Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Learning to Segment Liquids in Real-world Images

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dual-branch network that lets mask predictions attend to liquid-edge features sets a benchmark for segmenting liquids in real-world images.

desk verdict The LQDS dataset is a genuine gap-filler for liquid segmentation, but the SOTA claim for LQDM rests on an asymmetric tuning protocol that needs fixing before the margin is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.00940 v2 pith:BDCW3Z4O submitted 2026-01-02 cs.CV

Jonas Li , Michelle Li , Luke Liu , Xiaohui Yuan , Heng Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords liquidsegmentationsemanticboundarydetectioncross-attentionvisiontransformerreal-worlddatasettransparentobjectsreflective
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

Liquids are hard for standard segmentation models because they deform, come in many colors, and can be transparent or reflective, so the pixels they occupy often look like whatever is behind them. The paper tries to establish two things: that general liquid segmentation deserves its own benchmark, and that boundary information is the key to getting it right. To show this, it introduces LQDS, a 5,000-image, 14-class, manually annotated collection of real-world liquids, and LQDM, a network with a mask branch and a boundary branch that use cross-attention so the mask branch can borrow features learned at liquid edges. On the LQDS test set, LQDM reports 59.28 mean IoU against 50.12 for the strongest of 15 compared methods, and it shows a gain on a general 150-class scene benchmark as evidence that boundary-guided attention is not liquid-specific.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is cross-attention between two sets of learnable queries. At block i the mask-branch queries Q_m are updated by attending to the boundary-branch queries Q_b at the same block, Q'_m = Q_m + CrossAttnBlock(Q_m, Q_b), letting mask predictions refine against boundary-specific features. The two branches share transformer encoder blocks, which the paper argues makes the backbone learn boundary features more deeply and saves parameters. Supervision is a weighted sum of a mask loss and a boundary binary-cross-entropy loss, with the boundary mask derived from ground truth at 1% of the image diagonal. The component analysis shows each addition—pretrained encoder weights, the

What would settle it

Retrain the strongest baseline with the same pretrained encoder and the same boundary-supervised, high-weight schedule on LQDS and compare on the official test split; if the mIoU gap shrinks from 9.16 to near zero, the claimed advantage is tuning and backbone, not cross-attention. A complementary check: run LQDM on a set of thin, low-contrast spills where boundary discontinuities are weak; if it performs no better than the mask-only baseline, the boundary-detection premise is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that liquid segmentation in the wild is tractable once a model is pointed at the one place where liquids disagree with their surroundings: the boundary. Liquid boundaries show sharper discontinuities in semantics and low-level texture than interiors, so LQDM trains a dedicated boundary branch and lets mask-branch queries attend to boundary-branch queries at every one of several transformer blocks. Using a recent pretrained vision encoder and a boundary-loss weight of 200, the full model reaches 59.28 mean IoU and 71.61 mean pixel accuracy on the LQDS test set, beating all 15 compared networks on both metrics and on 11 of 14 classes. The paper also positions LQDS as the f

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that liquid boundaries reliably show detectable discontinuities in semantics and low-level features; if transparent or thin liquids erase those discontinuities, the boundary branch has nothing to attend to, and separately, that the 15 comparison methods were retrained as fairly as LQDM was tuned, since LQDM's encoder and boundary-loss weight were selected after experiments.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, robot manipulation and navigation systems get a concrete starting point for detecting cups, spills, puddles, and containers in daily scenes.
  • LQDS gives the community a common 5,000-image, 14-class test bed, so future liquid-segmentation methods can be compared on the same real-world distribution instead of single-liquid or synthetic sets.
  • The finding that boundary-guided attention also improves masks for ordinary objects implies the mechanism may transfer to other segmentation tasks where edges are ambiguous.
  • Per-class results jump most for transparent or reflective classes such as wine, medical liquids, milk, and honey, suggesting boundary features matter most where the interior is unreliable.
  • The gap of 9.16 mean IoU over the strongest baseline is the paper's quantitative claim for the method.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: since the paper's best configuration uses a newer pretrained encoder and a boundary-loss weight selected by experiment, a fair comparison would give the same encoder and schedule to the baseline models; otherwise part of the reported lead could be representation, not the cross-attention mechanism.
  • Editorial inference: LQDS is dominated by liquids inside containers near the image center, so the benchmark says little about thin spills, puddles on textured ground, or extreme viewing angles; those are the natural next test splits.
  • Editorial inference: the boundary thickness (1% of the diagonal) and the loss weight are both knobs; varying them could raise the ceiling or reveal that the boundary branch helps mainly as an auxiliary loss rather than through cross-attention itself.
  • A direct test: train LQDM with cross-attention ablated but the boundary branch kept, and compare across several seeds; the paper's single ablation suggests the attention adds roughly 1.37 mIoU, but multi-seed runs would show how stable that increment is.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LQDS, a manually annotated real-world dataset of 5,000 images covering 14 liquid classes, and proposes LQDM, a dual-branch transformer architecture with a mask branch and a boundary branch coupled through cross-attention. The authors report that LQDM outperforms 15 existing segmentation methods on the LQDS test set, reaching 59.28 mean IoU versus 50.12 for the best competitor EoMT, and also report competitive performance on ADE20K. The dataset and code are released. The central claim is that LQDM establishes a strong baseline for liquid segmentation and that its boundary-guided cross-attention mechanism is responsible for the improvement.

Significance. If the empirical claims are taken at face value, LQDS is potentially the first multi-class, real-world liquid segmentation dataset, and the proposed architecture is a reasonable baseline for future work. The dataset construction, the inclusion of 15 baselines, and the external ADE20K generalization check are concrete contributions. However, the quantitative SOTA claim is currently supported only by a single test-set evaluation, with model selection performed on the test set and baselines run with default settings. Because the reported lead of 9.16 mIoU is comparable to the gain from simply changing the backbone (+6.38 mIoU in Table 4), the architectural contribution is not yet isolated. The paper's contribution is therefore better viewed as a dataset-and-baseline paper whose performance claims need a sounder evaluation protocol before they can be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, §5.3, Table 5] The SOTA claim rests on test-set hyperparameter selection. The only held-out split described anywhere is the 800-image test set; no validation split is mentioned. Table 5 reports mIoU on the test set for ω ∈ {1,10,100,200} and selects ω=200, and Table 4 selects the SigLIP2 backbone based on the same test-set metrics. Since LQDM's reported 59.28 mIoU is the result of maximizing performance on the test set, the comparison against baselines with default settings is not an apples-to-apples evaluation. Please introduce a validation split, perform hyperparameter and backbone selection on it, and report test results only after selection. Also report results across multiple seeds with error bars.
  2. [Table 4 and Table 1] The component analysis shows that replacing the DINOv2 backbone with SigLIP2 in the baseline (BL→BL+SL) improves mIoU from 50.12 to 56.50, an increase of 6.38; the boundary branch adds only 1.41 and the cross-attention adds only 1.37. The best competitor in Table 1, EoMT, is evaluated with its default DINOv2 backbone (§5.3 states 'For our baseline, we use EoMT, pretrained with a DINOv2 backbone as per the original implementation'). Thus the reported 9.16 mIoU advantage over EoMT may be largely a backbone advantage rather than an architectural one. To support the claim that LQDM's cross-attention design is responsible for the SOTA result, please ablate EoMT with the same SigLIP2 backbone and/or report the proposed architecture with the DINOv2 backbone.
  3. [§5.3, Table 4] There is no evidence that the improvements are statistically reliable. Each configuration is reported as a single run with no variance, and several per-class IoU values are highly variable (e.g., medical 59.36 for LQDM vs 29.84 for EoMT, tea 16.09 vs 21.52). Given the small test set (800 images) and the class imbalance documented in Figure 3, the 1-2 mIoU differences attributed to the boundary branch and cross-attention may be within run-to-run noise. Please provide at least three independent runs for the key configurations and report mean and standard deviation, or, at minimum, state whether all numbers come from a single run and discuss the implications.
  4. [§5.2] The comparison protocol for baselines is asymmetric. Baselines are 'retrain[ed] ... using their publicly available implementations and parameter settings' — i.e., default hyperparameters designed for other datasets — while LQDM benefits from LQDS-specific choices of ω, backbone, and training scheme. Even if a validation split were introduced, the paper should tune the baselines on that same validation split, or clearly state that the comparison is against off-the-shelf baselines, which weakens the word 'state-of-the-art' in the abstract. Without this, the reported margin in Table 1 cannot be attributed to the proposed method.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3, Table 6] In Table 3 and Table 6 the row labeling the proposed method reads 'LQDS' instead of 'LQDM'. This is confusing because LQDS is the dataset name.
  2. [Table 1] The baseline list includes both GCNet and CCNet, but the reference list only contains a CCNet entry [6]. GCNet is not cited. Please either add the correct reference or remove the method.
  3. [§5.3] The sentence 'Values beyond 200 is when additional performance benefits level out' is unclear and contains a grammatical error. Since Table 5 only tests up to 200, the claim about values beyond 200 is not supported by the reported experiments.
  4. [§3] The annotation section reports that images are labeled by 'students who work on related fields' but provides no inter-annotator agreement or quality metrics. For a dataset contribution, reporting at least a small agreement study (e.g., IoU between annotators on a subset) would strengthen the benchmark.
  5. [§4.4] The boundary ground-truth thickness is set to '1% of the image diagonal length' without justification or sensitivity analysis. Since the boundary branch is central to the method and the thickness is a free parameter, a brief rationale or a robustness check would be appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: LQDM's advantage is empirical and externally checked; minor test-set tuning concern is not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive LQDM's performance from first principles, nor does it import a load-bearing uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work. The central evaluation uses a held-out 800-image test split of the newly constructed LQDS (Section 3), with all 15 baselines retrained and evaluated on the same split (Section 5.2). The boundary-supervision masks are derived from the same annotations, but are used only as auxiliary training signal (Equation 2), not as test-time inputs, so this is standard multi-task supervision rather than circularity. ADE20K results (Table 6) provide an external generalization check that does not depend on LQDS. The only notable protocol weakness is that hyperparameters, notably the boundary-loss weight ω, are selected from Table 5 using what appears to be the test set, with no validation split described; this can inflate the reported 59.28 mIoU and makes the SOTA comparison less trustworthy as an unbiased estimate. However, that is an evaluation-validity concern, not a circularity: the reported number is not equivalent to the selection rule by construction, and the architecture components (boundary branch, cross-attention) are evaluated incrementally with independent content. There are no self-citations that carry the argument. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

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

The contribution rests on the dataset's annotation quality and on design choices (SigLIP2 backbone, ω=200) selected using LQDS results. There are no invented physical entities; the boundary branch is an architectural component.

free parameters (4)
  • Boundary-loss weight ω = 200
    Set empirically; §4.4 defines the weighted sum, and Table 5 sweeps values and selects 200, apparently on test outcomes.
  • Pretrained backbone choice = SigLIP-SO400M
    Chosen because it 'provides significantly better performance' in the ablation (Table 4); this model-selection choice contributes most of the gain over the DINOv2 baseline.
  • Architecture/training hyperparameters = L1=20, L2=4, 8 heads, dropout 0.2, lr 1e-4, layerwise decay 0.8, 16 epochs, batch 16
    Reported in §5.1 as fixed choices; no validation-set tuning protocol is described.
  • Boundary ground-truth thickness = 1% of image diagonal (sqrt(H^2+W^2))
    Hand-chosen in §4.4; determines the boundary supervision target used to train the boundary branch.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Manual annotations in LQDS are reliable ground truth
    Labels from students with final classification by one author; no inter-annotator agreement reported (§3).
  • domain assumption Liquid boundaries show greater discontinuity in content and low-level features than interiors
    Design premise of the boundary branch (§4 opening); supported only by internal ablation, not by a separate perceptual study.
  • standard math Standard cross-attention and transformer training as in prior segmentation models
    Uses standard multi-head attention and mask-module machinery from Mask2Former/EoMT [4,8] (§4.2-4.3).
  • domain assumption The 14-class taxonomy covers liquid types encountered regularly
    Dataset claim in §3; class coverage is asserted, not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning to Segment Liquids in Real-world Images." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BDCW3Z4O

@misc{pith2026260100940,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning to Segment Liquids in Real-world Images},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BDCW3Z4O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.00940}
}
read the original abstract

Liquids like water, wine and medicine are everywhere. However, limited attention has been given to the task of segmenting liquids, hindering the ability of robots to safely avoid and interact with them. The segmentation of liquids is difficult because liquids come in diverse appearances and shapes; moreover, they can be both transparent or reflective, taking on arbitrary objects and scenes from their background and surroundings. To take on this challenge, we construct a liquid dataset, LQDS, consisting of 5000 real-world images annotated into 14 distinct classes, and design a novel liquid detection model, LQDM, which leverages cross-attention between a dedicated boundary branch and the main segmentation branch to enhance mask predictions. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of LQDM on the testing set of LQDS, outperforming state-of-the-art methods to establish a strong baseline for the semantic segmentation of liquids. We believe that LQDS and LQDM will facilitate future research in liquid segmentation and enable practical applications in robotics. Our dataset and code is released at https://lonaslee.github.io/LQDM/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.00940 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of liquids in real-world settings. The images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of pairs of images and masks for each of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Statistics of the LQDS dataset. 21 images in the testing set which contain multiple classes. Coffee appears the most, followed by water, chemicals, juice, and then the alcoholic beverages. Our classes cover all liquid types that can be encountered on a regular basis, from everyday drinks like coffee and juice, to alcohol like cocktails and wine, to undrinkable chemicals and the miscellaneous. • Pixel distribution. F… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the proposed dual-branch architecture, LQDM. A ViT backbone first extracts shared feature embeddings through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Visual comparison of LQDM to other semantic segmentation methods on images from the LQDS testing set. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Visualization of predicted boundaries by LQDM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Iasonas Kokkinos, Kevin Murphy, and Alan L. Yuille. Deeplab: Semantic image segmentation with deep convolutional nets, atrous convolu- tion, and fully connected crfs.CoRR, abs/1606.00915, 2016. 2

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation

    Liang-Chieh Chen, Yukun Zhu, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018. 6

    2018

  3. [3]

    Per- pixel classification is not all you need for semantic segmenta- tion

    Bowen Cheng, Alex Schwing, and Alexander Kirillov. Per- pixel classification is not all you need for semantic segmenta- tion. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 17864–17875. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021. 6

    2021

  4. [4]

    Schwing, Alexan- der Kirillov, and Rohit Girdhar

    Bowen Cheng, Ishan Misra, Alexander G. Schwing, Alexan- der Kirillov, and Rohit Girdhar. Masked-attention mask trans- former for universal image segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022. 2, 5, 6

    2022

  5. [5]

    Adaptive pyramid context network for semantic seg- mentation

    Junjun He, Zhongying Deng, Lei Zhou, Yali Wang, and Yu Qiao. Adaptive pyramid context network for semantic seg- mentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019. 2, 6

    2019

  6. [6]

    Ccnet: Criss-cross attention for semantic segmentation

    Zilong Huang, Xinggang Wang, Lichao Huang, Chang Huang, Yunchao Wei, and Wenyu Liu. Ccnet: Criss-cross attention for semantic segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019. 2, 6

    2019

  7. [7]

    Habaek: High- performance water segmentation through dataset expansion and inductive bias optimization, 2024

    Hanseon Joo, Eunji Lee, and Minjong Cheon. Habaek: High- performance water segmentation through dataset expansion and inductive bias optimization, 2024. 2

    2024

  8. [8]

    Your ViT is Secretly an Image Segmentation Model

    Tommie Kerssies, Niccol`o Cavagnero, Alexander Hermans, Narges Norouzi, Giuseppe Averta, Bastian Leibe, Gijs Dubbelman, and Daan de Geus. Your ViT is Secretly an Image Segmentation Model. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR),

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Waternet: An adaptive matching pipeline for segmenting water with volatile appearance.Computational Visual Media, 6(1):65–78, 2020

    Yongqing Liang, Navid Jafari, Xing Luo, Qin Chen, Yanpeng Cao, and Xin Li. Waternet: An adaptive matching pipeline for segmenting water with volatile appearance.Computational Visual Media, 6(1):65–78, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  2. [10]

    Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Ze Liu, Yutong Lin, Yue Cao, Han Hu, Yixuan Wei, Zheng Zhang, Stephen Lin, and Baining Guo. Swin transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021. 6

    2021

  3. [11]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation

    Jonathan Long, Evan Shelhamer, and Trevor Darrell. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015. 2, 6

    2015

  4. [12]

    Haiyang Mei, Xin Yang, Yang Wang, Yuanyuan Liu, Shengfeng He, Qiang Zhang, Xiaopeng Wei, and Ryn- son W.H. Lau. Don’t hit me! glass detection in real-world scenes. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2020. 3

    2020

  5. [13]

    Perceiving and reason- ing about liquids using fully convolutional networks.Int

    Connor Schenck and Dieter Fox. Perceiving and reason- ing about liquids using fully convolutional networks.Int. J. Robotics Res., 37(4-5):452–471, 2017. 1

    2017

  6. [14]

    Vision-based robot manipulation of transparent liquid containers in a laboratory setting, 2024

    Daniel Schober, Ronja G¨uldenring, James Love, and Lazaros Nalpantidis. Vision-based robot manipulation of transparent liquid containers in a laboratory setting, 2024. 1, 3

    2024

  7. [15]

    Segmenter: Transformer for semantic segmentation

    Robin Strudel, Ricardo Garcia, Ivan Laptev, and Cordelia Schmid. Segmenter: Transformer for semantic segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2021. 6

    2021

  8. [16]

    Siglip 2: Multilingual vision-language encoders with improved semantic understanding, localization, and dense features.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14786, 2025

    Michael Tschannen, Alexey Gritsenko, Xiao Wang, Muham- mad Ferjad Naeem, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Nikhil Parthasarathy, Talfan Evans, Lucas Beyer, Ye Xia, Basil Mustafa, Olivier H’enaff, Jeremiah Harmsen, Andreas Steiner, and Xiaohua Zhai. Siglip 2: Multilingual vision-language ...

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Segmenting transparent objects in the wild

    Enze Xie, Wenjia Wang, Wenhai Wang, Mingyu Ding, Chun- hua Shen, and Ping Luo. Segmenting transparent objects in the wild. InProceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2020. 3, 6

    2020

  10. [18]

    Segmenting transparent object in the wild with transformer

    Enze Xie, Wenjia Wang, Wenhai Wang, Peize Sun, Hang Xu, Ding Liang, and Ping Luo. Segmenting transparent object in the wild with transformer. InProceedings of the Thirty- Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, IJCAI-23. International Joint Conferen...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Alvarez, and Ping Luo

    Enze Xie, Wenhai Wang, Zhiding Yu, Anima Anandkumar, Jose M. Alvarez, and Ping Luo. Segformer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 12077–12090. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021. 2, 6

    2021

  12. [20]

    Xin Yang, Haiyang Mei, Ke Xu, Xiaopeng Wei, Baocai Yin, and Rynson W.H. Lau. Where is my mirror? InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019. 3

    2019

  13. [21]

    K-net: Towards unified image segmentation

    Wenwei Zhang, Jiangmiao Pang, Kai Chen, and Chen Change Loy. K-net: Towards unified image segmentation. InAd- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 10326–10338. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021. 6

    2021

  14. [22]

    Pyramid scene parsing network

    Hengshuang Zhao, Jianping Shi, Xiaojuan Qi, Xiaogang Wang, and Jiaya Jia. Pyramid scene parsing network. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017. 2, 6

    2017

  15. [23]

    Scene parsing through ade20k dataset

    Bolei Zhou, Hang Zhao, Xavier Puig, Sanja Fidler, Adela Bar- riuso, and Antonio Torralba. Scene parsing through ade20k dataset. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017. 3, 8

    2017

  16. [24]

    Asymmetric non-local neural networks for semantic segmentation

    Zhen Zhu, Mengde Xu, Song Bai, Tengteng Huang, and Xi- ang Bai. Asymmetric non-local neural networks for semantic segmentation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019. 6

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.