Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

More Stringy Effects in Target Space from Double Field Theory

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that gauge invariance of the quadratic double field theory action for the $(2,0)$ and $(0,2)$ oscillator levels forces an extra mass term proportional to $\lambda = 2(N_L-N_R)/\alpha'$, a stringy target-space effect…

desk verdict A plausible quadratic-level extension of DFT to massive winding states; the construction is internally coherent but the advertised 'stringy mass term' rests on two asserted identifications that a referee should push on. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00411 v2 pith:W6D3WMY4 submitted 2019-09-01 hep-th

Chen-Te Ma , Franco Pezzella This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords doublefieldtheorywindingmodesmomentumweakconstraintstringyeffectsgeneralizedmetricformulationlevelmatchingmassivegraviton-liketerm
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

In bosonic closed string theory the squared mass is proportional to $N_L+N_R-2$, so the oscillator levels $(N_L,N_R)=(2,0)$ and $(0,2)$ are massless in the full doubled target space even though they are massive in the lower-dimensional non-compact spacetime; their level-matching condition forces them to carry both momentum and winding numbers. The paper builds a quadratic double field theory action for the corresponding doubled fields by importing the standard $(1,1)$-level action through a one-to-one field correspondence, and it replaces the usual weak constraint $\partial_a\tilde{\partial}^a f=0$ with the modified eigenvalue constraint $\partial_a \tilde{\partial}^a f = -(\lambda/2)f$, $\lambda=2(N_L-N_R)/\alpha'$. It finds that gauge invariance under linearized doubled diffeomorphisms forces the addition of the term $\tilde{S}^{(2)}_{\rm add}=\frac{1}{16\pi G_N}\int dx\,d\tilde{x}\,(-\frac{\lambda}{4}b_{jk}b^{jk}-\frac{\lambda}{4}h_{jk}h^{jk}+4\lambda\Phi^2)$, an extra mass term for the symmetric traceless tensor, the antisymmetric tensor, and the dilaton. This is the paper's stringy effect: a target-space mass generated by simultaneous momenta and windings that a conventional low-energy analysis would not see. The paper also shows that this effect is absent when the doubled space has only one compact dimension, and defines non-linear gauge transformations, closed under a star-product bracket, for the generalized metric formulation.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the modified weak constraint $\partial_a\tilde{\partial}^a f = -[(N_L-N_R)/\alpha']f \equiv -\frac{\lambda}{2}f$, an eigenvalue form of the level-matching condition that allows $N_L\neq N_R$ and hence non-vanishing products of momenta and windings; in O(D,D) notation it is $\partial^J\partial_J f = -\lambda f$. The constraint is imposed through a star product that projects fields onto the $\lambda$-eigenvalue subspace and is non-associative for $\lambda\neq0$. The rest of the argument is carried by the asserted one-to-one correspondence between the higher-level doubled fields and the $(1,1)$-level fields $h_{jk}$, $b_{jk}$, $\Phi$, together with the gauge-parameter identification $\epsilon_j=\tilde{\epsilon}_j$; these convert the non-invariance of the borrowed action into total variations of squares of the fields, cancelled by the added mass terms in Eq. (12). In the generalized metric formulation, the same constraint defines non-linear gauge transformations whose commutator closes without explicit $\lambda$ dependence.

What would settle it

Solve the modified weak constraint $\partial^J\partial_J f=-\lambda f$ with $\lambda\neq0$ for two compact doubled dimensions and repeat the variation of the imported action under Eq. (5) without assuming $\epsilon_j=\tilde{\epsilon}_j$: if the leftover terms in Eq. (10) can be cancelled by a counterterm different from Eq. (12), or cannot be cancelled at all, then the claimed graviton-like mass is not forced by gauge invariance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the quadratic double field theory action for the doubled fields of the levels $(N_L,N_R)=(2,0)$ and $(0,2)$ is gauge invariant only after adding $\tilde{S}^{(2)}_{\rm add}=\frac{1}{16\pi G_N}\int dx\,d\tilde{x}\,(-\frac{\lambda}{4}b_{jk}b^{jk}-\frac{\lambda}{4}h_{jk}h^{jk}+4\lambda\Phi^2)$, where $\lambda\equiv 2(N_L-N_R)/\alpha'$ enters through the modified weak constraint $\partial_a\tilde{\partial}^a f = -\frac{\lambda}{2}f$, equivalently $\partial^J\partial_J f=-\lambda f$ in O(D,D) notation. Without this term, the variation of the imported $(1,1)$-level quadratic action under the linearized doubled diffeomorphisms leaves the non-zero remainder of Eq. (10); after imposing $\epsilon_j=\tilde{\epsilon}_j$, that remainder collapses to total variations of $b_{jk}b^{jk}$, $h_{jk}h^{jk}$, and $\Phi^2$, which the added term cancels. At vanishing dilaton, where $\Phi=-h^j{}_j/4$, the resulting graviton-like mass term is $\lambda(h_{jk}h^{jk}-(h^j{}_j)^2)$, and the paper interprets its origin as the simultaneous non-vanishing of momenta and windings in these levels. The construction also shows that the modified constraint has no solution with $\lambda\neq0$ when there is only one compact doubled dimension, so the stringy effect requires at least two.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the standard quadratic action written for the $(1,1)$-level fields can be carried over to the $(2,0)$ and $(0,2)$ doubled fields through a correspondence that is stated but not derived, and that gauge invariance requires identifying the two gauge parameters; if either step fails, the extra mass term is not a property of those string states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the lower-dimensional non-compact spacetime, the $(2,0)$ and $(0,2)$ states appear as massive fields with mass squared $M^2_g=p^2+\omega^2+2(N_L-N_R)/\alpha'$, so the mass term reproduces the level-mismatch contribution expected from string theory.
  • Any extension of double field theory beyond the $(1,1)$ supergravity spectrum must include the added term $\tilde{S}^{(2)}_{\rm add}$; the mass terms proportional to $\lambda$ are forced by gauge invariance, not optional.
  • The modified weak constraint can be implemented by a non-associative star product, and the resulting non-linear gauge transformations close without explicit $\lambda$ dependence, leaving open a consistent non-linear completion in the generalized metric formulation.
  • For one compact doubled dimension ($d=1$), the constraint $\partial^J\partial_J f=-\lambda f$ has no solution with $\lambda\neq0$, so the stringy mass effect cannot appear in that case.
  • At the quadratic level, T-duality invariance is unaffected by the $\lambda$ deformation, so the new mass term does not break the duality symmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests that the non-associativity of the star product is not a technical nuisance but a possible signal of non-geometric structure: a full non-linear double field theory for these levels may require a deformation of the C-bracket, and computing the Jacobiator for $\lambda\neq0$ would test whether the algebra remains consistent.
  • Extending the result beyond quadratic order would likely force one to keep the whole tower of oscillator levels: the paper's own mass-scale comparison shows that a truncation to $N_L+N_R=2$ is inconsistent for $R^2\ge\alpha'/2$, so the $\lambda$-mass term should be seen as the first of a tower of momentum-winding masses.
  • The $d=1$ no-go may be a general obstruction: for a single circle, level matching with $(N_L,N_R)=(2,0)$ forces momentum and winding to be nonzero, but the modified constraint together with the product constraint admits only imaginary ratios, so the minimal doubled torus carrying the effect is likely $T^{2d}$ with $d\ge2$; an explicit $d=2$ solution would confirm this.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a quadratic action in Double Field Theory for doubled fields associated with the bosonic string states (N_L,N_R)=(2,0) and (0,2). The construction borrows the Hull–Zwiebach quadratic action (4), applies it to the new fields through a stated one-to-one correspondence, and imposes a modified weak constraint (9) with parameter λ=2(N_L−N_R)/α'. The authors compute the gauge variation of this borrowed action, find the nonzero result (10), and after assuming ε_j=ε~_j, add the counterterm (12) to restore invariance. The final action (13) contains an extra mass term proportional to λ for the symmetric traceless tensor, the b-field, and the dilaton. The paper also discusses an O(D,D)-covariant star product, non-linear gauge transformations, and shows that no λ≠0 solution exists for d=1 compact doubled dimension.

Significance. If the underlying assumptions hold, the result would provide a concrete target-space manifestation of simultaneous momentum and winding modes, thereby extending DFT beyond the usual (1,1) massless sector. The explicit variation calculation from (10) to (13) is a clear and checkable piece of algebra, and the d=1 no-go result is a sharp consistency check. However, the central mass term rests on two unproven premises: the field correspondence between the (1,1) and (2,0)/(0,2) multiplets, and the gauge-parameter restriction ε_j=ε~_j. Because these premises are asserted rather than derived, the significance is prospective: the paper identifies a possible stringy effect but does not yet demonstrate that it belongs to the string states in question.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (4)-(9)] The one-to-one correspondence between the (1,1) fields and the (2,0)/(0,2) fields is asserted, not derived. In particular, the map b_jk from the vector A_j in Eq. (7) and the identification of h_jk as a symmetric traceless tensor are not shown to reproduce the correct kinetic operators or the correct number of physical degrees of freedom for these string levels. Since the whole construction borrows the action (4) on the basis of this correspondence, the mass term in Eq. (13) could be an artifact of the (1,1) action rather than a property of the (2,0)/(0,2) states. The authors should either derive the correspondence from closed string field theory or from the world-sheet states, or explicitly state it as an assumption and discuss its validity.
  2. [Section 2, before Eq. (11)] The assumption ε_j=ε~_j is introduced without physical justification. This restriction halves the doubled gauge group and is essential for converting the variation (10) into the total-variation form (11), thereby fixing the counterterm (12) with coefficient λ/4. If the (2,0)/(0,2) states require independent gauge parameters with different relative weights, the counterterm changes or disappears. The paper should justify this restriction from the transformation law of the vector field A_j in Eq. (8) or from the structure of the corresponding string states.
  3. [Section 2, after Eq. (13)] The claim that the mass term corresponds to M² = p² + ω² + 2(N_L−N_R)/α' is stated but not derived from the action (13). The coefficient λ/4 in (12) is determined by gauge invariance, but the relation to the string mass formula (3) is not demonstrated. The authors should verify that the linearized equations of motion derived from (13) actually yield the claimed mass-shell condition; otherwise the physical interpretation of λ as a mass parameter is not established.
  4. [Section 3] The paper concedes that the generalized metric formulation cannot generate the λ-dependent mass term because the condition HηH=η forces such terms to be λ-independent. This raises a consistency issue: if the mass term is not expressible in an O(D,D)-covariant form, it is unclear whether it is a genuine target-space effect or an artifact of the linearized non-covariant action (4). The authors should clarify the status of the mass term within a fully covariant formulation and explain why the lack of O(D,D) covariance does not undermine the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] In the first sentence, 'such theory is focused on' should read 'the theory is focused on'.
  2. [Section 2, paragraph after Eq. (7)] There is a typo: 'while the states (NL=2,NR=0) require' should be 'while the states (NL=0,NR=2) require', based on the preceding sentence.
  3. [Section 4] The statement that 'a/b is an imaginary number' is not accurate; solving x+1/x=-1 gives x = (-1 ± i√3)/2, which is complex with a nonzero real part. The conclusion that no real solution exists for λ≠0 is correct, but the wording should be corrected.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (20)] The definition of the generalized metric via the star product is introduced but not developed; it would be helpful to state explicitly whether the star product satisfies the same O(D,D) index conventions as the ordinary product in Eq. (14).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mass term is a derived Noether counterterm, not a fitted or pre-assumed output.

full rationale

The paper's central result is obtained by taking the Hull–Zwiebach quadratic action (4) for the (1,1) sector, relabeling the fields for the (2,0)/(0,2) levels via a stated correspondence, imposing the modified weak constraint (9) with lambda = 2(N_L - N_R)/alpha', and computing the gauge variation. The variation (10) is then cancelled by the added term (12), whose coefficients are fixed by the variation itself; hence the mass term in (13) is a derived consequence, not a fitted or pre-assumed output. The parameter lambda is set by level matching, not by matching the mass term, so the 'prediction' is not an input. The only self-citation is Ref. [25] for the modified constraint and star product; it is stated as an explicit premise and is equivalent to the standard level-matching condition, so the argument does not reduce to the citation. The asserted (1,1) to (2,0)/(0,2) correspondence and the gauge-parameter identification epsilon_j = epsilon~_j are assumptions that could be incorrect, but they are premises of a well-posed derivation, not circular reductions. The paper also explicitly acknowledges its quadratic-level limitation and the open question of a generalized-metric formulation. Therefore, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central construction pulls the known DFT action from Ref. [18] and deforms the weak constraint using lambda. It introduces no new particles, but it relies on the asserted field correspondence, the diagonal gauge parameter restriction, and a non-associative star product.

free parameters (1)
  • lambda = 2(N_L - N_R)/alpha'; +4/alpha' for (2,0), -4/alpha' for (0,2)
    Introduced in Eq. (9) as the deformation of the weak constraint. Not fitted to data, but chosen by hand from level matching to make the gauge variation cancel.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The DFT quadratic action of Ref. [18] is the correct kinetic action for the (2,0)/(0,2) doubled fields via a one-to-one field correspondence.
    Asserted in Section 2 after Eq. (8); no derivation from string field theory.
  • domain assumption The weak constraint is deformed to d_a d~^a f = -(N_L - N_R)/alpha' f.
    Motivated by the level matching condition N_L - N_R = alpha' p.w; used in Eq. (9).
  • ad hoc to paper Gauge parameters are restricted to epsilon_j = epsilon~_j.
    Required for invariance after using the b-field built from A_j; reduces doubled diffeomorphisms.
  • domain assumption The star product (18) imposes the modified strong constraint on products and triple products.
    Defined in Section 3; non-associative for lambda != 0, so its use for non-linear gauge transformations is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of More Stringy Effects in Target Space from Double Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6D3WMY4

@misc{pith2026190900411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: More Stringy Effects in Target Space from Double Field Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6D3WMY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00411}
}
abstract

In Double Field Theory, the mass-squared of doubled fields associated with bosonic closed string states is proportional to $N_L+N_R-2$. Massless states are therefore not only the graviton, anti-symmetric, and dilaton fields with $(N_L=1, N_R=1)$ such theory is focused on, but also the symmetric traceless tensor and the vector field relative to the states $(N_L=2, N_R=0)$ and $(N_L=0, N_R=2)$ which are massive in the lower-dimensional non-compactified space. While they are not even physical in the absence of compact dimensions, they provide a sample of states for which both momenta and winding numbers are non-vanishing, differently from the states $(N_L=1, N_R=1)$. A quadratic action is therefore here built for the corresponding doubled fields. It results that its gauge invariance under the linearized double diffeomorphisms is based on a generalization of the usual weak constraint, giving rise to an extra mass term for the symmetric traceless tensor field, not otherwise detectable: this can be interpreted as a mere stringy effect in target space due to the simultaneous presence of momenta and windings. Furthermore, in the context of the generalized metric formulation, a non-linear extension of the gauge transformations is defined involving the constraint extended from the weak constraint that can be uniquely defined in triple products of fields. Finally, we show that the above mentioned stringy effect does not appear in the case of only one compact doubled space dimension.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Noncompact symmetries in str ing theory

    J. Maharana and J. H. Schwarz, “Noncompact symmetries in str ing theory”, Nucl. Phys. B 390, 3 (1993) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90387-5 [hep-th/9207016 ]. 14

    arXiv 1993

  2. [2]

    Generalized duality in curved string back - grounds

    A. Giveon and M. Rocek, “Generalized duality in curved string back - grounds”, Nucl. Phys. B 380, 128 (1992) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(92)90518-G [hep-th/9112070]

    arXiv 1992

  3. [3]

    A Symmetry of the String Background Field Equa tions

    T. H. Buscher, “A Symmetry of the String Background Field Equa tions”, Phys. Lett. B 194, 59 (1987). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90769-6

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(87)90769-6 1987

  4. [4]

    Path Integral Derivation of Quantum Duality in N onlinear Sigma Models

    T. H. Buscher, “Path Integral Derivation of Quantum Duality in N onlinear Sigma Models”, Phys. Lett. B 201, 466 (1988). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)90602-8

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(88)90602-8 1988

  5. [5]

    Two vierbein formalism for string inspired axionic gravity

    W. Siegel, “Two vierbein formalism for string inspired axionic gravity ”, Phys. Rev. D 47, 5453 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.5453 [hep-th/9302036]

    arXiv 1993

  6. [6]

    Superspace duality in low-energy superstrings

    W. Siegel, “Superspace duality in low-energy superstrings”, Phy s. Rev. D 48, 2826 (1993) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.2826 [hep-th/9305073]

    arXiv 1993

  7. [7]

    Generalized Calabi-Yau manifolds

    N. Hitchin, “Generalized Calabi-Yau manifolds”, Quart. J. Math. 54, 281 (2003) doi:10.1093/qjmath/54.3.281 [math/0209099 [math-dg]]

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    Generalized complex geometry

    M. Gualtieri, “Generalized complex geometry”, math/0401221 [ma th-dg]

    arXiv

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Duality Rotations in String Theory

    M. J. Duff, “Duality Rotations in String Theory”, Nucl. Phys. B 335, 610 (1990). doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90520-N

    1990 doi

  2. [10]

    Generalized metric formulatio n of double field theory,

    O. Hohm, C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Generalized metric formulatio n of double field theory,” JHEP 08, 008 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2010)008 [arXiv:1006.4823 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Duality Symmetric Formulation of String World She et Dynamics

    A. A. Tseytlin, “Duality Symmetric Formulation of String World She et Dynamics”, Phys. Lett. B 242, 163 (1990). doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)91454-J

    1990 doi

  4. [12]

    Geometric Low-Energy Effective Actio n in a Doubled Spacetime

    C. T. Ma and F. Pezzella, “Geometric Low-Energy Effective Actio n in a Doubled Spacetime”, Nucl. Phys. B 930, 135 (2018) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2018.03.004 [arXiv:1706.03365 [hep-th]]. 15

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Closed string field theory: Quantum action and th e B-V mas- ter equation

    B. Zwiebach, “Closed string field theory: Quantum action and th e B-V mas- ter equation”, Nucl. Phys. B 390, 33 (1993) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90388-6 [hep-th/9206084]

    1993 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gauge S tring Field Theory for Torus Compactified Closed String,

    H. Hata, K. Itoh, T. Kugo, H. Kunitomo and K. Ogawa, “Gauge S tring Field Theory for Torus Compactified Closed String,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 77, 443 (1987). doi:10.1143/PTP.77.443

    1987 doi

  7. [15]

    Target space duality as a symmetry o f string field the- ory

    T. Kugo and B. Zwiebach, “Target space duality as a symmetry o f string field the- ory”, Prog. Theor. Phys. 87, 801 (1992) doi:10.1143/PTP.87.801 [hep-th/9201040]

    1992 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Is the string coupling constant inv ariant under T du- ality?

    E. Alvarez and Y. Kubyshin, “Is the string coupling constant inv ariant under T du- ality?”, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 57, 44 (1997) doi:10.1016/S0920-5632(97)00352-6 [hep-th/9610032]

    1997 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gauge and general coordinate invaria nce in nonpoly- nomial closed string theory

    D. Ghoshal and A. Sen, “Gauge and general coordinate invaria nce in nonpoly- nomial closed string theory”, Nucl. Phys. B 380, 103 (1992) doi:10.1016/0550- 3213(92)90517-F [hep-th/9110038]

    1992 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Double Field Theory,

    C. Hull and B. Zwiebach, “Double Field Theory,” JHEP 0909, 099 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/099 [arXiv:0904.4664 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A Note o n the CFT Origin of the Strong Constraint of DFT,

    A. Betz, R. Blumenhagen, D. L¨ ust and F. Rennecke, “A Note o n the CFT Origin of the Strong Constraint of DFT,” JHEP 05, 044 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)044 [arXiv:1402.1686 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    The effectiv e action of Double Field Theory,

    G. Aldazabal, W. Baron, D. Marques and C. Nunez, “The effectiv e action of Double Field Theory,” JHEP 11, 052 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2011)052 [arXiv:1109.0290 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Double Field Theory and N=4 Gauged Supergrav ity,

    D. Geissbuhler, “Double Field Theory and N=4 Gauged Supergrav ity,” JHEP 11, 116 (2011) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2011)116 [arXiv:1109.4280 [hep-th ]]. 16

    2011 arXiv

  14. [22]

    En- hanced gauge symmetry and winding modes in Double Field Theory,

    G. Aldazabal, M. Gra˜ na, S. Iguri, M. Mayo, C. Nu˜ nez and J. A. Rosabal, “En- hanced gauge symmetry and winding modes in Double Field Theory,” JHE P 03, 093 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2016)093 [arXiv:1510.07644 [hep-t h]]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Symmetry en hancement in- terpolation, non-commutativity and Double Field Theory,

    G. Aldazabal, E. Andr´ es, M. Mayo and V. Penas, “Symmetry en hancement in- terpolation, non-commutativity and Double Field Theory,” JHEP 03, 012 (2019) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2019)012 [arXiv:1805.10306 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A new twist on heterotic string compact- ifications,

    B. Fraiman, M. Gra˜ na and C. A. N´ u˜ nez, “A new twist on heterotic string compact- ifications,” JHEP 09, 078 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2018)078 [arXiv:1805.11128 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Supergravity with Doubled Spacetime S truc- ture

    C. T. Ma and F. Pezzella, “Supergravity with Doubled Spacetime S truc- ture”, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 6, 066016 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.066016 [arXiv:1611.03690 [hep-th]]. 17

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.