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 Inline Diff

ifcs2018_journal_reponse.tex
Diff comments   View file @ d7e7f89
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.