Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Cold quark matter with heavy quarks and the stability of charm stars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Charm stars, hypothetical ultradense objects with charm-quark cores, are dynamically unstable under a first-principles QCD equation of state.

desk verdict The paper's instability conclusion is plausible but not established: the equation of state is built from a pairwise flavor sum that is not the NNLO Nf=2+1+1 thermodynamic potential. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10415 v2 pith:2LFWJIM5 submitted 2019-08-27 hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-latnucl-th

José C. Jiménez , Eduardo S. Fraga This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEgr-qchep-latnucl-th PACS 12.38.-t12.38.Bx21.65.Qr12.38.Mh04.40.Dg
keywords charmquarkmatterperturbativeQCDequationofstatestarsradialstabilitybetaequilibriumcompactrenormalizationscale
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 asks whether quark matter that contains charm quarks can form stable compact stars. It extends a perturbative QCD equation of state, previously built for massless quarks plus one massive flavor, to include two massive flavors (strange and charm), and imposes beta equilibrium and electric charge neutrality. Using this equation of state and standard first-order radial pulsation equations, it finds that the stellar configurations with a charm core are dynamically unstable. A sympathetic reader would take this as a first-principles confirmation, within perturbative QCD, of the older bag-model conclusion that charm stars cannot exist.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the extension of the perturbative QCD thermodynamic potential from $N_f = N_l + 1$ flavors to $N_f = N_l + N_m$ flavors by summing independent massless-plus-massive contributions, so that charm matter is treated as $(u+c)+(d+s)$. The pressure is reconstructed by integrating the number densities from the strangeness threshold, with $\beta$-equilibrium and charge-neutrality conditions reducing all chemical potentials to functions of the strange chemical potential $\mu_s$. The renormalization-scale parameter $X$, defined by $\bar{\Lambda}=X\sum_i \mu_i/N_f$, enters through the running coupling and running masses, and the requirement of a continuous passage through the charm threshold reduces the allowed band to $X > 4/3$; the stability analysis is restricted to $X \geq 3$. Dynamical stability is tested with the first-order coupled equations from Ref. [25] for the relative radial displacement and the Lagrangian pressure perturbation, where the imaginary part of the fundamental eigenfrequency signals the onset of instability.

What would settle it

A stable compact object whose measured mass and radius fall on the charm-star branch, for example near $M \approx 1.0\,M_\odot$ and $R \approx 7.3$ km for $X = 3$ at the charm threshold, would contradict the instability claim. Alternatively, a recalculation of the same equation of state with next-to-next-to-next-to-leading-order corrections that yields a real fundamental pulsation frequency throughout the charm branch would also falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that cold, dense, electrically neutral quark matter in $\beta$ equilibrium, described by a perturbative QCD equation of state that includes charm quarks up to next-to-next-to-leading order, does not admit stable charm stars. In the parameter band $X \geq 3$, which satisfies the stability hypothesis for strange quark matter, the mass--central-energy-density curve has a second branch where charm quarks appear and the thermodynamic condition $\partial M/\partial \epsilon_c \geq 0$ holds, but the fundamental radial oscillation mode acquires a positive imaginary frequency there. Because the radial modes obey Sturm-Liouville ordering, once the fundamental mode is unstable all higher modes are unstable as well. The paper therefore concludes that bare charm stars are excluded as a new family of ultradense hybrid compact stars, while still allowing small charm fractions in the cores of heavy hybrid stars.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion depends on perturbative QCD being a reliable description at charm-threshold densities (strange chemical potential near 1.2 to 1.4 GeV, where the running coupling is still about 0.3) and on restricting the renormalization-scale parameter to the band $X \geq 3$ that satisfies the stability hypothesis for quark matter.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the stability conclusion is right, no pure quark star with a charm core can be dynamically stable within this equation-of-state family, so searches for such objects should place the charm branch in excluded parameter regions.
  • The charm threshold softens the pressure and reduces the renormalization-scale uncertainty band to $X > 4/3$, making charm-aware quark matter equations of state more tightly constrained at high densities than their three-flavor counterparts.
  • Bare charm stars are ruled out, but the same framework leaves open a matching between nuclear matter and a quark phase with a small charm contamination in the cores of the heaviest neutron stars via a first-order transition.
  • A non-negligible charm fraction could contribute to the equation of state during the early stages of neutron-star mergers, when densities exceed the charm threshold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the instability persists under higher-order corrections, the exclusion of the charm branch is generic to perturbative QCD equations of state; a natural next test is to repeat the radial analysis with published next-to-next-to-next-to-leading-order corrections.
  • The same heavy-flavor extension applied to bottom quarks would likely also produce unstable bare 'bottom stars', but the more tangible consequence is transient charm production in merger remnants where beta equilibrium is not yet established.
  • The pressure kink at the charm threshold could serve as a subtle signature: if the instability sets a maximum central density for quark cores, gravitational-wave constraints on the post-merger equation of state might indirectly reveal the charm threshold.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the perturbative QCD equation-of-state formalism for N_f = N_l + 1 flavors to systems with multiple massive quarks by writing the thermodynamic potential as a sum of independent (N_l + 1) blocks. It applies this construction to beta-equilibrated, electrically neutral charm quark matter, builds the EoS, solves the TOV equations, and studies radial stability using the two first-order equations of Gondek et al. The central claim is that charm quark stars are dynamically unstable under radial oscillations across the renormalization-scale band X >= 3.

Significance. If the result holds, it would provide a first-principles pQCD update to the older MIT-bag-model conclusion that charm stars are unstable, with a falsifiable prediction for a possible new branch of ultra-dense hybrid stars. The paper is careful in using external lattice/PDG inputs, scanning the renormalization scale instead of fitting it, and validating the pulsation code against known EoSs from Ref. [54]. However, the central conclusion rests entirely on an EoS construction in Eq. (4) that is not the genuine NNLO QCD thermodynamic potential for N_f = 2 + 1 + 1. Because the missing cross-flavor and pure-gluon terms can change the EoS, the stability analysis, and the final instability claim, the result is not established by the calculation as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (4); Sec. III.C] The central thermodynamic potential is written as a sum of independent (N_l + 1) blocks, e.g. (u+c) + (d+s) for N_f = 2 + 1 + 1. This is not the NNLO QCD thermodynamic potential for a system with four active quark flavors. The ring/Debye-screening contribution is a nonlinear function of the total Debye mass built from all active flavors; summing separate one-massive-flavor results therefore omits cross-flavor screening between the two pairs and double-counts pure-gluon NNLO terms. A concrete diagnostic is the massless limit: as m_s, m_c -> 0, Eq. (4) does not reduce to the known massless N_f = 4 NNLO pressure. Since this EoS is the input to the TOV integration and to the Gondek et al. pulsation equations, the instability conclusion in Sec. IV is not supported by the calculation as presented. The authors need either to use a genuine N_f = 2 + 1 + 1 NNLO potential, or to demonstrate quantitatively that the omitted cross terms are negligible in the range mu_s ~ 1.2-1.4 GeV used for the charm threshold.
  2. [Sec. III.C, Eqs. (19)-(22)] The pressure is obtained by integrating number densities from a lower limit mu0(X), described in the text as the point of zero pressure. The value of mu0(X) is never given, nor is the criterion for choosing it. The resulting EoS P(epsilon), and hence the mass-radius curves and pulsation eigenfrequencies, depend on this integration constant. Please specify mu0(X) and demonstrate that the instability result is not an artifact of this choice.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 6] Dynamical instability under radial oscillations is displayed only for X = 3. The statement that the same behavior was obtained for larger values of X is not accompanied by any quantitative evidence. Since the conclusion is stated for the whole band X >= 3, please provide the Im(f0) versus epsilon_c curves for X = 4 and X = 5, or a table of fundamental-mode eigenvalues at the charm-threshold configurations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.A and Sec. III.B, Eq. (17b)] The general definition of the renormalization scale, Lambda_bar = X sum_i mu_i / N_f, is not used consistently in Eq. (17b), where the denominator is 3 rather than 4 for the N_f = 4 case. Please clarify whether this is intentional and explain the averaging prescription above the charm threshold.
  2. [Sec. IV] The restriction to X >= 3 is said to satisfy the Bodmer-Witten hypothesis as shown in Ref. [11], but the connection is not explained; a one-sentence statement of the criterion used would help the reader.
  3. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (4)] The notation Omega[N_l^{(i)}] and Omega[1^{(i)}] is hard to follow because these are not defined in terms of the explicit functions of Ref. [11]. Writing the formula for N_f = 2 + 1 + 1 explicitly, or adding a short glossary, would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. IV, Fig. 6] The figure would benefit from a panel showing Re(f0) as well, since the text discusses Re(omega0) = 0 as the onset of instability and the reader cannot verify this condition from the current plot.
  5. [References] Reference [3] is cited as an arXiv preprint; if a peer-reviewed version exists, it should be cited instead.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the charm-star instability is a derived result of an externally benchmarked pQCD equation of state with a scanned renormalization scale, not a fitted or self-defined prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that beta-equilibrated and electrically neutral charm quark matter described by its pQCD equation of state leads to dynamically unstable charm stars, is not obtained by fitting a parameter to the desired outcome or by defining the input in terms of the output. The thermodynamic potential is constructed from the published Nf = Nl + 1 perturbative QCD formalism of Kurkela, Romatschke, and Vuorinen [11] and Fraga and Romatschke [14]; the extension to two massive flavors in Eq. (4) is an explicit modelling assumption, stated as a convenient bookkeeping of degrees of freedom, rather than a restatement of the stability conclusion. Quark masses and the strong coupling are fixed by external lattice and PDG inputs, and the renormalization-scale parameter X is scanned over a band rather than adjusted to reproduce instability. The stability analysis is then performed with the independent Gondek et al. first-order pulsation equations, and the numerical code is benchmarked against published pulsation frequencies in Ref. [54]. The restriction to X >= 3 is justified by the Bodmer-Witten hypothesis via Ref. [11], and it is imposed before, not derived from, the radial oscillation calculation. Even if the additivity used in Eq. (4) is questionable as a complete NNLO Nf = 2 + 1 + 1 thermodynamic potential, that concern is a physical or correctness risk, not circularity: the paper does not hide the assumption or rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. Self-citations to Refs. [11, 14] invoke independently derived and widely used results, and the central instability claim does not collapse into those citations alone. No specific reduction of a prediction to its inputs can be exhibited, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim (instability of charm stars) rests on the pQCD equation of state being reliable at charm densities, on the beta equilibrium and charge neutrality constraints, and on the restriction of X to a band where quark matter is absolutely stable. No new particles or forces are introduced. The free parameters are the renormalization scale multiplier X and the zero-pressure integration constant mu0.

free parameters (2)
  • X (renormalization scale multiplier) = scanned over 2, 3, 4, 5; restricted to >=3 for stability analysis
    Lambda_bar = X * sum_i mu_i / Nf. The equation of state and all stellar observables depend on X. X is not determined by the theory, only bounded loosely, and the paper narrows the band via continuity and Bodmer-Witten conditions.
  • mu0 (zero-pressure integration constant) = not specified explicitly; chosen such that P=0
    The pressure is obtained by integrating number densities from mu0 (Eqs. 19-22). The value of mu0 sets the absolute scale of the EoS and is not derived from first principles in the text.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The NNLO perturbative QCD thermodynamic potential of Ref. [11] is valid and can be recycled for each (massless + massive) flavor pair.
    The construction in Sec. II.B sums independent Nl+1 blocks without re-deriving cross-flavor diagrams; this assumes no missing mixed-flavor contributions, e.g., in Debye screening.
  • domain assumption The system is in beta equilibrium with vanishing neutrino chemical potentials.
    Used to set the chemical potential relations (10) and (12) in Sec. III.A/B.
  • domain assumption Electric charge neutrality holds globally, including electrons and muons.
    Neutrality conditions (7) and (13) fix the chemical potentials as functions of mu_s.
  • ad hoc to paper The Bodmer-Witten hypothesis selects X >= 3.
    The stability analysis is restricted to X>=3 so that quark matter is absolutely stable; lower X values are excluded, narrowing the pQCD uncertainty band.
  • domain assumption The in-medium charm quark mass is approximated by its vacuum value m_c^0 for the threshold condition.
    Eq. (16) uses m_c^0 as the threshold; the paper acknowledges the in-medium mass is unknown.
  • standard math The radial pulsation equations form a Sturm-Liouville problem with the stated boundary conditions.
    Used to infer instability from Im(f0)>0, following the method of Gondek et al. (Ref. [25]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cold quark matter with heavy quarks and the stability of charm stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2LFWJIM5

@misc{pith2026190810415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cold quark matter with heavy quarks and the stability of charm stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2LFWJIM5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10415}
}
abstract

We study the effects of heavy quarks on the equation of state for cold and dense quark matter obtained from perturbative QCD, yielding observables parametrized only by the renormalization scale. We investigate the thermodynamics of charm quark matter under the constraints of $\beta$ equilibrium and electric charge neutrality in a region of densities where perturbative QCD is, in principle, much more reliable. We also analyze the stability of charm stars, which might be realized as a new branch of ultradense hybrid compact stars, and find that such quark stars are unstable under radial oscillations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10415 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Relative particle fractions for quarks and leptons, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Cartoon of mass-radius diagram for quark star [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. Mass-radius diagram for quark stars made of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Imaginary part of the fundamental mode frequency, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [54]

    Burger, E

    F. Burger, E. M. Ilgenfritz, M. P. Lombardo, and A. Trunin, Phys. Rev. D 98, 094501 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Hajkarim, J

    F. Hajkarim, J. Schaffner-Bielich, S. Wystub, and M. M. Wygas, Phys. Rev. D 99, 103527 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Ablyazimov et al

    T. Ablyazimov et al. (CBM Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 60 (2017)

    2017

  4. [3]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, arXiv:1012.3208

    work page Pith review arXiv

  5. [4]

    J. M. Lattimer, Universe 5, 159 (2019)

    2019

  6. [5]

    J. I. Kapusta and C. Gale, Finite-Temperature Field The- ory: Principles and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [6]

    Laine and Y

    M. Laine and Y. Schroder, Phys. Rev. D 73, 085009 8 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [7]

    Borsanyi, Z

    S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, J. Guenther, K. Kampert, S. Katz, T. Kawanai, T. Kovacs, S. Mages, A. Pasztor, F. Pittler, J. Redondo, A. Ringwald and K. Szabo, Nature (London) 539, 69 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    Boeckel and J

    T. Boeckel and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 041301 (2010); 106, 069901 (E) (2011)

    2010

  2. [9]

    Boeckel and J

    T. Boeckel and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 85, 103506 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    Rodrigo and A

    G. Rodrigo and A. Santamaria, Phys. Lett. B 313, 441 (1993)

    1993

  4. [11]

    Kurkela, P

    A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D 81, 105021 (2010)

    2010

  5. [12]

    Freedman and L

    B. Freedman and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D 17, 1109 (1978)

    1978

  6. [13]

    Farhi and R

    E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2379 (1984)

    1984

  7. [14]

    E. S. Fraga and P. Romatschke, Phys. Rev. D 71, 105014 (2005)

    2005

  8. [15]

    E. S. Fraga, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen, Astrophys. J. 781, L25 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    Kurkela, E

    A. Kurkela, E. S. Fraga, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and A. Vuorinen, Astrophys. J. 789, 127 (2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

    Kurkela and A

    A. Kurkela and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 042501 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    Ghisoiu, T

    I. Ghisoiu, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, M. S¨ appi, and A. Vuorinen, Nucl. Phys. B915, 102 (2017)

    2017

  12. [19]

    Gorda, A

    T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, M. S¨ appi, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 202701 (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    Kettner, F

    C. Kettner, F. Weber, M. K. Weigel, and N. K. Glenden- ning, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1440 (1995)

    1995

  14. [21]

    N. K. Glendenning, Compact Stars – Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics and General Relativity (Springer, New York, 2000)

    2000

  15. [22]

    Haensel, A

    P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin and D. G. Yakovlev, Neutron Stars 1 (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2007)

    2007

  16. [23]

    Schaffner-Bielich and A

    J. Schaffner-Bielich and A. P. Vischer, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4142 (1998)

    1998

  17. [24]

    Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl

    J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A639, 443 (1998)

    1998

  18. [25]

    Gondek, P

    D. Gondek, P. Haensel and J. L. Zdunik, Astron. Astro- phys. 325, 217 (1997)

    1997

  19. [26]

    B. A. Freedman and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1169 (1977)

    1977

  20. [27]

    transition

    in a modified momentum subtraction scheme over 1 Quark mass effects on the equation of state for cold quark matter were first considered several decades ago [12, 13], but only after two decades of being mostly ignored were computed within the modern MS renormalization scheme [11,...

    1908 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Baluni, Phys

    V. Baluni, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2092 (1978)

    1978

  22. [29]

    Toimela, Int

    T. Toimela, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24, 901 (1985); 26, 1021 (E) (1987)

    1985

  23. [30]

    J. P. Blaizot, E. Iancu, and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D 63, 065003 (2001)

    2001

  24. [31]

    E. S. Fraga, R. D. Pisarski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D 63, 121702 (2001)

    2001

  25. [32]

    E. S. Fraga, R. D. Pisarski, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A702, 217 (2002)

    2002

  26. [33]

    J. O. Andersen and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D 66, 105001 (2002)

    2002

  27. [34]

    Vuorinen, Phys

    A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D 68, 054017 (2003)

    2003

  28. [35]

    M. R. Gangopadhyay, G. J. Mathews and J. P. Olson, J. Phys. Commun. 4, 025004 (2020)

    2020

  29. [36]

    J. A. M. Vermaseren, S. A. Larin, and T. van Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B 405, 327 (1997)

    1997

  30. [37]

    Symanzik, Commun

    K. Symanzik, Commun. Math. Phys. 34, 7 (1973)

    1973

  31. [38]

    Appelquist and J

    T. Appelquist and J. Carazzone, Phys. Rev. D 11, 2856 (1975)

    1975

  32. [39]

    Bernreuther, Ann

    W. Bernreuther, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 151, 127 (1983)

    1983

  33. [40]

    T. Graf, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and E. S. Fraga, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 208 (2016)

    2016

  34. [41]

    Torrieri and J

    G. Torrieri and J. Noronha, Phys. Lett. B 690, 477 (2010)

    2010

  35. [42]

    Bazavov, N

    A. Bazavov, N. Brambilla, X. Garcia i Tormo, P. Pe- treczky, J. Soto, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D 90, 074038 (2014)

    2014

  36. [43]

    Chakraborty et al., Phys

    B. Chakraborty et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 054508 (2015)

    2015

  37. [44]

    Graf and P

    T. Graf and P. Petreczky, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.832, 012034 (2017)

    2017

  38. [45]

    Haque, A

    N. Haque, A. Bandyopadhyay, J. O. Andersen, M. G. Mustafa, M. Strickland, and N. Su, J. High Energy Phys. 05, (2014) 027

    2014

  39. [46]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rep. 442, 109 (2007)

    2007

  40. [47]

    S. Han, M. Mamun, S. Lalit, C. Constantinou, and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103022 (2019)

    2019

  41. [48]

    Yasui and K

    S. Yasui and K. Sudoh, Phys. Rev. C 88, 015201 (2013)

    2013

  42. [49]

    Fariello, J

    R. Fariello, J. C. Mac´ ıas, and F. Navarra, arXiv:1901.01623

    1901 arXiv

  43. [50]

    M. G. Alford, L. Bovard, M. Hanauske, L. Rezzolla, and K. Schwenzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 041101 (2018)

    2018

  44. [51]

    E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, V. Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, S. Schramm, H. St¨ ocker and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061101 (2019)

    2019

  45. [52]

    Maelger, U

    J. Maelger, U. Reinosa, and J. Serreau, Phys. Rev. D 98, 094020 (2018)

    2018

  46. [53]

    C. S. Fischer, J. Luecker, and C. A. Welzbacher, Phys. Rev. D 90, 034022 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    K. D. Kokkotas and J. Ruoff, Astron. Astrophys. 366, 565 (2001)

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.