Fourier transform of the exponential characteristic function

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the challenges of computing the inverse Fourier transform numerically for complex characteristic functions, particularly for the exponential distribution. The user notes a discrepancy in the resulting probability distribution function, specifically at x=0, where the numerical method yields a result off by a factor of two compared to the analytical solution. This issue is attributed to the non-integrability of the characteristic function in the absolute sense, often arising with distributions that have atoms. Suggestions for addressing the problem include subtracting the atoms or applying the Lévy inversion theorem to obtain the cumulative distribution function. The conversation highlights a broader issue in numerical methods for Fourier transforms, especially for distributions with discontinuities.
AnnapolisStar
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I am trying to compute the inverse Fourier transform numerically (using a DFT) for some complicated characteristic functions in order to compute their corresponding probability distribution functions. As a test case I thought I would invert the characteristic function for the simple exponential distribution but my resulting distribution function evaluated at x=0is off by a factor of 2.

Specifically if I evaluate the integral analytically first (which I can do for the simple integral) and then plug in x= 0 I get the correct answer

f(x) = {\textstyle{1 \over {2\pi }}}\int\limits_{ - \infty }^\infty {{e^{ - iux}}{\textstyle{\alpha \over {\alpha - iu}}}} du = \alpha {e^{ - \alpha x}} = \alpha

f(x) = {\textstyle{1 \over {2\pi }}}\int\limits_{ - \infty }^\infty {{e^{ - iux}}{\textstyle{\alpha \over {\alpha - iu}}}} du = \alpha {e^{ - \alpha x}} = \alpha

f(x) = {\textstyle{1 \over {2\pi }}}\int\limits_{ - \infty }^\infty {{e^{ - iux}}{\textstyle{\alpha \over {\alpha - iu}}}} du = \alpha {e^{ - \alpha x}} = \alpha

If I substitute x = 0 first before integrating (as you must do with any numerical algorithm for which you don't know the integral apriori) and then evaluate the integral numerically or analytically (which you can do in this simple case) you will get the wrong answer.

f(0) = {\textstyle{1 \over {2\pi }}}\int\limits_{ - \infty }^\infty {{\textstyle{\alpha \over {\alpha - iu}}}} du = \alpha /2

It is off by a factor of two! It is not just at zero either - the answer is wrong but progressively better for larger x values. Since this integral gives the same wrong answer either numerically or analytically I know it is not a round off problem

This seems to be a common problem with a lot of distributions. Interestingly when I look at algorithms in "Numerical Receipes Art of Programming" for computing the Fourier transform with a DFT or when I look at the considerable literture on the web for evaluating Fourier transforms numerically they never seem to mention this problem and they get lost in the mathematics of fractional FFT's and Kernal functions etc. This seems to be a major problem with any numerical procedure for Fourier transforms and a problem common to a lot of distribution functions which exhibit discontinuities.

How do you handle this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The issue here is that the c.f. isn't integrable (in the absolute sense), which tends to happen when the distribution has atoms. You could try subtracting the atoms; or apply the Levy inversion theorem and related results to get the cdf and the point masses.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
814
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K