Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 8 references

Designing Pin-pression Gripper and Learning its Dexterous Grasping with Online In-hand Adjustment

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A parallel-jaw gripper whose two fingers are 4-by-4 arrays of independently moving pins learns to conform to, re-orient, and lift unseen objects more reliably than fixed-jaw or passive-pin grippers.

desk verdict Active pin-array gripper with a solid simulation core (ablations, cross-engine check, unseen-object tests) but a thin, qualitative sim-to-real section; worth refereeing, likely conditional acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18994 v1 pith:WMMXP5ET submitted 2025-05-25 cs.RO

Hewen Xiao , Xiuping Liu , Hang Zhao , Jian Liu , Kai Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords roboticgripperdesignpin-pressiondexterousgraspingreinforcementlearningin-handmanipulationgrasp-while-liftsim-to-realtransfershapeadaptation
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's central claim is that a parallel-jaw gripper can break out of the fixed-jaw limitation if each finger is replaced by a two-dimensional array of pins that extend and retract independently. On this pin-pression gripper, shape adaptation stops being a design-time problem and becomes a control problem: a reinforcement-learned policy decides step by step how far each of the 32 pins should press, whether to lift, and when to stop. The authors show that such dynamic adjustment can both conform the finger to the object and re-orient the object in hand during lifting, and they report that the learned policy generalizes to unseen objects on six datasets with higher success rates than fixed jaws, passive pin arrays, and task-specific generated fingers. If the claim is right, a single hardware design could replace per-object finger design for a wide class of objects, and the physical prototype with electrically actuated pins is offered as evidence that the idea works outside simulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pin-pression gripper: each of two opposing fingers carries a 4×4 array of independently actuated pins, each a cylinder ending in a spherical tip, giving the gripper a 6+32 degree-of-freedom configuration. The policy observes a state made of three parts—a neural-network encoding of the object's point cloud, the gripper's pose and stage information, and per-pin interaction features such as tip positions, surface intersection points, tip-surface distance, pin extension, and finger identity—and outputs a 34-dimensional action made of 32 pin extensions, a lift switch, and a stop signal. Training uses an off-policy reinforcement learning algorithm with a two-headed critic that separates a terminal grasp reward from an intermediate efficiency reward, where the grasp reward combines the binary success signal, the generalized Q1 analytic stability metric, and time penalties. The mechanism does two jobs: it lets the fingers conform to the object's surface before lifting, and it keeps adjusting the pins during lift so the object can be re-oriented in hand and the force closure tightened.

What would settle it

Run the same teacher-student policy on the physically manufactured gripper over dozens of novel objects from the same dataset families, recording the per-object success rate after lifting to a fixed height; if the real success rate falls far below the reported 76.9–88.0% range, or if the actuators cannot hold a commanded pin extension while the object's weight is applied, the central sim-to-real transfer claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that active, continuous pin adjustment—not passive shape conformity alone—is the mechanism that makes pin-array fingers useful for grasping. The paper distinguishes grasp-then-lift, in which the gripper closes against the ground before lifting, from grasp-while-lift, in which pins keep pushing and reorienting the object after the gripper has started to rise. A policy trained to mix both modes outperforms either mode on its own, and the paper attributes the gain to a two-stage curriculum that first learns the easier ground-closing behavior, then injects air-only experiences into the replay buffer so the policy can continue refining the grasp in the air. Quantitatively, on unseen objects drawn from CAD and scanned model datasets, the pin-pression gripper is reported at 76.9–88.0% success against 40.3–58.2% for a fixed parallel jaw and 56.9–68.8% for passive pin extension, with the largest advantages on flat and inclined objects.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation-trained policy transfers to the physically built gripper with electrically actuated pins, because the paper's real-robot evidence is qualitative; if real-world dynamics diverge from the simulator, the practical claim fails even if the simulated comparisons stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, a single gripper geometry can serve as a general-purpose end effector, replacing task-specific finger design for novel objects.
  • Grasps become a closed-loop process: the hand can keep adjusting during lift, so objects with poor ground contact, such as flat plates, inclined faces, and tetrahedra, are grasped more reliably than by static jaws.
  • The curriculum result implies that risky in-air manipulation can be learned safely by bootstrapping from a conservative ground-closing policy, then expanding the action space.
  • The policy's mode-switching behavior, mostly GtL for flat objects and mostly GwL for inclined objects, suggests the learned controller actively senses shape category and chooses the appropriate strategy.
  • Because the policy transfers to a different physics engine with little test-time computation, the learned skill is not tightly coupled to one simulator's dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit extension, not tested in the paper, is that each independently readable pin makes the finger a tactile array, so the architecture could be used for controlled, shape-adaptive pressure distribution, including grasping fragile or deformable objects.
  • Because the state representation is per-pin and modular, a future policy could be tuned for different pin densities or finger sizes by re-embedding the pin features, potentially avoiding full retraining for each new hardware variant.
  • The qualitative real-robot demonstration leaves a measurable gap: counting trials and failures on the physical rig across the same object families would turn the anecdotal transfer evidence into a quantitative claim the paper does not yet provide.
  • The paper's own failure cases, very thin objects and curved surfaces being pushed out, point to pin density, tip shape, and lateral force control as the design levers most likely to widen the graspable object class; the paper does not test these variations.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a novel parallel-jaw gripper whose fingers are 4x4 arrays of independently actuated pins, and learns a top-down grasping policy with Soft Actor-Critic that combines grasp-then-lift and grasp-while-lift modes through a two-stage curriculum. The central claim is that this design, together with the learned policy, generalizes to unseen objects far better than a fixed parallel-jaw gripper (WSG50), a generative fingertip design (Fit2form), random pin motion, and passive pin extension. The paper reports success rates on six unseen-object datasets (76.9–88.0% vs. 40.3–58.2% for WSG50), ablations of reward/state/curriculum components, robustness to object rotation and friction, an Isaac Gym cross-simulator transfer (73.19%), and qualitative sim-to-real transfer on a physically manufactured gripper with five object models.

Significance. If the simulation results hold, this is a valuable contribution to gripper design and learning-based manipulation: actively adjustable pin-array fingers provide a simple, controllable way to achieve shape adaptation and in-hand reorientation, and the paper's ablation study (removing success signal, Q1 reward, time penalty, efficiency terms, interaction features, or curriculum consistently degrades performance on both train and test sets) plus the Isaac Gym transfer are strong evidence that the simulation core is sound. The comparison against WSG50, Fit2form, Random, and Passive baselines on large unseen-object datasets is a useful benchmark. However, the physical-practicality claim—listed as one of the three main contributions—is supported only by five qualitative key-frame sequences in the main text, with all hardware details and numerical results deferred to supplemental Section E; this is the weakest load-bearing link. The use of the generalized Q1 measure as both a reward term and an evaluation metric also weakens the secondary stability comparisons, though it does not affect the success-rate results.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.4, Fig. 13] The main text's only evidence for physical sim-to-real transfer is a set of key frames of five objects being grasped (Figure 13). The text explicitly defers hardware specifications and physical-experiment results to supplemental Section E, and no success rate, trial count, failure analysis, or comparison with a real WSG50/passive baseline appears in the main text. Because the third contribution states 'physical experiments conducted on a real robot platform demonstrating the efficacy and practical significance,' the practical claim is not supported by the main body as written. Please either include quantitative real-robot results (number of trials per object, success/failure counts, failure modes, and any comparison baselines) or substantially temper the practical-significance claim.
  2. [4.3, Eq. (4); 5.1; Tables 1,3] The generalized Q1 metric is used both as a reward term (omega_2 = 1000 in Eq. (4)) and as an evaluation metric for grasp stability. Under this design, the Q1 comparisons in Tables 1 and 3 do not provide independent evidence that the proposed method produces more stable grasps than the baselines, since only 'Ours' is trained to maximize Q1. The success-rate comparisons are not affected, but the Q1-based stability claims should be reframed or augmented with an externally defined stability measure (e.g., response to perturbation, contact margin).
  3. [Tables 1–5] All quantitative results appear to be based on a single training run and a single evaluation pass, without reporting standard deviations, number of seeds, or statistical significance for a stochastic RL algorithm. Several ablation differences (e.g., 82.47% vs. 78.35% for Ours vs. w/o Q1 on the testing set in Table 1) are within the range one would expect from seed variance in SAC. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds, or otherwise justify why the evaluation is deterministic and the reported numbers are representative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [5.1] The sentence 'we assume a consistent mass of all target objects to 50grams each with a uniform density' is grammatically awkward; please rephrase as 'we assume a uniform density and set the mass of every target object to 50g'.
  2. [Table 4] The T(s) column in Table 4 lists values around 594–689 s, while Table 1 reports average running times below 10 s for the same 97-object test set. The caption says 'sum running time cost,' but the header T(s) with the same symbol as the per-episode average in Table 1 is confusing; please clarify the units or use a separate label such as 'total time (s)'.
  3. [4.3, Eq. (6)] The critic loss in Eq. (6) omits the expectation over the replay buffer distribution; including E_{(s,a,r,s',d)~D} would make the TD update explicit and improve reproducibility.
  4. [Fig. 13] The caption says 'five object models' but the figure shows six panels (a)–(f); please clarify whether some panels are multiple frames of the same object or update the caption to match the number of distinct objects.
  5. [5.4, 'Gripper flexibility analysis'] The description of computing Euler-angle variation from rotation matrices is only verbal; please provide the exact formula or pseudocode so that the reported Avg/Max values can be reproduced.
  6. [5.4, Sim-to-Real transfer] The teacher-student transfer is described in two sentences (teacher RL + DAGGER student) with no details on domain randomization, perception noise, actuator latency, or force limits. Since the main text already defers full details to Section E, at least one sentence quantifying the sim-to-real gap (e.g., observed vs. commanded pin stroke, or perception error) would make the deferral less opaque.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the Q1 stability metric doubles as the Q1 reward term; success-rate claims are independently grounded.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3, Eq. (4) and Section 5.1, Evaluation metrics; Tables 1 and 3]
    "Similar to She et al. [2022], we quantify the grasp quality by considering both the signal G∈{−1,1} indicating whether the final grasp was successful, and the generalized Q1 analytic measure for grasp stability proposed by Liu et al. [2020]. Consequently, the grasp reward function is formulated as follows: r_grasp = ω1G + ω2Q1 + r_time ... For all successful grasps, we calculate the average generalized Q1 [Liu et al. 2020] as an analytical metric representing the overall physical stability."

    The Q1 values reported in Tables 1 and 3 as evidence of 'overall physical stability' are the same Q1 function that the policy was explicitly rewarded to maximize (ω2 = 1000 in Eq. 4). Reporting the optimized reward as an independent evaluation metric is therefore partially self-referential: the Q1 columns largely measure how well the policy maximized its own training objective rather than providing an external check on stability. The circularity is limited because the central success-rate claim (S) is determined by the simulator drop check after lifting the object 30 cm, so the main generalization result is independently grounded. Additionally, the Q1 metric is cited from Liu et al.

full rationale

The paper's central generalization claim is not circular: the primary metric, grasp success rate S, is determined by an external simulation criterion (lift to 30 cm and check for dropping), and the six unseen-object datasets are genuinely disjoint from the training instances. The ablations against WSG50, Fit2form, random, and passive baselines are consistent and externally comparable. The clearest circular step is the generalized Q1 metric: it appears both as a reward term (Eq. 4, ω2 = 1000) and as the reported stability measure in Tables 1 and 3, so the stability comparison is partially a measure of reward optimization rather than an independent evaluation. This is a secondary analysis, not the main success-rate result, and the self-citation to Liu et al. [2020] for Q1 does not by itself invalidate the design. The sim-to-real section is thin, but it is an evidence-completeness limitation, not a circularity. Overall score reflects one partial reward-as-evaluation circularity amidst otherwise self-contained derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim is an empirical system result, so the ledger is dominated by hand-set hardware and training parameters rather than derivation constants. The main load-bearing free parameters are the reward weights (which the ablations show matter), the simulation physics values, the pin geometry, and the object scale normalization. The most important unverified axiom is simulation-to-real transfer, which is only qualitatively demonstrated.

free parameters (5)
  • Reward weights omega1..omega6 = 2000, 1000, -250, -50, -1, -10
    Hand-set in Section 4.3; ablations ('w/o G', 'w/o Q1', etc.) show each weight changes the learned success rate and mode ratio, so results depend on these choices.
  • Simulation dynamic parameters = pin force 0.5N, lateral friction 0.2, rolling friction 0.001, object mass 50g
    Chosen in Section 5.1 following Fit2form; the friction and force sweeps in Figure 12 show success rate depends on them.
  • Gripper geometry and pin layout = 4x4 pins, cylinder height 6cm, sphere tip radius 0.7cm, stroke 5.5cm
    Hand-designed in Section 4.1; pin density is ablated (3x3: 50.51 percent, 4x4: 82.47 percent, 5x5: 88.66 percent), confirming the 4x4 choice is a design decision affecting the result.
  • Curriculum buffer capacities and step limit = m=50000, n=5000, C=11
    Set in Sections 4.4 and 4.2 without sensitivity analysis; they shape the mixed GtL/GwL behavior.
  • Object scale normalization = bounding box max side 5.5cm
    Section 5.1 resizes all objects to fit the gripper stroke; the paper's limitation section admits this restricts the applicable object sizes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption PyBullet contact and friction models are faithful enough that simulation success rates predict physical grasping.
    Invoked in Section 5.1 as the primary evaluation environment; only qualitative sim-to-real evidence is provided.
  • domain assumption The generalized Q1 analytic grasp metric [Liu et al. 2020] is a valid measure of physical grasp stability.
    Used as a reward term (Eq. 4, omega2 Q1) and as the stability evaluation metric in Tables 1-3.
  • domain assumption Resized objects (max 5.5cm) represent the intended application domain and allow fair cross-gripper comparison.
    Section 5.1 applies uniform resizing, but this scale may disadvantage fixed-jaw grippers such as WSG50 designed for larger parts.
  • domain assumption Uniform 50g object mass isolates geometric adaptability from inertial effects.
    Section 5.1 fixes mass and density to focus on shape adaptation.
  • domain assumption DGCNN point-cloud features generalize to unseen object shapes within the training-conditioned geometry distribution.
    Section 4.2 uses DGCNN features as the object state; test objects come from the same datasets as training.
  • ad hoc to paper The teacher-student DAGGER policy trained in simulation preserves performance on the physical gripper.
    Section 5.4 assumes this transfer without quantitative real-world evaluation.
invented entities (1)
  • Pin-pression gripper (actively actuated 4x4 pin-array fingers on a parallel-jaw base) independent evidence
    purpose: Shape-adaptive grasping and in-hand re-orientation through online pin extension and retraction
    The hardware was physically manufactured and demonstrated on five real objects (Figure 13), but without quantitative success metrics; the design is a new artifact introduced by this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Designing Pin-pression Gripper and Learning its Dexterous Grasping with Online In-hand Adjustment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WMMXP5ET

@misc{pith2026250518994,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Designing Pin-pression Gripper and Learning its Dexterous Grasping with Online In-hand Adjustment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WMMXP5ET}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18994}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel design of parallel-jaw grippers drawing inspiration from pin-pression toys. The proposed pin-pression gripper features a distinctive mechanism in which each finger integrates a 2D array of pins capable of independent extension and retraction. This unique design allows the gripper to instantaneously customize its finger's shape to conform to the object being grasped by dynamically adjusting the extension/retraction of the pins. In addition, the gripper excels in in-hand re-orientation of objects for enhanced grasping stability again via dynamically adjusting the pins. To learn the dynamic grasping skills of pin-pression grippers, we devise a dedicated reinforcement learning algorithm with careful designs of state representation and reward shaping. To achieve a more efficient grasp-while-lift grasping mode, we propose a curriculum learning scheme. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that our design, together with the learned skills, leads to highly flexible and robust grasping with much stronger generality to unseen objects than alternatives. We also highlight encouraging physical results of sim-to-real transfer on a physically manufactured pin-pression gripper, demonstrating the practical significance of our novel gripper design and grasping skill. Demonstration videos for this paper are available at https://github.com/siggraph-pin-pression-gripper/pin-pression-gripper-video.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18994 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The proposed pin-pression gripper offers object adaption and in-hand re-orientation through dynamically adjusting the extension and retraction of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A picture of a pin-pression toy. The toy features a 2D array of pins [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The parallel-jaw gripper (a) finds difficulty in grasping the trapezoid. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of our learning-based approach. Our method obtains the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Informative dynamic interaction representations of each pin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Our learning framework consists of a two-stage curriculum (colored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visual comparisons between our method and alternative baselines on six datasets. For each object, we show the results before and after lifting it. Note [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of our approach (left) and the passive grasping method with all pins extended (right). We display the initial configurations of the gripper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Flexibility analysis on Active Grasp (Ours) and Passive Grasp meth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The influences of gripper friction and grasp force on the performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: We showcase several key steps of dynamically adjusting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Physical experiment of sim-to-real transfer. From (a) to (f ) show several key frames of the dynamic grasping processes of our pin-pression gripper on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Failure cases. Our gripper is not adept at handling certain extremely [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

8 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Hao-Shu Fang, Chenxi Wang, Minghao Gou, and Cewu Lu

    Go-explore: a new approach for hard-exploration problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.10995(2019). Hao-Shu Fang, Chenxi Wang, Minghao Gou, and Cewu Lu. 2020. Graspnet-1billion: A large-scale benchmark for general object grasping. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. Nima Fazeli, Miquel Oller, Jiajun Wu, Zheng Wu, Joshua B Tenenbaum, ...

    arXiv 2019

  2. [7]

    InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation

    Deep Reinforcement Learning for Vision-Based Robotic Grasping: A Simulated Comparative Evaluation of Off-Policy Methods. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Aravind Rajeswaran, Vikash Kumar, Abhishek Gupta, Giulia Vezzani, John Schul- man, Emanuel Todorov, and Sergey Levine. 2017. Learning complex dexterous manipulation with deep r...

    arXiv 2017

  3. [8]

    Deliberate Planning of 3D Bin Packing on Packing Configuration Trees

    Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. InIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2818–2826. Weikang Wan, Haoran Geng, Yun Liu, Zikang Shan, Yaodong Yang, Li Yi, and He Wang. 2023. UniDexGrasp++: Improving Dexterous Grasping Policy Learning via Geometry-aware Curriculum and Iterative Generalist-Specialist Learning.IE...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  4. [2012]

    OpenAI: Marcin Andrychowicz, Bowen Baker, Maciek Chociej, Rafal Jozefowicz, Bob McGrew, Jakub Pachocki, Arthur Petron, Matthias Plappert, Glenn Powell, Alex Ray, et al

    A positive pressure universal gripper based on the jamming of granular material.IEEE Transactions on Robotics(2012). OpenAI: Marcin Andrychowicz, Bowen Baker, Maciek Chociej, Rafal Jozefowicz, Bob McGrew, Jakub Pachocki, Arthur Petron, Matthias Plappert, Glenn Powell, Alex Ray, et al. 2020. Learning dexterous in-hand manipulation.The International Journal...

    work page 2012

  5. [2016]

    Viktor Makoviychuk, Lukasz Wawrzyniak, Yunrong Guo, Michelle Lu, Kier Storey, Miles Macklin, David Hoeller, N

    Dex-Net 1.0: A cloud-based network of 3D objects for robust grasp planning using a Multi-Armed Bandit model with correlated rewards.IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation(2016). Viktor Makoviychuk, Lukasz Wawrzyniak, Yunrong Guo, Michelle Lu, Kier Storey, Miles Macklin, David Hoeller, N. Rudin, Arthur Allshire, Ankur Handa, and Gavriel S...

    work page 2016

  6. [2017]

    ACM Trans

    Deep reinforcement learning: A brief survey.IEEE Signal Processing Magazine (2017). ACM Trans. Graph., Vol. 44, No. 4, Article . Publication date: August 2025. 16•Hewen Xiao, Xiuping Liu, Hang Zhao, Jian Liu, and Kai Xu Lucian Balan and Gary M. Bone. 2003. Automated Gripper Jaw Design and Grasp Planning for Sets of 3D Objects.Journal of Field Robotics(200...

    work page 2017

  7. [2018]

    Huy Ha, Shubham Agrawal, and Shuran Song

    Skaterbots: Optimization-based design and motion synthesis for robotic creatures with legs and wheels.ACM Transactions on Graphics(2018). Huy Ha, Shubham Agrawal, and Shuran Song. 2020. Fit2Form: 3D Generative Model for Robot Gripper Form Design. InConference on Robotic Learning. Tuomas Haarnoja, Aurick Zhou, Kristian Hartikainen, G. Tucker, Sehoon Ha, Ji...

    arXiv 2018

  8. [2019]

    Quantile qt-opt for risk-aware vision-based robotic grasping.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.02787(2019). R.C. Brost and R.R. Peters. 1996. Automatic design of 3-d fixtures and assembly pallets. InIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. Russell G Brown and Randy C Brost. 1999. A 3-D modular gripper design tool.IEEE Transactions on Robotics and...

    arXiv 2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.