Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Physics-informed reduced order model with conditional neural fields

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fine-tuning a data-trained neural reduced-order model with the PDE residual loss improves accuracy for unseen parameters and extends forecasting, without new simulation data.

desk verdict Plausible integration of existing INR/ROM pieces, but the unverified second-derivative surrogate and thin validation undercut the central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05233 v1 pith:NH6YOECP submitted 2024-12-06 math.NA cs.LGcs.NA

Minji Kim , Tianshu Wen , Kookjin Lee , Youngsoo Choi This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NAcs.LGcs.NA MSC 65M7068T0735Q53
keywords reduced-ordermodelingconditionalneuralfieldsphysics-informednetworksparametricODEapproximatedistancefunctionslatentdynamicsPDEresiduallossBurgersequation
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 a reduced-order model built from conditional neural fields can be made physics-informed without sacrificing its data-driven strengths. The authors combine a parametric neural ODE for latent dynamics with a coordinate-based decoder, impose initial and boundary conditions exactly through approximate distance functions, and add a PDE-residual loss computed by automatic differentiation. They report that fine-tuning a data-trained model with this physics loss, while freezing the decoder, improves accuracy for unseen Reynolds numbers and for forecast times beyond the training window, with no additional simulation data. If correct, this gives a cheap way to specialize a pretrained surrogate to new parameters or longer horizons.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a conditional neural field: a hypernetwork-generated decoder $D_\psi(x, \alpha_{t,\mu})$ maps spatial coordinates and a latent state to the solution, while a parametric neural ODE $d\alpha_{t,\mu}/dt = f_\theta(\alpha_{t,\mu}, t, \mu)$ evolves the latent state. Initial and boundary conditions are imposed exactly by multiplying the decoder output by an approximate distance function $\phi(x,t)$; because $\phi$'s higher derivatives become unstable at boundary junctions, a second network $e_v = D_\xi(x, \beta_{t,\mu})$ is trained to match first spatial derivatives and then differentiated to supply the second-order terms in the PDE residual. The physics-informed loss $L_{\text{PDE}}$ is minimized, optionally with a data loss, using automatic differentiation for spatial derivatives and the chain rule through the ODE for time derivatives.

What would settle it

Take the trained fine-tuned model for $\mu = 20$ and compare the PINN residual computed with $\partial_x e_v$ against a direct finite-difference or automatic-differentiation evaluation of $\partial_{xx} \hat{u}$ on a fine interior grid (excluding boundary junctions and $t = 0$). If the two disagree by more than the training loss, the surrogate derivative is not faithful and the physics-informed objective is not actually minimizing the governing PDE residual.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding a physics-informed PINN objective to the CNF-ROM, in a fine-tuning stage that updates only the latent-dynamics PNODE, improves the model beyond what data training alone achieves. On the 1D viscous Burgers equation, the fine-tuned model shows lower error on training parameters, on interpolated and extrapolated parameters (notably µ = 15 and µ = 110), and in the forecast region t > 1, compared with the data-only model. The authors take the parallel decrease of the PINN loss and the exact-solution loss as evidence that the residual computed through the auxiliary derivative network is consistent with the true PDE residual, and that the physics-informed objective is therefore a valid training signal.

Load-bearing premise

The entire physics objective assumes that the helper network, trained only to match first spatial derivatives at interior points away from the initial time, produces trustworthy second derivatives when differentiated, so the PDE residual it feeds into is the real residual.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fine-tuning the pretrained CNF-ROM with the PDE residual loss improves accuracy on the 1D viscous Burgers equation without any new simulation data.
  • The improvement is largest for parameter extrapolation (e.g., $\mu = 15$ and $\mu = 110$) and for forecast times beyond the training horizon.
  • Freezing the decoder and updating only the PNODE keeps the fine-tuning cost low-dimensional, consistent with the reduced-order modeling perspective.
  • The parallel decrease of the PINN loss and the exact-solution loss indicates that the computed residual is a valid training signal for the solution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the fine-tuning stage should transfer to other parametric PDEs whose data-trained latent dynamics are already accurate, because only the low-dimensional PNODE is updated; the main risk is the faithfulness of the auxiliary derivative network.
  • Editorial inference: one could test the method on a PDE with known boundary-layer behavior, where the approximate distance function's unstable higher derivatives at corners would be more consequential, to see whether the auxiliary network degrades near junctions.
  • Editorial inference: a direct comparison of PINN fine-tuning against adding a handful of high-fidelity snapshots for the unseen parameter would clarify when the physics objective is genuinely substituting for data rather than merely regularizing.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a physics-informed variant of conditional neural fields for reduced-order modeling (CNF-ROM). The model combines a parametric neural ODE (PNODE) for latent-space dynamics with a DINo-style decoder that reconstructs PDE solutions from latent states, and it enforces initial and boundary conditions exactly through approximate distance functions (ADFs). To avoid unstable second derivatives of the ADF-based ansatz, the authors introduce an auxiliary network e_v that is trained to match first derivatives of the solution and whose derivatives are then used in place of second-order spatial derivatives in the PDE residual. The method is tested on the 1D viscous Burgers equation for parameter interpolation/extrapolation and temporal extrapolation, with a fine-tuning stage in which only the PNODE parameters are updated using the physics loss. The central claim is that fine-tuning with the PINN loss improves accuracy without additional data, especially for unseen parameters and forecast regimes.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper makes a useful incremental contribution to physics-informed reduced-order modeling: exact IC/BC enforcement via ADFs, a clean chain-rule expression for time derivatives in Eq. (4), and a demonstration that PINN-based fine-tuning of latent dynamics can improve generalization to unseen parameters and times. The design is sensible, and the use of out-of-sample parameter and temporal evaluations is a genuine strength. However, the load-bearing component of the method—the replacement of second-order spatial derivatives by derivatives of an auxiliary network—is not validated, and the experimental evidence is largely qualitative. The paper would be strengthened considerably by quantitative error tables, error bars, and a direct check of the surrogate derivative against the true residual.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (6) and (8)] The PDE residual in Eq. (8) replaces second-order spatial derivatives of the ADF-based solution û with derivatives of the auxiliary network e_v, but e_v is trained only to match first derivatives of û at collocation points excluding the boundary and t=0. Matching a network's values at discrete points does not control the error of its derivative, so ∂x e_v can deviate substantially from ∂xx û even when the loss in Eq. (6) is small. The manuscript reports no verification of this surrogate, such as a comparison of LPDE computed with ∂x e_v versus the true residual computed from ∂xx û on a validation set. Because the central claim is that the model learns from physics rather than from data, this missing check is load-bearing and should be addressed directly.
  2. [Section 4, scenario (b)] During PINN fine-tuning, only the PNODE parameters θ are updated, so the latent trajectories β_{t,μ} that condition the auxiliary network e_v move away from the distribution seen during pretraining; e_v is not refit to the new ∂x û. The paper therefore cannot rule out that the reported gains for unseen parameters and for t > 1 are due to an inaccurate surrogate in precisely the regimes where the improvements are claimed. Reporting the surrogate error ∂x e_v − ∂x û and the residual mismatch before and after fine-tuning would directly address this concern.
  3. [Section 4, scenario (b) versus Section 3, Training objectives] The description of the optimization is inconsistent. Section 3 states that the training objectives employ 'simultaneous optimization that jointly updates the decoder and PNODE parameters,' but scenario (b) freezes the decoder and updates only θ. Moreover, the scenario (b) loss is written as LPDE(θ)+Lderiv(θ), while Eq. (6) defines Lderiv(ξ,θ). It is unclear whether ξ and the auxiliary latent initial states β0,μ are updated during fine-tuning and what exactly is being minimized in each phase. This should be clarified.
  4. [Section 4, Figure 2] The experimental evidence is qualitative: no numerical error table, no error bars, and no comparison with a data-only baseline or an established ROM. The claim of 'clear improvements across all regions except temporal extrapolation at μ=30' cannot be assessed from the bottom-left panel alone. The authors should report quantitative errors (e.g., relative L2 errors) for each μ in μtrain ∪ μtest for scenarios (a) and (b), including temporal extrapolation, so that the claimed improvements are verifiable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (5)] The notation û for the approximate solution is used without being explicitly defined; please define it as the ADF-enforced network approximation.
  2. [Section 4, Figure 2] The top-left panel labels and legend are too small to read in the current version; please enlarge them and add axis scales so that the claimed parallel decrease of exact loss and PINN loss is visible.
  3. [Section 4, text before Eq. (10)] The phrase 'the loss with respect to exact solutions in Eq. (10)' could be misinterpreted as using the analytical solution during training; please clarify that Eq. (10) is used only for evaluation.
  4. [Throughout] There are formatting artifacts in the text, such as 'D ∈I RNµ' and 'Ω ∈I Rd', and the boundary condition 'u(0,t)=u(2,t)=0 on t ∈ [0,1]' should read 'for t ∈ [0,1]'.
  5. [Section 4, Eq. (9)] The specific ADF ϕ used for the Burgers example is not given; since the ADF construction is central to the exact IC/BC enforcement, a concrete formula or reference to the construction used would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PINN fine-tuning objective is an independent PDE-residual loss, not a restatement of the data loss or of the exact-solution evaluation metric.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The physics-informed objective in Eq. (8) is a genuine PDE residual: temporal derivatives are obtained from the PNODE chain rule in Eq. (4), and the second-order spatial term is approximated by differentiating the auxiliary network e_v trained in Eq. (6). This is a first-order surrogate for the true residual, and the paper does not rigorously verify that ∂x e_v tracks ∂xx uhat during fine-tuning; that is a numerical-accuracy and robustness concern, not a circular reduction, because Eq. (8) is not the same as Eq. (6) or Eq. (7) and is not minimized by construction when the data loss is minimized. The exact initial and boundary data g in Eq. (5) are taken from the same closed-form solution Eq. (10) used for evaluation, but this is standard benchmark construction: the interior solution is still learned, and the exact-loss evaluation is not forced by the ansatz on the interior. Parameter extrapolation and temporal forecasting are evaluated after the PINN fine-tuning has been applied to those parameters, so they demonstrate the fine-tuning procedure rather than zero-shot generalization; this is an experimental-design caveat, not a circularity. Self-citations to PNODE [17] and to INR-based decoder work [14, 18] are architectural references and do not carry the load-bearing novelty of the paper, which is the physics-informed loss. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The central claim is therefore self-contained with respect to its inputs.

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

The method relies on standard neural-network approximation assumptions plus a few hand-chosen hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced; the auxiliary network is a model component, not an independent entity. The most consequential unstated assumption is that the auxiliary network's derivatives faithfully reproduce the second-order PDE terms, which is used without verification in the loss.

free parameters (5)
  • Neural network parameters (decoder psi, PNODE theta, auxiliary network xi) = trained by gradient descent
    All model parameters are fitted to the combined data, derivative, and PDE losses; the paper does not report final parameter counts, so the true number of fitted degrees of freedom is unknown.
  • Latent dimension d_alpha = 10
    Chosen by hand without ablation; the capacity of the latent space is a central determinant of the model's ability to represent the parametric solution manifold.
  • Initial latent state alpha_0 = 0
    Set identically to zero; the paper argues the ADF construction makes this valid, but no evidence is given that this initialization covers the needed latent trajectories.
  • Auxiliary latent initial states beta_0,mu = per-parameter learned via autodecoding
    Each parameter mu requires a learned initial condition for the auxiliary network; these are fitted variables that add per-parameter degrees of freedom.
  • Loss weights = implicitly 1 for L_data, L_PDE, L_deriv
    No weighting schedule or relative scaling is reported, yet the balance between data, PDE residual, and derivative-matching losses controls the trained model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The decoder D_psi(x, alpha) with Fourier features can represent the parametric solution manifold of the Burgers equation with latent dimension 10.
    Section 2; no approximation guarantee or error bound is given, and the latent dimension is not ablated.
  • domain assumption The PNODE f_theta can accurately integrate the latent trajectories for all parameters mu in the training and test ranges, including extrapolated values.
    Section 2, Eq. (3); the ODE dynamics are learned from a few parameters and assumed to generalize.
  • domain assumption The auxiliary network e_v provides derivatives that faithfully approximate the second-order terms in the PDE residual.
    Section 3, Eqs. (6) and (8); the replacement of d_xx of the ansatz by d_x of e_v is not verified for consistency or error bounds.
  • domain assumption The ADF phi can be constructed on the space-time domain so that phi=0 on the boundary and the product ansatz u_hat = g + phi D satisfies the exact IC/BC.
    Section 3, Eq. (5); inherited from Sukumar and Srivastava [19], assumed to extend to the temporal boundary without explicit proof here.
  • standard math The analytic solution in Eq. (10) is the exact solution of the Burgers equation with the stated IC/BC.
    Used as ground truth in Figure 2; the closed form is standard and the paper does not re-derive it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physics-informed reduced order model with conditional neural fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NH6YOECP

@misc{pith2026241205233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physics-informed reduced order model with conditional neural fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NH6YOECP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05233}
}
read the original abstract

This study presents the conditional neural fields for reduced-order modeling (CNF-ROM) framework to approximate solutions of parametrized partial differential equations (PDEs). The approach combines a parametric neural ODE (PNODE) for modeling latent dynamics over time with a decoder that reconstructs PDE solutions from the corresponding latent states. We introduce a physics-informed learning objective for CNF-ROM, which includes two key components. First, the framework uses coordinate-based neural networks to calculate and minimize PDE residuals by computing spatial derivatives via automatic differentiation and applying the chain rule for time derivatives. Second, exact initial and boundary conditions (IC/BC) are imposed using approximate distance functions (ADFs) [Sukumar and Srivastava, CMAME, 2022]. However, ADFs introduce a trade-off as their second- or higher-order derivatives become unstable at the joining points of boundaries. To address this, we introduce an auxiliary network inspired by [Gladstone et al., NeurIPS ML4PS workshop, 2022]. Our method is validated through parameter extrapolation and interpolation, temporal extrapolation, and comparisons with analytical solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Diagram of the CNF-ROM structure, combining PNODE with the architecture of [14]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Performance verification through: (top left) loss trajectories, (bottom left) evaluation on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The gnat method for nonlinear model reduction: Effective implementation and application to computational fluid dynamics and turbulent flows

    Kevin Carlberg, Charbel Farhat, Julien Cortial, and David Amsallem. The gnat method for nonlinear model reduction: Effective implementation and application to computational fluid dynamics and turbulent flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 242:623–647, 2013

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Efficient space–time reduced order model for linear dynamical systems in python using less than 120 lines of code

    Youngkyu Kim, Karen Wang, and Youngsoo Choi. Efficient space–time reduced order model for linear dynamical systems in python using less than 120 lines of code. Mathematics, 9(14):1690, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Reduced order models for lagrangian hydrodynamics

    Dylan Matthew Copeland, Siu Wun Cheung, Kevin Huynh, and Youngsoo Choi. Reduced order models for lagrangian hydrodynamics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 388:114259, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Space–time least-squares petrov–galerkin projection for nonlinear model reduction

    Youngsoo Choi and Kevin Carlberg. Space–time least-squares petrov–galerkin projection for nonlinear model reduction. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 41(1):A26–A58, 2019

    2019

  5. [5]

    SNS: A solution-based nonlinear subspace method for time-dependent model order reduction

    Youngsoo Choi, Deshawn Coombs, and Robert Anderson. SNS: A solution-based nonlinear subspace method for time-dependent model order reduction. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 42(2):A1116– A1146, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Latent-space dynamics for reduced deformable simulation

    Lawson Fulton, Vismay Modi, David Duvenaud, David IW Levin, and Alec Jacobson. Latent-space dynamics for reduced deformable simulation. In Computer graphics forum, volume 38, pages 379–391. Wiley Online Library, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Carlberg

    Kookjin Lee and Kevin T. Carlberg. Model reduction of dynamical systems on nonlinear manifolds using deep convolutional autoencoders. Journal of Computational Physics, 404:108973, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    A fast and accurate physics-informed neural network reduced order model with shallow masked autoencoder

    Youngkyu Kim, Youngsoo Choi, David Widemann, and Tarek Zohdi. A fast and accurate physics-informed neural network reduced order model with shallow masked autoencoder. Journal of Computational Physics, 451:110841, 2022

    2022

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations

    Maziar Raissi, Paris Perdikaris, and George Em Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational Physics, 378:686–707, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: A review

    Shengze Cai, Zhiping Mao, Zhicheng Wang, Minglang Yin, and George Em Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for fluid mechanics: A review. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 37(12):1727–1738, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Parameterized physics-informed neural networks for parameterized PDEs

    Woojin Cho, Minju Jo, Haksoo Lim, Kookjin Lee, Dongeun Lee, Sanghyun Hong, and Noseong Park. Parameterized physics-informed neural networks for parameterized PDEs. Preprint, arXiv:2408.09446, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions

    Vincent Sitzmann, Julien Martel, Alexander Bergman, David Lindell, and Gordon Wetzstein. Implicit neural representations with periodic activation functions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:7462–7473, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains

    Matthew Tancik, Pratul Srinivasan, Ben Mildenhall, Sara Fridovich-Keil, Nithin Raghavan, Utkarsh Singhal, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Jonathan Barron, and Ren Ng. Fourier features let networks learn high frequency functions in low dimensional domains. Advances in neural information proc...

    2020

  6. [14]

    Continuous PDE dynamics forecasting with implicit neural representations

    Yuan Yin, Matthieu Kirchmeyer, Jean-Yves Franceschi, Alain Rakotomamonjy, and Patrick Gallinari. Continuous PDE dynamics forecasting with implicit neural representations. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Crom: Continuous reduced-order modeling of pdes using implicit neural representations

    Peter Yichen Chen, Jinxu Xiang, Dong Heon Cho, Yue Chang, GA Pershing, Henrique Teles Maia, Maurizio M Chiaramonte, Kevin Thomas Carlberg, and Eitan Grinspun. Crom: Continuous reduced-order modeling of pdes using implicit neural representations. In The Eleventh International C...

    2023

  8. [16]

    Evolve smoothly, fit consis- tently: Learning smooth latent dynamics for advection-dominated systems

    Zhong Yi Wan, Leonardo Zepeda-Nunez, Anudhyan Boral, and Fei Sha. Evolve smoothly, fit consis- tently: Learning smooth latent dynamics for advection-dominated systems. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Kookjin Lee and Eric J. Parish. Parameterized neural ordinary differential equations: applications to computational physics problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 477(2251):20210162, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Reduced-order modeling for parameterized pdes via implicit neural representations

    Tianshu Wen, Kookjin Lee, and Youngsoo Choi. Reduced-order modeling for parameterized pdes via implicit neural representations. In Proceedings of the Machine Learning and the Physical Sciences Workshop at the 37th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Sukumar and Ankit Srivastava

    N. Sukumar and Ankit Srivastava. Exact imposition of boundary conditions with distance functions in physics-informed deep neural networks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering , 389:114333, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Gladstone, Mohammad A

    Rini J. Gladstone, Mohammad A. Nabian, N. Sukumar, Ankit Srivastava, and Hadi Meidani. FO-PINNs: A first-order formulation for physics informed neural networks. In Proceedings of the Machine Learning and the Physical Sciences Workshop at the 36th Conference on Neural Informati...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Neural fields in visual computing and beyond

    Yiheng Xie, Towaki Takikawa, Shunsuke Saito, Or Litany, Shiqin Yan, Numair Khan, Federico Tombari, James Tompkin, Vincent Sitzmann, and Srinath Sridhar. Neural fields in visual computing and beyond. Computer Graphics Forum, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    Vectorized conditional neural fields: A framework for solving time-dependent parametric partial differential equations

    Jan Hagnberger, Marimuthu Kalimuthu, Daniel Musekamp, and Mathias Niepert. Vectorized conditional neural fields: A framework for solving time-dependent parametric partial differential equations. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Olive...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Multiplicative filter networks

    Rizal Fathony, Anit Kumar Sahu, Devin Willmott, and J Zico Kolter. Multiplicative filter networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David K Duvenaud

    Ricky T.Q. Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Bettencourt, and David K Duvenaud. Neural ordinary differential equations. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  17. [25]

    Stefano Berrone, Claudio Canuto, Moreno Pintore, and N. Sukumar. Enforcing dirichlet boundary conditions in physics-informed neural networks and variational physics-informed neural networks.Heliyon, 9(8):e18820, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation

    Jeong Joon Park, Peter Florence, Julian Straub, Richard Newcombe, and Steven Lovegrove. Deepsdf: Learning continuous signed distance functions for shape representation. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2019. 7

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.