Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 21 references

Existence of Kelvin-Invariant Positive Solutions for Critical Elliptic Equations with Variable Coefficients via Profile Decomposition

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read One symmetry suffices: Kelvin invariance yields positive solutions for critical elliptic equations

desk verdict Solid paper. New abstract profile decomposition incorporating an involution, plus a clean existence result for Kelvin-invariant critical equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05885 v1 pith:QHBRESOG submitted 2026-07-07 math.AP

Yohei Sato , Reo Suzuki This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35J2035J6147J30
keywords criticalellipticequationKelvintransformprofiledecompositionPalais-SmalesequencevariationalmethodSobolevexponentconcentrationcompactness
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 proves that a critical nonlinear elliptic equation on R^N with a variable coefficient a(x) admits a positive solution, provided a(x) is invariant under the Kelvin transform (the conformal map x -> -x/|x|^2). The standard approach to recovering compactness for such equations requires invariance under a large noncompact group of conformal transformations; this paper shows that invariance under a single conformal involution is enough. The key technical device is a new profile decomposition theorem for bounded sequences in a Hilbert space H that are invariant under a self-adjoint unitary involution K, given that the dislocation set D (translations and dilations) is compatible with K in the sense that g_k^* K g_k converges weakly to zero whenever g_k does. Applied to H = D^{1,2}(R^N), D = translations-and-dilations, and K = the Kelvin transform, this decomposition shows that nontrivial profiles appear in symmetric pairs g_k w + K g_k w, so each nontrivial profile contributes at least (2/N) S^{N/2} to the energy. An energy estimate c_K < (2/N) S^{N/2} (where c_K is the infimum of the Rayleigh quotient restricted to Kelvin-invariant functions) then forces the number of nontrivial profiles to be zero, yielding strong convergence of the Palais-Smale sequence and existence of a minimizer.

What carries the argument

The abstract profile decomposition theorem (Theorem 1.8) for a Hilbert space with a self-adjoint unitary involution K and a compatible dislocation set D, together with the compatibility verification (Lemma 2.3) for the Kelvin transform on D^{1,2}(R^N), and the strict energy estimate (Proposition 3.2) showing c_K < (2/N) S^{N/2} under conditions (a3) or (a4) on the coefficient a(x).

What would settle it

If one could exhibit a coefficient a(x) satisfying (a1)-(a2) and (a3) or (a4) for which the infimum c_K is not attained — for instance, by constructing a minimizing sequence in D_K that loses mass to a nontrivial profile pair without violating the energy bound — the main theorem would fail. More directly, if the compatibility of Lemma 2.3 were found to be false for some escaping sequence of translations and dilations, the profile decomposition of Theorem 1.8 would not be applicable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Kelvin transform's compatibility with the translation-dilation dislocation set G on D^{1,2}(R^N) — verified by a case split into translations escaping to infinity and dilations escaping to infinity — makes it possible to run a full profile decomposition for Kelvin-invariant sequences, and that in this decomposition every nontrivial profile carries a doubled energy cost of at least (2/N) S^{N/2}. This doubled threshold, combined with the strict energy estimate c_K < (2/N) S^{N/2} established via Talenti-function test functions, closes the compactness gap and produces the solution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing structural assumption is that the set of translations and dilations on D^{1,2}(R^N) is compatible with the Kelvin transform — meaning that when a sequence of translation-dilation operators drifts to infinity, the conjugated Kelvin transform g_k^* K g_k always converges weakly to zero. If this compatibility failed, the abstract profile decomposition would not apply and the entire compactness argument would collapse. A secondary fragility is that the energy gap

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The abstract profile decomposition theorem (Theorem 1.8) applies to any Hilbert space with a self-adjoint unitary involution K and a compatible dislocation set D, so it can be used for other variational problems where a single involution symmetry is available but a full noncompact group is not.
  • The compatibility condition (Definition 1.6) is a checkable structural property: for other conformal transformations or discrete symmetry groups on function spaces, one can test whether g_k^* K g_k -> 0 weakly and, if so, immediately obtain a paired-profile decomposition.
  • The energy-doubling phenomenon — each nontrivial profile contributes energy from both the profile and its K-image — suggests a general principle: restricting to the fixed-point subspace of an involution raises the compactness threshold, and existence follows whenever the restricted infimum lies strictly below this doubled threshold.
  • Conditions (a3) and (a4) on a(x) are sufficient but may not be necessary; the method would work for any coefficient satisfying a(x) <= a(0) and the strict energy inequality c_K < (2/N) S^{N/2}, so the class of admissible coefficients could potentially be enlarged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The profile decomposition with paired profiles could extend to other conformal involutions on D^{1,2}(R^N) or on Sobolev spaces on manifolds, provided an analogue of the compatibility condition holds — for instance, involutions arising from isometries of the sphere under stereographic projection.
  • The approach could be tested on systems of equations or on equations with competing critical nonlinearities, where the doubled compactness threshold from the involution might interact with multiple critical exponents in ways that produce new existence or non-existence phenomena.
  • The test-function argument for the energy estimate under condition (a4) depends on a specific integral inequality for a(x); one could investigate whether sharper or alternative test functions yield the same strict inequality under weaker conditions on the coefficient.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper establishes the existence of Kelvin-invariant positive solutions to the critical elliptic equation $-Delta u = a(x)|u|^{2^*-2}u$ in $R^N$ under the assumption that $a(x)$ is invariant under the Kelvin transform. The proof proceeds in three stages: (1) an abstract profile decomposition (Theorem 1.8) incorporating a symmetry operator $K$ compatible with a dislocation set $D$; (2) an energy estimate $c_K < (2/N)S^{N/2}$ (Proposition 3.2) under either a flatness condition (a3) or an integral condition (a4); (3) a compactness argument (Proposition 4.1, Theorem 1.2) showing that the energy threshold forces the Palais-Smale sequence to have no nontrivial profiles, yielding strong convergence. The key structural ingredient is Lemma 2.3, which verifies that the dislocation set $G$ of translations and dilations is compatible with the Kelvin transform $K$ on $D^{1,2}(R^N)$.

Significance. The paper provides a self-contained existence result that weakens the usual noncompact symmetry group assumption to invariance under a single conformal transformation (the Kelvin transform). The abstract profile decomposition (Theorem 1.8) with paired profiles is a genuinely useful refinement of the Tintarev-Fieseler framework and could be applicable beyond the specific problem studied here. The energy estimate under condition (a3) uses the explicit test function $W_epsilon = U_epsilon + U_{1/epsilon}$ and the algebraic inequality of Lemma 3.4 in a clean way. The verification of $G$-$K$ compatibility (Lemma 2.3) is elementary but load-bearing and correctly executed. The proof of Lemma 4.2 (G-weak convergence implies strong $L^{2^*}$ convergence) is included in full in Appendix A.

major comments (2)
  1. [Step 2 of Proposition 4.1, equation following (4.12)] In the expansion of $I'(u_k)r_k - I'(w^{(0)})r_k - sum_n {I'_{a^{(n)}}(g_k^{(n)}w^{(n)})r_k + I'_{a^{(n)}}(Kg_k^{(n)}w^{(n)})r_k}$, the cross-terms between different profiles and between profiles and $w^{(0)}$ in the nonlinearity $int a(x)|u_k|^{2^*-2}u_k r_k dx$ are dismissed as $o(1)$ via the reference to (4.12). While $r_k to 0$ in $L^{2^*}$ (from Lemma 4.2) handles terms where $r_k$ appears linearly, the justification that mixed terms such as $int a(x)|g_k^{(n)}w^{(n)}|^{2^*-2}(g_k^{(m)}w^{(m)}) r_k dx to 0$ for $n neq m$ (and similarly for $Kg_k^{(n)}w^{(n)}$) requires a brief argument, e.g., via the pairwise weak convergence conditions (4.3)-(4.4) and Lemma 4.3 or direct support/asymptotic orthogonality arguments. The authors should explicitly state why these cross-terms vanish, as this is essential for concluding $|r_k|_{D^{1,2}} = o(1)$.
  2. [Proposition 4.1, Step 1: identification of $a^{(n)}$ when $|lambda_k^{(n)}| to infty$ and $y_k^{(n)}$ is bounded] When $lambda_k^{(n)} to +infty$ and $y_k^{(n)} to y^{(n)}$, the authors state $a(2^{-lambda_k^{(n)}}x + y_k^{(n)}) to a(y^{(n)})$ a.e. This is correct. However, when $lambda_k^{(n)} to -infty$ (or $|y_k^{(n)}| to infty$), they state $a(2^{-lambda_k^{(n)}}x + y_k^{(n)}) to 1$ a.e. Under assumption (a1)-(a2), we have $lim_{|x|toinfty} a(x) = a(0)$, and the normalization $a(0)=1$ is assumed. The case $lambda_k^{(n)} to -infty$ gives $|2^{-lambda_k^{(n)}}x + y_k^{(n)}| to infty$ for a.e. $x$, so the limit is indeed $a(0) = 1$. This is correct, but the argument would benefit from explicitly noting that the case $|y_k^{(n)}| to infty$ (with $lambda_k^{(n)}$ bounded or unbounded) also yields $a(0)=1$ via the same reasoning, to ensure all sub-cases are covered.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Lemma 3.3(ii)] The constant $A$ is defined as $U(0) |U|_{2^*-1}^{2^*-1}$. It would help the reader to note that $U(0) = [N(N-2)]^{(N-2)/4}$ explicitly, or at least to confirm $A > 0$, since the sign of $A$ matters for the energy estimate.
  2. [Proof of Proposition 3.2, case (a4)] The inequality $int a(x)|U_1|^{2^*} dx > 2^{-2/(N-2)} int |U_1|^{2^*} dx$ is derived from (a4) and the Kelvin invariance. The subsequent chain of inequalities leading to $c_K < (2/N)S^{N/2}$ is correct but slightly compressed. Adding one intermediate step showing how the strict inequality on the denominator translates to the strict inequality on $c_K$ would improve readability.
  3. [Definition 1.6] The compatibility condition requires $g_k^* K g_k rightharpoonup 0$ whenever $g_k rightharpoonup 0$. It might be worth remarking that this is stronger than requiring $g_k^* K rightharpoonup 0$ (which would be trivial since $K$ is a fixed operator), to clarify the role of the conjugation $g_k^* K g_k$.
  4. [Appendix A, proof of Lemma A.2, Step 3] The factor of 5 in the final inequality ($leq 5C'' cdots$) arises from the overlap of the annuli $[2^{j-2} leq |u| leq 2^{j+3}]$. A brief parenthetical noting this would help the reader verify the constant.
  5. [References] Reference [18] (Okumura, preprint arXiv:2109.08177) should be updated to the published version if available.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful reading and for identifying two points in the proof of Proposition 4.1 where additional justification should be made explicit. Both comments are well-taken and will be addressed in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Step 2 of Proposition 4.1, equation following (4.12)] Cross-terms between different profiles and between profiles and w^(0) in the nonlinearity are dismissed as o(1) via reference to (4.12). The justification that mixed terms such as int a(x)|g_k^(n) w^(n)|^{2*-2}(g_k^(m) w^(m)) r_k dx -> 0 for n != m requires a brief argument, e.g., via pairwise weak convergence conditions (4.3)-(4.4) and Lemma 4.3 or direct support/asymptotic orthogonality arguments.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the vanishing of these cross-terms requires explicit justification beyond the mere fact that r_k -> 0 in L^{2*}. We will add a detailed argument in the revised manuscript. The key observation is that each cross-term takes the form int a(x) |g_k^(n) w^(n)|^{2*-2} (g_k^(m) w^(m)) r_k dx (or analogous terms involving Kg_k^(n) w^(n)). Since r_k -> 0 in L^{2*} by (4.12), it suffices to show that the prefactor |g_k^(n) w^(n)|^{2*-2} g_k^(m) w^(m) remains bounded in L^{(2*)'} = L^{N/2}(R^N). This follows from the pairwise weak convergence conditions (4.3)-(4.4): by a Brezis-Lieb type argument (Lemma 4.3) or direct asymptotic orthogonality, the L^{N/2}-norm of the product of profiles associated to distinct dislocations remains uniformly bounded. Specifically, the conditions g_k^(n)* g_k^(m) -> 0 weakly and g_k^(n)* K g_k^(m) -> 0 weakly ensure that the supports (or concentration regions) of g_k^(n) w^(n) and g_k^(m) w^(m) become asymptotically disjoint, which yields the required L^{N/2}-bound via Holder's inequality. We will spell out this argument explicitly in Step 2 of Proposition 4.1. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Proposition 4.1, Step 1: identification of a^(n) when |lambda_k^(n)| -> infty and y_k^(n) is bounded] The case |y_k^(n)| -> infinity (with lambda_k^(n) bounded or unbounded) also yields a(0)=1 via the same reasoning, and the authors should explicitly note this to ensure all sub-cases are covered.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that the case |y_k^(n)| -> infinity should be explicitly addressed alongside the case lambda_k^(n) -> -infinity. Under assumptions (a1)-(a2), we have lim_{|x|->infinity} a(x) = a(0) = 1 (using the normalization a(0)=1). When |y_k^(n)| -> infinity, for a.e. x we have |2^{-lambda_k^(n)} x + y_k^(n)| -> infinity regardless of whether lambda_k^(n) is bounded or unbounded, so a(2^{-lambda_k^(n)} x + y_k^(n)) -> a(0) = 1. We will revise the text in Step 1 of Proposition 4.1 to explicitly state that the case |y_k^(n)| -> infinity (with lambda_k^(n) either bounded or unbounded) is handled by the same reasoning, yielding a^(n) = 1. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; the derivation is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's main result (Theorem 1.2) rests on three load-bearing components: (1) the abstract profile decomposition (Theorem 1.8), proved from first principles in Section 2 via an inductive extraction argument using only the compatibility condition (Definition 1.6) and the dislocation property (Definition 1.3); (2) the G-K compatibility lemma (Lemma 2.3), proved by direct computation splitting into two cases (|y_k|→∞ and |λ_k|→∞); and (3) the energy estimate c_K < (2/N)S^{N/2} (Proposition 3.2), proved under both (a3) and (a4) using the Talenti function U_ε, the test function W_ε = U_ε + U_{1/ε} ∈ D_K, the pointwise inequality (Lemma 3.4), and asymptotic expansions (Lemma 3.3). The citation [21] (Tintarev–Fieseler) provides the general framework for profile decomposition, but Theorem 1.8 is a new refinement proved in the paper itself, and Lemma 4.2 (the G-weak convergence implies strong L^{2*} convergence result) is proved in Appendix A rather than imported. No step reduces to its inputs by construction, no prediction is a renamed fit, and no self-citation chain forces the conclusion. The derivation is self-contained against external mathematical benchmarks (the Sobolev constant S, the Talenti function, the Brezis–Lieb lemma).

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions. The Kelvin transform K is a classical object in harmonic analysis. The dislocation set G (translations and dilations) is standard in concentration-compactness theory. The compatibility condition (Definition 1.6) is a new mathematical definition, not a new entity. All axioms are either standard mathematical results or clearly stated domain assumptions on the coefficient a(x). No free parameters are fitted; the conditions (a3) and (a4) are assumptions on a(x), not parameters tuned to make the result work.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Palais' principle of symmetric criticality [19]: a critical point of I restricted to D_K is a critical point of I on D^{1,2}(R^N).
    Invoked in Section 1 to justify that a minimizer of c_K yields a solution of (Pa). This is a well-known result in variational methods.
  • standard math Brezis-Lieb lemma [5]: for a.e. convergent sequences, the L^p norm decomposes as stated.
    Used in Lemma 4.3, a variant of which is proved in the paper. The original lemma is a standard tool.
  • standard math Best Sobolev constant S and Talenti function U: U attains S and solves -Delta U = U^{2*-1}.
    Used throughout Section 3 for the energy estimate. The Talenti function and its properties are classical [20].
  • standard math Abstract profile decomposition framework of Tintarev-Fieseler [21]: bounded sequences in a Hilbert space with a dislocation set admit a profile decomposition.
    The paper extends this framework in Theorem 1.8. The original result is from an external monograph.
  • domain assumption Condition (a1): 0 < a(x) <= a(0) for all x in R^N.
    This is a structural assumption on the coefficient that places the problem in the regime where c > (1/N)S^{N/2}, making the Kelvin symmetry necessary. It is not derived but imposed.
  • domain assumption Condition (a2): a(-x/|x|^2) = a(x), i.e., a is Kelvin-invariant.
    This is the key symmetry assumption. Without it, the functional I is not invariant under K and the entire approach fails.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Existence of Kelvin-Invariant Positive Solutions for Critical Elliptic Equations with Variable Coefficients via Profile Decomposition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QHBRESOG

@misc{pith2026260705885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Existence of Kelvin-Invariant Positive Solutions for Critical Elliptic Equations with Variable Coefficients via Profile Decomposition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QHBRESOG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05885}
}
abstract

In this paper, we consider the following critical nonlinear elliptic equation: \[ - \Delta u = a(x) |u|^{2^*-2}u \quad \text{in } \mathbb{R}^N, \quad u \in \mathcal{D}^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N) \] where $N \ge 3$, $2^* = \frac{2N}{N - 2}$, $a(x) \in C(\mathbb{R}^N, \mathbb{R})$ is a positive function that is invariant under the map $x \to -\frac{x}{|x|^2}$. Under some assumptions on $a(x)$, we show the existence of a positive solution to the equation that is invariant under the Kelvin transform. The symmetry condition imposed here is substantially weaker than the invariance under a noncompact symmetry group that is typically assumed in the literature. The key to the proof is a classification of the Palais--Smale sequences of the associated energy functional. To this end, we establish a new abstract profile decomposition theorem incorporating symmetries such as the Kelvin transform.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adachi, A positive solution of a nonhomogeneous elliptic equation inRN with G-invariant nonlinearity,Comm

    S. Adachi, A positive solution of a nonhomogeneous elliptic equation inRN with G-invariant nonlinearity,Comm. Partial Differential Equations27 (2002), no. 1–2, 1–22

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Axler, P

    S. Axler, P. Bourdon, and W. Ramey, Harmonic function theory, Second edition, Grad. Texts in Math., 137 Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001, xii+259 pp

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Ambrosetti, J

    A. Ambrosetti, J. Azorero, and I. Peral, Perturbation of∆u +u(N +2)/(N−2) = 0, the scalar curvature problem inRN, and related topics,J. Funct. Anal.165 (1999), no. 1, 117–149

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Bahri and Y

    A. Bahri and Y. Y. Li, On a min-max procedure for the existence of a positive solution for certain scalar field equations inRN, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana6 (1990), no. 1–2, 1–15

    work page 1990

  5. [5]

    Brezis and E

    H. Brezis and E. Lieb, A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and convergence of functionals,Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.88 (1983), no. 3, 486–490

    work page 1983

  6. [6]

    Brezis and L

    H. Brezis and L. Nirenberg, Positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic problems involving critical Sobolev exponent,Comm. Pure Appl. Math.36 (1983), 437–477

    work page 1983

  7. [7]

    Wang, Symmetric solutions for the prescribed scalar curvature problem, Indiana Univ

    F.Catrina and Z.-Q. Wang, Symmetric solutions for the prescribed scalar curvature problem, Indiana Univ. Math. J.49 (2000), no. 2, 779–813

    work page 2000

  8. [8]

    Clapp, Entire nodal solutions to the pure critical exponent problem arising from concentration, J

    M. Clapp, Entire nodal solutions to the pure critical exponent problem arising from concentration, J. Differential Equations261 (2016) 3042–3060

    work page 2016

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    W. Y. Ding, On a conformally invariant elliptic equation onRn, Comm. Math. Phys. 107 (1986), no. 2, 331–335

    1986

  2. [10]

    Hebey, From the Yamabe problem to the equivariant Yamabe problem,Sémin

    E. Hebey, From the Yamabe problem to the equivariant Yamabe problem,Sémin. Congr., 1, Soc. Math. France, Paris, (1996), 377–402. EXISTENCE OF KEL VIN-INV ARIANT POSITIVE SOLUTIONS 21

    1996

  3. [11]

    Hebey and M

    E. Hebey and M. Vaugon,Le problème de Yamabe équivariant, Bull. Sci. Math.117 (1993), no. 2, 241–286

    1993

  4. [12]

    Hirata, A positive solution of a nonlinear Schrödinger equation withG-symmetry, Nonlinear Anal.69 (2008), no

    J. Hirata, A positive solution of a nonlinear Schrödinger equation withG-symmetry, Nonlinear Anal.69 (2008), no. 9, 3174–3189

    2008

  5. [13]

    Y. Y. Li, Prescribing scalar curvature onSn and related problems. I,J. Differential Equations 120 (1995), no. 2, 319–410

    1995

  6. [14]

    Y. Y. Li, Prescribing scalar curvature onSn and related problems. II. Existence and compactness, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.49 (1996) no. 6, 541–597

    1996

  7. [15]

    P. L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The limit case, part 1,Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana1 (1985), no. 1, 145–201

    1985

  8. [16]

    P. L. Lions, The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations. The limit case, part 2,Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana1 (1985), no. 2, 45–121

    1985

  9. [17]

    Okumura, Profile decomposition in Sobolev spaces and decomposition of integral functionals I: inhomogeneous case,J

    M. Okumura, Profile decomposition in Sobolev spaces and decomposition of integral functionals I: inhomogeneous case,J. Funct. Anal.283 (2022), Paper No. 109559

    2022

  10. [18]

    Okumura, Profile decomposition in Sobolev spaces and decomposition of integral functionals II: homogeneous case, preprint (2021), arXiv:2109.08177

    M. Okumura, Profile decomposition in Sobolev spaces and decomposition of integral functionals II: homogeneous case, preprint (2021), arXiv:2109.08177

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Palais, The Principle of Symmetric Criticality, Commun

    R. Palais, The Principle of Symmetric Criticality, Commun. Math. Phys. 69, 19-30 (1979)

    1979

  12. [20]

    Talenti, Best constant in Sobolev inequality,Ann

    G. Talenti, Best constant in Sobolev inequality,Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4)110(1976), 353–372

    1976

  13. [21]

    Tintarev and K.-H

    K. Tintarev and K.-H. Fieseler,Concentration compactness, Imperial College Press, London, 2007. Department of Mathematics, Saitama University, Shimo-Okubo 255, Sakura-ku Saitama- shi, 338-8570, JAPAN Email address: ysato@rimath.saitama-u.ac.jp Department of Mathematics, Saitam...

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.