Commit d7e7f892e078002aa5363651b569d9d2b4b89511
1 parent
f6c529e54d
Exists in
master
reponse TUFFC
Showing 1 changed file with 174 additions and 0 deletions Inline Diff
ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex
File was created | 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. |