How to determine the type of a digital filter given its expression?
Seeing that the paper cites the author of the paper as inventor of the &quot;SuperSmoother&quot; filter, and this filter was (supposedly) good for this specific use case, there's no indication this filter is based on anything but the author's inventive force (his fantasy). He does mention it's a &quot;converted analog filter made from capacitors and resistors&quot;, and you'd often apply  Bilinear Transform to do a continuous/discrete time transform.
So, you won't find that &quot;SuperSmoother&quot; filter in literature. It seems to be a purpose-specific invention, not derived methodically using mathematical approaches.
Notice that you're very much on scientifically thin ice with the whole article.
There's no reason you'd want to base your analysis smoothing filter on an analog filter design; the author also doesn't explain why you'd want that. That's something that someone not really understanding how to design filters would do if they have but an analog filter to go on – and building analog filters that are as good for any particular discrete analysis purpose as a filter directly designed for the digital purpose in digital design is um, impossible; the optimization goals are in discrete time, not continuous time.
Also, nope, Butterworth is certainly not a minimum-lag filter, it's a maximum-flatness filtering approach.
He makes it sound like minimal-lag filter design is a new thing that he invented. That's nonsense, minimum-phase filters are literally entry level concepts in any discrete system lecture I've had material of.
The whole paper is very handwaving and has premises that are plain wrong¹. I'd put it into the category of pseudoscience – which means that while I really applaud you looking for meaning and scientific sense in there, you won't.

¹ for example

We also know that the
market is fractal; a daily interval chart looks just like a weekly, monthly, or intraday chart.

No, that's nonsense, and that can be easily seen by the trivial autocorrelation. Or by the fact that there is an average weak-periodic component, but a month isn't &quot;naturally&quot; split into 7 equally sized units, and you won't find that in any autocorrelation. Really, this description is magic/superstition.
The paper claims to be based on scientific studies, but fails to cite even a single one – this should really make you think whether the author isn't trying to sell you that he's got a skill he really doesn't have.