Ajout de corrections.

Arthur HUGEAT
1 parent 7c78647f19
Showing 2 changed files with 71 additions and 22 deletions Side-by-side Diff
ifcs2018_journal.tex
ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex
@@ -1046,11 +1046,24 @@
 compared to 3~days in the previous section: this problem is more easily solved than the
 previous one.
  
+{\color{red} % r1.4
+To conclude we have compared our monolithic filters with the FIR Compiler form
+Xilinx. For each experimentation we use the same coefficient set and we compare the
+resources consumption. The table~\ref{tbl:xilinx_resources} exhibits the results.
+The FIR Compiler never use BRAM while our filter use one block. This difference
+can be explain be our wish to have a reconfigurable FIR filter. In our case, we can
+configure the coefficients set without to have to change the FPGA design. With
+the FIR compiler, the coefficients set are given during the FPGA design conception
+so we have to change the coefficients, we need to regenerate the design. The
+difference with the LUT consumption is also related to the reconfigurability
+logic. However the DSP consumption, the most restricted resource, are the same between the FIR compiler end
+our FIR block. Our solutions are as good as the Xilinx implementation.
+
 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
 \begin{table}
 \centering
 \caption{Resource consumption compared between the FIR Compiler from Xilinx and our FIR block}
-\label{tbl:area_time_comp}
+\label{tbl:xilinx_resources}
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
 \hline
 \multirow{2}{*}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Xilinx} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Our FIR block} \\ \cline{2-7}
@@ -1064,6 +1077,7 @@
 \end{tabular}
 \end{table}
 \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
+}
  
 \section{Conclusion}
  
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@
 ''
  
 {\bf
-I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that      % r1.4 - en attente des résultats
+I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that      % r1.4 - fait
 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
@@ -119,8 +119,10 @@
 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)
+To compare the performance of our FIR filters and the performance of device
+manufacturers generic filter, we have added a paragraph and a table at the
+end of experiments section. We compare the resources consumption with the same
+FIR coefficients set.
  
 {\bf
 Reviewer: 2
  
  
@@ -160,17 +162,40 @@
 We have added on Figs 10--16 (now Fig 9(a)--(c)) the templates used to defined
 the bandpass and the bandstop of the filter.
  
-%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
+We are aware of this non equivalence but we think that difference is not due to
+the cascaded filters but due to the definition of rejection criterion on the passband.
+Indeed, in this article we have choose to take the summation of absolute values divide
+by the bandwidth but this criterion is maybe too permissive and when we cascade
+some filters this impact is more important.
  
-JMF : il n'a pas tord, la coupure est bcp moins franche a 5 filtres qu'a 1. Ca se voyait
-moins avant de moyenner les fonctions de transfert, mais il y a bien une 15aine de dB
-quand on cascade 5 filtres !
+However if we change the passband
+criterion by the summation of absolute value in passband, weighting given to the
+passband ripples are too strong and the solver are too restricted to provide
+any interesting solution but the ripples in passband will be minimal. And if we take the maximum absolute value in
+passband, the rejection evaluation are too close form the original criterion and
+the result will not be improved.
  
+In this article, we will highlight the methodology instead of the filter conception.
+Even if our rejection criterion is not the best, our methodology was not impacted
+by this. So to improve the results, we can choose another criterion to be more
+selective in passband but it is not the main objective of our article.
+
+% %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
+%
+% densité spectrale de la bande passante
+% sum des valeurs absolues / largeur de la bande passante (1/N) vs max dans la bande de coupure
+%
+% JMF : il n'a pas tord, la coupure est bcp moins franche a 5 filtres qu'a 1. Ca se voyait
+% moins avant de moyenner les fonctions de transfert, mais il y a bien une 15aine de dB
+% quand on cascade 5 filtres !
+%
+% Dire que la chute n'est pas du à la casacade mais à notre critère de rejection
+
 {\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
  
@@ -181,15 +206,18 @@
 and in the results that are obtained and has to be reconsidered.
 }
  
-The manuscript erroneously stated that we considered the mean of the absolute
-value within the bandpass: the manuscript has now been corrected to properly state
-the selected criterion, namely the {\em sum} of the absolute value, so that any
-ripple in the bandpass will reduce the chances of a given filter set from being
-selected. The manuscript now states ``Our criterion to compute the filter rejection considers
-% r2.8 et r2.2 r2.3
-the maximum magnitude within the stopband, to which the {sum of the absolute values
-within the passband is subtracted to avoid filters with excessive ripples}.''
+See above: If we choose the maximum absolute value in passband, we penalize the
+case with 10 dB of ripple.
  
+% The manuscript erroneously stated that we considered the mean of the absolute
+% value within the bandpass: the manuscript has now been corrected to properly state
+% the selected criterion, namely the {\em sum} of the absolute value, so that any
+% ripple in the bandpass will reduce the chances of a given filter set from being
+% selected. The manuscript now states ``Our criterion to compute the filter rejection considers
+% % r2.8 et r2.2 r2.3
+% the maximum magnitude within the stopband, to which the {sum of the absolute values
+% within the passband is subtracted to avoid filters with excessive ripples}.''
+
 {\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
@@ -200,6 +228,8 @@
 See above: the absolute value within the passband will reject filters with
 excessive ripples, including excessive attenuation, within the passband.
  
+% TODO: test max(stopband) - max(abs(passband))
+
 {\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
@@ -255,6 +285,8 @@
 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.
  
+Juste mettre une phrase pour dire que la mean ne donnait pas de bons résultats
+
 {\bf
 - Page e, line 55, second column: ``takin''                                       % r2.9  - fait
 - Page 3, line 58: ``pessimistic'' should be replaced with ``conservative''       % r2.10 - fait
@@ -267,6 +299,9 @@
 - 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?
 }
+C'est le nombre de coefficients et un taille raisonnable
+Troncature de la pyramide
+
 See below: we have added a better description of $p$ during the transformation explanation.
 ``we introduce $p$ FIR configurations.
 This variable must be defined by the user, it represent the number of different
...	...	@@ -1046,11 +1046,24 @@
1046	1046	compared to 3~days in the previous section: this problem is more easily solved than the
1047	1047	previous one.
1048	1048
	1049	+{\color{red} % r1.4
	1050	+To conclude we have compared our monolithic filters with the FIR Compiler form
	1051	+Xilinx. For each experimentation we use the same coefficient set and we compare the
	1052	+resources consumption. The table~\ref{tbl:xilinx_resources} exhibits the results.
	1053	+The FIR Compiler never use BRAM while our filter use one block. This difference
	1054	+can be explain be our wish to have a reconfigurable FIR filter. In our case, we can
	1055	+configure the coefficients set without to have to change the FPGA design. With
	1056	+the FIR compiler, the coefficients set are given during the FPGA design conception
	1057	+so we have to change the coefficients, we need to regenerate the design. The
	1058	+difference with the LUT consumption is also related to the reconfigurability
	1059	+logic. However the DSP consumption, the most restricted resource, are the same between the FIR compiler end
	1060	+our FIR block. Our solutions are as good as the Xilinx implementation.
	1061	+
1049	1062	\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
1050	1063	\begin{table}
1051	1064	\centering
1052	1065	\caption{Resource consumption compared between the FIR Compiler from Xilinx and our FIR block}
1053		-\label{tbl:area_time_comp}
	1066	+\label{tbl:xilinx_resources}
1054	1067	\begin{tabular}{\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|c\|}
1055	1068	\hline
1056	1069	\multirow{2}{*}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c\|}{Xilinx} & \multicolumn{3}{c\|}{Our FIR block} \\ \cline{2-7}
...	...	@@ -1064,6 +1077,7 @@
1064	1077	\end{tabular}
1065	1078	\end{table}
1066	1079	\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
	1080	+}
1067	1081
1068	1082	\section{Conclusion}
1069	1083
...	...	@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@
110	110	''
111	111
112	112	{\bf
113		-I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that % r1.4 - en attente des résultats
	113	+I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that % r1.4 - fait
114	114	of maximum rejection ratio at fixed silicon area, as well as minimum silicon
115	115	area for a fixed minimum rejection ratio. For non-experts, it might be very
116	116	useful to compare the results of both optimization paths to the performance and
...	...	@@ -119,8 +119,10 @@
119	119	for examination online.
120	120	}
121	121
122		-TODO : FIR Compiler et regarder les ressources pour un FIR comparable a ceux monolithiques
123		-fournis dans l'article (memes coefs et meme nombre de coefs)
	122	+To compare the performance of our FIR filters and the performance of device
	123	+manufacturers generic filter, we have added a paragraph and a table at the
	124	+end of experiments section. We compare the resources consumption with the same
	125	+FIR coefficients set.
124	126
125	127	{\bf
126	128	Reviewer: 2
127	129
128	130
...	...	@@ -160,17 +162,40 @@
160	162	We have added on Figs 10--16 (now Fig 9(a)--(c)) the templates used to defined
161	163	the bandpass and the bandstop of the filter.
162	164
163		-%Peut etre refaire une serie de simulation dans lesquelles on impose une coupure
164		-%non pas entre 40 et 60\% mais entre 50 et 60\% pour demontrer que l'outil s'adapte
165		-%au critere qu'on lui impose, et que la coupure moins raide n'est pas intrinseque
166		-%a la cascade de filtres.
167		-%AH: Je finis les corrections, je poste l'article revu et pendant ce temps j'essaie de
168		-%relancer des expérimentations. Si j'arrive à les finir à temps, je les intégrerai
	165	+We are aware of this non equivalence but we think that difference is not due to
	166	+the cascaded filters but due to the definition of rejection criterion on the passband.
	167	+Indeed, in this article we have choose to take the summation of absolute values divide
	168	+by the bandwidth but this criterion is maybe too permissive and when we cascade
	169	+some filters this impact is more important.
169	170
170		-JMF : il n'a pas tord, la coupure est bcp moins franche a 5 filtres qu'a 1. Ca se voyait
171		-moins avant de moyenner les fonctions de transfert, mais il y a bien une 15aine de dB
172		-quand on cascade 5 filtres !
	171	+However if we change the passband
	172	+criterion by the summation of absolute value in passband, weighting given to the
	173	+passband ripples are too strong and the solver are too restricted to provide
	174	+any interesting solution but the ripples in passband will be minimal. And if we take the maximum absolute value in
	175	+passband, the rejection evaluation are too close form the original criterion and
	176	+the result will not be improved.
173	177
	178	+In this article, we will highlight the methodology instead of the filter conception.
	179	+Even if our rejection criterion is not the best, our methodology was not impacted
	180	+by this. So to improve the results, we can choose another criterion to be more
	181	+selective in passband but it is not the main objective of our article.
	182	+
	183	+% %Peut etre refaire une serie de simulation dans lesquelles on impose une coupure
	184	+% %non pas entre 40 et 60\% mais entre 50 et 60\% pour demontrer que l'outil s'adapte
	185	+% %au critere qu'on lui impose, et que la coupure moins raide n'est pas intrinseque
	186	+% %a la cascade de filtres.
	187	+% %AH: Je finis les corrections, je poste l'article revu et pendant ce temps j'essaie de
	188	+% %relancer des expérimentations. Si j'arrive à les finir à temps, je les intégrerai
	189	+%
	190	+% densité spectrale de la bande passante
	191	+% sum des valeurs absolues / largeur de la bande passante (1/N) vs max dans la bande de coupure
	192	+%
	193	+% JMF : il n'a pas tord, la coupure est bcp moins franche a 5 filtres qu'a 1. Ca se voyait
	194	+% moins avant de moyenner les fonctions de transfert, mais il y a bien une 15aine de dB
	195	+% quand on cascade 5 filtres !
	196	+%
	197	+% Dire que la chute n'est pas du à la casacade mais à notre critère de rejection
	198	+
174	199	{\bf
175	200	The reason is in the criterion that considers the average attenuation in % r2.2 - fait
176	201	the pass band. This criterion does not take into account the maximum attenuation
177	202
...	...	@@ -181,15 +206,18 @@
181	206	and in the results that are obtained and has to be reconsidered.
182	207	}
183	208
184		-The manuscript erroneously stated that we considered the mean of the absolute
185		-value within the bandpass: the manuscript has now been corrected to properly state
186		-the selected criterion, namely the {\em sum} of the absolute value, so that any
187		-ripple in the bandpass will reduce the chances of a given filter set from being
188		-selected. The manuscript now states ``Our criterion to compute the filter rejection considers
189		-% r2.8 et r2.2 r2.3
190		-the maximum magnitude within the stopband, to which the {sum of the absolute values
191		-within the passband is subtracted to avoid filters with excessive ripples}.''
	209	+See above: If we choose the maximum absolute value in passband, we penalize the
	210	+case with 10 dB of ripple.
192	211
	212	+% The manuscript erroneously stated that we considered the mean of the absolute
	213	+% value within the bandpass: the manuscript has now been corrected to properly state
	214	+% the selected criterion, namely the {\em sum} of the absolute value, so that any
	215	+% ripple in the bandpass will reduce the chances of a given filter set from being
	216	+% selected. The manuscript now states ``Our criterion to compute the filter rejection considers
	217	+% % r2.8 et r2.2 r2.3
	218	+% the maximum magnitude within the stopband, to which the {sum of the absolute values
	219	+% within the passband is subtracted to avoid filters with excessive ripples}.''
	220	+
193	221	{\bf
194	222	I strongly suggest to re-run the analysis with a criterion that takes also % r2.3 -fait
195	223	into account the maximum allowed attenuation in pass band, for example by
...	...	@@ -200,6 +228,8 @@
200	228	See above: the absolute value within the passband will reject filters with
201	229	excessive ripples, including excessive attenuation, within the passband.
202	230
	231	+% TODO: test max(stopband) - max(abs(passband))
	232	+
203	233	{\bf
204	234	In addition, I suggest to address the following points: % r2.4
205	235	- Page 1, line 50: the Authors state that IIR have shorter impulse response
...	...	@@ -255,6 +285,8 @@
255	285	AH: Je ne suis pas d'accord, le critère n'est pas le min de la rejection mais le max
256	286	de la magnitude. J'ai corrigé en ce sens.
257	287
	288	+Juste mettre une phrase pour dire que la mean ne donnait pas de bons résultats
	289	+
258	290	{\bf
259	291	- Page e, line 55, second column: ``takin'' % r2.9 - fait
260	292	- Page 3, line 58: ``pessimistic'' should be replaced with ``conservative'' % r2.10 - fait
...	...	@@ -267,6 +299,9 @@
267	299	- Page 4, line 10: how $p$ is chosen? Which is the criterion used to choose % r2.12 - fait
268	300	these particular configurations? Are they chosen automatically?
269	301	}
	302	+C'est le nombre de coefficients et un taille raisonnable
	303	+Troncature de la pyramide
	304	+
270	305	See below: we have added a better description of $p$ during the transformation explanation.
271	306	``we introduce $p$ FIR configurations.
272	307	This variable must be defined by the user, it represent the number of different