Skip to main content

calculus and analysis - Bad performance of Integrate (and WolframAlpha) for an Integral of Bessel function of the first kind: Version 11 edit


Version 11 Edit


The issue still remains:


Integrate[BesselJ[0, x], {x, 0, ∞}] // Timing
(* {29.8125, 1} *)

$Version


(* "11.3.0 for Microsoft Windows (64-bit) (March 7, 2018)" *)


Original post


The following returns unevaluated in WolframAlpha. Also in my machine Mathematica needs quite a lot of time to compute it.


In[720]:= Integrate[BesselJ[0, x], {x, 0, \[Infinity]}] // Timing
Out[720]= {26.520170, 1}

I am puzzled because I thought such integrals are well tabulated in Mathematica.


At least the numerical integration is performed very quickly.


In[721]:= NIntegrate[BesselJ[0, x], {x, 0, \[Infinity]}] // Timing
Out[721]= {0.826805, 1.}


Any ideas about this performance of Mathematica and WolframAlpha?


EDIT


As J. M. is back suggested the following gives the result almost immediately


In[734]:= LaplaceTransform[BesselJ[0, t], t, s] /. s -> 0 // Timing
Out[734]= {0., 1}

For me the poor behavior of Integrate here still remains. What is even worse are the differences between the result of Mathematica and WolframAlpha.


In[761]:= LaplaceTransform[BesselJ[0, t], t, s]
Out[761]= 1/Sqrt[1 + s^2]


whereas WolframAlpha returns


1/(sqrt(1+1/s^2) s)

So you have to type


Limit[1/(sqrt(1+1/s^2) s),s->0]

in order to get finally 1.


EDIT 2


In[2]:= Quit[]


In[1]:= Integrate[BesselJ[0, x], {x, 0, \[Infinity]},
GenerateConditions -> False] // Timing
Out[1]= {26.301769, 1}

In[2]:= Quit[]

In[1]:= Integrate[BesselJ[n, x], {x, 0, \[Infinity]},
GenerateConditions -> False] // Timing
Out[1]= {0.109201, 1}


In[2]:= Quit[]

In[1]:= Integrate[BesselJ[n, x], {x, 0, \[Infinity]},
GenerateConditions -> True] // Timing
Out[1]= {8.049652, ConditionalExpression[1, Re[n] > -1]}

Compare the times 8.049652 (with n and GenerateConditions->True !) and 26.301769 (with n=0).


Rather funny:-)!


EDIT 3 Even more weird...



In[2]:= Quit[]

In[1]:= Integrate[BesselJ[n, x], {x, 0, \[Infinity]},
Assumptions -> n > 0] // Timing
Out[1]= {22.417344, 1}

Compare the times of Assumptions and GenerateConditions->True.


EDIT 4


Apparently something goes very wrong. With a clear kernel I got


Table[Timing[Integrate[BesselJ[0, x], {x, 0, Infinity}]], {i, 1, 10}]

Table[Timing[Integrate[BesselJ[1, x], {x, 0, Infinity}]], {i, 1, 10}]
Table[Timing[Integrate[BesselJ[2, x], {x, 0, Infinity}]], {i, 1, 10}]
Table[Timing[Integrate[BesselJ[3, x], {x, 0, Infinity}]], {i, 1, 10}]

Results


For m >= 4 Mathematica gives the 1 for m odd (same behavior as for m=3). For m even also gives 1 in all cases but needs more than 20 sec per average to evaluate the integral.


I cannot find a reason to explain this behavior which other more experienced users have called it buggy. I think Mathematica makes use of this reference. So apparently something is treated differently for n even.


EDIT 5 I_Mariusz pointed out a workaround. I added here in order to show its performance (if any) in Timing (and since on one hand our comments had misprints and on the other I did not know that Integrate can be compiled).


With a clear kernel I got:


int = Compile[{{x, _Real}}, 

Integrate[BesselJ[0, x], {x, 0, Infinity},
GenerateConditions -> False]];

Table[int[x] // Quiet // Timing, {10}]


{{26.254968, 1}, {24.897760, 1}, {24.897760, 1}, {20.046128, 1}, {0.046800, 1}, {0.046800, 1}, {0.062400, 1}, {0.062400, 1}, {0.062400, 1}, {0.062400, 1}}



At least now we get 1's in the whole loop!



Answer




I think this is not a answer but can serve as a summary of the useful workarounds. Still we do not have a rigorous explanation of the buggy (?) behavior.


Since


Integrate[BesselJ[0, x], {x, 0, \[Infinity]}] // Timing
(*{27.112974, 1}*)

J. M. is back suggested the following which gives the result almost immediately.


LaplaceTransform[BesselJ[0, t], t, s] /. s -> 0 // Timing
(*{0., 1}*)

In WolframAlpha we will get 1/(sqrt(1+1/s^2) s) from the LaplaceTransform so we need in addition Limit[1/(sqrt(1+1/s^2) s),s->0].



Integration with generic n gives the correct result but still the time is very large.


Integrate[BesselJ[n, x], {x, 0, \[Infinity]}] // Timing
(*{11.731275, ConditionalExpression[1, Re[n] > -1]}*)

Integrate[BesselJ[n, x], {x, 0, \[Infinity]},
Assumptions -> n \[Element] Reals] // Timing
(*{29.780591, ConditionalExpression[1, n > -1]}*)

As a workaround we can ignore the conditions


ClearSystemCache[]

Integrate[BesselJ[n, x], {x, 0, \[Infinity]},
GenerateConditions -> False] // Timing
(*{0.093601, 1}*)

or more rigorous (after B. Hanlon)


 Simplify[Integrate[BesselJ[n, x], {x, 0, \[Infinity]}, GenerateConditions -> True], n > -1] // Timing
(*{11.778075, 1}*)

Another interesting workaround is by I_Mariusz


int = Compile[{{x, _Real}}, 

Integrate[BesselJ[0, x], {x, 0, Infinity},
GenerateConditions -> False]];

Table[int[x] // Quiet // Timing, {10}]


{{26.254968, 1}, {24.897760, 1}, {24.897760, 1}, {20.046128, 1}, {0.046800, 1}, {0.046800, 1}, {0.062400, 1}, {0.062400, 1}, {0.062400,1}, {0.062400, 1}}



Notice that


Table[Timing[Integrate[BesselJ[0, x], {x, 0, Infinity}]], {i, 1, 10}]


returns only the first three iterations corrected.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....