# SQNR Estimation of Fixed-Point DSP Algorithms

- Gabriel Caffarena
^{1}Email author, - Carlos Carreras
^{2}, - Juan A. López
^{2}and - Ángel Fernández
^{2}

**2010**:171027

https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/171027

© Gabriel Caffarena et al. 2010

**Received: **1 August 2009

**Accepted: **13 April 2010

**Published: **20 May 2010

## Abstract

A fast and accurate quantization noise estimator aiming at fixed-point implementations of Digital Signal Processing (DSP) algorithms is presented. The estimator enables significant reduction in the computation time required to perform complex word-length optimizations. The proposed estimator is based on the use of Affine Arithmetic (AA) and it is presented in two versions: (i) a general version suitable for differentiable nonlinear algorithms, and Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) algorithms with and without feedbacks; and (ii) an LTI optimized version. The process relies on the parameterization of the statistical properties of the noise at the output of fixed-point algorithms. Once the output noise is parameterized (i.e., related to the fixed-point formats of the algorithm signals), a fast estimation can be applied throughout the word-length optimization process using as a precision metric the Signal-to-Quantization Noise Ratio (SQNR). The estimator is tested using different LTI filters and transforms, as well as a subset of non-linear operations, such as vector operations, adaptive filters, and a channel equalizer. Fixed-point optimization times are boosted by three orders of magnitude while keeping the average estimation error down to 4%.

## Keywords

## 1. Introduction

The original infinite precision of an algorithm based on the use of real arithmetic must be reduced to the practical precision bounds imposed by digital computing systems. Word-length optimization (WLO) aims at the selection of the variables' word-lengths of an algorithm to comply with a certain output noise constraint while optimizing the characteristics of the implementation (e.g., area, speed or power consumption). Normally, the precision loss committed is computed by using a double precision floating-point arithmetic description of the algorithm as a reference and, although there are some works on quantization for custom floating-point arithmetic [1–3], the common approach is to implement the system using fixed-point (FxP) arithmetic, since this leads to lower cost implementations in terms of area, speed, and power consumption [4–7].

WLO is a slow process due to the fact that the optimization is very complex (NP-hard [8]) and also because of the necessity of a continuous assessment of the algorithm accuracy which may involve a high computational load. This estimation is normally performed adopting a simulation-based approach [7, 9, 10] which leads to exceedingly long design times. However, in the last few years, there have been attempts to provide fast estimation methods based on analytical techniques. These approaches can be applied to Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) systems [6, 11] and to differentiable nonlinear systems [12–15]. As for the noise metric used, they are based on the peak value [15] and on the computation of SQNR [6, 11–14]. Since SQNR is a very popular error metric within DSP systems, our work aims at fast SQNR estimation techniques for LTI and differentiable nonlinear systems.

- (i)
a novel Affine-Arithmetic (AA) SQNR estimator optimized for LTI algorithms,

- (ii)
a novel AA-based SQNR estimator for LTI and differentiable algorithms. Previous approaches were not able to deal with feedback systems, or produced overestimations.

Our approach enables addressing complex WLO techniques, since the computation times are drastically reduced while providing high levels of accuracy.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, related work is discussed. Section 3 deals with fixed-point optimization. Section 4 presents the grounds of the novel SQNR estimation proposal. In Section 5, the benchmarks used for validation are described. Performance results are collected in Section 6. And finally, Section 7 draws the conclusions.

## 2. Related Work

In this section, we focus on those approaches aiming at estimating the quantization noise to avoid the execution of time-consuming simulations [7, 9, 18] and, therefore, that support fast WLO. We disregard those that are not fully automated [19–22], but consider those that, even though are not implemented within an automatic WLO engine, could be easily integrated within one. Also, we do not consider in this analysis approaches that focus on error-free implementations [23–25].

The Signal-to-Quantization Noise Ratio (SQNR) is a popular quality metric in DSP systems. However, only recently it has been considered in the development of fast quantization noise estimators. Approaches such as [19–25] and also the fully automated [15, 26–28] aim basically at peak-value estimates. Most of these works are based on the use of (i) interval arithmetic (IA) [29], which produces significant overestimations in general, and intolerable overestimations in the presence of loops; (ii) multi-interval arithmetic (MIA) [30], which improves the results of IA but it still performs poorly in the presence of loops; (iii) affine arithmetic [31], which solves the cancellation problem of IA, and can alleviate overestimation by applying confidence intervals; and (iv) the computation of first-order derivatives [15, 28], mostly combined with a worst-case analysis, that leads again to overestimation. Due to its interest for DSP applications, only approaches that consider SQNR as a quality metric are fully analyzed in this section.

Fast quantization noise estimation approaches.

Approach | Type | Cyclic complexity | Parameterization complexity | Estimation complexity | Accuracy | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Constantinides et al. [6] | LTI | YES | High | Steady state | ||

López et al. [11] | LTI | YES | High | Affine arithmetic steady state | ||

Menard [16] | LTI | YES | High | Graph analysis steady state | ||

Constantinides [12] | NL | YES | Variance overestimated | Differentiable operations 1st order approx. | ||

NL | NO | High | Differentiable operations 1st order approx. | |||

Shi and Brodersen [14] | NL | YES | High | Differentiable operations 1st order approx. | ||

This work (Section 4.3) | LTI | YES | High | Affine arithmetic Steady state | ||

This work (Section 4.2) | NL | YES | dot product + matrix-vector mult. | High | ||

The approaches in the table have been grouped according to the type of algorithm being addressed. The first three rows correspond to approaches aimed at LTI algorithms, the next three rows to those addressing nonlinear algorithms (also valid for LTI systems), and the last two rows describe the features of the two approaches proposed in this paper.

### 2.1. Linear Time-Invariant Algorithms

**,**and as,

Note that and can be computed by means of a graph analysis, and once they are determined, the output noise power can be estimated from and .

In [6] a two-step method is applied where, first, vectors and are computed, and then, expression (2) is used to estimate the output noise variance during WLO. The Parseval Theorem [32] is applied in order to compute expression (5), since it is possible to obtain an equivalent expression that makes use of the impulse response from signal to the output of the systems ( ), instead of using . This highly simplifies the computational cost. If the length of the input vectors is long enough, expression (1) can be estimated with high precision leading to highly accurate quantization noise estimations.

An AA-based approach is presented in [11]. The approach is based again on the computation of
for each signal. Due to the characteristics of AA, it is possible to compute all
simultaneously. The process has not been divided into parameterization (extraction of vectors
and
) and noise estimation. Instead, everything is computed at once. It can be seen in Table 1 that the computational cost is similar to the total cost of [6] (e.g., parameterization plus estimation times). Also, the quality of the estimates is high, since they are based on (1). This approach is further developed in Section 4.3 in order convert it into a two-step method, thus, allowing faster noise estimation (see Table 1, *this work—LTI*).

The approach in [16] also relies on (1) to present a two-step estimation method. The parameterization is based on the application of graph transforms that allow to obtain the vectors and (5) and (6). As it can be seen in Table 1, the performance in terms of computation time and accuracy is equivalent to the other two approaches.

### 2.2. NonLinear Systems

The approaches aimed at nonlinear systems are mainly based on perturbation theory, where the effect of the quantization of each algorithm's signal on the quality of the output signal is supposed to be *small*. This allows to apply first-order Taylor expansion to each nonlinear operation in order to characterize the effect of the quantization of the inputs of the operations. This constrains the application to algorithms composed of differentiable operations. The existent methods enable us to obtain an expression similar to (2) that relates the word-lengths of signals to the power—also mean and variance—of the quantization noise at the output. This will be further explained in Section 4.2 (19).

In [12] a hybrid method which combines simulations and analytical techniques to estimate the variance of the noise is proposed. The estimator is suitable for nonrecursive and recursive algorithms. The parameterization phase is relatively fast, since it requires simulations for an algorithm with variables. The noise model is based on [33] and second order effects are neglected by applying first order Taylor expansions. However, the paper seems to suggest that the contributions of the signal quantization noises at the output can be added, assuming that the noises are independent. In nonlinear systems, this is a strong assumption that leads to variance underestimation. The accuracy of the method is not supported with any empirical data.

In [14] another method suitable for nonrecursive and recursive algorithms is presented. Here, simulations as well as a curve fitting technique (with variables) are required to parameterize quantization noise. On the one hand, the noise produced by each signal is modeled following the traditional quantization noise model from [34, 35], which is less accurate than [33], and, again, second order statistics are neglected. On the other hand, the expression of the estimated noise power accounts for noise interdependencies, which is a better approach than [12]. The method is tested with an LMS adaptive filter and the accuracy is evaluated graphically. There is no information about computation times.

Finally, in [13] the parameterization is performed by means of simulations and the estimator is suitable only for nonrecursive systems. The accuracy of this approach seems to be the highest since it uses the model from [33] and it accounts for noise interdependencies. Although, the information provided about accuracy is more complete, it is still not sufficient, since the estimator is tested in only a few SQNR scenarios.

### 2.3. This Work

As aforementioned, we present two approaches: one exclusive for LTI algorithms in steady state, and the other for differentiable algorithms which are a subset of nonlinear algorithms. The LTI-oriented approach is based on [11] and it basically enables the division of the estimation process into two steps. One step is devoted to parameterization, while the other is dedicated to perform fast estimations. This method is equivalent to the other methods present in the literature. The advantage that it offers is that now it is possible to analyze the most important finite word-length effects (SQNR analysis, peak value analysis, dynamic range, limit cycles) using the very same AA simulation engine.

Regarding nonlinear systems, our approach tries to overcome most of the drawbacks of the works presented above. It deals with nonrecursive and recursive systems, using the accurate noise model from [33] and also accounting for noise interdependencies. The parameterization time can be quite long for algorithms that contain loops. However, as we will see in Section 6, the computation times are within standard times, and the benefits of fast estimations make up for the sometimes slow parameterization process.

## 3. Word-Length Optimization

*scaling*, which determines the set of , and

*word-length selection*, which determines the set of . This subdivision allows to simplify WLO, while still providing significant cost reductions.

A wrap-around scaling strategy is adopted since it requires less hardware than other approaches (i.e., saturation techniques). After scaling, the values of are the minimum possible values that avoid the overflow of signals or, at least, those that reduce the likelihood of overflow to a negligible value. A simulation-based approach is used to carry out scaling [7].

Once scaling is performed, the values of
can be fixed during word-length selection. The right side of Figure 2 shows basic blocks for word-length selection. The main idea is to iterate trying different word-length (i.e.,
) combinations until the cost is minimized. Each time the word-length of a signal or a group of signals is changed, the word-lengths must be propagated throughout the graph, task referred to as graph *conditioning* [6], in order to update the rest of word-lengths. The *optimizer control* block selects the size of the word-lengths using the values of the previous error and cost estimations and decides when the optimization procedure has finished. The first block in the diagram is the extraction of the quantization noise model (parameterization). The role of this block is to generate a model of the quantization noise at the output due to the FxP format of each signal. This enables to perform a quick error estimation within the optimization loop. The implications of using a fast error estimator are twofold. On the one hand, it is possible to reduce WLO time. On the other hand, more complex optimization techniques can be applied in standard computation times.

## 4. Quantization Noise Estimation

### 4.1. Affine Arithmetic

Affine Arithmetic (AA) [31] is an extension of Interval Arithmetic (IA) [29] aimed at the fast and accurate computation of the ranges of signals in a particular mathematical description of an algorithm. Its main feature is that it automatically cancels the linear dependencies of the included uncertainties along the computation path, thus, avoiding the oversizing produced by IA approaches [36]. It has been applied to both, scaling computation [15, 36, 37], and word-length allocation [1, 15, 36]. Also, a modification called Quantized Affine Arithmetic (QAA) has been applied to the computation of limit cycles [38] and dynamic range analysis of quantized LTI algorithms [37].

### 4.2. Proposed Estimator: General Expression

Here, we present a method able to estimate the quantization noise power from a single AA simulation. The noise estimation is not based on (1), since this equation only applies to LTI algorithms in steady state and our proposal is more general, since it covers both LTI algorithms and nonlinear algorithms. Also, the parameterization method does not lead to (2)–(6), since these are aimed at LTI algorithms in steady state.

This noise model, which is referred to as the *discrete noise model*, is an extension of the traditional modeling of quantization error as an additive white noise [34, 35] (*continuous noise model*). In [33], it is shown that the continuous model can produce an error of up to 200% in comparison to the discrete model.

Thus, it is possible to know at each moment the origin of a particular error term ( ) and the moment when it was generated ( ). The AA-based simulation can be made independent on the particular statistical parameters of each quantization thanks to error term . This is desirable in order to obtain a parameterizable noise model. This error term encapsulates the mean value and the variance of the error term , and now it can be seen as a random variable with variance and mean . This is a reinterpretation of AA, since the error terms are not only intervals, but they also have a probability distribution associated. Once the simulation is finished, it is possible to compute the impact of the quantization noise produced by signal on the output of the algorithms by checking the values of (see (7)). This enables the parameterization of the noise. Once the parameterization is performed, the estimation error produced by any combination of can be easily assessed replacing all by the original expression that accounts for the mean and variance ( ), thus enabling a fast estimation of the quantization error. We will see all the process in the next paragraphs.

where is the value of the output of the algorithm using floating-point arithmetic and the summation is the contribution of the quantization noise sources. Note that is a function that depends on the inputs of the algorithm.

- (1)
- (2)

The error estimation phase can now be executed very quickly by applying (19)–(21).

- (i)
expressions (17)–(22) can be applied to DSP algorithms including differentiable operations (e.g. multiplications, divisions, etc.) by mean of (9) due to the 1st order approximation,

- (ii)
they are exact for LTI systems in steady state (see the appendix).

### 4.3. Particularization for LTI Systems

The expressions and the algorithms from the previous subsection can be applied to LTI algorithms, but with a high computational load. In this subsection, we present new expressions to compute the power, mean and variance of the output error for LTI systems in steady state that enable fast estimations.

## 5. Benchmarks

- (i)
RGB to YCrCb converter (RGB) [6],

- (ii)
8-point IDCT ( ) [26],

- (iii)
2nd-order IIR filter ( ) [26],

- (iv)
3rd-order Lattice filter ( ) [39],

- (v)
6th-order transposed direct form II delta-operator filter ( ) [40],

- (vi)
- (vii)
- (viii)
MIMO channel equalizer (EQ) [41],

- (ix)
a mean power estimator based on a 1st IIR filter (POW),

- (x)
1st-order LMS filter ( ) [12],

- (xi)
2nd-order LMS filter ( ) [12],

- (xii)
5th-order LMS filter ( ) [12],

- (xiii)
3rd-order Volterra adaptive filter ( )[42].

Properties of benchmarks.

Benchmark | LTI | Cyclic | Inputs | Outputs | +/− | * | Input signals | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

YES | NO | 3 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 16 | Uniform noise | |

YES | NO | 8 | 8 | 0 | 37 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 48 | Uniform noise | |

YES | YES | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 8 | Uniform noise | |

YES | YES | 1 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 24 | Uniform noise | |

YES | YES | 1 | 1 | 6 | 18 | 0 | 29 | 0 | 62 | Uniform noise | |

NO | NO | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 12 | Uniform noise | |

NO | NO | 8 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 32 | Uniform noise | |

NO | YES* | 2 | 2 | 64 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 81 | MIMO channel Tx [41] | |

NO | YES | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 7 | Synthetic tone | |

NO | YES | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 23 | Synthetic tone | |

NO | YES | 2 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 30 | Synthetic tone | |

NO | YES | 2 | 1 | 11 | 13 | 14 | 7 | 0 | 51 | Synthetic tone | |

NO | YES | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 19 | Gaussian noise |

All benchmarks are fed with 16-bit inputs and 12-bit constants and the noise constraint is an SQNR ranging from 40 to 120 dB. The inputs used to perform the noise parameterization as well as the fixed-point simulation are summarized in the last column of the table.

## 6. Results

- (1)
compute scaling by means of a floating point simulation,

- (2)
extract noise parameters (22)–(24) performing an AA-based simulation,

- (3)
perform a WPO as in Figure 2 using a gradient-descent approach,

- (4)
perform a single FxP bit-true simulation and use it as reference to compute the performance and accuracy of the estimator.

Performance of the estimation method: Precision.

Estimation error | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Benchmark | [120,100) | [100,80) dB | [80,60) dB | |||||

(dB) | (dB) (%) | (dB) (%) | (dB) (%) | |||||

0.11 | 0.24 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.17 | 0.07 | 0.44 | |

0.11 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.42 | 0.21 | 0.88 | 0.27 | 0.68 | |

0.04 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.74 | 0.04 | 0.09 | |

0.24 | 0.69 | 0.18 | 0.33 | 0.20 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.46 | |

0.03 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 1.16 | |

0.07 | 0.54 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.50 | 0.09 | 0.72 | |

0.05 | 0.57 | 0.04 | 0.40 | 0.04 | 0.57 | 0.13 | 1.19 | |

0.27 | 0.98 | 0.24 | 0.71 | 0.29 | 0.17 | 0.18 | 1.52 | |

0.39 | 5.00 | 0.17 | 1.55 | 0.76 | 5.96 | 1.12 | 12.12 | |

0.09 | 0.41 | 0.14 | 0.90 | 0.16 | 1.74 | 0.82 | 6.96 | |

0.09 | 0.46 | 0.08 | 0.24 | 0.15 | 0.78 | 0.92 | 3.73 | |

0.09 | 0.46 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 1.08 | 1.09 | 5.51 | |

1.14 | 3.33 | 0.49 | 1.84 | 0.81 | 6.70 | 1.43 | 16.67 | |

All | 1.14 | 0.20 | 0.49 | 0.09 | 0.81 | 1.26 | 1.43 | 3.52 |

The results yield that the estimator is extremely accurate for LTI algorithms. The mean percentage error is smaller than 1.16%, and the maximum relative error is smaller than 0.24 dB. The quality of the estimates is homogenous within the range dB.

The accuracy for nonlinear algorithms shows some degradation. This is expected, since a 1st-order Taylor approximation has been applied (9) in the computation of the quantization noise. Moreover, the presence of loops increases the error in the estimation, since the error due to neglecting Taylor series terms is amplified through the feedback loops. The nonlinear algorithms without loops perform significantly well. The mean percentage error is smaller than 1.52%, and the maximum relative error is smaller than 0.3 dB. This performance is similar to that of LTI algorithms.

The nonlinear algorithms that contain loops have a clearly different behaviour. The mean percentage error is smaller than 16.7%, and the maximum relative error is smaller than 1.43 dB. Now, the accuracy decreases as long as the error constraints get looser. This is due to the aforementioned amplification of the Taylor error terms and also to the fact that the uniformly distributed model for the quantization noise does not remain valid for small SQNRs. The errors due to the quantization noise model introduced by the SQNR ranges used for these experiments are minimum, but, after being propagated through the feedback loops and amplified due to nonlinearities, they become much more noticeable. Anyway, the quality of the estimates is still very high.

The average percentage error is 3.52% which confirms the excellent accuracy obtained by our estimator.

Performance of the estimation method: Computation time.

Bench. | FxP | Param. | Param. | No. of estimates | Estimation-based optim. | Simulation-based optim. | Speed-up |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Samples | Samples | time (secs) | (mean) | (secs) | (secs) | ||

20000 | 1 | 0.00016 | 141 | 0.03 | 76 | ×3205 | |

20000 | 1 | 0.00031 | 4575 | 5.77 | 13774.81 | ×2468 | |

20000 | 5000 | 0.88 | 19 | 0.02 | 4.41 | ×270 | |

20000 | 20000 | 10.80 | 2276 | 0.74 | 2381.51 | ×3222 | |

20000 | 5000 | 6.31 | 3930 | 3.47 | 11206.08 | ×3235 | |

20000 | 20000 | 59 | 150 | 0.03 | 66.86 | ×2122 | |

20000 | 20000 | 330 | 1739 | 1.72 | 2331.79 | ×1377 | |

16000 | 16000 | 61.64 | 231 | 0.12 | 105.78 | ×904 | |

20000 | 20000 | 546.14 | 97 | 0.02 | 21.93 | ×1048 | |

5000 | 5000 | 908.02 | 712 | 0.42 | 163.73 | ×394 | |

5000 | 5000 | 592.11 | 1032 | 0.94 | 310.93 | ×331 | |

5000 | 5000 | 1646.38 | 2547 | 7.26 | 1611.46 | ×221 | |

5000 | 5000 | 212.72 | 673 | 0.29 | 151.13 | ×526 | |

All | — | — | — | — | — | — | ×1486 |

The parameterization time goes from 160 secs. to 28 mins. (1646 secs.), and it depends on the size of the input data, the complexity of the algorithm (i.e., number and types of operations), and the presence of loops. The benchmarks clearly show how the parameterization time is increased as long as the number of delays, and therefore loops, increases. These times might seem quite long, but it must be born in mind that the parameterization process is performed only once, and after that the algorithm can be assigned a fixed-point format as many times as desired using the fast estimator.

The mean number of estimates in the fifth column is shown to give an idea of the complexity of the optimization process. A simulation-based optimization approach would require that very same number of simulations, thus taking a very long time. For instance, the optimization of would approximately require 2500 FxP simulations of 5000 input data. Considering the number of estimations required, the optimization times are extremely fast, ranging from 0.02 secs to 7.26 secs. The speedups obtained in comparison to a simulation-based approach are staggering; boosts from ×221 to ×3235 are obtained. The average boost is ×1486 which proves the advantage of our approach in terms of computation time.

In summary, results show that our approach enables fast and accurate WLO of both LTI and nonlinear DSP algorithms.

## 7. Conclusions

A novel noise estimation method based on the use of Affine Arithmetic has been presented. This method allows to obtain fast and accurate estimates of the quantization noise at the output of the FxP description of a DSP algorithm. The estimator can be used to perform complex WLO in standard time, leading to significant hardware cost reductions. The method can be applied to differentiable nonlinear DSP algorithms with and without feedbacks.

- (i)
the proposal of a novel AA-based quantization noise estimation for LTI algorithms,

- (ii)
the proposal of a novel AA-based quantization noise estimation for nonlinear algorithms with and without feedbacks,

- (iii)
the average estimation error for LTI systems is smaller than 2%,

- (iv)
the average estimation error for nonlinear systems is smaller than 17%,

- (v)
the computation time of WLO is boosted up to ×3235 (average of ×1486),

The reduction of the computation time of the noise parameterization process, specially in the presence of loops, is to be approached in the near future. Also, the improvement of the quantization model for nonlinear operations is perceived as an interesting research line.

## Declarations

### Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the work of the anonymous reviewers. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under project TEC2009-14219-C03-02.

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Fang CF, Chen T, Rutenbar RA: Floating-point error analysis based on affine arithmetic.
*IEEE International Conference on Accoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, April 2003, Hong Kong*561-564.Google Scholar - Gaffar A, Mencer O, Luk W, Cheung P, Shirazi N: Floating-point bitwidth analysis via automatic differentiation.
*International Conference on Field Programmable Technology, 2002*158-165.Google Scholar - Gaffar AA, Mencer O, Luk W, Cheung PYK: Unifying bit-width optimisation for fixed-point and floating-point designs.
*Proceedings of the 12th Annual IEEE Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines (FCCM '04), April 2004*79-88.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Caffarena G, Constantinides GA, Cheung PYK, Carreras C, Nieto-Taladriz O: Optimal combined word-length allocation and architectural synthesis of digital signal processing circuits.
*IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II*2006, 53(5):339-343.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Catthoor F, De Man H, Vandewalle J: Simulated annealing based optimization of coefficient and data word-lengths in digital filters.
*International Journal of Circuit Theory and Applications*1988, 16(4):371-390. 10.1002/cta.4490160404View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Constantinides GA, Cheung PYK, Luk W: Wordlength optimization for linear digital signal processing.
*IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems*2003, 22(10):1432-1442. 10.1109/TCAD.2003.818119View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Sung W, Kum K: Simulation-based word-length optimization method for fixed-point digital signal processing systems.
*IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing*1995, 43(12):3087-3090. 10.1109/78.476465View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Constantinides GA, Woeginger GJ: The complexity of multiple wordlength assignment.
*Applied Mathematics Letters*2002, 15(2):137-140. 10.1016/S0893-9659(01)00107-0MathSciNetView ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar - Caffarena G, Fernandez A, Carreras C, Nieto-Taladriz O: Fixed-point refinement of OFDM-based adaptive equalizers: a heuristic approach.
*European Signal Processing Conference, 2004*1353-1356.Google Scholar - Cantin M-A, Savaria Y, Lavoie P: A comparison of automatic word length optimization procedures.
*IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, May 2002*612-615.Google Scholar - López JA, Caffarena G, Carreras C, Nieto-Taladriz O: Fast and accurate computation of the round-off noise of linear time-invariant systems.
*IET Circuits, Devices and Systems*2008, 2(4):393-408. 10.1049/iet-cds:20070198View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Constantinides G: Perturbation analysis for word-length optimization.
*IEEE Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines, 2003*81-90.Google Scholar - Menard D, Rocher R, Scalart P, Sentieys O: SQNR determination in non-linear and non-recursive fixed-point systems.
*European Signal Processing Conference, 2004*1349-1352.Google Scholar - Shi C, Brodersen RW: A perturbation theory on statistical quantization effects in fixed-point DSP with non-stationary inputs.
*Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, May 2004, Vancouver, Canada*3: 373-376.Google Scholar - Lee D-U, Gaffar AA, Cheung RCC, Mencer O, Luk W, Constantinides GA: Accuracy-guaranteed bit-width optimization.
*IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems*2006, 25(10):1990-1999.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Menard D, Sentieys O: A methodology for evaluating the precision of fixed-point systems.
*IEEE International Conference on Acoustic, Speech, and Signal Processing, May 2002*3152-3155.Google Scholar - Rocher R, Menard D, Herve N, Sentieys O: Fixed-point configurable hardware components.
*EURASIP Journal on Embedded Systems*2006, 2006:-13.Google Scholar - Kim S, Kum K-II, Sung W: Fixed-point optimization utility for C and C++ based digital signal processing programs.
*IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II*1998, 45(11):1455-1464. 10.1109/82.735357View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Willems M, Keding H, Grótker T, Meyr H: FRIDGE: an interactive fixed-point code generation environment for Hw/Sw-codesign.
*IEEE Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 1997, Munich, Germany*687-690.Google Scholar - Chang M, Hauck S: Precis: a design-time precision aanalysis tool.
*IEEE Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines, 2002*229-238.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Chang ML, Hauck S: Précis: a usercentric word-length optimization tool.
*IEEE Design and Test of Computers*2005, 22(4):349-361. 10.1109/MDT.2005.92View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Cmar R, Rijnders L, Schaumont P, Vernalde S, Bolsens I: A methodology and design environment for DSP ASIC fixed point refinement.
*Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Automation and Test in Europe, 1999*56.Google Scholar - Benedetti A, Perona P: Bit-width optimization for configurable DSP's by multi-interval analysis.
*Proceedings of the 34th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, November 2000*355-359.Google Scholar - Mahlke S, Ravindran R, Schlansker M, Schreiber R, Sherwood T: Bitwidth cognizant architecture synthesis of custom hardware accelerators.
*IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems*2001, 20(11):1355-1371. 10.1109/43.959864View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Stephenson M, Babb J, Amarasinghe S: Bitwidth analysis with application to silicon compilation.
*SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI '00), June 2000*108-120.Google Scholar - Fang CF, Rutenbar RA, Chen T: Fast, accurate static analysis for fixed-point finite-precision effects in DSP designs.
*IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design (ICCAD '03), November 2003*275-282.Google Scholar - López JA, Caffarena G, Carreras C, Nieto-Taladriz O: Characterization of the quantization properties of similarity-related DSP structures by means of interval simulations.
*Proceedings of the 37th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, November 2003*2208-2212.Google Scholar - Wadekar SA, Parker AC: Accuracy sensitive word-length selection for algorithm optimization.
*Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Design, October 1998*54-61.Google Scholar - Hayes B: A lucid interval.
*American Scientist*2003, 91(6):484-488.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Carreras C, López JA, Nieto-Taladriz O: Bit-width selection for data-path implementations.
*International Symposium on System Synthesis, 1999*114.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Stolfi J, Figueiredo LH: Self-Validated Numerical Methods and Applications. In
*Brazilian Mathematics Colloquium Monograph*. IMPA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; 1997.Google Scholar - Oppenheim AV, Schafer RW:
*Discrete-Time Signal Processing*. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA; 1987.MATHGoogle Scholar - Constantinides GA, Cheung PYK, Luk W: Truncation noise in fixed-point SFGs.
*Electronics Letters*1999, 35(23):2013-2014.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Jackson LB: Roundoff-noise analysis for fixed-point digital filters realized in cascade or parallel form.
*IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics*1970, 18(2):107-122. 10.1109/TAU.1970.1162084View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Oppenheim AV, Weinstein CJ: Effects of finite register length in digital filtering and the fast Fourier transform.
*Proceedings of the IEEE*1972, 60(8):957-976.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - López J:
*Evaluación de los Efectos de Cuantificación en las Estructuras de Filtros Digitales Mediante Técnicas de Simulación Basadas en Extensiones de Intervalos, Ph.D. thesis*. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; 2004.Google Scholar - López JA, Carreras C, Nieto-Taladriz O: Improved interval-based characterization of fixed-point LTI systems with feedback loops.
*IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems*2007, 26(11):1923-1933.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Lopez J, Caffarena G, Carreras C, Nieto-Taladriz O: Analysis of limit cycles by means of affine arithmetic computer-aided tests.
*European Signal Processing Conference, 2004*991-994.Google Scholar - Parhi KK:
*VLSI Digital Signal Processing Systems: Design and Implementation*. Wiley, New York, NY, USA; 1999.Google Scholar - Li G, Zhao Z: On the generalized DFIIt structure and its state-space realization in digital filter implementation.
*IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I*2004, 51(4):769-778. 10.1109/TCSI.2004.823652View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Fernandez Herrero A, Jiménez-Pacheco A, Caffarena G, Casajus Quiros J: Design and implementation of a hardware module for equalisation in a 4G mimo receiver.
*International Conference on Field Programmable Logic and Applications (FPL '06), August 2006*765-768.Google Scholar - Ogunfunmi T:
*Adaptive Nonlinear System Identification: The Volterra and Wiener Approaches*. Springer; 2007.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.