304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

# RStudio AI Weblog: Discrete Fourier Rework

Notice: This publish is an excerpt from the forthcoming e book, Deep Studying and Scientific Computing with R torch. The chapter in query is on the Discrete Fourier Rework (DFT), and is situated partly three. Half three is devoted to scientific computation past deep studying.
There are two chapters on the Fourier Rework. The primary strives to, in as “verbal” and lucid a approach as was doable to me, forged a light-weight on what’s behind the magic; it additionally reveals how, surprisingly, you possibly can code the DFT in merely half a dozen traces. The second focuses on quick implementation (the Quick Fourier Rework, or FFT), once more with each conceptual/explanatory in addition to sensible, code-it-yourself elements.
Collectively, these cowl much more materials than may sensibly match right into a weblog publish; due to this fact, please think about what follows extra as a “teaser” than a totally fledged article.

Within the sciences, the Fourier Rework is nearly in every single place. Acknowledged very usually, it converts knowledge from one illustration to a different, with none lack of info (if accomplished appropriately, that’s.) If you happen to use `torch`, it’s only a perform name away: `torch_fft_fft()` goes a technique, `torch_fft_ifft()` the opposite. For the consumer, that’s handy – you “simply” have to know learn how to interpret the outcomes. Right here, I wish to assist with that. We begin with an instance perform name, enjoying round with its output, after which, attempt to get a grip on what’s going on behind the scenes.

## Understanding the output of `torch_fft_fft()`

As we care about precise understanding, we begin from the only doable instance sign, a pure cosine that performs one revolution over the whole sampling interval.

### Start line: A cosine of frequency 1

The best way we set issues up, there can be sixty-four samples; the sampling interval thus equals `N = 64`. The content material of `frequency()`, the under helper perform used to assemble the sign, displays how we symbolize the cosine. Particularly:

[
f(x) = cos(frac{2 pi}{N} k x)
]

Right here (x) values progress over time (or area), and (ok) is the frequency index. A cosine is periodic with interval (2 pi); so if we wish it to first return to its beginning state after sixty-four samples, and (x) runs between zero and sixty-three, we’ll need (ok) to be equal to (1). Like that, we’ll attain the preliminary state once more at place (x = frac{2 pi}{64} * 1 * 64).

Let’s shortly verify this did what it was speculated to:

``````df <- knowledge.body(x = sample_positions, y = as.numeric(x))

ggplot(df, aes(x = x, y = y)) +
geom_line() +
xlab("time") +
ylab("amplitude") +
theme_minimal()``````

Now that now we have the enter sign, `torch_fft_fft()` computes for us the Fourier coefficients, that’s, the significance of the varied frequencies current within the sign. The variety of frequencies thought-about will equal the variety of sampling factors: So (X) can be of size sixty-four as effectively.

(In our instance, you’ll discover that the second half of coefficients will equal the primary in magnitude. That is the case for each real-valued sign. In such circumstances, you may name `torch_fft_rfft()` as an alternative, which yields “nicer” (within the sense of shorter) vectors to work with. Right here although, I wish to clarify the final case, since that’s what you’ll discover accomplished in most expositions on the subject.)

Even with the sign being actual, the Fourier coefficients are advanced numbers. There are 4 methods to examine them. The primary is to extract the actual half:

``````[1]  0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[29] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[57] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32``````

Solely a single coefficient is non-zero, the one at place 1. (We begin counting from zero, and should discard the second half, as defined above.)

Now trying on the imaginary half, we discover it’s zero all through:

``````[1]  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[29] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[57] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0``````

At this level we all know that there’s only a single frequency current within the sign, specifically, that at (ok = 1). This matches (and it higher needed to) the way in which we constructed the sign: specifically, as conducting a single revolution over the whole sampling interval.

Since, in idea, each coefficient may have non-zero actual and imaginary elements, usually what you’d report is the magnitude (the sq. root of the sum of squared actual and imaginary elements):

``````[1]  0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[29] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[57] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32``````

Unsurprisingly, these values precisely replicate the respective actual elements.

Lastly, there’s the section, indicating a doable shift of the sign (a pure cosine is unshifted). In `torch`, now we have `torch_angle()` complementing `torch_abs()`, however we have to bear in mind roundoff error right here. We all know that in every however a single case, the actual and imaginary elements are each precisely zero; however attributable to finite precision in how numbers are introduced in a pc, the precise values will usually not be zero. As a substitute, they’ll be very small. If we take one in every of these “pretend non-zeroes” and divide it by one other, as occurs within the angle calculation, massive values may end up. To stop this from taking place, our customized implementation rounds each inputs earlier than triggering the division.

``````section <- perform(Ft, threshold = 1e5) {
torch_atan2(
torch_abs(torch_round(Ft\$imag * threshold)),
torch_abs(torch_round(Ft\$actual * threshold))
)
}

as.numeric(section(Ft)) %>% spherical(5)``````
``````[1]  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[29] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[57] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0``````

As anticipated, there isn’t a section shift within the sign.

Let’s visualize what we discovered.

``````create_plot <- perform(x, y, amount) {
df <- knowledge.body(
x_ = x,
y_ = as.numeric(y) %>% spherical(5)
)
ggplot(df, aes(x = x_, y = y_)) +
geom_col() +
xlab("frequency") +
ylab(amount) +
theme_minimal()
}

p_real <- create_plot(
sample_positions,
real_part,
"actual half"
)
p_imag <- create_plot(
sample_positions,
imag_part,
"imaginary half"
)
p_magnitude <- create_plot(
sample_positions,
magnitude,
"magnitude"
)
p_phase <- create_plot(
sample_positions,
section(Ft),
"section"
)

p_real + p_imag + p_magnitude + p_phase``````

It’s honest to say that now we have no motive to doubt what `torch_fft_fft()` has accomplished. However with a pure sinusoid like this, we are able to perceive precisely what’s occurring by computing the DFT ourselves, by hand. Doing this now will considerably assist us later, after we’re writing the code.

### Reconstructing the magic

One caveat about this part. With a subject as wealthy because the Fourier Rework, and an viewers who I think about to range extensively on a dimension of math and sciences training, my probabilities to satisfy your expectations, expensive reader, should be very near zero. Nonetheless, I wish to take the chance. If you happen to’re an knowledgeable on this stuff, you’ll anyway be simply scanning the textual content, looking for items of `torch` code. If you happen to’re reasonably accustomed to the DFT, you should still like being reminded of its interior workings. And – most significantly – should you’re fairly new, and even fully new, to this matter, you’ll hopefully take away (at the least) one factor: that what looks like one of many best wonders of the universe (assuming there’s a actuality by some means akin to what goes on in our minds) might be a marvel, however neither “magic” nor a factor reserved to the initiated.

In a nutshell, the Fourier Rework is a foundation transformation. Within the case of the DFT – the Discrete Fourier Rework, the place time and frequency representations each are finite vectors, not capabilities – the brand new foundation appears to be like like this:

[
begin{aligned}
&mathbf{w}^{0n}_N = e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N}* 0 * n} = 1
&mathbf{w}^{1n}_N = e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N}* 1 * n} = e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N} n}
&mathbf{w}^{2n}_N = e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N}* 2 * n} = e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N}2n}& …
&mathbf{w}^{(N-1)n}_N = e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N}* (N-1) * n} = e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N}(N-1)n}
end{aligned}
]

Right here (N), as earlier than, is the variety of samples (64, in our case); thus, there are (N) foundation vectors. With (ok) operating via the premise vectors, they are often written:

[
mathbf{w}^{kn}_N = e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N}k n}
]
{#eq-dft-1}

Like (ok), (n) runs from (0) to (N-1). To know what these foundation vectors are doing, it’s useful to briefly swap to a shorter sampling interval, (N = 4), say. If we achieve this, now we have 4 foundation vectors: (mathbf{w}^{0n}_N), (mathbf{w}^{1n}_N), (mathbf{w}^{2n}_N), and (mathbf{w}^{3n}_N). The primary one appears to be like like this:

[
mathbf{w}^{0n}_N
=
begin{bmatrix}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 0 * 0}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 0 * 1}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 0 * 2}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 0 * 3}
end{bmatrix}
=
begin{bmatrix}
1
1
1
1
end{bmatrix}
]

The second, like so:

[
mathbf{w}^{1n}_N
=
begin{bmatrix}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 1 * 0}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 1 * 1}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 1 * 2}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 1 * 3}
end{bmatrix}
=
begin{bmatrix}
1
e^{ifrac{pi}{2}}
e^{i pi}
e^{ifrac{3 pi}{4}}
end{bmatrix}
=
begin{bmatrix}
1
i
-1
-i
end{bmatrix}
]

That is the third:

[
mathbf{w}^{2n}_N
=
begin{bmatrix}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 2 * 0}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 2 * 1}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 2 * 2}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 2 * 3}
end{bmatrix}
=
begin{bmatrix}
1
e^{ipi}
e^{i 2 pi}
e^{ifrac{3 pi}{2}}
end{bmatrix}
=
begin{bmatrix}
1
-1
1
-1
end{bmatrix}
]

And at last, the fourth:

[
mathbf{w}^{3n}_N
=
begin{bmatrix}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 3 * 0}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 3 * 1}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 3 * 2}
e^{ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 3 * 3}
end{bmatrix}
=
begin{bmatrix}
1
e^{ifrac{3 pi}{2}}
e^{i 3 pi}
e^{ifrac{9 pi}{2}}
end{bmatrix}
=
begin{bmatrix}
1
-i
-1
i
end{bmatrix}
]

We are able to characterize these 4 foundation vectors when it comes to their “velocity”: how briskly they transfer across the unit circle. To do that, we merely have a look at the rightmost column vectors, the place the ultimate calculation outcomes seem. The values in that column correspond to positions pointed to by the revolving foundation vector at totally different deadlines. Which means that taking a look at a single “replace of place”, we are able to see how briskly the vector is transferring in a single time step.

Wanting first at (mathbf{w}^{0n}_N), we see that it doesn’t transfer in any respect. (mathbf{w}^{1n}_N) goes from (1) to (i) to (-1) to (-i); yet another step, and it could be again the place it began. That’s one revolution in 4 steps, or a step dimension of (frac{pi}{2}). Then (mathbf{w}^{2n}_N) goes at double that tempo, transferring a distance of (pi) alongside the circle. That approach, it finally ends up finishing two revolutions general. Lastly, (mathbf{w}^{3n}_N) achieves three full loops, for a step dimension of (frac{3 pi}{2}).

The factor that makes these foundation vectors so helpful is that they’re mutually orthogonal. That’s, their dot product is zero:

[
langle mathbf{w}^{kn}_N, mathbf{w}^{ln}_N rangle = sum_{n=0}^{N-1} ({e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N}k n}})^* e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N}l n} = sum_{n=0}^{N-1} ({e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{N}k n}})e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N}l n} = 0
]
{#eq-dft-2}

Let’s take, for instance, (mathbf{w}^{2n}_N) and (mathbf{w}^{3n}_N). Certainly, their dot product evaluates to zero.

[
begin{bmatrix}
1 & -1 & 1 & -1
end{bmatrix}
begin{bmatrix}
1
-i
-1
i
end{bmatrix}
=
1 + i + (-1) + (-i) = 0
]

Now, we’re about to see how the orthogonality of the Fourier foundation considerably simplifies the calculation of the DFT. Did you discover the similarity between these foundation vectors and the way in which we wrote the instance sign? Right here it’s once more:

[
f(x) = cos(frac{2 pi}{N} k x)
]

If we handle to symbolize this perform when it comes to the premise vectors (mathbf{w}^{kn}_N = e^{ifrac{2 pi}{N}ok n}), the interior product between the perform and every foundation vector can be both zero (the “default”) or a a number of of 1 (in case the perform has a element matching the premise vector in query). Fortunately, sines and cosines can simply be transformed into advanced exponentials. In our instance, that is how that goes:

[
begin{aligned}
mathbf{x}_n &= cos(frac{2 pi}{64} n)
&= frac{1}{2} (e^{ifrac{2 pi}{64} n} + e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{64} n})
&= frac{1}{2} (e^{ifrac{2 pi}{64} n} + e^{ifrac{2 pi}{64} 63n})
&= frac{1}{2} (mathbf{w}^{1n}_N + mathbf{w}^{63n}_N)
end{aligned}
]

Right here step one immediately outcomes from Euler’s formulation, and the second displays the truth that the Fourier coefficients are periodic, with frequency -1 being the identical as 63, -2 equaling 62, and so forth.

Now, the (ok)th Fourier coefficient is obtained by projecting the sign onto foundation vector (ok).

Because of the orthogonality of the premise vectors, solely two coefficients won’t be zero: these for (mathbf{w}^{1n}_N) and (mathbf{w}^{63n}_N). They’re obtained by computing the interior product between the perform and the premise vector in query, that’s, by summing over (n). For every (n) ranging between (0) and (N-1), now we have a contribution of (frac{1}{2}), leaving us with a remaining sum of (32) for each coefficients. For instance, for (mathbf{w}^{1n}_N):

[
begin{aligned}
X_1 &= langle mathbf{w}^{1n}_N, mathbf{x}_n rangle
&= langle mathbf{w}^{1n}_N, frac{1}{2} (mathbf{w}^{1n}_N + mathbf{w}^{63n}_N) rangle
&= frac{1}{2} * 64
&= 32
end{aligned}
]

And analogously for (X_{63}).

Now, trying again at what `torch_fft_fft()` gave us, we see we have been in a position to arrive on the similar consequence. And we’ve discovered one thing alongside the way in which.

So long as we stick with alerts composed of a number of foundation vectors, we are able to compute the DFT on this approach. On the finish of the chapter, we’ll develop code that can work for all alerts, however first, let’s see if we are able to dive even deeper into the workings of the DFT. Three issues we’ll wish to discover:

• What would occur if frequencies modified – say, a melody have been sung at the next pitch?

• What about amplitude modifications – say, the music have been performed twice as loud?

• What about section – e.g., there have been an offset earlier than the piece began?

In all circumstances, we’ll name `torch_fft_fft()` solely as soon as we’ve decided the consequence ourselves.

And at last, we’ll see how advanced sinusoids, made up of various elements, can nonetheless be analyzed on this approach, supplied they are often expressed when it comes to the frequencies that make up the premise.

### Various frequency

Assume we quadrupled the frequency, giving us a sign that regarded like this:

[
mathbf{x}_n = cos(frac{2 pi}{N}*4*n)
]

Following the identical logic as above, we are able to specific it like so:

[
mathbf{x}_n = frac{1}{2} (mathbf{w}^{4n}_N + mathbf{w}^{60n}_N)
]

We already see that non-zero coefficients can be obtained just for frequency indices (4) and (60). Choosing the previous, we get hold of

[
begin{aligned}
X_4 &= langle mathbf{w}^{4n}_N, mathbf{x}_n rangle
&= langle mathbf{w}^{4n}_N, frac{1}{2} (mathbf{w}^{4n}_N + mathbf{w}^{60n}_N) rangle
&= 32
end{aligned}
]

For the latter, we’d arrive on the similar consequence.

Now, let’s ensure that our evaluation is appropriate. The next code snippet accommodates nothing new; it generates the sign, calculates the DFT, and plots them each.

``````x <- torch_cos(frequency(4, N) * sample_positions)

plot_ft <- perform(x)  plot_spacer()) /
(p_real

plot_ft(x)``````

This does certainly verify our calculations.

A particular case arises when sign frequency rises to the best one “allowed”, within the sense of being detectable with out aliasing. That would be the case at one half of the variety of sampling factors. Then, the sign will appear to be so:

[
mathbf{x}_n = frac{1}{2} (mathbf{w}^{32n}_N + mathbf{w}^{32n}_N)
]

Consequently, we find yourself with a single coefficient, akin to a frequency of 32 revolutions per pattern interval, of double the magnitude (64, thus). Listed here are the sign and its DFT:

``````x <- torch_cos(frequency(32, N) * sample_positions)
plot_ft(x)``````

### Various amplitude

Now, let’s take into consideration what occurs after we range amplitude. For instance, say the sign will get twice as loud. Now, there can be a multiplier of two that may be taken exterior the interior product. In consequence, the one factor that modifications is the magnitude of the coefficients.

Let’s confirm this. The modification relies on the instance we had earlier than the final one, with 4 revolutions over the sampling interval:

``````x <- 2 * torch_cos(frequency(4, N) * sample_positions)
plot_ft(x)``````

To date, now we have not as soon as seen a coefficient with non-zero imaginary half. To vary this, we add in section.

### Including section

Altering the section of a sign means shifting it in time. Our instance sign is a cosine, a perform whose worth is 1 at (t=0). (That additionally was the – arbitrarily chosen – place to begin of the sign.)

Now assume we shift the sign ahead by (frac{pi}{2}). Then the height we have been seeing at zero strikes over to (frac{pi}{2}); and if we nonetheless begin “recording” at zero, we should discover a worth of zero there. An equation describing that is the next. For comfort, we assume a sampling interval of (2 pi) and (ok=1), in order that the instance is a straightforward cosine:

[
f(x) = cos(x – phi)
]

The minus signal might look unintuitive at first. But it surely does make sense: We now wish to get hold of a worth of 1 at (x=frac{pi}{2}), so (x – phi) ought to consider to zero. (Or to any a number of of (pi).) Summing up, a delay in time will seem as a unfavorable section shift.

Now, we’re going to calculate the DFT for a shifted model of our instance sign. However should you like, take a peek on the phase-shifted model of the time-domain image now already. You’ll see {that a} cosine, delayed by (frac{pi}{2}), is nothing else than a sine beginning at 0.

To compute the DFT, we observe our familiar-by-now technique. The sign now appears to be like like this:

[
mathbf{x}_n = cos(frac{2 pi}{N}*4*x – frac{pi}{2})
]

First, we specific it when it comes to foundation vectors:

[
begin{aligned}
mathbf{x}_n &= cos(frac{2 pi}{64} 4 n – frac{pi}{2})
&= frac{1}{2} (e^{ifrac{2 pi}{64} 4n – frac{pi}{2}} + e^{ifrac{2 pi}{64} 60n – frac{pi}{2}})
&= frac{1}{2} (e^{ifrac{2 pi}{64} 4n} e^{-i frac{pi}{2}} + e^{ifrac{2 pi}{64} 60n} e^{ifrac{pi}{2}})
&= frac{1}{2} (e^{-i frac{pi}{2}} mathbf{w}^{4n}_N + e^{i frac{pi}{2}} mathbf{w}^{60n}_N)
end{aligned}
]

Once more, now we have non-zero coefficients just for frequencies (4) and (60). However they’re advanced now, and each coefficients are now not equivalent. As a substitute, one is the advanced conjugate of the opposite. First, (X_4):

[
begin{aligned}
X_4 &= langle mathbf{w}^{4n}_N, mathbf{x}_n rangle
&=langle mathbf{w}^{4n}_N, frac{1}{2} (e^{-i frac{pi}{2}} mathbf{w}^{4n}_N + e^{i frac{pi}{2}} mathbf{w}^{60n}_N) rangle
&= 32 *e^{-i frac{pi}{2}}
&= -32i
end{aligned}
]

And right here, (X_{60}):

[
begin{aligned}
X_{60} &= langle mathbf{w}^{60n}_N, mathbf{x}_N rangle
&= 32 *e^{i frac{pi}{2}}
&= 32i
end{aligned}
]

As ordinary, we verify our calculation utilizing `torch_fft_fft()`.

``````x <- torch_cos(frequency(4, N) * sample_positions - pi / 2)

plot_ft(x)``````

For a pure sine wave, the non-zero Fourier coefficients are imaginary. The section shift within the coefficients, reported as (frac{pi}{2}), displays the time delay we utilized to the sign.

Lastly – earlier than we write some code – let’s put all of it collectively, and have a look at a wave that has greater than a single sinusoidal element.

### Superposition of sinusoids

The sign we assemble should be expressed when it comes to the premise vectors, however it’s now not a pure sinusoid. As a substitute, it’s a linear mixture of such:

[
begin{aligned}
mathbf{x}_n &= 3 sin(frac{2 pi}{64} 4n) + 6 cos(frac{2 pi}{64} 2n) +2cos(frac{2 pi}{64} 8n)
end{aligned}
]

I gained’t undergo the calculation intimately, however it’s no totally different from the earlier ones. You compute the DFT for every of the three elements, and assemble the outcomes. With none calculation, nonetheless, there’s fairly a number of issues we are able to say:

• For the reason that sign consists of two pure cosines and one pure sine, there can be 4 coefficients with non-zero actual elements, and two with non-zero imaginary elements. The latter can be advanced conjugates of one another.
• From the way in which the sign is written, it’s simple to find the respective frequencies, as effectively: The all-real coefficients will correspond to frequency indices 2, 8, 56, and 62; the all-imaginary ones to indices 4 and 60.
• Lastly, amplitudes will consequence from multiplying with (frac{64}{2}) the scaling components obtained for the person sinusoids.

Let’s verify:

``````x <- 3 * torch_sin(frequency(4, N) * sample_positions) +
6 * torch_cos(frequency(2, N) * sample_positions) +
2 * torch_cos(frequency(8, N) * sample_positions)

plot_ft(x)``````

Now, how will we calculate the DFT for much less handy alerts?

## Coding the DFT

Happily, we already know what needs to be accomplished. We wish to undertaking the sign onto every of the premise vectors. In different phrases, we’ll be computing a bunch of interior merchandise. Logic-wise, nothing modifications: The one distinction is that on the whole, it won’t be doable to symbolize the sign when it comes to just some foundation vectors, like we did earlier than. Thus, all projections will truly must be calculated. However isn’t automation of tedious duties one factor now we have computer systems for?

Let’s begin by stating enter, output, and central logic of the algorithm to be applied. As all through this chapter, we keep in a single dimension. The enter, thus, is a one-dimensional tensor, encoding a sign. The output is a one-dimensional vector of Fourier coefficients, of the identical size because the enter, every holding details about a frequency. The central thought is: To acquire a coefficient, undertaking the sign onto the corresponding foundation vector.

To implement that concept, we have to create the premise vectors, and for every one, compute its interior product with the sign. This may be accomplished in a loop. Surprisingly little code is required to perform the purpose:

``````dft <- perform(x) {
n_samples <- size(x)

n <- torch_arange(0, n_samples - 1)\$unsqueeze(1)

Ft <- torch_complex(
torch_zeros(n_samples), torch_zeros(n_samples)
)

for (ok in 0:(n_samples - 1)) {
w_k <- torch_exp(-1i * 2 * pi / n_samples * ok * n)
dot <- torch_matmul(w_k, x\$to(dtype = torch_cfloat()))
Ft[k + 1] <- dot
}
Ft
}``````

To check the implementation, we are able to take the final sign we analysed, and evaluate with the output of `torch_fft_fft()`.

``````[1]  0 0 192 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[29] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[57] 64 0 0 0 0 0 192 0

[1]  0 0 0 0 -96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[29] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[57] 0 0 0 0 96 0 0 0``````

Reassuringly – should you look again – the outcomes are the identical.

Above, did I say “little code”? In reality, a loop shouldn’t be even wanted. As a substitute of working with the premise vectors one-by-one, we are able to stack them in a matrix. Then every row will maintain the conjugate of a foundation vector, and there can be (N) of them. The columns correspond to positions (0) to (N-1); there can be (N) of them as effectively. For instance, that is how the matrix would search for (N=4):

[
mathbf{W}_4
=
begin{bmatrix}
e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 0 * 0} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 0 * 1} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 0 * 2} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 0 * 3}
e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 1 * 0} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 1 * 1} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 1 * 2} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 1 * 3}
e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 2 * 0} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 2 * 1} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 2 * 2} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 2 * 3}
e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 3 * 0} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 3 * 1} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 3 * 2} & e^{-ifrac{2 pi}{4}* 3 * 3}
end{bmatrix}
]
{#eq-dft-3}

Or, evaluating the expressions:

[
mathbf{W}_4
=
begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1
1 & -i & -1 & i
1 & -1 & 1 & -1
1 & i & -1 & -i
end{bmatrix}
]

With that modification, the code appears to be like much more elegant:

``````dft_vec <- perform(x) {
n_samples <- size(x)

n <- torch_arange(0, n_samples - 1)\$unsqueeze(1)
ok <- torch_arange(0, n_samples - 1)\$unsqueeze(2)

mat_k_m <- torch_exp(-1i * 2 * pi / n_samples * ok * n)

torch_matmul(mat_k_m, x\$to(dtype = torch_cfloat()))
}``````

As you possibly can simply confirm, the consequence is identical.

Thanks for studying!

Photograph by Trac Vu on Unsplash