Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Conditional Extremes with Graphical Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that replacing the empirical residuals of the conditional multivariate extreme value model with a sparse, graph-structured asymmetric Gaussian copula yields a fully parametric model that is the first graphical extremes…

desk verdict A real contribution to conditional extremes with thorough simulations; the 'no loss' claim is overstated and the single-graph construction needs clarification, but the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17013 v3 pith:T7TTKRQZ submitted 2024-11-26 stat.ME math.STstat.TH

Aiden Farrell , Emma F. Eastoe , Clement Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MEmath.STstat.TH MSC 62G3262H22
keywords extremaldependenceasymptoticindependenceconditionalmultivariateextremevaluemodelgraphicalextremessparseprecisionmatrixasymmetricgeneralizedGaussianlassorivernetworks
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 sets out to give multivariate extreme value modelling a fully parametric, sparse model that works for both major classes of tail behaviour: variables that tend to be extreme together (asymptotic dependence) and variables whose extremes are associated but not simultaneous (asymptotic independence). Its vehicle is the structured conditional multivariate extreme value model, which takes the standard conditioning approach of the field and replaces the empirical residual distribution with a multivariate asymmetric generalised Gaussian distribution. A graph restricts the residual precision matrix, so the dependence structure can be sparse, can be supplied by a known network, or can be learned from data. The authors argue this is the first practical graphical extremes model for asymptotically independent data, and they provide a three-step inference procedure that is fast in high dimensions and, they claim, loses no information or predictive power. If correct, the model gives a single toolbox for tail prediction on river, road, or other network data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the MV AGG distribution: each residual marginal is an asymmetric generalised Gaussian (location, left-scale, right-scale, shape), and the dependence is a standard Gaussian copula with correlation matrix whose inverse, the precision matrix, is sparse according to a graph G. Sparsity does the dimensionality reduction: instead of a full d-dimensional correlation matrix per conditioning site, one common precision matrix is estimated and the conditional model at site i uses the submatrix with row and column i deleted. The second piece of machinery is the three-step inference procedure, which estimates the CMEVM normalising parameters, then the residual margins, then the sparse precision matrix via graphical lasso; the paper argues this stepwise separation is computationally efficient and loses no information relative to joint estimation.

What would settle it

Fit the model to data simulated with different conditional independence graphs at different conditioning sites, for example two blocks with different edges, and check whether the majority-rule graph from Algorithm 3.5 recovers the true per-site zero patterns; systematic false edges or biased tail probability estimates would show the single-graph assumption gives way. On the Danube data, the same check can be run per conditioning site: if the estimated residual precision matrices for different sites have zero patterns that are not nested by row-and-column deletion of one common graph, that graph assumption is contradicted directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the conditional multivariate extreme value model, each variable's tail is modelled by normalising the other variables and studying the residuals. The paper's central claim is that these residuals can be modelled parametrically by the multivariate asymmetric generalised Gaussian (MV AGG) distribution, meaning asymmetric generalised Gaussian margins joined by a Gaussian copula, with the copula's precision matrix constrained by an undirected graph. Conditioning on site i simply removes row and column i from the common precision matrix, so one graph governs all d conditional models. The result is a fully parametric conditional model that spans asymptotic dependence and asymptotic independence, and whose graph can be estimated by graphical lasso applied per conditioning site and combined by majority rule. Simulation studies and the upper Danube river application indicate the model matches empirical tail dependence, particularly for flow-unconnected stations, better than an asymptotically dependent graphical extreme model.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that a single graph G controls the residual dependence for every conditioning site: the precision matrix for the residuals given a large value at site i is always the common precision matrix with row and column i removed, so if the true conditional dependence differs across sites in a way this construction cannot represent, the sparsity pattern is misspecified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tail probabilities and conditional quantiles can be computed by simulation from the fitted model in dimensions where the empirical residual resampling of the classical CMEVM degrades.
  • Known network topology, such as river flow connections, can be imposed as the graph, or the graph can be learned from data with a majority rule over penalisation levels.
  • The same model covers asymptotically dependent, asymptotically independent, and mixed pairs, removing the need to decide the extremal dependence class before fitting.
  • For the Danube data, the tree given by river flow connections underestimates dependence between stations on separate tributaries, and an inferred graph with 145 edges fits better.
  • Stepwise estimation makes fitting practical at dimensions where one-step joint optimisation is prohibitive, as illustrated by the paper's scaling study up to d = 500.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper leaves implicit: the Gaussian copula kernel could be parameterised by a graph-based covariance function, such as a Whittle-Matérn field on a metric graph, which would allow prediction at unobserved locations along a river or road network.
  • The single-graph assumption implies that any edge present in one conditioning site's residual graph exists in all sites; a dataset where conditional dependence genuinely varies across sites would violate this, and a per-site graph comparison would reveal it.
  • The model's asymmetry parameter should matter most under asymptotic independence; data simulated with symmetric residuals would let a practitioner quantify the cost of the extra parameter through predictive score comparisons.
  • Because the residual distribution is a copula, the same graph-learning machinery could be ported to other extremal models that currently assume full asymptotic dependence.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a structured conditional multivariate extreme value model (SCMEVM) that replaces the empirical residual distribution of the Heffernan–Tawn conditional model with a fully parametric multivariate asymmetric generalized Gaussian (MV AGG) distribution, and induces sparsity by assuming a Gaussian copula whose precision matrix has a graphical structure. A single d-dimensional graph G is introduced in Section 2.3, with each conditioning-site residual precision matrix obtained as the principal submatrix obtained by deleting the conditioning row and column. Inference is carried out by one-, two-, or three-step procedures (Algorithms 3.1–3.4), and graph selection is done by graphical lasso on each site-specific residual vector followed by a majority vote (Algorithm 3.5). The model is evaluated in simulation studies under Hüsler–Reiss, Gaussian, Laplace, t, Pareto, and mixture data, and applied to 31 stations of the upper Danube River basin. The central claims are that the model fills a gap in graphical extremes by accommodating asymptotic independence, and that the stepwise inference procedure loses no information or predictive power.

Significance. If the proposed model holds up, it would be a valuable methodological contribution: it is the first practical graphical model for asymptotically independent multivariate extremes, with a fully parametric residual distribution that can capture asymmetry and a scalable stepwise fitting procedure. The paper includes reproducible code on GitHub, and the simulation studies are unusually broad, covering several data-generating mechanisms and comparing against both the Engelke–Hitz graphical extremes model and the original Heffernan–Tawn CMEVM. The Danube application is convincing in showing that the SCMEVM outperforms the asymptotically dependent EHM for flow-unconnected stations, and the inferred graph recovers plausible hydrological structure. The main open questions concern the identifiability and interpretation of the single-graph assumption and the strength of the 'no loss of information' claim, which are the focus of the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3 and Section 3] The model definition in Section 2.3 assumes that the residual precision matrices Γ|i for all conditioning sites i are principal submatrices of a single d-dimensional precision matrix Γ. However, the inference procedures in Section 3 (Algorithms 3.3–3.5) fit each Γ|i separately and never impose the shared-Γ constraint; the common structure is reduced to a common sparsity pattern. Consequently, the estimated site-specific precision matrices need not be compatible with any single Gaussian law, and the claim that the subgraphs G|i are 'derived' from G is not realized in the fitted model. Please either implement a composite likelihood or constrained optimization that enforces the principal-submatrix relationship, or revise the model to be defined by site-specific precision matrices with a shared edge set, and adjust the text accordingly.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3.1] The statement that the stepwise inference procedure 'loses no information or predictive power' is presented as a general fact, but no theoretical justification is given. The simulation evidence in Table 1 shows that, for graphical and saturated covariance structures, the median bias of the fitted maximum log-likelihood is about 11–15 for all procedures, and the one-step procedure has slightly lower bias than the stepwise procedures in many rows; the differences are not accompanied by uncertainty estimates. Please provide a formal argument based on profile likelihood or misspecification theory, or restrict the claim to the simulation settings considered and characterize the magnitude of the loss.
  3. [Section 3.2, Algorithm 3.5] The graph selection procedure combines site-specific graphical lasso estimates by majority vote, but the identifiability of edges incident to a given conditioning site is not addressed. An edge (i,j) is never directly estimated from the conditioning on i or j; it must be inferred from the subgraphs for k ≠ i,j. This is only valid under the assumption that the conditional independence structure of the residual vector is identical across conditioning sites. The paper notes that MV AGG marginal parameters vary by conditioning site (Section 3.1, last paragraph), and the same may hold for the dependence structure. When the single-graph assumption fails, the majority-rule graph is an average over potentially incompatible conditional graphs and may not correspond to a valid joint model. Please clarify the conditions under which the single-graph assumption is plausible and discuss what the majority-rule estimate represents when it is violated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Algorithms 3.3 and 3.4] The titles of Algorithms 3.3 and 3.4 contain the typo 'MA VGG'; they should read 'MV AGG'.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] In the caption of Figure 1, the text 'and 16 and 29 (right)' should be 'and 16 and 29 (bottom)' to match the panel layout.
  3. [Section 4.1, Table 1] In Table 1, the column headers and the caption make it difficult to read which conditioning variable corresponds to which row group; explicitly label the conditioning variable i inside each row block for clarity.
  4. [Section 2.2, equation (2.5)] The notation F_{Z_{j|i}} for the AGG distribution function is introduced but its cumulative distribution function is never written explicitly; providing the explicit form (or an expression in terms of the incomplete gamma function) would help readers verify the density in (2.5).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model construction, inference, and simulation validation are self-contained, and the single-graph assumption is a stated modeling choice rather than a derived prediction.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain and found no step in which a claimed prediction or first-principles result is equivalent, by construction, to its own inputs. The SCMEVM is built by explicitly assuming that each site-specific residual vector follows an MV AGG distribution with precision matrix obtained by deleting the conditioning row and column from a common precision matrix; this is a modeling assumption stated in Section 2.3, not a consequence of the CMEVM limit (2.1). The graph selection procedure estimates site-specific subgraphs from data and combines them by a majority rule; it does not reuse a fitted parameter as its own prediction. Simulation studies validate the model against data not generated from the assumed SCMEVM, including Hüsler-Reiss, multivariate Gaussian, Laplace, t, Pareto, and mixture distributions, so the central predictive claims have independent empirical support. The Danube application is an in-sample fit honestly compared with empirical dependence summaries, but the paper does not dress this up as out-of-sample prediction. Self-citations point to the authors' supplementary simulations and do not carry load-bearing mathematical weight. The potential misspecification of the single-graph construction when residual dependence varies across conditioning sites is a correctness or identifiability risk, not circularity, and under the stated rules it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on the established CMEVM limit assumption, a new parametric residual distribution with no theoretical limit justification, and a single-graph conditional Gaussian construction. Free parameters are limited to the dependence threshold and the graphical lasso penalty, both selected heuristically.

free parameters (2)
  • Dependence threshold uYi = 0.80 quantile of standard Laplace in application; 0.70-0.90 in simulations
    Threshold above which the CMEVM limit (2.1) is assumed to hold; all parameter estimates depend on this choice, made by convention or a simple quantile rule.
  • Graphical lasso penalty rho = Grid values such as 0.45-0.50 for the Danube application and 0.60-0.70 in graph selection simulations; final selection…
    Controls edge inclusion in Algorithm 3.5; chosen by a heuristic majority rule over a grid rather than cross-validation, and directly affects the estimated graph.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The CMEVM limit (2.1) holds: there exist normalising functions a_j|i(y) = alpha y and b_j|i(y) = y^beta such that the rescaled residual vector converges to a non-degenerate limit independent of the conditioning variable.
    Inherited from Heffernan and Tawn (2004) and assumed for the data without direct verification of the limit's existence for the specific stochastic processes considered.
  • ad hoc to paper The residual vector Z|i follows a Gaussian copula with asymmetric generalized Gaussian margins.
    Working assumption introduced in Section 2.2; the paper provides empirical support via simulations but no theoretical justification from extreme value theory.
  • ad hoc to paper The conditional independence structure of residuals for each conditioning site is obtained by removing the conditioning node from a single d-dimensional graph G and using the conditional Gaussian submatrix property.
    Section 2.3; ensures consistency across conditioning sites but restricts the model and is not derived from extreme value theory.
  • standard math Sklar's theorem allows transformation of univariate margins without altering the dependence structure.
    Used in Section 2.1 to transform to Laplace margins before fitting the CMEVM.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conditional Extremes with Graphical Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7TTKRQZ

@misc{pith2026241117013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conditional Extremes with Graphical Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7TTKRQZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17013}
}
read the original abstract

Multivariate extreme value analysis quantifies the probability and magnitude of joint extreme events. Classical multivariate models, such as max-stable or multivariate generalised Pareto distributions, generally have a high computational cost of fitting, which limits their application. To overcome this, models based on the asymptotically dependent multivariate Pareto distribution have recently incorporated graphical models to induce sparsity and reduce the dimension of the parameter space. While this approach is computationally efficient, the assumption of asymptotic dependence is inappropriate for many applications. The conditional multivariate extreme value model (CMEVM) is a popular model for which the asymptotic dependence assumption is not required. Unfortunately, inference for this model is semi-parametric, and consequently, it has poor predictive performance in high dimensions. An extension of the CMEVM that allows both the incorporation and selection of sparse dependence structures, and fully parametric prediction is proposed. The approach fills a current gap in statistical methodology by extending graphical models to asymptotically independent multivariate extreme value models. To support inference in high dimensions, a stepwise inference procedure that is computationally efficient and loses no information or predictive power is proposed. Simulation studies show the model is highly flexible, and an application to discharges in the upper Danube River basin provides promising results.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17013 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Undirected tree induced by the flow connections of the upper Danube River basin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Boxplots detailing the bias of ˆαj|i for distinct i, j ∈ V . Each row corresponds to the conditioning variable i, and each column corresponds to the sample size. The fill of the boxplots denotes the different models. The red dashed line indicates the y = 0 line. to the one-step (all three structures) and two-step (independence model only) procedures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. True underlying graphical structure (left) and the inferred graphical structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Boxplots of empirical and model-based estimates of Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Boxplots of the bias in p1 = P[X1 > v1, X2 > v2 | X3 > u3] (left) and p2 = P[X3 > v3, X4 > v4 | X5 > u5] (right). The fill of the boxplots distinguishes the bias from the different models. The black dashed line indicates the y = 0 line. components of the generating dis…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Timing comparison (log scale) of the SCMEVMs (left) for various sample sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Empirical and model-based estimates of ηi,j (u) for u ∈ {0.8, 0.85, 0.9} (top to bottom), and i, j ∈ V but i > j. Model-based estimates use the EHM (an AD based model) (left) and the three-step SCMEVM (an AI based model) with graphical covariance (centre left), with st…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Difference between empirical and median of model-based estimates of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Flood risk estimation via geometric extremal graphical models

    stat.AP 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Using block-graph gauge functions, the paper fits the first geometric extremal graphical model to 10 river gauging stations, enabling single-model estimates of simultaneous flood probabilities.

  2. Clustering of multivariate tail dependence using conditional methods

    stat.ME 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A closed-form divergence between conditional-extremes models yields a new clustering method for multivariate tail dependence that works in arbitrary dimensions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    C., and Engelke, S

    Asadi, P., Davison, A. C., and Engelke, S. (2015). Extremes on river networks. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 9(4):2023 –

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    For computational purposes, we consider a single conditioning component i selected at ran- dom from V ; similar results can be obtained when conditioning on different components

    for κ2j , and (0 .8, 2.5) for δj, for each j ∈ V . For computational purposes, we consider a single conditioning component i selected at ran- dom from V ; similar results can be obtained when conditioning on different components. Predictive performance is assessed on Laplace margins only since the probability integral transform (PIT) used to back-transfor...

    work page 2004

  3. [5]

    The data is transformed onto standard Laplace margins Y as per Section 3.1 of the main text

    and correlation matrix consistent with G. The data is transformed onto standard Laplace margins Y as per Section 3.1 of the main text. We use 100 replicates for this study. To infer the optimal graphical structure using our model, we use Algorithm 3.5 of the main text. In the algorithm, we set the dependence threshold uYi to the 0 .90-quantile of the stan...

    work page 2020

  4. [15]

    The SCMEVMs do slightly underestimate the probabilities, however, we anticipate this could be resolved by increasing the size of the prediction datasets

    The standard error of the model- based estimates (on the original scale), appear to be lower for the SCMEVMs compared to the CMEVM. The SCMEVMs do slightly underestimate the probabilities, however, we anticipate this could be resolved by increasing the size of the prediction datasets. The CMEVM underestimates the probabilities because it allows neither in...

    work page 2022

  5. [16]

    This supports our claim that the stepwise inference procedures result in no loss of information

    positive bias, the magnitude of this similar across all stepwise procedures. This supports our claim that the stepwise inference procedures result in no loss of information. Further, when assuming that the residuals have a graphical or saturated dependence structure, the three-step model is least biased. Finally, the bias for the models with independent r...

    work page

  6. [18]

    Empirical and model-based estimated for χi,j(u) are obtained for i, j∈ V , i > j, and u ∈ {0.8, 0.85, 0.9}, where V = {1,

    For each of the fitted models and for each bootstrapped dataset, we obtain a single simulation which is used for prediction. Empirical and model-based estimated for χi,j(u) are obtained for i, j∈ V , i > j, and u ∈ {0.8, 0.85, 0.9}, where V = {1, . . . ,31}. The point estimates in Figure S24 are the median estimates over the two sets of estimates for χi,j...

    work page 2020

  7. [19]

    and Tawn, J

    Wadsworth, J. and Tawn, J. (2022). Higher-dimensional spatial extremes via single-site conditioning. Spatial Statistics, 51:100677. 63

    work page 2022

  8. [89]

    Neal, J., Keef, C., Bates, P., Beven, K., and Leedal, D. (2013). Probabilistic flood risk mapping including spatial dependence. Hydrological Processes, 27(9):1349–1363. Oesting, M. and Stein, A. (2018). Spatial modeling of drought events using max-stable processes. Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment , 32:63–81. Opitz, T., Huser, R., Bak...

    work page 2013

Show all 19 references
  1. [150]

    G., Shaby, B

    Stephenson, A. G., Shaby, B. A., Reich, B. J., and Sullivan, A. L. (2015). Estimating spatially varying severity thresholds of a forest fire danger rating system using max-stable extreme-event modeling. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology , 54(2):395–407. Towe, R., ...

    2015

  2. [404]

    Ledford, A. W. and Tawn, J. A. (1996). Statistics for near independence in multivariate extreme values. Biometrika, 83(1):169–187. Ledford, A. W. and Tawn, J. A. (1997). Modelling dependence within joint tail regions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statist...

    1996

  3. [414]

    Conditional Extremes with Graphical Models

    de Fondeville, R. and Davison, A. C. (2018). High-dimensional peaks-over-threshold infer- ence. Biometrika, 105(3):575–592. Debusho, L. K. and Diriba, T. A. (2021). Conditional modelling approach to multivariate extreme value distributions: application to extreme rainfall even...

    2018 arXiv

  4. [571]

    Heffernan, J. E. and Tawn, J. A. (2004). A conditional approach for multivariate extreme values (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 66(3):497–546. 6 Huser, R. and Davison, A. C. (2014). Space—time modelling of extrem...

    2004

  5. [1451]

    Ribatet, M. (2013). Spatial extremes: Max-stable processes at work. Journal de la Soci´ et´ e Fran¸ caise de Statistique, 154(2):156–177. Richards, J., Tawn, J. A., and Brown, S. (2022). Modelling extremes of spatial aggregates of precipitation using conditional methods. The A...

    2013

  6. [1639]

    and Papastathopoulos, I

    Casey, A. and Papastathopoulos, I. (2023). Decomposable Tail Graphical Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05182. Davis, R. A., Kl¨ uppelberg, C., and Steinkohl, C. (2013). Max-stable processes for modeling extremes observed in space and time. Journal of the Korean Statistical S...

    2023 arXiv

  7. [1737]

    Friedman, J., Hastie, T., and Tibshirani, R. (2007). Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso. Biostatistics, 9(3):432–441. Friedman, J., Hastie, T., and Tibshirani, R. (2019). glasso: Graphical Lasso: Estimation of Gaussian Graphical Models. R package ver...

    2007

  8. [2050]

    and Davison, A

    Blanchet, J. and Davison, A. C. (2011). Spatial modeling of extreme snow depth. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 5(3):1699–1725. Bolin, D., Simas, A. B., and Wallin, J. (2024). Gaussian Whittle–Mat´ ern fields on metric graphs. Bernoulli, 30(2):1611 –

    2011

  9. [2224]

    Reich, B. J. and Shaby, B. A. (2012). A hierarchical max-stable spatial model for extreme precipitation. The Annals of Applied Statistics , 6(4):1430 –

    2012

  10. [2713]

    and Tajvidi, N

    Rootz´ en, H. and Tajvidi, N. (2006). Multivariate generalized Pareto distributions.Bernoulli, 12(5):917–930. Rootz´ en, H., Segers, J., and Wadsworth, J. L. (2018). Multivariate generalized Pareto dis- 29 tributions: Parametrizations, representations, and properties. Journal ...

    2006

  11. [2714]

    Conditional Extremes with Graphical Models

    Wadsworth, J. and Tawn, J. (2022). Higher-dimensional spatial extremes via single-site conditioning. Spatial Statistics, 51:100677. 9 Westra, S. and Sisson, S. A. (2011). Detection of non-stationarity in precipitation extremes using a max-stable process model. Journal of Hydro...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.