From 959bbc540dbc749aa6ac84c9e724c810ba43c1d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jmfriedt Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 17:20:00 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] re-relecture JMF --- ifcs2018_journal.tex | 11 ++++++--- ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/ifcs2018_journal.tex b/ifcs2018_journal.tex index 3975171..6ef094b 100644 --- a/ifcs2018_journal.tex +++ b/ifcs2018_journal.tex @@ -249,7 +249,8 @@ bandpass ripples as emphasized in \cite{lim_1988,lim_1996}. {\color{red}Througho 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 @@ the stopband the last 40\%, allowing 20\% transition width.} \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 diff --git a/ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex b/ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex index 107af87..bdc02cd 100644 --- a/ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex +++ b/ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex @@ -157,14 +157,19 @@ the attenuation is almost 15 dB for n = 5, while it is not noticeable for 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 @@ -176,11 +181,14 @@ filter with 0.1 dB of ripple is considered equivalent to a filter with 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 @@ -188,7 +196,9 @@ 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 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 @@ -247,11 +257,21 @@ AH: Je ne suis pas d'accord, le critère n'est pas le min de la rejection mais l 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?} @@ -274,6 +294,12 @@ Indeed averaging had been omitted during post-processing and figure generation: 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 %the indications mentioned above. -- 2.16.4