Phase response is the relationship between the phase of a sinusoidal input and the output signal passing through any device that accepts input and produces an output signal, such as filter.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_response.

For example in this article http://www.ijettcs.org/Volume1Issue3/IJETTCS-2012-10-23-080.pdf.

This figure shows that phase response of GA as it approaches towards the zeros. Hence phase response of GA is much better. Approaches to zeros that meant phase response is better,why?

enter image description here

  • $\begingroup$ Could you try to clarify your question? I don't understand your last sentence. $\endgroup$ – Matt L. Jan 18 '18 at 8:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Matt L: I m edit the question $\endgroup$ – K.n90 Jan 18 '18 at 9:53
  • $\begingroup$ oh wow, a paper with formulas of differing typesetting, most of which look like they were directly screenshotted from a website and badly resized. I'm not a fan of judging books by their cover, but formulas that weren't typed by the author is basically a red flag. Especially if these formulas are just simple sums. $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Jan 18 '18 at 22:08
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, I'm very conflicted about how to politely say this, but: You do realize you're beating a dead horse, right? All of the things you wanted to implement with a genetic algorithm so far have deterministic, low-effort, and most importantly: known to be optimal solutions. It's of course OK to try to re-implement a known-to-be-good thing, but I'm getting more and more the impression that you expect to be able to be better than, for example, traditional least squares methods, in the very same metric that these methods provably optimize. That is obviously impossible. $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Jan 18 '18 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ so, maybe, for your next question, simply state a problem before stating the solution. State what you want to achieve, and why you think your algorithm can even theoretically be better than the traditional method – this means you need to show that the traditional method has a quantifyable shortcoming. There are plenty problems with traditional filter design methods – you just seem to focus on the things that they are already perfect at. $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Jan 18 '18 at 22:14

I'm sorry to say that but this is total nonsense. The paper you cite is bad, the authors don't know what they're talking about. All 3 methods discussed in the paper design linear phase filters by the very formulation of the problem. So the phase responses all three filters are perfectly linear, apart from phase jumps at the zeros of the transfer function (which are in the stopband where the phase doesn't matter anyway). It's pointless to compare the phase responses of these filters since they're all linear by definition.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.