Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 32 references

Towards Privacy-Preserving Medical Imaging: Federated Learning with Differential Privacy and Secure Aggregation Using a Modified ResNet Architecture

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 a federated medical imaging model with differential privacy and secure aggregation hits 96.89% accuracy on a blood-cell benchmark, within one point of non-private training.

desk verdict A clear, well-written combination of FedAvg, DP-SGD, and SecAgg+ on BloodMNIST, but the central privacy guarantee is asserted rather than derived, and the empirical claims lack error bars and code. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00687 v1 pith:LZF57H6A submitted 2024-12-01 cs.LG cs.CR

Mohamad Haj Fares , Ahmed Mohamed Saad Emam Saad This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CR
keywords federatedlearningdifferentialprivacysecureaggregationmulti-partycomputationmedicalimagingResNetBloodMNISTgroupnormalization
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 tries to establish that privacy-protecting federated training need not cost much accuracy in medical imaging. It combines three safeguards — keeping data on hospital devices, adding differentially private noise to each local update, and aggregating updates through a secure multi-party protocol — and shows on the BloodMNIST blood-cell benchmark that the fully protected model reaches 96.89% accuracy with 20 clients, within one percentage point of the same architecture trained without privacy protections. The reason to care is that this is the configuration a real hospital consortium would want: no raw images leave the institutions, individual updates are hidden even from the coordinating server, and the accuracy gap to non-private training is small. The paper also introduces DPResNet, a ResNet-9 variant with group normalization and no max pooling, as the architecture change that keeps model quality high under noise.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a three-layer privacy stack. Each client clips its local gradient to norm $C=7$ and adds Gaussian noise, following Eq. (3), to turn the update into a $(\epsilon,\delta)$-differentially private message. Those noisy updates are combined by SecAgg+, a secure multi-party aggregation protocol that prevents the coordinating server from seeing any individual update and tolerates client dropouts down to a four-share reconstruction threshold. The model itself is DPResNet, a ResNet-9 variant that replaces batch normalization with group normalization (32 groups per layer) and removes max pooling; the paper presents this architecture choice as the element that keeps accuracy high when noise is injected. Federated averaging from FedAvg ties the rounds together.

What would settle it

Run the training pipeline with the actual noise scale used in Eq. (3), apply a standard privacy-composition accountant over 50 rounds and 3 local epochs per client, and compare the resulting $\epsilon$ at $\delta=1.9\times10^{-4}$ with the claimed 6.0; if no $\sigma$ is reported or recoverable, the privacy claim is not reproducible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a federated medical-imaging classifier can run under both local differential privacy and secure multi-party aggregation and still land within about one percentage point of its non-private counterpart. On the BloodMNIST benchmark with 20 non-IID clients, the fully private configuration (clipping norm $C=7$, declared $\epsilon=6.0$ and $\delta=1.9\times10^{-4}$, and secure aggregation) reaches 96.89% accuracy, versus 97.77% for the same model without privacy protections and 96.33% for the state-of-the-art comparison method. With 10 clients the numbers are 97.78% private versus 98.76% non-private. The authors attribute the small gap largely to DPResNet, a ResNet-9 variant that replaces batch normalization with group normalization and removes max pooling, which they argue makes the architecture better suited to differentially private training.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the advertised privacy budget of $\epsilon=6.0$ with $\delta=1.9\times10^{-4}$ is actually delivered by the training run; the paper gives a clipping norm but no noise scale and no accounting method to back that number.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hospital consortia can train a blood-cell classifier without uploading raw images, with the reported accuracy loss held under one percentage point.
  • The DPResNet design — group normalization instead of batch normalization, no max pooling — is the component the paper credits for keeping accuracy high under differential-privacy noise.
  • Secure aggregation keeps individual updates hidden from the coordinating server and survives client dropouts as long as enough shares are present.
  • Applications that need a tighter privacy budget than $\epsilon=6.0$ should expect a larger accuracy penalty, so the reported one-point gap is tied to the chosen privacy parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the GroupNorm-for-BatchNorm swap should transfer to centralized differentially private training on other image datasets, because the incompatibility of batch statistics with per-example noise is a general obstacle.
  • Beyond the paper: instrumenting the training loop with a standard privacy-composition accountant and reporting the resulting budget as a function of the noise scale would turn the declared $\epsilon=6.0$ into an auditable number.
  • Beyond the paper: the edge over the state-of-the-art method rests on one dataset and one split; repeated runs across other medical image benchmarks would show whether the margin is stable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a federated learning framework for medical image classification that combines FedAvg, local differential privacy via gradient clipping and Gaussian noise, and SMPC-based secure aggregation (SecAgg+). It introduces DPResNet, a ResNet-9 variant with GroupNormalization and no max-pooling, and evaluates it on BloodMNIST across 10 and 20 clients, reporting accuracies of 97.78% and 96.89% under DP+SecAgg. The authors claim these results are close to non-private models and surpass PriMIA and FEDMIC while maintaining strict data confidentiality at (epsilon=6.0, delta=1.9e-4).

Significance. If fully substantiated, the combination of local DP with a privacy-friendly ResNet variant and secure aggregation could be a useful practical recipe for privacy-preserving medical imaging. The paper identifies a relevant problem and makes sensible architecture choices (GroupNorm over BatchNorm, no max-pooling). However, the central privacy claim is not verified: no noise scale, no privacy accounting, and no composition analysis are provided, and the accuracy results are single runs without error bars or statistical comparison. The significance of the work therefore cannot be assessed at present; the paper is more a system sketch than a validated contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (3)] The claimed (epsilon = 6.0, delta = 1.9e-4)-DP guarantee is unsupported. Equation (3) defines the noisy update with Gaussian noise N(0, sigma^2 I), but sigma is never reported. No privacy accounting method (RDP, moments accountant, or explicit composition theorem) is used to translate the clipping norm C, noise scale, number of clients, E = 3 local epochs, and 50 global rounds into an overall (epsilon, delta). The stated privacy budget appears simply declared. The distinction between per-round local DP (as applied to individual updates) and the privacy guarantee of the final released global model is not established. Because the paper's headline claim is 'strict data confidentiality', this missing accounting is a load-bearing gap that makes the central result unverifiable.
  2. [Section 3.2 vs Section 4] The number of clients is inconsistent. Section 3.2 states the framework is evaluated with N in {5, 10} clients, while Section 4 and Table 1 report experiments with 10 and 20 clients. This contradiction prevents the reader from reproducing the setup and makes the comparison to FEDMIC (which used 20 clients) ambiguous.
  3. [Section 4, Table 1] All reported accuracies are single numbers without error bars, repeated seeds, or statistical significance tests. The claimed advantage over FEDMIC is 96.89% vs 96.33%, a 0.56 percentage-point difference that is within plausible run-to-run variance for federated training. Without specifying the learning rate, optimizer, batch size, noise scale, or data partitioning details, the claim that the method 'surpasses' FEDMIC is not empirically supported.
  4. [Section 3.1, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) states the overall objective 'subject to (epsilon, delta)-DP constraints', but the paper provides no feasibility argument or derivation showing how the training protocol satisfies these constraints. It is also unclear whether the DP guarantee is local (each client's update is private) or global (the final model is private), and how SecAgg+ interacts with the DP guarantee. The DPResNet architecture description is too brief to evaluate: replacing BatchNorm with GroupNorm and removing max-pooling is motivated, but no ablation or analysis of its effect on privacy or utility is provided.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'Secure SMPC' is redundant because SMPC already stands for Secure Multi-Party Computation.
  2. [Overall] The paper does not mention code availability or provide a link to the implementation, which further hinders reproducibility.
  3. [Table 1] For a fair comparison, the baselines PriMIA and FEDMIC should be evaluated under the same client sizes and protocol; PriMIA is only listed for 10 clients and FEDMIC only for 20, so the 'surpassing' claim is based on comparisons across different setups.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's empirical comparisons are direct benchmark evaluations and its privacy claim is under-supported rather than derived from its own inputs by construction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the paper does not perform a first-principles derivation that reduces to its inputs. Equation (3) restates the standard DP-SGD Gaussian mechanism, and the stated privacy parameters (epsilon = 6.0, delta = 1.9e-4) are declared experimental settings, not quantities predicted from the equations. The accuracy results in Table 1 are direct measurements on BloodMNIST, compared against external prior work (PriMIA and FEDMIC); they are not fitted to a subset of the data and then reported as predictions. DPResNet is presented as a modified ResNet-9 architecture with GroupNormalization and without max-pooling; this is a stated design choice, not a conclusion forced by an ansatz imported from the authors' own prior work. The paper contains no self-citations that carry the argument, no uniqueness theorem from the authors, and no renaming of a known result as a new unification. The clearest weakness is that the differential privacy guarantee is asserted without reporting the noise scale sigma or providing any privacy accounting (e.g., RDP or moments accountant) for the 50-round, 3-local-epoch training procedure. That is a serious verification gap and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity: the claim is unsupported rather than equivalent to its inputs by construction. There is no equation or fitted parameter that makes the claimed privacy result equal to the setup by definition. Accordingly, the appropriate circularity finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. Its free parameters are empirical hyperparameters chosen by hand, and its axioms are standard but unverified assumptions about DP, secure aggregation, and dataset relevance.

free parameters (5)
  • clipping norm C = 7
    Chosen by hand (Section 3.2) to balance accuracy and privacy. It directly controls the sensitivity in Eq. 2.
  • privacy budget epsilon = 6.0
    Stated in Section 3.2 without derivation. It determines the noise scale, but sigma is never reported.
  • delta = 1.9e-4
    Stated in Section 3.2. Typical values relate to dataset size, but no accounting is shown.
  • local epochs E = 3
    Chosen in Section 3.2. Affects Federated Averaging dynamics.
  • reconstruction threshold = 4
    SecAgg+ parameter for client dropout robustness, stated in Section 3.2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Secure aggregation protocol SecAgg+ is secure against an honest-but-curious server and client dropouts as described in Bell et al. [4].
    The paper relies on this to claim confidentiality, but no implementation or independent verification is provided.
  • domain assumption Gradient clipping followed by Gaussian noise provides the stated (epsilon, delta)-DP guarantee.
    This is a standard DP-SGD result, but the paper does not show the noise scale, accounting method, or composition analysis.
  • domain assumption GroupNormalization with 32 groups preserves accuracy compared to BatchNormalization in this federated setting.
    The claim that DPResNet enhances performance is asserted without an ablation study.
  • domain assumption BloodMNIST partitioned non-IID is a realistic simulation of multi-hospital data.
    Used to justify real-world relevance, but the partition is a mild imbalance and the dataset is a small benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Privacy-Preserving Medical Imaging: Federated Learning with Differential Privacy and Secure Aggregation Using a Modified ResNet Architecture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LZF57H6A

@misc{pith2026241200687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Privacy-Preserving Medical Imaging: Federated Learning with Differential Privacy and Secure Aggregation Using a Modified ResNet Architecture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LZF57H6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00687}
}
read the original abstract

With increasing concerns over privacy in healthcare, especially for sensitive medical data, this research introduces a federated learning framework that combines local differential privacy and secure aggregation using Secure Multi-Party Computation for medical image classification. Further, we propose DPResNet, a modified ResNet architecture optimized for differential privacy. Leveraging the BloodMNIST benchmark dataset, we simulate a realistic data-sharing environment across different hospitals, addressing the distinct privacy challenges posed by federated healthcare data. Experimental results indicate that our privacy-preserving federated model achieves accuracy levels close to non-private models, surpassing traditional approaches while maintaining strict data confidentiality. By enhancing the privacy, efficiency, and reliability of healthcare data management, our approach offers substantial benefits to patients, healthcare providers, and the broader healthcare ecosystem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00687 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the FL workflow. (a) Models are trained locally with differential privacy and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang

    Martin Abadi, Andy Chu, Ian Goodfellow, H. Brendan McMahan, Ilya Mironov, Kunal Talwar, and Li Zhang. Deep learning with differential privacy. InProceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, oct 2016. doi: 10.1145/2976749. 2978318. URL https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2976749.2978318

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Federated learning and differential privacy for medical image analysis

    Mohammed Adnan, Shivam Kalra, Jesse C Cresswell, Graham W Taylor, and Hamid R Tizhoosh. Federated learning and differential privacy for medical image analysis. Scientific reports, 12(1): 1953, 2022

    work page 1953

  3. [3]

    Differentially private learning with adaptive clipping

    Galen Andrew, Om Thakkar, Brendan McMahan, and Swaroop Ramaswamy. Differentially private learning with adaptive clipping. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:17455–17466, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Secure single-server aggregation with (poly) logarithmic overhead

    James Henry Bell, Kallista A Bonawitz, Adrià Gascón, Tancrède Lepoint, and Mariana Raykova. Secure single-server aggregation with (poly) logarithmic overhead. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 1253–1269, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Multi-epoch matrix factorization mechanisms for private machine learning

    Christopher A Choquette-Choo, H Brendan McMahan, Keith Rush, and Abhradeep Thakurta. Multi-epoch matrix factorization mechanisms for private machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.06530, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    (amplified) banded matrix factorization: A unified approach to private training

    Christopher A Choquette-Choo, Arun Ganesh, Ryan McKenna, H Brendan McMahan, John Rush, Abhradeep Guha Thakurta, and Zheng Xu. (amplified) banded matrix factorization: A unified approach to private training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Differential privacy: A survey of results

    Cynthia Dwork. Differential privacy: A survey of results. In International conference on theory and applications of models of computation, pages 1–19. Springer, 2008

    2008

  8. [8]

    Deep models under the gan: information leakage from collaborative deep learning

    Briland Hitaj, Giuseppe Ateniese, and Fernando Perez-Cruz. Deep models under the gan: information leakage from collaborative deep learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, pages 603–618, 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Practical and private (deep) learning without sampling or shuffling

    Peter Kairouz, Brendan McMahan, Shuang Song, Om Thakkar, Abhradeep Thakurta, and Zheng Xu. Practical and private (deep) learning without sampling or shuffling. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 5213–5225. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  2. [10]

    End-to-end privacy preserving deep learning on multi-institutional medical imaging

    Georgios Kaissis, Axel Ziller, Jonathan Passerat-Palmbach, Thomas Ryffel, Dmitrii Usynin, Andrew Trask, Ivan Lima, James Mancuso, Florian Jungmann, Michael Steinborn, Ali Saleh, Marcus Makowski, Daniel Rueckert, and Rickmer Braren. End-to-end privacy preserving deep learning o...

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Supernet training for federated image classification under system heterogeneity, 2022

    Taehyeon Kim and Se-Young Yun. Supernet training for federated image classification under system heterogeneity, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.01366

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Fully decentralized federated learning

    Anusha Lalitha, Shubhanshu Shekhar, Tara Javidi, and Farinaz Koushanfar. Fully decentralized federated learning. In Third workshop on bayesian deep learning (NeurIPS), volume 2, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks, 2018

    Tian Li, Anit Kumar Sahu, Manzil Zaheer, Maziar Sanjabi, Ameet Talwalkar, and Virginia Smith. Federated optimization in heterogeneous networks, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Jorge Cardoso, and Andrew Feng

    Wenqi Li, Fausto Milletarì, Daguang Xu, Nicola Rieke, Jonny Hancox, Wentao Zhu, Maximilian Baust, Yan Cheng, Sébastien Ourselin, M. Jorge Cardoso, and Andrew Feng. Privacy-preserving federated brain tumour segmentation. In Heung-Il Suk, Mingxia Liu, Pingkun Yan, and Chunfeng L...

    2019

  7. [15]

    Federated learning in mobile edge networks: A comprehensive survey

    Wei Yang Bryan Lim, Nguyen Cong Luong, Dinh Thai Hoang, Yutao Jiao, Ying-Chang Liang, Qiang Yang, Dusit Niyato, and Chunyan Miao. Federated learning in mobile edge networks: A comprehensive survey. IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, 22(3):2031–2063, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Federated learning for computational pathology on gigapixel whole slide images

    Ming Y Lu, Richard J Chen, Dehan Kong, Jana Lipkova, Rajendra Singh, Drew FK Williamson, Tiffany Y Chen, and Faisal Mahmood. Federated learning for computational pathology on gigapixel whole slide images. Medical image analysis, 76:102298, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.media. 2021.1022...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Adapt to adaptation: Learning personalization for cross-silo federated learning, 2021

    Jun Luo and Shandong Wu. Adapt to adaptation: Learning personalization for cross-silo federated learning, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.08394

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data

    Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 1273–1282. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    A general approach to adding differential privacy to iterative training procedures

    H Brendan McMahan, Galen Andrew, Ulfar Erlingsson, Steve Chien, Ilya Mironov, Nicolas Papernot, and Peter Kairouz. A general approach to adding differential privacy to iterative training procedures. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.06210, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Secureml: A system for scalable privacy-preserving machine learning

    Payman Mohassel and Yupeng Zhang. Secureml: A system for scalable privacy-preserving machine learning. In 2017 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP), pages 19–38. IEEE, 2017

    2017

  13. [21]

    Comprehensive privacy analysis of deep learning: Passive and active white-box inference attacks against centralized and federated learning

    Milad Nasr, Reza Shokri, and Amir Houmansadr. Comprehensive privacy analysis of deep learning: Passive and active white-box inference attacks against centralized and federated learning. In 2019 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP), pages 739–753. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Scalable private learning with pate

    Nicolas Papernot, Shuang Song, Ilya Mironov, Ananth Raghunathan, Kunal Talwar, and Úlfar Erlingsson. Scalable private learning with pate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.08908, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Federated distillation for med- ical image classification: Towards trustworthy computer-aided diagnosis

    Sufen Ren, Yule Hu, Shengchao Chen, and Guanjun Wang. Federated distillation for med- ical image classification: Towards trustworthy computer-aided diagnosis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02261, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Federated learning in medicine: facilitating multi-institutional collaborations without sharing patient data

    Micah J Sheller, Brandon Edwards, G Anthony Reina, Jason Martin, Sarthak Pati, Aikaterini Kotrotsou, Mikhail Milchenko, Weilin Xu, Daniel Marcus, Rivka R Colen, et al. Federated learning in medicine: facilitating multi-institutional collaborations without sharing patient data....

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Thomas Hou, Syed Muhammad Anwar, and Wenjing Lou

    Shanghao Shi, Md Shahedul Haque, Abhijeet Parida, Marius George Linguraru, Y . Thomas Hou, Syed Muhammad Anwar, and Wenjing Lou. Harvesting private medical images in federated learning systems with crafted models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09972

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Fed-BioMed: A General Open-Source Frontend Framework for Federated Learning in Healthcare

    Sara Silva, Andre Altmann, Boris Gutman, and Marco Lorenzi. Fed-BioMed: A General Open-Source Frontend Framework for Federated Learning in Healthcare. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 201–210. Springer, Cham, 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-60548-3_20. URL https://doi....

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Towards personalized federated learning

    Alysa Ziying Tan, Han Yu, Lizhen Cui, and Qiang Yang. Towards personalized federated learning. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 34(12):9587–9603, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Rubin, Lei Xing, and Yuyin Zhou

    Rui Yan, Liangqiong Qu, Qingyue Wei, Shih-Cheng Huang, Liyue Shen, Daniel L. Rubin, Lei Xing, and Yuyin Zhou. Label-efficient self-supervised federated learning for tackling data heterogeneity in medical imaging. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 42(7):1932–1943, July 2023...

    1932

  21. [29]

    Protocols for secure computations

    Andrew C Yao. Protocols for secure computations. In 23rd annual symposium on foundations of computer science (sfcs 1982), pages 160–164. IEEE, 1982. 6

    1982

  22. [30]

    Large scale private learning via low-rank reparametrization

    Da Yu, Huishuai Zhang, Wei Chen, Jian Yin, and Tie-Yan Liu. Large scale private learning via low-rank reparametrization. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 12208–12218. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Michael Zhang, Karan Sapra, Sanja Fidler, Serena Yeung, and Jose M. Alvarez. Personalized federated learning with first order model optimization, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2012.08565

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Fedsup: A communication-efficient federated learning fatigue driving behaviors supervision approach

    Chen Zhao, Zhipeng Gao, Qian Wang, Kaile Xiao, Zijia Mo, and M Jamal Deen. Fedsup: A communication-efficient federated learning fatigue driving behaviors supervision approach. Future Generation Computer Systems, 138:52–60, 2023. 7

    2023

Pith tools

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