Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 31 references

AdvIRL: Reinforcement Learning-Based Adversarial Attacks on 3D NeRF Models

T0 review · 5 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 A 3D scene rendered by a NeRF can be made to mislead a vision classifier in a black-box setting by learning perturbations to the renderer's parameters with reinforcement learning.

desk verdict Plausible RL+NeRF attack idea with public code, but the evaluation does not support the transferability and robustness claims — the same CLIP model defines reward and success, and no independent classifier is tested. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16213 v1 pith:54IJTJNW submitted 2024-12-18 cs.CV cs.AIcs.CYcs.GReess.IV

Tommy Nguyen , Mehmet Ergezer , Christian Green This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.CYcs.GReess.IV
keywords adversarialattacksNeuralRadianceFieldsInstant-NGPreinforcementlearningblack-boxattackCLIPimagesegmentation3Dvision
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

Neural Radiance Fields (NeRFs) render 3D scenes into images from any viewpoint, and vision systems increasingly rely on such renderings. This paper tries to establish that a NeRF itself can be weaponized: by tweaking the renderer's parameters with reinforcement learning, a scene can be made to consistently fool a classifier, with no access to the classifier's gradients or architecture. The claimed payoff is practical, since attacks that survive rotations and scaling could threaten autonomous driving, surveillance, and VR training systems, where 2D adversarial methods fall short. The paper reports successful targeted misclassifications (a banana as a slug, a truck as a cannon) and untargeted ones, and argues this is the first black-box adversarial framework for NeRF.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is a closed-loop parameter-space reward cycle. A PPO agent outputs an action vector $A$; the new Instant-NGP parameters are $P_{\text{new}} = A + P_{\text{old}}$, and the modified NeRF renders multi-view images $X_{\text{adv}}$ that are scored by a CLIP classifier. The reward $R = \mathrm{Target}\cdot\theta_0 - \mathrm{True}\cdot\theta_1 - \mathrm{MSE}(X, X_{\text{adv}})\cdot\theta_2$ combines average confidence for the target class, a penalty for the true class, and a fidelity term that limits visible change; a Detectron2 segmentation mask restricts the MSE comparison to the object region. This machinery lets the attack run without gradients or model internals, using only label-confidence outputs as feedback.

What would settle it

Render the adversarial NeRF produced by AdvIRL and classify the same viewpoints with a different model, such as an ImageNet-trained ResNet or ViT, and with rotations and scales outside the training distribution; the central claim is false if misclassification rates return to baseline or if the true labels reappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

AdvIRL's central claim is that the 13 million parameters of an Instant-NGP NeRF model are a sufficient attack surface: an agent learns parameter perturbations that, when rendered from multiple viewpoints, push a target classifier's labels away from the true class. The attack is black-box because the agent only sees the classifier's predicted labels and confidences, never its weights or gradients. Concretely, a PPO agent proposes an action $A$, updates the current NeRF parameters to $P_{\text{new}} = A + P_{\text{old}}$, renders new images $X_{\text{adv}}$, and receives reward $R = \mathrm{Target}\cdot\theta_0 - \mathrm{True}\cdot\theta_1 - \mathrm{MSE}(X, X_{\text{adv}})\cdot\theta_2$, which rewards high target-class confidence, penalizes the true class, and limits visible distortion. On scenes from Tanks and Temples plus a banana scene, targeted attacks produced high-confidence misclassifications such as banana to slug and truck to cannon; an untargeted train-scene attack misclassified all 20 rendered images. The paper further claims this is the first black-box adversarial framework for NeRF.

Load-bearing premise

The central bet is that optimizing against CLIP's outputs through this reward will fool other black-box vision models and survive rotations and scaling, and the paper reports no direct test of either.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Separating a scene into an untouched background and a modified object means an attack can be localized to a single object (for example, a banana or truck) without visibly corrupting the rest of the scene.
  • Because the agent only needs predicted labels and confidences, any vision model that exposes those outputs is a candidate victim, not just CLIP-backed systems.
  • NeRF parameters become a new attack vector: defending a perception stack means validating 3D scene content, not only filtering 2D images.
  • The same adversarial NeRF models could be injected into training pipelines as adversarial data to make classifiers more resistant to distorted 3D renderings.
  • Multi-view rendering during training ties the attack to camera geometry, so the resulting misclassifications persist over angles and distances rather than appearing in one viewpoint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not test whether a target model different from CLIP is fooled; since CLIP both supplies the reward and is the target, the black-box claim should be read as query-only, not as proven transfer to arbitrary vision systems.
  • Because the reward is computed from averaged CLIP confidences over multiple views, an equivalent white-box version using CLIP gradients could show how close the RL search is to an optimal perturbation, and whether the 13-million-parameter action space is necessary.
  • The segmentation mask limits the MSE penalty to the object region, so a direct extension would be to bake the learned perturbation into the texture map and re-render under new lighting and pose, testing whether the attack survives a full NeRF retraining rather than just parameter tweaks.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes AdvIRL, a reinforcement-learning framework that perturbs the parameters of an Instant-NGP NeRF model so that rendered images are misclassified by a CLIP vision model. The pipeline segments input images, renders multi-view images, uses PPO to modify NeRF parameters, and computes a reward from CLIP classification confidences with an MSE penalty. Experiments on Tanks and Temples scenes and a banana scene report misclassification counts and confidence ranges, and the authors claim that AdvIRL is the first black-box adversarial framework for NeRF and that the generated noise is robust to rotations, scaling, and viewpoint changes. The implementation is publicly available.

Significance. If the claims were supported, AdvIRL would be a useful contribution to 3D adversarial machine learning: a gradient-free, segmentation-localized attack on NeRF models with public code and multi-view evaluation. The paper also points to a plausible downstream use for adversarial training. However, the current evidence is not sufficient to establish these claims. The reward function is underspecified, the evaluation uses the same CLIP model that provides the training reward, no baselines or error bars are reported, and the robustness and transferability statements go beyond the experiments. The central threat model is therefore not validated in the present form.

major comments (5)
  1. [Method, Eq. (1)-(2) and Algorithm 1] The reward equation is not defined: 'Target' and 'True' are never introduced in the method text, and the dictionary D built in Algorithm 1 is not connected to them. With the stated values θ0 = 100 and θ1 = −1, the term −True·θ1 adds True to the reward, which would encourage correct predictions rather than penalize them, contradicting the adversarial objective. Since this reward is the optimization signal for the entire pipeline, the method as written is not reproducible.
  2. [Experimental Setup and Results] All reported attack successes are measured on CLIP ResNet-50, which is the same model used to compute the reward during PPO training. No held-out classifier, transfer test to another architecture, or evaluation on a downstream detector is reported. Consequently, the reported misclassification rates are consistent with overfitting to CLIP's outputs and do not support the abstract's claim of 'effective black-box attacks in real-world scenarios' or the conclusion's claim of 'transferable adversarial noise.' A transfer experiment to a different vision backbone, together with a random-perturbation baseline, is essential.
  3. [Abstract and Results] The central claim of robustness under rotations and scaling is not supported by any quantitative ablation. The results show example images from different angles and distances, but there is no success rate as a function of rotation angle, scale factor, or viewpoint, and no comparison across transformation ranges. Without such measurements, the phrase 'robust under diverse 3D transformations, including rotations and scaling' in the abstract is an overclaim.
  4. [Results] The experimental section reports counts and confidence ranges without baselines, error bars, or repeated runs. For example, the train scene reports misclassifications with confidences as low as 4%, and the horse scene reports confidences from 3% to 70%; without a random-noise or untrained-PPO baseline, it is unclear whether the RL training is responsible for these outcomes. The lack of repeated runs is especially problematic because PPO is stochastic and the reported numbers appear to come from single runs.
  5. [Experimental Setup] The paper does not specify the candidate class label set used with CLIP for each scene. CLIP confidence values and 'misclassification' rates are only interpretable relative to the label set; if the set is small or chosen after the fact, the success rates are not meaningful. This omission also prevents replication of the experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Results, Banana Scene] The abstract states that a banana is labeled as a slug, but the Results section reports that the banana is misclassified as a flatworm; these statements should be made consistent.
  2. [Experimental Setup] The paper cites Dosovitskiy et al. 2021 for CLIP ResNet-50, but that reference is for Vision Transformers; the CLIP model should be attributed to Radford et al. 2021, which is already in the reference list.
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says the environment computes a reward 'as defined in the accompanying figure,' but the reward equation appears in the text (Eq. 1-2), not in the figure; the caption should refer explicitly to the equation.
  4. [Method] The sentence introducing θ0 and θ1 says they 'balance the confidence of the true predictions of the target class and the true predictions,' which is grammatically ambiguous and should be rewritten to define the roles of Target and True precisely.
  5. [Results, Horse Scene] The targeted horse attack used a 'modified reward system' in which the number of correctly classified target images was factored into the reward, but this modification is not defined; without this detail, the experiment cannot be reproduced.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Multi-view robustness claim reuses the CLIP reward as the evaluation metric; no held-out model or transform test is reported.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Method: Adversarial Generation using Reinforcement Learning (Eq. 1-2; Algorithm 1); Results: Adversarial Results without Segmentation]
    "Predictions ← CLIP(X adv) ... R = Target· θ0 − True · θ1 − MSE(X, Xadv) · θ2 ... The average confidence across 13 images was 23.4% for the boathouse class."

    The reported success metric is CLIP misclassification confidence on the rendered adversarial views, and that exact quantity is the RL reward: target-class confidence is rewarded positively and true-class confidence negatively, averaged over the same multi-view renders used for evaluation. The Results then report precisely these CLIP confidences and per-image counts (e.g., lighthouse, truck, horse) with no held-out view set, no rotation/scale ablation, and no second classifier. Consequently, the central claim that the noise 'remains robust under diverse 3D transformations' is the training objective itself, not an independently predicted property; the evaluation is a fit to the reward by construction.

full rationale

The core PPO/CLIP optimization is a legitimate black-box attack construction against CLIP, and if the paper only claimed 'AdvIRL fools CLIP,' the same-model evaluation would not be circular. The circularity enters with the generalization claims: the abstract and contributions assert robustness under rotations, scaling, and real-world black-box transfer, but the only measurements are CLIP confidences on the same renders that supplied the reward in Algorithm 1. No held-out transformation or independent vision model is tested, so the robustness/transfer prediction reduces to the reward function over training-time views. The self-citations (Ergezer et al. 2024; Zeybey, Ergezer, and Nguyen 2024) are used only for novelty positioning and are not load-bearing for the derived attack results. Overall, the attack itself has independent content, but the headline robustness and transferability claims are partially circular because they are evaluated with the optimized objective.

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

The central attack depends on hand-chosen reward weights, PPO settings, and the assumption that CLIP rewards generalize to real-world threats. No independent entities are introduced, but the optimization is anchored to CLIP's own outputs.

free parameters (3)
  • Reward weights θ0, θ1, θ2 = 100, -1, 0.00005
    Chosen by grid search and Bayesian optimization; they directly shape the attack objective and are not derived from theory.
  • PPO hyperparameters = n_steps=2, batch_size=2, max_grad_norm=1e-5
    Set by hand for stability; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Modified horse reward = Not specified
    The horse targeted attack used an altered reward that counts the number of target-class images, an ad hoc change not used elsewhere.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption CLIP classification confidences provide a reliable reward signal for optimizing adversarial perturbations.
    The entire RL loop depends on this signal in the Method section, but no evidence is given that it guides the search effectively.
  • ad hoc to paper The 13-million-parameter action space of Instant-NGP is searchable by PPO with the stated hyperparameters.
    The Future Works section notes the action space is large and may be inefficient, so this assumes the current setup is viable.
  • domain assumption Targeted and true class labels are well-defined and available from CLIP for every scene.
    The reward uses Target and True terms, but the algorithm does not show how they are computed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AdvIRL: Reinforcement Learning-Based Adversarial Attacks on 3D NeRF Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/54IJTJNW

@misc{pith2026241216213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AdvIRL: Reinforcement Learning-Based Adversarial Attacks on 3D NeRF Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/54IJTJNW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16213}
}
read the original abstract

The increasing deployment of AI models in critical applications has exposed them to significant risks from adversarial attacks. While adversarial vulnerabilities in 2D vision models have been extensively studied, the threat landscape for 3D generative models, such as Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF), remains underexplored. This work introduces \textit{AdvIRL}, a novel framework for crafting adversarial NeRF models using Instant Neural Graphics Primitives (Instant-NGP) and Reinforcement Learning. Unlike prior methods, \textit{AdvIRL} generates adversarial noise that remains robust under diverse 3D transformations, including rotations and scaling, enabling effective black-box attacks in real-world scenarios. Our approach is validated across a wide range of scenes, from small objects (e.g., bananas) to large environments (e.g., lighthouses). Notably, targeted attacks achieved high-confidence misclassifications, such as labeling a banana as a slug and a truck as a cannon, demonstrating the practical risks posed by adversarial NeRFs. Beyond attacking, \textit{AdvIRL}-generated adversarial models can serve as adversarial training data to enhance the robustness of vision systems. The implementation of \textit{AdvIRL} is publicly available at \url{https://github.com/Tommy-Nguyen-cpu/AdvIRL/tree/MultiView-Clean}, ensuring reproducibility and facilitating future research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16213 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. AdvIRL begins by processing a set of input images to generate segmented images, denoted as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This result highlights AdvIRL’s capability in gen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Generated results of different scenes using AdvIRL, shown from multiple angles and distances. The leftmost column [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Targeted attack: 8 out of 20 horse images were [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Additional images of the adversarial train scene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Images of the adversarially perturbed truck gener [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Andriushchenko, M.; and Flammarion, N. 2020. Understanding and improving fast adversarial training. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 16048--16059

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Athalye, A.; Engstrom, L.; Ilyas, A.; and Kwok, K. 2018. Synthesizing Robust Adversarial Examples. arXiv:1707.07397

    arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Behzadan, V.; and Munir, A. 2017. Vulnerability of Deep Reinforcement Learning to Policy Induction Attacks. arXiv:1701.04143

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Dong, Y.; Liao, F.; Pang, T.; Su, H.; Zhu, J.; Hu, X.; and Li, J. 2018. Boosting Adversarial Attacks with Momentum. arXiv:1710.06081

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Dosovitskiy, A.; Beyer, L.; Kolesnikov, A.; Weissenborn, D.; Zhai, X.; Unterthiner, T.; Dehghani, M.; Minderer, M.; Heigold, G.; Gelly, S.; Uszkoreit, J.; and Houlsby, N. 2021. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. arXiv:2010.11929

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Ergezer, M.; Duong, P.; Green, C.; Nguyen, T.; and Zeybey, A. 2024. One Noise to Rule Them All: Multi-View Adversarial Attacks with Universal Perturbation. In ICAIA-24

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Y.; Duan, Y.; Darrell, T.; Levine, S.; and Abbeel, P

    Finn, C.; Tan, X. Y.; Duan, Y.; Darrell, T.; Levine, S.; and Abbeel, P. 2015. Learning visual feature spaces for robotic manipulation with deep spatial autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.06113, 25: 2

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    J.; Shlens, J.; and Szegedy, C

    Goodfellow, I. J.; Shlens, J.; and Szegedy, C. 2015. Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples. arXiv:1412.6572

    arXiv 2015

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Hossain, D.; Capi, G.; and Jindai, M. 2016. Object recognition and robot grasping: A deep learning based approach. In The 34th Annual Conference of the Robotics Society of Japan (RSJ 2016), Yamagata, Japan

    2016

  2. [10]

    Hu, Z.; Han, T.; Sun, P.; Pan, J.; and Manocha, D. 2019. 3-D deformable object manipulation using deep neural networks. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 4(4): 4255--4261

    2019

  3. [11]

    Huang, Y.; Dong, Y.; Ruan, S.; Yang, X.; Su, H.; and Wei, X. 2023. Towards Transferable Targeted 3D Adversarial Attack in the Physical World. arXiv:2312.09558

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    D.; Wang, Z

    Hull, M. D.; Wang, Z. J.; and Chau, D. H. 2024. Revamp: Automated Simulations of Adversarial Attacks on Arbitrary Objects in Realistic Scenes. In The Second Tiny Papers Track at ICLR 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Knapitsch, A.; Park, J.; Zhou, Q.-Y.; and Koltun, V. 2017. Tanks and Temples: Benchmarking Large-Scale Scene Reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 36(4)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Kurakin, A.; Goodfellow, I.; and Bengio, S. 2017. Adversarial examples in the physical world. arXiv:1607.02533

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Li, L.; Lian, Q.; and Chen, Y.-C. 2023. Adv3D: Generating 3D Adversarial Examples in Driving Scenarios with NeRF. arXiv:2309.01351

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Li, P.; Chen, X.; and Shen, S. 2019. Stereo r-cnn based 3d object detection for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 7644--7652

    2019

  9. [17]

    Lin, J.; Song, C.; He, K.; Wang, L.; and Hopcroft, J. E. 2020. Nesterov Accelerated Gradient and Scale Invariance for Adversarial Attacks. arXiv:1908.06281

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Madry, A.; Makelov, A.; Schmidt, L.; Tsipras, D.; and Vladu, A. 2017. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.06083

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J

    Mildenhall, B.; Srinivasan, P. P.; Tancik, M.; Barron, J. T.; Ramamoorthi, R.; and Ng, R. 2020. NeRF: Representing Scenes as Neural Radiance Fields for View Synthesis. In ECCV

    2020

  12. [20]

    M\"uller, T.; Evans, A.; Schied, C.; and Keller, A. 2022. Instant Neural Graphics Primitives with a Multiresolution Hash Encoding. ACM Trans. Graph., 41(4): 102:1--102:15

    2022

  13. [21]

    W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al

    Radford, A.; Kim, J. W.; Hallacy, C.; Ramesh, A.; Goh, G.; Agarwal, S.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; Mishkin, P.; Clark, J.; et al. 2021. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, 8748--8763. PMLR

    2021

  14. [22]

    V.; Carion, N.; Wu, C.-Y.; Girshick, R.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Feichtenhofer, C

    Ravi, N.; Gabeur, V.; Hu, Y.-T.; Hu, R.; Ryali, C.; Ma, T.; Khedr, H.; R \"a dle, R.; Rolland, C.; Gustafson, L.; Mintun, E.; Pan, J.; Alwala, K. V.; Carion, N.; Wu, C.-Y.; Girshick, R.; Doll \'a r, P.; and Feichtenhofer, C. 2024. SAM 2: Segment Anything in Images and Videos. ...

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J.; and Jamali, M

    Ravindran, R.; Santora, M. J.; and Jamali, M. M. 2020. Multi-object detection and tracking, based on DNN, for autonomous vehicles: A review. IEEE Sensors Journal, 21(5): 5668--5677

    2020

  16. [24]

    R.; Mousavi, S.; Ghorbanpour, S.; Gundecha, V.; Gutierrez, R

    Sarkar, S.; Babu, A. R.; Mousavi, S.; Ghorbanpour, S.; Gundecha, V.; Gutierrez, R. L.; Guillen, A.; and Naug, A. 2023. Reinforcement Learning Based Black-Box Adversarial Attack for Robustness Improvement. In 2023 IEEE 19th International Conference on Automation Science and Eng...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Sharif, M.; Bhagavatula, S.; Bauer, L.; and Reiter, M. K. 2019. A General Framework for Adversarial Examples with Objectives. ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security, 22(3): 1–30

    2019

  18. [26]

    Wu, Y.; Kirillov, A.; Massa, F.; Lo, W.-Y.; and Girshick, R. 2019. Detectron2. https://github.com/facebookresearch/detectron2

    2019

  19. [27]

    Xu, K.; Zhang, G.; Liu, S.; Fan, Q.; Sun, M.; Chen, H.; Chen, P.-Y.; Wang, Y.; and Lin, X. 2020. Adversarial T-shirt! Evading Person Detectors in A Physical World. arXiv:1910.11099

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Zeybey, A.; Ergezer, M.; and Nguyen, T. 2024. Gaussian Splatting Under Attack: Investigating Adversarial Noise in 3D Objects. In Neurips Safe Generative AI Workshop 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Zhang, K.; Wang, S.; Ji, L.; and Wang, C. 2020. DNN based camera and LiDAR fusion framework for 3D object recognition. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 1518, 012044. IOP Publishing

    2020

  22. [30]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  23. [31]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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