[ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
- From: <fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <kumarchi@xxxxxxxxx>, <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:48:22 -0600
Hi, Kumar;
What if a model wants to support non-linear time domain simulation by GetWave
and statistical simulation by returning a LTI approximation in Init?
Thanks,
Fangyi
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of C. Kumar
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:23 PM
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
i agree..
if the model modifies the init it is the only thing it should be doing. there
should not be any getwave
--- On Wed, 10/14/09, Danil Kirsanov <dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Danil Kirsanov <dkirsanov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: An AMI Overview
To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2009, 6:59 PM
Dear colleagues,
I would like to clarify one basic principle of AMI modeling, hoping that all of
us agree with it.
I believe that the model writer should never do a double-counting: if he
modified the channel impulse response in Init() to model some effect, he should
not model this effect in Getwave(). So he cannot put the “true” model in
GetWave() and it’s linear approximation in Init(). If both types of behavior
are expected, there should be two models (or some internal flag that changes
the behavior of the model).
If this assumption is true, statistical (linear) simulator always works with
Init() function of the model, while pattern-dependent (non-linear) simulator
works with both Init() and GetWave() and I do not see any necessity for
Get_Wave_Exists flag.
Best,
Danil
Other related posts:
