jfriedt / IFCS2018 article

Download as
Browse Code »

Commit d7e7f892e078002aa5363651b569d9d2b4b89511

Authored by jfriedt
1 parent f6c529e54d
Exists in master

reponse TUFFC

Showing 1 changed file with 174 additions and 0 deletions Side-by-side Diff

ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex
Diff comments   View file @ d7e7f89
  1 +Minor Revision - TUFFC-09469-2019
  2 +Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
  3 +Control (July 23, 2019 9:29 PM)
  4 +To: arthur.hugeat@femto-st.fr, julien.bernard@femto-st.fr,
  5 +gwenhael.goavec@femto-st.fr, pyb2@femto-st.fr, pierre-yves.bourgeois@femto-st.fr,
  6 +jmfriedt@femto-st.fr
  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:
  75 +Reviewer: 1
  76 +
  77 +Comments to the Author
  78 +In general, the language/grammar is adequate.
  79 +
  80 +On page 2, "...allowing to save processing resource..." could be improved.
  81 +
  82 +On page 2, "... or thanks at a radiofrequency-grade..." isn't at all clear what
  83 +the author meant.
  84 +
  85 +One page 2, the whole paragraph "The first step of our approach is to model..."
  86 +could be improved.
  87 +
  88 +I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that
  89 +of maximum rejection ratio at fixed silicon area, as well as minimum silicon
  90 +area for a fixed minimum rejection ratio. For non-experts, it might be very
  91 +useful to compare the results of both optimization paths to the performance and
  92 +resource-utilization of generic low-pass filter gateware offered by device
  93 +manufacturers. I appreciate also that the authors have presented source code
  94 +for examination online.
  95 +
  96 +
  97 +
  98 +Reviewer: 2
  99 +
  100 +Comments to the Author
  101 +In the Manuscript, the Authors describe an optimization methodology for filter
  102 +design to be used in phase noise metrology. The methodology is general and can
  103 +be used for many aspects of the processing chain. In the Manuscript, the Authors
  104 +focus on filtering and shifting while the other aspects, in particular decimation,
  105 +will be considered in a future work. The optimization problem is modelled
  106 +theoretically and then solved by means of a commercial software. The solutions
  107 +are tested experimentally on the Redpitaya platform with synthetic and real
  108 +white noises. Two cases are considered as a function of the number of filters:
  109 +maximum rejection given a fixed amount of resources and minimum resource
  110 +utilization given a fixed amount of rejection.
  111 +The Authors find that filtering improves significantly when the number of
  112 +filters increases.
  113 +A lot of work has been done in generalizing and automating the procedure so
  114 +that different approaches can be investigated quickly and efficiently. The
  115 +results presented in the Manuscript seem to be just a case study based on
  116 +the particular criterion chosen by the Authors. Different criteria, in
  117 +general, could lead to different results and it is important to consider
  118 +carefully the criterion adopted by the Authors, in order to check if it
  119 +is adequate to compare the performance of filters and if multi-stage
  120 +filters are really superior than monolithic filters.
  121 +By observing the results presented in fig. 10-16, it is clear that the
  122 +performances of multi-stage filters are obtained at the expense of their
  123 +selectivity and, in this sense, the filters presented in these figures
  124 +are not equivalent. For example, in Fig. 14, at the limit of the pass band,
  125 +the attenuation is almost 15 dB for n = 5, while it is not noticeable for
  126 +n = 1.
  127 +The reason is in the criterion that considers the average attenuation in
  128 +the pass band. This criterion does not take into account the maximum attenuation
  129 +in this region, which is a very important parameter for specifying a filter
  130 +and for evaluating its performance. For example, with this criterion, a
  131 +filter with 0.1 dB of ripple is considered equivalent to a filter with
  132 +10 dB of ripple. This point has a strong impact in the optimization process
  133 +and in the results that are obtained and has to be reconsidered.
  134 +I strongly suggest to re-run the analysis with a criterion that takes also
  135 +into account the maximum allowed attenuation in pass band, for example by
  136 +fixing its value to a typical one, as it has been done for the transition
  137 +bandwidth.
  138 +In addition, I suggest to address the following points:
  139 +- Page 1, line 50: the Authors state that IIR have shorter impulse response
  140 +than FIR. This is not true in general. The sentence should be reconsidered.
  141 +- Fig. 4: the Author should motivate in the text why it has been chosen
  142 +this transition bandwidth and if it is a typical requirement for phase-noise
  143 +metrology.
  144 +- The impact of the coefficient resolution is discussed. What about the
  145 +resolution of the data stream? Is it fixed? If so, which value has been
  146 +used in the analysis? If not, how is it changed with respect to the
  147 +coefficient resolution?
  148 +- Page 3, line 47: the initial criterion can be omitted and, consequently,
  149 +Fig. 5 can be removed.
  150 +- Page 3, line 55: “maximum rejection” is not compatible with fig. 4.
  151 +It should be “minimum”
  152 +- Page e, line 55, second column: “takin”
  153 +- Page 3, line 58: “pessimistic” should be replaced with “conservative”
  154 +- Page 4, line 17: “meaning” --> “this means”
  155 +- Page 4, line 10: how $p$ is chosen? Which is the criterion used to choose
  156 +these particular configurations? Are they chosen automatically?
  157 +- Page 4, line 31: how does the delta function transform model from non-linear
  158 +and non-quadratic to a quadratic?
  159 +- Captions of figure and tables are too minimal.
  160 +- Figures can be grouped: fig. 10-12 can be grouped as three subplots (a, b, c)
  161 +of a single figure. Same for fig. 13-16.
  162 +- Please increase the number of averages for the spectrum. Currently the noise
  163 +of the curves is about 20 dBpk-pk and it doesn’t allow to appreciate the
  164 +differences among the curves. I suggest to reduce the noise below 1 dBpk-pk.
  165 +
  166 +In conclusion, my opinion is that the methodology presented in the Manuscript
  167 +deserve to be published, provided that the criterion is changed according
  168 +the indications mentioned above.
  169 +****************************************************
  170 +
  171 +For information about the IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
  172 +Control Society, please visit the website: http://www.ieee-uffc.org. The
  173 +website of the Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency
  174 +Control is at: http://ieee-uffc.org/publications/transactions-on-uffc