%Minor Revision - TUFFC-09469-2019

  %Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency

  %Control (July 23, 2019 9:29 PM)

  %To: arthur.hugeat@femto-st.fr, julien.bernard@femto-st.fr,
  %gwenhael.goavec@femto-st.fr, pyb2@femto-st.fr, pierre-yves.bourgeois@femto-st.fr,

  %jmfriedt@femto-st.fr
  %CC: giorgio.santarelli@institutoptique.fr, lewin@ece.drexel.edu
  %
  %Dear Mr. Arthur HUGEAT
  %
  %Congratulations! Your manuscript
  %
  %MANUSCRIPT NO. TUFFC-09469-2019
  %MANUSCRIPT TYPE: Papers

  %TITLE: Filter optimization for real time digital processing of radiofrequency

  %signals: application to oscillator metrology

  %AUTHOR(S): HUGEAT, Arthur; BERNARD, Julien; Goavec-Mérou, Gwenhaël; Bourgeois,

  %Pierre-Yves; Friedt, Jean-Michel
  %

  %has been reviewed and it has been suggested that it be accepted for publication
  %after minor revisions. In your revision, you must respond to the reviewer’s

  %comments at the end of this e-mail or attached.
  %

  %Your revised manuscript must be submitted within the next THREE WEEKS. If you
  %are not able to submit your manuscript in this time frame, you must contact the

  %Editor in Chief (Peter Lewin, lewinpa@drexel.edu).
  %

  %Please resubmit your revised manuscript to the Transactions on Ultrasonics,
  %Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control Manuscript Central website at
  %http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tuffc-ieee. From the “Author Center” select
  %“Manuscripts with Decisions” and under the appropriate manuscript ID select

  %“create a revision”.
  %
  %To expedite the review of your resubmission:
  %

  %(1) Include or attach a point by point response to reviewer’s comments and
  %detail all changes made in your manuscript under “Response to Decision Letter”.
  %Failure to address reviewers comments can still lead to a rejection of your

  %manuscript.

  %(2) Submit a PDF of the revised manuscript using the “Formatted (Double Column)
  %Main File - PDF Document Only” file type with all changes highlighted in yellow

  %under “File Upload”.

  %(3) Original TeX, LaTeX, or Microsoft Word file of the final manuscript as

  %Supporting Document.

  %(4) High quality source files of your figures in Word, Tiff, Postscript,
  %EPS, Excel or Power Point (if figures are not already embedded in your source

  %file above) as Supporting Document.
  %(5) Author photos and biographies (papers only) as Supporting Document.

  %(6) Graphical Abstract to accompany your text abstract on IEEE Xplore (image,

  %animation, movie, or audio clip) uploaded as Multimedia.
  %

  %*Please make sure that all final files have unique file names in order for

  %them to be processed correctly by IEEE*

  %Please note that a PDF is NOT sufficient for publication, the PDF is used

  %for review.
  %

  %During the resubmission process if you do not see a confirmation screen and
  %receive a confirmation e-mail, your revised manuscript was not transmitted

  %to us and we will not be able to continue to process your manuscript.
  %

  %Please refer to the policies regarding the voluntary page charges and
  %mandatory page charges in the "Guideline for Authors" at

  %http://ieee-uffc.org/publications/transactions-on-uffc/information-for-authors

  %Note over-length charge of US$175 per page is applied for published pages in

  %excess of 8 pages.
  %
  %Sincerely,
  %
  %Giorgio Santarelli
  %Associate Editor in Chief
  %Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control
  %
  %****************************************************
  %REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
  
  \documentclass[a4paper]{article}
  \usepackage{fullpage,graphicx}
  \begin{document}
  {\bf Reviewer: 1}
  
  %Comments to the Author
  %In general, the language/grammar is adequate.
  
  {\bf

  On page 2,  "...allowing to save processing resource..." could be improved.       % r1.1

  On page 2, "... or thanks at a radiofrequency-grade..." isn't at all clear what   % r1.2

  the author meant.

  One page 2, the whole paragraph "The first step of our approach is to model..."   % r1.3

  could be improved.

  }

  {\bf

  I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that      % r1.4 - en attente des résultats
  of maximum rejection ratio at fixed silicon area, as well as minimum silicon
  area for a fixed minimum rejection ratio. For non-experts, it might be very
  useful to compare the results of both optimization paths to the performance and
  resource-utilization of generic low-pass filter gateware offered by device
  manufacturers. I appreciate also that the authors have presented source code

  for examination online.

  }

  TODO : FIR Compiler et regarder les ressources pour un FIR comparable a ceux monolithiques
  fournis dans l'article (memes coefs et meme nombre de coefs)

  {\bf

  Reviewer: 2

  }
  
  %Comments to the Author

  %In the Manuscript, the Authors describe an optimization methodology for filter
  %design to be used in phase noise metrology. The methodology is general and can
  %be used for many aspects of the processing chain. In the Manuscript, the Authors
  %focus on filtering and shifting while the other aspects, in particular decimation,
  %will be considered in a future work. The optimization problem is modelled
  %theoretically and then solved by means of a commercial software. The solutions
  %are tested experimentally on the Redpitaya platform with synthetic and real
  %white noises. Two cases are considered as a function of the number of filters:
  %maximum rejection given a fixed amount of resources and minimum resource
  %utilization given a fixed amount of rejection.
  %The Authors find that filtering improves significantly when the number of
  %filters increases.
  %A lot of work has been done in generalizing and automating the procedure so
  %that different approaches can be investigated quickly and efficiently. The
  %results presented in the Manuscript seem to be just a case study based on
  %the particular criterion chosen by the Authors. Different criteria, in
  %general, could lead to different results and it is important to consider
  %carefully the criterion adopted by the Authors, in order to check if it
  %is adequate to compare the performance of filters and if multi-stage

  %filters are really superior than monolithic filters.
  
  {\bf

  By observing the results presented in fig. 10-16, it is clear that the            % r2.1 - fait
  performances of multi-stage filters are obtained at the expense of their
  selectivity and, in this sense, the filters presented in these figures
  are not equivalent. For example, in Fig. 14, at the limit of the pass band,
  the attenuation is almost 15 dB for n = 5, while it is not noticeable for
  n = 1.

  }
  
  TODO : ajouter les gabarits
  
  Peut etre refaire une serie de simulation dans lesquelles on impose une coupure
  non pas entre 40 et 60\% mais entre 50 et 60\% pour demontrer que l'outil s'adapte
  au critere qu'on lui impose, et que la coupure moins raide n'est pas intrinseque
  a la cascade de filtres.

  AH: Je finis les corrections, je poste l'article revu et pendant ce temps j'essaie de
  relancer des expérimentations. Si j'arrive à les finir à temps, je les intégrerai

  
  {\bf

  The reason is in the criterion that considers the average attenuation in          % r2.2 - fait
  the pass band. This criterion does not take into account the maximum attenuation
  in this region, which is a very important parameter for specifying a filter
  and for evaluating its performance. For example, with this criterion, a
  filter with 0.1 dB of ripple is considered equivalent to a filter with
  10 dB of ripple. This point has a strong impact in the optimization process

  and in the results that are obtained and has to be reconsidered.

  }
  
  Je ne pense pas que ca soit le cas : la somme des valeurs absolues des pertes
  dans la bande va defavoriser un filtre avec 10 dB de ripples. Il n'a pas compris que
  la bandpass s'arrete a 40\% de la bande, donc mettre le gabarit clarifierait ce point je
  pense

  AH: Il y avait une faute, j'avais mis "mean of absolute value" au lieu de "sum of absolute value". Je pense que je n'ai pas besoin de mettre plus de détail ?

  
  {\bf

  I strongly suggest to re-run the analysis with a criterion that takes also        % r2.3 -fait
  into account the maximum allowed attenuation in pass band, for example by
  fixing its value to a typical one, as it has been done for the transition
  bandwidth.

  }

  AH: Il y avait une faute, j'avais mis "mean of absolute value" au lieu de "sum of absolute value". Je pense que je n'ai pas besoin de mettre plus de détail ?

  
  {\bf

  In addition, I suggest to address the following points:                           % r2.4
  - Page 1, line 50: the Authors state that IIR have shorter impulse response

  than FIR. This is not true in general. The sentence should be reconsidered.

  }
  
  J'aurais du dire ``lag'' au lieu de ``impulse response'' je pense

  AH: Je ne comprends pas trop ce qui ne va pas ici

  
  {\bf

  - Fig. 4: the Author should motivate in the text why it has been chosen           % r2.5
  this transition bandwidth and if it is a typical requirement for phase-noise

  metrology.

  }
  AH: Je ne sais pas comment justifier ça. Je dois dire que comme ça on peut éventuellement
  décimer par deux le flux ?
  
  {\bf
  - The impact of the coefficient resolution is discussed. What about the           % r2.6 - fait
  resolution of the data stream? Is it fixed? If so, which value has been
  used in the analysis? If not, how is it changed with respect to the

  coefficient resolution?

  }
  
  Pr\'eciser que le flux de donn\'ees en entr\'ees est de r\'esolution fixe
  
  {\bf

  - Page 3, line 47: the initial criterion can be omitted and, consequently,        % r2.7  - fait

  Fig. 5 can be removed.

  - Page 3, line 55: “maximum rejection” is not compatible with fig. 4.             % r2.8  - fait

  It should be “minimum”

  }
  AH: Je ne suis pas d'accord, le critère n'est pas le min de la rejection mais le max
  de la magnitude. J'ai corrigé en ce sens.
  
  {\bf
  - Page e, line 55, second column: “takin”                                         % r2.9  - fait
  - Page 3, line 58: “pessimistic” should be replaced with “conservative”           % r2.10 - fait
  - Page 4, line 17: “meaning” --> “this means”                                     % r2.11 - fait
  - Page 4, line 10: how $p$ is chosen? Which is the criterion used to choose       % r2.12 - fait

  these particular configurations? Are they chosen automatically?

  - Page 4, line 31: how does the delta function transform model from non-linear    % r2.13 - fait

  and non-quadratic to a quadratic?

  - Captions of figure and tables are too minimal.                                  % r2.14
  - Figures can be grouped: fig. 10-12 can be grouped as three subplots (a, b, c)   % r2.15 - fait
  of a single figure. Same for fig. 13-16.

  }
  
  {\bf

  - Please increase the number of averages for the spectrum. Currently the noise    % r2.16 - fait
  of the curves is about 20 dBpk-pk and it doesn’t allow to appreciate the

  differences among the curves. I suggest to reduce the noise below 1 dBpk-pk.

  }
  
  Comment as tu fait tes spectres Arthur ? Si tu as fait une FFT sur e.g. 2048 points
  mais que tu as des jeux de donnees de e.g. 10000 points, on peut faire des moyennes
  sur les sequences successives. Au pire si pas possible, une moyenne glissante sur
  chaque spectre pour affiner les traits ?

  %In conclusion, my opinion is that the methodology presented in the Manuscript
  %deserve to be published, provided that the criterion is changed according

  %the indications mentioned above.
  \end{document}
  %****************************************************
  %

  %For information about the IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
  %Control Society, please visit the website: http://www.ieee-uffc.org. The
  %website of the Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency

  %Control is at: http://ieee-uffc.org/publications/transactions-on-uffc