Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 28 references

Constraining the $z \approx 1$ neutral hydrogen (HI) distribution

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Joint uGMRT stacking and CHIME 21-cm power-spectrum data imply more high-mass HI galaxies at z≈1 than earlier estimates and hydro simulations.

desk verdict Clean joint fit of CHIME PS + uGMRT Ω_HI yields a usable z≈1 HIMF posterior inside a standard HIHM model, with a high-mass excess that is real within that model but not yet model-independent. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24412 v1 pith:TWDBAIEI submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GA

Minal Chhabra , Raghunath Ghara , Somnath Bharadwaj This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords HImassfunction21-cmintensitymappingHI-halorelationneutralhydrogenz≈1CHIMEuGMRTgalaxyevolution
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

This paper constrains how neutral hydrogen is distributed among galaxies at redshift about one by fitting a simple three-parameter relation between halo mass and HI mass to two independent 21-cm measurements: the cosmic HI density from stacked uGMRT detections of star-forming galaxies, and the CHIME autocorrelation power spectrum. From the resulting posterior it predicts the HI mass function, finding it nearly flat at low masses, falling steeply above a few times 10^9 solar masses, and placing roughly ninety percent of all HI in the window 2×10^9 to 4×10^11 solar masses. The high-mass end is more abundant than an earlier indirect HIMF estimate and than current hydrodynamical simulations. Because this is the epoch when cosmic star formation peaks, a larger reservoir of massive HI systems would change how galaxies grow and how intensity-mapping surveys should be interpreted.

What carries the argument

The three-parameter HI mass–halo mass (HIHM) relation used to assign HI to dark-matter halos in an N-body simulation; its parameters are fixed by joint Bayesian matching of simulated Ω_HI and the redshift-space 21-cm power spectrum to the two observations, after which the HIMF is read off by binning the assigned HI masses.

What would settle it

A direct or stacked measurement of the abundance of z≈1 galaxies with M_HI ≳ 3×10^10 M_⊙ that falls below the paper’s posterior prediction, or a new 21-cm power spectrum whose shape cannot be reproduced by any point inside the reported HIHM posterior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the posterior of a three-parameter HI-mass–halo-mass relation jointly constrained by uGMRT Ω_HI and the CHIME 21-cm power spectrum, the predicted z≈1 HI mass function stays nearly constant below ≲3.6×10^9 M_⊙, declines rapidly at higher mass, contains ~90 percent of the HI in M_HI ∈ [2×10^9, 4×10^11] M_⊙, and yields a larger abundance of high-mass HI galaxies than earlier observations and hydrodynamical simulations.

Load-bearing premise

That a single deterministic three-parameter formula linking each halo’s mass to its HI mass, with no extra scatter or environment dependence, is enough to turn a match to total HI density and the power spectrum into a unique HI mass function.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Galaxy-evolution models must allow more massive HI reservoirs near cosmic noon than current hydro simulations supply.
  • Intensity-mapping forecasts that adopt steeper high-mass HIMFs will under-predict the small-scale 21-cm power.
  • About ninety percent of the cosmic HI at z≈1 sits in a relatively narrow mass window that future surveys can target preferentially.
  • Joint analyses with CO, [CII] or [OIII] line-intensity maps can test whether the same high-mass systems dominate the molecular-gas budget.
  • Tighter CHIME, MeerKAT and SKA-Mid measurements of Ω_HI, the power spectrum and the bispectrum can shrink the HIHM posterior and the HIMF prediction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The tension with hydro simulations and with the earlier HIMF may point to missing physics in how massive halos retain cold gas at z≈1.
  • If the high-mass excess is real, 21-cm intensity mapping will be more sensitive to rare, massive hosts than bias models calibrated on steeper HIMFs assume.
  • Adding the 21-cm bispectrum to the same joint-likelihood pipeline could break remaining parameter degeneracies without requiring a complete galaxy survey.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The authors constrain the three parameters of the Padmanabhan et al. (2017) HI mass–halo mass (HIHM) relation at z≈1 by jointly fitting, within an N-body simulation framework, two existing measurements: the uGMRT stacking estimate Ω_HI = (4.5±1.1)×10^{-4} at z≈1.06 and the eight CHIME 21-cm autocorrelation bandpowers at z≈1.16 spanning 0.4 ≲ k ≲ 1.5 h/Mpc. HI is painted onto FoF halos deterministically via eq. (1) (with halo peculiar velocities assigned by the HC method), and an MCMC over (log α, β, log v_c0) yields closed, strongly correlated posteriors. Using the inferred posterior, they predict the z≈1 HI mass function: nearly flat below ~3.6×10^9 M_⊙, sharply declining above, with ~90% of the HI in M_HI ∈ [2×10^9, 4×10^11] M_⊙, and a larger abundance of high-mass (M_HI ≳ 3×10^10 M_⊙) HI galaxies than inferred by Chowdhury et al. (2024) (CH24) or predicted by TNG100/EAGLE/SIMBA.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a useful and timely contribution: direct HIMF measurements are unavailable beyond z≈0.1, and this work provides an independent z≈1 estimate anchored to actual 21-cm data rather than to hydrodynamical assumptions. Strengths that deserve explicit credit: (i) the joint likelihood correctly incorporates the published CHIME covariance and the uGMRT Ω_HI error in a single Bayesian framework; (ii) the posteriors are closed and the parameter correlations are displayed, so the inference is checkable; (iii) the use of 50 independent realizations and a documented interpolation/scaling procedure makes the forward model reproducible; (iv) the predicted HIMF is a genuinely falsifiable output — it can be tested by future CHIME/MeerKAT/SKA-Mid measurements and by direct HIMF estimates. The main significance caveat is that the most newsworthy element (the high-mass excess over CH24 and hydro simulations) is currently conditional on a rigid, zero-scatter HIHM mapping, and the paper itself contains hints (the excluded CH24-fitting point; the 3σ low-k residual) that the restricted model class is doing some of the work.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3–4, Fig. 3, eq. (1)] The paper's headline result — a larger abundance of M_HI ≳ 3×10^10 M_⊙ galaxies than CH24 and hydrodynamical simulations (Fig. 3, §4) — is obtained by binning M_HI values assigned through the deterministic, zero-scatter HIHM of eq. (1). The likelihood (eq. 4) constrains only Ω_HI and eight CHIME bandpowers over 0.4 ≲ k ≲ 1.5 h/Mpc; these data fix combinations of (α, β, v_c0) but do not directly probe the steep high-mass tail, which sits on the exponential part of the halo mass function. With a deterministic mapping, the HMF cutoff transfers almost one-to-one into the HIMF; even modest lognormal scatter in M_HI at fixed M_h (or assembly bias) would up-scatter abundant lower-mass halos into rare high-M_HI bins and could materially change the claimed excess while leaving Ω_HI and P(k) fits essentially intact. The authors' own Fig. 2 hints at model-class sensitivity: the CH24-fitting HIHM po
  2. [§3, Fig. 1] The authors note that the smallest-k CHIME bin lies ~3σ from the best-fit PS (§3, Fig. 1), but the point is not pursued. With only eight bandpowers, a 3σ residual in the lowest-k bin is a meaningful goodness-of-fit concern: it may indicate missing scale-dependent freedom in the model (e.g., redshift-space distortion treatment, the HC peculiar-velocity assignment, or scale dependence the rigid 3-parameter HIHM cannot absorb). At minimum, a reduced χ² for the best fit, a discussion of whether the misfit is a statistical outlier given the covariance, and its effect on the posterior (e.g., refitting excluding that bin) should be reported.
  3. [§3, Fig. 3; §2] The HIMF in Fig. 3 is plotted down to M_HI = 10^7 M_⊙, yet the halo catalog has a minimum mass of 1.089×10^9 M_⊙ (10 particles), and eq. (1) with the best-fit Mcut ≈ 4×10^11 M_⊙ exponentially suppresses M_HI for low-mass halos. It is unclear how the flat plateau at ~7×10^-3 Mpc^-3 dex^-1 for M_HI ≲ 3.6×10^9 M_⊙ arises from resolved halos, and the text's statement that the plateau 'corresponds to the HI contribution of the halos below the low-mass cutoff' (§4) is confusing given the exp(-Mcut/M_h) suppression in eq. (1). Please clarify the origin of the plateau, indicate which part of the plotted HIMF is resolution-limited, and state the halo-mass (or M_HI) completeness limit explicitly on the figure.
  4. [§2] The [150.08 Mpc]^3 particle-mesh simulation (§2) is used to model bandpowers down to k ≈ 0.4 h/Mpc, where the box contains few independent modes, and up to k ≈ 1.5 h/Mpc, where PM force resolution and the absence of subhalo/satellite structure (HC method assigns each halo a single peculiar velocity, suppressing fingers-of-god) may matter. Fifty realizations mitigate mean estimation but not systematic resolution effects on P(k). Please quantify: (i) the grid/Nyquist scale and the PM resolution relative to k = 1.5 h/Mpc; (ii) the expected impact of neglecting intra-halo velocity dispersion on the redshift-space PS over the fitted k-range; (iii) whether sample variance in the simulated Ω_HI(θ) should enter the likelihood alongside the observational ΔΩ_HI.
minor comments (7)
  1. [§1–2] The uGMRT Ω_HI input (Chowdhury et al. 2020) is derived by stacking blue, star-forming galaxies; any residual correction from that sample to the full galaxy population propagates directly into the HIHM normalization. A sentence on this systematic, and its size relative to the ±1.1×10^-4 statistical error, would help.
  2. [§2, eq. (4)] The likelihood is evaluated at a single simulation redshift z = 1, while the two observables have different effective redshifts (uGMRT z ≈ 1.06, CHIME z ≈ 1.16, with the CHIME band spanning z = 1.01–1.34). Please comment on the evolution of the HIHM/HIMF across this interval and whether it is negligible.
  3. [§2] The α-dependence is obtained by scaling Ω_HI ∝ α and P(k) ∝ α² from a single α_fix = 0.09 grid (§2). This is exact only if shot noise scales the same way as the clustering term; since both scale with ΣM_HI² at fixed halo population this appears to hold, but it should be stated explicitly, and the accuracy of the linear interpolation on the 11×11 (β, log v_c0) grid should be quantified.
  4. [§4] The comparison with CH24 (Fig. 3, §4) should note that the CH24 HIMF is itself an indirect estimate specific to star-forming galaxies; the phrase 'earlier observations' in the abstract overstates the directness of that comparison.
  5. [Fig. 3] Fig. 3 caption mentions a purple dotted curve ('fits CH24') that is discussed in §4 but is not clearly identifiable in the figure description; please check color/style consistency between text, caption, and figure.
  6. [References] Citation details: Gibbon et al. (2015) is cited for MeerKAT 21-cm PS detections, which appears to be an instrumentation paper — please verify; Gupta et al. (2017) lacks volume/page; several arXiv-only entries (CHIME 2025, 2026; Paul et al. 2023) may have since appeared in journals.
  7. [§1, Table 1] Notation: 'M_HI' loses its subscript in a few places in §1 ('relateM HI the HI mass...'); units for M_HI are missing in the abstract's low-mass bound as typeset; the units of v_c0 in Table 1 should be stated in the column header.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: HIMF is a model-derived output from external Ω_HI and CHIME PS constraints, not an input renamed as a prediction.

  1. self citation load bearing [§2 Methodology; also Discussion citing Chhabra & Bharadwaj 2025]
    "These simulations are the same as those in Chhabra & Bharadwaj (2025), which presents some more details of the simulation methodology. ... Similar behavior is also observed when the likelihood analysis is performed using simulated PS and Bispectrum at large scales (Chhabra & Bharadwaj 2025)."

    Minor only: the N-body/HI assignment pipeline and a qualitative remark on parameter correlations are taken from the authors’ related forecast paper. This is not load-bearing for the central HIMF claim (external Ω_HI + CHIME PS still drive the posterior), so it raises the score by at most 1 and does not make the HIMF prediction circular.

full rationale

The derivation chain is standard parametric inference, not a closed loop. Two external measurements (uGMRT stacked Ω_HI and CHIME 21-cm PS) constrain three free parameters of an externally proposed HIHM form (Padmanabhan et al. 2017, eq. 1). The HIMF is then obtained by binning M_HI assigned to simulated halos under the posterior; it is never part of the likelihood (eq. 4). Ω_HI only fixes the first moment of the HI mass distribution and P(k) only constrains clustering/bias, so the detailed HIMF shape is not equal to either input by construction. Tension with the independent CH24 HIMF and with hydro simulations is reported rather than absorbed, which is the opposite of a forced prediction. The only minor self-reference is reuse of the authors’ simulation pipeline (Chhabra & Bharadwaj 2025) for technical details and for noting similar parameter correlations; that citation is not a uniqueness theorem and does not define the target HIMF. Residual model dependence (deterministic zero-scatter HIHM) is a robustness concern, not circularity. Score 1 only for that non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central HIMF claim rests on three fitted HIHM amplitudes, standard ΛCDM+N-body machinery, the assumed Padmanabhan HIHM functional form, halo-only velocity assignment, and the identification of stacked blue-galaxy Ω_HI plus CHIME PS as sufficient statistics for the full HI field. No new physical entities are introduced; the load is carried by the parametric model and the two observations.

free parameters (3)
  • α (normalization of HIHM) = 0.30^{+0.36}_{-0.19} (best-fit median; log α = -0.51^{+0.33}_{-0.41})
    Overall HI mass scale per halo; varied as log α ∈ [-2,0] and constrained by joint likelihood.
  • β (excess logarithmic slope of HIHM) = -0.36^{+0.18}_{-0.15}
    Controls how steeply M_HI scales with M_h above the cutoff; prior [-1,0].
  • v_c0 (circular-velocity cutoff) = 144^{+43}_{-62} km s^{-1} (log v_c0 = 2.16^{+0.11}_{-0.24}); M_cut ≈ 4×10^{11} M_⊙
    Sets the lower halo-mass cutoff M_cut via eq. 2; prior log v_c0 ∈ [1.4, 2.34].
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption ΛCDM cosmology with Planck Collaboration et al. (2014) parameters governs the N-body initial conditions and distance-redshift mapping.
    Stated at end of §1; all simulated volumes, halo masses, and k-bins inherit these parameters.
  • domain assumption The Padmanabhan et al. (2017) three-parameter HIHM (eqs. 1–2) is an adequate deterministic description of M_HI(M_h) at z≈1.
    Adopted in §1–2 as the sole HI assignment rule; no alternative forms or scatter models are tested.
  • domain assumption HI inherits the host halo bulk peculiar velocity (HC method of Sarkar & Bharadwaj 2018) with no internal velocity dispersion.
    §2; used when gridding redshift-space cubes for P(k).
  • domain assumption Friend-of-Friend halos with ≥10 particles (M_h ≥ 1.089×10^9 M_⊙) are a sufficient halo catalog for both Ω_HI and the HIMF down to 10^7 M_⊙.
    §2 simulation setup; low-mass HIMF plateau is populated by sub-resolution extrapolation of the HIHM.
  • domain assumption Measurement errors on the CHIME PS and on Ω_HI are Gaussian and fully captured by the supplied covariance plus ΔΩ_HI.
    Likelihood eqs. 3–4 in §2.
  • domain assumption Stacked 21-cm emission from blue star-forming DEEP2 galaxies provides an unbiased estimate of the cosmic Ω_HI used in the joint fit.
    Chowdhury et al. (2020) value adopted in §1–2; red/passive or diffuse HI not included.
  • standard math Affine-invariant MCMC with uniform priors on the stated ranges yields a converged posterior whose median is the best-fit model.
    §2; standard emcee practice, convergence asserted but not quantified with Gelman–Rubin or similar.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining the $z \approx 1$ neutral hydrogen (HI) distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TWDBAIEI

@misc{pith2026260724412,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining the $z \approx 1$ neutral hydrogen (HI) distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TWDBAIEI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24412}
}
abstract

We constrain the $z \approx 1$ HI distribution by jointly modeling two independent, existing observations of the 21-cm signal, the HI density parameter $\Omega_{\rm HI}$ measured using uGMRT by stacking the 21-cm emission from blue, star-forming galaxies, and the 21-cm autocorrelation power spectrum (PS) measured using CHIME. We assign HI to the dark matter halos in a cosmological simulation using an HI mass-halo mass (HIHM) relation with three free parameters whose values we estimate by performing a joint Bayesian inference comparing the simulated $\Omega_{\rm HI}$ and 21-cm PS with the measurements. We use the inferred HIHM posterior to simulate the HI distribution and predict the $z \approx 1$ HI mass function (HIMF). We find that the HIMF remains nearly constant at low HI masses $( \lesssim 3.6 \times 10^9 M_\odot)$, and it declines rapidly for larger HI masses. Around $\sim 90$ percent of the total HI gas is contained in the mass range $M_{\rm HI} \in [2 \times 10^9, \, 4 \times 10^{11}] \, M_\odot$. Our estimates predict a larger abundance of high mass HI galaxies than predicted by earlier observations and hydrodynamical simulations. We expect these results to be useful in understanding galaxy evolution and star formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24412 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. presents the marginalized one and two￾dimensional posterior distributions of the three HIHM parameters. The 2D contours show 68 and 95 percent credible intervals that are closed within the parameter ranges considered here. The shapes of the contours indi￾cate strong correlations between the parameters. We see the parameters (log α, log vc0) are correlated, whereas (log α, β) and (β, log vc0) are anti-correlated. Sim… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. z ≈ 1 HIMF corresponding to 1000 randomly selected HIHM parameters from the posterior (olive curves). The blue solid curve shows the median of the sampled HIMF, chosen to be the best-fit. The error bars indicate 68 percent credible region around the best-fit. The orange dot-dashed line marks the HI mass corresponding to the lower cutoff Mcut for the best-fit parameters. The red solid curve shows z ≈ 1 HIMF reported … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Bagla, J., Khandai, N., & Datta, K. K. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 567

    2010

  2. [2]

    E., Amiri, M., et al

    Bandura, K., Addison, G. E., Amiri, M., et al. 2014, in Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V, Vol. 9145, SPIE, 738–757

    2014

  3. [3]

    L., & Kovetz, E

    Bernal, J. L., & Kovetz, E. D. 2022, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 30, 5

    2022

  4. [4]

    B., & Sethi, S

    Bharadwaj, S., Nath, B. B., & Sethi, S. K. 2001, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 22, 21

    2001

  5. [5]

    Bharadwaj, S., & Srikant, P. S. 2004, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 25, 67

    2004

  6. [6]

    2011, Galactic dynamics (Princeton university press)

    Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2011, Galactic dynamics (Princeton university press)

    2011

  7. [7]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 2111

    Bird, S., Garnett, R., & Ho, S. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 2111

    2017

  8. [8]

    2021, ApJLetters, 907, L7

    Chakraborty, A., Datta, A., Roy, N., et al. 2021, ApJLetters, 907, L7

    2021

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19126 CHIME Collaboration

    Chhabra, M., & Bharadwaj, S. 2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19126 CHIME Collaboration. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.19620, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.19620 —. 2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.25680 1 https://www.skao.int/en/explore/telescopes/ska-mid

    2025 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chowdhury, A., Kanekar, N., & Chengalur, J. N. 2024, ApJLetters, 966, L39

    2024

  3. [11]

    2020, Nature, 586, 369 Dav´ e, R., Crain, R

    Dwarakanath, K. 2020, Nature, 586, 369 Dav´ e, R., Crain, R. A., Stevens, A. R., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 497, 146

    2020

  4. [12]

    Elahi, K. M. A., Bharadwaj, S., Ghosh, A., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 520, 2094

  5. [13]

    Elahi, K. M. A., Bharadwaj, S., Pal, S., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 525, 3439 —. 2024, MNRAS, 529, 3372

    2024

  6. [14]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  7. [15]

    B., Rotich Kipnoo, E

    Gibbon, T. B., Rotich Kipnoo, E. K., Gamatham, R. R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 028001

    2015

  8. [16]

    2017, Current Science, 707

    Gupta, Y., Ajithkumar, B., Kale, H., et al. 2017, Current Science, 707

    2017

  9. [17]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 3726

    Hoppmann, L., Staveley-Smith, L., Freudling, W., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 3726

    2015

  10. [18]

    G., Haynes, M

    Jones, M. G., Haynes, M. P., Giovanelli, R., & Moorman, C. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2 6

    2018

  11. [19]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415

    2014

  12. [20]

    R., & Refregier, A

    Padmanabhan, H., Choudhury, T. R., & Refregier, A. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3745

    2015

  13. [21]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 2323

    Padmanabhan, H., Refregier, A., & Amara, A. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2323

    2017

  14. [22]

    Pal, S., Elahi, K. M. A., Bharadwaj, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 2851

    2022

  15. [23]

    G., Chen, Z., & Wolz, L

    Paul, S., Santos, M. G., Chen, Z., & Wolz, L. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11943 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A16, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201321591

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A., Jarvis, M

    Ponomareva, A. A., Jarvis, M. J., Pan, H., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 522, 5308

    2023

  17. [25]

    H., et al

    Rhee, J., Lah, P., Briggs, F. H., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 473, 1879

    2018

  18. [26]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 96

    Sarkar, D., & Bharadwaj, S. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 96

    2018

  19. [27]

    K., & Tormen, G

    Sheth, R. K., & Tormen, G. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119

    1999

  20. [28]

    G., Chatterjee, S., et al

    Townsend, J., Santos, M. G., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2026, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.23055

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.