re-relecture JMF

jfriedt
1 parent 90c55845a1
Showing 2 changed files with 49 additions and 20 deletions Side-by-side Diff
ifcs2018_journal.tex
ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex
@@ -249,7 +249,8 @@
 we arbitrarily set a bandpass of 40\% of the Nyquist frequency and a bandstop from 60\%
 of the Nyquist frequency to the end of the band, as would be typically selected to prevent
 aliasing before decimating the dataflow by 2. The method is however generalized to any filter
-shape as long as it is defined from the initial modelling steps.}
+shape as long as it is defined from the initial modelling steps: Fig. \ref{fig:rejection_pyramid}
+as described below is indeed unique for each filter shape.}
  
 \begin{figure}
 \begin{center}
  
  
@@ -289,14 +290,16 @@
 \label{fig:fir_mag}
 \end{figure}
  
-In the transition band, the behavior of the filter is left free, we only care about the passband and the stopband characteristics.
+In the transition band, the behavior of the filter is left free, we only {\color{red}define} the passband and the stopband characteristics.
 % r2.7
 % Our initial criterion considered the mean value of the stopband rejection, as shown in figure~\ref{fig:mean_criterion}. This criterion
 % yields unacceptable results since notches overestimate the rejection capability of the filter. Furthermore, the losses within
 % the passband are not considered and might be excessive for excessively wide transitions widths introduced for filters with few coefficients.
-Our criterion to compute the filter rejection takes
+Our criterion to compute the filter rejection considers
 % r2.8 et r2.2 r2.3
-the maximum magnitude within the stopband minus the sum of the absolute value of passband rejection. With this criterion, we meet the expected rejection capability of low pass filters as shown in figure~\ref{fig:custom_criterion}.
+the maximum magnitude within the stopband, to which the {\color{red}sum of the absolute values
+within the passband rejection is subtracted to avoid filters with excessive ripples}. With this 
+criterion, we meet the expected rejection capability of low pass filters as shown in figure~\ref{fig:custom_criterion}.
  
 % \begin{figure}
 % \centering
@@ -157,15 +157,20 @@
 n = 1.
 }
  
-TODO : ajouter les gabarits
+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
+%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
  
+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 !
+
 {\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
@@ -176,11 +181,14 @@
 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 ?
+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
  
@@ -188,8 +196,10 @@
 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 ?
  
+See above: the absolute value within the passband will reject filters with 
+excessive ripples, including excessive attenuation, within the 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
  
@@ -247,11 +257,21 @@
 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 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
+}
+
+All typos and grammatical errors have been corrected.
+
+{\bf
 - 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?
+}
+
+JMF : repondre
+
+{\bf
 - Page 4, line 31: how does the delta function transform model from non-linear    % r2.13 - fait
 and non-quadratic to a quadratic?}
  
@@ -273,6 +293,12 @@
 Indeed averaging had been omitted during post-processing and figure generation: we 
 are grateful to the reviewer for emphasizing this point which has now been corrected. All spectra
 now exhibit sub-dBpk-pl line thickness.
+
+We believe these updates to the manuscript have improved the presentation and made clearer
+some of the shortcomings of the initial draft: we are greatful to the reviewers for pointing
+out these issues.
+
+Best wishes, A. Hugeat
  
 %In conclusion, my opinion is that the methodology presented in the Manuscript
 %deserve to be published, provided that the criterion is changed according
...	...	@@ -249,7 +249,8 @@
249	249	we arbitrarily set a bandpass of 40\% of the Nyquist frequency and a bandstop from 60\%
250	250	of the Nyquist frequency to the end of the band, as would be typically selected to prevent
251	251	aliasing before decimating the dataflow by 2. The method is however generalized to any filter
252		-shape as long as it is defined from the initial modelling steps.}
	252	+shape as long as it is defined from the initial modelling steps: Fig. \ref{fig:rejection_pyramid}
	253	+as described below is indeed unique for each filter shape.}
253	254
254	255	\begin{figure}
255	256	\begin{center}
256	257
257	258
...	...	@@ -289,14 +290,16 @@
289	290	\label{fig:fir_mag}
290	291	\end{figure}
291	292
292		-In the transition band, the behavior of the filter is left free, we only care about the passband and the stopband characteristics.
	293	+In the transition band, the behavior of the filter is left free, we only {\color{red}define} the passband and the stopband characteristics.
293	294	% r2.7
294	295	% Our initial criterion considered the mean value of the stopband rejection, as shown in figure~\ref{fig:mean_criterion}. This criterion
295	296	% yields unacceptable results since notches overestimate the rejection capability of the filter. Furthermore, the losses within
296	297	% the passband are not considered and might be excessive for excessively wide transitions widths introduced for filters with few coefficients.
297		-Our criterion to compute the filter rejection takes
	298	+Our criterion to compute the filter rejection considers
298	299	% r2.8 et r2.2 r2.3
299		-the maximum magnitude within the stopband minus the sum of the absolute value of passband rejection. With this criterion, we meet the expected rejection capability of low pass filters as shown in figure~\ref{fig:custom_criterion}.
	300	+the maximum magnitude within the stopband, to which the {\color{red}sum of the absolute values
	301	+within the passband rejection is subtracted to avoid filters with excessive ripples}. With this
	302	+criterion, we meet the expected rejection capability of low pass filters as shown in figure~\ref{fig:custom_criterion}.
300	303
301	304	% \begin{figure}
302	305	% \centering
...	...	@@ -157,15 +157,20 @@
157	157	n = 1.
158	158	}
159	159
160		-TODO : ajouter les gabarits
	160	+We have added on Figs 10--16 (now Fig 9(a)--(c)) the templates used to defined
	161	+the bandpass and the bandstop of the filter.
161	162
162		-Peut etre refaire une serie de simulation dans lesquelles on impose une coupure
163		-non pas entre 40 et 60\% mais entre 50 et 60\% pour demontrer que l'outil s'adapte
164		-au critere qu'on lui impose, et que la coupure moins raide n'est pas intrinseque
165		-a la cascade de filtres.
166		-AH: Je finis les corrections, je poste l'article revu et pendant ce temps j'essaie de
167		-relancer des expérimentations. Si j'arrive à les finir à temps, je les intégrerai
	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
168	169
	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 !
	173	+
169	174	{\bf
170	175	The reason is in the criterion that considers the average attenuation in % r2.2 - fait
171	176	the pass band. This criterion does not take into account the maximum attenuation
...	...	@@ -176,11 +181,14 @@
176	181	and in the results that are obtained and has to be reconsidered.
177	182	}
178	183
179		-Je ne pense pas que ca soit le cas : la somme des valeurs absolues des pertes
180		-dans la bande va defavoriser un filtre avec 10 dB de ripples. Il n'a pas compris que
181		-la bandpass s'arrete a 40\% de la bande, donc mettre le gabarit clarifierait ce point je
182		-pense
183		-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 ?
	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}.''
184	192
185	193	{\bf
186	194	I strongly suggest to re-run the analysis with a criterion that takes also % r2.3 -fait
187	195
...	...	@@ -188,8 +196,10 @@
188	196	fixing its value to a typical one, as it has been done for the transition
189	197	bandwidth.
190	198	}
191		-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 ?
192	199
	200	+See above: the absolute value within the passband will reject filters with
	201	+excessive ripples, including excessive attenuation, within the passband.
	202	+
193	203	{\bf
194	204	In addition, I suggest to address the following points: % r2.4
195	205	- Page 1, line 50: the Authors state that IIR have shorter impulse response
196	206
...	...	@@ -247,11 +257,21 @@
247	257	de la magnitude. J'ai corrigé en ce sens.
248	258
249	259	{\bf
250		-- Page e, line 55, second column: “takin” % r2.9 - fait
251		-- Page 3, line 58: “pessimistic” should be replaced with “conservative” % r2.10 - fait
252		-- Page 4, line 17: “meaning” --> “this means” % r2.11 - fait
	260	+- Page e, line 55, second column: ``takin'' % r2.9 - fait
	261	+- Page 3, line 58: ``pessimistic'' should be replaced with ``conservative'' % r2.10 - fait
	262	+- Page 4, line 17: ``meaning'' $\rightarrow$ ``this means'' % r2.11 - fait
	263	+}
	264	+
	265	+All typos and grammatical errors have been corrected.
	266	+
	267	+{\bf
253	268	- Page 4, line 10: how $p$ is chosen? Which is the criterion used to choose % r2.12 - fait
254	269	these particular configurations? Are they chosen automatically?
	270	+}
	271	+
	272	+JMF : repondre
	273	+
	274	+{\bf
255	275	- Page 4, line 31: how does the delta function transform model from non-linear % r2.13 - fait
256	276	and non-quadratic to a quadratic?}
257	277
...	...	@@ -273,6 +293,12 @@
273	293	Indeed averaging had been omitted during post-processing and figure generation: we
274	294	are grateful to the reviewer for emphasizing this point which has now been corrected. All spectra
275	295	now exhibit sub-dBpk-pl line thickness.
	296	+
	297	+We believe these updates to the manuscript have improved the presentation and made clearer
	298	+some of the shortcomings of the initial draft: we are greatful to the reviewers for pointing
	299	+out these issues.
	300	+
	301	+Best wishes, A. Hugeat
276	302
277	303	%In conclusion, my opinion is that the methodology presented in the Manuscript
278	304	%deserve to be published, provided that the criterion is changed according