Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 31 references

A slicing approach to stress-strain duality

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A slicing pairing makes stress-strain duality well-defined for unbounded BD deformations and divergence-measure stresses, and reduces to the classical Kohn–Temam pairing where defined.

desk verdict Solid slicing-based extension of stress-strain pairings to unbounded BD, but Theorem 1.1 overstates the Gauss–Green formula by omitting the integrability assumptions (7.10) from Theorem 7.9. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17183 v1 pith:SEZ6HFQZ submitted 2026-07-19 math.FA math.AP

Virginia De Cicco , Giovanni Scilla This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.FAmath.AP MSC 28B0546G1026B30
keywords stress-strainpairingfunctionsofboundeddeformationdivergence-measurefieldsslicingGauss-GreenformulaKohn-TemamBV^∞_Ξfracturemechanics
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 extends the classical Kohn–Temam stress-strain pairing, which requires the stress divergence to be summable, to symmetric tensor fields whose divergence is merely a Radon measure — the situation at cracks, material interfaces, and diffuse micro-cracking. The authors define a new 'slicing pairing' for any displacement of bounded deformation, bounded or not, by cutting the stress and strain along the directions of a finite frame and integrating one-dimensional pairings. Their main theorem states that this slicing pairing is a Radon measure, is absolutely continuous with respect to the strain measure |Eu|, and satisfies Gauss–Green formulas on sets of finite perimeter; when the displacement is bounded and two natural compatibility conditions hold, it coincides with the distributional pairing. The construction is explicit and frame-dependent in general, becoming intrinsic when the stress belongs to BV. If correct, it supplies the missing mathematical object for computing mechanical work and energy balance in models of fracture, interface decohesion, and singular force concentrations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the slicing pairing ((A:Eu))_Ξ, built from a finite frame Ξ of N(N+1)/2 unit directions whose rank-one products ξ⊗ξ form a basis of the space of symmetric matrices. Writing A = Σ a^ξ ξ⊗ξ, the pairing disintegrates into one-dimensional pairings (a^ξ_y, Dû^ξ_y) between the BV slice of the coefficient a^ξ and the BV slice of the normal component û^ξ = u·ξ; the formula (7.2) integrates these scalar measures over the hyperplanes ξ^⊥. The machinery exploits the slicing theorem for BD (Proposition 2.7) and the scalar pairing theory for BV functions, and the key structural assumption is the directional BV condition BV^∞_Ξ, which ensures each a^ξ_y is BV along slices. This reduc

What would settle it

Compute the slicing pairing for a simple two-dimensional configuration in which A has divergence concentrated on a line but oscillates wildly in the tangential direction (so D_ξ a^ξ fails to be a Radon measure for every frame), with u a Heaviside jump across the line. If the construction still yields a measure for some choice of frame, the claimed necessity of BV^∞_Ξ is wrong; if it does not, the limitation is real. Alternatively, find A ∈ BV^∞_Ξ ∩ BV^∞_Ξ' and u ∈ BD with ((A:Eu))_Ξ ≠ ((A:Eu))_Ξ' and |E^c u|(S_A)>0; the paper's consistency theorem predicts equality only when |E^c u|(S_A)=0, so

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem 1.1: for a symmetric stress field A in the directional BV class BV^∞_Ξ (each coefficient a^ξ = A:B^ξ has directional derivative D_ξ a^ξ a Radon measure) and any u ∈ BD(Ω), the slicing pairing ((A:Eu))_Ξ defined by (7.2) is a Radon measure in Ω, absolutely continuous with respect to |Eu|, with a Gauss–Green formula on sets of finite perimeter. When u ∈ BD ∩ L^∞, |E^c u|(S_A)=0, and condition (H*) holds, the slicing pairing coincides with the distributional pairing (A:Eu). The paper also shows that for A ∈ BV ∩ L^∞ the slicing construction reconstructs the intrinsic measure A^* : Eu, so the pairing is then frame-independent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, for each direction ξ in a chosen frame, the directional derivative D_ξ a^ξ of the coefficient a^ξ = A:B^ξ is a Radon measure; if even one of these directional derivatives is merely a distribution and not a measure, the slicing formula (7.2) is not defined, and the whole construction collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stress fields with singular surface divergence — e.g. jump discontinuities across cracks and material interfaces — now admit a well-defined stress-strain pairing that is a Radon measure absolutely continuous with |Eu|.
  • Unbounded BD displacements, for which truncation arguments fail, are covered by the slicing definition; the resulting Gauss–Green formulas hold on sets of finite perimeter.
  • Whenever the classical Kohn–Temam or distributional pairing is defined (bounded u, |E^c u|(S_A)=0, condition (H*)), the slicing pairing coincides with it, so the new object is a strict generalization.
  • For stresses in BV ∩ L^∞ the slicing pairing is frame-independent and equals A^*:Eu, giving an intrinsic interfacial work in Griffith-type fracture configurations.
  • The deviatoric pairing ((A^D:E^D u))_Ξ is also a Radon measure absolutely continuous with respect to |Eu|, extending the classical plasticity pairing to stresses with measure divergence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The frame-dependence of the slicing pairing is arguably a feature rather than a defect: for non-BV stresses, the energy concentration is captured only along the prescribed frame directions, so the pairing implicitly selects a family of preferred material orientations; a reader might expect that physical objectivity requires either proving frame-invariance for wider classes or prescribing Ξ as part
  • The condition |E^c u|(S_A)=0, needed for consistency with the distributional pairing, is not needed for the slicing pairing itself; one can test numerically whether Cantor-type micro-cracking produces different slicing pairings for different frames, which would quantify the 'invisibility' of diffuse damage to the strain measure.
  • The BV^∞_Ξ regularity is strictly stronger than divergence-measure regularity and is directional in nature (only directional derivatives along the frame are controlled). This suggests that the construction might extend to tensor fields with anisotropic singularities by choosing frames adapted to the singular set, an idea the paper does not pursue.
  • If one chooses a frame aligned with the singular directions of DivA, the slicing pairing may be computable in practice from one-dimensional sections; this could provide a route to numerical quadrature for interfacial energies in fracture or damage models.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a slicing-based stress-strain pairing ((A:Eu))_Ξ for symmetric tensor fields A in a directional BV class BV^∞_Ξ and displacements u in BD, without requiring Div A ∈ L^N. The main results are: (i) the slicing pairing is a Radon measure on Ω, absolutely continuous with respect to |Eu| (Theorem 7.2); (ii) for bounded u it coincides with the distributional pairing under hypotheses (H*) and (Hc) (Theorems 6.5 and 7.2(iii)); (iii) Gauss-Green formulas hold on sets of finite perimeter under additional integrability hypotheses (Theorem 7.9); (iv) for A∈BV the pairing is frame-independent and equals A^*:Eu; (v) a deviatoric variant and a Mode I crack example are discussed. The proofs proceed by disintegrating Lebesgue, Cantor and jump parts separately, with explicit assumptions for the delicate Cantor part.

Significance. If the main claims are correct, the paper extends the classical Kohn–Temam pairing to stress fields whose divergence has singular surface contributions, which is relevant to fracture and interface models. The slicing construction is new in this setting, and the paper is careful to separate the unconditional measure/absolute-continuity theorem from the consistency theorem requiring (H*) and (Hc). Explicit strengths include: a genuinely unconditional Radon-measure and absolute-continuity result for unbounded BD deformations, a consistency theorem with the distributional pairing under stated hypotheses, and a concrete two-dimensional example showing the mechanism. The main advertised theorem, however, overstates the validity of the Gauss-Green formula, and the well-posedness of one of the integrability hypotheses needs clarification. These issues are local and repairable, but they affect the central statement of the paper.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 1.1 vs. Theorem 7.9] Theorem 1.1 and the abstract assert that for every A∈BV^∞_Ξ and every u∈BD the slicing pairing is a Radon measure, absolutely continuous with respect to |Eu|, and satisfies a Gauss-Green formula on sets of finite perimeter. The measure and absolute-continuity parts are proved unconditionally in Theorem 7.2, but the Gauss-Green formula in Theorem 7.9 is proved only under the additional hypotheses (7.10): u*·ξ ∈ L^1_loc(R^N, |D_ξ a^ξ|) for each ξ∈Ξ, and u± ∈ L^1_{H^{N-1}∂*F,loc}. These do not follow from u∈BD and A∈BV^∞_Ξ. This is an internal mismatch between the advertised central claim and the precise theorem. Please restate Theorem 1.1 so that the Gauss-Green part carries hypotheses (7.10), or state it as a separate conditional result, and adjust the abstract accordingly.
  2. [Theorem 7.9 and Proposition 7.7] The hypothesis u*·ξ ∈ L^1_loc(R^N, |D_ξ a^ξ|) is not well-posed as written. The paper defines u* only on Ω\(S_u\J_u) (see (2.7) and the discussion preceding it), and for general u∈BD the paper itself notes that S_u\J_u need not be H^{N-1}-negligible. Since |D_ξ a^ξ| is a Radon measure that may charge S_u\J_u, the expression u*·ξ is not defined |D_ξ a^ξ|-a.e. unless an additional hypothesis such as |D_ξ a^ξ|(S_u\J_u)=0 is imposed. The slicing formulation (7.5) in Proposition 7.7 avoids this ambiguity by using the slice precise representative (û^ξ_y)*. To make Theorem 7.9 rigorous, either replace (7.4) by the slice condition (7.5), or add an explicit hypothesis excluding charge on S_u\J_u. This is a load-bearing clarification because the boundary term ∫ u*·dDivA in the Gauss-Green identity is otherwise not defined.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: “absolutely continuity” should be “absolute continuity.” Also, the abstract describes the fields as “bounded symmetric divergence-measure tensor fields,” but the main class BV^∞_Ξ is strictly stronger than DM^∞; consider wording that reflects the directional BV assumption.
  2. [Section 9] In formula (9.1), the sign convention for the boundary term should be reconciled explicitly with the trace convention in Theorem 5.8 and Remark 5.9, since (5.17) carries a minus sign while (9.1) is written with a plus sign after substituting Tr^+(A,∂F)=-A^+ν_F. A one-sentence explanation would prevent sign errors for readers.
  3. [Appendix A] The statement for N≥3 that “one needs (H'') with respect to sufficiently many (at least N) frames in generic position” is not a precise hypothesis. If this remark is kept, state the required rank condition explicitly, or label it as a heuristic.
  4. [Theorem 7.2] In the final frame-independence assertion, it may be helpful to state explicitly that for A∈BV∩L∞ the condition (Hc) is automatically satisfied, so that the conclusion does not require checking it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the slicing pairing is defined by formula (7.2) and the consistency with the distributional pairing is proved (Theorem 7.2(iii)), not assumed.

full rationale

The paper's central construction is a definition, not a disguised fit: the slicing pairing ((A:Eu))_Ξ is introduced by (7.2) as a sum of one-dimensional Anzellotti pairings, and Theorem 7.2 proves from that definition that it is a Radon measure absolutely continuous with respect to |Eu|. The advertised consistency ((A:Eu))_Ξ = (A:Eu) for bounded u under (Hc) and (H*) is the proved content of Theorem 7.2(iii), relying on the slicing representation Theorem 6.5, whose Lebesgue/jump/Cantor parts are each established. No fitted constants, empirical data, or target assumptions are fed back into the construction. The frame dependence of the slicing pairing is explicitly acknowledged, and frame independence is recovered only for A∈BV via Theorem 7.2's final assertion, so no uniqueness is smuggled in. The paper does cite the authors' own preprint [25] for the BV tensor pairing (Theorems 2.17–2.18) and as a proof template in Theorem 5.8, but the BD slicing results are proven independently and do not reduce to this citation; hence the self-citation is not load-bearing. One non-circular issue should be flagged: Theorem 1.1 states a Gauss-Green formula for every A∈BV∞_Ξ and u∈BD, while the actual Theorem 7.9 requires the additional integrability hypotheses (7.10); this is an overstatement of scope, not a circularity, and does not affect the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters appear: the frame Ξ and the constants C_Ξ are structural, not fitted. The listed axioms are standard background results plus explicitly stated hypotheses (H''), (Hc), (H*) and the integrability condition (7.10). No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math BV/BD slicing theory (Prop 2.2, 2.7, 2.8)
    The paper relies on the slicing characterization of BV and BD functions from Ambrosio-Fusco-Pallara and Ambrosio-Coscia-Dal Maso, used throughout Sections 4-7.
  • standard math Normal trace theory for divergence-measure fields
    Used to define traces of A and Au on rectifiable sets, following Chen-Frid and Anzellotti.
  • standard math Anzellotti-type pairing for BV functions
    The one-dimensional and BV pairings (a^ξ_y, Dû^ξ_y) are taken from prior work by Crasta-De Cicco and De Cicco-Scilla; these are background results, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Directional BV regularity of A along frame (H'')
    A ∈ BV^∞_Ξ(Ω;R^{N×N}_sym), i.e. D_ξ a^ξ ∈ M(Ω) for each ξ in the frame, is the load-bearing hypothesis for the slicing pairing; it is stronger than mere divergence-measure regularity.
  • domain assumption Cantor compatibility (Hc): |E^c u|(S_A)=0
    Required in Theorem 6.5 and Theorem 7.2(iii) to guarantee that the Cantor part of the pairing is eA:E^c u, and to prove consistency with the distributional pairing.
  • domain assumption Compatibility condition (H*): |Div^s A|(S_u \ J_u)=0
    Needed for the distributional pairing (5.1) for bounded BD functions to be well-defined; the slicing pairing avoids it, but consistency with (5.1) requires it.
  • domain assumption Integrability conditions (7.10) for the unbounded Gauss-Green
    u*·ξ ∈ L^1_loc(R^N, |D_ξ a^ξ|) and u^± ∈ L^1 on the reduced boundary are needed in Theorem 7.9 to make the boundary integrals finite.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A slicing approach to stress-strain duality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SEZ6HFQZ

@misc{pith2026260717183,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A slicing approach to stress-strain duality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SEZ6HFQZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17183}
}
abstract

The classical Kohn-Temam stress-strain pairing $({\bf A}:E{\bf u})$ for symmetric tensors ${\bf A}$ and ${\bf u}\in BD$ is typically formulated under summability assumptions on the divergence of ${\bf A}$. This excludes stress fields whose divergence has singular surface contributions, as occurs at cracks and material interfaces in continuum mechanics. We define and study stress-strain pairings for bounded symmetric divergence-measure tensor fields. For general ${\bf u}\in BD$, we introduce a slicing pairing $(({\bf A}:E{\bf u}))_\Xi$ for tensor fields satisfying a directional $BV$-type condition with respect to a finite frame $\Xi$. The definition is based on a one-dimensional disintegration strategy, and despite this construction, the new pairing enjoys analogous properties of the usual pairing $({\bf A}:E{\bf u})$, such as the absolutely continuity with respect to $|E{\bf u}|$ and the Gauss-Green formulas. We also identify several situations in which the pairing is independent of the choice of frame $\Xi$, including the relevant case in which the stress field ${\bf A}$ belongs to $BV$. While a distributional stress-strain pairing can be defined naturally for bounded $BD$ functions, it cannot be extended to the unbounded setting, since the truncation techniques available in $BV$ fail in $BD$. The slicing pairing is consistent with the distributional one whenever the latter is defined, while being more general even for bounded ${\bf u}$. Indeed, its existence does not require the compatibility condition $|{\rm Div}\,{\bf A}|(S_{{\bf u}}\setminus J_{\bf u})=0$ which is necessary for the distributional definition. This allows the treatment of stress fields interacting with diffuse micro-cracking.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17183 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The reference configuration Ω with the interface Γ and the Lipschitz subdomain F crossing the interface. Appendix A. A sufficient condition for BV regularity We identify a sufficient condition, based on a control of the directional derivatives of A with respect to frames, that guarantees the BV regularity of A. Let Ξ = {v1, . . . , vn} and Ξ′ = {w1, . . . , wn} be two frames of R N×N sym , where n = N(N+1) 2 . A sym… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [25]

    De Cicco and G

    V. De Cicco and G. Scilla,Gauss-Green formulas for divergence measure tensor fields on rough do- mains, Preprint (2026)

    2026

  2. [1]

    Ambrosio, A

    L. Ambrosio, A. Coscia, and G. Dal Maso,Fine properties of functions with bounded deformation, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.139(1997), 201–238

    1997

  3. [2]

    Ambrosio, G

    L. Ambrosio, G. Crippa, and S. Maniglia,Traces and fine properties of aBDclass of vector fields and applications, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6)14(2005), no. 4, 527–561. 48 V. DE CICCO AND G. SCILLA

    2005

  4. [3]

    Ambrosio, N

    L. Ambrosio, N. Fusco, and D. Pallara,Functions of Bounded Variation and Free Discontinuity Prob- lems, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 2000

    2000

  5. [4]

    Anzellotti,On the existence of the rates of stress and displacement for Prandtl-Reuss plasticity, Quarterly Appl

    G. Anzellotti,On the existence of the rates of stress and displacement for Prandtl-Reuss plasticity, Quarterly Appl. Math.41(1983), 181–208

    1983

  6. [5]

    ,Pairings between measures and bounded functions and compensated compactness, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4)135(1983), 293–318 (1984)

    1983

  7. [6]

    J.51(1984), no

    ,On the extremal stress and displacement in Hencky plasticity, Duke Math. J.51(1984), no. 1, 133–147

    1984

  8. [7]

    Anzellotti and M

    G. Anzellotti and M. Giaquinta,Existence of the displacements field for an elasto-plastic body subject to Hencky’s law and Von Mises yield condition, Manuscripta Math.32(1980), 101–136

    1980

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Arroyo-Rabasa,Slicing and fine properties for functions with boundedA-variation, arXiv:2009.13513 (2020)

    A. Arroyo-Rabasa,Slicing and fine properties for functions with boundedA-variation, arXiv:2009.13513 (2020)

    2009 arXiv

  2. [9]

    J. F. Babadjian,Traces of functions of bounded deformation, Indiana Univ. Math. J.64(2015), no. 4, 1271–1290

    2015

  3. [10]

    G. I. Barenblatt,The mathematical theory of equilibrium cracks in brittle fracture, Adv. Appl. Mech., 1962, pp. 55–129

    1962

  4. [11]

    Bourdin, G

    F. Bourdin, G. A. Francfort, and J.-J. Marigo,The variational approach to fracture, J. Elasticity91 (2008), no. 1–3, 5–148

    2008

  5. [12]

    Chen and H

    G.-Q. Chen and H. Frid,Divergence-measure fields and hyperbolic conservation laws, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.147(1999), no. 2, 89–118

    1999

  6. [13]

    ,Extended divergence-measure fields and the Euler equations for gas dynamics, Comm. Math. Phys.236(2003), no. 2, 251–280

    2003

  7. [14]

    G. E. Comi, G. Crasta, V. De Cicco, and A. Malusa,Representation formulas of pairings between divergence-measure vector fields and BV functions, J. Funct. Anal.286(2024), no. 1

    2024

  8. [15]

    G. E. Comi, V. De Cicco, and G. Scilla,Beyond BV: new pairings and Gauss-Green formu- las for measure fields with divergence measure, Commun. Contemp. Math., posted on 2026, DOI 10.1142/S0219199726500410

    2026 doi

  9. [16]

    G. E. Comi and G. P. Leonardi,Measures in the dual ofBV: perimeter bounds and relations with divergence-measure fields, Nonlinear Anal.251(2025), 113686

    2025

  10. [17]

    G. E. Comi and K. R. Payne,On locally essentially bounded divergence measure fields and sets of locally finite perimeter, Adv. Calc. Var.13(2020), no. 2, 179–217

    2020

  11. [18]

    Conti, M

    S. Conti, M. Focardi, and F. Iurlano,Which special functions of bounded deformation have bounded variation?, Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. A148(2018), no. 1, 33–50

    2018

  12. [19]

    Crasta and V

    G. Crasta and V. De Cicco,Anzellotti’s pairing theory and the Gauss–Green theorem, Adv. Math. 343(2019), 935–970

    2019

  13. [20]

    ,On the variational nature of the Anzellotti pairing, Adv. Calc. Var.18(2025), no. 3, 755–771

    2025

  14. [21]

    Crasta, V

    G. Crasta, V. De Cicco, and A. Malusa,Pairings between bounded divergence-measure vector fields and BV functions, Adv. Calc. Var.15(2022), no. 4, 787–810

    2022

  15. [22]

    ,Divergence of the composition of irregular fields withBVfunctions, ArXiv:2604.14033 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Dal Maso,Generalised functions of bounded deformation, J

    G. Dal Maso,Generalised functions of bounded deformation, J. Eur. Math. Soc.15(2013), no. 5, 1943–1997

    2013

  17. [24]

    Dal Maso, A

    G. Dal Maso, A. De Simone, and M. G. Mora,Quasistatic evolution problems for linearly elastic- perfectly plastic materials, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.180(2006), 237–291

    2006

  18. [26]

    Francfort and J.-J

    G. Francfort and J.-J. Marigo,Revisiting brittle fracture as an energy minimization problem, J. Mech. Phys. Solids46(1998), no. 8, 1319–1342

    1998

  19. [27]

    A. A. Griffith,The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 221(1921), 163–198

    1921

  20. [28]

    The Linear Theory of Elasticity,

    M. E. Gurtin, “The Linear Theory of Elasticity,” inLinear Theories of Elasticity and Thermoelasticity: Linear and Nonlinear Theories of Rods, Plates, and Shells, C. Truesdell, Ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1973, pp. 1-295

    1973

  21. [29]

    Kohn and R

    R. Kohn and R. Temam,Dual spaces of stresses and strains, with applications to Hencky plasticity, Appl. Math. Optim.10(1983), 1–35. STRESS-STRAIN DUALITY VIA SLICING 49

    1983

  22. [30]

    Temam,Mathematical Problems in Plasticity, Gauthier-Villars Series in Modern Applied Mathe- matics, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1985

    R. Temam,Mathematical Problems in Plasticity, Gauthier-Villars Series in Modern Applied Mathe- matics, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1985

    1985

  23. [31]

    R. Caccioppoli

    R. Temam and G. Strang,Functions of bounded deformation, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.75(1980), no. 1, 7–21. Department of Basic and Applied Sciences for Engineering, Sapienza University of Rome, Via A. Scarpa 10 - I-00185 Rome (Italy) Email address:virginia.decicco@uniroma1.it De...

    1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.