2

I am interested in the integral \begin{align*} \int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}dx_1\int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}dx_2\int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}dx_3\int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}dx_4\,\frac{1}{(x_1+x_3)(x_1+x_4)(x_2+x_3)(x_2+x_4)}e^{-x_1-x_2-x_3-x_4}. \end{align*} This diverges as $\epsilon\to 0$. I don't really care about the finite part of the integral, but I would like to know how it behaves as $\epsilon\to 0$. By dimensional analysis it diverges logarithmically, but there could be terms like $(\log\epsilon)^n$ also. Are there some standard tricks to deal with such questions?

  • Please clarify the bounds and order of integration. Is it $$\int_\epsilon^\infty \int_\epsilon^\infty \int_\epsilon^\infty \int_\epsilon^\infty \ldots dx_1 dx_2 dx_3 dx_4$$ or what do you want to express? – AlexR Jan 12 '14 at 18:59
  • Thanks for the tip, I simplified this. – Matthew Dodelson Jan 12 '14 at 19:01

3 Answers3

1

If you integrate by parts successively in the $x_1,x_2,x_3$, and $x_4$ variables, each time integrating the exponential factor and differentiating the denominator, then the resulting integral becomes absolutely integrable. You get 4 endpoint terms each of which is a similar integral, but in one fewer variable. You can then similarly do integrations by parts on each of the endpoint terms, and so on. It isn't pretty, but if you just want to get the order of magnitude as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ this should give it to you.

Zarrax
  • 44,950
  • Actually, the integral can't be evaluated in closed form. – Igor Rivin Jan 12 '14 at 19:48
  • I didn't say it could.. but you can integrate by parts in a given variable with the others fixed, as I indicated. – Zarrax Jan 12 '14 at 19:55
  • This method looks like it will work. I'll give it a shot and accept this answer if it does. – Matthew Dodelson Jan 12 '14 at 21:20
  • It might also be easier to change variables first to $y_1 = {x_1\over \epsilon}$, $y_2 = {x_2 \over \epsilon}$ etc since then the integrals are over a fixed set and the epsilon only appears in the exponential. – Zarrax Jan 12 '14 at 22:01
  • @Zarrax, I tried this, but doesn't differentiating the denominator actually make the divergence worse instead of better? Am I missing something? – Matthew Dodelson Jan 13 '14 at 02:50
  • differentiating $1/(x_1 + x_2)$ for example with respect to $x_1$ turns it into $-{1 \over (x_1 + x_2)^2}$ which makes it decay faster for large $x_1$ and $x_2$. If you do this to all four variables then the integrals will become absolutely convergent.. bounding ${1 \over x_i + x_j} \leq {1 \over 2\sqrt{x_ix_j}}$ is one way to show this. – Zarrax Jan 13 '14 at 15:00
  • Sure, but it makes the $\epsilon$ divergence worse, because this comes from small $x$. – Matthew Dodelson Jan 13 '14 at 20:08
  • So you will get terms with worse powers of $\epsilon$. If they cancel in the end, they won't factor into the overall asymptotics. If they don't cancel, then the growth rate in the asymptotics will reflect these worse powers of $\epsilon$. From what you're saying, there's some symmetry which makes them cancel. In which case, the answer would have to be of the form $C \ln(\epsilon)$ because that is the only term left. – Zarrax Jan 13 '14 at 21:11
0

I spent a few hours developing some tricks for this integral and similar ones, so I thought I would post them here.

As an example consider a simpler integral, \begin{align*} f(\mu)=\int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}dx_1\int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}dx_2\int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}dx_3\, \frac{1}{(x_1+x_2)(x_1+x_3)(x_2+x_3)}e^{-\mu(x_1+x_2+x_3)}. \end{align*} The basic idea is to compute the derivatives of $f$ with respect to $\mu$ and then integrate. The first derivative of $f$ is \begin{align*} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \mu}=-\frac{3}{2}\int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}dx_1\int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}dx_2\int_{\epsilon}^{\infty}dx_3\, \frac{1}{(x_1+x_3)(x_2+x_3)}e^{-\mu(x_1+x_2+x_3)}. \end{align*} This is a convergent integral, so we can set $\epsilon=0$ if we are only interested in the asymptotics. Making the change of variables $y_1=x_1/\ell$, $y_2=x_2/\ell$, $\ell=x_1+x_2+x_3$, we get \begin{align*} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \mu}=-\frac{3}{2}\int_{0}^{\infty} d\ell\, e^{-\mu \ell}\int_{0}^{1}dy_1\int_{0}^{1-y_1}dy_2\,\frac{1}{(1-y_1)(1-y_2)}=-\frac{\pi^2}{4\mu}. \end{align*} Integrating then gives $f=-\pi^2 \log (\mu)/4$, which by dimensional analysis yields $f\sim -\pi^2\log(\epsilon)/4$.

One can do a similar thing for the integral I originally posted, you get $-2\pi^2\log(\epsilon)/3$. It seems somewhat surprising from the form of the original integral that it's just a single log, but I checked this answer numerically and it agrees.

-2

Make the substitution $y_1 = x_1 + x_3; y_2 = x_1 + x_4; y_3 = x_2 + x_3; y_4 = x_1 + x_2 + x_3 + x_4$ Then, your integrand becomes

$$\frac{e^{-{y_4}}}{y_1 y_2 y_3 (y_4 - y_2)}.$$

The first three $y$s integrate out (the limit does change from $\infty$ to linear functions of the other $y,$ but you just get a sum of logs, and you are left with a fairly disgusting one-dimensional integral.

EDIT Firstly, the "right substitution is: $y_1 = x_1 + x_2+x_3 + x_4, y_2 = x_1 + x_3; y_3 = x_1 + x_4; y_4 = x_1 + x_2 - x_3 -x_4.$ Secondly, what you see, then, is that the integrand is of the form $$\frac{e^{-{y_1}}}{y_2 (y_1- y_2 )y_3 (y_1-y_3)}.$$ Which is wonderful, but the fact that it does not depend on $y_4$ (whose range is from $-\infty$ to $\infty$) means that the integral actually diverges, no matter what $\epsilon$ is, so the question seems to be moot.

Igor Rivin
  • 25,994
  • 1
  • 19
  • 40
  • The bounds of the integral, @IgorRivin, the bounds of the integral... – Did Jan 12 '14 at 19:01
  • I tried that, but unfortunately the Jacobian determinant is zero for that transformation. – Matthew Dodelson Jan 12 '14 at 19:02
  • 1
    @Did yes, what is your problem, exactly? – Igor Rivin Jan 12 '14 at 19:02
  • @MatthewDodelson Hmm, I did not do the computation (obviously). However, do the first three substitutions, but leave $y_4=x_4.$ What happens then? – Igor Rivin Jan 12 '14 at 19:04
  • I haven't tried that yet, I'll look into that. Thanks. – Matthew Dodelson Jan 12 '14 at 19:05
  • 1
    That should reduce your dimension a lot. – Igor Rivin Jan 12 '14 at 19:07
  • "My" problem? I do not think so... Anyway, the change of variable you suggest is handy regarding the function to integrate, but it is much less so regarding the resulting domain on which one integrates this function. And one definitely needs this domain to go through. – Did Jan 12 '14 at 19:15
  • @Did the domain is a cube, which becomes a parallelopiped after a linear substitution. Why is this problematic? – Igor Rivin Jan 12 '14 at 19:17
  • @MatthewDodelson see the improved version... – Igor Rivin Jan 12 '14 at 19:39
  • @Did yes, three of the limits become finite, if that's what you meant. So what? – Igor Rivin Jan 12 '14 at 19:39
  • For the second time, please lower your tone--and/or try to address the maths questions about your answer. Here is one: since $y_2+y_3=y_4$, the change of variables you suggest is illicit. – Did Jan 12 '14 at 20:11
  • 1
    @Did you started with the tone, so heal thyself first. – Igor Rivin Jan 12 '14 at 20:56
  • @IgorRivin, in your improved answer I still get a Jacobian with zero determinant. However $x_4=y_4$ seems to work. – Matthew Dodelson Jan 12 '14 at 21:09
  • No I did not. Enough. – Did Jan 12 '14 at 21:11
  • @MatthewDodelson see the edit. – Igor Rivin Jan 13 '14 at 02:33
  • Hmmm I don't think so... $y_4$ still enters through the bounds on the other integrals, so I don't think it diverges. – Matthew Dodelson Jan 13 '14 at 02:35
  • $y_4$ was picked to be orthogonal to the other variables, so I really don't think so. I have been wrong before (as you know...), of course. – Igor Rivin Jan 13 '14 at 02:36
  • As a simple counterexample, take the integral $\int dx_1, dx_2, e^{-x_1-x_2}/(x_1+x_2)^2$, where the range is from $\epsilon$ to $\infty$. We can make the orthogonal change of variables $y_1=x_1+x_2$ and $y_2=x_1-x_2$, and the integral now becomes $\int dy_1, dy_2, e^{-y_1}/y_1^2$, which would seem to diverge by your argument. This integral is explicitly convergent though, so $y_2$ must enter through the bounds. – Matthew Dodelson Jan 13 '14 at 02:47
  • @MatthewDodelson you may well have a point, but I remain confused. – Igor Rivin Jan 13 '14 at 02:57