>>10983841What I'm noticing is that you've presented a theory. Then you describe the theory. Your conclusion however, assumes that the theory proves itself.
In research I'm familiar with, the format is generally, an introduction describing the scope of the experiment, the materials and methods describing how the results were obtained, the analysis, in which the data is processed and organized, and the conclusion, which uses the data to support claims about the conclusion.
Your paper has no materials, no methods, no analysis. In fact, it presents a theory (in the form of math and drawings), and then rather absurdly claims this validates the theory, using phrases like "Algorithm presented in this paper is scalable and flexible." Really? Who ever used it and thought so?
Finally you end with, " A further reduction of resource usage is possible
using other well known coefficient sharing algorithms that
optimizes single filters such as in [17], [18], [19]."
In short, I think what you need to do is reduce these claims to a proof by demonstrating the advantages you've outlined here by constructing the experimental model that validates it. In a sense, you've sketched a sort of preliminary experiment, but that isn't really valuable research, and no one would cite it, because it may or may not work in practice.
