Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 35 references

Is Memorization Helpful or Harmful? Prior Information Sets the Threshold

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In an overparameterized Bayesian linear model, the prior's Fisher information and variance set exact thresholds: below 1/J_pi optimal estimators must memorize, above V_pi they must avoid overfitting.

desk verdict A genuinely clarifying threshold result for Bayesian linear regression that reconciles the memorization-necessary and overfitting-harmful camps; the proof core holds up on inspection, with one minor gap in a side asymptotic. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.09405 v2 pith:YLTVMTQR submitted 2026-02-10 stat.ML cs.ITcs.LGmath.ITmath.STstat.TH

Chen Cheng , Rina Foygel Barber This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.ITcs.LGmath.ITmath.STstat.TH MSC 62F1562J0762C10
keywords memorizationoverfittingBayesianlinearregressionFisherinformationtrainingerrorgeneralizationoverparameterizationpriorvariance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks when a near-optimal predictor in overparameterized linear regression must memorize the training data and when memorizing is actively harmful. Its answer is that both behaviors are forced, but in different noise regimes determined entirely by the prior pi. The paper proves a sandwich bound on the Bayes estimator's training error: sigma^4/(V_pi + sigma^2) <= Train(theta_hat_B) <= sigma^4/(J_pi^{-1} + sigma^2), where J_pi is the Fisher information of the prior and V_pi its variance. Consequently, when sigma^2 <= J_pi^{-1}, any estimator with near-optimal prediction error must train near zero in relative terms, and when sigma^2 >= V_pi, any such estimator must keep training error close to sigma^2. The two apparently conflicting intuitions about overfitting are therefore not in tension; the prior's local spikiness and global spread decide which regime applies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Fisher information of the noised pushed-forward distribution, J(sigma^2) = (1/n) E_{y ~ pi' * N(0, sigma^2 I)}[||nabla log p_sigma^2(y)||^2], related to the Bayes training error exactly by Train(theta_hat_B) = sigma^4 * J(sigma^2) through Tweedie's formula. The proof combines Stam's Fisher information inequality, which yields J(sigma^2) <= (J_pi^{-1} + sigma^2)^{-1}, and a Cramer-Rao/variance bound, which yields J(sigma^2) >= (V_pi + sigma^2)^{-1} after a Cauchy-Schwarz integration-by-parts identity, plus lower-semicontinuity of Fisher information to control the sigma^2 -> 0 limit. This identity converts training error into a purely information-theoretic quanti

What would settle it

Fix any prior with positive differentiable density and any full-row-rank design X; compute Train(theta_hat_B) for many noise levels and check whether sigma^4/(V_pi + sigma^2) <= Train(theta_hat_B) <= sigma^4/(J_pi^{-1} + sigma^2) for all sigma^2. A single violation, or a failure of Train(theta_hat_B)/sigma^4 to tend to J_pi as sigma^2 goes to 0, would refute Theorem 1. Alternatively, in the regime sigma^2 <= J_pi^{-1}, find a near-optimal estimator whose excess risk is small but whose training error is not o(sigma^2).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Treating y = X*theta + sigma*tau with theta drawn from a prior pi that has a positive differentiable density, the discovery is that optimal generalization is tied to training error through the two prior parameters J_pi = E[||nabla log p(X*theta)||^2/n | X] and V_pi = E[||X*theta||^2/n | X]. Theorem 1 sandwiches the Bayes estimator's mean squared training error between sigma^4/(V_pi + sigma^2) and sigma^4/(J_pi^{-1} + sigma^2). The asymptotic directions show Train(theta_hat_B) = J_pi*sigma^4 + o(sigma^4) as sigma^2 -> 0, and Train(theta_hat_B) = sigma^2 - V_pi + o(1) as sigma^2 -> infinity. Since the posterior mean is the unique prediction-optimal estimator (Proposition 1), any near-optimal e

Load-bearing premise

Everything is measured against the Bayes estimator under the true prior pi, and pi is required to have a positive, differentiable density; if the practitioner's prior is misspecified or the prior puts mass on a lower-dimensional set, the two thresholds describe the wrong benchmark and the memorization/overfitting verdicts need not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sandwich holds, an uninformative prior with J_pi and V_pi of order 1 puts any positive-but-small noise in the memorization regime: near-optimal estimators must have training error o(sigma^2).
  • If the prior is concentrated near a low-dimensional manifold, J_pi^{-1} is tiny, so for fixed noise memorization is not forced; overfitting becomes harmful once sigma^2 >= V_pi.
  • For any C > 1, an estimator with Train >= C*J_pi*sigma^4 in the low-noise regime suffers excess prediction risk linear in its training error; an estimator with Train <= sigma^2 - C*V_pi in the high-noise regime suffers excess risk quadratic in the overfit amount divided by sigma^2.
  • The Bayes-optimal training error increases monotonically with noise, while Train/sigma^4 decreases, so the transition from memorization-necessary to overfitting-harmful is a continuous shift rather than a sharp phase flip.
  • Exact low-rank priors without a density sit outside the main theorem; direct computation gives Train(theta_hat_B) -> sigma^2*(1-rho) + O(sigma^4), so bounded overfitting is harmless there.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If these thresholds are robust, a practitioner could estimate J_pi and V_pi from the prior or from score statistics of the posterior and decide whether to regularize or interpolate before seeing data; the paper does not develop this diagnostic.
  • The Bayesian benchmark assumes the true prior is known. For a misspecified prior, the same sandwich may bound the training error of the misspecified-Bayes estimator against the wrong optimum, so the necessity and harm statements would not transfer unchanged; this is an extension question the paper leaves open.
  • Because a positive density is required, the memorization regime at extremely small noise can be an artifact of local flatness even under strongly structured priors; replacing the density condition with atom-containing or exactly low-rank priors may remove that regime and change the practical advice.
  • The same Fisher-information identity suggests a finite-sample check: for a fixed design and prior, compute Train(theta_hat_B) = sigma^4 * J(sigma^2) numerically for several noise levels and compare against the sandwich; a sizable violation would indicate the core theorem is not capturing the true training error.
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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Bayesian linear model y = Xθ + στ with d ≥ n and a fixed, known prior π on θ. It introduces two prior-dependent quantities, the Fisher information Jπ and the variance Vπ of the push-forward distribution of Xθ, and proves a non-asymptotic sandwich for the training error of the Bayes estimator: σ⁴/(Vπ+σ²) ≤ Train(θ̂_B) ≤ σ⁴/(Jπ^{-1}+σ²) (Theorem 1). Combining this with a Pythagorean decomposition for arbitrary estimators (Proposition 1), it derives two threshold laws: when σ² ≤ Jπ^{-1}, any near-optimal estimator must have training error at most O(Jπσ⁴) = o(σ²), so memorization is necessary (Corollary 2.1); when σ² ≥ Vπ, any near-optimal estimator must have training error at least σ² − Vπ, so overfitting is harmful (Corollary 2.2). The main theorem is non-asymptotic; Section 3 illustrates the thresholds in isotropic Gaussian, approximately low-rank Gaussian, and approximately sparse mixture priors using random matrix asymptotics. Appendices supply proofs and supporting lemmas.

Significance. If correct, the paper gives a clean conceptual unification: memorization and harmful overfitting are not contradictory phenomena but two regimes of a single threshold law set by the prior. The thresholds Jπ^{-1} and Vπ are derived, not fitted; the proof uses classical tools (Cramér–Rao, Stam's Fisher information inequality, lower semicontinuity of Fisher information) and the core bound holds for fixed d and n without asymptotic assumptions. The paper is explicit about its scope (known prior, positive differentiable density) and honestly flags the artifact that exact low-rank/sparse priors are excluded from the main theorem. Strengths include the non-asymptotic nature of Theorem 1, the concrete random-matrix examples, and the availability of reproducible simulation code. The contribution is likely to be of broad interest to the high-dimensional statistics and learning theory communities.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B.2, Part III (high-noise asymptotic)] The dominated-convergence step for E[θ̂_B θ̂_B^T] is asserted too quickly. The assertion that ∫∥θ∥²π(dθ)<∞ suffices is not by itself enough: the integrand is a ratio whose denominator can be small. A uniform lower bound on the denominator (e.g., using positivity of the density p and the pointwise limit e^{−∥τ∥²/2}) is needed to justify the interchange. This does not affect Corollaries 2.1–2.2, which rely only on the non-asymptotic bounds in Eq. (2), but the proof of Eq. (4) should be completed.
  2. [§4.2, proof of Proposition 6] The claim that J(σ²)=Train(σ²)/σ⁴ is non-increasing is said to follow from Stam's inequality J(t)^{-1} ≥ J(0)^{-1}+t. That inequality gives a decreasing upper bound on J(t), not monotonicity of J itself. The statement is true, but the correct justification is the derivative formula J'(t)=−E∥∇² log p_t∥²_F/n (Appendix E.2); the proof should be corrected.
  3. [Appendix B.2, Lemma B.1] The variational characterization of Fisher information is abbreviated. The equality J(t)=sup_b{−2/n∫p_t∇·b − 1/n∫p_t∥b∥²} requires an approximation argument for the choice b=∇log p_t by compactly supported smooth vector fields. The sentence 'ϵ_b can be arbitrarily small' is not a full justification. This affects only the proof of the low-noise l.s.c. step, not the non-asymptotic sandwich.
  4. [Throughout] Several inline logical symbols and square-root spans are garbled in the submitted PDF (e.g., 'Leftr⫯g⊸tl⫯ne⇒' in Section 2.1 and broken radicals in Theorem 2 and Appendix B.3). Please ensure the final typesetting is clean; this appears to be a rendering artifact rather than a mathematical issue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the threshold bounds are derived, not fitted, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Theorem 1's sandwich bound (Eq. 2) is proved in Appendix B.2 from external information-theoretic inequalities: 'The Fisher information upper bound is a direct corollary of Stam's Fisher information inequality in Lemma A.2... The lower bound follows from the classical scalar version of Cramer-Rao bound'. The thresholds J_pi^{-1} and V_pi are prior-defined parameters in Eq. (1), not calibrated to the training errors they predict. The memorization/harm corollaries follow by substituting the Theorem 1 bounds into Proposition 1's Pythagorean cost identity, which is standard Bayes optimality plus Minkowski; this is a deduction, not a renaming. Example limits (Propositions 2-5) are computed from random matrix theory, and the approximately-sparse example is checked against external bounds. Citations to the authors' prior work [12,13,28] are contextual or comparative (e.g., footnote 5 notes the isotropic example is 'the same setup considered in [13]'), but the main theorem does not rest on those papers; the proof cites external results (Stam [34], Dembo-Cover-Thomas [14], Guo et al. [19,20], Ledoux [24]). The only caveat I see is a technical one in the high-noise proof (Appendix B.2, Part III), where dominated convergence for E[theta_hat_B theta_hat_B^T] is asserted too quickly from integral ||theta||^2 pi(dtheta) < infinity; this is a rigor gap, not a circularity, and Eq. (4) is not needed for Corollaries 2.1-2.2. The explicit scope condition (positive differentiable density, known prior pi) is stated, not hidden, and the paper itself flags the small-noise artifact for structured priors in Section 2.4.1. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

What the reader pays for upstream: standard information-theoretic inequalities (Stam, Cramér-Rao, entropic isoperimetric), Tweedie's formula, the MMSE/I-MMSE identities, and random-matrix-theory limits (Bai-Yin, Marchenko-Pastur). Domain assumptions: conditional-on-X analysis with full-rank overparameterized design, existence of a positive differentiable density for the pushed-forward prior, and Assumption 1 for the examples. No free parameters are fitted to data; η, ρ, γ in the examples are model primitives, not calibration knobs. No new entities are postulated: J_π is the classical Fisher information of the prior's push-forward and V_π its variance — named summary statistics with independent operational meaning, not invented objects.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Tweedie's formula: E[Xθ|y] = y + σ²∇log p_{σ²}(y)
    Lemma 4.1; classical result [16], used to express the Bayes estimator's training error as σ⁴ times a Fisher information.
  • standard math Stam's Fisher information inequality and the entropic isoperimetric inequality (Lemmas A.2, A.3 from [14,34])
    Gives the upper bound in Theorem 1 and the V_π ≥ J_π^{-1} relation; classical information-theoretic inequalities.
  • standard math Cramér-Rao lower bound via Cauchy-Schwarz
    Used for the lower bound Train ≥ σ⁴/(V_π + σ²) in Theorem 1; proved inline in Appendix B.2.
  • standard math Lower semi-continuity of Fisher information under weak convergence (Lemma B.1)
    Needed for J(t) → J(0) as t→0+, i.e., the low-noise expansion Train(θ̂_B) = J_πσ⁴ + o(σ⁴); cites [9,22].
  • standard math Bai-Yin and generalized Marchenko-Pastur laws (Lemmas A.4-A.6)
    Used to compute the asymptotic limits of V_π, J_π, λ_Σ in the Section 3 examples.
  • domain assumption Prior π has positive, differentiable density on R^d; X full row rank with d ≥ n
    Made in §2.3; excludes exact low-rank/sparse priors, acknowledged in §2.4.1 and handled separately by direct computation in Proposition 4.
  • domain assumption The Bayesian model M_X(π,σ²) is the true data-generating mechanism and the prior is known to the statistician
    §2.1; all conclusions concern expected error under this known prior; the paper defers prior-free settings to future work in §5.
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: d/n → γ, i.i.d. standardized design entries with bounded fourth moment
    Used only for the asymptotic examples in Section 3, enabling the random-matrix-theory limits.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is Memorization Helpful or Harmful? Prior Information Sets the Threshold." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YLTVMTQR

@misc{pith2026260209405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is Memorization Helpful or Harmful? Prior Information Sets the Threshold},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YLTVMTQR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.09405}
}
abstract

We examine the connection between training error and generalization error for arbitrary estimating procedures, working in an overparameterized linear model under general priors in a Bayesian setup. We find determining factors inherent to the prior distribution $\pi$, giving explicit conditions under which optimal generalization necessitates that the training error be (i) near interpolating relative to the noise size (i.e., memorization is necessary), or (ii) close to the noise level (i.e., overfitting is harmful). Remarkably, these phenomena occur when the noise reaches thresholds determined by the Fisher information and the variance parameters of the prior $\pi$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.09405 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of the results of Corollary 2.1 (describing the regime where memorization is necessary), and Corollary 2.2 (describing the regime where overfitting is harmful). Here C > 1 is any constant. Next, we turn to the question of when overfitting is harmful: what is the cost of choosing an estimator whose training error is too low? Corollary 2.2. In the setting of Theorem 2, suppose also that σ 2 ≥ Vπ. Then … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of the phenomenon discussed in Section 2.4.1. In the top row, we plot an isotropic prior, π = N(0, I2), while the bottom row shows a prior that encourages approximate 1-sparsity, π = 0.5N(0, e1e ⊺ 1 + ηe2e ⊺ 2 ) + 0.5N(0, ηe1e ⊺ 1 + e2e ⊺ 2 ), for η = 0.05. However, when we zoom in to the neighborhood of a single point (0, 0.5), the two priors are both essentially constant. π = N(0, Id) then Vπ = J −… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Numerical simulations for π ′ = 0.5N(−1, η) + 0.5N(1, η). From left to right, we plot Train(σ 2 ), Train(σ 2 )/σ 2 and Train(σ 2 )/σ 4 vs. σ 2 . 5 Discussion Our results, extending the memorization phenomenon in Cheng et al. [13] from Gaussian priors to general priors, provide summarizing parameters J −1 π and Vπ, which are intrinsic to the underlying parameter distribution π and capture a notion of effective dimens… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Artstein, K

    S. Artstein, K. Ball, F. Barthe, and A. Naor. Solution of shannon’s problem on the monotonicity of entropy.Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 17(4):975–982, 2004

    2004

  2. [2]

    Bai and J

    Z. Bai and J. W. Silverstein.Spectral analysis of large dimensional random matrices, volume 20. Springer, 2010

    2010

  3. [3]

    Bakry and M

    D. Bakry and M. Émery. Diffusions hypercontractives. InSéminaire de Probabilités XIX 1983/84: Proceedings, pages 177–206. Springer, 2006

    1983

  4. [4]

    Bakry, I

    D. Bakry, I. Gentil, and M. Ledoux.Analysis and geometry of Markov diffusion operators, volume 348. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. 12

    2013

  5. [5]

    P. L. Bartlett, P. M. Long, G. Lugosi, and A. Tsigler. Benign overfitting in linear regression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30063–30070, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Belkin, D

    M. Belkin, D. J. Hsu, and P. Mitra. Overfitting or perfect fitting? risk bounds for classification and regression rules that interpolate.Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  7. [7]

    Belkin, A

    M. Belkin, A. Rakhlin, and A. B. Tsybakov. Does data interpolation contradict statistical optimality? InThe 22nd international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pages 1611–1619. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Billingsley.Probability and Measure

    P. Billingsley.Probability and Measure. Wiley, 3 edition, 1995

    1995

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    S. G. Bobkov, G. P. Chistyakov, and F. Götze. Fisher information and the central limit theorem. Probability theory and related fields, 159(1):1–59, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Candes and B

    E. Candes and B. Recht. Exact matrix completion via convex optimization.Communications of the ACM, 55(6):111–119, 2012

    2012

  3. [11]

    E. J. Candes, M. B. Wakin, and S. P. Boyd. Enhancing sparsity by reweightedℓ1 minimization. Journal of Fourier analysis and applications, 14(5):877–905, 2008

    2008

  4. [12]

    Cheng and A

    C. Cheng and A. Montanari. Dimension free ridge regression.The Annals of Statistics, 52(6): 2879–2912, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Cheng, J

    C. Cheng, J. Duchi, and R. Kuditipudi. Memorize to generalize: on the necessity of interpolation in high dimensional linear regression. InConference on Learning Theory, pages 5528–5560. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Dembo, T

    A. Dembo, T. M. Cover, and J. A. Thomas. Information theoretic inequalities.IEEE Transactions on Information theory, 37(6):1501–1518, 2002

    2002

  7. [15]

    Dytso, H

    A. Dytso, H. V. Poor, and S. S. Shitz. A general derivative identity for the conditional mean estimator in gaussian noise and some applications. In2020 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), pages 1183–1188. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    B. Efron. Tweedie’s formula and selection bias.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(496):1602–1614, 2011

    2011

  9. [17]

    V. Feldman. Does learning require memorization? a short tale about a long tail. InProceedings of the 52nd annual ACM SIGACT symposium on theory of computing, pages 954–959, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    Gunasekar, B

    S. Gunasekar, B. E. Woodworth, S. Bhojanapalli, B. Neyshabur, and N. Srebro. Implicit regularization in matrix factorization.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  11. [19]

    D. Guo, S. Shamai, and S. Verdú. Mutual information and mmse in gaussian channels. In International Symposium onInformation Theory, 2004. ISIT 2004. Proceedings., pages 349–349. IEEE, 2004

    2004

  12. [20]

    D. Guo, Y. Wu, S. S. Shitz, and S. Verdú. Estimation in gaussian noise: Properties of the minimum mean-square error.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 57(4):2371–2385, 2011. 13

    2011

  13. [21]

    Hastie, A

    T. Hastie, A. Montanari, S. Rosset, and R. J. Tibshirani. Surprises in high-dimensional ridgeless least squares interpolation.Annals of statistics, 50(2):949, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    P. J. Huber and E. M. Ronchetti.Asymptotic Minimax Theory for Estimating Location, chapter 4, pages 71–103. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009. ISBN 9780470434697. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1002/9780470434697.ch4. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ 10.1002/9780470434697.ch4

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    Isserlis

    L. Isserlis. On a formula for the product-moment coefficient of any order of a normal frequency distribution in any number of variables.Biometrika, 12(1/2):134–139, 1918

    1918

  16. [24]

    M. Ledoux. Heat flow derivatives and minimum mean-square error in gaussian noise.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 62(6):3401–3409, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    E. L. Lehmann and G. Casella.Theory of point estimation. Springer, 1998

    1998

  18. [26]

    ridgeless

    T. Liang and A. Rakhlin. Just interpolate: Kernel “ridgeless” regression can generalize.The Annals of Statistics, 48(3):1329–1347, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    S. Mei, T. Misiakiewicz, and A. Montanari. Generalization error of random feature and kernel methods: Hypercontractivity and kernel matrix concentration.Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, 59:3–84, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    M. M. Müller, Y. Luo, and R. F. Barber. Are all models wrong? fundamental limits in distribution-free empirical model falsification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06765, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Neyshabur

    B. Neyshabur. Implicit regularization in deep learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.01953, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Petersen.Riemannian geometry

    P. Petersen.Riemannian geometry. Springer, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    K. Shah, A. Kalavasis, A. R. Klivans, and G. Daras. Does generation require memorization? creative diffusion models using ambient diffusion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.21278, 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    C. E. Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication.The Bell system technical journal, 27(3):379–423, 1948

    1948

  25. [33]

    J. W. Silverstein and S.-I. Choi. Analysis of the limiting spectral distribution of large dimensional random matrices.Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 54(2):295–309, 1995

    1995

  26. [34]

    A. J. Stam. Some inequalities satisfied by the quantities of information of Fisher and Shannon. Information and Control, 2(2):101–112, 1959

    1959

  27. [35]

    Tibshirani

    R. Tibshirani. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 58(1):267–288, 1996. 14 A Technical lemmas In this section, we gather some technical lemmas from existing work, that will be helpful in t...

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.