What are the downsides of convolution by FFT compa

Question

So I am aware that a convolution by FFT has a lower computational complexity than a convolution in real space. But what are the downsides of an FFT convolution?

Does the kernel size always have to match the image size, or are there functions that take care of this, for example in pythons numpy and scipy packages? And what about anti-aliasing effects?

Answer 1

FFT convolutions are based on the convolution theorem, which states that givem two functions f and g, if Fd() and Fi() denote the direct and inverse Fourier transform, and * and . convolution and multiplication, then:

f*g = Fi(Fd(d).Fd(g))

To apply this to a signal f and a kernel g, there are some things you need to take care of:

• f and g have to be of the same size for the multiplication step to be possible, so you need to zero-pad the kernel.
• When doing a DFT, which is what FFT does, the resulting frequency domain representation of the function is periodic. This means that, by default, your kernel wraps around the edge when doing the convolution. If you want this, then all is great. But if not, you have to add an extra zero-padding the size of the kernel to avoid it.
• Most (all?) FFT packages only work well (performance-wise) with sizes that do not have any large prime factors. Rounding the signal and kernel size up to the next power of two is a common practice that may result in a (very) significant speed-up.

If your signal and kernel sizes are f_l and g_l, doing a straightforward convolution in time domain requires g_l * (f_l - g_l + 1) multiplications and (g_l - 1) * (f_l - g_l + 1) additions.

For the FFT approach, you have to do 3 FFTs of size at least f_l + g_l, as well as f_l + g_l multiplications.

For large sizes of both f and g, the FFT is clearly superior with its n*log(n) complexity. For small kernels, the direct approach may be faster.

scipy.signal has both convolve and fftconvolve methods for you to play around. And fftconvolve handles all the padding described above transparently for you.

Answer 2

While fast convolution has better "big O" complexity than direct form convolution; there are a few drawbacks or caveats. I did some thinking about this topic for an article I wrote a while back.

1. Better "big O" complexity is not always better. Direct form convolution can be faster than using FFTs for filters smaller than a certain size. The exact size depends on the platform and implementations used. The crossover point is usually in the 10-40 coefficient range.

2. Latency. Fast convolution is inherently a blockwise algorithm. Queueing up hundreds or thousands of samples at a time before transforming them may be unacceptable for some real-time applications.

3. Implementation complexity. Direct form is simpler in terms of the memory, code space and in the theoretical background of the writer/maintainer.

4. On a fixed point DSP platform (not a general purpose CPU): the limited word size considerations of fixed-point FFT make large fixed point FFTs nearly useless. At the other end of the size spectrum, these chips have specialized MAC intstructions that are well designed for performing direct form FIR computation, increasing the range over which te O(N^2) direct form is faster than O(NlogN). These factors tend to create a limited "sweet spot" where fixed point FFTs are useful for Fast Convolution.