Double integral involving the normal CDF

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








1












$begingroup$


I need to compute (or best approximate?) the following integral



$$int_0^infty int_0^infty (1 + alpha u)^-1(1 + v)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright) textdu textdv,qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR, quad alpha in mathbbN^*,$$
where $Phi(cdot)$ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function and $alpha$ is typically a large natural number. What strategy would you advise for this?



I don't know if this is helpful but I can also reformulate my problem (up to multiplicative constants) as computing the following expectation:



$$textEleft Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right)right,qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR,$$
where
$$X sim textHalf-Cauchy(0,1), qquad Y sim textHalf-Cauchy(0,alpha^-1/2), quad alpha in mathbbN^* , (textlarge).$$



EDIT: I made a mistake in the first integral, it should be:



$$int_0^infty int_0^infty (1 + alpha x^2)^-1(1 + y^2)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + x^2y^2right) textdx textdy,quad gamma > 0, beta in mathbbR, alpha in mathbbN^*, text(large),$$
which now corresponds to the above expectation.



EDIT 2: Another way to solve my problem would be to characterise the difference (hopefully small?)
$$textEleft Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right)right - Phileft(fracbetasqrtgammaright),qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR,$$
would it be sensible to approximate the difference
$$Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right) - Phileft(fracbetasqrtgammaright),$$
with a Taylor series in zero or is this unreasonable given that the half-Cauchy distributions are heavy-tailed?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I would advise studying the asymptotic behavior, because this integral diverges.
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 8 at 12:13










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your point, I actually made a mistake in the first integral, very sorry about this. I have edited the question.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 12:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think it would help to present the original version of this problem. This integral does not seem straightforward to evaluate using any other approach than brute force numerical quadrature, and I suspect that you have made a reformulation which is not necessarily helpful.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin L
    Mar 8 at 16:19










  • $begingroup$
    You are probably right, in fact the original problem corresponds to that of the expectation above, with X and Y having their respective half-Cauchy distribution... I should probably have stated the problem directly in this way. Does this make you think of any other strategy?
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 9 at 6:46










  • $begingroup$
    A more promising approach is to integrate by parts in order to introduce a Gaussian into the integrand. How to proceed from there depends on the size of $beta/sqrtgamma.$
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 9 at 15:43

















1












$begingroup$


I need to compute (or best approximate?) the following integral



$$int_0^infty int_0^infty (1 + alpha u)^-1(1 + v)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright) textdu textdv,qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR, quad alpha in mathbbN^*,$$
where $Phi(cdot)$ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function and $alpha$ is typically a large natural number. What strategy would you advise for this?



I don't know if this is helpful but I can also reformulate my problem (up to multiplicative constants) as computing the following expectation:



$$textEleft Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right)right,qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR,$$
where
$$X sim textHalf-Cauchy(0,1), qquad Y sim textHalf-Cauchy(0,alpha^-1/2), quad alpha in mathbbN^* , (textlarge).$$



EDIT: I made a mistake in the first integral, it should be:



$$int_0^infty int_0^infty (1 + alpha x^2)^-1(1 + y^2)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + x^2y^2right) textdx textdy,quad gamma > 0, beta in mathbbR, alpha in mathbbN^*, text(large),$$
which now corresponds to the above expectation.



EDIT 2: Another way to solve my problem would be to characterise the difference (hopefully small?)
$$textEleft Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right)right - Phileft(fracbetasqrtgammaright),qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR,$$
would it be sensible to approximate the difference
$$Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right) - Phileft(fracbetasqrtgammaright),$$
with a Taylor series in zero or is this unreasonable given that the half-Cauchy distributions are heavy-tailed?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I would advise studying the asymptotic behavior, because this integral diverges.
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 8 at 12:13










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your point, I actually made a mistake in the first integral, very sorry about this. I have edited the question.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 12:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think it would help to present the original version of this problem. This integral does not seem straightforward to evaluate using any other approach than brute force numerical quadrature, and I suspect that you have made a reformulation which is not necessarily helpful.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin L
    Mar 8 at 16:19










  • $begingroup$
    You are probably right, in fact the original problem corresponds to that of the expectation above, with X and Y having their respective half-Cauchy distribution... I should probably have stated the problem directly in this way. Does this make you think of any other strategy?
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 9 at 6:46










  • $begingroup$
    A more promising approach is to integrate by parts in order to introduce a Gaussian into the integrand. How to proceed from there depends on the size of $beta/sqrtgamma.$
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 9 at 15:43













1












1








1





$begingroup$


I need to compute (or best approximate?) the following integral



$$int_0^infty int_0^infty (1 + alpha u)^-1(1 + v)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright) textdu textdv,qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR, quad alpha in mathbbN^*,$$
where $Phi(cdot)$ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function and $alpha$ is typically a large natural number. What strategy would you advise for this?



I don't know if this is helpful but I can also reformulate my problem (up to multiplicative constants) as computing the following expectation:



$$textEleft Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right)right,qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR,$$
where
$$X sim textHalf-Cauchy(0,1), qquad Y sim textHalf-Cauchy(0,alpha^-1/2), quad alpha in mathbbN^* , (textlarge).$$



EDIT: I made a mistake in the first integral, it should be:



$$int_0^infty int_0^infty (1 + alpha x^2)^-1(1 + y^2)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + x^2y^2right) textdx textdy,quad gamma > 0, beta in mathbbR, alpha in mathbbN^*, text(large),$$
which now corresponds to the above expectation.



EDIT 2: Another way to solve my problem would be to characterise the difference (hopefully small?)
$$textEleft Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right)right - Phileft(fracbetasqrtgammaright),qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR,$$
would it be sensible to approximate the difference
$$Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right) - Phileft(fracbetasqrtgammaright),$$
with a Taylor series in zero or is this unreasonable given that the half-Cauchy distributions are heavy-tailed?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I need to compute (or best approximate?) the following integral



$$int_0^infty int_0^infty (1 + alpha u)^-1(1 + v)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright) textdu textdv,qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR, quad alpha in mathbbN^*,$$
where $Phi(cdot)$ is the standard normal cumulative distribution function and $alpha$ is typically a large natural number. What strategy would you advise for this?



I don't know if this is helpful but I can also reformulate my problem (up to multiplicative constants) as computing the following expectation:



$$textEleft Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right)right,qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR,$$
where
$$X sim textHalf-Cauchy(0,1), qquad Y sim textHalf-Cauchy(0,alpha^-1/2), quad alpha in mathbbN^* , (textlarge).$$



EDIT: I made a mistake in the first integral, it should be:



$$int_0^infty int_0^infty (1 + alpha x^2)^-1(1 + y^2)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + x^2y^2right) textdx textdy,quad gamma > 0, beta in mathbbR, alpha in mathbbN^*, text(large),$$
which now corresponds to the above expectation.



EDIT 2: Another way to solve my problem would be to characterise the difference (hopefully small?)
$$textEleft Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right)right - Phileft(fracbetasqrtgammaright),qquad gamma > 0, quad beta in mathbbR,$$
would it be sensible to approximate the difference
$$Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + X^2Y^2right) - Phileft(fracbetasqrtgammaright),$$
with a Taylor series in zero or is this unreasonable given that the half-Cauchy distributions are heavy-tailed?







normal-distribution expected-value approximation integral






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 9 at 11:59







user79097

















asked Mar 8 at 10:14









user79097user79097

1356




1356











  • $begingroup$
    I would advise studying the asymptotic behavior, because this integral diverges.
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 8 at 12:13










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your point, I actually made a mistake in the first integral, very sorry about this. I have edited the question.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 12:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think it would help to present the original version of this problem. This integral does not seem straightforward to evaluate using any other approach than brute force numerical quadrature, and I suspect that you have made a reformulation which is not necessarily helpful.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin L
    Mar 8 at 16:19










  • $begingroup$
    You are probably right, in fact the original problem corresponds to that of the expectation above, with X and Y having their respective half-Cauchy distribution... I should probably have stated the problem directly in this way. Does this make you think of any other strategy?
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 9 at 6:46










  • $begingroup$
    A more promising approach is to integrate by parts in order to introduce a Gaussian into the integrand. How to proceed from there depends on the size of $beta/sqrtgamma.$
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 9 at 15:43
















  • $begingroup$
    I would advise studying the asymptotic behavior, because this integral diverges.
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 8 at 12:13










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your point, I actually made a mistake in the first integral, very sorry about this. I have edited the question.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 12:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think it would help to present the original version of this problem. This integral does not seem straightforward to evaluate using any other approach than brute force numerical quadrature, and I suspect that you have made a reformulation which is not necessarily helpful.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin L
    Mar 8 at 16:19










  • $begingroup$
    You are probably right, in fact the original problem corresponds to that of the expectation above, with X and Y having their respective half-Cauchy distribution... I should probably have stated the problem directly in this way. Does this make you think of any other strategy?
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 9 at 6:46










  • $begingroup$
    A more promising approach is to integrate by parts in order to introduce a Gaussian into the integrand. How to proceed from there depends on the size of $beta/sqrtgamma.$
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 9 at 15:43















$begingroup$
I would advise studying the asymptotic behavior, because this integral diverges.
$endgroup$
– whuber
Mar 8 at 12:13




$begingroup$
I would advise studying the asymptotic behavior, because this integral diverges.
$endgroup$
– whuber
Mar 8 at 12:13












$begingroup$
Thanks for your point, I actually made a mistake in the first integral, very sorry about this. I have edited the question.
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 8 at 12:48




$begingroup$
Thanks for your point, I actually made a mistake in the first integral, very sorry about this. I have edited the question.
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 8 at 12:48




1




1




$begingroup$
I think it would help to present the original version of this problem. This integral does not seem straightforward to evaluate using any other approach than brute force numerical quadrature, and I suspect that you have made a reformulation which is not necessarily helpful.
$endgroup$
– Martin L
Mar 8 at 16:19




$begingroup$
I think it would help to present the original version of this problem. This integral does not seem straightforward to evaluate using any other approach than brute force numerical quadrature, and I suspect that you have made a reformulation which is not necessarily helpful.
$endgroup$
– Martin L
Mar 8 at 16:19












$begingroup$
You are probably right, in fact the original problem corresponds to that of the expectation above, with X and Y having their respective half-Cauchy distribution... I should probably have stated the problem directly in this way. Does this make you think of any other strategy?
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 9 at 6:46




$begingroup$
You are probably right, in fact the original problem corresponds to that of the expectation above, with X and Y having their respective half-Cauchy distribution... I should probably have stated the problem directly in this way. Does this make you think of any other strategy?
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 9 at 6:46












$begingroup$
A more promising approach is to integrate by parts in order to introduce a Gaussian into the integrand. How to proceed from there depends on the size of $beta/sqrtgamma.$
$endgroup$
– whuber
Mar 9 at 15:43




$begingroup$
A more promising approach is to integrate by parts in order to introduce a Gaussian into the integrand. How to proceed from there depends on the size of $beta/sqrtgamma.$
$endgroup$
– whuber
Mar 9 at 15:43










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Under the conditions that $alpha, gamma, u,$ and $v$ are all positive,



$$beta/sqrtgamma + uv ge min(beta/sqrtgamma, 0) = delta gt -infty.$$



Therefore, because $Phi$ is a CDF for a distribution supported on $(-infty,infty),$ $$Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright)ge Phi(delta) = epsilon gt 0.$$



Consequently



$$eqalign
&int_0^infty int_0^infty (1+alpha u)^-1(1+v)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright) mathrmdumathrmdv \
&ge
epsilonint_0^infty int_0^infty (1+alpha u)^-1(1+v)^-1 mathrmdumathrmdv \
&= lim_Mtoinftylim_Ntoinftyepsilonint_0^M (1+alpha u)^-1mathrmduint_0^N (1+v)^-1 mathrmdv \
&=fracepsilonalpha lim_Mtoinftylim_Ntoinfty log(1 + Malpha)log(1 + N),
$$



which diverges to $+infty.$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, this is a very clear argument. For the "edited" integral, it seems that the argument doesn't apply anymore.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 12:50










  • $begingroup$
    I will let this answer stand because (a) the changes you made to the question translate in an obvious way to comparable changes in this analysis and (b) it sheds useful light on issues of numerical integration, which almost surely is going to be the solution. In particular, the convergence of each integral is only $O(1/M)$ and $O(1/N),$ which suggests preliminary manipulations to concentrate the mass of the integral into a smaller region would be useful if you want efficiency or accuracy.
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 8 at 16:31










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks @whuber, that's helpful, I will try this. In the meantime, I added a second edit, where I give another formulation of my problem.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 9 at 7:13


















1












$begingroup$

If approximation is OK, you could simulate the expected value through an average. A law of large numbers implies that the average converges to the expected value - provided the latter exists, which is however not obvious to me. I did simulate a few runs, though, and got very similar results each time, which is not indicative of an issue with heavy tails.



library(LaplacesDemon)

draws <- 1e6
alpha <- 3
gamma <- 1
beta <- 1
x <- rhalfcauchy(draws, scale=1)
y <- rhalfcauchy(draws, scale=1/sqrt(alpha))

mean(pnorm(beta/sqrt(gamma+x^2*y^2)))





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot for your reply. Yes I could do this, but in fact I would need an analytic approximation not a numeric one (in particular, alpha, beta and gamma are generic)...
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 10:26










  • $begingroup$
    OK, I hope somebody else could weigh in. Of course, you could run the code for any values of the parameters you are interested in.
    $endgroup$
    – Christoph Hanck
    Mar 8 at 10:27










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, sure, the problem is that I really need something analytical unfortunately. But thanks very much for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 10:32











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f396326%2fdouble-integral-involving-the-normal-cdf%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

Under the conditions that $alpha, gamma, u,$ and $v$ are all positive,



$$beta/sqrtgamma + uv ge min(beta/sqrtgamma, 0) = delta gt -infty.$$



Therefore, because $Phi$ is a CDF for a distribution supported on $(-infty,infty),$ $$Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright)ge Phi(delta) = epsilon gt 0.$$



Consequently



$$eqalign
&int_0^infty int_0^infty (1+alpha u)^-1(1+v)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright) mathrmdumathrmdv \
&ge
epsilonint_0^infty int_0^infty (1+alpha u)^-1(1+v)^-1 mathrmdumathrmdv \
&= lim_Mtoinftylim_Ntoinftyepsilonint_0^M (1+alpha u)^-1mathrmduint_0^N (1+v)^-1 mathrmdv \
&=fracepsilonalpha lim_Mtoinftylim_Ntoinfty log(1 + Malpha)log(1 + N),
$$



which diverges to $+infty.$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, this is a very clear argument. For the "edited" integral, it seems that the argument doesn't apply anymore.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 12:50










  • $begingroup$
    I will let this answer stand because (a) the changes you made to the question translate in an obvious way to comparable changes in this analysis and (b) it sheds useful light on issues of numerical integration, which almost surely is going to be the solution. In particular, the convergence of each integral is only $O(1/M)$ and $O(1/N),$ which suggests preliminary manipulations to concentrate the mass of the integral into a smaller region would be useful if you want efficiency or accuracy.
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 8 at 16:31










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks @whuber, that's helpful, I will try this. In the meantime, I added a second edit, where I give another formulation of my problem.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 9 at 7:13















2












$begingroup$

Under the conditions that $alpha, gamma, u,$ and $v$ are all positive,



$$beta/sqrtgamma + uv ge min(beta/sqrtgamma, 0) = delta gt -infty.$$



Therefore, because $Phi$ is a CDF for a distribution supported on $(-infty,infty),$ $$Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright)ge Phi(delta) = epsilon gt 0.$$



Consequently



$$eqalign
&int_0^infty int_0^infty (1+alpha u)^-1(1+v)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright) mathrmdumathrmdv \
&ge
epsilonint_0^infty int_0^infty (1+alpha u)^-1(1+v)^-1 mathrmdumathrmdv \
&= lim_Mtoinftylim_Ntoinftyepsilonint_0^M (1+alpha u)^-1mathrmduint_0^N (1+v)^-1 mathrmdv \
&=fracepsilonalpha lim_Mtoinftylim_Ntoinfty log(1 + Malpha)log(1 + N),
$$



which diverges to $+infty.$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, this is a very clear argument. For the "edited" integral, it seems that the argument doesn't apply anymore.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 12:50










  • $begingroup$
    I will let this answer stand because (a) the changes you made to the question translate in an obvious way to comparable changes in this analysis and (b) it sheds useful light on issues of numerical integration, which almost surely is going to be the solution. In particular, the convergence of each integral is only $O(1/M)$ and $O(1/N),$ which suggests preliminary manipulations to concentrate the mass of the integral into a smaller region would be useful if you want efficiency or accuracy.
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 8 at 16:31










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks @whuber, that's helpful, I will try this. In the meantime, I added a second edit, where I give another formulation of my problem.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 9 at 7:13













2












2








2





$begingroup$

Under the conditions that $alpha, gamma, u,$ and $v$ are all positive,



$$beta/sqrtgamma + uv ge min(beta/sqrtgamma, 0) = delta gt -infty.$$



Therefore, because $Phi$ is a CDF for a distribution supported on $(-infty,infty),$ $$Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright)ge Phi(delta) = epsilon gt 0.$$



Consequently



$$eqalign
&int_0^infty int_0^infty (1+alpha u)^-1(1+v)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright) mathrmdumathrmdv \
&ge
epsilonint_0^infty int_0^infty (1+alpha u)^-1(1+v)^-1 mathrmdumathrmdv \
&= lim_Mtoinftylim_Ntoinftyepsilonint_0^M (1+alpha u)^-1mathrmduint_0^N (1+v)^-1 mathrmdv \
&=fracepsilonalpha lim_Mtoinftylim_Ntoinfty log(1 + Malpha)log(1 + N),
$$



which diverges to $+infty.$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Under the conditions that $alpha, gamma, u,$ and $v$ are all positive,



$$beta/sqrtgamma + uv ge min(beta/sqrtgamma, 0) = delta gt -infty.$$



Therefore, because $Phi$ is a CDF for a distribution supported on $(-infty,infty),$ $$Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright)ge Phi(delta) = epsilon gt 0.$$



Consequently



$$eqalign
&int_0^infty int_0^infty (1+alpha u)^-1(1+v)^-1 Phileft(fracbetasqrtgamma + uvright) mathrmdumathrmdv \
&ge
epsilonint_0^infty int_0^infty (1+alpha u)^-1(1+v)^-1 mathrmdumathrmdv \
&= lim_Mtoinftylim_Ntoinftyepsilonint_0^M (1+alpha u)^-1mathrmduint_0^N (1+v)^-1 mathrmdv \
&=fracepsilonalpha lim_Mtoinftylim_Ntoinfty log(1 + Malpha)log(1 + N),
$$



which diverges to $+infty.$







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Mar 8 at 12:29









whuberwhuber

206k33453822




206k33453822











  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, this is a very clear argument. For the "edited" integral, it seems that the argument doesn't apply anymore.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 12:50










  • $begingroup$
    I will let this answer stand because (a) the changes you made to the question translate in an obvious way to comparable changes in this analysis and (b) it sheds useful light on issues of numerical integration, which almost surely is going to be the solution. In particular, the convergence of each integral is only $O(1/M)$ and $O(1/N),$ which suggests preliminary manipulations to concentrate the mass of the integral into a smaller region would be useful if you want efficiency or accuracy.
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 8 at 16:31










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks @whuber, that's helpful, I will try this. In the meantime, I added a second edit, where I give another formulation of my problem.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 9 at 7:13
















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks, this is a very clear argument. For the "edited" integral, it seems that the argument doesn't apply anymore.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 12:50










  • $begingroup$
    I will let this answer stand because (a) the changes you made to the question translate in an obvious way to comparable changes in this analysis and (b) it sheds useful light on issues of numerical integration, which almost surely is going to be the solution. In particular, the convergence of each integral is only $O(1/M)$ and $O(1/N),$ which suggests preliminary manipulations to concentrate the mass of the integral into a smaller region would be useful if you want efficiency or accuracy.
    $endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 8 at 16:31










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks @whuber, that's helpful, I will try this. In the meantime, I added a second edit, where I give another formulation of my problem.
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 9 at 7:13















$begingroup$
Thanks, this is a very clear argument. For the "edited" integral, it seems that the argument doesn't apply anymore.
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 8 at 12:50




$begingroup$
Thanks, this is a very clear argument. For the "edited" integral, it seems that the argument doesn't apply anymore.
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 8 at 12:50












$begingroup$
I will let this answer stand because (a) the changes you made to the question translate in an obvious way to comparable changes in this analysis and (b) it sheds useful light on issues of numerical integration, which almost surely is going to be the solution. In particular, the convergence of each integral is only $O(1/M)$ and $O(1/N),$ which suggests preliminary manipulations to concentrate the mass of the integral into a smaller region would be useful if you want efficiency or accuracy.
$endgroup$
– whuber
Mar 8 at 16:31




$begingroup$
I will let this answer stand because (a) the changes you made to the question translate in an obvious way to comparable changes in this analysis and (b) it sheds useful light on issues of numerical integration, which almost surely is going to be the solution. In particular, the convergence of each integral is only $O(1/M)$ and $O(1/N),$ which suggests preliminary manipulations to concentrate the mass of the integral into a smaller region would be useful if you want efficiency or accuracy.
$endgroup$
– whuber
Mar 8 at 16:31












$begingroup$
Thanks @whuber, that's helpful, I will try this. In the meantime, I added a second edit, where I give another formulation of my problem.
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 9 at 7:13




$begingroup$
Thanks @whuber, that's helpful, I will try this. In the meantime, I added a second edit, where I give another formulation of my problem.
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 9 at 7:13













1












$begingroup$

If approximation is OK, you could simulate the expected value through an average. A law of large numbers implies that the average converges to the expected value - provided the latter exists, which is however not obvious to me. I did simulate a few runs, though, and got very similar results each time, which is not indicative of an issue with heavy tails.



library(LaplacesDemon)

draws <- 1e6
alpha <- 3
gamma <- 1
beta <- 1
x <- rhalfcauchy(draws, scale=1)
y <- rhalfcauchy(draws, scale=1/sqrt(alpha))

mean(pnorm(beta/sqrt(gamma+x^2*y^2)))





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot for your reply. Yes I could do this, but in fact I would need an analytic approximation not a numeric one (in particular, alpha, beta and gamma are generic)...
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 10:26










  • $begingroup$
    OK, I hope somebody else could weigh in. Of course, you could run the code for any values of the parameters you are interested in.
    $endgroup$
    – Christoph Hanck
    Mar 8 at 10:27










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, sure, the problem is that I really need something analytical unfortunately. But thanks very much for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 10:32















1












$begingroup$

If approximation is OK, you could simulate the expected value through an average. A law of large numbers implies that the average converges to the expected value - provided the latter exists, which is however not obvious to me. I did simulate a few runs, though, and got very similar results each time, which is not indicative of an issue with heavy tails.



library(LaplacesDemon)

draws <- 1e6
alpha <- 3
gamma <- 1
beta <- 1
x <- rhalfcauchy(draws, scale=1)
y <- rhalfcauchy(draws, scale=1/sqrt(alpha))

mean(pnorm(beta/sqrt(gamma+x^2*y^2)))





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot for your reply. Yes I could do this, but in fact I would need an analytic approximation not a numeric one (in particular, alpha, beta and gamma are generic)...
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 10:26










  • $begingroup$
    OK, I hope somebody else could weigh in. Of course, you could run the code for any values of the parameters you are interested in.
    $endgroup$
    – Christoph Hanck
    Mar 8 at 10:27










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, sure, the problem is that I really need something analytical unfortunately. But thanks very much for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 10:32













1












1








1





$begingroup$

If approximation is OK, you could simulate the expected value through an average. A law of large numbers implies that the average converges to the expected value - provided the latter exists, which is however not obvious to me. I did simulate a few runs, though, and got very similar results each time, which is not indicative of an issue with heavy tails.



library(LaplacesDemon)

draws <- 1e6
alpha <- 3
gamma <- 1
beta <- 1
x <- rhalfcauchy(draws, scale=1)
y <- rhalfcauchy(draws, scale=1/sqrt(alpha))

mean(pnorm(beta/sqrt(gamma+x^2*y^2)))





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



If approximation is OK, you could simulate the expected value through an average. A law of large numbers implies that the average converges to the expected value - provided the latter exists, which is however not obvious to me. I did simulate a few runs, though, and got very similar results each time, which is not indicative of an issue with heavy tails.



library(LaplacesDemon)

draws <- 1e6
alpha <- 3
gamma <- 1
beta <- 1
x <- rhalfcauchy(draws, scale=1)
y <- rhalfcauchy(draws, scale=1/sqrt(alpha))

mean(pnorm(beta/sqrt(gamma+x^2*y^2)))






share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Mar 8 at 10:27

























answered Mar 8 at 10:23









Christoph HanckChristoph Hanck

17.9k34275




17.9k34275











  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot for your reply. Yes I could do this, but in fact I would need an analytic approximation not a numeric one (in particular, alpha, beta and gamma are generic)...
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 10:26










  • $begingroup$
    OK, I hope somebody else could weigh in. Of course, you could run the code for any values of the parameters you are interested in.
    $endgroup$
    – Christoph Hanck
    Mar 8 at 10:27










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, sure, the problem is that I really need something analytical unfortunately. But thanks very much for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 10:32
















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot for your reply. Yes I could do this, but in fact I would need an analytic approximation not a numeric one (in particular, alpha, beta and gamma are generic)...
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 10:26










  • $begingroup$
    OK, I hope somebody else could weigh in. Of course, you could run the code for any values of the parameters you are interested in.
    $endgroup$
    – Christoph Hanck
    Mar 8 at 10:27










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, sure, the problem is that I really need something analytical unfortunately. But thanks very much for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – user79097
    Mar 8 at 10:32















$begingroup$
Thanks a lot for your reply. Yes I could do this, but in fact I would need an analytic approximation not a numeric one (in particular, alpha, beta and gamma are generic)...
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 8 at 10:26




$begingroup$
Thanks a lot for your reply. Yes I could do this, but in fact I would need an analytic approximation not a numeric one (in particular, alpha, beta and gamma are generic)...
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 8 at 10:26












$begingroup$
OK, I hope somebody else could weigh in. Of course, you could run the code for any values of the parameters you are interested in.
$endgroup$
– Christoph Hanck
Mar 8 at 10:27




$begingroup$
OK, I hope somebody else could weigh in. Of course, you could run the code for any values of the parameters you are interested in.
$endgroup$
– Christoph Hanck
Mar 8 at 10:27












$begingroup$
Yes, sure, the problem is that I really need something analytical unfortunately. But thanks very much for your help!
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 8 at 10:32




$begingroup$
Yes, sure, the problem is that I really need something analytical unfortunately. But thanks very much for your help!
$endgroup$
– user79097
Mar 8 at 10:32

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f396326%2fdouble-integral-involving-the-normal-cdf%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown






Popular posts from this blog

How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?