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 Inline Diff

ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex
Diff comments   View file @ 1b9d175
Minor Revision - TUFFC-09469-2019 1 1 %Minor Revision - TUFFC-09469-2019
Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency 2 2 %Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
Control (July 23, 2019 9:29 PM) 3 3 %Control (July 23, 2019 9:29 PM)
To: arthur.hugeat@femto-st.fr, julien.bernard@femto-st.fr, 4 4 %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, 5 5 %gwenhael.goavec@femto-st.fr, pyb2@femto-st.fr, pierre-yves.bourgeois@femto-st.fr,
jmfriedt@femto-st.fr 6 6 %jmfriedt@femto-st.fr
CC: giorgio.santarelli@institutoptique.fr, lewin@ece.drexel.edu 7 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
Dear Mr. Arthur HUGEAT 9 76 \documentclass[a4paper]{article}
77 \usepackage{fullpage,graphicx}
78 \begin{document}
79 {\bf Reviewer: 1}
10 80
Congratulations! Your manuscript 11 81 %Comments to the Author
82 %In general, the language/grammar is adequate.
12 83
MANUSCRIPT NO. TUFFC-09469-2019 13 84 {\bf
MANUSCRIPT TYPE: Papers 14
TITLE: Filter optimization for real time digital processing of radiofrequency 15
signals: application to oscillator metrology 16
AUTHOR(S): HUGEAT, Arthur; BERNARD, Julien; Goavec-Mérou, Gwenhaël; Bourgeois, 17
Pierre-Yves; Friedt, Jean-Michel 18
19
has been reviewed and it has been suggested that it be accepted for publication 20
after minor revisions. In your revision, you must respond to the reviewer’s 21
comments at the end of this e-mail or attached. 22
23
Your revised manuscript must be submitted within the next THREE WEEKS. If you 24
are not able to submit your manuscript in this time frame, you must contact the 25
Editor in Chief (Peter Lewin, lewinpa@drexel.edu). 26
27
Please resubmit your revised manuscript to the Transactions on Ultrasonics, 28
Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control Manuscript Central website at 29
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tuffc-ieee. From the “Author Center” select 30
“Manuscripts with Decisions” and under the appropriate manuscript ID select 31
“create a revision”. 32
33
To expedite the review of your resubmission: 34
35
(1) Include or attach a point by point response to reviewer’s comments and 36
detail all changes made in your manuscript under “Response to Decision Letter”. 37
Failure to address reviewers comments can still lead to a rejection of your 38
manuscript. 39
(2) Submit a PDF of the revised manuscript using the “Formatted (Double Column) 40
Main File - PDF Document Only” file type with all changes highlighted in yellow 41
under “File Upload”. 42
(3) Original TeX, LaTeX, or Microsoft Word file of the final manuscript as 43
Supporting Document. 44
(4) High quality source files of your figures in Word, Tiff, Postscript, 45
EPS, Excel or Power Point (if figures are not already embedded in your source 46
file above) as Supporting Document. 47
(5) Author photos and biographies (papers only) as Supporting Document. 48
(6) Graphical Abstract to accompany your text abstract on IEEE Xplore (image, 49
animation, movie, or audio clip) uploaded as Multimedia. 50
51
*Please make sure that all final files have unique file names in order for 52
them to be processed correctly by IEEE* 53
Please note that a PDF is NOT sufficient for publication, the PDF is used 54
for review. 55
56
During the resubmission process if you do not see a confirmation screen and 57
receive a confirmation e-mail, your revised manuscript was not transmitted 58
to us and we will not be able to continue to process your manuscript. 59
60
Please refer to the policies regarding the voluntary page charges and 61
mandatory page charges in the "Guideline for Authors" at 62
http://ieee-uffc.org/publications/transactions-on-uffc/information-for-authors 63
Note over-length charge of US$175 per page is applied for published pages in 64
excess of 8 pages. 65
66
Sincerely, 67
68
Giorgio Santarelli 69
Associate Editor in Chief 70
Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control 71
72
**************************************************** 73
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS: 74
Reviewer: 1 75
76
Comments to the Author 77
In general, the language/grammar is adequate. 78
79
On page 2, "...allowing to save processing resource..." could be improved. 80 85 On page 2, "...allowing to save processing resource..." could be improved.
81 86
On page 2, "... or thanks at a radiofrequency-grade..." isn't at all clear what 82 87 On page 2, "... or thanks at a radiofrequency-grade..." isn't at all clear what
the author meant. 83 88 the author meant.
84 89
One page 2, the whole paragraph "The first step of our approach is to model..." 85 90 One page 2, the whole paragraph "The first step of our approach is to model..."
could be improved. 86 91 could be improved.
92 }
87 93
94 {\bf
I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that 88 95 I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that
of maximum rejection ratio at fixed silicon area, as well as minimum silicon 89 96 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 90 97 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 91 98 useful to compare the results of both optimization paths to the performance and
resource-utilization of generic low-pass filter gateware offered by device 92 99 resource-utilization of generic low-pass filter gateware offered by device
manufacturers. I appreciate also that the authors have presented source code 93 100 manufacturers. I appreciate also that the authors have presented source code
for examination online. 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
Reviewer: 2 98 108 Reviewer: 2
109 }
99 110
Comments to the Author 100 111 %Comments to the Author
In the Manuscript, the Authors describe an optimization methodology for filter 101 112 %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 102 113 %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 103 114 %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, 104 115 %focus on filtering and shifting while the other aspects, in particular decimation,
will be considered in a future work. The optimization problem is modelled 105 116 %will be considered in a future work. The optimization problem is modelled
theoretically and then solved by means of a commercial software. The solutions 106 117 %theoretically and then solved by means of a commercial software. The solutions
are tested experimentally on the Redpitaya platform with synthetic and real 107 118 %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: 108 119 %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 109 120 %maximum rejection given a fixed amount of resources and minimum resource
utilization given a fixed amount of rejection. 110 121 %utilization given a fixed amount of rejection.
The Authors find that filtering improves significantly when the number of 111 122 %The Authors find that filtering improves significantly when the number of
filters increases. 112 123 %filters increases.
A lot of work has been done in generalizing and automating the procedure so 113 124 %A lot of work has been done in generalizing and automating the procedure so
that different approaches can be investigated quickly and efficiently. The 114 125 %that different approaches can be investigated quickly and efficiently. The
results presented in the Manuscript seem to be just a case study based on 115 126 %results presented in the Manuscript seem to be just a case study based on
the particular criterion chosen by the Authors. Different criteria, in 116 127 %the particular criterion chosen by the Authors. Different criteria, in
general, could lead to different results and it is important to consider 117 128 %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 118 129 %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 119 130 %is adequate to compare the performance of filters and if multi-stage
filters are really superior than monolithic filters. 120 131 %filters are really superior than monolithic filters.
132
133 {\bf
By observing the results presented in fig. 10-16, it is clear that the 121 134 By observing the results presented in fig. 10-16, it is clear that the
performances of multi-stage filters are obtained at the expense of their 122 135 performances of multi-stage filters are obtained at the expense of their
selectivity and, in this sense, the filters presented in these figures 123 136 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, 124 137 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 125 138 the attenuation is almost 15 dB for n = 5, while it is not noticeable for
n = 1. 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
The reason is in the criterion that considers the average attenuation in 127 150 The reason is in the criterion that considers the average attenuation in
the pass band. This criterion does not take into account the maximum attenuation 128 151 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 129 152 in this region, which is a very important parameter for specifying a filter
and for evaluating its performance. For example, with this criterion, a 130 153 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 131 154 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 132 155 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. 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
I strongly suggest to re-run the analysis with a criterion that takes also 134 165 I strongly suggest to re-run the analysis with a criterion that takes also
into account the maximum allowed attenuation in pass band, for example by 135 166 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 136 167 fixing its value to a typical one, as it has been done for the transition
bandwidth. 137 168 bandwidth.
169 }
170
171 {\bf
In addition, I suggest to address the following points: 138 172 In addition, I suggest to address the following points:
- Page 1, line 50: the Authors state that IIR have shorter impulse response 139 173 - 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. 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
- Fig. 4: the Author should motivate in the text why it has been chosen 141 180 - Fig. 4: the Author should motivate in the text why it has been chosen
this transition bandwidth and if it is a typical requirement for phase-noise 142 181 this transition bandwidth and if it is a typical requirement for phase-noise
metrology. 143 182 metrology.
- The impact of the coefficient resolution is discussed. What about the 144 183 - The impact of the coefficient resolution is discussed. What about the
resolution of the data stream? Is it fixed? If so, which value has been 145 184 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 146 185 used in the analysis? If not, how is it changed with respect to the
coefficient resolution? 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
- Page 3, line 47: the initial criterion can be omitted and, consequently, 148 192 - Page 3, line 47: the initial criterion can be omitted and, consequently,
Fig. 5 can be removed. 149 193 Fig. 5 can be removed.
- Page 3, line 55: “maximum rejection” is not compatible with fig. 4. 150 194 - Page 3, line 55: “maximum rejection” is not compatible with fig. 4.
It should be “minimum” 151 195 It should be “minimum”
- Page e, line 55, second column: “takin” 152 196 - Page e, line 55, second column: “takin”
- Page 3, line 58: “pessimistic” should be replaced with “conservative” 153 197 - Page 3, line 58: “pessimistic” should be replaced with “conservative”
- Page 4, line 17: “meaning” --> “this means” 154 198 - Page 4, line 17: “meaning” --> “this means”
- Page 4, line 10: how $p$ is chosen? Which is the criterion used to choose 155 199 - Page 4, line 10: how $p$ is chosen? Which is the criterion used to choose
these particular configurations? Are they chosen automatically? 156 200 these particular configurations? Are they chosen automatically?
- Page 4, line 31: how does the delta function transform model from non-linear 157 201 - Page 4, line 31: how does the delta function transform model from non-linear
and non-quadratic to a quadratic? 158 202 and non-quadratic to a quadratic?
- Captions of figure and tables are too minimal. 159 203 - Captions of figure and tables are too minimal.
- Figures can be grouped: fig. 10-12 can be grouped as three subplots (a, b, c) 160 204 - Figures can be grouped: fig. 10-12 can be grouped as three subplots (a, b, c)
of a single figure. Same for fig. 13-16. 161 205 of a single figure. Same for fig. 13-16.
206 }
207
208 {\bf
- Please increase the number of averages for the spectrum. Currently the noise 162 209 - Please increase the number of averages for the spectrum. Currently the noise
of the curves is about 20 dBpk-pk and it doesn’t allow to appreciate the 163 210 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. 164 211 differences among the curves. I suggest to reduce the noise below 1 dBpk-pk.
212 }
165 213
In conclusion, my opinion is that the methodology presented in the Manuscript 166 214 Comment as tu fait tes spectres Arthur ? Si tu as fait une FFT sur e.g. 2048 points
deserve to be published, provided that the criterion is changed according 167 215 mais que tu as des jeux de donnees de e.g. 10000 points, on peut faire des moyennes
the indications mentioned above. 168 216 sur les sequences successives. Au pire si pas possible, une moyenne glissante sur
**************************************************** 169 217 chaque spectre pour affiner les traits ?
170 218
For information about the IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency 171 219 %In conclusion, my opinion is that the methodology presented in the Manuscript
Control Society, please visit the website: http://www.ieee-uffc.org. The 172 220 %deserve to be published, provided that the criterion is changed according
website of the Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency 173 221 %the indications mentioned above.
Control is at: http://ieee-uffc.org/publications/transactions-on-uffc 174 222 \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
175 229
230