Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 26 references

A Foundational EDM2-Based Generative Model for High-Resolution Synthetic Fetal Ultrasound Imaging from Open Datasets

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

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

Pith's one-line read An EDM2 model trained on open fetal ultrasound datasets beats the prior 128×128 method on FID and pushes ensemble accuracy past real-data-only training.

desk verdict A credible engineering advance in fetal ultrasound synthesis whose headline accuracy claim needs a memorization check and a data-volume control before it holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05471 v1 pith:MLVG4IXX submitted 2026-08-05 eess.IV cs.CVcs.LGphysics.med-ph

Harvey Mannering , Yilin Zhang , Ziao Liu , Zhiwu Huang , Jacqueline Matthew , Miguel Xochicale This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CVcs.LGphysics.med-ph
keywords fetalultrasoundsyntheticmedicalimagingdiffusionmodelsEDM2imagequalityFréchetInceptionDistancedownstreamclassificationopendatasets
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that a modern diffusion architecture, EDM2, trained on a weighted mix of open fetal ultrasound datasets, can generate 512×512 synthetic images across six anatomical classes that are closer to real images and more useful for training classifiers than the previous lower-resolution generator. On a standard image-fidelity metric (Fréchet Inception Distance), with both sets downsized to 128×128 for a fair comparison, the method reports 104.25 overall against 176.85 for the prior approach. After pretraining on synthetic images and fine-tuning on real ones, an ensemble of three classifiers reaches 93.36% accuracy, above the 92.32% obtained with real data alone. A clinician's realism rating is still lower for synthetic images (2.07 out of 5) than for real ones (3.12), so the paper positions synthetic images as a training resource rather than a replacement for real scans.

What carries the argument

The central object is the EDM2 diffusion model, a denoising-diffusion architecture designed around improved training dynamics, here run in Small and XL sizes and combined with autoguidance, in which a small model guides a larger one to sharpen outputs. Training mixes the six-class FETAL PLANES database with three additional open ultrasound datasets, weighting FETAL PLANES at 2.0 and the others at 1.0 in a mean-squared-error loss, allowing roughly twice as many training steps and a lower validation loss. The generation pipeline applies center cropping, random horizontal flipping, and resizing to 512×512, and the downstream test reuses three classifiers with a soft-voting ensemble so the comparison with the prior method is direct.

What would settle it

A nearest-neighbor or perceptual-similarity search from each generated image back to the real FETAL PLANES training set would settle the memorization question; if a substantial share of synthetic images are near-duplicates, the 93.36% fine-tuning accuracy cannot be credited to novel synthetic data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that scaling fetal ultrasound synthesis to 512×512 with the EDM2 diffusion architecture, and training on a weighted mixture of public datasets, produces synthetic images that improve on the prior 128×128 diffusion method on both image fidelity and downstream task performance. The paper reports a lower FID in every one of the six anatomical classes, an overall FID of 104.25 versus 176.85, and a soft-voting ensemble accuracy of 93.36% after synthetic pretraining followed by real-data fine-tuning, which it says surpasses the 92.32% obtained on real-world data alone. These results are offered as evidence that high-resolution synthetic fetal ultrasound can serve as a pretraining resource when clinical datasets are scarce, while the clinician study is reported as evidence that the generated images still contain visible artefacts such as smoothing and speckle irregularities.

Load-bearing premise

The headline result depends on the untested assumption that the generated images are new synthetic samples rather than near-copies of the real training images, a risk the paper itself identifies in Section 2 but does not check.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, high-resolution synthetic fetal ultrasound can be produced from open datasets without new clinical data, lowering a common barrier to classifier development.
  • The reported FID improvement across all six classes suggests the method narrows the distribution gap between synthetic and real ultrasound more uniformly than the earlier 128×128 generator.
  • Synthetic pretraining followed by real fine-tuning becomes a concrete training recipe, with the paper's ensemble accuracy of 93.36% above the 92.32% real-data-only baseline.
  • Because the clinician study still rates synthetic images lower in realism, the immediate practical role of these images is data augmentation, not diagnostic replacement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A plausible alternative explanation the paper does not rule out is that part of the fine-tuning gain comes from having roughly 30,000 extra pretraining images rather than from the synthetic nature of those images; pretraining on an equal number of real images would isolate that effect.
  • If a nearest-neighbor check shows the generated images are not memorized copies, the result would support training generative models on pooled open ultrasound data as a general low-resource strategy.
  • The low realism score points to a concrete next step: adding physics-based ultrasound speckle and tissue-artefact simulation on top of the diffusion output, which a repeated clinician survey could test.
  • The weighting scheme that favours FETAL PLANES is a simple lever; a testable extension is to sweep these weights and see whether gains on the primary classes trade off against diversity on the auxiliary ones.
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 an EDM2-based diffusion framework that generates 512x512 fetal ultrasound images across six anatomical classes, trained on FETAL PLANES DB together with three auxiliary public datasets. The authors report FID scores on 5000 generated images per class, comparing favorably with Tian et al., and evaluate downstream fetal plane classification with ResNet50, DenseNet169, MedMamba, and a soft-voting ensemble. They claim that fine-tuning on synthetic data followed by real data reaches 93.36% ensemble accuracy, surpassing 92.32% for real-data-only training. A single experienced clinician rated 100 generated images at a mean realism of 2.67/5, with real images rated higher (3.12 vs 2.07). Code, models, data, and the survey are publicly released.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would offer a practically useful open-source recipe for high-resolution synthetic fetal ultrasound that improves downstream classification, addressing data scarcity and privacy constraints. The reproducibility artifacts are a genuine strength: code, pretrained models, data, and the evaluation survey are all released, and the comparison with Tian et al. is direct. The paper is also honest in reporting that clinician-assessed realism is lower for synthetic images and in acknowledging the memorization risk in Section 2. However, the headline accuracy gain is about one percentage point and is reported without confidence intervals, and the missing memorization check and volume-matched baseline leave the central claim under-supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Table 2] The headline comparison of 93.36% versus 92.32% ensemble accuracy is reported without confidence intervals, standard deviations across training seeds, or a significance test. Since the difference is roughly one percentage point and the numbers come from ensembles, the claim that synthetic pretraining 'surpasses' real-data-only training is not yet established. Please report repeated-run variation or bootstrap intervals for the test set.
  2. [§2] The authors explicitly write that 'there is a risk of the diffusion model memorizing training data,' but the paper provides no nearest-neighbor, retrieval, or overlap analysis between generated images and the real FETAL PLANES DB images. Because FID is computed against the same dataset and the downstream classifier is evaluated on FETAL PLANES DB, near-duplicates would lower FID and could leak test labels. The paper also does not state whether the EDM2 generator was trained on the entire FETAL PLANES DB, including images that later appear in the classifier test split. A memorization or duplication check is load-bearing for both the image-quality and classification claims.
  3. [§3, fine-tuning protocol] There is no control for total training-data volume: the synthetic-pretraining protocol uses 30,000 generated images before real fine-tuning, while the real-only baseline apparently sees only the real training set. The observed improvement could therefore be due to seeing more images rather than to the synthetic nature of those images. Please add a real-data-only pretraining baseline matched in number of images and compute budget, or otherwise demonstrate that the gain is specific to synthetic pretraining.
  4. [§3, Table 1] The FID scores are reported as point estimates without confidence intervals or multiple sampling seeds. FID is a sample-based statistic, and while the overall gap of 176.85 versus 104.25 looks substantial, the class-level numbers would be more convincing with bootstrap intervals or repeated-generation runs. Please provide uncertainty estimates for the FID comparison as well as for the classification accuracies.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2] The dataset name is given as 'FPU23' in the text but as 'FPUS23' in reference [19]; please align the name with the cited source.
  2. [Table 1] The table caption contains a formatting artifact ('T able 1'), and the text has small typos such as 'from' in the first sentence of Section 2; a careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Appendix B] The survey description says 100 images are sampled with a deterministic random seed, but it does not state whether the sample is stratified by class or how many real versus synthetic images are included; please specify the sampling procedure and the class balance.
  4. [Appendix A] Figure 2 is referenced but the appendix includes only its caption; the validation-loss plot itself should be included in the manuscript file.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: all central claims are benchmarked against external real-data comparisons rather than derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical methods paper, not a derivation chain. Its central claims are: (i) EDM2-based 512x512 generation achieves lower FID than Tian et al. [22] when downsampled to 128x128; (ii) classifiers pretrained on synthetic images and fine-tuned on FETAL PLANES DB reach 93.36% ensemble accuracy, surpassing the 92.32% real-data-only baseline; and (iii) a clinician rated real images higher than synthetic (3.12 vs 2.07 on a 5-point scale). Each claim is checked against an external benchmark: FID is measured against the real image distribution, classifier accuracy is measured on real FETAL PLANES DB data under the same protocols as prior work, and the clinical score comes from a human evaluator. No equation in the paper defines an output in terms of the quantity it purports to predict, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The acknowledged risk that the diffusion model may memorize training data, and the absence of a nearest-neighbor duplication check, is a validity and leakage concern, not a circular-reasoning defect: the paper does not assume the conclusion of non-memorization in order to prove it. The only self-citation, [13] (Iskandar et al., with overlapping authors), is used descriptively in the introduction to note that hybrid Diffusion-GAN approaches reached 256x256 resolution; that statement is not load-bearing for any of the paper's conclusions. The results therefore stand on independent, externally grounded comparisons, and no significant circularity is present.

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

The empirical claims rest on two manually chosen hyperparameters and on domain assumptions about FID as a realism proxy, dataset label compatibility, absence of memorization, and the representativeness of one clinical reader. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Dataset-sample weighting for FETAL PLANES DB = 2.0
    Chosen by hand to upweight FETAL PLANES DB relative to the added public datasets; it affects training dynamics and final generation quality, with no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • Guidance scale = 2.25
    Sampling hyperparameter used to generate the 5,000 images per class; it directly affects FID and image realism, and no sweep or justification is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FID computed on 128x128 downsampled images is a valid proxy for the clinical usefulness of 512x512 synthetic images.
    The main image-quality claim rests on downsampled FID, yet the clinical evaluator rated synthetic images lower than real ones, showing FID and perceived realism do not always align.
  • domain assumption The public datasets can be jointly trained with a single label per additional dataset without harmful label mismatch.
    FPU23, the segmentation dataset, and the African low-resource dataset have different label schemes; collapsing them into one class each is an unvalidated modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The generated images do not reproduce or memorize training examples.
    The paper itself flags the memorization risk in Section 2 but provides no check. The downstream test uses real images from FETAL PLANES DB, so near-duplicate generations could inflate classification accuracy.
  • domain assumption A single clinician's rating of 100 images is representative evidence of clinical realism.
    The paper generalizes from one reader and does not report the real/synthetic composition of the 100-image set, inter-reader variability, or confidence bounds on the 2.67/5 mean.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Foundational EDM2-Based Generative Model for High-Resolution Synthetic Fetal Ultrasound Imaging from Open Datasets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MLVG4IXX

@misc{pith2026260805471,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Foundational EDM2-Based Generative Model for High-Resolution Synthetic Fetal Ultrasound Imaging from Open Datasets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MLVG4IXX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05471}
}
read the original abstract

Prenatal ultrasound imaging is key for assessing fetal health, but AI progress is limited by scarce, privacy-restricted, and hard-to-annotate datasets. We propose a high-resolution fetal ultrasound synthesis framework based on the EDM2 diffusion architecture, trained on multiple public datasets to generate 512x512 images across six anatomical classes. Our method achieved improved image quality with lower FID scores and enhanced downstream fetal plane classification, reaching 93.36% ensemble accuracy after fine-tuning, surpassing real-data-only training. Clinical evaluation by an experienced fetal ultrasound specialist (10+ years) on 100 images yielded a mean realism score of 2.67/5, with real images rated higher than synthetic. Artefacts included smoothing, speckle irregularities, and anatomical inconsistencies. Code, data, models and other resources to reproduce this work are available at https://github.com/xfetus/fetal-ultrasound-edm2.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05471 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative fetal ultrasound images from real data, Tian et al. [22], and our proposed high-resolution (512×512) diffusion-based synthesis approach. Higher resolu￾tion image at our repository https://github.com/xfetus/fetal-ultrasound-edm2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. presents the validation loss curves for our UltrasoundEDM2 models on the FETAL PLANES DB dataset. As model capacity increases from the Small (S) to the Extra Large (XL) configuration, the optimal validation loss consis￾tently improves, demonstrating the benefits of scaling the network architecture. Training with additional datasets—including the FPU23 dataset, a fetal ab￾dominal structures segmentation dataset, and … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GitHub Pages interface for the ultrasound image evaluation survey, available at https://xfetus.github.io/fetal-ultrasound-edm2-survey-2026/. The survey source code is publicly available at https://github.com/xfetus/ fetal-ultrasound-edm2-survey-2026. The left panel shows the survey landing page, while the right panel illustrates the image evaluation interface used to answer the real-versus-synthetic classification a… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    npj Digital Medicine8(1), 777 (Nov 2025).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-02162-4,https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41746-025-02162-4

    Alsharid, M., Guo, X., Men, Q., Saha, P., Mishra, D., Ahuja, R., Ouyang, C., Noble, J.A.: On the public dissemination and open sourcing of ultrasound re- sources, datasets and deep learning models. npj Digital Medicine8(1), 777 (Nov 2025).https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-02162-4,https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41746-025-02162-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41746-025-02162-4 2025

  2. [2]

    In: Ni, D., Noble, A., Huang, R., Xue, W

    Arjemandi, M., Hassan, S., Wang, H., Valappil, S., Yaqub, M.: Difusal: Diffusion- based fetal ultrasound synthesis with active learning. In: Ni, D., Noble, A., Huang, R., Xue, W. (eds.) Simplifying Medical Ultrasound. pp. 130–139. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham (2026)

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    Scientific Reports10(1), 10200 (2020)

    Burgos-Artizzu, X.P., Coronado-Gutiérrez, D., Valenzuela-Alcaraz, B., Bonet- Carne, E., Eixarch, E., Crispi, F., Gratacós, E.: Evaluation of deep convolutional neural networks for automatic classification of common maternal fetal ultrasound planes. Scientific Reports10(1), 10200 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Mendeley Data1, 1 (2023)

    Da Correggio, K.S., Galluzzo, R.N., Santos, L.O., Barroso, F.S.M., Chaves, T.Z.L., Onofre, A.S.C., von Wangenheim, A.: Fetal abdominal structures segmentation dataset using ultrasonic images. Mendeley Data1, 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L.J., Li, K., Fei-Fei, L.: Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database. In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 248–255. Ieee (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    In: Medical Imaging 2025: Ultrasonic Imaging and Tomography

    Freiche, B., El-Khoury, A., Nasiri-Sarvi, A., Hosseini, M.S., Garcia, D., Basarab, A., Boily, M., Rivaz, H.: Ultrasound image generation using latent diffusion models. In: Medical Imaging 2025: Ultrasonic Imaging and Tomography. vol. 13412, pp. 287–292. SPIE (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems27(2014),https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/ 2014/file/5ca3e9b122f61f8f06494c97b1afccf3-Paper.pdf

    Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., Bengio, Y.: Generative adversarial nets. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems27(2014),https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/ 2014/file/5ca3e9b122f61f8f06494c97b1afccf3-Paper.pdf

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    He,K.,Zhang,X.,Ren,S.,Sun,J.:Deepresiduallearningforimagerecognition.In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 770–778 (2016)

    2016

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017) EDM2-Based Fetal Ultrasound Generation 5

    Heusel,M.,Ramsauer,H.,Unterthiner,T.,Nessler,B.,Hochreiter,S.:Ganstrained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017) EDM2-Based Fetal Ultrasound Generation 5

    2017

  2. [10]

    (eds.) Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems

    Ho,J.,Jain,A.,Abbeel,P.:Denoisingdiffusionprobabilisticmodels.In:Larochelle, H., Ranzato, M., Hadsell, R., Balcan, M., Lin, H. (eds.) Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems. vol. 33, pp. 6840–6851. Curran Associates, Inc. (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Huang, G., Liu, Z., Van Der Maaten, L., Weinberger, K.Q.: Densely connected convolutional networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 4700–4708 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Computers in Biology and Medicine189, 109834 (2025).https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.109834,https://www.sciencedirect

    Ibrahim, M., Khalil, Y.A., Amirrajab, S., Sun, C., Breeuwer, M., Pluim, J., Elen, B., Ertaylan, G., Dumontier, M.: Generative ai for synthetic data across multiple medical modalities: A systematic review of recent developments and challenges. Computers in Biology and Medicine1...

    2025

  5. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03941 (2023)

    Iskandar, M., Mannering, H., Sun, Z., Matthew, J., Kerdegari, H., Peralta, L., Xochicale, M.: Towards realistic ultrasound fetal brain imaging synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03941 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 52996–53021 (2024)

    Karras, T., Aittala, M., Kynkäänniemi, T., Lehtinen, J., Aila, T., Laine, S.: Guid- ing a diffusion model with a bad version of itself. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 52996–53021 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Karras, T., Aittala, M., Lehtinen, J., Hellsten, J., Aila, T., Laine, S.: Analyzing and improving the training dynamics of diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 24174– 24184 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013)

    Kingma, D.P., Welling, M.: Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kurjak, A., Miskovic, B., Andonotopo, W., Stanojevic, M., Azumendi, G., Vrcic, H.: How useful is 3d and 4d ultrasound in perinatal medicine? Journal of perinatal medicine35(1) (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747 (2022)

    Lipman, Y., Chen, R.T., Ben-Hamu, H., Nickel, M., Le, M.: Flow matching for generative modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    IEEE Access11, 58308–58317 (2023)

    Prabakaran, B.S., Hamelmann, P., Ostrowski, E., Shafique, M.: Fpus23: an ul- trasound fetus phantom dataset with deep neural network evaluations for fetus orientations, fetal planes, and anatomical features. IEEE Access11, 58308–58317 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 10684–10695 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Scientific reports13(1), 2728 (2023)

    Sendra-Balcells, C., Campello, V.M., Torrents-Barrena, J., Ahmed, Y.A., Elattar, M., Ohene-Botwe, B., Nyangulu, P., Stones, W., Ammar, M., Benamer, L.N., et al.: Generalisability of fetal ultrasound deep learning models to low-resource imaging settings in five african countrie...

    2023

  14. [22]

    IET Image Processing19(1), e70151 (2025)

    Tian, Y., Ucurum, E., Han, X., Young, R., Chatwin, C., Birch, P.: Enhancing fetal plane classification accuracy with data augmentation using diffusion models. IET Image Processing19(1), e70151 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Journal of Clinical Medicine 13(18) (2024).https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13185626,https://www.mdpi.com/ 2077-0383/13/18/5626

    Weichert, J., Scharf, J.L.: Advancements in artificial intelligence for fe- tal neurosonography: A comprehensive review. Journal of Clinical Medicine 13(18) (2024).https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13185626,https://www.mdpi.com/ 2077-0383/13/18/5626

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    In: International Workshop on PRedictive Intelligence In MEdicine

    Yan, Y., Lee, H., Somer, E., Grau, V.: Generation of amyloid pet images via conditional adversarial training for predicting progression to alzheimer’s disease. In: International Workshop on PRedictive Intelligence In MEdicine. pp. 26–33. Springer (2018) 6 H. Mannering et al

    2018

  17. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03849 (2024)

    Yue, Y., Li, Z.: Medmamba: Vision mamba for medical image classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03849 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Zhang, L., Rao, A., Agrawala, M.: Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 3836–3847 (2023) A Appendix A. Validation curves Figure 2 presents the validation loss curves for ou...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.