From d7e7f892e078002aa5363651b569d9d2b4b89511 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: jmfriedt Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:34:22 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] reponse TUFFC --- ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex | 174 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 174 insertions(+) create mode 100644 ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex diff --git a/ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex b/ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1a16eac --- /dev/null +++ b/ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@ +Minor Revision - TUFFC-09469-2019 +Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency +Control (July 23, 2019 9:29 PM) +To: arthur.hugeat@femto-st.fr, julien.bernard@femto-st.fr, +gwenhael.goavec@femto-st.fr, pyb2@femto-st.fr, pierre-yves.bourgeois@femto-st.fr, +jmfriedt@femto-st.fr +CC: giorgio.santarelli@institutoptique.fr, lewin@ece.drexel.edu + +Dear Mr. Arthur HUGEAT + +Congratulations! Your manuscript + +MANUSCRIPT NO. TUFFC-09469-2019 +MANUSCRIPT TYPE: Papers +TITLE: Filter optimization for real time digital processing of radiofrequency +signals: application to oscillator metrology +AUTHOR(S): HUGEAT, Arthur; BERNARD, Julien; Goavec-Mérou, Gwenhaël; Bourgeois, +Pierre-Yves; Friedt, Jean-Michel + +has been reviewed and it has been suggested that it be accepted for publication +after minor revisions. In your revision, you must respond to the reviewer’s +comments at the end of this e-mail or attached. + +Your revised manuscript must be submitted within the next THREE WEEKS. If you +are not able to submit your manuscript in this time frame, you must contact the +Editor in Chief (Peter Lewin, lewinpa@drexel.edu). + +Please resubmit your revised manuscript to the Transactions on Ultrasonics, +Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control Manuscript Central website at +http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tuffc-ieee. From the “Author Center” select +“Manuscripts with Decisions” and under the appropriate manuscript ID select +“create a revision”. + +To expedite the review of your resubmission: + +(1) Include or attach a point by point response to reviewer’s comments and +detail all changes made in your manuscript under “Response to Decision Letter”. +Failure to address reviewers comments can still lead to a rejection of your +manuscript. +(2) Submit a PDF of the revised manuscript using the “Formatted (Double Column) +Main File - PDF Document Only” file type with all changes highlighted in yellow +under “File Upload”. +(3) Original TeX, LaTeX, or Microsoft Word file of the final manuscript as +Supporting Document. +(4) High quality source files of your figures in Word, Tiff, Postscript, +EPS, Excel or Power Point (if figures are not already embedded in your source +file above) as Supporting Document. +(5) Author photos and biographies (papers only) as Supporting Document. +(6) Graphical Abstract to accompany your text abstract on IEEE Xplore (image, +animation, movie, or audio clip) uploaded as Multimedia. + +*Please make sure that all final files have unique file names in order for +them to be processed correctly by IEEE* +Please note that a PDF is NOT sufficient for publication, the PDF is used +for review. + +During the resubmission process if you do not see a confirmation screen and +receive a confirmation e-mail, your revised manuscript was not transmitted +to us and we will not be able to continue to process your manuscript. + +Please refer to the policies regarding the voluntary page charges and +mandatory page charges in the "Guideline for Authors" at +http://ieee-uffc.org/publications/transactions-on-uffc/information-for-authors +Note over-length charge of US$175 per page is applied for published pages in +excess of 8 pages. + +Sincerely, + +Giorgio Santarelli +Associate Editor in Chief +Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control + +**************************************************** +REVIEWERS' COMMENTS: +Reviewer: 1 + +Comments to the Author +In general, the language/grammar is adequate. + +On page 2, "...allowing to save processing resource..." could be improved. + +On page 2, "... or thanks at a radiofrequency-grade..." isn't at all clear what +the author meant. + +One page 2, the whole paragraph "The first step of our approach is to model..." +could be improved. + +I appreciate that the authors attempted and document two optimizations: that +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 +resource-utilization of generic low-pass filter gateware offered by device +manufacturers. I appreciate also that the authors have presented source code +for examination online. + + + +Reviewer: 2 + +Comments to the Author +In the Manuscript, the Authors describe an optimization methodology for filter +design to be used in phase noise metrology. The methodology is general and can +be used for many aspects of the processing chain. In the Manuscript, the Authors +focus on filtering and shifting while the other aspects, in particular decimation, +will be considered in a future work. The optimization problem is modelled +theoretically and then solved by means of a commercial software. The solutions +are tested experimentally on the Redpitaya platform with synthetic and real +white noises. Two cases are considered as a function of the number of filters: +maximum rejection given a fixed amount of resources and minimum resource +utilization given a fixed amount of rejection. +The Authors find that filtering improves significantly when the number of +filters increases. +A lot of work has been done in generalizing and automating the procedure so +that different approaches can be investigated quickly and efficiently. The +results presented in the Manuscript seem to be just a case study based on +the particular criterion chosen by the Authors. Different criteria, in +general, could lead to different results and it is important to consider +carefully the criterion adopted by the Authors, in order to check if it +is adequate to compare the performance of filters and if multi-stage +filters are really superior than monolithic filters. +By observing the results presented in fig. 10-16, it is clear that the +performances of multi-stage filters are obtained at the expense of their +selectivity and, in this sense, the filters presented in these figures +are not equivalent. For example, in Fig. 14, at the limit of the pass band, +the attenuation is almost 15 dB for n = 5, while it is not noticeable for +n = 1. +The reason is in the criterion that considers the average attenuation in +the pass band. This criterion does not take into account the maximum attenuation +in this region, which is a very important parameter for specifying a filter +and for evaluating its performance. For example, with this criterion, a +filter with 0.1 dB of ripple is considered equivalent to a filter with +10 dB of ripple. This point has a strong impact in the optimization process +and in the results that are obtained and has to be reconsidered. +I strongly suggest to re-run the analysis with a criterion that takes also +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. +In addition, I suggest to address the following points: +- Page 1, line 50: the Authors state that IIR have shorter impulse response +than FIR. This is not true in general. The sentence should be reconsidered. +- Fig. 4: the Author should motivate in the text why it has been chosen +this transition bandwidth and if it is a typical requirement for phase-noise +metrology. +- The impact of the coefficient resolution is discussed. What about the +resolution of the data stream? Is it fixed? If so, which value has been +used in the analysis? If not, how is it changed with respect to the +coefficient resolution? +- Page 3, line 47: the initial criterion can be omitted and, consequently, +Fig. 5 can be removed. +- Page 3, line 55: “maximum rejection” is not compatible with fig. 4. +It should be “minimum” +- Page e, line 55, second column: “takin” +- Page 3, line 58: “pessimistic” should be replaced with “conservative” +- Page 4, line 17: “meaning” --> “this means” +- Page 4, line 10: how $p$ is chosen? Which is the criterion used to choose +these particular configurations? Are they chosen automatically? +- Page 4, line 31: how does the delta function transform model from non-linear +and non-quadratic to a quadratic? +- Captions of figure and tables are too minimal. +- Figures can be grouped: fig. 10-12 can be grouped as three subplots (a, b, c) +of a single figure. Same for fig. 13-16. +- Please increase the number of averages for the spectrum. Currently the noise +of the curves is about 20 dBpk-pk and it doesn’t allow to appreciate the +differences among the curves. I suggest to reduce the noise below 1 dBpk-pk. + +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. +**************************************************** + +For information about the IEEE Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency +Control Society, please visit the website: http://www.ieee-uffc.org. The +website of the Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency +Control is at: http://ieee-uffc.org/publications/transactions-on-uffc -- 2.16.4