Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

An adaptive handover system that rotates tools to match the receiver's natural grip significantly reduces grasp delay for asymmetric tools, particularly the wrench, and improves trust in the robot's motion.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Orientation-adaptive handovers reduced grasp delay for a wrench (2.55 vs 3.51 s, p=.003) and overall (2.72 vs 3.16 s, p=.014) against a static baseline.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful incremental handover study, but the headline 'asymmetric tools' claim runs ahead of the data: only the wrench is significant, and the per-tool grasp frames were fitted in an undocumented pilot. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17839 v1 pith:M7SNRD4X submitted 2026-07-20 cs.RO

Receiver-Centered Robot-to-Human Handover with Grasp-Aware Object Orientation

Federico Biagi , Dario Onfiani , Simone Silenzi , Luigi Biagiotti This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords Robot-to-Human HandoverAdaptive HandoverHuman-Robot InteractionGrasp DelayObject OrientationHand TrackingTrustCollaborative Robots
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 tries to show that a robot handing a tool to a person should orient the tool to the person's hand, not just bring it to a fixed pose. It builds a system that tracks the receiver's hand, aligns the object's handle with that hand, and tests it against a static baseline in a 15-person study. The adaptive system shortens the time between the robot stopping and the person grasping the tool, especially for the wrench, and makes users feel the robot moves as expected. The result matters because tool handover is a frequent bottleneck in human-robot collaboration, and small differences in orientation can cause hesitancy or awkward wrist adjustments.

Core claim

The paper claims that receiver-centered orientation adaptation—rotating the end-effector so the object's grasp frame aligns with the user's hand orientation—reduces grasp delay for tools with a directional grip. In a within-subjects experiment with 15 volunteers, mean grasp delay fell from 3.16 s to 2.72 s overall, and from 3.51 s to 2.55 s for the wrench. The effect is attributed to eliminating the wrist adjustment users otherwise make when the tool arrives at a mismatched angle. Trust ratings also improved on two items: users were less worried because the robot moved as expected, and felt less discomfort from task complexity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the constant grasp-frame transformation HTG, which encodes the ergonomically optimal orientation of each tool relative to the receiver's hand frame. It was derived from a small pilot group showing their natural grip for each tool. Multiplying the tracked hand pose by HTG yields the target object pose, so the robot presents the handle-first orientation aligned with the user's palm. The paper's mechanism is this one-step pose composition plus a cubic Bézier approach path that commits to a stable target once the hand is steady.

Load-bearing premise

The per-tool grasp frames were set from a small informal pilot group rather than from the actual participants, so the adaptive condition might be tuned to a grip pattern that does not represent the general user.

What would settle it

Run the same within-subjects comparison with participants whose natural grip orientations differ from the pilot group, or measure the angle between the user's palm and the tool handle at the moment of grasp; if the adaptive advantage disappears or users re-adjust the tool in their hand, the claim that HTG encodes the ergonomic optimum would fail.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the adaptive orientation is adopted, tool handovers with asymmetric tools are likely to be faster and smoother in industrial settings.
  • Users may trust and accept robot partners more when the robot's motion matches their expectations.
  • The reduction in grasp delay suggests that ergonomic orientation is a larger factor than approach speed in handover fluency.
  • The approach could be applied to other objects with known grasp frames, reducing the need for the user to re-grip.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves open whether the benefit generalizes beyond the four tested tools; a natural extension is to estimate the grasp frame online from the object's shape and the user's hand, rather than using a constant pre-set offset.
  • The null result for blink rate and workload, while not significant, hints that the adaptive advantage is specific to the physical grasp moment, not a general cognitive-load reduction.
  • If the HTG offsets are personalized to each user, the improvement may be even larger than the group average reported here.
  • The voice-activated LLM interface is incidental to the main claim; the core idea—orientation alignment—could be evaluated without it, which would isolate the effect.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a receiver-centered adaptive robot-to-human handover system implemented on a Franka Panda cobot with a RealSense camera. The system uses MediaPipe to estimate the receiver's 3D hand pose and an LLM (gpt-5-mini) restricted to classifying voice commands into one of four tools. The target object pose is computed as BTO = BTH · HTG (Eq. 6), where HTG is a constant per-tool grasp frame derived in an informal pilot; the approach motion is a validated cubic Bézier path with SLERP orientation interpolation. A counterbalanced within-subjects study (N=15) compared this adaptive condition with an object-agnostic baseline that tracks the hand position but keeps a constant orientation. The adaptive condition significantly reduced overall grasp delay (2.72 s vs 3.16 s; t(14)=−2.80, p=.014). By object, only the wrench showed a significant reduction (2.55 vs 3.51 s; p=.003); the screwdriver trended (p=.108), and hammer and screw showed no effect. Two of ten trust items favored the adaptive condition; NASA-TLX and blink rate did not differ significantly.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a useful integrated demonstration for HRI handover: voice-based intent recognition, real-time hand-orientation estimation, orientation-aware trajectory generation with IK/singularity validation, and an honest within-subjects evaluation with per-tool reporting. The manuscript provides exact test statistics, discloses the non-significant per-tool outcomes, and gives enough implementation detail (ROS2, Pinocchio, MediaPipe, FSM) to be reproduced; a demonstration video is provided. The bounded use of the LLM and deterministic safety validation are further strengths. The principal limitation is that the adaptive policy is parameterized by pilot-derived per-tool constants (§2.3); the experiment therefore evaluates a fitted policy rather than an independently derived prediction. With only one of four tools showing a significant benefit, the claimed generality of the grasp-delay effect for 'asymmetric tools' is not yet established, although a benefit for torque-requiring tools (wrench) is plausible and merits further testing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (6); Table 3] §2.3, Eq. (6), Table 3: The adaptive condition's target pose is BTO = BTH · HTG, where HTG is a per-tool constant transformation 'empirically derived prior to the main experiment during an informal pilot phase.' No pilot size, selection, or grip-variability data are reported. Because the adaptive condition differs from the baseline only through these offsets, the grasp-delay advantage (overall p=.014; wrench p=.003) is evidence for this specific calibration, not yet for a general receiver-centered principle. The per-tool pattern (wrench p=.003; screwdriver p=.108; hammer p=.937; screw p=.628) is consistent with a well-calibrated wrench and poorer calibration elsewhere. Please report the pilot data, validate HTG out-of-sample, or restrict the claim to the calibration and tools tested.
  2. [Abstract; §4 vs Table 3] The abstract claims the adaptive system 'reduces the grasp delay for asymmetric tools,' but Table 3 shows a significant reduction only for the wrench; the screwdriver trend is not significant (p=.108) and hammer and screw show no effect (p=.937, p=.628). The overall effect (2.72 vs 3.16 s, p=.014) aggregates across four tools, two of which show no benefit. The conclusion's more hedged phrase 'for specific orientation-sensitive tools' is appropriate; the abstract should either be brought in line with that, or a principled, pre-specified definition of 'orientation-sensitive' tools should be provided and tested as a planned contrast.
  3. [§3.2, Fig. 5(b)] The text states that the non-significant NASA-TLX reduction (p=.221) 'constitutes a first indication of the superiority of the proposed handover policy' and that Fig. 5(b) shows workload and grasp delay 'co-varied coherently.' No correlation statistic is reported for Fig. 5(b), and a non-significant workload difference cannot be described as supporting superiority. Please report a formal correlation test (e.g., within-subject or per-condition) or reword the passage as a purely descriptive observation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 4] Ten trust items are tested with paired Wilcoxon tests and no multiple-comparison correction is applied (a note states this). The two significant items (p=.026, p=.034) would not survive Bonferroni correction; the per-tool analysis in Table 3 raises the same issue. Please label these as exploratory or apply/disclose a correction.
  2. [§2.6] The definition of grasp delay depends on detecting 'the user successfully grasping the object,' but the manuscript does not state how this event was detected (e.g., gripper force, camera event, manual annotation) nor the number of handover trials per participant/object/condition used in the participant means. Please specify these measurement details.
  3. [§2.3] The hybrid hand-pose method is described verbally; a small worked example or the exact landmark indices used for the MCP joints would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Global] No effect sizes are reported for the main comparisons; please add Cohen's d (or similar) for grasp delay, TLX, and blink rate to make the magnitudes interpretable.
  5. [§2.4] Typographical errors: 'guaranties' should be 'guarantees'; the preprint header contains broken spacing ('authenticate d version').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the empirical evaluation is self-contained, with only minor self-citations that are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison between an adaptive handover policy (parameterized by the per-tool constant HTG) and an object-agnostic baseline. The HTG values were 'empirically derived prior to the main experiment during an informal pilot phase' (§2.3), and the adaptive target pose is computed as B_TG = B_TH * H_TG (Eq. 6). This is a fitted system parameter, but the outcome measure (grasp delay) is measured on a separate set of participants in the main experiment. The pilot supplied the hand orientation offsets, not the grasp-delay data, so the observed reduction in delay is not statistically forced by construction. The paper does not claim to mathematically derive the delay reduction from HTG; it reports an experimental effect. The per-tool significance pattern (only the wrench is significant in Table 3) is a validity/statistical concern, not circularity. The paper openly discloses the informal pilot derivation, which is a limitation but not a circular step. The self-citations ([13] Braglia et al., [24] Biagiotti & Melchiorri) are standard references for DMPs and Bézier curves and are not load-bearing for the handover claim. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from self-citation. Therefore, the derivation chain is not circular; the score reflects only the minor presence of author self-citations and the acknowledged pilot-derived parameters.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on tuned constants (especially HTG) and standard robotics/psychometric assumptions (hand tracking, calibration, grasp-delay interpretation). No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Per-tool grasp frame HTG = not reported numerically
    Constant homogeneous transformation for each tool class, empirically derived during an informal pilot phase (§2.3). Defines the 'optimal' orientation; fitted to pilot users' natural grips.
  • Palm ratio λ = not reported
    Controls the hand-frame origin along the wrist-to-MCP line (§2.3). Chosen by hand, affects target pose.
  • Bézier scaling factors αs, αa = initial values not reported; reduction schedule 1.0 to 0.0
    Shape the approach trajectory (§2.4). Influence path curvature and are reduced until validation passes.
  • Orientation-lock factor = not reported
    Compresses the SLERP rotational interpolation to a fraction of the total trajectory (§2.4). Tunable, unquantified.
  • Hand stability thresholds = 5 cm, 0.26 rad, 2 s
    Trigger the handover target commit (§2.4). Chosen by hand; if too lenient/strict, may alter timing without being the system's core mechanism.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption MediaPipe hand landmarks provide a reliable basis for estimating hand orientation
    The entire adaptive orientation depends on the hand frame built from landmark coordinates in Eqs. (1)-(3) (§2.3). If landmark noise or bias is significant, the target pose is wrong.
  • domain assumption The camera-to-robot calibration BTC remains valid throughout the experiment
    Eq. (5) transforms the hand pose from camera to robot base. Any calibration error directly shifts the handover target.
  • domain assumption Grasp delay is a valid proxy for user hesitancy and ergonomic comfort
    Section 2.6 defines this interpretation. If delay is driven by other factors (e.g., robot speed differences, instruction clarity), the conclusion weakens.
  • domain assumption A single constant per-tool HTG captures the ergonomically optimal grasp for all users
    The system uses one fixed grasp frame per object class (§2.3), assuming human grip variability is negligible. This is load-bearing and not justified with data.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Receiver-Centered Robot-to-Human Handover with Grasp-Aware Object Orientation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M7SNRD4X

@misc{pith2026260717839,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Receiver-Centered Robot-to-Human Handover with Grasp-Aware Object Orientation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M7SNRD4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17839}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Collaborative robots are increasingly sharing workspaces with human operators, making tool handover a frequent and safety-critical micro-interaction. However, traditional static handovers often lead to awkward grasps when handling asymmetric industrial tools. This paper presents a receiver-centered voice-driven adaptive handover system for mechanical tools, built on a Franka cobot. Using an LLM for intention recognition and MediaPipe for real-time 3D hand tracking, the framework dynamically adjusts the end-effector's orientation to present tools in an ergonomically optimal, handle-first pose. A within-subjects study compared this adaptive approach with an object-agnostic static baseline. The results demonstrate that the adaptive system reduces the grasp delay for asymmetric tools, improving the fluency of the interaction. Furthermore, the adaptive strategy improved specific trust-related perceptions, particularly motion predictability and perceived task simplicity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17839 by Dario Onfiani, Federico Biagi, Luigi Biagiotti, Simone Silenzi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the proposed Adaptive handover framewo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hand landmarks and hand reference frame. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Representation of the grasping poses for different ha [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic representation of the cubic Bézier trajec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Grasp delay across object types and its relationship [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Towards seamless human-robot handovers,

    K. W. Strabala, M. K. Lee, A. D. Dragan, J. L. Forlizzi, S. Sr inivasa, M. Cakmak, and V. Micelli, “Towards seamless human-robot handovers,” Journal of Human- Robot Interaction, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 112–132, 2013

    2013

  2. [2]

    Object handovers: a review for robotics,

    V. Ortenzi, A. Cosgun, T. Pardi, W. P. Chan, E. Croft, and D. Kulić, “Object handovers: a review for robotics,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1855–1873, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Human prefer- ences for robot-human hand-over configurations,

    M. Cakmak, S. S. Srinivasa, M. K. Lee, J. Forlizzi, and S. Ki esler, “Human prefer- ences for robot-human hand-over configurations,” in 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2011, pp. 1986–1993

    2011

  4. [4]

    Learning dynamic robot- to-human object handover from human feedback,

    A. Kupcsik, D. Hsu, and W. S. Lee, “Learning dynamic robot- to-human object handover from human feedback,” in Robotics Research: Volume 1. Springer, 2017, pp. 161–176

    2017

  5. [5]

    Reac- tive human-to-robot handovers of arbitrary objects,

    W. Yang, C. Paxton, A. Mousavian, Y.-W. Chao, M. Cakmak, an d D. Fox, “Reac- tive human-to-robot handovers of arbitrary objects,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 3118–3124

    2021

  6. [6]

    Contacthandover : Contact-guided robot-to-human object handover,

    Z. Wang, Z. Liu, N. Ouporov, and S. Song, “Contacthandover : Contact-guided robot-to-human object handover,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 9916–9923

    2024

  7. [7]

    Mediapipe hands: On-device real-time hand t racking,

    F. Zhang, V. Bazarevsky, A. Vakunov, A. Tkachenka, G. Sung , C.-L. Chang, and M. Grundmann, “Mediapipe hands: On-device real-time hand t racking,” 2020

    2020

  8. [8]

    Opt imizing human-robot handovers: the impact of adaptive transport methods,

    M. Käppler, I. Mamaev, H. Alagi, T. Stein, and B. Deml, “Opt imizing human-robot handovers: the impact of adaptive transport methods,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 10, p. 1155143, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model,

    T. Flash and N. Hogan, “The coordination of arm movements: an experimentally confirmed mathematical model,” Journal of neuroscience , vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 1688– 1703, 1985

    1985

  10. [10]

    Fast hand overs with a robot character: Small sensorimotor delays improve percei ved qualities,

    M. K. Pan, E. Knoop, M. Bächer, and G. Niemeyer, “Fast hand overs with a robot character: Small sensorimotor delays improve percei ved qualities,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots a nd systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 6735–6741

    2019

  11. [11]

    Investigating human- human approach and hand-over,

    P. Basili, M. Huber, T. Brandt, S. Hirche, and S. Glasauer , “Investigating human- human approach and hand-over,” in Human centered robot systems: Cognition, interaction, technology. Springer, 2009, pp. 151–160

    2009

  12. [12]

    Dynami- cal movement primitives: learning attractor models for mot or behaviors,

    A. J. Ijspeert, J. Nakanishi, H. Hoffmann, P. Pastor, and S . Schaal, “Dynami- cal movement primitives: learning attractor models for mot or behaviors,” Neural computation, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 328–373, 2013

    2013

  13. [13]

    Phase-indepe ndent dynamic movement primitives with applications to human–robot co-manipulat ion and time optimal planning,

    G. Braglia, D. Tebaldi, and L. Biagiotti, “Phase-indepe ndent dynamic movement primitives with applications to human–robot co-manipulat ion and time optimal planning,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 194, p. 105120, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Visio n-based smooth ob- stacle avoidance motion trajectory generation for autonom ous mobile robots using bézier curves,

    K. R. Simba, N. Uchiyama, M. Aldibaja, and S. Sano, “Visio n-based smooth ob- stacle avoidance motion trajectory generation for autonom ous mobile robots using bézier curves,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Pa rt C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science , vol. 231, no. 3, pp. 541–554, 2017

    2017

  15. [15]

    Legibility a nd predictability of robot motion,

    A. D. Dragan, K. C. Lee, and S. S. Srinivasa, “Legibility a nd predictability of robot motion,” in 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) . IEEE, 2013, pp. 301–308

    2013

  16. [16]

    Evaluating fluency in human–robot collabora tion,

    G. Hoffman, “Evaluating fluency in human–robot collabora tion,” IEEE Transac- tions on Human-Machine Systems , vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 209–218, 2019

    2019

  17. [17]

    The endogen ous eyeblink,

    J. A. Stern, L. C. Walrath, and R. Goldstein, “The endogen ous eyeblink,” Psy- chophysiology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 22–33, 1984

    1984

  18. [18]

    Using task-induced pupil diameter a nd blink rate to infer cognitive load,

    S. Chen and J. Epps, “Using task-induced pupil diameter a nd blink rate to infer cognitive load,” Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 390–413, 2014

    2014

  19. [19]

    Advanced worksta- tions and collaborative robots: exploiting eye-tracking a nd cardiac activity indices to unveil senior workers’ mental workload in assembly tasks ,

    P. Pluchino, G. F. Pernice, F. Nenna, M. Mingardi, A. Bett elli, D. Bacchin, A. Spagnolli, G. Jacucci, A. Ragazzon, L. Miglioranzi et al. , “Advanced worksta- tions and collaborative robots: exploiting eye-tracking a nd cardiac activity indices to unveil senior workers’ mental workload in assembly tasks ,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 10, p. 1275572, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years la ter,

    S. G. Hart, “Nasa-task load index (nasa-tlx); 20 years la ter,” in Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting , vol. 50. Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2006, pp. 904–908

    2006

  21. [21]

    The developm ent of a scale to evalu- ate trust in industrial human-robot collaboration,

    G. Charalambous, S. Fletcher, and P. Webb, “The developm ent of a scale to evalu- ate trust in industrial human-robot collaboration,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 8, no. 2, Nov. 2015

    2015

  22. [22]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,

    A. Brohan, Y. Chebotar, C. Finn, K. Hausman, A. Herzog, D. Ho, J. Ibarz, A. Ir- pan, E. Jang, R. Julian et al. , “Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances,” in Conference on robot learning . PMLR, 2023, pp. 287–318

    2023

  23. [23]

    Behavior tree genera tion using large language models for sequential manipulation planning with human instructions and feedback,

    J. Ao, Y. Wu, F. Wu, and S. Haddadin, “Behavior tree genera tion using large language models for sequential manipulation planning with human instructions and feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.09435 , 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Biagiotti and C

    L. Biagiotti and C. Melchiorri, B B-spline, Nurbs and Bézier curves . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 467–487

    2008

  25. [25]

    The Pinocchio C++ library – A fast and flexible im plementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical deri vatives,

    J. Carpentier, G. Saurel, G. Buondonno, J. Mirabel, F. La miraux, O. Stasse, and N. Mansard, “The Pinocchio C++ library – A fast and flexible im plementation of rigid body dynamics algorithms and their analytical deri vatives,” in SII 2019 - International Symposium on System Integrations , Paris, France, Jan. 2019

    2019

  26. [26]

    The assessment and analysis of handedness: The edinburgh inven- tory,

    R. Oldfield, “The assessment and analysis of handedness: The edinburgh inven- tory,” Neuropsychologia, vol. 9, no. 1, Mar. 1971

    1971

  27. [27]

    A scale measuring ethical acceptabil ity of robot enhanced therapy for children with autism spectrum disorders,

    A. Peca, M. Coeckelbergh, R. Simut Vanderborght, C. Pop, S. Pintea, D. David, and B. Vanderborght, “A scale measuring ethical acceptabil ity of robot enhanced therapy for children with autism spectrum disorders,” IEEE Technology And So- ciety Magazine , vol. 35, no. 2, Jun. 2016

    2016

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.