Correction

Arthur HUGEAT
1 parent efde7e8496
Showing 2 changed files with 10 additions and 15 deletions Side-by-side Diff
ifcs2018_journal.tex
ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex
@@ -345,10 +345,10 @@
 Hence when summing the transfer functions, the resulting rejection shown as the dashed yellow line is improved
 with respect to a basic sum of the rejection criteria shown as a the dotted yellow line.
 % r2.9
-Thus, estimating the rejection of filter cascades is more complex than taking the sum of all the rejection
+Thus, estimating the rejection of filter cascades is more complex than {\color{red}taking} the sum of all the rejection
 criteria of each filter. However since the {\color{red}individual filter rejection} sum underestimates the rejection capability of the cascade,
 % r2.10
-this upper bound is considered as a conservative and acceptable criterion for deciding on the suitability
+this upper bound is considered as a {\color{red}conservative} and acceptable criterion for deciding on the suitability
 of the filter cascade to meet design criteria.
  
 \begin{figure}
@@ -370,7 +370,7 @@
  
 Based on this analysis, we address the estimate of resource consumption (called
 % r2.11
-silicon area -- in the case of FPGAs this means processing cells) as a function of
+silicon area -- in the case of FPGAs {\color{red}this means} processing cells) as a function of
 filter characteristics. As a reminder, we do not aim at matching actual hardware
 configuration but consider an arbitrary silicon area occupied by each processing function,
 and will assess after synthesis the adequation of this arbitrary unit with actual
@@ -325,11 +325,6 @@
 {\bf
 - Page 3, line 55: ``maximum rejection'' is not compatible with fig. 4.             % r2.8  - fait
 It should be ``minimum''
-}
-
-This typo has been corrected.
-
-{\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'' $\rightarrow$ ``this means''                       % r2.11 - fait
  
@@ -341,14 +336,14 @@
 - 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
+% 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
-set of coefficients generated (for memory, we use \texttt{firls} and \texttt{fir1}
-functions from GNU Octave)''
+``This variable $p$ is defined by the user, and represents the number of different
+set of coefficients generated (remember, we use \texttt{firls} and \texttt{fir1}
+functions from GNU Octave) based on the targeted filter characteristics and implementation
+assumptions (estimated number of bits defining the coefficients)''
  
 {\bf
 - Page 4, line 31: how does the delta function transform model from non-linear    % r2.13
@@ -398,7 +393,7 @@
 {\bf
 - Captions of figure and tables are too minimal.                                  % r2.14
 }
-We have change the captions of fig 10-16.
+We have change the captions of tables and figures.
  
 {\bf
 - Figures can be grouped: fig. 10-12 can be grouped as three subplots (a, b, c)   % r2.15 - fait
...	...	@@ -345,10 +345,10 @@
345	345	Hence when summing the transfer functions, the resulting rejection shown as the dashed yellow line is improved
346	346	with respect to a basic sum of the rejection criteria shown as a the dotted yellow line.
347	347	% r2.9
348		-Thus, estimating the rejection of filter cascades is more complex than taking the sum of all the rejection
	348	+Thus, estimating the rejection of filter cascades is more complex than {\color{red}taking} the sum of all the rejection
349	349	criteria of each filter. However since the {\color{red}individual filter rejection} sum underestimates the rejection capability of the cascade,
350	350	% r2.10
351		-this upper bound is considered as a conservative and acceptable criterion for deciding on the suitability
	351	+this upper bound is considered as a {\color{red}conservative} and acceptable criterion for deciding on the suitability
352	352	of the filter cascade to meet design criteria.
353	353
354	354	\begin{figure}
...	...	@@ -370,7 +370,7 @@
370	370
371	371	Based on this analysis, we address the estimate of resource consumption (called
372	372	% r2.11
373		-silicon area -- in the case of FPGAs this means processing cells) as a function of
	373	+silicon area -- in the case of FPGAs {\color{red}this means} processing cells) as a function of
374	374	filter characteristics. As a reminder, we do not aim at matching actual hardware
375	375	configuration but consider an arbitrary silicon area occupied by each processing function,
376	376	and will assess after synthesis the adequation of this arbitrary unit with actual
...	...	@@ -325,11 +325,6 @@
325	325	{\bf
326	326	- Page 3, line 55: ``maximum rejection'' is not compatible with fig. 4. % r2.8 - fait
327	327	It should be ``minimum''
328		-}
329		-
330		-This typo has been corrected.
331		-
332		-{\bf
333	328	- Page e, line 55, second column: ``takin'' % r2.9 - fait
334	329	- Page 3, line 58: ``pessimistic'' should be replaced with ``conservative'' % r2.10 - fait
335	330	- Page 4, line 17: ``meaning'' $\rightarrow$ ``this means'' % r2.11 - fait
336	331
...	...	@@ -341,14 +336,14 @@
341	336	- Page 4, line 10: how $p$ is chosen? Which is the criterion used to choose % r2.12 - fait
342	337	these particular configurations? Are they chosen automatically?
343	338	}
344		-C'est le nombre de coefficients et un taille raisonnable
345		-Troncature de la pyramide
	339	+% C'est le nombre de coefficients et un taille raisonnable
	340	+% Troncature de la pyramide
346	341
347	342	See below: we have added a better description of $p$ during the transformation explanation.
348		-``we introduce $p$ FIR configurations.
349		-This variable must be defined by the user, it represent the number of different
350		-set of coefficients generated (for memory, we use \texttt{firls} and \texttt{fir1}
351		-functions from GNU Octave)''
	343	+``This variable $p$ is defined by the user, and represents the number of different
	344	+set of coefficients generated (remember, we use \texttt{firls} and \texttt{fir1}
	345	+functions from GNU Octave) based on the targeted filter characteristics and implementation
	346	+assumptions (estimated number of bits defining the coefficients)''
352	347
353	348	{\bf
354	349	- Page 4, line 31: how does the delta function transform model from non-linear % r2.13
...	...	@@ -398,7 +393,7 @@
398	393	{\bf
399	394	- Captions of figure and tables are too minimal. % r2.14
400	395	}
401		-We have change the captions of fig 10-16.
	396	+We have change the captions of tables and figures.
402	397
403	398	{\bf
404	399	- Figures can be grouped: fig. 10-12 can be grouped as three subplots (a, b, c) % r2.15 - fait