+For the first item, we produced a matlab version of each algorithm,
+running in double precision. The profile was generated for about
+34,000 different quadruplets of periods ($\in \lbrack 3.1,6.1]$, step
+= 0.1), phases ($\in \lbrack -3.1,3.1]$, steps = 0.062) and slope
+($\in \lbrack -2,2]$, step = 0.4). Obviously, the discretization of
+$[-\pi ,\pi ]$ introduces an error in the phase estimation. It is at
+most equal to $\frac{\pi}{nb_s}$. From some experiments on a $17\times
+4$ array, authors of \cite{AFMCSEM11} noticed a average ratio of 50
+between phase variation in radians and lever end position in
+nanometers. Assuming such a ratio and $nb_s = 1024$, the maximum lever
+deflection error would be 0.15nm which is smaller than 0.3nm, the best
+precision achieved with the setup used in \cite{AFMCSEM11}.
+
+Moreover, pixels have been paired and the paired intensities have been
+perturbed by addition of a random number uniformly picked in
+$[-N,N]$. Notice that we have observed that perturbing each pixel
+independently yields too weak profile distortion. We report
+percentages of errors between the reference and the computed phases
+out of $2\pi ,$%
+\begin{equation*}
+err=100\times \frac{|\theta _{ref}-\theta _{comp}|}{2\pi }.
+\end{equation*}%
+Table \ref{tab:algo_prec} gives the maximum and the average errors for both
+algorithms and for increasing values of $N$ the noise parameter.
+
+\begin{table}[ht]
+\begin{center}
+\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
+\hline
+& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{SPL} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{LSQ} \\ \cline{2-5}
+noise (N)& max. err. & aver. err. & max. err. & aver. err. \\ \hline
+0 & 2.46 & 0.58 & 0.49 & 0.1 \\ \hline
+2.5 & 2.75 & 0.62 & 1.16 & 0.22 \\ \hline
+5 & 3.77 & 0.72 & 2.47 & 0.41 \\ \hline
+7.5 & 4.72 & 0.86 & 3.33 & 0.62 \\ \hline
+10 & 5.62 & 1.03 & 4.29 & 0.81 \\ \hline
+15 & 7.96 & 1.38 & 6.35 & 1.21 \\ \hline
+30 & 17.06 & 2.6 & 13.94 & 2.45 \\ \hline
+\end{tabular}%
+\end{center}
+\caption{Error (in \%) for cosines profiles, with noise.}
+\label{tab:algo_prec}
+\end{table}
+
+The results show that the two algorithms yield close results, with a slight
+advantage for LSQ. Furthermore, both behave very well against noise.
+Assuming an average ratio of 50 (see above), an error of 1 percent on
+the phase corresponds to an error of 0.5nm on the lever deflection, which is
+very close to the best precision.
+
+It is very hard to predict which level of noise will be present in
+real experiments and how it will distort the profiles. Authors of
+\cite{AFMCSEM11} gave us the authorization to exploit some of their
+results on a $17\times 4$ array. It allowed us to compare experimental
+profiles to simulated ones. We can see on figure \ref{fig:noise20} the
+profile with $N=10$ that leads to the biggest error. It is a bit
+distorted, with pikes and straight/rounded portions. In fact, it is
+very close to some of the worst experimental profiles. Figure
+\ref{fig:noise60} shows a sample of worst profile for $N=30$. It is
+completely distorted, largely beyond any experimental ones. Obviously,
+these comparisons are a bit subjectives and experimental profiles
+could also be completly distorted on other experiments. Nevertheless,
+they give an idea about the possible error.
+
+\begin{figure}[ht]
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{intens-noise20}
+\end{center}
+\caption{Sample of worst profile for N=10}
+\label{fig:noise20}
+\end{figure}
+
+\begin{figure}[ht]
+\begin{center}
+\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{intens-noise60}
+\end{center}
+\caption{Sample of worst profile for N=30}
+\label{fig:noise60}
+\end{figure}
+
+The second criterion is relatively easy to estimate for LSQ and harder for
+SPL because of the use of the arctangent function. In both cases, the number
+of operation is proportional to $M$ the numbers of pixels. For LSQ, it also
+depends on $nb_{s}$ and for SPL on $L=k\times M$ the number of interpolated
+points. We assume that $M=20$, $nb_{s}=1024$ and $k=4$, that all possible
+parts are already in lookup tables and that a limited set of operations (+,
+-, *, /, $<$, $>$) is taken into account. Translating both algorithms in C
+code, we obtain about 430 operations for LSQ and 1,550 (plus a few tenth for
+$atan$) for SPL. This result is largely in favor of LSQ. Nevertheless,
+considering the total number of operations is not fully relevant for FPGA
+implementation which time and space consumption depends not only on the type
+of operations but also of their ordering. The final evaluation is thus very
+much driven by the third criterion.
+
+The Spartan 6 used in our architecture has a hard constraint since it
+has no built-in floating point units. Obviously, it is possible to use
+some existing "black-boxes" for double precision operations. But they
+require a lot of clock cycles to complete. It is much simpler to
+exclusively use integers, with a quantization of all double precision
+values. It should be chosen in a manner that does not alterate result
+precision. Furthermore, it should not lead to a design with a huge
+latency because of operations that could not complete during a single
+or few clock cycles. Divisions fall into that category and, moreover,
+they need a varying number of clock cycles to complete. Even
+multiplications can be a problem since a DSP48 takes inputs of 18 bits
+maximum. So, for larger multiplications, several DSP must be combined
+which increases the overall latency.
+
+In the present algorithms, the hardest constraint does not come from the
+FPGA characteristics but from the algorithms. Their VHDL implementation can
+be efficient only if they can be fully (or near) pipelined. We observe that
+only a small part of SPL can be pipelined, indeed, the computation of spline
+coefficients implies to solve a linear tridiagonal system which matrix and
+right-hand side are computed from incoming pixels intensity but after, the
+back-solve starts with the latest values, which breaks the pipeline.
+Moreover, SPL relies on interpolating far more points than profile size.
+Thus, the end of SPL works on a larger amount of data than at the beginning,
+which also breaks the pipeline.
+
+LSQ has not this problem since all parts, except the dichotomic search, work
+on the same amount of data, i.e. the profile size. Furthermore, LSQ requires
+less operations than SPL, implying a smaller output latency. In total, LSQ
+turns out to be the best candidate for phase computation on any architecture
+including FPGA.
+
+\section{VHDL implementation and experimental tests}
+
+\label{Experimental tests}
