Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 23 references

CIKAN: Constraint Informed Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks for Autonomous Spacecraft Rendezvous using Time Shift Governor

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Replacing the Time Shift Governor's online optimization with a Kolmogorov-Arnold network cuts average computation time and fuel use while still enforcing spacecraft rendezvous constraints.

desk verdict A sound but narrow application of KAN to TSG approximation whose headline speed and fuel numbers are uninterpretable without fallback-frequency statistics. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03710 v2 pith:DG6DKUWF submitted 2024-12-04 eess.SY cs.AIcs.LGcs.SY

Taehyeun Kim , Anouck Girard , Ilya Kolmanovsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.AIcs.LGcs.SY
keywords Kolmogorov-ArnoldnetworksTimeShiftGovernorconstrainedspacecraftrendezvousline-of-sightconstraintneuralnetworkcontrolellipticorbitconstraint-informed
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to show that a small constraint-informed neural network, built on the Kolmogorov-Arnold architecture, can replace the repeated online optimization in a Time Shift Governor without losing constraint enforcement. The Time Shift Governor enforces spacecraft rendezvous constraints by shifting the reference trajectory in time; solving this optimization at every step is correct but slow. The authors train a KAN-based network, called CIKAN, on one million state-to-time-shift pairs produced by the exact governor, then run a hybrid algorithm that trusts the network when its prediction is feasible and falls back to the exact solver otherwise. In simulations of rendezvous on a highly elliptic orbit, the CIKAN-based scheme enforces the line-of-sight, thrust, and approach-velocity limits and improves average computation time and fuel use relative to the conventional TSG.

What carries the argument

The central object is the scalar time-shift parameter $t_{\mathrm{shift}}$ of the Time Shift Governor (TSG), an add-on reference governor that enforces constraints by replacing the reference $x_c(t)$ with $x_c(t+t_{\mathrm{shift}})$ in a nominally stabilizing feedback loop. The optimal shift is the smallest in magnitude shift that keeps the predicted closed-loop trajectory inside the state and input constraint sets, defining the map $\pi^*$. To carry the learning, the paper uses Kolmogorov-Arnold networks (KANs), whose learnable activation functions are splines on edges, with a loss that combines squared error on $\log(|t_{\mathrm{shift}}^*|)$ with a hinge-style penalty that discourages under-prediction of the shift magnitude. Algorithm 1 then wraps the network prediction with a feasibility check and an exact-solver fallback, so the network never directly releases an infeasible shift.

What would settle it

Count the number of times Algorithm 1 calls the exact TSG solver over a large battery of Monte Carlo rendezvous runs, and separately disable the fallback and measure line-of-sight cone violations over states outside the training distribution; if the fallback rate is not close to zero, the 0.0329 second average mixes network and optimizer cost, and if violations appear without the fallback, the learned map does not itself enforce the constraints.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mapping $\pi^*(x(t); x_c(t))$ that returns the optimal time shift can be approximated well enough by a KAN-based constraint-informed network that the approximation, when inserted into the TSG update loop, enforces all three constraints---the line-of-sight cone, the $0.5\,\mathrm{m/s^2}$ thrust limit, and the distance-dependent approach-velocity bound---while reducing the average per-step computation from $0.0871\,\mathrm{s}$ to $0.0329\,\mathrm{s}$ and the average fuel use from $3.8741\,\mathrm{km/s}$ to $3.4965\,\mathrm{km/s}$ of $\Delta V$. The authors reformulate the regression target as $\log(|t_{\text{shift}}^*|)$ for the non-positive shift case, splitting the problem by sign, and add a constraint-aware penalty to the loss. The trained network is used in Algorithm 1: it predicts a candidate shift, checks feasibility over the prediction horizon, and only calls the exact solver when the candidate is infeasible or outside the previous feasible interval. The paper leaves approximation-error robustness to future work and presents the empirical claim that this hybrid loop succeeds on Monte Carlo and extreme-case scenarios.

Load-bearing premise

The speed gain rests on the assumption that Algorithm 1 most often accepts the network prediction without falling back to the exact TSG solver, and that the one million training pairs sampled from the exact solver cover the states that appear in the Monte Carlo and extreme-case runs; if the fallback fires frequently or the dataset misses a region, the reported computation-time advantage and constraint enforcement could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A KAN-based TSG can run reference adjustment in about $0.03\,\mathrm{s}$ per step on a mid-range laptop CPU, which is fast enough for onboard real-time use in constrained rendezvous, a domain where the exact solver's worst case is about $0.85\,\mathrm{s}$.
  • Because CIKAN uses roughly 1.6 million parameters versus 209 million for the largest MLP-based CINN while achieving comparable or better training and validation loss, the memory footprint of onboard constraint enforcement can shrink dramatically.
  • The same hybrid pattern, predict with a network and fall back to an exact optimizer, transfers to other parameter-governor problems where the online optimization is the bottleneck.
  • Different neural models, including CIKAN, GRBF-CIKAN, RSW AF-CIKAN, and two MLP-based CINNs, all drive the deputy to the chief without violating the three constraints in the tested scenarios, so the reported benefit is not specific to one KAN basis choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the fallback events in Algorithm 1 are rare, the reported average computation time is dominated by a forward pass of a KAN, which suggests that even smaller networks may meet the same accuracy, since GRBF-CIKAN used 122,880 parameters and achieved the lowest validation loss.
  • The log-transform of the time-shift target could be reused whenever the quantity to regress spans several orders of magnitude and has a known sign; it converts a hard small-value regression into a well-conditioned one.
  • A natural next test is to tighten the constraint check with the error margin $\zeta$ described in Section 2 and measure whether the network-only branch can then guarantee feasibility without any fallback; the paper explicitly leaves that analysis to future work.
  • Because the dataset is generated by the exact TSG, the approximation inherits the terminal-set and horizon assumptions of that solver; any deployment would need to re-run data generation for a different orbit or a different constraint cone angle.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CIKAN, a Kolmogorov-Arnold Network based constraint-informed approximation of the Time Shift Governor (TSG) solution mapping for spacecraft rendezvous in a highly elliptic orbit. The authors formulate a log-transformed loss with a constraint penalty, describe a hybrid Algorithm 1 that accepts a neural-network time-shift candidate only when it is feasible and otherwise falls back to the exact TSG solver, train on one million state-to-time-shift pairs generated by the exact TSG, and compare three KAN variants and two MLP variants against the conventional TSG in Monte Carlo and extreme-case simulations. The central claim is that the CINN-based models, especially CIKAN, outperform the conventional TSG in average computation time and fuel consumption while enforcing the line-of-sight, thrust, and approach-velocity constraints.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this is a useful step toward fast approximate implementation of TSG for constrained spacecraft rendezvous, and it is one of the first applications of KANs to a constrained-control add-on scheme. The paper has clear strengths: it benchmarks six models, reports model complexity and validation losses, includes Monte Carlo and extreme-case simulations, and explicitly demonstrates constraint enforcement in Figure 4. However, the main performance claims are not yet statistically supported, and one sign inconsistency in the algorithm description must be resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 1; Table 2] The central speed claim is not verifiable because the paper never reports how often the CIKAN prediction is accepted in Algorithm 1. Table 2 lists only the average time 0.0329 s and worst-case 0.5590 s for CIKAN; if the fallback call to pi* at line 9 or line 11 fires frequently, the measured average is dominated by the exact TSG solver rather than by the KAN evaluation. Please report the per-step acceptance rate, the computation time separated into accepted-candidate and fallback cases, and the distribution or variance of computation times. Note also that the GRBF-CIKAN worst-case time (1.0339 s) exceeds the conventional TSG worst case (0.8546 s), so the average-time advantage is not a uniform improvement and needs disaggregation.
  2. [Table 2; Section 4] The fuel-consumption comparison is confounded and lacks statistical support. Table 2 reports single Delta V values with no error bars or multiple-seed statistics, despite the Monte Carlo runs over 100 initial states. Because an approximate time shift produces a different closed-loop trajectory than the exact TSG, a lower Delta V can simply reflect a different maneuver rather than a better approximation; the text itself says the approximation errors lead to different state trajectories that lead to improved Delta V performance. To support the conclusion that CIKAN outperforms TSG in fuel consumption, report per-trajectory Delta V statistics, identify which steps used the exact-solver fallback, and separate the effect of the neural approximation from the effect of the hybrid fallback mechanism.
  3. [Eq. (7)-(8); Algorithm 1] There is a sign inconsistency that must be resolved before the method is fully assessable. The paper states it focuses on non-positive time shifts for rendezvous from forward in track, and Algorithm 1 confines T_k to the interval [t_hat_shift,k, 0], yet Eq. (8) defines t_shift = exp(pi_tilde_theta*(x)), which is strictly positive. The figures show negative time shifts, so the implementation apparently uses -exp(...) or the sign convention is opposite to the equations. Please correct Eq. (8) and make the signs in Eqs. (6)-(7), the discussion of non-positive shifts, and Algorithm 1 mutually consistent.
  4. [Section 4; Eqs. (2)-(4)] The training-data and safety-net descriptions are incomplete for reproducibility and for assessing how much of the constraint satisfaction is due to the neural approximation. The paper does not state how the one million states are sampled, what prediction horizon Np and terminal constraints are used when computing t* via pi*, or how the feasibility check in Algorithm 1 is implemented; line 5 is not a precise if-condition. Since the authors explicitly leave feasibility and convergence guarantees to future work, the simulation evidence is the only support for the method. Without these details and without fallback-frequency statistics, the reader cannot determine whether constraints are enforced by the neural network or by the exact TSG fallback.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6)-(7)] The notation for the constraint penalty weight is inconsistent: Eq. (6) uses theta_CINN, the text says theta_CINN denotes a scalar weight, and Eq. (7) uses theta_c. The same symbol theta is also used for network parameters. Please use distinct symbols for the scalar penalty weight and the parameter vector.
  2. [Section 4, Figure 3] There is a typo in the sentence 'they complete the spacecraft rendezvous mission is successfully completed'; please rephrase. Also, in Figure 3 the quantity E[t_shift] is not defined; the caption should state explicitly whether the expectation is over the Monte Carlo initial conditions.
  3. [Section 3.1] The statement that t*_shift(t) is either nonnegative or nonpositive at all times for a specific maneuver is a strong assumption. It should be justified or relaxed, because if the sign of the optimal shift can change, the two separate non-negative and non-positive models would be insufficient.
  4. [Algorithm 1] Line 5 reads 'if t_cand_shift ensures constraint satisfaction over a prediction horizon' and is not a complete algorithmic condition. Please specify the exact forward-simulation check, the horizon used, and how the feasibility of the candidate is verified in the implementation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CIKAN derivation is a standard supervised approximation of an independently defined TSG optimization mapping.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The target mapping pi* is defined by the constrained optimization problem (1) with mission constraints h1, h2, h3 stated in Section 4; the training set D consists of 1 million state/time-shift pairs obtained by evaluating that optimization problem. Training the KAN to minimize (7) is ordinary supervised regression against those labels, and the subsequent simulation comparison evaluates the learned mapping on new initial states. Algorithm 1's feasibility check and fallback to pi* are a safety mechanism, not a definitional equivalence: the candidate from pi_theta is accepted only if it passes a forward simulation, and otherwise the exact solver is invoked. The self-citations to (Kim et al., 2024a,b) supply the TSG algorithm and FTRE controller, which are deterministic algorithms with explicit dynamics and constraints and can be independently implemented; they are not used as an unverified uniqueness theorem. The 'constraint-informed' term in Eqs. (6)-(7) is defined using the same label t*_shift, so it is better described as an asymmetric regression loss than as an independent constraint source, but this is a terminological issue rather than a circular reduction of the prediction to its input. The reported speed and fuel improvements are empirical and their interpretation would be strengthened by reporting how often Algorithm 1 falls back to pi*, but the absence of that statistic is a completeness issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on a supervised-learning pipeline built on the authors' own exact TSG solver, on hand-chosen loss terms and hyperparameters, and on empirical rather than formal guarantees. The only completely external ingredients are standard dynamics and the KAN approximation theorem.

free parameters (2)
  • Constraint penalty weight theta_c = not reported
    Appears in loss (7); weight on the MSReLU term that penalizes time shifts smaller in magnitude than the true value. It is chosen ad hoc and not swept or reported, and it directly controls how conservative the network is.
  • Network hyperparameters (n, l, G, kd) for each model = e.g., CIKAN (128,5,17); GRBF-CIKAN (32,6,17)
    Selected by TPE hyperparameter search over 100 trials against validation loss; these choices affect all performance comparisons and are fitted to the data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The closed-loop system with nominal feedback u = alpha(x,xv) is forward complete, has unique trajectories, and is asymptotically stable at xv (Section 2).
    Needed for the TSG time-shifting mechanism to be well-defined; inherited from prior TSG work and not re-derived.
  • domain assumption A neural network trained on 1M samples from the exact TSG can generalize to the operating region encountered in simulation.
    No coverage analysis, dataset diversity description, or out-of-distribution test is provided; the Monte Carlo and extreme-case runs are the only generalization evidence.
  • ad hoc to paper Log-transformed target log(|t*|) makes the regression well-conditioned and the exponential reconstruction preserves the TSG ordering.
    Motivated by initial experiments ('our initial numerical experiments revealed that CINN... struggles with learning small values'), no theoretical justification is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Algorithm 1's feasibility check and fallback to exact TSG are sufficient to preserve constraint enforcement.
    The paper states that conditions ensuring TSG convergence and feasibility are left to future research; the simulation results are the only evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CIKAN: Constraint Informed Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks for Autonomous Spacecraft Rendezvous using Time Shift Governor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DG6DKUWF

@misc{pith2026241203710,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CIKAN: Constraint Informed Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks for Autonomous Spacecraft Rendezvous using Time Shift Governor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DG6DKUWF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03710}
}
read the original abstract

The paper considers a Constrained-Informed Neural Network (CINN) approximation for the Time Shift Governor (TSG), which is an add-on scheme to the nominal closed-loop system used to enforce constraints by time-shifting the reference trajectory in spacecraft rendezvous applications. We incorporate Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs), an emerging architecture in the AI community, as a fundamental component of CINN and propose a Constrained-Informed Kolmogorov-Arnold Network (CIKAN)-based approximation for TSG. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the CIKAN-based TSG through simulations of constrained spacecraft rendezvous missions on highly elliptic orbits and present comparisons between CIKANs, MLP-based CINNs, and the conventional TSG.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03710 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Reference trajectory tracking using a CIKAN-based model: TSG employs the output of the CIKAN-based model to guide the system The nominal controller stabilizes to the virtual reference, Xv, which guides the system state, Xd, chosen by solving a constrained optimization problem. For constrained spacecraft formation fly￾ing problems along circular orbits, TSG was developed in (Frey et al., 2016) based on the CWH equati… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) The reference highly elliptic orbit, and (b) a sample RPO mission, expressed in the inertial frame. The spacecraft dynamics are described in the setting of the Two-Body Problem, i.e., r¨i = − µ ∥ri∥ 3 ri + ui , i ∈ {c, d}, where r = p(x) ∈ R 3 is the spacecraft position vector, x = [p T(x) v T(x)]T ∈ R 6 is the spacecraft position and velocity vector, p : R 6 → R 3 , v : R 6 → R 3 denote functions which represen… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Simulations of extreme cases and Monte Carlo runs using various models: (a) Relative trajectories of Deputy spacecraft expressed in the VNB frame and Time histories of (b) time shift parameter tshift, (c) mean of time shift E[tshift], (d) relative distance, and (e) relative velocity of the Deputy spacecraft with respect to the Chief spacecraft. at the periapsis of the reference orbit where the changes in the relativ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time histories of (a) LoS cone constraints; (b) thrust magnitude limit; (c) approach ve￾locity limit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kantrol: A physics-informed kolmogorov-arnold network framework for solving multi-dimensional and fractional optimal control problems

    Alireza Afzal Aghaei. Kantrol: A physics-informed kolmogorov-arnold network framework for solving multi-dimensional and fractional optimal control problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.06649, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Algorithms for hyper-parameter optimization

    James Bergstra, R \'e mi Bardenet, Yoshua Bengio, and Bal \'a zs K \'e gl. Algorithms for hyper-parameter optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems, 24, 2011

    2011

  3. [3]

    Set membership approximation theory for fast implementation of model predictive control laws

    Massimo Canale, Lorenzo Fagiano, and Mario Milanese. Set membership approximation theory for fast implementation of model predictive control laws. Automatica, 45 0 (1): 0 45--54, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Set membership approximations of predictive control laws: the tradeoff between accuracy and complexity

    Massimo Canale, Lorenzo Fagiano, Mario Milanese, and Carlo Novara. Set membership approximations of predictive control laws: the tradeoff between accuracy and complexity. IET control theory & applications, 4 0 (12): 0 2907--2920, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Approximating explicit model predictive control using constrained neural networks

    Steven Chen, Kelsey Saulnier, Nikolay Atanasov, Daniel D Lee, Vijay Kumar, George J Pappas, and Manfred Morari. Approximating explicit model predictive control using constrained neural networks. In 2018 Annual American control conference (ACC), pages 1520--1527. IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Large scale model predictive control with neural networks and primal active sets

    Steven W Chen, Tianyu Wang, Nikolay Atanasov, Vijay Kumar, and Manfred Morari. Large scale model predictive control with neural networks and primal active sets. Automatica, 135: 0 109947, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Terminal guidance system for satellite rendezvous

    WH Clohessy and RS Wiltshire. Terminal guidance system for satellite rendezvous. Journal of the aerospace sciences, 27 0 (9): 0 653--658, 1960. doi:10.2514/8.8704

    doi:10.2514/8.8704 1960

  8. [8]

    Fasterkan

    Athanasios Delis. Fasterkan. https://github.com/AthanasiosDelis/faster-kan/, 2024

    2024

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Approximate model predictive building control via machine learning

    J \'a n Drgo n a, Damien Picard, Michal Kvasnica, and Lieve Helsen. Approximate model predictive building control via machine learning. Applied Energy, 218: 0 199--216, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Time shift governor for coordinated control of two spacecraft formations

    Gregory R Frey, Christopher D Petersen, Frederick A Leve, Emanuele Garone, Ilya Kolmanovsky, and Anouck R Girard. Time shift governor for coordinated control of two spacecraft formations. International Federation of Automatic Control-PapersOnLine, 49 0 (18): 0 296--301, 2016. ...

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Efficient representation and approximation of model predictive control laws via deep learning

    Benjamin Karg and Sergio Lucia. Efficient representation and approximation of model predictive control laws via deep learning. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 50 0 (9): 0 3866--3878, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Kolmogorov-arnold network for online reinforcement learning

    Victor Augusto Kich, Jair Augusto Bottega, Raul Steinmetz, Ricardo Bedin Grando, Ayano Yorozu, and Akihisa Ohya. Kolmogorov-arnold network for online reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04841, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hyperboliclr: Epoch insensitive learning rate scheduler

    Tae-Geun Kim. Hyperboliclr: Epoch insensitive learning rate scheduler. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15200, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Time shift governor for constrained control of spacecraft orbit and attitude relative motion in bicircular restricted four-body problem

    Taehyeun Kim, Ilya Kolmanovsky, and Anouck Girard. Time shift governor for constrained control of spacecraft orbit and attitude relative motion in bicircular restricted four-body problem. In 2024 American Control Conference (ACC), pages 3074--3080. IEEE, 2024 a

    2024

  7. [15]

    Time shift governor for spacecraft proximity operation in elliptic orbits

    Taehyeun Kim, Ilya Kolmanovsky, and Anouck Girard. Time shift governor for spacecraft proximity operation in elliptic orbits. In AIAA SCITECH 2024 Forum, page 2452, 2024 b

    2024

  8. [16]

    Parameter governors for discrete-time nonlinear systems with pointwise-in-time state and control constraints

    Ilya V Kolmanovsky and Jing Sun. Parameter governors for discrete-time nonlinear systems with pointwise-in-time state and control constraints. Automatica, 42 0 (5): 0 841--848, 2006

    2006

  9. [17]

    On the representation of continuous functions of many variables by superposition of continuous functions of one variable and addition

    Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov. On the representation of continuous functions of many variables by superposition of continuous functions of one variable and addition. In Doklady Akademii Nauk, volume 114, pages 953--956. Russian Academy of Sciences, 1957

    1957

  10. [18]

    Kolmogorov-arnold networks are radial basis function networks

    Ziyao Li. Kolmogorov-arnold networks are radial basis function networks. 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Kan: Kolmogorov-arnold networks

    Ziming Liu, Yixuan Wang, Sachin Vaidya, Fabian Ruehle, James Halverson, Marin Solja c i \'c , Thomas Y Hou, and Max Tegmark. Kan: Kolmogorov-arnold networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.19756, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    I Loshchilov. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Neural lyapunov differentiable predictive control

    Sayak Mukherjee, J \'a n Drgo n a, Aaron Tuor, Mahantesh Halappanavar, and Draguna Vrabie. Neural lyapunov differentiable predictive control. In 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 2097--2104. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  14. [22]

    A survey on kolmogorov-arnold network

    Shriyank Somvanshi, Syed Aaqib Javed, Md Monzurul Islam, Diwas Pandit, and Subasish Das. A survey on kolmogorov-arnold network. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06078, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Rendezvous with a target in an elliptical orbit

    J Tschauner and P Hempel. Rendezvous with a target in an elliptical orbit. Astronautica Acta, 11 0 (2): 0 104--109, 1965

    1965

Pith tools

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