Next: Tighter Error Bound on
Up: Approximation of the FFT
Previous: Approximation of the FFT
  Contents
The error introduced by the inverse approximation may be
quantified by considering the sum as a truncated Taylor series
expansion of the integral [1]. In the general case of
the integral
, this leads to an error bound of
 |
|
|
(26) |
where
is the number of subintervals between
and
and
. Applying this formula to the present
case (over the variable
), we have
 |
|
|
(27) |
We note that we only consider approximating over
as opposed to
, since there is nothing to be gained in approximating the
padding zeros. We also choose
to simplify the number of
potential cases (which does not affect any other pertinent
values). We now must calculate
by considering
:6
In the worst case, the sine and cosine factors will be of
magnitude 1, giving
(We note that in actuality, both functions can never be 1 at the
same time, which leads to an overly conservative bound.) The
worst case now occurs when
and
are large and opposite in
sign. We model the error bound in this situation as:
Since
is our variable of integration, we maximize over it.
(The variable
is best conceptualized as a constant that varies
for each ``case'' of each different frequency bin in the FFT.)
Since
can be no greater than
, we have that
Substituting into equation 27, we now have that
We observe that the error bound used here is overly conservative
for two reasons. First, the assumption we made about the sinusoids
being 1 was overly conservative as noted above. Second, the given
bound implicitly assumes that the integrand varies as rapidly in
general as it does in its most rapidly varying portions, namely
the edges of the window where
. Thus, any term
containing
in the numerator is overly conservative. We
consider a tighter bound below.
Next: Tighter Error Bound on
Up: Approximation of the FFT
Previous: Approximation of the FFT
  Contents
Aaron S. Master
2002-10-17