Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

2.7-octave supercontinuum generation spanning from ultraviolet to near-infrared in thin-film lithium niobate waveguides

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An unpoled MgO-doped lithium niobate waveguide converts 0.687-nJ, 81-fs pulses at 1550 nm into one gap-free supercontinuum spanning 330–2250 nm.

desk verdict A credible record-claim for unpoled TFLN supercontinuum, but the UV-edge evidence needs to be shown above the noise floor before it fully lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12438 v1 pith:7VJH3KUR submitted 2025-05-18 physics.optics

Minghui Li , Qiankun Li , Yongyuan Chu , Youting Liang , Hairun Guo , Jintian Lin , Xueying Sun , Hongyang Shi
show 2 more authors
Xinzhi Zheng Ya Cheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords supercontinuumgenerationthin-filmlithiumniobatedispersionengineeringMgOdopingphotorefractiveeffectsecond-harmonicthird-harmonicintegratedphotonics
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 reports that a 6.5-mm-long ridge waveguide in magnesium-oxide-doped thin-film lithium niobate, pumped by 0.687-nJ, 81-fs pulses at 1550 nm, produces a gap-free supercontinuum from 330 nm to 2250 nm, covering 2.7 octaves without any periodic poling. The authors attribute the breadth to dispersion engineering that makes the pump band anomalously dispersive, so soliton fission, dispersive-wave emission, and modal-matched second- and third-harmonic generation all contribute to the spectrum. They also argue that 5% MgO doping suppresses lithium niobate's photorefractive drift, so the broad spectrum persists rather than fading, and that their chemo-mechanical fabrication keeps waveguide losses low enough for the effect to develop. If correct, this would mean chip-scale supercontinuum sources covering the visible and ultraviolet can be made in simple, unpoled waveguides with modest pulse energies, a step toward integrated optical clocks and self-referenced frequency combs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a ridge waveguide etched from a 900-nm Z-cut MgO:LiNbO3 film into a 2-µm-wide mesa with a wedge angle of about 8.36°, fabricated by photolithography-assisted chemo-mechanical etching (PLACE) and designed so that the second-order dispersion β2 at 1550 nm is anomalous. Three mechanisms in that geometry do the work: the anomalous dispersion lets soliton fission and dispersive-wave emission widen the spectrum toward both shorter and longer wavelengths; careful mode matching makes the second harmonic at 775 nm and third harmonic at 517 nm strong enough to seed new spectral regions; and the 5% magnesium-oxide doping suppresses photorefractive index drift so the waveguide output stays stable under sustained pumping. The paper uses a generalized nonlinear Schrödinger equation solved by the split-step Fourier method to connect the waveguide cross-section and pump conditions to the observed spectrum.

What would settle it

Measure the waveguide output at 330–500 nm with a calibrated photon-counting detector through narrow bandpass filters while blocking the pump; if the apparent UV signal is absent, matches stray-light background, or does not rise steeply with pump energy through the same threshold as the harmonics, then the 2.7-octave envelope is not genuine.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a single unpoled MgO-doped thin-film lithium niobate ridge waveguide, with a 2-µm top width and an etched depth chosen so that the telecom band is anomalously dispersive, converts 1550-nm femtosecond pulses at 0.687 nJ into one continuous spectrum spanning 330–2250 nm. The envelope is built by several processes acting at once: self-phase modulation and soliton fission in the anomalous-dispersion region, a short-wavelength dispersive wave near 1100 nm, modal-matched second-harmonic generation at 775 nm, third-harmonic generation at 517 nm, and sum-frequency mixing that fills the gaps between harmonics. The authors show that at lower pump energies the harmonic and supercontinuum components broaden and overlap, reaching 2.5 octaves by 0.54 nJ, and that the full 2.7-octave envelope at 0.687 nJ matches generalized nonlinear-Schrödinger-equation simulations. They further report that an undoped control waveguide gives only 1.636 octaves and unstable output, which they attribute to higher scattering loss and the photorefractive effect.

Load-bearing premise

The result collapses if the 330–500 nm light measured by the grating spectrometer is not genuine guided supercontinuum above the noise floor, or if stitching three detectors' traces creates a continuous envelope that no single detector would actually see.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 2.7-octave, gap-free supercontinuum from an unpoled waveguide means chirped periodic poling is not needed for full-visible-to-UV coverage on thin-film lithium niobate, relaxing fabrication demands and cost.
  • At pump energies around 0.405 nJ the second-harmonic light and the supercontinuum already overlap spectrally, which is the condition required for f-2f self-referencing of the comb on a chip.
  • MgO doping makes the broad spectrum persist over time, directly addressing the photorefractive instability that limited earlier TFLN supercontinuum demonstrations.
  • Numerical simulations reproduce the measured profile and soliton-fission position, giving a design loop for moving the spectrum edge by changing the waveguide cross-section.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the UV edge is confirmed by a calibrated photon-counting measurement, the practical span may extend beyond 2250 nm too, since the stated limit is the optical spectrum analyzer's cutoff rather than the waveguide.
  • The same dispersion-engineering recipe without poling should transfer to other pump wavelengths, such as 1030 nm or 2 µm, by rescaling the cross-section, opening UV-visible combs for telecom- and mid-IR-pumped chips.
  • MgO doping could be applied to other lithium niobate nonlinear devices where photorefractive drift limits long-term operation, such as electro-optic modulators, microring combs, and quantum sources.
  • A direct test of the mechanism would be to measure the 330–500 nm output with a silicon photon counter and bandpass filters; if the counts track the pump pulse energy through the same nonlinear threshold as the visible harmonics, the guided-wave origin is settled.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a 2.7-octave supercontinuum spanning 330 nm to 2250 nm generated in a 6.5-mm-long MgO-doped thin-film lithium niobate (TFLN) ridge waveguide pumped by 81-fs, 1550-nm pulses with 0.687 nJ pulse energy. The claimed spectral coverage is achieved without periodic poling, using dispersion-engineered anomalous GVD, modal-matched SHG, THG, dispersive-wave emission, and MgO doping to suppress the photorefractive effect. The authors support the claim with power-dependent spectra (Fig. 3), a numerical GNLSE simulation (Fig. 4c), a comparison to undoped TFLN waveguides (Fig. 5), and a photograph of visible scattering along the waveguide. The central assertion is that the measured spectrum is gap-free across the full 330--2250 nm range, with the short-wavelength edge measured by a grating spectrometer with a stated lower detection limit of -90 dBm.

Significance. If the measurement is fully substantiated, this would be a record spectral coverage for unpoled TFLN waveguides and would represent a meaningful step toward chip-scale frequency combs spanning the UV to near-infrared. The paper has several strengths: the PLACE fabrication route is relevant to low-loss TFLN devices, the dispersion-engineering rationale is clearly presented, the pump-power evolution showing SHG, THG, and SPM is valuable, and the comparison with undoped TFLN helps isolate the role of MgO doping. However, the central 'gap-free 2.7-octave' claim rests on the 330--500 nm portion of the spectrum, and the evidence provided for that portion is not yet sufficient to rule out detector-noise, stray-light, or spectral-stitching artifacts. The supporting simulation also uses a different pulse energy from the experiment and does not reproduce a prominent discrete feature near 500 nm.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3.1, Fig. 2(b)] The 2.7-octave bandwidth is set by the short-wavelength edge at 330 nm, so the 330--500 nm trace is load-bearing. The grating spectrometer's lower detection limit is stated as -90 dBm, and the red curve is described as recorded 'without considering the coupled loss (~-10 dB)'. However, the manuscript does not provide a raw spectral trace with the pump blocked, a calibration factor relating the grating-spectrometer trace to the OSA traces, or a description of how the spectra were stitched together in Fig. 2(a). The comparison between the discontinuous 0.625-nJ black curve and the supposedly gap-free 0.687-nJ red curve is a ~10% pump-energy change, and such a threshold-sensitive transition is exactly where the detection floor could affect the apparent envelope. Please provide the raw traces, a noise-floor measurement, detector-calibration details, and the stitching/concatenation procedure.
  2. [Sec. 2.3.3, Fig. 4(c)] The GNLSE simulation is run with a pump energy of 0.81 nJ, while the experiment is claimed at 0.687 nJ; no explanation for this mismatch is given. Additionally, the text acknowledges that the strong discrete spectral component near 500 nm is not reproduced by the simulation, yet the paper concludes that the simulation 'agrees well' with the experiment. This discrepancy weakens the numerical support for the UV extension. Please simulate at the experimental pulse energy, or explicitly justify the 0.81-nJ value, and quantify the agreement (e.g., spectral overlap or residual) in the region where the discrete feature appears.
  3. [Sec. 2.3.1 and Fig. 2] No error bars, repeated-measurement statistics, or spectrometer resolution/dynamic-range specifications are reported for the spectra in Fig. 2. The claim of a 'gap-free' envelope requires knowing that the absence of signal between the measured points is not due to the instrument floor or to stitching discontinuities. Please state the resolution and dynamic range of each spectrometer used for the concatenated spectrum, and report at least one repeated acquisition or an estimate of measurement uncertainty.
  4. [Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 5] The paper attributes the improved SCG in MgO-doped TFLN partly to suppression of the photorefractive effect and states that the doped waveguide maintains SCG 'for a long time of period', but no time-resolved spectral measurement is shown for either the doped or the undoped waveguide. The inset photograph and the qualitative statement are not sufficient to support this claim. Please provide a quantitative comparison of spectral stability over time under nominally identical pumping conditions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.3.3] The phrase 'spit-step Fourier method' should read 'split-step Fourier method'.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 2.3.1] The sentence beginning 'Here, Such ultrabroad-bandwidth SCG' contains an inappropriate capital 'S' after the comma; please revise for grammar.
  3. [Fig. 3] The highest pump energy in Fig. 3 is listed as 0.675 nJ, whereas the main text and Fig. 2(a) quote 0.687 nJ; please reconcile these values.
  4. [Fig. 2(b) caption] The phrase 'the lower detected limit of the spectrometer' should be 'the lower detection limit of the spectrometer'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central claim is an experimental measurement, and the supporting simulation is a parameterized model, not a fit to the measured spectrum.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the experimental observation of 2.7-octave supercontinuum generation from 330 nm to 2250 nm in a MgO-doped TFLN waveguide. This is a measurement, not a derivation from an input that already contains the result. The supporting GNLSE simulation is based on the waveguide cross-section geometry and standard nonlinear material parameters; it is not fitted to the measured spectral shape. The simulation uses a pump energy of 0.81 nJ versus the experimental 0.687 nJ, and the paper acknowledges that a discrete feature near 500 nm is not reproduced by the simulation, which weakens the 'agrees well' comparison but does not constitute circularity. References to PLACE fabrication and dispersion-engineering methods are normal method attributions, not load-bearing self-citations. Potential experimental concerns about the UV-edge measurement near the grating-spectrometer noise floor are issues of evidence quality, not circular reasoning. No step in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an experimental observation. The main model inputs are standard material constants and a measured/simulated pump. The one questionable tuning knob is the simulation pump energy (0.81 nJ vs 0.687 nJ experimental), which is not discussed; the MgO concentration and waveguide cross-section are design choices, not fits to the final spectrum.

free parameters (3)
  • Simulation pump pulse energy = 0.81 nJ (experiment 0.687 nJ)
    GNLSE simulation input; differs from experimental pump energy by 18%. If this value was chosen to improve the match, the simulation is partly fit rather than a parameter-free prediction.
  • MgO doping concentration = 5 mol.%
    Chosen to suppress photorefractive effect; assumed to not significantly alter dispersion or nonlinearity. Central to the claimed stability of SCG.
  • Waveguide geometry = width 2 µm, etch depth 662 nm, wedge angle 8.36°, length 6.5 mm (main device)
    Set by dispersion engineering to achieve anomalous dispersion at pump and a short-wavelength dispersive wave near 1100 nm. These are design parameters, not fit to the output spectrum, but they determine the result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Material constants for lithium niobate (d33=30 pm/V, d31=5.9 pm/V, n2=2.5e-19 m2/W, transparency 0.33-5 µm)
    Used as inputs for simulation and to motivate device design; values taken from prior literature, not measured here.
  • domain assumption Generalized nonlinear Schrödinger equation captures the relevant physics (soliton fission, dispersive waves, χ(2) and χ(3) mixing)
    The simulation is based on this model [33]; the paper does not assess its validity for the UV edge or waveguide-loss regime.
  • domain assumption MgO doping suppresses photorefractive effect enough to maintain a stable SCG without altering waveguide properties
    The paper argues this from prior work and the observed long-term maintenance, but no quantitative stability data or before/after photorefractive measurement is shown.
  • domain assumption The observed spectrum originates in the waveguide, not in coupling optics or the output fiber
    The pump is coupled via an aspheric lens and output via a lensed fiber; the paper does not report a no-waveguide control or an estimate of nonlinear contributions in the fiber.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2.7-octave supercontinuum generation spanning from ultraviolet to near-infrared in thin-film lithium niobate waveguides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7VJH3KUR

@misc{pith2026250512438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2.7-octave supercontinuum generation spanning from ultraviolet to near-infrared in thin-film lithium niobate waveguides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7VJH3KUR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12438}
}
read the original abstract

Supercontinuum generation (SCG) with spectral coverage across the full visible and ultraviolet (UV) ranges is crucial for optical clocks, quantum computing and sensing. However, achieving such SCG in nanophotonic platforms is challenging due to the difficulties in spectrum broadening. Here, Such ultrabroad-bandwidth SCG was demonstrated in thin-film lithium niobate (TFLN) nanophotonic waveguides by dispersion management, without periodic poling for spectral broadening. Anomalous-dispersion waveguides were designed in the telecom band, simultaneously enabling dispersive wave emergence, modal-matched second harmonic generation, and third harmonic generation for spectrum broadening. Moreover, MgO was intentionally doped to mitigate the photorefractive effect of lithium niobate, which frequently results in un-sustained spectrum broadening and in turn limits the accessible SCG coverage. By leveraging photolithography assisted chemo-mechanical etching, low-loss MgO doped TFLN nanophotonic waveguides were fabricated. As a result, thanks to the utilization of the strong second-order and third-order nonlinear processes, gap-free 2.7-octave SCG spanning from 330 nm to 2250 nm was observed by pumping the waveguide with a 1550-nm femtosecond pulsed laser with 0.687 nJ, agreeing well with numerical simulation. This spectral coverage represents the state of the art in TFLN platforms without fine microdomains, and even close to the record in sophisticated chirped periodically poled TFLN waveguides.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. A. Diddams, L. Hollberg, V. Mbele, Nature 2007, 445, 627

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    J. Lu, J.B. Surya, X. Liu, Y. Xu, H.X. Tang, Opt. Lett. 2019. 44, 1492

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    C. R. Petersen, U. Mø ller, I. Kubat, B. Zhou, S. Dupont, J. Ramsy, T. Benson, S. Sujecki, N. Abdel-Moneim, Z. Tang, D. Furniss, A. Seddon, O. Bang, Nat. Photonics 2014, 8, 830

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    S. B. Papp, K. Beha, P. Del’Haye, F. Quinlan, H. Lee, K. J. Vahala, S. A. Diddams, Optica, 2014,10

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Yesilkoy, Sensors, 2019, 19, 4287

    F. Yesilkoy, Sensors, 2019, 19, 4287

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    D. R. Carlson, D. D. Hickstein, A. Lind, J. B. Olson, R. W. Fox, R. C. Brown, A. D. Ludlow, Q. Li, D. Westly, H. Leopardi, T. M. Fortier, K. Srinivasan, S. A. Diddams, S. B. Papp, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2017, 8, 014027

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    S. A. Diddams, K. Vahala, T. Udem, Science, 2020, 369, eaay3676

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    S. A. Diddams, L. Hollberg, V. Mbele, Nature, 2007, 445, 627

    work page 2007

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    J. Lu, J. B. Surya, X. Liu, Y. Xu, H.X. Tang, Opt. Lett., 2019, 44, 1492

    2019

  2. [10]

    Carletti, P

    L. Carletti, P. Ma, Y. Yu, B. Luther-Davies, D. Hudson, C. Monat, R. Orobtchouk, S. Madden, D. J. Moss, M. Brun, S. Ortiz, P. Labeye, S. Nicoletti, C. Grillet, Opt. Express, 2015, 23, 8261

    2015

  3. [11]

    Hammani, M

    K. Hammani, M. A. Ettabib, A. Bogris, A. Kapsalis, D. Syvridis, M. Brun, P. Labeye, S. Nicoletti, P. Petropoulos, Opt. Express, 2014, 22, 9667

    2014

  4. [12]

    Serna, V

    S. Serna, V. Vakarin, J.-M. Ramirez, J. Frigerio, A. Ballabio, X. Le Roux, L. Vivien, G. Isella, E. Cassan, N. Dubreuil, D. Marris-Morini, Sci. Rep., 2017, 7, 14692

    2017

  5. [13]

    Hammani, M

    K. Hammani, M. A. Ettabib, A. Bogris, A. Kapsalis, D. Syvridis, M. Brun, P. Labeye, S. Nicoletti, D. J. Richardson, P. Petropoulos, Opt. Express, 2013, 21, 16690

    2013

  6. [14]

    H. Guo, C. Herkommer, A. Billat, D. Grassani, C. Zhang, M. H. P. Pfeiffer, W. Weng, C.-S. Brè s, T. J. Kippenberg, Nat. Photonics, 2018, 12, 330

    2018

  7. [15]

    A. R. Johnson, A. S. Mayer, A. Klenner, K. Luke, E. S. Lamb, M. R. E. Lamont, C. Joshi, Y. Okawachi, F. W. Wise, M. Lipson, U. Keller, A. L. Gaeta, Opt. Lett., 2015, 40, 5117

    2015

  8. [16]

    D. R. Carlson, D. D. Hickstein, A. Lind, S. Droste, D. Westly, N. Nader, I. Coddington, N. R. Newbury, K. Srinivasan, S. A. Diddams, S. B. Papp, Opt. Lett., 2017, 42, 2314

    2017

  9. [17]

    D.Y. Oh, D. Sell, H. Lee, K.Y. Yang, S.A. Diddams, K.J. Vahala, Opt. Lett., 2014, 39, 1046. 12

    2014

  10. [18]

    D. Y. Oh, K.Y. Yang, C. Fredrick, G. Ycas, S.A. Diddams, K.J. Vahala, Nat. Commun., 2017, 8, 13922

    2017

  11. [19]

    V. G. Ta'eed, M. Shokooh-Saremi, L. Fu, I.C.M. Littler, D.J.Moss, M. Rochette, B.J. Eggleton, Y. Ruan, B. Luther-Davies, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quant. Electron., 2006, 12, 360

    2006

  12. [20]

    Okawachi, M

    Y. Okawachi, M. Yu, B. Desiatov, B. Y. Kim, T. Hansson, M. Lončar, A. L. Gaeta . Optica, 2020, 7, 702

    2020

  13. [21]

    B. Fu, R. Gao, N. Yao, H. Zhang, C. Li, J. Lin, M. Wang, L. Qiao, Y. Cheng, Opto- Electron. Adv., 2024, 7, 240061

    2024

  14. [22]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys., 2015, 87, 637

    2015

  15. [23]

    T.-H. Wu, L. Ledezma, C. Fredrick, P. Sekhar, R. Sekine, Q. Guo, R. M. Briggs, A. Marandi, S. A. Diddams, Nat. Photonics, 2024, 18, 218-223

    2024

  16. [24]

    J. Lin, F. Bo, Y. Cheng, J. Xu, Photon. Res. 2020, 8, 1910

    2020

  17. [25]

    Y. Jia, L. Wang, F. Chen, Appl. Phys. Rev. 2021, 8, 011307

    2021

  18. [26]

    Y. Niu, C. Lin, X. Liu, Y. Chen, X. Hu, Y. Zhang, X. Cai, Y. Gong, Z. Xie, S. Zhu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2020, 116, 101104

    2020

  19. [27]

    A. S. Kowligy, A. Lind, D. D. Hickstein, D. R. Carlson, H. Timmers, N. Nader, F. C. Cruz, G. Ycas, S. B. Papp, S. A. Diddams, Opt. Lett., 2018, 43, 1678

    2018

  20. [28]

    Zheng, X

    Y. Zheng, X. Chen, Adv. Phys. X 2021, 6, 1889402

    2021

  21. [29]

    J. Lin, N. Yao, Z. Hao, J. Zhang, W. Mao, M. Wang, W. Chu, R. Wu, Z. Fang, L. Qiao, W. Fang, F. Bo, Y. Cheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 122, 173903

    2019

  22. [30]

    Z. Hao, L. Zhang, W. Mao, A. Gao, X. Gao, F. Gao, F. Bo, G. Zhang, J. Xu, Photon. Res., 2020, 8, 311

    2020

  23. [31]

    J. Zhou, R. Gao, J. Lin, M. Wang, W. Chu, W. Li, D. Yin, L. Deng, Z. Fang, J. Zhang, R. Wu, Y. Cheng, Chin. Phys. Lett., 2020, 37, 084201

    2020

  24. [32]

    M. Yu, B. Desiatov, Y. Okawachi, A. L. Gaeta, M. Lončar, Opt. Lett., 2019, 44, 1222- 1225

    2019

  25. [33]

    L. Peng, L. Liu, X. Li, L. Hong, Z. Li, Laser Photonics Rev., 2025, 19, 202400335

    2025

  26. [34]

    J. Lin, S. Farajollahi, Z. Fang, N. Yao, R. Gao, J. Guan, L. Deng, T. Lu, M. Wang, H. Zhang, W. Fang, L. Qiao, Y. Cheng, Adv. Photonics, 2022, 4, 036001

    2022

  27. [35]

    L. Gao, Y. Liang, L. Song, D. Yin, J. Qi, J. Chen, Z. Liu, J. Yu, J. Liu, H. Zhang, Z. Fang, H. Qi, Y. Cheng, Opt. Lett., 2024, 49, 614

    2024

  28. [36]

    Porsezian, R.V

    K. Porsezian, R.V. J. Raja, Pramana, 2015, 85, 993

    2015

  29. [37]

    Jankowski, C

    M. Jankowski, C. Langrock, B. Desiatov, A. Marandi, C. Wang, M. Zhang, C. R. Phillips, M. Lončar, M. M. Fejer, Optica, 2020, 7, 40. 13 Figure 1. Experimental setup for SCG. HWP: Achromatic half wave plate; PBS: Polarizing beam splitter; CCD: Charge coupled device. 14 Figure 2....

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.