Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 27 references

HIAL: A New Paradigm for Hypergraph Active Learning via Influence Maximization

T0 review · 5 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 HIAL turns hypergraph label choice into an influence-maximization problem, where greedy seed selection is provably near-optimal.

desk verdict HIAL is a plausible, natively hypergraph take on influence-based active learning with strong empirical wins, but the paper's formal guarantees are only for a surrogate objective and the proofs are missing, so treat the theory claims as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20490 v1 pith:YPUEU77F submitted 2025-07-28 cs.LG

Yanheng Hou , Xunkai Li , Zhenjun Li , Bing Zhou , Ronghua Li , Guoren Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords hypergraphactivelearninginfluencemaximizationsubmodularityneuralnetworksnodeselectionfeaturepropagationhigh-orderinteractions
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

Hypergraph neural networks learn from data in which one connection can link many items at once, but obtaining labels for enough items is expensive. This paper works out how to do active learning—choosing which few items to label—directly on the hypergraph, instead of flattening it into pairwise edges and losing higher-order structure. The key move is to reformulate the choice as an influence-maximization problem: pick seed nodes whose labels, once known, would spread farthest through both hypergraph topology and feature space. The paper proves the objective is monotone with diminishing returns—a property called submodularity—so a greedy picker is guaranteed to reach at least $1-1/e$ of the optimal value. This gives hypergraph active learning a native, model-agnostic selection rule with a formal approximation guarantee and, on the seven datasets tested, consistently higher downstream accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dual-perspective objective $F(S)=\gamma\,MoI(S)/\hat{MoI}+(1-\gamma)\,EDV(S)/\hat{EDV}$. $MoI$ counts feature-space nodes covered by the activated seed set, using the propagation $X^{(k+1)}=\alpha\tilde{L}X^{(k)}+(1-\alpha)X^{(0)}$ built on a common-neighbor weighted transition matrix $\tilde{L}$. $EDV$ computes the probability that one-hop neighbors are activated by seeds sharing hyperedges with them. All three pieces—activated-set size, $MoI$, and $EDV$—are proved non-decreasing and submodular, meaning adding a seed never decreases influence and marginal gains shrink as the seed set grows, and a nonnegative linear combination preserves those properties. Therefore Algorithm 1's greedy marginal-gain selection inherits the $(1-1/e)$ approximation guarantee.

What would settle it

Run HIAL on a hypergraph whose node features are shared across classes while class labels follow hyperedge membership, at a fixed labeling budget, and compare downstream HNN accuracy with random selection and an entropy-based uncertainty baseline. If HIAL's chosen seed set does not beat those baselines, then maximizing the dual influence function does not track what actually helps the model learn.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

HIAL's central claim is that hypergraph active learning should be solved natively as an influence-maximization problem rather than by flattening hyperedges into pairwise edges. The paper proposes a parameter-free propagation mechanism, driven by a common-neighbor weighted transition matrix, that treats hyperedges as group interaction units. On top of it, HIAL maximizes $F(S)$, a weighted combination of $MoI(S)$, the size of the feature-space neighborhood covered by nodes activated by seed set $S$, and $EDV(S)$, the expected number of one-hop neighbors activated through shared hyperedges. The paper shows that the activated-set function, $MoI(S)$, and $EDV(S)$ are all non-decreasing and submodular, so greedy marginal-gain selection returns a seed set with $F(S)\ge (1-1/e)F(S^*)$. On seven public datasets across labeling budgets, with a budget of $20C$ labels, HIAL is reported to beat both graph-flattening and native hypergraph active learning baselines, with the largest gains on citation networks.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that feature-space proximity and one-hop hyperedge diffusion track label informativeness; the paper asserts this correlation and supports it empirically, but does not derive it from the HNN's generalization error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Greedy node selection carries a formal $(1-1/e)$ approximation guarantee relative to the best seed set for the combined objective, so the selected labels are near-optimal for that objective.
  • Selection is learning-free and oracle-free, so the labeling budget can be spent in one pass before training, avoiding the repeated retraining loops of model-dependent active learning baselines.
  • At a budget of $20C$ labels, HIAL's reported gains over the strongest learning-free baseline on citation networks are $1.82$ to $8.38$ percentage points, and up to $8.62$ percentage points over RIM, meaning higher accuracy at the same labeling cost.
  • Replacing the HOI-aware propagation with the message passing of HGNN, UniGCN, VilLain, or AHGAE still beats the baselines, so the selection logic transfers across HNN architectures.
  • HIAL's steeper learning curves mean fewer labels are needed to reach a given accuracy; on Citeseer, HIAL passes 55% with 48 labeled nodes, a level RIM needs 108 nodes to reach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same dual-perspective objective could be carried to other higher-order architectures, such as simplicial complexes or set-based models, whenever one has a propagation matrix and a feature-space distance; the submodularity proof would have to be re-checked for each new propagation.
  • A natural stress test is to replace the heuristic threshold $\theta$ and ball radius $r$ with calibrated quantities; if monotonicity and submodularity survive, the guarantee could extend to adaptive or budget-aware selection.
  • The paper's correlation between high $F(S)$ and high accuracy is empirical; a formal learning-theoretic link between the influence objective and the HNN's expected test loss would turn the approximation guarantee into a statement about generalization.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes HIAL, a hypergraph active learning method that selects nodes for annotation by maximizing a dual-perspective influence objective. The first component, MoI, measures feature-space coverage of nodes activated by a high-order-aware feature propagation scheme; the second, EDV, estimates one-hop probabilistic diffusion over hyperedges. The authors claim both components are monotone and submodular, and hence the greedy algorithm achieves a (1-1/e) approximation of the surrogate objective. They evaluate HIAL on seven datasets against seven baselines and report improved accuracy, efficiency, and robustness.

Significance. The framing is attractive: it is genuinely native to hypergraphs and avoids clique expansion, the objective is model-agnostic, and the greedy selection with a formal guarantee would be a useful tool if the theoretical claims are correct. The empirical evaluation is broad in terms of datasets and ablations, including generalization across four HNN architectures. However, the core theoretical results are stated without proof, the link from the surrogate objective to the actual active learning objective is only anecdotal, and several of the reported advantages are not significant under the reported error bars. The contribution is therefore conditional on substantial revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Influence Function (Theorems 1-3)] Theorems 1, 2, and 3 are stated without proofs, and the surrounding text only says that the functions 'exhibit desirable properties' or are 'provably' monotone and submodular. Since the (1-1/e) guarantee in Algorithm 1 is the paper's central theoretical claim, the proof of monotonicity and submodularity for each of σ(S), MoI(S), and EDV(S) must be supplied. This is especially important for Theorem 3 because the sum in Eq. (10) is over N(S), which changes as S grows, so the standard argument for a fixed set of nodes does not apply verbatim.
  2. [Influence Function and Figure 2] The objective F(S) in Eq. (11) is not connected by derivation to the active-learning objective in Eq. (1). The paper relies on the 'reasonable assumption' before Definition 5 and on Figure 2, which is a single Cora plot with no details on how seed sets were sampled or how θ and k were set; moreover, Figure 2 itself shows that equal |σ(S)| can yield substantially different test accuracies. Adding EDV addresses one of those failures, but the alignment between F(S) and downstream HNN accuracy remains an empirical conjecture. A paired analysis across all seven datasets (e.g., correlation between F(S) and test accuracy for many random and greedy sets) or a derivation from the HNN training objective is needed before 'near-optimal for F' can be claimed to imply near-optimal active learning.
  3. [HIAL Framework and Hyperparameters] The manuscript describes the HOI-Aware propagation mechanism as 'parameter-free' in the introduction of the framework section and again before Eq. (5), but the method has at least six hyperparameters: α in Eq. (5), the activation threshold θ in Definition 4, the feature-ball radius r in Definition 5, β in Eq. (10), γ in Eq. (11), and the propagation depth k. The paper states that parameter settings are in Appendix A.5 and sensitivity analyses are in the supplementary material, but neither is included in the submitted version. The authors must report the chosen values and the tuning protocol for every dataset, or the reported results cannot be reproduced or compared fairly.
  4. [Table 1] In Table 1 the claim that HIAL 'significantly outperforms' all baselines on all seven datasets is not supported by the reported error bars. On Mushroom, HIAL is 96.35 ± 6.31 while RIM is 95.50 ± 1.88 and GRAIN is 94.51 ± 3.76; on Recipe200K, HIAL is 59.13 ± 1.09 while GRAIN is 57.86 ± 0.98 and ACGNN is 56.93 ± 1.20. In both cases the intervals overlap. The authors should report paired or repeated-measures significance tests, or at least per-seed results, before claiming significance on these datasets.
  5. [Experimental Settings and Appendices] The evaluation section repeatedly defers to Appendix A.2-A.5 for dataset statistics, baseline implementation details, HNN model descriptions, and parameter settings, and the robustness section defers to 'the supplementary material' for the sensitivity figures. None of these materials is present in the submitted version, so the empirical claims cannot currently be verified. Please include the appendices and supplementary material in the submission.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Author affiliations] There is a typo in the affiliation block: 'Guoren Wag1' should be 'Guoren Wang'.
  2. [Table 1 caption] The caption of Table 1 contains 'Hightlighted' instead of 'Highlighted'.
  3. [Definition 3, Eq. (6)] Definition 3 is imprecise: the expectation in Eq. (6) is not defined, and the L1 norm of a Jacobian matrix is ambiguous. Please specify the distribution over which the expectation is taken and the exact matrix norm used.
  4. [Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 line 6 computes MoI(V) as a normalization factor, but Definition 5 defines MoI(S) via a union over σ(S); for S=V this should be clarified, especially because σ(V) depends on the threshold θ.
  5. [Figure 2] The text refers to Figure 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c), but the figure and its caption are not present in the text version; please ensure all panels are visible and described.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the greedy guarantee is scoped to a separately defined surrogate F(S), no test-label-fitted parameter is fed back into the objective, and the only identifiable self-citation is a non-load-bearing baseline reference.

full rationale

Walking HIAL's derivation chain: Eq. (1) defines the true active-learning objective as minimizing expected test loss of the HNN trained on the selected set, while HIAL maximizes the separately defined surrogate F(S) = gamma*MoI(S)/MoI_hat + (1-gamma)*EDV(S)/EDV_hat. Theorems 1-3 and the (1-1/e) statement are claims about monotonicity and submodularity of |sigma(S)|, MoI, EDV, and their linear combination; they are not derived from Eq. (1), and no test-label-derived parameter is introduced into the objective. The bridge between F(S) and generalization is explicitly stated as an assumption: "It is a reasonable assumption that nodes close to each other in the feature space are likely to share the same label," plus the empirical correlation in Figure 2. This is a heuristic gap between the surrogate and the true objective, not circularity, because the surrogate is not defined in terms of the test labels or the final accuracy. The approximation guarantee is honestly scoped to F(S), not to the expected test loss in Eq. (1); that limitation is a correctness/scope concern, not a circular one. Theorems 1-3 are asserted without proofs, which is a completeness issue that prevents independent verification of the submodularity claims, but absent a demonstrated reduction, missing proofs do not constitute circularity. The only identifiable self-citation is Hu et al. 2021 (AGE), used as a baseline method in the experiments rather than as load-bearing support for the derivation; it does not force the reported results. Consequently, no specific step was found where a prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on six tuned hyperparameters, none of which are reported with final values, and on four domain assumptions about how feature propagation, feature proximity, co-occurrence, and one-hop diffusion proxy the value of labeled nodes. No new physical or formal entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • propagation trade-off alpha = not reported per dataset
    Eq. (5) blends HOI transition with raw features; robustness tested 0.1-0.9 but optimal value not given.
  • activation threshold theta = not specified
    Definition 4 defines activated set via threshold theta; no value or tuning procedure in main text.
  • feature ball radius r = not specified
    Definition 5 uses MoI ball of radius r in feature space; value absent.
  • diffusion probability beta = not reported per dataset
    Eq. (10) base propagation probability; robustness tested 0.1-0.9, value absent.
  • objective trade-off gamma = not reported per dataset
    Eq. (11) combines MoI and EDV; robustness 0.1-0.9, value absent.
  • propagation depth k = not reported
    Algorithm 1 requires layer number k; not specified.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption HNN propagation can be decoupled into a linear parameter-free transition and its power comes from feature smoothing
    Influence Propagation Model cites Rossi et al. and He et al.; this justifies using X(k+1)=alpha Ltilde X(k)+(1-alpha)X(0).
  • domain assumption Nodes close in feature space are likely to share the same label
    Stated as a reasonable assumption before Definition 5; essential to MoI coverage.
  • domain assumption Co-occurrence count l_ij = sum over shared hyperedges (delta(e)-1) measures high-order interaction strength
    Definition 1 determines the HOI-aware transition matrix Ltilde.
  • domain assumption One-hop independent-cascade activation with probability beta n_uv/n_u approximates hypergraph influence diffusion and active learning value
    Eq. (10) and surrounding text define EDV from this model.
  • standard math Monotone submodularity theorems hold for the composed objective F(S)
    Theorems 1-3 are asserted and rely on Nemhauser et al. and coverage function theory; proofs are not included in the preprint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HIAL: A New Paradigm for Hypergraph Active Learning via Influence Maximization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YPUEU77F

@misc{pith2026250720490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HIAL: A New Paradigm for Hypergraph Active Learning via Influence Maximization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YPUEU77F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20490}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, Hypergraph Neural Networks (HNNs) have demonstrated immense potential in handling complex systems with high-order interactions. However, acquiring large-scale, high-quality labeled data for these models is costly, making Active Learning (AL) a critical technique. Existing Graph Active Learning (GAL) methods, when applied to hypergraphs, often rely on techniques like "clique expansion," which destroys the high-order structural information crucial to a hypergraph's success, thereby leading to suboptimal performance. To address this challenge, we introduce HIAL (Hypergraph Active Learning), a native active learning framework designed specifically for hypergraphs. We innovatively reformulate the Hypergraph Active Learning (HAL) problem as an Influence Maximization task. The core of HIAL is a dual-perspective influence function that, based on our novel "High-Order Interaction-Aware (HOI-Aware)" propagation mechanism, synergistically evaluates a node's feature-space coverage (via Magnitude of Influence, MoI) and its topological influence (via Expected Diffusion Value, EDV). We prove that this objective function is monotone and submodular, thus enabling the use of an efficient greedy algorithm with a formal (1-1/e) approximation guarantee. Extensive experiments on seven public datasets demonstrate that HIAL significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in terms of performance, efficiency, generality, and robustness, establishing an efficient and powerful new paradigm for active learning on hypergraphs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20490 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The workflow of HIAL that belong to the same hyperedge, reflecting that real-world interactions are inherently group-based. To conduct this, we construct a HOI-Aware transition matrix. Instead of uniform weights, we assign a higher weight to pairs of nodes that frequently co-occur across many shared hyperedges. Specifically, we quantify the in￾teraction strength between node i and node j by counting their ”common ne… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The relationship between seed set S (|S| = 20C) and test accuracy of HNN model trained on S of Cora. Theorem 2 MoI(S) is a non-decreasing and submodular function with respect to S. Expected Diffusion Value While MoI effectively captures influence in the feature space, it focuses primarily on fea￾ture neighborhoods. However, it can overlook crucial infor￾mation embedded within the intrinsic topological propaga￾tion p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Test accuracy % across different label budget [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of Normalized MoI({v ∗} ∪ {v}) via various propagation. v ∗ is marked with red star. is a substantial reduction in labeling cost. For instance, on the Citeseer dataset, HIAL achieves over 55% with just 48 labeled nodes, a performance level that requires th…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) End-to-end runtime comparison on GPU and (b) Runtime comparison on Recipe200K. Excluding MoI Relying exclusively on EDV caused a sig￾nificant performance degradation across all datasets, with accuracy reductions up to 7.1%. This underscores the neces￾sity of MoI fo…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Antelmi, A.; Cordasco, G.; Polato, M.; Scarano, V.; Spagnuolo, C.; and Yang, D. 2023. A survey on hypergraph representation learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(1): 1--38

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Antelmi, A.; Cordasco, G.; Spagnuolo, C.; and Szufel, P. 2021. Social influence maximization in hypergraphs. Entropy, 23(7): 796

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Auletta, V.; Cauteruccio, F.; and Ferraioli, D. 2024. Heuristics Approaches for the Influence Maximization Problem on Hypergraphs (Short paper). In DP@ AI* IA

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Bianconi, G. 2021. Higher-order networks. Cambridge University Press

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    W.; and Chang, K

    Cai, H.; Zheng, V. W.; and Chang, K. C.-C. 2017. Active learning for graph embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.05085

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Carletti, T.; Battiston, F.; Cencetti, G.; and Fanelli, D. 2020. Random walks on hypergraphs. Physical review E, 101(2): 022308

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    E.; Zhou, H.; and Li, P

    Chien, I. E.; Zhou, H.; and Li, P. 2019. \(HS^ 2 \) : Active learning over hypergraphs with pointwise and pairwise queries. In The 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2466--2475. PMLR

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Feng, Y.; You, H.; Zhang, Z.; Ji, R.; and Gao, Y. 2019. Hypergraph Neural Networks (HGNN). In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

    work page 2019

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    He, X.; Deng, K.; Wang, X.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y.; and Wang, M. 2020. Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in Information Retrieval, 639--648

    2020

  2. [10]

    Hu, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Yan, C.; Yin, J.; and Gao, Y. 2021. Adaptive hypergraph auto-encoder for relational data clustering. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 35(3): 2231--2242

    2021

  3. [11]

    Kempe, D.; Kleinberg, J.; and Tardos, \'E . 2003. Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, 137--146

    2003

  4. [12]

    Y.; Gao, Y.; Antelmi, A.; Polato, M.; and Shin, K

    Kim, S.; Lee, S. Y.; Gao, Y.; Antelmi, A.; Polato, M.; and Shin, K. 2024. A survey on hypergraph neural networks: an in-depth and step-by-step guide. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 6534--6544

    2024

  5. [13]

    N.; and Welling, M

    Kipf, T. N.; and Welling, M. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Liao, X.; Tu, B.; Li, J.; and Plaza, A. 2023. Class-wise graph embedding-based active learning for hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 61: 1--13

    2023

  7. [15]

    L.; Wolsey, L

    Nemhauser, G. L.; Wolsey, L. A.; and Fisher, M. L. 1978. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions---I. Mathematical Programming, 14(1): 265--294

    1978

  8. [16]

    Rossi, E.; Frasca, F.; Chamberlain, B.; Eynard, D.; Bronstein, M.; and Monti, F. 2020. Sign: Scalable inception graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.11198, 7: 15

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Sener, O.; and Savarese, S. 2017. Active learning for convolutional neural networks: A core-set approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00489

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Settles, B. 2009. Active Learning Literature Survey. Technical Report Computer Sciences Technical Report 1648, University of Wisconsin-Madison

    2009

  11. [19]

    Sun, Y.; Qin, A.; Bandoh, Y.; Gao, C.; and Hiwasaki, Y. 2022. Active learning for hyperspectral image classification via hypergraph neural network. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), 2576--2580. IEEE

    2022

  12. [20]

    Wang, H.; and Leskovec, J. 2020. Unifying graph convolutional neural networks and label propagation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.06755

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Wang, H.; Pan, Q.; and Tang, J. 2024. HEDV-Greedy: An advanced algorithm for influence maximization in hypergraphs. Mathematics, 12(7): 1041

    2024

  14. [22]

    Xie, M.; Zhan, X.-X.; Liu, C.; and Zhang, Z.-K. 2022. Influence maximization in hypergraphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.01394

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Xu, K.; Li, C.; Tian, Y.; Sonobe, T.; Kawarabayashi, K.-i.; and Jegelka, S. 2018. Representation Learning on Graphs with Jumping Knowledge Networks. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, ...

    2018

  16. [24]

    Yadati, N.; Nitin, V.; Nimishakavi, M.; and Talukdar, P. 2019. HyperGCN: A New Method for Training Graph Convolutional Networks on Hypergraphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Zhang, W.; Wang, Y.; You, Z.; Cao, M.; Huang, P.; Shan, J.; Yang, Z.; and Cui, B. 2021 a . Rim: Reliable influence-based active learning on graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34: 27978--27990

    2021

  18. [26]

    Zhang, W.; Yang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Shen, Y.; Li, Y.; Wang, L.; and Cui, B. 2021 b . Grain: Improving Data Efficiency of Graph Neural Networks via Diversified Influence Maximization. VLDB

    2021

  19. [27]

    Zhu, J.; Zhu, J.; Ghosh, S.; Wu, W.; and Yuan, J. 2018. Social influence maximization in hypergraph in social networks. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering, 6(4): 801--811

    2018

Pith tools

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