sixth Arabic Natural Language Processing Workshop, pages 213--218, Kyiv, Ukraine (Virtual). Association for Computatio...

    2021

  7. [15]

    Andrew Freeman, Sherri Condon, and Christopher Ackerman. 2006. Cross linguistic name matching in E nglish and A rabic. In Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), pages 471--478, New York City, NY

    2006

  8. [16]

    David Graff, Mohamed Maamouri, Basma Bouziri, Sondos Krouna, Seth Kulick, and Tim Buckwalter. 2009. Standard A rabic Morphological Analyzer (SAMA) Version 3.1 . Linguistic Data Consortium LDC2009E73

    2009

  9. [17]

    Nizar Habash and Owen Rambow. 2005. https://doi.org/10.3115/1219840.1219911 A rabic tokenization, part-of-speech tagging and morphological disambiguation in one fell swoop . In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics ( ACL ' 05) ...

    2005

  10. [18]

    Nizar Habash, Abdelhadi Soudi, and Tim Buckwalter. 2007. On A rabic Transliteration . In A. van den Bosch and A. Soudi, editors, A rabic Computational Morphology: Knowledge-based and Empirical Methods , pages 15--22. Springer, Netherlands

    2007

  11. [19]

    Nizar Y Habash. 2010. Introduction to A rabic natural language processing , volume 3. Morgan & Claypool Publishers

    2010

  12. [20]

    Jack Halpern et al. 2009. Lexicon-driven approach to the recognition of A rabic named entities. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools, pages 193--198. Citeseer

    2009

  13. [21]

    Mustafa Jarrar, Diyam Akra, and Tymaa Hammouda. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.10.212 Alma: Fast lemmatizer and pos tagger for A rabic . Procedia Computer Science, 244:378--387. 6th International Conference on AI in Computational Linguistics

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Christian Khairallah, Salam Khalifa, Reham Marzouk, Mayar Nassar, and Nizar Habash. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.240/ Camel morph MSA : A large-scale open-source morphological analyzer for M odern S tandard A rabic . In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint Internatio...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Salam Khalifa, Go Inoue, Bashar Alhafni, Nurpeiis Baimukan, Houda Bouamor, and Nizar Habash. 2021. https://github.com/CAMeL-Lab/Camel_Arabic_Frequency_Lists Camel A rabic Frequency Lists

    2021

  16. [24]

    V. I. Levenshtein . 1966. Binary Codes Capable of Correcting Deletions, Insertions and Reversals . Soviet Physics Doklady, 10:707

    1966

  17. [25]

    David Matthews. 2007. Transliteration using statistical machine translation. Master's thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. An automatic transliteration system built using M oses, modeled at the surface level with phrase-based S M T techniques

    2007

  18. [26]

    Hamdy Mubarak, Ahmed Abdelali, Hassan Sajjad, Younes Samih, and Kareem Darwish. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1248 Highly effective A rabic diacritization using sequence to sequence modeling . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the ...

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Hamdy Mubarak, Mohamed Al Sharqawy, and Esraa Al Masry. 2009. Diacritization and transliteration of proper nouns from A rabic to E nglish. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools, Cairo, Egypt. The MEDAR Consortium

    2009

  20. [28]

    Ossama Obeid, Go Inoue, and Nizar Habash. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.emnlp-demos.32 Camelira: An A rabic multi-dialect morphological disambiguator . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Ossama Obeid, Nasser Zalmout, Salam Khalifa, Dima Taji, Mai Oudah, Bashar Alhafni, Go Inoue, Fadhl Eryani, Alexander Erdmann, and Nizar Habash. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.868 CAM e L tools: An open source python toolkit for A rabic natural language processing ....

    2020

  22. [30]

    Edward Y. Odisho. 1992. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43525603 Transliterating E nglish in A rabic . Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik, 1(24):21--34

    1992

  23. [31]

    OpenAI, Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, Red Avila, Igor Babuschkin, et al. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 G P T -4 technical report . Preprint,...

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ryan Roth, Owen Rambow, Nizar Habash, Mona Diab, and Cynthia Rudin. 2008. A rabic morphological tagging, diacritization, and lemmatization using lexeme models and feature ranking. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Columbus, Ohio

    2008

  25. [33]

    Yuanhe Tian, Renze Lou, Xiangyu Pang, Lianxi Wang, Shengyi Jiang, and Yan Song. 2022. https://aclanthology.org/2022.findings-emnlp.238 Improving E nglish- A rabic transliteration with phonemic memories . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022,...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Sorensen, and Ruhi Sarikaya

    Imed Zitouni, Jeffrey S. Sorensen, and Ruhi Sarikaya. 2006. Maximum entropy based restoration of A rabic diacritics. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics and the Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (COLING-ACL), pa...

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.