# Complexity of computing the discrete Fourier transform?

What is the complexity (on the standard integer RAM) of computing the standard discrete Fourier transform of a vector of $n$ integers?

The classical algorithm for fast Fourier transforms, inappropriately[1] attributed to Cooley and Tukey, is usually described as running in $O(n \log n)$ time. But most of the arithmetic operations executed in this algorithm start with complex $n$th roots of unity, which are (for most $n$) irrational, so exact evaluation in constant time is not reasonable. The same issue arises with the naive $O(n^2)$-time algorithm (multiplying by a Vandermonde matrix of complex roots of unity).

It's not even clear how to represent the output of the DFT exactly (in any useful form). In other words, it's not clear that computing DFTs is actually possible!

So suppose we only need $b$ bits of precision in each output value. What's the complexity of computing the discrete Fourier transform, as a function of $n$ and $b$? (For concreteness, feel free to assume $n$ is a power of $2$.)

Or does every instance of "FFT" in the literature actually mean "fast number-theoretic transform"?[2]

See my related questions on the complexity of Gaussian elimination and Euclidean shortest paths.

[1] It should really be called (some prefix of) the Gauss-Runge-König-Yates-Stumpf-Danielson-Lánczos-Cooley-Tukey algorithm.

[2] And if so, why do most textbooks describe only the complex-number algorithm?

• I think that's his point: in theory you don't have to worry about $b$, but in any ACTUAL implementation you DO have to worry about it and the error that might be incurred. Sep 12, 2011 at 17:17
• Actually this is a good question each additional bit of precision adds $3dB$ to the signal strength (multiply by $2$). So I think the question will be most useful if the intermediary word sizes can be expanded!
– v s
Sep 12, 2011 at 17:29
• Computable analysis has considered this, and related questions. This paper produces a complexity bound for computation of the Fourier transform within the framework of Weirauch's Type II effectivity. The bound is that it is linear in the presentation of the (infinite, real-valued) input. Both the input and the output are defined wrt precision parameters in this system, so there may be a way to translate this into the RAM model. Sep 12, 2011 at 17:48
• Have a look at Method A in the paper of Schönhage and Strassen on integer multiplication. It uses complex Fourier transforms with bounded precision. I think, it is also described in Knuth Vol. 2. Sep 12, 2011 at 19:29
• Markus, Aaron: convert to answers ? Sep 13, 2011 at 10:52

This answer is a variant of the analysis of the first algorithm ("Methode A") by Schönhage and Strassen for multiplication of long integers.

Assume we want to compute an FFT of length $K = 2^k$. Scale your input such that all values are smaller than 1. Let us first assume that we compute with $m$-bit fixed point arithmetic ($m$ bits after the binary point). Let $\delta = 2^{1/2 -m}$ be the ("complex") unit of least position. Let $\omega = \exp(2\pi i/K)$.

1) One can compute approximations $\omega_j'$ such that $|\omega_j' - \omega^j| \le (2k-1)\delta$ for all $0 \le j \le K-1$. This can be done in time $O(K M(m))$ where $M(m)$ is the time needed to multiply $m$-bit numbers. (see Knuth Vol. 2, 3rd ed., page 309).

If standard integer RAM means logarithmic cost, then $M(m) = O(m \log m)$. If standard integer RAM means word RAM, then $M(m) = O(m)$. (Schönhage and Strassen show in "Methode A" how to reduce in linear time the multiplication of $m$-bit numbers to $m$ multiplication of $O(\log m)$ bit numbers. The latter can be done at unit costs.)

2) The classical Cooley-Tukey FFT computes operations of the form $a = b + \omega^j c$. We use $m$-bit fixed point arithmetic, these opertions become $a' = truncate(b' + \omega_j' c')$. If we know $b'$ and $c'$ up to an error of $\epsilon$, we get $a'$ up to an error of $2\epsilon + 2k\delta$.

3) Using induction, it is easy to see that we get the final result with error $(2^k - 1) \cdot 2k\delta$. To get precision $b$ in the end, $m \ge k + \log k + b + O(1)$.

4) Thus the final running time is $O(K k M(k+b))$.

This should also work with floating point numbers: 1) can still be done with fixed point arithmetic, 2) is also true for floating point numbers.

In fixed point arithmetic, I think, it can even be done faster. First we reduce the computation of the FFT to the multiplication of polynomials using Bluestein's trick. The length of the coefficients needed to get the desired precision should be $O(k + b)$. Then we reduce the multiplication of polynomials to the multiplication of long integers. (Append the coefficients to a long number and separate them by blocks of zero of length $O(k+b)$.) The length of the integers is $O(K(k+b))$.

• So from point (4), setting K = n and b = O(log n), and assuming we're running on the word RAM, we get a running time of $O(n \log^2 n)$. Right? Sep 14, 2011 at 12:56
• Yes. The second algorithm even yields $O(n \log n)$, assuming that precision $O(k+b)$ is sufficient. (I do not see any point why this is not sufficient, but I did not do the details.) Sep 14, 2011 at 14:02
• BTW, if $b$ is as small as $O(\log n)$, then also the first algorithm gives running time $O(n \log n)$ since $M(O(\log n)) = 1$. Sep 14, 2011 at 15:49
• I happened to look at the book of Aho, Hopcroft and Ullman on "The Design and Analysis of Algorithms" and they discuss the algorithm in the bit model and related issues in some detail. Sep 21, 2011 at 18:38
• But as far as I remember, they only discuss the "number-theoretic FFT" in the bit-model. Sep 26, 2011 at 13:18

This is not a complete answer, but I can point you to some relevant papers and also partially explain why it's not so easy to extract an answer to your specific question from the literature.

Let me start by asking, why do you want to know the answer to this question? Typically, the people who find themselves caring about this sort of issue are those faced with actually implementing a high-performance FFT for a practical application. Such people care less about asymptotic complexity in some idealized computational model than about maximizing performance under their particular hardware and software constraints. For example, the developers of the Fastest Fourier Transform in the West write in their paper:

The best choice depends upon hardware details like the number of registers, latency and throughput of instructions, size and associativity of caches, structure of the processor pipeline, etc.

These are issues that theorists typically don't want to sully their hands with, but they are of great importance in actual implementations. If a theorist declares, "I've figured out the absolute best asymptotic bit complexity in the RAM model," the practitioner might say, "That's nice," but may find such a theoretical result useless for his or her purposes.

Having said that, I think that your best bet is to look at the numerical analysis literature. For example, Tasche and Zeuner have taken a close look at the numerical stability of the FFT algorithm. This may still not be exactly what you want, because the general consensus among practitioners seems to be that to achieve a given amount of numerical precision, the best practical approach is to precompute certain numbers called "twiddle factors" to high accuracy. If you're doing only one FFT, then this is not going to be the fastest approach because you don't get to amortize the cost of your one-time precomputation over a large number of FFT computations. Still, their analysis of the worst-case roundoff error should still be relevant to your question.

• I bet people would be interested in knowing if they can squeeze $1$ extra bit of precision say if they can do a $1024$ point FFT (OFDM in WLANs) in say $100$ extra multiplications over the current algorithms.
– v s
Sep 13, 2011 at 15:57
• I'm interested as a purely theoretical question, in the interest of correct and honest scholarship. It is quite common to read "and here we use an FFT, which as everyone knows runs in O(n log n) time" in the middle of an otherwise purely combinatorial algorithm, otherwise analyzed in terms of pointer traversals and O(log n)-bit integer arithmetic. If, in fact, integer convolution can be performed in O(n log n) time using a slight variant of the FFT, this is perhaps forgivable but still sloppy. If not, any poor schmuck who tries to implement the algorithm is going to get THE WRONG ANSWER. Sep 14, 2011 at 12:51
• And of course, I don't expect the answer to my question to have any impact in practice whatsoever. Sep 14, 2011 at 12:58
• Jeff, as far as honest scholarship is concerned, isn't it enough to say that the FFT requires O(n log n) ring operations? That is the natural way to measure the complexity of the FFT algorithm. I don't see the motivation for converting everything into one particular model of computation. Is there some theorem you're trying to prove where it's crucial to keep track of the number of bits of precision? As for your poor schmuck, I don't buy that he'll get the "wrong answer." In any actual implementation, the question you're asking here is very unlikely to be the dominant concern. Sep 14, 2011 at 14:53
• Tim: Sure, it's enough to say $O(n \log n)$ ring operations if you're analyzing the FFT in isolation. But if the FFT is just one component of a larger algorithm, reporting the running time of the larger algorithm requires a consistent model of computation for all its constituent subroutines, including the FFT. For example, "convolve the two integer sequences using the Cooley-Tukey FFT algorithm and then insert the resulting coefficients into a hash table" (to make up a totally fake example) is asking for trouble. Sep 15, 2011 at 12:10