4
$\begingroup$

I have the following double integral: \begin{equation} F[\epsilon,\Omega,\sigma] = \iint_{\mathbb{R}^2}\frac{e^{-t^2/2\sigma^2}e^{-T^2/2\sigma^2}}{(t-T-i\epsilon)^2}e^{-i\Omega(t-T)}\,dt\,dT\,. \end{equation} Now, there are tricks to solve this analytically (in terms of error functions and stuff). However, when I tried to numerically integrate this using NIntegrate, it gives very bad results especially as $\epsilon\to 0$. This is true regardless of the method I tried (GlobalAdaptive, LocalAdaptive, DoubleExponential) with various control over MaxRecursion/MinRecursion and PrecisionGoals or AccuracyGoals. I have also tried to confine my analysis to the strong support of the envelope function $\sim [-5\sigma,5\sigma]\times [-5\sigma,5\sigma]$ and indeed the problem mainly originated from this region.

I do observe, however, that MinRecursion tends to improve results but this has very costly computational time. For example, for the simple choice $\Omega=\sigma=1$ and for $\epsilon\sim 10^{-3}$ reasonable result can be obtained for MinRecursion$\,=5$ but behaves badly for $\epsilon=10^{-4}$. On the other hand, once I increase MinRecursion to $10$, it seems to work for $\epsilon=10^{-4}$ but I cannot do any better. I have also ensured to use only input parameters in integers, so that they use infinite precision instead.

I find it hard to believe that an innocuous looking integral with exact analytic solution can be so ill-behaved under double numerical integration. My questions are:

(1) Is there a natural setting for which this sort of numerical integral can be dealt with consistently? I suppose the problem is due to the pole on the real line (before $i\epsilon$ prescription), but being non-expert in numerical analysis, I would like a transparent picture of what happens to this blow-up.

(2) What is the origin of the blow-up? Naively the coincident limit $t=T$ should cause problems, but I would have thought that the pole prescription makes the coincident limit disappear. There must be something about complex analysis I am not exactly getting, but this looks quite harmless as it is written.

EDIT: I have tried the "Partition" option under LocalAdaptive and it seems to provide some improvements but not very much. I would like to get a coherent larger picture of the integral, however, so the questions still stand from numerical analysis, complex analysis and other perspectives. The following is my latest code (where I kept various entries variable to allow testing various controls), and here $a\equiv \epsilon$, $s\equiv \sigma$ and $gap \equiv \Omega$:

NIntegrate[
  Exp[-t^2/(2 s^2)] Exp[-T^2/(2 s^2)] Exp[-I*gap*(t - T)]/(-I a + t-T)^2, 
  {t, tmin, tmax}, {T, tmin, tmax}, 
  MinRecursion -> minR, 
  MaxRecursion -> maxR, PrecisionGoal -> prec, AccuracyGoal -> acc, 
  Method -> {"LocalAdaptive", "Partitioning" -> {par1, par2}}]

Update: I have tried one recent setting involving PrincipalValue, which essentially tries to do principal value integral at t = T. This improves the result quite a bit even with GlobalAdaptive scheme with minimal settings (i.e. Automatic for most other things), but still not working for small enough $\epsilon$. Also, I wonder if PrincipalValue can be used effectively when the singular ``line" is not so clear as in this scenario.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For reference, please include the NIntegrate[] code you were using to evaluate your integral. $\endgroup$ – J. M. will be back soon Mar 13 at 23:04
6
$\begingroup$

The integrand has a near-singularity along the line T == t. This can be specified by the iterator {T, -Infinity, t, Infinity} (see second example). However, NIntegrate works more efficiently when the singularity is parallel to a coordinate axis (see first example). In the first example, we rotate the coordinates so that the near-singularity is along x = 0. In the second example, we help NIntegrate by dividing the T domain further near T == t.

Block[{a = 10^-5, gap = 1, s = 1},
  NIntegrate[
   integrand /. {t -> (x + y)/Sqrt[2], T -> (y - x)/Sqrt[2]} // Simplify,
   {x, -Infinity, 0, Infinity}, {y, -Infinity, Infinity}]
  ] // AbsoluteTiming
(*  {6.4958, -0.279832 + 2.19131*10^-11 I}  *)

Block[{a = 10^-5, gap = 1, s = 1},
  NIntegrate[
   integrand, {t, -Infinity, 0, Infinity},
   {T, -Infinity, t - 2 a, t, t + 2 a, Infinity}]
  ] // AbsoluteTiming
(*  {12.8288, -0.279832 + 4.12048*10^-10 I}  *)

Even better in this case is the fact that the variables in the integrand can be separated and the double integral factored into two single integrals:

inty = E^(-(y^2/(2 s^2)))
intx = integrand/inty /. {t -> (x + y)/Sqrt[2], T -> (y - x)/Sqrt[2]} // Simplify
(*
  E^(-(y^2/(2 s^2)))
  E^(-I Sqrt[2] gap x - x^2/(2 s^2))/(-I a + Sqrt[2] x)^2
*)

Block[{a = 10^-5, gap = 1, s = 1},
  NIntegrate[intx, {x, -Infinity, 0, Infinity}] *
   NIntegrate[inty, {y, -Infinity, Infinity}]
  ] // AbsoluteTiming
(*  {0.039515, -0.279833 + 0. I}  *)

Block[{a = 10^-6, gap = 1, s = 1},
  NIntegrate[intx, {x, -Infinity, 0, Infinity}] *
   NIntegrate[inty, {y, -Infinity, Infinity}]
  ] // AbsoluteTiming
(*  {0.038009, -0.279824 + 0. I}  *)

It is unlikely that the single integrals will be hard to manage. (The y integral can be done exactly.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ does that mean that if I have a more complicated denominator where I do not have the freedom to rotate it as cleanly as you did, there is no other way out? Or perhaps is there a way to deal with this via contour integral without the $i\epsilon$? $\endgroup$ – Everiana Mar 14 at 12:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Everiana It's hard to say in general. I think one can always make up an example that will defeat a particular numerical approach. OTOH, one may be able to discover a successful approach by further analysis of the integrand at hand. I think I've only seen contour integration applied to single-variable integrals, so I'm not sure how to answer your last question. $\endgroup$ – Michael E2 Mar 14 at 15:34
  • $\begingroup$ Actually I found out that for this particular case, we can actually do contour integral! I will update my answer at some point. The idea is to do contour integral of $t$ with poles $T$, and then basically integrate over $T$. $\endgroup$ – Everiana Mar 20 at 2:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.