On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, baptiste Auguié wrote:
Thanks, I'll do that too from now on.
It strikes me that in a case such as this one it may be safer to use a
truncated, finite interval around the region where the integrand is non-zero,
rather than following the advice of ?integrate to use Inf as integration limit.
At least one wouldn't risk to get an entirely wrong result depending on a
choice of rel.tol. Regarding this parameter, is there a simple interpretation
of how it affected the result in the context of my example?
Not really.
If you know where the integrand is non-zero then you can shift it so that
integrate() can handle it. If you don't know then you can't get the truncated
interval right.
The truncation approach works well for the Normal density because it it is
non-negative, symmetric, and has nearly bounded support. The truncation error
goes down extremely fast and if the mode of the density is in the center of the
interval then all the mass can easily be found. If you have a function with
multiple modes and heavier tails it is harder to get an interval that is large
enough to make the truncation error small, and still allows the integrate()
function to find all the mass.
-thomas
Thomas Lumley
Professor of Biostatistics
University of Washington, Seattle
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
