Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Exponentially Consistent Low Complexity Tests for Statistical Sequence Matching

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that low-complexity ranking tests match sequences with exponentially decaying errors, for discrete and continuous data and for known or unknown numbers of matches.

desk verdict Discrete results are solid and the complexity story is real; the continuous claims ride on an unpublished self-cited preprint, so treat the headline as conditional until that is fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10455 v1 pith:F6HCV4UZ submitted 2026-08-11 cs.IT math.IT

Lin Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT MSC 94A1394A1762F0360F10
keywords statisticalsequencematchingerrorexponentlargedeviationsJensen-Shannondivergencemaximummeandiscrepancysequentialtestlow-complexitymismatchprobability
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

Statistical sequence matching asks which sequences in two databases were drawn from the same unknown distribution, a task that arises in database de-anonymization. This paper proposes tests that replace exhaustive search over all possible match sets with a simple rule: compute a pairwise score for every cross-database pair and take the K smallest scores (when K is known) or threshold the scores (when K is unknown). The paper proves these tests are exponentially consistent—their error probabilities decay exponentially in the sequence length with strictly positive exponents—for both discrete and continuous sequences. The discrete analysis uses the generalized Jensen–Shannon divergence and the method of types; the continuous analysis uses maximum mean discrepancy and McDiarmid's inequality. If correct, this makes sequence matching practical for database sizes where exhaustive search is impossible.

What carries the argument

The engine is a pairwise scoring function with an asymptotic zero-versus-positive separation: for discrete sequences it is the generalized Jensen–Shannon divergence $\mathrm{GJS}(P,Q,\alpha,\beta)=\alpha D(P\|R)+\beta D(Q\|R)$ with $R=(\alpha P+\beta Q)/(\alpha+\beta)$, evaluated on empirical distributions and scaled by $1/N$; for continuous sequences it is the unbiased maximum mean discrepancy estimator with a bounded characteristic kernel, scaled the same way. The decision rule is deliberately simple—Algorithm 1 takes the K smallest scores, Algorithm 3 thresholds at $\lambda$, and the sequential versions add stopping rules that wait until K scores fall below $\lambda$ (known K) or until every pair is classified above $\lambda_2$ or below $\lambda_1$ (unknown K). The proofs then reduce to bounding the probability that an unmatched pair beats a matched pair on the scoring function, using the method of types for GJS and McDiarmid's inequality plus MMD concentration bounds for the continuous case.

What would settle it

For two Gaussians with known population MMD gap $\Delta^2$, simulate the $K=1$ fixed-length test with $\alpha=\beta=1$ and the Gaussian kernel $\sigma^2=1/2$; check that the empirical mismatch probability decays at least as fast as $\exp(-N\Delta^2/128)$. A slower decay violates the claimed exponent bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fixed-length test that ranks all M1M2 pairwise scoring-function values and outputs the K smallest as the matched pairs is exponentially consistent whenever each database consists of distinct generating distributions. Theorem 1 lower-bounds the mismatch exponent by a strictly positive quantity for every allowed distribution tuple, for discrete sequences via the GJS scoring function and for continuous sequences via MMD. The paper further claims that a sequential version that stops once K scores fall below a threshold achieves a strictly larger mismatch exponent than the fixed-length version, and that both designs extend to the case of unknown K, where one threshold (or two thresholds in the sequential design) simultaneously estimates the number of matches and identifies them, with exponential control of mismatch, false reject, and false alarm probabilities. The price of not knowing K is quantified: for continuous sequences the best Bayesian exponent with unknown K is half the known-K mismatch exponent.

Load-bearing premise

The continuous-sequence proofs inherit their core tail bounds from an unpublished preprint by the same author; if those MMD concentration inequalities are wrong, the exponential-consistency claims for continuous sequences lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With K known, the fixed-length test needs only $M_1M_2$ score computations and a sort, yet its mismatch probability decays exponentially in $N$ with a strictly positive exponent for every distinct-distribution tuple.
  • With K unknown, a single threshold $\lambda$ yields simultaneously exponentially small false alarm, false reject, and mismatch probabilities whenever $\lambda$ is smaller than the minimum pairwise score gap between unmatched distributions.
  • Sequential versions stop as soon as K scores fall below $\lambda$ and are shown to have strictly larger mismatch exponents than the fixed-length versions under the same expected stopping time bound.
  • For continuous sequences, not knowing K halves the best Bayesian exponent relative to known K (in the MMD case), quantifying the cost of ignorance.
  • The exhaustive search baseline needs about $6.45\times 10^{29}$ checks for $M_1=100$, $M_2=50$, $K=10$, while the new test uses about $2.5\times 10^7$ operations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same 'score all pairs, then threshold' template should transfer to other combinatorial assignment problems, such as record linkage or graph alignment, where exhaustive enumeration of matchings is the main obstacle.
  • Editorial inference: the exponents are governed by the smallest separation between any unmatched pair and any matched pair, suggesting that a converse matching this min-gap quantity would show the ranking tests are optimal within the class of pairwise-score tests.
  • Editorial inference: because Theorems 2–4 for continuous sequences inherit their concentration inequalities from an unpublished source, a numerical audit of those MMD tail bounds—or an independent proof—would be the natural next step before relying on the continuous results.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies statistical sequence matching between two databases of i.i.d. sequences generated from unknown, distinct distributions. It proposes fixed-length and sequential tests based on pairwise scoring functions: the GJS divergence for discrete sequences and the MMD estimator for continuous sequences. The tests avoid exhaustive search over all K-match configurations, reducing complexity to polynomial in the number of sequences. For a known number of matches K, Algorithm 1 outputs the K pairs with smallest scores; Algorithm 2 adds a threshold-based stopping rule. For an unknown number of matches, Algorithm 3 thresholds all pairwise scores, and Algorithm 4 uses two thresholds, λ1 and λ2, to decide when to stop and which pairs to declare matched. The main results are Theorems 1–4, which assert exponential consistency and lower bounds on the mismatch, false-alarm, and false-reject exponents, together with bounded expected stopping time under stated conditions. Simulations illustrate the claimed computational advantage and the qualitative benefit of sequentiality.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful step toward practical statistical sequence matching: it replaces exhaustive search over an exponentially large collection of matchings with polynomial-time thresholding and sorting, while retaining exponentially decaying error probabilities. The discrete-sequence analysis is largely self-contained and uses standard method-of-types arguments, which is a strength. The paper also gives explicit exponent expressions and a fair number of numerical illustrations. The continuous-sequence results, however, are built on concentration and stopping-time inequalities imported from an unpublished, self-cited preprint; until those inequalities are independently stated and verified, the central continuous-consistency claims remain conditional. The paper honestly lists the absence of converse results as a limitation, but the title and abstract present the consistency statements without that qualification.

major comments (2)
  1. [§V-A, Eq. (69)] The continuous-sequence half of Theorem 1 rests on the single-pair bound PA{MMD2(X_i^{ξN}, Y_j^{χN}) ≥ MMD2(X_{\bar i}^{ξN}, Y_{\bar j}^{χN})} ≤ exp(-N min{α,β}(MMD2(P_{\bar i}, Q_{\bar j}))^2 / (128Θ^2)), which is asserted 'similarly to [8, Eq. (108), (121) and (124)]'. Since [8] is an unpublished preprint by the same author and the constants and conditions are not reproduced here, the claimed unconditional exponential consistency for continuous sequences cannot be checked from this manuscript. Please reproduce the McDiarmid-type derivation or state the imported result in full, including the exact role of the bounded kernel constant Θ and any additional conditions on the threshold λ.
  2. [§V-B and §VI-B, Eqs. (102), (105), (131)-(137), (194)-(208)] The expected-stopping-time and error-probability bounds for continuous sequences all import [8, Eq. (144)-(146)] and [8, Eq. (158)-(159)]. These inequalities are used to obtain the geometric-series conditions in Theorems 2 and 4, and they also feed into the continuous parts of Theorems 3 and 4. If those bounds are incorrect, have different constants, or require extra conditions not stated here, the positive-exponent claims for continuous sequences collapse. Because the dependence is load-bearing and the source is self-cited and only 'submitted', the authors should either provide self-contained proofs in an appendix or explicitly reformulate Theorems 1–4 as conditional on the inequalities in [8].
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III-B, Theorem 3] In Theorem 3, the false-reject exponent is written with η in Eq. (51) and in the proof at Eq. (130); according to Eqs. (7) and (9), η denotes false-alarm probability while ζ denotes false-reject probability. Please correct the notation consistently.
  2. [§V-B, Eq. (108)] The geometric-series display appears to be missing a minus sign in the numerator exponent: it should read exp(-(N-1) E_s,c_A(λ,·)) / (1 - exp(-E_s,c_A(λ,·))), rather than the printed form in which exp(-(N-1)) is multiplied by the exponent.
  3. [§II-A] In the system model, the distinctness condition for the second database is printed as 'Q_j ≠ Q_j' for i ≠ j; it should read Q_i ≠ Q_j.
  4. [§III-B, Eq. (31)] In the comparison with [8, Theorem 1], the argument of Λ_K_A is written as (f^{M1}, g^{M2}) rather than (P^{M1}, Q^{M2}); the notation is inconsistent with the surrounding definitions.
  5. [§III-B, Fig. 1(a)] The caption refers to 'binary observed sequences' while the described simulation uses the alphabet {1,2,3} of size three. Please correct the caption or the simulation description.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Continuous-sequence results rely on unpublished same-author preprint [8] for key MMD concentration bounds; the claimed continuous exponents coincide with the imported bounds, making those claims conditional rather than independently derived.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section V-A, proof of Theorem 1, Eq. (69); also Section V-B (102)-(105), Section VI-A/B]
    "When X is continuous, similarly to [8, Eq. (108), (121) and (124)] with (i∗, j∗) replaced by (¯i, ¯j), it follows from McDiarmid’s inequality [25] that each probability term in (62) satisfies ... ≤ exp(−N min{α, β}(MMD2(P¯i, Q¯j))2 / 128Θ2)."

    The continuous half of Theorem 1 is not derived from McDiarmid inside this paper; the key single-pair bound (69) is imported verbatim from [8], an unpublished preprint by the same author. Since Ef,c in (22) is defined exactly as the exponent on the right side of (69), the continuous mismatch exponent reduces to the imported bound. The same [8, Eq. (144)-(146), (158)-(159)] inequalities are reused for stopping times and for all continuous error exponents in Theorems 2, 3, and 4. Thus the continuous part of the central exponential-consistency claim rests on an unverified self-citation: if [8]'s bounds are wrong or have different constants, the continuous theorems have no proof. This is not a fitted-parameter circularity, but the continuous results are conditional on the self-cited preprint.

full rationale

The discrete-sequence derivations are self-contained: they use the method of types and explicit type-class bounds, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The low-complexity algorithms and the comparison with exhaustive-search tests are genuine constructions. The circularity-type concern is confined to the continuous-sequence claims: every continuous proof imports its central MMD concentration bounds and stopping-time estimates from [8], an unpublished submission with overlapping authorship, rather than deriving or stating them. The claimed continuous exponents are exactly the exponents of those imported bounds, so the continuous half of the paper is load-bearing on an unverified self-citation. Since the discrete half and the overall low-complexity framework retain independent content, the score is 4 rather than higher; the continuous results should be read as conditional on [8] being correct, which is a verification risk more than a definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on standard large-deviation tools (method of types, McDiarmid) plus the imported MMD concentration inequalities from unpublished self-cited [8]. The thresholds λ, λ1, λ2 are design parameters that must be set in a range depending on the unknown distributions; they are not fitted to data. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • λ (test threshold in Algorithms 2 and 3) = None (design parameter)
    Threshold for deciding whether a pair is matched or not; must be chosen in a range depending on the unknown distributions for positive exponents.
  • λ1, λ2 (test thresholds in Algorithm 4) = None (design parameters, λ1 ≤ λ2)
    Lower and upper thresholds used in the sequential test for the unknown-number-of-matches case; detect matched and unmatched pairs respectively.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Sequences in each database are generated i.i.d. from distinct distributions
    Stated in Section II-A.1; standard in statistical sequence matching.
  • standard math The method of types and type class probability bounds (Csiszar [24], Cover-Thomas [26])
    Used in Theorems 1-4 for discrete-sequence error probability bounds.
  • standard math McDiarmid's inequality [25]
    Used for continuous-sequence concentration bounds in Theorems 1-4.
  • ad hoc to paper MMD concentration inequalities from Zhou and Yuan [8] (unpublished, self-cited)
    Theorems 2-4 continuous parts rely on [8, Eq. (144)-(146)] and [8, Eq. (158)-(159)]; if these are not correct, the continuous results are unsupported.
  • domain assumption For any unmatched pair, the population GJS/MMD distance is strictly positive
    Follows from distinctness of distributions and the properties of GJS divergence and characteristic kernels.
  • standard math The scoring function value for matched pairs vanishes asymptotically
    Convergence of empirical distributions and MMD estimator to their population values.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exponentially Consistent Low Complexity Tests for Statistical Sequence Matching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F6HCV4UZ

@misc{pith2026260810455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exponentially Consistent Low Complexity Tests for Statistical Sequence Matching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F6HCV4UZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10455}
}
read the original abstract

Towards practical applications of statistical sequence matching, we propose low complexity tests that are exponentially consistent and bound the exponential decay rates for error probabilities of our proposed tests. In statistical sequence matching, one is given two databases of multiple sequences, where in each database, each sequence is generated i.i.d. from a distinct distribution. A pair of sequences, one from each database, is said matched if they are generated from the same distribution. The number of matched pairs of sequences, a.k.a, the number of matches, can be either zero or positive. We consider both cases of known and unknown number of matches. When the number of matches is known and positive, the task is to identify all matched pairs of sequences. To construct fixed-length tests, we calculate the scoring function values for all pairs of sequences across the two databases and identify the matched pairs as those having small enough pairwise scoring function values. We show that our proposed test is exponentially consistent, which strikes a better tradeoff between complexity and performance than existing fixed-length tests that use exhaustive search. To construct sequential tests, we need an additional positive threshold to determine the stopping time, and we show that our sequential test achieves strictly better performance than our fixed-length test. Subsequently, we generalize our results to the case with unknown number of matches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10455 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot of the simulated mismatch probabilities as a fun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot of the simulated mismatch probabilities as a fun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of the achievable mismatch exponent in Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot of the simulated mismatch probability of the fixe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot of the achievable Bayesian error exponents of th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot of the simulated Bayesian error probabilities a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Plot of the achievable Bayesian error exponent of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Plot of the simulated Bayesian error probabilities a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Exponentially consistent tests for statistical sequence matching of continuous sequences,

    L. Zhou and W. Y uan, “Exponentially consistent tests for statistical sequence matching of continuous sequences,” submitted to IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Asymptotically optimal matching of m ultiple sequences to source distributions and training seq uences,

    J. Unnikrishnan, “Asymptotically optimal matching of m ultiple sequences to source distributions and training seq uences,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 452–468, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [2]

    Large and sm all deviations for statistical sequence matching,

    L. Zhou, Q. Wang, J. Wang, L. Bai, and A. Hero, “Large and sm all deviations for statistical sequence matching,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 7532 – 7562, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    Large Deviations for Sequential Tests of Statistical Sequence Matching

    L. Zhou, Q. Wang, W. Y un, and J. Wang, “Large deviations fo r sequential tests of statistical sequence matching,” arXiv 2506.03976 , 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  5. [4]

    Hypothesis testing and information theory,

    R. Blahut, “Hypothesis testing and information theory, ” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 405–417, 1974

    work page 1974

  6. [5]

    Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses,

    A. Wald, “Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses,” Ann. Math. Statist. , vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 117–186, 1945

    1945

  7. [6]

    Optimum character of the seque ntial probability ratio test,

    A. Wald and J. Wolfowitz, “Optimum character of the seque ntial probability ratio test,” Ann. Math. Statist. , pp. 326–339, 1948

    work page 1948

  8. [7]

    A kernel two-sample test,

    A. Gretton, K. Borgwardt, M. Rasch, B. Scholkopf, and A. S mola, “A kernel two-sample test,” J. Mach. Learn. Res. , vol. 13, pp. 723–773, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    A mathematical theory of communication,

    C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication, ” Bell Syst. Tech. J. , vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 379–423, 1948

    1948

  2. [10]

    Coding theorems for a discrete source with a fidelit y criterion,

    ——, “Coding theorems for a discrete source with a fidelit y criterion,” IRE Nat. Conv. Rec , vol. 4, no. 142-163, p. 1, 1959

    1959

  3. [11]

    Asymptotically optimal classification for multiple tests with empirically observed statistics,

    M. Gutman, “Asymptotically optimal classification for multiple tests with empirically observed statistics,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 401–408, 1989

    1989

  4. [12]

    Second-order optim al statistical classification,

    L. Zhou, V . Y . F. Tan, and M. Motani, “Second-order optim al statistical classification,” Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 81–111, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Sequential cla ssification with empirically observed statistics,

    M. Haghifam, V . Y . F. Tan, and A. Khisti, “Sequential cla ssification with empirically observed statistics,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 3095–3113, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    On universal sequenti al classification from sequentially observed empirical sta tistics,

    C. Y . Hsu, C. F. Li, and I. H. Wang, “On universal sequenti al classification from sequentially observed empirical sta tistics,” in IEEE ITW , 2022, pp. 642–647. 28

    2022

  7. [15]

    A unified study on sequentialit y in universal classification with empirically observed sta tistics,

    C.-F. Li and I.-H. Wang, “A unified study on sequentialit y in universal classification with empirically observed sta tistics,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 1546–1569, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Exponentially consistent statisti cal classification of continuous sequences with distributi on uncertainty,

    L. Zhu and L. Zhou, “Exponentially consistent statisti cal classification of continuous sequences with distributi on uncertainty,” arXiv 2410.21799 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Asymptotic estimates in information theo ry with non-vanishing error probabilities,

    V . Y . F. Tan, “Asymptotic estimates in information theo ry with non-vanishing error probabilities,” F oundations and Trends ® in Communications and Information Theory , vol. 11, no. 1–2, pp. 1–184, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Finite blocklength lossy source coding for discrete memoryless sources,

    L. Zhou and M. Motani, “Finite blocklength lossy source coding for discrete memoryless sources,” F oundations and Trends ® in Communications and Information Theory , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 157–389, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Second-order asymptoti cally optimal outlier hypothesis testing,

    L. Zhou, Y . Wei, and A. O. Hero, “Second-order asymptoti cally optimal outlier hypothesis testing,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 3585–3607, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Kern el measures of conditional dependence,

    K. Fukumizu, A. Gretton, X. Sun, and B. Scholkopf, “Kern el measures of conditional dependence,” in NeurIPS, 2007

    2007

  13. [21]

    Injective hilbert space embedd ings of probability measures,

    B. K. Sriperumbudur, A. Gretton, K. Fukumizu, G. R. G. La nckriet, and B. Scholkopf, “Injective hilbert space embedd ings of probability measures,” in COLT, 2008

    2008

  14. [22]

    A kernel two-sample test,

    A. Gretton, K. M. Borgwardt, M. J. Rasch, B. Schölkopf, a nd A. Smola, “A kernel two-sample test,” J. Mach. Learn. Res. , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 723–773, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Exponentially consistent outlier h ypothesis testing for continuous sequences,

    L. Zhu and L. Zhou, “Exponentially consistent outlier h ypothesis testing for continuous sequences,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 3287–3304, 2025

    2025

  16. [24]

    The method of types [information theory],

    I. Csiszar, “The method of types [information theory], ” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 2505–2523, 1998

    1998

  17. [25]

    On the method of bounded differences,

    C. McDiarmid et al. , “On the method of bounded differences,” Surveys in combinatorics , vol. 141, no. 1, pp. 148–188, 1989

    1989

  18. [26]

    T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory . John Wiley & Sons, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    On binary statistical classi fication from mismatched empirically observed statistics,

    H.-W. Hsu and I.-H. Wang, “On binary statistical classi fication from mismatched empirically observed statistics, ” in IEEE ISIT , 2020, pp. 2533–2538

    2020

  20. [28]

    A gen eral framework for clustering and distribution matching wi th bandit feedback,

    R. C. Y avas, Y . Huang, V . Y . F. Tan, and J. Scarlett, “A gen eral framework for clustering and distribution matching wi th bandit feedback,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 2116–2139, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.