Frequent Links
Open Access Articles Top Results for Fast Fourier transform
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology
Radix 25 FFT Architecture Implementation in Xilinx FPGAInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology
Image Denoising Techniques Using WaveletsInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering
FPGA Implementation of 3/6 SRFFT Algorithm for Length 6*m DFTSInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering
Big Integer Multiplication with CUDA FFT (cuFFT) LibraryInternational Journal of Innovative Research in Computer and Communication Engineering
Anima: Non Conventional Brain Computer Interfaces in Robot Control through Electroencephalography and Electrooculography, Arp ModuleFast Fourier transform
A fast Fourier transform (FFT) is an algorithm to compute the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) and its inverse. Fourier analysis converts time (or space) to frequency (or wavenumber) and vice versa; an FFT rapidly computes such transformations by factorizing the DFT matrix into a product of sparse (mostly zero) factors.^{[1]} As a result, fast Fourier transforms are widely used for many applications in engineering, science, and mathematics. The basic ideas were popularized in 1965, but some algorithms had been derived as early as 1805.^{[2]} In 1994 Gilbert Strang described the fast Fourier transform as "the most important numerical algorithm of our lifetime"^{[3]} and it was included in Top 10 Algorithms of 20th Century by the IEEE journal Computing in Science & Engineering.^{[4]}
Contents
Overview
There are many different FFT algorithms involving a wide range of mathematics, from simple complexnumber arithmetic to group theory and number theory; this article gives an overview of the available techniques and some of their general properties, while the specific algorithms are described in subsidiary articles linked below.
The DFT is obtained by decomposing a sequence of values into components of different frequencies. This operation is useful in many fields (see discrete Fourier transform for properties and applications of the transform) but computing it directly from the definition is often too slow to be practical. An FFT is a way to compute the same result more quickly: computing the DFT of N points in the naive way, using the definition, takes O(N^{2}) arithmetical operations, while an FFT can compute the same DFT in only O(N log N) operations. The difference in speed can be enormous, especially for long data sets where N may be in the thousands or millions. In practice, the computation time can be reduced by several orders of magnitude in such cases, and the improvement is roughly proportional to N / log(N). This huge improvement made the calculation of the DFT practical; FFTs are of great importance to a wide variety of applications, from digital signal processing and solving partial differential equations to algorithms for quick multiplication of large integers.
The bestknown FFT algorithms depend upon the factorization of N, but there are FFTs with O(N log N) complexity for all N, even for prime N. Many FFT algorithms only depend on the fact that <math>e^{{2\pi i \over N}}</math> is an Nth primitive root of unity, and thus can be applied to analogous transforms over any finite field, such as numbertheoretic transforms. Since the inverse DFT is the same as the DFT, but with the opposite sign in the exponent and a 1/N factor, any FFT algorithm can easily be adapted for it.
History
The development of fast algorithm for DFT can be traced to Gauss 's unpublished work in 1805 when he needed it to interpolate the orbit of asteroids Pallas and Juno from sample observations.^{[5]} His method was very similar to the one published in 1965 by Cooley and Tukey, who are generally credited for the invention of the modern generic FFT algorithm. While Gauss's work predated even Fourier's results in 1822, he did not analyze the computation time and eventually used other methods to achieve his goal.
Between 1805 and 1965, some versions of FFT were published by other authors. Yates in 1932 published his version called "interaction algorithm" which was used for efficient computation of Hadamard and Walsh transforms.^{[6]} Yates' algorithm is still used in the field of statistical design and analysis of experiments. In 1942, Danielson and Lanczos published their version to compute DFT for xray crystallography, a field where calculation of Fourier transform presented a formidable bottleneck.^{[7]} While many methods in the past had focused on reducing constant factor for <math>O(n^2)</math> computation by taking advantage of symmetries, Danielson and Lanczos realized that one could use the periodicity and apply "doubling trick" to get <math>O(n \log n)</math> runtime.^{[8]}
Cooley and Tukey published a more general version of FFT in 1965 that is applicable when N is composite and not necessarily a power of 2.^{[9]} Tukey, who worked at IBM's Watson labs, came up with the idea during a meeting of President Kennedy’s Science Advisory Committee where a discussion topic involved detecting nuclear tests by Soviet Union by setting up sensors that surrounds the country from outside. To analyze the output of these sensors, a fast Fourier transform algorithm was needed. Tukey's idea was given to Cooley for implementation while hiding the original purpose from Cooley for security reasons. The pair published the paper in a relatively short six months.^{[10]} As Cooley didn't work at IBM, the patentability of the idea was doubted and the algorithm went to the public domain, which, through the computing revolution of the next decade, made FFT one of the indispensable algorithms in digital signal processing.
Definition and speed
An FFT computes the DFT and produces exactly the same result as evaluating the DFT definition directly; the most important difference is that an FFT is much faster. (In the presence of roundoff error, many FFT algorithms are also much more accurate than evaluating the DFT definition directly, as discussed below.)
Let x_{0}, ...., x_{N1} be complex numbers. The DFT is defined by the formula
 <math> X_k = \sum_{n=0}^{N1} x_n e^{{i 2\pi k \frac{n}{N}}}
\qquad k = 0,\dots,N1. </math>
Evaluating this definition directly requires O(N^{2}) operations: there are N outputs X_{k}, and each output requires a sum of N terms. An FFT is any method to compute the same results in O(N log N) operations. More precisely, all known FFT algorithms require Θ(N log N) operations (technically, O only denotes an upper bound), although there is no known proof that a lower complexity score is impossible.(Johnson and Frigo, 2007)
To illustrate the savings of an FFT, consider the count of complex multiplications and additions. Evaluating the DFT's sums directly involves N^{2} complex multiplications and N(N−1) complex additions [of which O(N) operations can be saved by eliminating trivial operations such as multiplications by 1]. The wellknown radix2 Cooley–Tukey algorithm, for N a power of 2, can compute the same result with only (N/2)log_{2}(N) complex multiplications (again, ignoring simplifications of multiplications by 1 and similar) and Nlog_{2}(N) complex additions. In practice, actual performance on modern computers is usually dominated by factors other than the speed of arithmetic operations and the analysis is a complicated subject (see, e.g., Frigo & Johnson, 2005), but the overall improvement from O(N^{2}) to O(N log N) remains.
Algorithms
Cooley–Tukey algorithm
By far the most commonly used FFT is the Cooley–Tukey algorithm. This is a divide and conquer algorithm that recursively breaks down a DFT of any composite size N = N_{1}N_{2} into many smaller DFTs of sizes N_{1} and N_{2}, along with O(N) multiplications by complex roots of unity traditionally called twiddle factors (after Gentleman and Sande, 1966^{[11]}).
This method (and the general idea of an FFT) was popularized by a publication of J. W. Cooley and J. W. Tukey in 1965,^{[12]} but it was later discovered^{[2]} that those two authors had independently reinvented an algorithm known to Carl Friedrich Gauss around 1805^{[13]} (and subsequently rediscovered several times in limited forms).
The best known use of the Cooley–Tukey algorithm is to divide the transform into two pieces of size N/2 at each step, and is therefore limited to poweroftwo sizes, but any factorization can be used in general (as was known to both Gauss and Cooley/Tukey^{[2]}). These are called the radix2 and mixedradix cases, respectively (and other variants such as the splitradix FFT have their own names as well). Although the basic idea is recursive, most traditional implementations rearrange the algorithm to avoid explicit recursion. Also, because the Cooley–Tukey algorithm breaks the DFT into smaller DFTs, it can be combined arbitrarily with any other algorithm for the DFT, such as those described below.
Other FFT algorithms
There are other FFT algorithms distinct from Cooley–Tukey.
Cornelius Lanczos did pioneering work on the FFS and FFT with G.C. Danielson (1940).
For N = N_{1}N_{2} with coprime N_{1} and N_{2}, one can use the PrimeFactor (GoodThomas) algorithm (PFA), based on the Chinese Remainder Theorem, to factorize the DFT similarly to Cooley–Tukey but without the twiddle factors. The RaderBrenner algorithm (1976) is a Cooley–Tukeylike factorization but with purely imaginary twiddle factors, reducing multiplications at the cost of increased additions and reduced numerical stability; it was later superseded by the splitradix variant of Cooley–Tukey (which achieves the same multiplication count but with fewer additions and without sacrificing accuracy). Algorithms that recursively factorize the DFT into smaller operations other than DFTs include the Bruun and QFT algorithms. (The RaderBrenner and QFT algorithms were proposed for poweroftwo sizes, but it is possible that they could be adapted to general composite n. Bruun's algorithm applies to arbitrary even composite sizes.) Bruun's algorithm, in particular, is based on interpreting the FFT as a recursive factorization of the polynomial z^{N}−1, here into realcoefficient polynomials of the form z^{M}−1 and z^{2M} + az^{M} + 1.
Another polynomial viewpoint is exploited by the Winograd algorithm, which factorizes z^{N}−1 into cyclotomic polynomials—these often have coefficients of 1, 0, or −1, and therefore require few (if any) multiplications, so Winograd can be used to obtain minimalmultiplication FFTs and is often used to find efficient algorithms for small factors. Indeed, Winograd showed that the DFT can be computed with only O(N) irrational multiplications, leading to a proven achievable lower bound on the number of multiplications for poweroftwo sizes; unfortunately, this comes at the cost of many more additions, a tradeoff no longer favorable on modern processors with hardware multipliers. In particular, Winograd also makes use of the PFA as well as an algorithm by Rader for FFTs of prime sizes.
Rader's algorithm, exploiting the existence of a generator for the multiplicative group modulo prime N, expresses a DFT of prime size n as a cyclic convolution of (composite) size N−1, which can then be computed by a pair of ordinary FFTs via the convolution theorem (although Winograd uses other convolution methods). Another primesize FFT is due to L. I. Bluestein, and is sometimes called the chirpz algorithm; it also reexpresses a DFT as a convolution, but this time of the same size (which can be zeropadded to a power of two and evaluated by radix2 Cooley–Tukey FFTs, for example), via the identity <math>nk = (kn)^2/2 + n^2/2 + k^2/2</math>.
FFT algorithms specialized for real and/or symmetric data
In many applications, the input data for the DFT are purely real, in which case the outputs satisfy the symmetry
 <math>X_{Nk} = X_k^*</math>
and efficient FFT algorithms have been designed for this situation (see e.g. Sorensen, 1987). One approach consists of taking an ordinary algorithm (e.g. Cooley–Tukey) and removing the redundant parts of the computation, saving roughly a factor of two in time and memory. Alternatively, it is possible to express an evenlength realinput DFT as a complex DFT of half the length (whose real and imaginary parts are the even/odd elements of the original real data), followed by O(N) postprocessing operations.
It was once believed that realinput DFTs could be more efficiently computed by means of the discrete Hartley transform (DHT), but it was subsequently argued that a specialized realinput DFT algorithm (FFT) can typically be found that requires fewer operations than the corresponding DHT algorithm (FHT) for the same number of inputs. Bruun's algorithm (above) is another method that was initially proposed to take advantage of real inputs, but it has not proved popular.
There are further FFT specializations for the cases of real data that have even/odd symmetry, in which case one can gain another factor of (roughly) two in time and memory and the DFT becomes the discrete cosine/sine transform(s) (DCT/DST). Instead of directly modifying an FFT algorithm for these cases, DCTs/DSTs can also be computed via FFTs of real data combined with O(N) pre/post processing.
Computational issues
Bounds on complexity and operation counts
What is the lower bound on the complexity of fast Fourier transform algorithms? Can they be faster than Θ(N log N)?

A fundamental question of longstanding theoretical interest is to prove lower bounds on the complexity and exact operation counts of fast Fourier transforms, and many open problems remain. It is not even rigorously proved whether DFTs truly require Ω(N log(N)) (i.e., order N log(N) or greater) operations, even for the simple case of power of two sizes, although no algorithms with lower complexity are known. In particular, the count of arithmetic operations is usually the focus of such questions, although actual performance on modernday computers is determined by many other factors such as cache or CPU pipeline optimization.
Following pioneering work by Winograd (1978), a tight Θ(N) lower bound is known for the number of real multiplications required by an FFT. It can be shown that only <math>4N2\log_2^{2}N2\log_2 N4</math> irrational real multiplications are required to compute a DFT of poweroftwo length <math>N=2^m</math>. Moreover, explicit algorithms that achieve this count are known (Heideman & Burrus, 1986; Duhamel, 1990). Unfortunately, these algorithms require too many additions to be practical, at least on modern computers with hardware multipliers (Duhamel, 1990; Frigo & Johnson, 2005).
A tight lower bound is not known on the number of required additions, although lower bounds have been proved under some restrictive assumptions on the algorithms. In 1973, Morgenstern proved an Ω(N log(N)) lower bound on the addition count for algorithms where the multiplicative constants have bounded magnitudes (which is true for most but not all FFT algorithms). Pan (1986) proved an Ω(N log(N)) lower bound assuming a bound on a measure of the FFT algorithm's "asynchronicity", but the generality of this assumption is unclear. For the case of poweroftwo N, Papadimitriou (1979) argued that the number <math>N \log_2 N</math> of complexnumber additions achieved by Cooley–Tukey algorithms is optimal under certain assumptions on the graph of the algorithm (his assumptions imply, among other things, that no additive identities in the roots of unity are exploited). (This argument would imply that at least <math>2 N \log_2 N</math> real additions are required, although this is not a tight bound because extra additions are required as part of complexnumber multiplications.) Thus far, no published FFT algorithm has achieved fewer than <math>N \log_2 N</math> complexnumber additions (or their equivalent) for poweroftwo N.
A third problem is to minimize the total number of real multiplications and additions, sometimes called the "arithmetic complexity" (although in this context it is the exact count and not the asymptotic complexity that is being considered). Again, no tight lower bound has been proven. Since 1968, however, the lowest published count for poweroftwo N was long achieved by the splitradix FFT algorithm, which requires <math>4N\log_2 N6N+8</math> real multiplications and additions for N > 1. This was recently reduced to <math>\sim \frac{34}{9} N \log_2 N</math> (Johnson and Frigo, 2007; Lundy and Van Buskirk, 2007). A slightly larger count (but still better than split radix for N≥256) was shown to be provably optimal for N≤512 under additional restrictions on the possible algorithms (splitradixlike flowgraphs with unitmodulus multiplicative factors), by reduction to a Satisfiability Modulo Theories problem solvable by brute force (Haynal & Haynal, 2011).
Most of the attempts to lower or prove the complexity of FFT algorithms have focused on the ordinary complexdata case, because it is the simplest. However, complexdata FFTs are so closely related to algorithms for related problems such as realdata FFTs, discrete cosine transforms, discrete Hartley transforms, and so on, that any improvement in one of these would immediately lead to improvements in the others (Duhamel & Vetterli, 1990).
Approximations
All of the FFT algorithms discussed above compute the DFT exactly (in exact arithmetic, i.e. neglecting floatingpoint errors). A few "FFT" algorithms have been proposed, however, that compute the DFT approximately, with an error that can be made arbitrarily small at the expense of increased computations. Such algorithms trade the approximation error for increased speed or other properties. For example, an approximate FFT algorithm by Edelman et al. (1999) achieves lower communication requirements for parallel computing with the help of a fast multipole method. A waveletbased approximate FFT by Guo and Burrus (1996) takes sparse inputs/outputs (time/frequency localization) into account more efficiently than is possible with an exact FFT. Another algorithm for approximate computation of a subset of the DFT outputs is due to Shentov et al. (1995). The Edelman algorithm works equally well for sparse and nonsparse data, since it is based on the compressibility (rank deficiency) of the Fourier matrix itself rather than the compressibility (sparsity) of the data. Conversely, if the data are sparse—that is, if only K out of N Fourier coefficients are nonzero—then the complexity can be reduced to O(Klog(N)log(N/K)), and this has been demonstrated to lead to practical speedups compared to an ordinary FFT for N/K>32 in a largeN example (N=2^{22}) using a probabilistic approximate algorithm (which estimates the largest K coefficients to several decimal places).^{[14]}
Accuracy
Even the "exact" FFT algorithms have errors when finiteprecision floatingpoint arithmetic is used, but these errors are typically quite small; most FFT algorithms, e.g. Cooley–Tukey, have excellent numerical properties as a consequence of the pairwise summation structure of the algorithms. The upper bound on the relative error for the Cooley–Tukey algorithm is O(ε log N), compared to O(εN^{3/2}) for the naïve DFT formula,^{[11]} where ε is the machine floatingpoint relative precision. In fact, the root mean square (rms) errors are much better than these upper bounds, being only O(ε √log N) for Cooley–Tukey and O(ε √N) for the naïve DFT (Schatzman, 1996). These results, however, are very sensitive to the accuracy of the twiddle factors used in the FFT (i.e. the trigonometric function values), and it is not unusual for incautious FFT implementations to have much worse accuracy, e.g. if they use inaccurate trigonometric recurrence formulas. Some FFTs other than Cooley–Tukey, such as the RaderBrenner algorithm, are intrinsically less stable.
In fixedpoint arithmetic, the finiteprecision errors accumulated by FFT algorithms are worse, with rms errors growing as O(√N) for the Cooley–Tukey algorithm (Welch, 1969). Moreover, even achieving this accuracy requires careful attention to scaling in order to minimize the loss of precision, and fixedpoint FFT algorithms involve rescaling at each intermediate stage of decompositions like Cooley–Tukey.
To verify the correctness of an FFT implementation, rigorous guarantees can be obtained in O(Nlog(N)) time by a simple procedure checking the linearity, impulseresponse, and timeshift properties of the transform on random inputs (Ergün, 1995).
Multidimensional FFTs
As defined in the multidimensional DFT article, the multidimensional DFT
 <math>X_\mathbf{k} = \sum_{\mathbf{n}=0}^{\mathbf{N}1} e^{2\pi i \mathbf{k} \cdot (\mathbf{n} / \mathbf{N})} x_\mathbf{n}</math>
transforms an array x_{n} with a ddimensional vector of indices <math>\mathbf{n}=(n_1, \ldots, n_d)</math> by a set of d nested summations (over <math>n_j = 0 \ldots N_j1</math> for each j), where the division n/N, defined as <math>\mathbf{n} / \mathbf{N} = (n_1/N_1, \ldots, n_d/N_d)</math>, is performed elementwise. Equivalently, it is the composition of a sequence of d sets of onedimensional DFTs, performed along one dimension at a time (in any order).
This compositional viewpoint immediately provides the simplest and most common multidimensional DFT algorithm, known as the rowcolumn algorithm (after the twodimensional case, below). That is, one simply performs a sequence of d onedimensional FFTs (by any of the above algorithms): first you transform along the n_{1} dimension, then along the n_{2} dimension, and so on (or actually, any ordering will work). This method is easily shown to have the usual O(Nlog(N)) complexity, where <math>N = N_1 \cdot N_2 \cdot \ldots \cdot N_d</math> is the total number of data points transformed. In particular, there are N/N_{1} transforms of size N_{1}, etcetera, so the complexity of the sequence of FFTs is:
 <math>\begin{align}
& {} \qquad \frac{N}{N_1} O(N_1 \log N_1) + \cdots + \frac{N}{N_d} O(N_d \log N_d) \\[6pt] & = O\left(N \left[\log N_1 + \cdots + \log N_d\right]\right) = O(N \log N). \end{align}</math>
In two dimensions, the x_{k} can be viewed as an <math>n_1 \times n_2</math> matrix, and this algorithm corresponds to first performing the FFT of all the rows (resp. columns), grouping the resulting transformed rows (resp. columns) together as another <math>n_1 \times n_2</math> matrix, and then performing the FFT on each of the columns (resp. rows) of this second matrix, and similarly grouping the results into the final result matrix.
In more than two dimensions, it is often advantageous for cache locality to group the dimensions recursively. For example, a threedimensional FFT might first perform twodimensional FFTs of each planar "slice" for each fixed n_{1}, and then perform the onedimensional FFTs along the n_{1} direction. More generally, an asymptotically optimal cacheoblivious algorithm consists of recursively dividing the dimensions into two groups <math>(n_1, \ldots, n_{d/2})</math> and <math>(n_{d/2+1}, \ldots, n_d)</math> that are transformed recursively (rounding if d is not even) (see Frigo and Johnson, 2005). Still, this remains a straightforward variation of the rowcolumn algorithm that ultimately requires only a onedimensional FFT algorithm as the base case, and still has O(Nlog(N)) complexity. Yet another variation is to perform matrix transpositions in between transforming subsequent dimensions, so that the transforms operate on contiguous data; this is especially important for outofcore and distributed memory situations where accessing noncontiguous data is extremely timeconsuming.
There are other multidimensional FFT algorithms that are distinct from the rowcolumn algorithm, although all of them have O(Nlog(N)) complexity. Perhaps the simplest nonrowcolumn FFT is the vectorradix FFT algorithm, which is a generalization of the ordinary Cooley–Tukey algorithm where one divides the transform dimensions by a vector <math>\mathbf{r}=(r_1, r_2, \ldots, r_d)</math> of radices at each step. (This may also have cache benefits.) The simplest case of vectorradix is where all of the radices are equal (e.g. vectorradix2 divides all of the dimensions by two), but this is not necessary. Vector radix with only a single nonunit radix at a time, i.e. <math>\mathbf{r}=(1, \ldots, 1, r, 1, \ldots, 1)</math>, is essentially a rowcolumn algorithm. Other, more complicated, methods include polynomial transform algorithms due to Nussbaumer (1977), which view the transform in terms of convolutions and polynomial products. See Duhamel and Vetterli (1990) for more information and references.
Other generalizations
An O(N^{5/2}log(N)) generalization to spherical harmonics on the sphere S^{2} with N^{2} nodes was described by Mohlenkamp,^{[15]} along with an algorithm conjectured (but not proven) to have O(N^{2} log^{2}(N)) complexity; Mohlenkamp also provides an implementation in the libftsh library. A sphericalharmonic algorithm with O(N^{2}log(N)) complexity is described by Rokhlin and Tygert.^{[16]}
The Fast Folding Algorithm is analogous to the FFT, except that it operates on a series of binned waveforms rather than a series of real or complex scalar values. Rotation (which in the FFT is multiplication by a complex phasor) is a circular shift of the component waveform.
Various groups have also published "FFT" algorithms for nonequispaced data, as reviewed in Potts et al. (2001). Such algorithms do not strictly compute the DFT (which is only defined for equispaced data), but rather some approximation thereof (a nonuniform discrete Fourier transform, or NDFT, which itself is often computed only approximately). More generally there are various other methods of spectral estimation.
Applications
FFT's importance derives from the fact that in signal processing and image processing it has made working in frequency domain equally computationally feasible as working in temporal or spatial domain. Some of the important applications of FFT includes,^{[10]}^{[17]}
 Fast large integer and polynomial multiplication
 Efficient matrixvector multiplication for Toeplitz, circulant and other structured matrices
 Filtering algorithms
 Fast algorithms for discrete cosine or sine transforms (example, Fast DCT used for JPEG, MP3/MPEG encoding)
 Fast Chebyshev approximation
 Fast Discrete Hartley Transform
 Solving Difference Equations
Research Areas
 Big FFTs: With explosion of big data in fields such as astronomy, the need for 512k FFTs has arisen for certain interferometry calculations. The data collected by projects such as MAP and LIGO will require FFTs of 10s of gigapoints. As this size does not fit in to main memory, so called outofcore FFTs is an active area of research.^{[18]}
 Approximate FFTs: For applications such as MRI, it is necessary to compute DFTs for nonuniformly spaced grid points and/or frequencies. Multipole based approaches can compute approximate quantities with factor of runtime increase.^{[19]}
 Group FFTs: The FFT may also be explained and interpreted using group representation theory that allows for further generalization. A function on any compact group, including non cyclic, has an expansion in terms of a basis of irreducible matrix elements. It remains active area of research to find efficient algorithm for performing this change of basis. Applications including efficient spherical harmonic expansion, analyzing certain markov processes, robotics etc.^{[20]}
 Quantum FFTs: Shor's fast algorithm for integer factorization on a quantum computer has a subroutine to compute DFT of a binary vector. This is implemented as sequence of 1 or 2bit quantum gates now known as quantum FFT which is effectively the CooleyTukey FFT realized as a particular factorization of the Fourier matrix. Extension to these ideas is currently being explored.
Popular Culture
Fourier transform is often mentioned in popular cultural references through movies, TV series, cartoon series and so on.
In the movie Transformers (2007): Character played by Rachael Taylor informs that "The signal pattern is learning, it's EVOLVING on its own, and you need to move past Fourier transforms and start thinking quantum mechanics..."
In the movie No Way Out (1997): An image processing guru declares that “Ya got the wrong eigenvalue!! Put a Fourier transform on it. PRONTO!!” to help character played by Kevin Costner see the details in the photograph.
The webcomic xkcd has featured topic of Fourier transforms multiple times.^{[21]}
See also
 Cooley–Tukey FFT algorithm
 Primefactor FFT algorithm
 Bruun's FFT algorithm
 Rader's FFT algorithm
 Bluestein's FFT algorithm
 Butterfly diagram – a diagram used to describe FFTs.
 Odlyzko–Schönhage algorithm applies the FFT to finite Dirichlet series.
 Overlap add/Overlap save – efficient convolution methods using FFT for long signals
 Spectral music (involves application of FFT analysis to musical composition)
 Spectrum analyzers – Devices that perform an FFT
 FFTW "Fastest Fourier Transform in the West" – C library for the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) in one or more dimensions.
 FFTS – The Fastest Fourier Transform in the South.
 FFTPACK – another Fortran FFT library (public domain)
 Goertzel algorithm – Computes individual terms of discrete Fourier transform
 Time series
 Math Kernel Library
 Fast Walsh–Hadamard transform
 Generalized distributive law
 Multidimensional transform
References
 ^ Charles Van Loan, Computational Frameworks for the Fast Fourier Transform (SIAM, 1992).
 ^ ^{a} ^{b} ^{c} Heideman, M. T.; Johnson, D. H.; Burrus, C. S. (1984). "Gauss and the history of the fast Fourier transform". IEEE ASSP Magazine 1 (4): 14–21. doi:10.1109/MASSP.1984.1162257.
 ^ Strang, Gilbert (May–June 1994). "Wavelets". American Scientist 82 (3): 253. JSTOR 29775194.
 ^ Dongarra, J.; Sullivan, F. (January 2000). "Guest Editors Introduction to the top 10 algorithms". Computing in Science Engineering 2 (1): 22–23. ISSN 15219615. doi:10.1109/MCISE.2000.814652.
 ^ Heideman, Michael T.; Johnson, Don H.; Burrus, C. Sidney (19850901). "Gauss and the history of the fast Fourier transform". Archive for History of Exact Sciences 34 (3): 265–277. ISSN 00039519. doi:10.1007/BF00348431.
 ^ Yates, Frank (1937). "The design and analysis of factorial experiments". Technical Communication no. 35 of the Commonwealth Bureau of Soils.
 ^ Danielson and Lanczos (1942). "Some improvements in practical Fourier analysis and their application to xray scattering from liquids". Journal of the Franklin Institute 233 (4): 365–380. doi:10.1016/S00160032(42)907671.
 ^ Cooley, James W.; Lewis, Peter A.W.; Welch, Peter D. (June 1967). "Historical notes on the fast Fourier transform". IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 15 (2): 76–79. ISSN 00189278. doi:10.1109/TAU.1967.1161903.
 ^ Cooley, James W.; Tukey, John W. (1965). "An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex Fourier series". Mathematics of Computation 19 (90): 297–301. ISSN 00255718. doi:10.1090/S00255718196501785861.
 ^ ^{a} ^{b} Rockmore, D.N. (January 2000). "The FFT: an algorithm the whole family can use". Computing in Science Engineering 2 (1): 60–64. ISSN 15219615. doi:10.1109/5992.814659.
 ^ ^{a} ^{b} Gentleman, W. M.; Sande, G. (1966). "Fast Fourier transforms—for fun and profit". Proc. AFIPS 29: 563–578. doi:10.1145/1464291.1464352.
 ^ * Cooley, James W.; Tukey, John W. (1965). "An algorithm for the machine calculation of complex Fourier series". Math. Comput. 19 (90): 297–301. doi:10.1090/S00255718196501785861.
 ^ Carl Friedrich Gauss, 1866. "Theoria interpolationis methodo nova tractata," Werke band 3, 265–327. Göttingen: Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.
 ^ Haitham Hassanieh, Piotr Indyk, Dina Katabi, and Eric Price, "Simple and Practical Algorithm for Sparse Fourier Transform" (PDF), ACMSIAM Symposium On Discrete Algorithms (SODA), Kyoto, January 2012. See also the sFFT Web Page.
 ^ Mohlenkamp, Martin J. (1999). "A F ast T ransform for Spherical Harmonics" (PDF). The Journal of F ourier A nalysis and Applic ations 5 (2/3): 159–184. Retrieved 18 September 2014.
 ^ ROKHLIN, VLADIMIR; TYGERT, MARK (2006). "FAST ALGORITHMS FOR SPHERICAL HARMONIC EXPANSIONS" (PDF). SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 27 (6): 903–1928. Retrieved 18 September 2014.
 ^ Chu and George. "16". Inside the FFT Black Box: Serial and Parallel Fast Fourier Transform Algorithms. CRC Press. pp. 153–168. ISBN 9781420049961.
 ^ Cormen and Nicol (1998). "Performing outofcore FFTs on parallel disk systems". Parallel Computing 24 (1): 5–20. doi:10.1016/S01678191(97)001142.
 ^ Dutt, A.; Rokhlin, V. (November 1, 1993). "Fast Fourier Transforms for Nonequispaced Data". SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 14 (6): 1368–1393. ISSN 10648275. doi:10.1137/0914081.
 ^ Rockmore, Daniel N. (2004). Byrnes, Jim, ed. "Recent Progress and Applications in Group FFTs". Computational Noncommutative Algebra and Applications. NATO Science Series II: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry (Springer Netherlands) 136: 227–254. ISBN 9781402019821.
 ^ "xkcd: Fourier". xkcd.com. Retrieved 20150524.
 Brenner, N.; Rader, C. (1976). "A New Principle for Fast Fourier Transformation". IEEE Acoustics, Speech & Signal Processing 24 (3): 264–266. doi:10.1109/TASSP.1976.1162805.
 Brigham, E. O. (2002). "The Fast Fourier Transform". New York: PrenticeHall
 Thomas H. Cormen, Charles E. Leiserson, Ronald L. Rivest, and Clifford Stein, 2001. Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd. ed. MIT Press and McGrawHill. ISBN 0262032937. Especially chapter 30, "Polynomials and the FFT."
 Duhamel, Pierre (1990). "Algorithms meeting the lower bounds on the multiplicative complexity of length<math>2^n</math> DFTs and their connection with practical algorithms". IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech. Sig. Proc. 38 (9): 1504–151. doi:10.1109/29.60070.
 P. Duhamel and M. Vetterli, 1990, Fast Fourier transforms: a tutorial review and a state of the art, Signal Processing 19: 259–299.
 A. Edelman, P. McCorquodale, and S. Toledo, 1999, The Future Fast Fourier Transform?, SIAM J. Sci. Computing 20: 1094–1114.
 D. F. Elliott, & K. R. Rao, 1982, Fast transforms: Algorithms, analyses, applications. New York: Academic Press.
 Funda Ergün, 1995, Testing multivariate linear functions: Overcoming the generator bottleneck, Proc. 27th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing: 407–416.
 Frigo, M.; Johnson, S. G. (2005). "The Design and Implementation of FFTW3" (PDF). Proceedings of the IEEE 93: 216–231. doi:10.1109/jproc.2004.840301.
 H. Guo and C. S. Burrus, 1996, Fast approximate Fourier transform via wavelets transform, Proc. SPIE Intl. Soc. Opt. Eng. 2825: 250–259.
 H. Guo, G. A. Sitton, C. S. Burrus, 1994, The Quick Discrete Fourier Transform, Proc. IEEE Conf. Acoust. Speech and Sig. Processing (ICASSP) 3: 445–448.
 Steve Haynal and Heidi Haynal, "Generating and Searching Families of FFT Algorithms", Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation vol. 7, pp. 145–187 (2011).
 Heideman, Michael T.; Burrus, C. Sidney (1986). "On the number of multiplications necessary to compute a length<math>2^n</math> DFT". IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech. Sig. Proc. 34 (1): 91–95. doi:10.1109/TASSP.1986.1164785.
 Johnson, S. G.; Frigo, M. (2007). "A modified splitradix FFT with fewer arithmetic operations" (PDF). IEEE Trans. Signal Processing 55 (1): 111–119. doi:10.1109/tsp.2006.882087.
 T. Lundy and J. Van Buskirk, 2007. "A new matrix approach to real FFTs and convolutions of length 2^{k}," Computing 80 (1): 23–45.
 Kent, Ray D. and Read, Charles (2002). Acoustic Analysis of Speech. ISBN 0769301126. Cites Strang, G. (1994)/May–June). Wavelets. American Scientist, 82, 250–255.
 Morgenstern, Jacques (1973). "Note on a lower bound of the linear complexity of the fast Fourier transform". J. ACM 20 (2): 305–306. doi:10.1145/321752.321761.
 Mohlenkamp, M. J. (1999). "A fast transform for spherical harmonics" (PDF). J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 5 (2–3): 159–184. doi:10.1007/BF01261607.
 Nussbaumer, H. J. (1977). "Digital filtering using polynomial transforms". Electronics Lett. 13 (13): 386–387. doi:10.1049/el:19770280.
 V. Pan, 1986, The tradeoff between the additive complexity and the asyncronicity of linear and bilinear algorithms, Information Proc. Lett. 22: 11–14.
 Christos H. Papadimitriou, 1979, Optimality of the fast Fourier transform, J. ACM 26: 95–102.
 D. Potts, G. Steidl, and M. Tasche, 2001. "Fast Fourier transforms for nonequispaced data: A tutorial", in: J.J. Benedetto and P. Ferreira (Eds.), Modern Sampling Theory: Mathematics and Applications (Birkhauser).
 Press, WH; Teukolsky, SA; Vetterling, WT; Flannery, BP (2007), "Chapter 12. Fast Fourier Transform", Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing (3rd ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521880688
 Rokhlin, Vladimir; Tygert, Mark (2006). "Fast algorithms for spherical harmonic expansions". SIAM J. Sci. Computing 27 (6): 1903–1928. doi:10.1137/050623073.
 Schatzman, James C. (1996). "Accuracy of the discrete Fourier transform and the fast Fourier transform". SIAM J. Sci. Comput 17: 1150–1166. doi:10.1137/s1064827593247023.
 Shentov, O. V.; Mitra, S. K.; Heute, U.; Hossen, A. N. (1995). "Subband DFT. I. Definition, interpretations and extensions". Signal Processing 41 (3): 261–277. doi:10.1016/01651684(94)001037.
 Sorensen, H. V.; Jones, D. L.; Heideman, M. T.; Burrus, C. S. (1987). "Realvalued fast Fourier transform algorithms". IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Sig. Processing 35 (35): 849–863. doi:10.1109/TASSP.1987.1165220. See also Sorensen, H.; Jones, D.; Heideman, M.; Burrus, C. (1987). "Corrections to "Realvalued fast Fourier transform algorithms"". IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing 35 (9): 1353–1353. doi:10.1109/TASSP.1987.1165284.
 Welch, Peter D. (1969). "A fixedpoint fast Fourier transform error analysis". IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoustics 17 (2): 151–157. doi:10.1109/TAU.1969.1162035.
 Winograd, S. (1978). "On computing the discrete Fourier transform". Math. Computation 32 (141): 175–199. JSTOR 2006266. doi:10.1090/S00255718197804683064.
External links
 Fast Fourier Algorithm
 Fast Fourier Transforms, Connexions online book edited by C. Sidney Burrus, with chapters by C. Sidney Burrus, Ivan Selesnick, Markus Pueschel, Matteo Frigo, and Steven G. Johnson (2008).
 Links to FFT code and information online.
 National Taiwan University – FFT
 FFT programming in C++ — Cooley–Tukey algorithm.
 Online documentation, links, book, and code.
 Using FFT to construct aggregate probability distributions
 Sri Welaratna, "Thirty years of FFT analyzers", Sound and Vibration (January 1997, 30th anniversary issue). A historical review of hardware FFT devices.
 FFT Basics and Case Study Using MultiInstrument
 FFT Textbook notes, PPTs, Videos at Holistic Numerical Methods Institute.
 ALGLIB FFT Code GPL Licensed multilanguage (VBA, C++, Pascal, etc.) numerical analysis and data processing library.
 MIT's sFFT MIT Sparse FFT algorithm and implementation.
 VB6 FFT VB6 optimized library implementation with source code.