1480

IEEE TRANSACTIONS O N CIRCUITS A N D SYSTFMS. VOL.

37, N O . 12, DTCEMBER 1990

Design of Discrete-Coefficient-Value Linear Phase FIR Filters with Optimum Normalized Peak Ripple Magnitude
Y. c. LIM, MEMBER, IEEE

Abshacr -The passband gain of a continuous-coefficient-value (infinite precision) filter may be arbitrarily scaled by scaling its coefficient values. Scaling the coefficient values corresponds to scaling the passband gain and peak ripple magnitude of the filter by the same scaling constant. Hence, the normalized peak ripple magnitude, i.e., peak ripple magnitude divided by passband gain, remains unchanged. However, this is not the case in the design of a discrete-coefficient-value filter, the coefficient values cannot be arbitrarily scaled and still maintain their discrete nature. Thus-In the case of a discrete-coefficient-valuefilter, it is necessary to reoptimize the coefficient values when the passband gain is scaled if the normalized peak ripple magnitude of the filter is to be minimized. As a consequence, the normalized peak ripple magnitude changes as the passband gain thanges. In this paper, we present several methods for the design of discrete-coefficient-value linear phase FIR alters with minimum normalized peak ripple magnitude.

TABLE I COMPUTER TIMES REQUIRED FOR THF DFSIGN OF DISCRETE-COEFFICIENT-V.

0.6. 0.7. I. 4. 4

4. 6. 8 . X. 1.5

(hours)

I.

INTRODUCITON

E commented in [l] that mixed integer linear programming (MILP) is only suitable for designing discrete-coefficient-value filter [21-[101 with filter length, N , not more than 40 because of excessive computer time
required in the design of these long filters. Since, in many applications, the length of an FIR filter is longer than 30, the limitation on designable filter length rendered the application of MILP for the design of linear phase FIR filters rather limited. However, hardware speed as well as software efficiency has been significantly improved since then. Thus our comment in [ll must be reexamined. Table I shows the computer time required on an NEC SXlA computer for the optimal design of discrete-coefficientvalue filters using MILP. The filters in Table I are optimal in the minimax sense. Ten examples selected at random are used for each filter length ranging from N = 40 to 80. The following two conclusions can be drawn based upon the data presented in Table I. First, if any task requiring only a few seconds of computer time is

The computer is NEC SXIA. There are 10 entries of computer time for each filter length. Each entry represents a particular design. The NEC SXIA has a peak speed of 667 MFLOPS.

Manuscript received March 17, 1989. This paper was recommended by Associate Editor S. C. Bass. The author is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 051 1. EEE Log Number 9039219. A free copy of MILP may be obtained from Dr. Y. C. Lim, Electrical Engineering Department, National University of Singapore, SINGAPORE 0511. E-mail address of Y. C. Lim is LIMYC@NUSVM.BITNET.

regarded as trivial, then the design of discretecoefficient-value filters with length less than 40 is a trivial task. Second, if only a few hours of computer time may be allocated to any one task, then MILP can be used to design optimal discrete-coefficient-value filters with N < 70. With this new upper bound on the designable filter length, the usefulness of MILP for the design of discretecoefficient-value FIR filters is significantly increased. A filter designed using MILP is optimal in the sense defined by the objective function of the MILP. If the peak ripple magnitude is the objective of minimization, the result is a minimax design. However, in many cases, the desired objective of minimization is the normalized peak ripple magnitude (NPRM) which is nonlinear and cannot be optimized directly by using MILP in a single run. Fortunately, as will be discussed in this paper, optimality in the NPRM sense can be achieved by using multiple runs of MILP. I)/, the freIgnoring the linear phase term, quency response of a linear phase filter of length N is given by
M

(w)

=c+2
n=l

a(n)T(w,n)

(1)

0098-4094/90/ 1200-1480$01.OO 01990 IEEE

LIM:

FIR

FILTERS WITH OPTIMUM

NPRM

1481

TABLE I1 SPECIFICATION OF A Low-PASSFILTER AS AN EXAMPLE USED I N THIS PAPER

1008

Passband edge Stopband edge

Passband npple magnitude

Stopband ripple magnitude

0 l 996 oo:l\y

0 992 000 002 004

Each coefficient value is represented by a sum or difference of two power-of-two terms. The smallest power-of-two is r9 and the largest is 2-I.

006

008

010

Normalized Frequency (a)

where T ( w , n ) is a trigonometric function and a ( n ) is a function of the filters coefficients h(n). If the impulse response of the filter is symmetrical and the filter length N is odd, then M = ( N - 1)/2, a ( n ) = h((N - 1)/2 - n ) = - h ( ( N - 1)/2+ n), T ( w ,n ) = cos(wn), and c = h((N 1)/2). If the impulse response of the filter is antisymmetrical and the filter length N is odd, then M = ( N - 1)/2, a ( n ) = h ( ( N - 1)/2 - n ) = - h ( ( N - 1)/2 + n), h ( ( N 11/21 = 0, T ( w ,n ) = sin(wn), and c = 0. If the impulse response of the filter is symmetrical and the filter length N is even, then M = N/2, a ( n ) = h(N/2- n ) = h((N 1)/2+ n), T ( w , n ) = cos(w(n - 1/2)), and c = 0. If the impulse response of the filter is antisymmetrical and the filter length N is even, then M = N/2, a ( n ) = h(N/2n), T ( w ,n ) = sin(w(n - 1/2)). If D ( w ) is the desired magnitude response at frequency w , then the frequency response error at frequency w is given by f)D(w). In the passband, D ( w ) = 1 and in the stopband D ( w ) = 0. The magnitude of the frequency response error must be less then 6 k ( w ) where 6 is a variable to be minimized and k ( w ) is a positive error weighting function. The absolute values of k ( w ) is immaterial; what matters is the ratio of the value of k ( w ) in the passband to that in the stopband. In the design of linear phase FIR filter using MILP, a set of inequalities as shown in (2) is evaluated on a dense grid of frequencies:
(U)

-40

-60

00

01

0.2

0.3

0.4

05

Normalized Frequency

(b) Fig. 1. Frequeqcy response of two discrete-coefficient-value filters. The passband gain of Filter A is unity and the passband gain of Filter B is 1.2694.

TABLE I11 COEFFICIENT VALUES OF FILTERA

- D(w )

< 6 k ( 0)
(2)

( w ) - D(w ) 2 - 6 k ( U ) .

The variable 6 is minimized. Such a design formulation leads to a problem which we shall illustrate using an example. Consider the design of a linear phase FIR low-pass filter satisfying the set of specifications shown in Table 11. In addition, we impose the constraint that the passband gain must be unity. The frequency response of the design obtained using MILP is shown as Filter A in Fig. 1. Its coefficient values are shown in Table 111. In Fig. 1, we also show the frequency response of another filter marked Filter B satisfying the same set of specifications shown in Table I1 but the passband gain is not constrained to be unity. The coefficient values of Filter B is shown in Table IV. It can be seen from Fig. 1 that the

peak ripple magnitude of Filter B is significantly smaller than that of Filter A . Filter B is not produced by MILP as the optimal design because the passband gain of Filter B is not unity. Whether Filter A or B is preferred depends on whether it is necessary to have unity passband gain. The filter design problem should be properly formulated so that MILP produces the desired result as the optimum design. In many applications, a filter is used to discriminate signals in a prespecified frequency band against signals in

1482

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS, VOL.

37, NO. 12, DECEMBER 1990

TABLE IV COEFFICIENT VALUES OF FILTER B

h(0) h(l) h(2) h(3) h(4) h(5) h(6) h(7) h(8) h(9) h(10) h(ll) h(l2) h(13)
=

requires that

2-
2

= = =
= =

-Z4
-2-

= = =
= =

-2 2- -2-

+ Yn

=
=

= = = = = =
=

Zd - T9
-TS + 24 2- + 2-

= = =
=

r5 +Tu 2-+ -2*+2

= =

h ( 1 4 )
h(15) h(l6) h(17)

= = = =
=

-Z4 - r5 = -Z4+ 2+ = 2-+ 2- = 2-* +2- = 2-1 - 2-7

h(34) h(33) h(32) h(31) h(30) h(29) h(28) h(27) h(26) h(25) h(24) h(U) h(22) h(21) h(20) h(19) h(l8)

where

1 1 -+-=I P 4
and

N-l

H ( e j w )=
n
=

h( n ) e - j w n .
0

(4b)

another frequency band. In such applications, the NPRM is an important performance measure; the absolute peak ripple magnitude and passband gain is less important. In these applications, the passband gain need not be fixed at unity but should be a continuous variable to be optimized by MILP. Nevertheless, an upper and a lower bound on the passband gain should be imposed to satisfy overflow and roundoff noise performance requirements.

11. THEPASSBAND GAIN In order to improve the signal-to-noise ratio due to roundoff noise, it is desirable to have high passband gain. However, if the passband gain is too high, overflow may occur. In the case of a continuous-coefficient value filter, the passband gain can be scaled easily for optimum roundoff noise performance. In the case of a discretecoefficient-value filter, the situation is complicated by the fact that the coefficient value cannot be arbitrarily scaled while still maintaining its discrete nature. In order to scale the passband gain for optimum roundoff noise performance, the coefficient values must be known a priori. Unfortunately, the optimum discrete-coefficient values can be determined only after the passband gain has been fixed. To resolve this chicken and egg problem, we shall assume that the optimum discrete-coefficient values are approximately equal to the scaled version of the optimum continuous-coefficient values. An upper bound, b,, on the passband gain, b, can then be evaluated; a slightly more conservative bound may then be used in the actual discrete coefficient value design process. For example, if h(n) is the nth coefficient value of the unity passband gain continuous-coefficient value filter, the absolute bound on the scaled passband gain for all possible inputs is 1/Cr:t lh(n)l. (All signal magnitudes are assumed bounded by unity.) Allowing a 10% tolerance, the upper bound on the passband gain used in the discrete coefficient value design may be selected as 0.9/C~Zdlh(n)l. In many applications, this absolute bound is overly pessimistic and the L, norm scaling is often used. If llXllp and IIHIIq, respectively, are the pth norm of X(ei>and then the nonoverflow condition the qth norm of H(eJ),

Similarly, the continuous-coefficient design can be used for estimating an upper bound for the passband gain. Another convenient method for estimating an upper bound for the passband gain is to use the idealized frequency response of the filter. For example, consider the L , norm scaling with llXllz= 1. If the filter is low pass with bandedges at O.lSf, and O.25fs, respectively, then this filter can be idealized to an ideal low-pass filter with bandedge at 0.25f,, where f , is the sampling frequency. In this particular example, the upper bound for the filters passband gain is 1.414. Fixing the passband gain at its upper bound will yield a filter with optimum signal-to-roundoff noise ratio but the filter thus designed may not be optimum in terms of NPRM. In order to minimize the NPRM, the passband gain should be allowed to be any suitable value between an upper bound, b,,, and a lower bound, b,. The gap between the upper bound and lower bound, b,- b,, should be large so as to maximize the chance of producing the optimum NPRM design. Nevertheless, if the discrete-coefficient space is the power-of-two space, it is unnecessary to set the lower bound to be less than half the value of the upper bound. Lemma 1: For b,, = 2b,, if E is the NPRM of a particular discrete-coefficient value filter (called Filter11 whose passband gain A is less that b,, then there exist a discrete-coefficient value filter whose NPRM is also equal to E and with passband gain less than b, but greater than or equal to b,. The coefficient space is the power-of-two space.

Proof See Appendix A.

111. PASSBAND GAIN AS A CONTINUOUS VARIABLE FORMULATION
It is clear from the foregoing discussions that, whenever possible, the passband should be set to a suitable value within an upper and a lower bound to minimize the NPRM. The passband gain should be a continuous variable to be optimized together with the coefficient values using MILP. This can be achieved by multiplying the desired frequency response D(u)by a variable b. The

LIM:

FIR

PI[-TERS WITH OPTIMUM

NPRM

1483 TABLE VI1 RESULTS OF THE PASSBAND GAIN PARTITIONING METHOn

hstmd

1? b7

0732: 000

002

004

006

008

010

012

014

Normalized Frequency
Fig. 2. Frequency response of two discrete coefficient filters. The passband gain of Filter C is 0.73902.

the objective function to be optimized. Unfortunately, 6 / b is nonlinear and cannot be optimized using MILP.

TABLE VI THEPASSBAND GAINS, PASSBAND RIPPLE MAGNITUDES, AND NPRMs OF FILTERS A-C
Filer A FiltcrB EkrC
I.Wa,

0.007501

0.007501

1.2694

0 . 0 0 3 ! X 4
0.003167

0.7390

O.OX285

filter design optimization problem can now be reformulated as in (6).

H ( W ) - bD( W ) < 6 k ( W ) H( W ) - bD( W ) > - 6 k ( W ) b 3 b, b < b, minimize 6.

(5)

We shall use the set of specifications shown in Table I1 with the additional constraints b, = 1.4 and b, = 0.7 as an example to illustrate this method. The result of (5) is shown as Filter C in the frequency response plot of Fig. 2. The coefficient values of Filter C is shown in Table V. The passband gains and ripple magnitudes of Filters A , B , and C are tabulated in Table VI. As can be seen from Table VI, the peak ripple magnitude of Filter C is the smallest among the three filters. However, because of its lower passband gain, the NPRM of Filter C is larger than that of Filter B . In order to obtain the design with minimum NPRM, the quotient S / b should be used as

IV. PASSBAND GAIN SECTIONING A straightforward method for optimizing the NPRM is to partition the allowed range of passband gain between b, and b, into many sections. A filter, optimal in the minimax sense, is designed using MILP for each of these sections. The best solution is then selected. We shall illustrate this method by using the example whose specifications are shown in Table 11. Let b, = 1.4 and b, = 0.7. This range of passband gain is partitioned into 14 sections each with a range of 0.05 as shown in Table VII. Among these 14 designs, the one with a passband gain of 1.2694 has the smallest NPRM; this may not be the global-optimum design. Nevertheless, a bound for the optimum design can be obtained. As an example, consider the section covering the passband gain ranging from 1.25 to 1.30. Since, the ripple magnitude cannot be less than 0.003 906 and the passband gain can never be larger than 1.30, the normalized peak ripple magnitude cannot be less than 0.003 005. The bounds of the optimal normalized peak ripple magnitude for all the sections are evaluated and tabulated in Table VII. The overall bound is also 0.003 005. A tighter bound for the global optimum design can be obtained by increasing the number of sections. The efficiency of the above method can be improved by using the elimination technique described below. In the elimination technique, a known MILP result is used to eliminate a section of passband gain to be searched. The remaining sections are then partitioned and searched using MILP. We shall illustrate this method by using the example whose specification is shown in Table 11. 1) Perform a MILP run with b, = 0.7 and b, = 1.4. The optimum result is one with passband gain = 0.7390 and ripple magnitude = 0.003 167. Since no other solution can have a peak ripple magnitude less than 0.003 167, a filter with a smaller NPRM must have a passband gain larger than 0.7390. Hence, the section of passband gain to be eliminated is the range from 0.7 to 0.7390. 2) The range of passband gain from 0.7390 to 1.4 is partitioned into two sections. Arbitrarily choose 1.07 (the

midpoint between 0.7390 and 1.4) as the point of partitioning. 3 ) The section from 1.07 to 1.4 is searched using MILP. The minimax solution has a passband gain of 1.2694 and a peak ripple magnitude of 0.003 906; the NPRM is 0.003 906/1.2694 = 0.003 077. The section with passband gain ranging from 1.07 to 1.2694 is to be eliminated. For any filter with passband gain in the section ranging from 0.7390 to 1.07 to have a NPRM smaller than 0.003 077, its passband gain must be larger than 0.003 167/0.003 077 = 1.03. Hence, the section with passband gain less than 1.03 is also eliminated. 4) At this point, two sections are to be searched. One corresponds to the range from 1.03 to 1.07 and the other corresponds to the range from 1.2694 to 1.4. 5 ) The section with passband gain ranging from 1.03 to 1.07 is searched using MILP. The minimax design has a ripple magnitude of 0.005 66. A bound on the NPRM is 0.005 66/1.07 = 0.005 29. This is larger than 0.003 077 and so this section is eliminated. 6) The range of passband gain between 1.2694 and 1.4 can be further partitioned into two sections, say, from 1.2694 to 1.33 and 1.33 to 1.4. The section from 1.33 to 1.4 is searched using MILP and found that the minimum NPRM cannot be less than 0.003 77; this section is eliminated. 7) The remaining section covers the passband gain ranging from 1.2694 to 1.33. A bound on the NPRM is 0.003 906/1.33 = 0.002 94 which is 4.8% smaller than the available solution of 0.003 077. 8) The section with passband gain ranging from 1.2694 to 1.33 may be further partitioned and searched using MILP if desired.
THE OPTIMUM NPRM SOLUTION V. VERIFYING

As an example for illustration, it can be shown by using a = 0.003 077 that the best solution obtained in Section IV is indeed the minimum NPRM solution.

VI. RECURSIVE a REPLACEMENT TECHNIQUE In Section V, we introduced the objective function f = 6 - ab for verifying the optimality of a solution. The solution will still have to be obtained by some method such as the passband gain sectioning method. In this section, we introduce another method for obtaining the optimal NPRM solution. It involves a recursive updating of the value of a using the following algorithm. Step 1: Round the coefficient values of the optimum continuous coefficient value filter to the nearest discrete value. Let a be the value of 6 / b of this rounded coefficient value filter. Step 2: Perform a MILP run with f = 6 - a b . Let a 2 be equal to 6 / b of the optimum solution. Step 3 : If a = a 2 , this is the optimum NPRM solution (Lemma 2); stop. If a # a*, go to Step 4. Step 4: Let a = a z . Go to Step 2.
The success of the above algorithm is based on the fact that the value of a decreases from iteration to iteration until the optimum solution is found. This is stated in Lemma 3. Lemma 3: Minimizing the objective function f = 6 - a b will produce an optimum solution with 6 / b < a if such a solution exists.

The passband gain sectioning method does not ensure producing an optimum solution. Even if the solution produced is indeed the minimum NPRM design, the passband gain sectioning method does not have a means to verify this. In this section we introduce a method for verifying the optimality of an NPRM design. Lemma 2: If the optimum solution in the minimization of

Proof: See Appendix C. We shall use the example of Table I1 with b, = 0.7 and b,, = 1.4 as an example to illustrate the above algorithm. Rounding the coefficient values of the continuous value filter produces a filter with 6 / b = 0.018. Using a = 0.018 produces a solution with 6 / b = 0.003 774. Substituting a=0.003 774 produces the optimum NPRM solution. It requires a total of three MILP runs to find and verify the optimum NPRM solution.

f = 6 - ab. (6) where a is a positive constant and 6 and b are positive variables to be optimized is such that f = fo, 6 = a,,, b = bo, and that 6 , / b , = a , then this solution is also the minimum NPRM solution.

VII.

BOUNDS OK

THE. OPTIMUM NPRM

SOLUTION

Proof: See Appendix B. Replacing the objective function of (6) by f the filter design problem becomes
"(U)

6 - ab,

H'( CO) - bD( O ) < Sk( W ) - bD( w ) 2 - 6 k ( w ) b > b, b G b, minimize f = 6 - ab.

It is often useful to know the lower bound on the minimum NPRM as well as bounds on the passband gain. A lower bound on the optimum NPRM can be obtained after each MILP run based on the values of b,, b,,, a , 6, and b as stated in Lemma 4. Lemma 4: Suppose the minimization of f = S - ab yields the optimum solution f = fO,6 = 6,, b = bo. The value of 6 / b of the optimum NPRM solution has the if 6,)/ b, > a , but has lower bound 6,)/ b,, + a(1- b,, / bL,) the lower bound 6,)/ b, + a((b, / 6,) - 1) if 6, / b o < a.

Proof: See Appendix D. Bounds on the passband gain of the NPRM solution can also be derived.

LIM:

FIR

FILTERS WITH OPTIMUM

NPRM

1485

Lemma 5: Using the same notation as in Lemma 4, the passband gain of the NPRM solution has a lower bound equal to b, if 6, / b o > a but it has an upper bound equal to b, if 6,)/ b o < a. Proof: See Appendix E. Based on the results of Lemma 5, Lemma 6 can be derived. Lemma 6: If the minimization of f = 6 - ab with a = a3 and a = a z , respectively, produces the same solution with 6 = 6, and b = b, and if a3 < 6, / b, < a z , then that solution is also the optimum NPRM solution. Proof: See Appendix F.

APPENDIX A

P r o o f o f Lemma 1 Let 5 be the smallest power-of-two larger than or equal to b,/A. It is easy to show that
b, < A 5

< b,.

(A.1)

Section VI is a systematic but conservative approach proof Of Lemma Substitute f = f , , 6 = a, , b = bo, and a = 6 , / b , into towards obtaining an optimum NPRM solution. In practice, with the help of the bounds derived in Section VI1 as (61, we have well as accrued design experience, a more aggressive approach can often be adopted. We shall illustrate this by using the example of Table 11. In Section VI, we started the first iteration by choosing Since f o is the optimum solution, any other solution with 0.018, the value of 6 / b of the rounded coefficient value f = f ' , 6 = a', and b = b' will have f ' > f o = 0. Hence, filter, to be the value of a. The advantage of such a 6'- ab'> 0. (B 4 choice is that if the MILP solution is the same as the solution obtained by simple coefficient rounding, this will Substituting a = 6,)/ b, into (B.21, we have verify that it is also the optimum NPRM solution. However, in almost all cases, the optimum NPRM solution is likely to be very much better than the rounded coefficient value filter. We also notice that the continuous coefficient 6' 6,) value filter has a value of 6 = 0.000 537 7. Suppose we .. ->-. b' 6 , choose the value of a to be the geometric mean of 0.018 and 0.000 537 7, i.e., 0.003 11, the first MILP run will Thus the solution with = 6,, and = is also the produce the result with 6 = 0.003 906, b = 1.2696, and Q.E.D. minimum NPRM solution. 6 / b = 0.003 077. Using Lemma 4, a lower bound for the value of S / b of the optimum NPRM solution is 0.003 049 APPENDIX C which is only 1% smaller than 0.003 077. If further MILP Proof o f Lemma 3 run is desired, the mid-value between 0.003 049 and 0.003 f = 6 - a b = b ( 6 / b - a ) . If there is a solution with 077, i.e., 0.003 063, may be selected as the new value of a. The MILP run produces the same result with 6 / b = 0.003 6 / b < a , there is a solution with f < 0; the optimum 077; with the operation of Lemma 6, this is also the solution of f is, therefore, negative. For negative f , 6 / b Q.E.D. optimum NPRM solution. Only two MILP runs are is less than a. needed in this example. APPENDIX D IX. CONCLUSIONS Proof of Lemma 4 If NPRM is the quantity to be optimized and the passband gain is not required to be unity, then the techniques described have provided useful means to achieve the ends. In this paper we present four methods for optimizing filters in the NPRM sense. Two of the methods belong to the passband gain sectioning technique. The other two methods make use of the objective function f = 6 - ab. Several heuristic methods for determining a are also presented. Further research in the determination of a is underway and the results will be reported when available. Let the optimum NPRM solution be f and 6 = 6,. We have
=f,,

FURTHER APPLICATIONS OF THE OBJECTIVE f = 6 - ab FUNCTION The recursive a replacement technique described in
VIII.

Multiplying the coefficient values of Filterl by 5 will produce another filter (called Filter21 with passband gain equal to A 5 and peak ripple magnitude equal to E A [ . Thus the passband gain of Filter2 is bounded by 6, and b,. The NPRM of Filter2 is E A ~ / A [ = E , the same as that of Filterl. Since [ is a power-of-two, each coefficient value of Filter2 must also be a sum of power-of-two terms. Q.E.D.

B APPENDIX

b = b,,

and

Since f , is the optimum solution in the minimization of

1486

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS, VOL.

37, NO. 12, DECEMBER 1990

6 - ab, we have fo

-Q f 2 .

Hence,

From (E.2) and (E.4),

bo - - a
Therefore,

(;I ) (;;

<b2 - - a ) .

(D.3)
Hence, for 6,/ bo < a , the passband gain of the NPRM solution has an upper bound equal to b,. Q.E.D.

APPENDIX F
Since b2 -Q b,, for 6 , / b 0 > a , we have from (D.4)

Proof of Lemma 6
From Lemma 5. b , is the upper bound as well as the lower bound of the optimum NPRM solution. The pass(D*5) band gain of the NPRM solution must, therefore, be equal to bo. Hence, the solution with 6 = 6, and b = b, is the optimum NPRM solution. Q.E.D.

Rearranging terms, we have

->-+a

b2

bu

1--

::)
,
b,

for->a. b,

60

(D.6)

REFERENCES
[ll Y. C. Lim and S. R. Parker, FIR filter design over a discrete powers-of-two coefficient space, ZEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Processing, vol. ASSP-31, pp. 583-591, June 1983. P. Siohan and A. Benslimane, Finite precision design of optimal linear phase 2-D FIR digital filters, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. CAS-36, pp. 11-22, Jan. 1989. Q. Zhao and Y. Tadokoro, A simple design of FIR filters with powers-of-two coefficients, ZEEE Trans. Circuits Syst ., vol. CAS35, pp. 566-570, May 1988. [41 S. C. Pei and S. B. Jaw, Efficient design of 2-D multiplierless FIR filters by transformation, ZEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. CAS-34, pp. 436-438, Apr. 1987. Y.C. Lim Predictive coding for FIR filter wordlength reduction, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. CAS-32, pp. 365-372, Apr. 1985. Y. C. Lim and S. R. Parker, Discrete coefficient FIR digital filter design based upon an LMS criteria, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst., vol. CAS-30, pp. 723-739, Oct. 1983. [71 B. Jaumard, M. Minoux, and P. Siohan, Finite precision design of FIR digital filters using a convexity property, ZEEE Trans. Acourt., Speech, Signal Processing, vol. ASSP-36, pp. 407-411, Mar. 1988. [81 K. Nakayama, A discrete optimization method for high-order FIR filters with finite wordlength coefficients, IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Processing, vol. ASP-35, pp. 1215-1217, Aug. 1987. 191 J. P. Marques de Sa, A new design method of optimal finite wordlength linear phase FIR digital filters, ZEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Processing, vol. ASSP-31, pp. 1032-1034, Aug. 1983. t101 D. M. Kodek and K. Steiglitz, Finite-length word-length tradeoffs in FIR digital filter design, ZEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Processing, vol. ASSP-28, pp. 739-744, Dec. 1980.

Since b2 B b,, for 6 , / b 0

< a,we have from (D.4)

62 > (Y - bo a - ; ).
b2
Rearranging terms, we have
-->--a

-(

b2

bl

(2 )
--1

for-<a. bo

60

(D.8) Q.E.D.

APPENDIX E Proof of Lemma 5 For 6, / b o > a,both sides of (D.3) are positive. Hence,

Since 6 , / b2 is the NPRM solution,

--Q-.

62 b2

60

bo

(E.2)

Thus from (E.1) and (E.2),

b2 > bo.

(E.3)

Y . C. Lim (S80-M82) received the ACGI and

B.Sc. degrees in 1977 and the DIC and Ph.D degrees in 1980, all in electrical engineering, from Imperial College, University of London, UK. From 1980 to 1982, he was a National Research Council Research Associate in the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. He joined the Department of Electrical Engineering, National University of Singapore in 1982. His research interests include VLSI circuits and systems design, digital sig:nal processing, design automation, and solid-state circuit design.

Hence, for 6 , / b 0 > a, the passband gain of the NPRM solution has a lower bound equal to bo. For 6 0 / b o< a , both sides of (D.3) are negative. Hence,