Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 34 references

Certified Split Windows for Parallel Lexing: Recovering Boundaries Where No Byte Certifies

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A parallel lexer can recover a token boundary from a short window of bytes even when no single byte certifies a safe cut, and 91 of 95 previously stuck token sets gain such a window.

desk verdict A solid, honestly scoped extension of certified split bytes to windows; the central soundness and decision theorems hold up, and the limitations are explicitly owned. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09761 v1 pith:MMZO2CWP submitted 2026-08-10 cs.FL cs.DCcs.PL

Nicklas Nidhögg This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.FLcs.DCcs.PL
keywords parallellexingcertifiedsplitwindowsmaximalmunchtokenboundariesdeterministicfiniteautomatacloudmodelquotientsoundnessproof
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 extends certified split points—single bytes where a parallel lexer can cut input without changing the serial token stream—to certified split windows: a short byte string after which the start of the token containing the window's final byte is provably fixed in every completely tokenizable input. The central claim is that these windows can be discovered automatically from a compiled token automaton, and that they exist for many token sets for which no single byte certifies a safe cut. The method carries a cloud of possible token-prefix histories across the window, proves by a representation invariant that unanimity on an origin can only land on the truth, and decides reachability by exhausting a finite quotient of clouds. In the evaluation, 91 of 95 non-nullable random token sets that certified no byte gain a witnessed window, and every exact-empty row of the predecessor's study gains a window of two to four bytes. This makes provably safe parallel lexing reach conventional lexical forms such as strings, comments, and whitespace runs that previously resisted it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cloud: a set of pairs $(q,\omega)$ where $q$ is a live automaton state and $\omega$ is either 'before' (a token that began before the window) or an offset inside the window. Reading each window byte advances the cloud by a direct step for surviving hypotheses and an acceptance-gated seed that starts a fresh trajectory at the current offset whenever some hypothesis is accepting, allowing a new token to begin only where the previous one could have ended. A window is certified when the final cloud is non-empty and all surviving pairs agree on a single in-window origin. The search terminates because clouds are deduplicated on a finite quotient—the set of states carrying 'before' plus per-state in-window origin counts saturated at two—so breadth-first search exhausts at most $6^{|Q^+|}$ keys. The soundness argument is a representation invariant: the final segmentation's true token-prefix history is always among the hypotheses, which is why unanimity can only land on the truth.

What would settle it

One completely tokenizable input containing a model-certified window $(W,o)$ whose maximal-munch tokenization makes the token covering the window's final byte begin at an offset different from $o$ would falsify Theorem 1; the paper's own rewind-stress rows, which found zero such disagreements across 1,079,392 generated executions, are exactly the kind of check that could uncover such a counterexample.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the certified split window $(W,o)$: a byte string $W$ such that in every completely tokenizable input containing $W$, the token covering the window's final byte begins exactly $o$ bytes into the window. Theorem 1 states that if the model's cloud after reading $W$ is non-empty and every pair in the cloud carries the same in-window origin $o$, then $(W,o)$ is certified. Theorem 2 states that breadth-first search over a finite quotient of reachable clouds, keyed by the before-support set and per-state in-window origin counts saturated at two, decides whether the model certifies any window and returns the minimum certified length. The construction specializes exactly to the predecessor's single-byte predicate at length one, so multi-byte windows are a conservative continuation of certified split points. The paper also proves that the model's deliberate conservatism—it refuses some windows a greedy scanner would allow—cannot begin before length two, exhibiting two semantically certified length-two windows it refuses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that no token matches the empty string, so every successfully scanned token consumes at least one byte; if a token could match empty, the maximal-munch semantics, the acceptance-gated seed, and the representation invariant would break, and the proof would not cover the token set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every exact-empty row of the predecessor's table—C-like strings, line comments, block comments, conventional whitespace handling, and JSON—now carries a certified window of length two to four bytes with a verified occurrence witness.
  • A worker that finds a certified window in completely tokenizable input can resume scanning at the recovered boundary with no speculation, no state-recovery pass, and no re-execution, exactly as at a certified byte.
  • For flat, non-nullable token sets on completely tokenizable inputs, a model-positive search result is a semantic certificate, while an exhausted search is a model-relative negative rather than a proof that no window exists.
  • Because the certificate is derived from the compiled tables before any input exists, the analysis runs once after automaton construction and imposes no runtime cost on the scanner.
  • At length one the model reduces exactly to the published single-byte predicate, so the new windows extend the old guarantee without changing what the old guarantee meant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The four random grammars that still exhaust with no window are only model-negatives, so a tightened model that tracks maximal-munch behavior more faithfully could certify windows there; the paper gives no bound on how much room remains.
  • A certified window behaves like a reset device for token origins rather than for raw automaton states, so the natural analogue of synchronization in this setting lives in the cloud quotient, not in the token DFA.
  • A corpus-frequency study is the direct next test: whether two-to-four-byte windows like newline-bang or tab-quote appear often enough in real code and JSON to plan balanced parallel chunks is open, and the paper explicitly leaves it to a measurement campaign.
  • Extending the proof to nullable token sets would broaden coverage from roughly one-third of random grammars to nearly all of them, but the acceptance-gated seed and the representation invariant would both need reworking.
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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper generalizes certified split points for parallel lexing from a single byte to a bounded window (W, o). It defines a conservative cloud model of maximal-munch scanner histories across W, proves that the actual final-segmentation history is always represented (Lemma 1) and hence that cloud unanimity implies a semantic certificate (Theorem 1), and then gives a finite quotient of reachable clouds, exact under a stated single-occupancy invariant, which makes breadth-first search a terminating decision procedure for the model (Lemma 2, Theorem 2). A specialization theorem shows exact agreement with the predecessor's length-one predicate (Theorem 3), two strictness witnesses show non-vacuous conservatism beginning at length two, and an artifact-backed evaluation covers the predecessor's exact-empty rows and 400 random token sets. All positive claims are explicitly scoped to flat, non-nullable, completely-tokenizable token sets; negative results are explicitly model-relative.

Significance. If correct, the paper is a substantive and cleanly bounded extension of certified split points: it recovers a usable boundary where no single byte can be certified, it proves the decision procedure exhaustive for the model, and it keeps the honesty conditions unusually visible by separating model certificates from witnessed occurrences and from model-relative negatives. The main strengths are the representation-invariant soundness proof, the exact finite quotient with a stated invariant, the specialization theorem that anchors the new construction to the predecessor, and an artifact whose asserted figures and rewind-stress counts make the evaluation falsifiable. The principal residual risk is that the proofs are hand proofs and the artifact was not independently executed in this review; I found no load-bearing flaw in the central argument.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Lemma 1] The notation x[σ_j .. t+j) is terse: please state explicitly that intervals are half-open and that ρ_j is the state after consuming through byte t+j−1. The current prose is easy to misread as containing an off-by-one error.
  2. [Sections 1 and 9, Table 1] The term 'exact-empty row' is used before it is defined; please define it on first use, for example as a row of the predecessor's applicability table whose certified-byte set is empty.
  3. [Section 5, Lemma 2] The freshness argument is dense; a sentence making explicit that 'every origin in a length-ℓ cloud lies below ℓ' is what guarantees the inserted offset is fresh for both successor computations would improve readability and prevent a natural misreading of the depth-aligned clause.
  4. [Section 9, random sweep paragraph] The sentence reporting '4 exhaust the quotient with no window under the model, and none are inconclusive or unresolved' would be clearer if it distinguished exhaustion of the quotient search from an unresolved outcome of the bounded witness search, since those are different notions introduced in Section 5.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the soundness and decision theorems are proved from the model definition, and the self-citations serve as baselines and context rather than as load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

Theorem 1 is a genuine containment argument (Lemma 1): the actual final-segmentation token-prefix pair is shown to lie in the cloud, so unanimity can only land on a true origin. The model's 'certified at origin o' is not Definition 1 by construction; the theorem proves the implication. Theorem 2's finite quotient is justified by Invariant 1 and Lemma 2 rather than by assuming the desired decision property. Theorem 3 explicitly computes C_1 and proves equivalence with the predecessor's length-one predicate, so it is a comparison, not a definitional collapse. Section 7's use of the predecessor's necessity theorem [25] is a citation to prior parameter-free work; it supports a side corollary about strictness and does not reduce the central claim to a self-citation. Evaluation figures count only witnessed certificates and are asserted by the artifact against the shipped scanner, so no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. Section 11's limitations (nullable exclusion, model-relative negatives, budgeted search) are scope restrictions, not circularity. The main residual risk is that the proofs are not machine-checked and the artifact was not independently executed; that is a verification gap, not circular reasoning.

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

The central claim is a mathematical construction with no fitted parameters. It rests on the non-nullable, flat, completely-tokenizable scope and on standard finite-automaton background. The only hand-chosen constants in the evaluation are instrumentation and do not enter the proofs. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption No token matches the empty string (non-nullability).
    Stated in Section 2 as load-bearing and revisited in Section 11; nullable token sets are excluded from the soundness proof and from the evaluation (266 of 400 random grammars).
  • domain assumption Flat scanner model: one fixed token set compiled to one DFA, maximal munch, no lexical modes, no mode stack, no semantic scanner state.
    Inherited from [25] in Section 2; Definition 1 and the cloud model are only meaningful in this setting.
  • domain assumption Certificates are only asserted for completely tokenizable inputs.
    Definition 1 and Lemma 1 quantify over completely tokenizable inputs; malformed suffixes are outside the proof (Section 11).
  • standard math A+ is the live subautomaton: states reachable from q0 and co-accessible to acceptance, with only live transitions retained.
    The direct step and the proof that every actual prefix state is live use this construction (Section 2, Lemma 1).
  • standard math The byte alphabet is finite (256 symbols).
    The complexity bound and BFS expansion use 256 as the branching factor (Theorem 2).
  • domain assumption The predecessor's certified split point predicate and its necessity theorem are correct.
    Theorem 3 and Corollary 1 rely on the exact condition from [25]; the paper does not reprove those results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Certified Split Windows for Parallel Lexing: Recovering Boundaries Where No Byte Certifies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MMZO2CWP

@misc{pith2026260809761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Certified Split Windows for Parallel Lexing: Recovering Boundaries Where No Byte Certifies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MMZO2CWP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09761}
}
read the original abstract

A certified split point lets a parallel lexer cut unlexed input at a single byte with the serial token stream provably preserved, but several conventional token sets in the predecessor's controlled study certify no byte once string, comment, or whitespace-run forms are included (arXiv:2608.03473). We generalize from a byte to a bounded window: a byte string after which the position where the current token began is known, regardless of surrounding context. We certify the directly usable form of that recovery: the token covering the window's final byte begins at the reported origin. The certificate is conditional on occurrence and may be vacuous; every applicability figure counts only windows carrying an asserted completely tokenizable occurrence witness. We give a conservative model of a maximal-munch scanner's possible histories across a window, prove it sound, and decide reachability in that model exactly by exhausting a finite quotient of its reachable configurations, so every answer of the unbudgeted procedure is either a certified window with its origin or a proof that the model admits none. Within the stated flat, non-nullable, completely-tokenizable scope, model-positive answers are semantic certificates; negatives are relative to the conservative model, which deliberately refuses some windows a greedy scanner would allow. In a sample of 400 random token sets, 91 of the 95 non-nullable sets certifying no byte gain a witnessed window, with zero inconclusive searches, and every exact-empty row of the predecessor's study gains a witnessed window of two to four bytes. Rewind-stress rows exercised 1,079,392 executions that scanned through the window and contained at least one rewind, with zero disagreements against the shipped scanner. The analysis runs once after automaton construction, using only the compiled tables and no input.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adler, Don Coppersmith, and Martin Hassner

    Roy L. Adler, Don Coppersmith, and Martin Hassner. Algorithms for sliding block codes: An application of symbolic dynamics to information theory.IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory, 29(1):5–22, 1983.doi:10.1109/TIT.1983.1056597

    work page arXiv 1983

  2. [2]

    Aho, Monica S

    Alfred V. Aho, Monica S. Lam, Ravi Sethi, and Jeffrey D. Ullman.Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. Addison-Wesley, 2nd edition, 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Parallel parsing made practical.Science of Computer Programming, 112: 195–226, 2015.doi:10.1016/j.scico.2015.09.002

    Alessandro Barenghi, Stefano Crespi Reghizzi, Dino Mandrioli, Federica Panella, and Mat- teo Pradella. Parallel parsing made practical.Science of Computer Programming, 112: 195–226, 2015.doi:10.1016/j.scico.2015.09.002

    doi:10.1016/j.scico.2015.09.002 2015

  4. [4]

    Berlinkov, Robert Ferens, Andrew Ryzhikov, and Marek Szyku la

    Mikhail V. Berlinkov, Robert Ferens, Andrew Ryzhikov, and Marek Szyku la. Synchro- nization of strongly connected partial DF As and prefix codes.Discrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science, 28:2, 2026.doi:10.46298/dmtcs.16465. Extended version of the STACS 2021 paper,doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.STACS.2021.12

    work page doi:10.46298/dmtcs.16465 2026

  5. [5]

    Attribute-based precedence relations for context-free grammars, 2026

    Angelo Borsotti, Stefano Crespi Reghizzi, and Matteo Pradella. Attribute-based precedence relations for context-free grammars, 2026. Preprint, SSRN,doi:10.2139/ssrn.6890975

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.6890975 2026

  6. [6]

    The JavaScript object notation (JSON) data interchange format

    Tim Bray, Ed. The JavaScript object notation (JSON) data interchange format. Request for Comments 8259, RFC Editor, December 2017. STD 90.doi:10.17487/RFC8259

    doi:10.17487/rfc8259 2017

  7. [7]

    Formally verified linear-time invertible lexing

    Samuel Chassot and Viktor Kunˇ cak. Formally verified linear-time invertible lexing. In38th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CA V), volume 16683 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 141–164, 2026.doi:10.1007/978-3-032-32526-6_7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-032-32526-6_7 2026

  8. [8]

    Cyclic operator precedence gram- mars for parallel parsing.Information and Computation, 307:105363, 2025.doi:10.1016/ j.ic.2025.105363

    Michele Chiari, Dino Mandrioli, and Matteo Pradella. Cyclic operator precedence gram- mars for parallel parsing.Information and Computation, 307:105363, 2025.doi:10.1016/ j.ic.2025.105363

    work page arXiv 2025

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Tokenization as finite-state transduction.Compu- tational Linguistics, 51(4):1119–1149, 2025.doi:10.1162/coli.a.23

    Marco Cognetta and Naoaki Okazaki. Tokenization as finite-state transduction.Compu- tational Linguistics, 51(4):1119–1149, 2025.doi:10.1162/coli.a.23. 13

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Morphisms and BWT-run sensitivity

    Gabriele Fici, Giuseppe Romana, Marinella Sciortino, and Cristian Urbina. Morphisms and BWT-run sensitivity. In50th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (MFCS 2025), volume 345 ofLIPIcs, pages 49:1–49:18, 2025.doi: 10.4230/LIPIcs.MFCS.2025.49

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Smith, and Sewoong Oh

    Jonathan Hayase, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, and Sewoong Oh. Sampling from your language model one byte at a time. InForty-third International Conference on Ma- chine Learning (ICML), 2026. Preprint, arXiv:2506.14123, version 3 of 7 May 2026, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.14123

    2026 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    On parallel implementations of deterministic finite au- tomata

    Jan Holub and Stanislav ˇStekr. On parallel implementations of deterministic finite au- tomata. In14th International Conference on Implementation and Application of Au- tomata (CIAA), volume 5642 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 54–64, 2009. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02979-0_9

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    Incremental BPE tokenization, 2026

    Shenghu Jiang and Ruihao Gong. Incremental BPE tokenization, 2026. Accepted to ICML 2026 (Spotlight); preprint, arXiv:2605.30813

    2026 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Ronald M. Kaplan. A method for tokenizing text. In Antti Arppe, Lauri Carlson, Krister Lind´ en, Jussi Piitulainen, Mickael Suominen, Martti Vainio, Hanna Westerlund, and Anssi Yli-Jyr¨ a, editors,Inquiries into Words, Constraints and Contexts: Festschrift for Kimmo Koskenniem...

    2005

  7. [15]

    Position paper: The science of boxing

    Martin Mariusz Lester. Position paper: The science of boxing. InProceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGPLAN Workshop on Programming Languages and Analysis for Security (PLAS), pages 83–88, 2013.doi:10.1145/2465106.2465120

    2013

  8. [16]

    Information flow analysis for a dy- namically typed language with staged metaprogramming.Journal of Computer Security, 24(5):541–582, 2016.doi:10.3233/JCS-160557

    Martin Mariusz Lester, Luke Ong, and Max Sch¨ afer. Information flow analysis for a dy- namically typed language with staged metaprogramming.Journal of Computer Security, 24(5):541–582, 2016.doi:10.3233/JCS-160557

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    Li and Konstantinos Mamouras

    Angela W. Li and Konstantinos Mamouras. Efficient algorithms for the uniform tok- enization problem.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 9(OOPSLA1): 1492–1518, 2025.doi:10.1145/3720498

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    Li, Yudi Yang, and Konstantinos Mamouras

    Angela W. Li, Yudi Yang, and Konstantinos Mamouras. Static analysis for efficient stream- ing tokenization. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 2 (ASPLOS ’26), pages 1880–1896, ...

    2026

  11. [19]

    Plex: Scaling parallel lexing with backtrack-free prescanning

    Le Li, Shigeyuki Sato, Qiheng Liu, and Kenjiro Taura. Plex: Scaling parallel lexing with backtrack-free prescanning. InIEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), pages 693–702, 2021.doi:10.1109/IPDPS49936.2021.00079

    2021

  12. [20]

    Li, and Yudi Yang

    Konstantinos Mamouras, Angela W. Li, and Yudi Yang. An efficient algorithm for stream- ing BPE tokenization.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 10(PLDI): 2085–2108, 2026.doi:10.1145/3808330

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    Brian H. Marcus. Sofic systems and encoding data.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 31(3):366–377, 1985.doi:10.1109/TIT.1985.1057037

    1985

  14. [22]

    Martyugin

    Pavel V. Martyugin. Complexity of problems concerning carefully synchronizing words for PF A and directing words for NF A. In5th International Computer Science Symposium in Russia (CSR), volume 6072 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 288–302, 2010. doi:10.1007/978-3-64...

    2010 doi

  15. [23]

    Data-parallel finite-state machines

    Todd Mytkowicz, Madanlal Musuvathi, and Wolfram Schulte. Data-parallel finite-state machines. In19th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Lan- guages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS), pages 529–542, 2014.doi:10.1145/2541940. 2541988

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    munch, 2026

    Nicklas Nidh¨ ogg. munch, 2026. Release tagv1.3.3, archived atdoi:10.5281/zenodo. 21842344; a lexical analysis library based on automata theory, and the probes reported here ship in this release

    2026 doi

  17. [25]

    Certified split points for parallel lexing: Exact and modulo discarded tokens, 2026

    Nicklas Nidh¨ ogg. Certified split points for parallel lexing: Exact and modulo discarded tokens, 2026. Preprint, arXiv:2608.03473 [cs.FL]

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Perles, Michael O

    Micha A. Perles, Michael O. Rabin, and Eliahu Shamir. The theory of definite au- tomata.IEEE Transactions on Electronic Computers, EC-12(3):233–243, 1963.doi: 10.1109/PGEC.1963.263534

    1963

  19. [27]

    Ramalingam, and Kapil Vaswani

    Prakash Prabhu, G. Ramalingam, and Kapil Vaswani. Safe programmable speculative parallelism. In31st ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI), pages 50–61, 2010.doi:10.1145/1806596.1806603

    2010

  20. [28]

    A combinatorial property of codes having finite synchronization delay

    Antonio Restivo. A combinatorial property of codes having finite synchronization delay. Theoretical Computer Science, 1(2):95–101, 1975.doi:10.1016/0304-3975(75)90015-8

    1975 doi

  21. [29]

    LoPT: Lossless parallel tokenization acceleration for long context inference of large language model

    Wei Shao, Lingchao Zheng, Pengyu Wang, Peizhen Zheng, Jun Li, and Yuwei Fan. LoPT: Lossless parallel tokenization acceleration for long context inference of large language model. In64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Volume 1: Long Paper...

    2026 doi

  22. [30]

    Mikhail V. Volkov. Synchronizing automata and the ˇCern´ y conjecture. In2nd Inter- national Conference on Language and Automata Theory and Applications (LATA), vol- ume 5196 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 11–27, 2008.doi:10.1007/ 978-3-540-88282-4_4

    2008

  23. [31]

    Wagner and Susan L

    Tim A. Wagner and Susan L. Graham. General incremental lexical analysis. Manuscript, University of California, Berkeley; the circulating build is the December 1999 revision. https://harmonia.cs.berkeley.edu/papers/twagner-lexing.pdf, 1997

    1999

  24. [32]

    ReTokSync: Self-synchronizing tokenization disambiguation for generative linguistic steganography, 2026

    Yaofei Wang, Rui Wang, Weilong Pang, JiaLiang Han, Yuan Qi, Donghui Hu, and Kejiang Chen. ReTokSync: Self-synchronizing tokenization disambiguation for generative linguistic steganography, 2026. Preprint, arXiv:2604.25486

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    TokTier: Exact stateful CPU+GPU tokenization for agentic LLM serving, 2026

    Zhenyu Zhang and Zhichao Cao. TokTier: Exact stateful CPU+GPU tokenization for agentic LLM serving, 2026. Preprint, arXiv:2607.29678, version 2 of 3 August 2026,doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.29678. 15

    2026 doi arXiv

  26. [1529]

    Preprint: arXiv:2511.04952

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.