jfriedt / IFCS2018 article

Download as
Browse Code »

Commit 1b9d175eba55ec1edccc0b060ed7a89b707ab95e

Authored by jfriedt
1 parent d7e7f892e0
Exists in master

reponse TUFFC

Showing 1 changed file with 166 additions and 111 deletions Side-by-side Diff

ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex
Diff comments   View file @ 1b9d175
1   -Minor Revision - TUFFC-09469-2019
2   -Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
3   -Control (July 23, 2019 9:29 PM)
4   -To: arthur.hugeat@femto-st.fr, julien.bernard@femto-st.fr,
5   -gwenhael.goavec@femto-st.fr, pyb2@femto-st.fr, pierre-yves.bourgeois@femto-st.fr,
6   -jmfriedt@femto-st.fr
7   -CC: giorgio.santarelli@institutoptique.fr, lewin@ece.drexel.edu
  1 +%Minor Revision - TUFFC-09469-2019
  2 +%Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
  3 +%Control (July 23, 2019 9:29 PM)
  4 +%To: arthur.hugeat@femto-st.fr, julien.bernard@femto-st.fr,
  5 +%gwenhael.goavec@femto-st.fr, pyb2@femto-st.fr, pierre-yves.bourgeois@femto-st.fr,
  6 +%jmfriedt@femto-st.fr
  7 +%CC: giorgio.santarelli@institutoptique.fr, lewin@ece.drexel.edu
  8 +%
  9 +%Dear Mr. Arthur HUGEAT
  10 +%
  11 +%Congratulations! Your manuscript
  12 +%
  13 +%MANUSCRIPT NO. TUFFC-09469-2019
  14 +%MANUSCRIPT TYPE: Papers
  15 +%TITLE: Filter optimization for real time digital processing of radiofrequency
  16 +%signals: application to oscillator metrology
  17 +%AUTHOR(S): HUGEAT, Arthur; BERNARD, Julien; Goavec-Mérou, Gwenhaël; Bourgeois,
  18 +%Pierre-Yves; Friedt, Jean-Michel
  19 +%
  20 +%has been reviewed and it has been suggested that it be accepted for publication
  21 +%after minor revisions. In your revision, you must respond to the reviewer’s
  22 +%comments at the end of this e-mail or attached.
  23 +%
  24 +%Your revised manuscript must be submitted within the next THREE WEEKS. If you
  25 +%are not able to submit your manuscript in this time frame, you must contact the
  26 +%Editor in Chief (Peter Lewin, lewinpa@drexel.edu).
  27 +%
  28 +%Please resubmit your revised manuscript to the Transactions on Ultrasonics,
  29 +%Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control Manuscript Central website at
  30 +%http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tuffc-ieee. From the “Author Center” select
  31 +%“Manuscripts with Decisions” and under the appropriate manuscript ID select
  32 +%“create a revision”.
  33 +%
  34 +%To expedite the review of your resubmission:
  35 +%
  36 +%(1) Include or attach a point by point response to reviewer’s comments and
  37 +%detail all changes made in your manuscript under “Response to Decision Letter”.
  38 +%Failure to address reviewers comments can still lead to a rejection of your
  39 +%manuscript.
  40 +%(2) Submit a PDF of the revised manuscript using the “Formatted (Double Column)
  41 +%Main File - PDF Document Only” file type with all changes highlighted in yellow
  42 +%under “File Upload”.
  43 +%(3) Original TeX, LaTeX, or Microsoft Word file of the final manuscript as
  44 +%Supporting Document.
  45 +%(4) High quality source files of your figures in Word, Tiff, Postscript,
  46 +%EPS, Excel or Power Point (if figures are not already embedded in your source
  47 +%file above) as Supporting Document.
  48 +%(5) Author photos and biographies (papers only) as Supporting Document.
  49 +%(6) Graphical Abstract to accompany your text abstract on IEEE Xplore (image,
  50 +%animation, movie, or audio clip) uploaded as Multimedia.
  51 +%
  52 +%*Please make sure that all final files have unique file names in order for
  53 +%them to be processed correctly by IEEE*
  54 +%Please note that a PDF is NOT sufficient for publication, the PDF is used
  55 +%for review.
  56 +%
  57 +%During the resubmission process if you do not see a confirmation screen and
  58 +%receive a confirmation e-mail, your revised manuscript was not transmitted
  59 +%to us and we will not be able to continue to process your manuscript.
  60 +%
  61 +%Please refer to the policies regarding the voluntary page charges and
  62 +%mandatory page charges in the "Guideline for Authors" at
  63 +%http://ieee-uffc.org/publications/transactions-on-uffc/information-for-authors
  64 +%Note over-length charge of US$175 per page is applied for published pages in
  65 +%excess of 8 pages.
  66 +%
  67 +%Sincerely,
  68 +%
  69 +%Giorgio Santarelli
  70 +%Associate Editor in Chief
  71 +%Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control
  72 +%
  73 +%****************************************************
  74 +%REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
8 75  
9   -Dear Mr. Arthur HUGEAT
  76 +\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
  77 +\usepackage{fullpage,graphicx}
  78 +\begin{document}
  79 +{\bf Reviewer: 1}
10 80  
11   -Congratulations! Your manuscript
  81 +%Comments to the Author
  82 +%In general, the language/grammar is adequate.
12 83  
13   -MANUSCRIPT NO. TUFFC-09469-2019
14   -MANUSCRIPT TYPE: Papers
15   -TITLE: Filter optimization for real time digital processing of radiofrequency
16   -signals: application to oscillator metrology
17   -AUTHOR(S): HUGEAT, Arthur; BERNARD, Julien; Goavec-Mérou, Gwenhaël; Bourgeois,
18   -Pierre-Yves; Friedt, Jean-Michel
19   -
20   -has been reviewed and it has been suggested that it be accepted for publication
21   -after minor revisions. In your revision, you must respond to the reviewer’s
22   -comments at the end of this e-mail or attached.
23   -
24   -Your revised manuscript must be submitted within the next THREE WEEKS. If you
25   -are not able to submit your manuscript in this time frame, you must contact the
26   -Editor in Chief (Peter Lewin, lewinpa@drexel.edu).
27   -
28   -Please resubmit your revised manuscript to the Transactions on Ultrasonics,
29   -Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control Manuscript Central website at
30   -http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tuffc-ieee. From the “Author Center” select
31   -“Manuscripts with Decisions” and under the appropriate manuscript ID select
32   -“create a revision”.
33   -
34   -To expedite the review of your resubmission:
35   -
36   -(1) Include or attach a point by point response to reviewer’s comments and
37   -detail all changes made in your manuscript under “Response to Decision Letter”.
38   -Failure to address reviewers comments can still lead to a rejection of your
39   -manuscript.
40   -(2) Submit a PDF of the revised manuscript using the “Formatted (Double Column)
41   -Main File - PDF Document Only” file type with all changes highlighted in yellow
42   -under “File Upload”.
43   -(3) Original TeX, LaTeX, or Microsoft Word file of the final manuscript as
44   -Supporting Document.
45   -(4) High quality source files of your figures in Word, Tiff, Postscript,
46   -EPS, Excel or Power Point (if figures are not already embedded in your source
47   -file above) as Supporting Document.
48   -(5) Author photos and biographies (papers only) as Supporting Document.
49   -(6) Graphical Abstract to accompany your text abstract on IEEE Xplore (image,
50   -animation, movie, or audio clip) uploaded as Multimedia.
51   -
52   -*Please make sure that all final files have unique file names in order for
53   -them to be processed correctly by IEEE*
54   -Please note that a PDF is NOT sufficient for publication, the PDF is used
55   -for review.
56   -
57   -During the resubmission process if you do not see a confirmation screen and
58   -receive a confirmation e-mail, your revised manuscript was not transmitted
59   -to us and we will not be able to continue to process your manuscript.
60   -
61   -Please refer to the policies regarding the voluntary page charges and
62   -mandatory page charges in the "Guideline for Authors" at
63   -http://ieee-uffc.org/publications/transactions-on-uffc/information-for-authors
64   -Note over-length charge of US$175 per page is applied for published pages in
65   -excess of 8 pages.
66   -
67   -Sincerely,
68   -
69   -Giorgio Santarelli
70   -Associate Editor in Chief
71   -Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control
72   -
73   -****************************************************
74   -REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
75   -Reviewer: 1
76   -
77   -Comments to the Author
78   -In general, the language/grammar is adequate.
79   -
  84 +{\bf
80 85 On page 2, "...allowing to save processing resource..." could be improved.
81 86  
82 87 On page 2, "... or thanks at a radiofrequency-grade..." isn't at all clear what
83 88  
... ... @@ -84,7 +89,9 @@
84 89  
85 90 One page 2, the whole paragraph "The first step of our approach is to model..."
86 91 could be improved.
  92 +}
87 93  
  94 +{\bf
88 95 I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that
89 96 of maximum rejection ratio at fixed silicon area, as well as minimum silicon
90 97 area for a fixed minimum rejection ratio. For non-experts, it might be very
91 98  
92 99  
93 100  
94 101  
95 102  
... ... @@ -92,38 +99,54 @@
92 99 resource-utilization of generic low-pass filter gateware offered by device
93 100 manufacturers. I appreciate also that the authors have presented source code
94 101 for examination online.
  102 +}
95 103  
  104 +TODO : FIR Compiler et regarder les ressources pour un FIR comparable a ceux monolithiques
  105 +fournis dans l'article (memes coefs et meme nombre de coefs)
96 106  
97   -
  107 +{\bf
98 108 Reviewer: 2
  109 +}
99 110  
100   -Comments to the Author
101   -In the Manuscript, the Authors describe an optimization methodology for filter
102   -design to be used in phase noise metrology. The methodology is general and can
103   -be used for many aspects of the processing chain. In the Manuscript, the Authors
104   -focus on filtering and shifting while the other aspects, in particular decimation,
105   -will be considered in a future work. The optimization problem is modelled
106   -theoretically and then solved by means of a commercial software. The solutions
107   -are tested experimentally on the Redpitaya platform with synthetic and real
108   -white noises. Two cases are considered as a function of the number of filters:
109   -maximum rejection given a fixed amount of resources and minimum resource
110   -utilization given a fixed amount of rejection.
111   -The Authors find that filtering improves significantly when the number of
112   -filters increases.
113   -A lot of work has been done in generalizing and automating the procedure so
114   -that different approaches can be investigated quickly and efficiently. The
115   -results presented in the Manuscript seem to be just a case study based on
116   -the particular criterion chosen by the Authors. Different criteria, in
117   -general, could lead to different results and it is important to consider
118   -carefully the criterion adopted by the Authors, in order to check if it
119   -is adequate to compare the performance of filters and if multi-stage
120   -filters are really superior than monolithic filters.
  111 +%Comments to the Author
  112 +%In the Manuscript, the Authors describe an optimization methodology for filter
  113 +%design to be used in phase noise metrology. The methodology is general and can
  114 +%be used for many aspects of the processing chain. In the Manuscript, the Authors
  115 +%focus on filtering and shifting while the other aspects, in particular decimation,
  116 +%will be considered in a future work. The optimization problem is modelled
  117 +%theoretically and then solved by means of a commercial software. The solutions
  118 +%are tested experimentally on the Redpitaya platform with synthetic and real
  119 +%white noises. Two cases are considered as a function of the number of filters:
  120 +%maximum rejection given a fixed amount of resources and minimum resource
  121 +%utilization given a fixed amount of rejection.
  122 +%The Authors find that filtering improves significantly when the number of
  123 +%filters increases.
  124 +%A lot of work has been done in generalizing and automating the procedure so
  125 +%that different approaches can be investigated quickly and efficiently. The
  126 +%results presented in the Manuscript seem to be just a case study based on
  127 +%the particular criterion chosen by the Authors. Different criteria, in
  128 +%general, could lead to different results and it is important to consider
  129 +%carefully the criterion adopted by the Authors, in order to check if it
  130 +%is adequate to compare the performance of filters and if multi-stage
  131 +%filters are really superior than monolithic filters.
  132 +
  133 +{\bf
121 134 By observing the results presented in fig. 10-16, it is clear that the
122 135 performances of multi-stage filters are obtained at the expense of their
123 136 selectivity and, in this sense, the filters presented in these figures
124 137 are not equivalent. For example, in Fig. 14, at the limit of the pass band,
125 138 the attenuation is almost 15 dB for n = 5, while it is not noticeable for
126 139 n = 1.
  140 +}
  141 +
  142 +TODO : ajouter les gabarits
  143 +
  144 +Peut etre refaire une serie de simulation dans lesquelles on impose une coupure
  145 +non pas entre 40 et 60\% mais entre 50 et 60\% pour demontrer que l'outil s'adapte
  146 +au critere qu'on lui impose, et que la coupure moins raide n'est pas intrinseque
  147 +a la cascade de filtres.
  148 +
  149 +{\bf
127 150 The reason is in the criterion that considers the average attenuation in
128 151 the pass band. This criterion does not take into account the maximum attenuation
129 152 in this region, which is a very important parameter for specifying a filter
130 153  
131 154  
... ... @@ -131,13 +154,29 @@
131 154 filter with 0.1 dB of ripple is considered equivalent to a filter with
132 155 10 dB of ripple. This point has a strong impact in the optimization process
133 156 and in the results that are obtained and has to be reconsidered.
  157 +}
  158 +
  159 +Je ne pense pas que ca soit le cas : la somme des valeurs absolues des pertes
  160 +dans la bande va defavoriser un filtre avec 10 dB de ripples. Il n'a pas compris que
  161 +la bandpass s'arrete a 40\% de la bande, donc mettre le gabarit clarifierait ce point je
  162 +pense
  163 +
  164 +{\bf
134 165 I strongly suggest to re-run the analysis with a criterion that takes also
135 166 into account the maximum allowed attenuation in pass band, for example by
136 167 fixing its value to a typical one, as it has been done for the transition
137 168 bandwidth.
  169 +}
  170 +
  171 +{\bf
138 172 In addition, I suggest to address the following points:
139 173 - Page 1, line 50: the Authors state that IIR have shorter impulse response
140 174 than FIR. This is not true in general. The sentence should be reconsidered.
  175 +}
  176 +
  177 +J'aurais du dire ``lag'' au lieu de ``impulse response'' je pense
  178 +
  179 +{\bf
141 180 - Fig. 4: the Author should motivate in the text why it has been chosen
142 181 this transition bandwidth and if it is a typical requirement for phase-noise
143 182 metrology.
... ... @@ -145,6 +184,11 @@
145 184 resolution of the data stream? Is it fixed? If so, which value has been
146 185 used in the analysis? If not, how is it changed with respect to the
147 186 coefficient resolution?
  187 +}
  188 +
  189 +Pr\'eciser que le flux de donn\'ees en entr\'ees est de r\'esolution fixe
  190 +
  191 +{\bf
148 192 - Page 3, line 47: the initial criterion can be omitted and, consequently,
149 193 Fig. 5 can be removed.
150 194 - Page 3, line 55: “maximum rejection” is not compatible with fig. 4.
151 195  
152 196  
153 197  
... ... @@ -159,17 +203,27 @@
159 203 - Captions of figure and tables are too minimal.
160 204 - Figures can be grouped: fig. 10-12 can be grouped as three subplots (a, b, c)
161 205 of a single figure. Same for fig. 13-16.
  206 +}
  207 +
  208 +{\bf
162 209 - Please increase the number of averages for the spectrum. Currently the noise
163 210 of the curves is about 20 dBpk-pk and it doesn’t allow to appreciate the
164 211 differences among the curves. I suggest to reduce the noise below 1 dBpk-pk.
  212 +}
165 213  
166   -In conclusion, my opinion is that the methodology presented in the Manuscript
167   -deserve to be published, provided that the criterion is changed according
168   -the indications mentioned above.
169   -****************************************************
  214 +Comment as tu fait tes spectres Arthur ? Si tu as fait une FFT sur e.g. 2048 points
  215 +mais que tu as des jeux de donnees de e.g. 10000 points, on peut faire des moyennes
  216 +sur les sequences successives. Au pire si pas possible, une moyenne glissante sur
  217 +chaque spectre pour affiner les traits ?
170 218  
171   -For information about the IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
172   -Control Society, please visit the website: http://www.ieee-uffc.org. The
173   -website of the Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
174   -Control is at: http://ieee-uffc.org/publications/transactions-on-uffc
  219 +%In conclusion, my opinion is that the methodology presented in the Manuscript
  220 +%deserve to be published, provided that the criterion is changed according
  221 +%the indications mentioned above.
  222 +\end{document}
  223 +%****************************************************
  224 +%
  225 +%For information about the IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
  226 +%Control Society, please visit the website: http://www.ieee-uffc.org. The
  227 +%website of the Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
  228 +%Control is at: http://ieee-uffc.org/publications/transactions-on-uffc