A Memory issues in numerical integration of oscillatory function

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the challenges of numerically integrating a decaying complex function over an infinite interval, particularly when using Python libraries. Initial attempts with the quadrature method faced convergence issues, prompting a switch to the fast Fourier transform (FFT) for improved speed, which introduced memory constraints with large intervals and small step sizes. The proposed solution involves subdividing the integration interval, applying FFT to each subinterval, and summing the results to achieve convergence. Participants also discuss the importance of applying the scaling theorem for FFTs and addressing potential Gibbs oscillations by windowing segments. The conversation highlights the utility of periodicity in the integration process and explores alternative methods for handling oscillatory functions.
cyberpotato
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Memory challenges in numerically integrating oscillatory functions using FFT in Python. Starting this thread here as a related thread was discussed earlier: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/numerical-integration-fourier-transform-or-brute-force.283916/#post-2030214
Hello!

I need to numerically integrate a frequently oscillating, decaying complex function over the interval from 0 to infinity, which is continuous. For brevity, I provide the general integral view
$$\int_{0}^{\infty} A(t)e^{e^{iw't}}dt$$.
I'm using Python libraries for this task. Initially, I tried the quadrature method, but encountered convergence issues when integrating over a large interval. To address this, I started subdividing the integration interval into subintervals, integrating them separately, and summing the results until convergence. However, this process was time-consuming.
To speed up the integration, I switched to using the fast Fourier transform (FFT) from scipy.fft. While this approach improved integration speed, a new issue arose. When passing a vector of function values to scipy.fft, I faced memory constraints for very large integration intervals with small step sizes. To solve this, I considered subdividing the large integration interval, performing FFT on each subinterval, and summing the results until convergence.

Is it correct to solve this issue by breaking down the large integration interval into subintervals, performing FFT on each subinterval, and summing until convergence? Additionally, are there alternative methods for integrating such functions that I should consider?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It may be worth setting <br /> I_n = \int_{0}^{2\pi/\omega&#039;} A\left(\frac{2n\pi}{\omega&#039;} + t\right)e^{e^{i\omega&#039;t}}\,dt, \qquad n \geq 0 and seeing how fast |I_n| decays with n. Your integral can then be approximated as \sum_{n=0}^N I_n for some N.
 
I think what you are asking is that you have,
$$
\int_0^{\infty} A(t)[1 + e^{i\omega t}+ \frac{e^{2i\omega t}}{2!} +\frac{e^{3i\omega t}}{3!} + ...]dt
$$
and wish to take the FFT of your time series against each succeeding term in the expansion. Firstly, you must apply the scaling theorem for FFTs to each term (see Scaling Theorem )which will probably result in interpolation issues which you must resolve. Secondly, by breaking up your time series into segments and taking the FFT of each segment Gibbs oscillations raise their ugly heads. Therefore you must window each segment using a Hamming window or whatnot.
 
  • Informative
Likes pbuk and Delta2
pasmith said:
It may be worth setting <br /> I_n = \int_{0}^{2\pi/\omega&#039;} A\left(\frac{2n\pi}{\omega&#039;} + t\right)e^{e^{i\omega&#039;t}}\,dt, \qquad n \geq 0 and seeing how fast |I_n| decays with n. Your integral can then be approximated as \sum_{n=0}^N I_n for some N.
Your approach looks very interesting, thank you. I'm trying to understand it. Are you using the periodicity property of the exp(iωt) function? In the case A(t) = 1, the integral will have the form:
$$\int_{0}^{\infty }e^{e^{i\omega t}}=\sum_{n=0}^N \int_{0}^{2\pi/\omega}e^{e^{i\omega t}}$$
Is that right?
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top