Let $X$ be a random variable in $\mathbb{R}^n$ with distribution $\mu$ and characteristic function $\varphi$ (i.e. $\varphi(t)=\mathbb{E} e^{i\langle t,X\rangle}$). The standard inversion formula asserts that $$\mu \big(\{a<x<b\}\big) = \frac{1}{(2\pi)^n} \lim_{T_1\to\infty}\cdots\lim_{T_n\to\infty} \int\limits_{-T_1\leq t_1\leq T_1} \cdots \int\limits_{-T_n \leq t_n \leq T_n} \prod_{k=1}^n\left(\frac{e^{-it_ka_k}-e^{-it_kb_k}}{it_k}\right)\varphi_X(t)\lambda(dt_1 \times \cdots \times dt_n),$$ where the set $\{ a<x<b\}$ is the rectangle $(a_1,b_1)\times\cdots \times (a_n,b_n).$

Instead of working with rectangles I am interested in working with open Euclidean balls. Is the corresponding integral relationship similar to the one above known in this case? I would be also very grateful for related references.

  • $\begingroup$ Are you assuming that $\mu$ is absolutely continuous? $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge Mar 29 at 13:44
  • $\begingroup$ No, I am particularly interested in the case where $\mu$ is discrete and supported on a lattice. $\endgroup$ – TOM Mar 29 at 14:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Not sure it is related but Fefferman showed things can go wrong when looking at convergence of Fourier series in 2d on squares versus disks. See math.stackexchange.com/questions/1849763/… $\endgroup$ – Abdelmalek Abdesselam Mar 29 at 18:02
  • $\begingroup$ A thank you to @MichaelHardy for the clarity mods. $\endgroup$ – A rural reader Mar 30 at 3:25

A general way to view these formulae is as a Parseval identity. If your measure were of the form $d\mu(x)=f(x)\,dx$, where $f\in L^2$, then you would have, for any set $E$ of finite positive measure, $$ \mu(E)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\mathbf{1}_Ef=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \hat{\mathbf{1}}_E\hat{\mathbf{f}}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^n}\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \hat{\mathbf{1}}_E\varphi_X. $$ In the case $E$ is the unit ball, the Fourier transform is $\hat{\mathbf{1}}_E(\xi)=(2\pi)^{\frac{n}{2}}\lVert \xi\rVert^{-n/2}J_{n/2}(\lVert\xi\rVert)$, where $J$ is the Bessel function.

Of course, if $\mu$ is less regular, then the RHS does not need to converge absolutely. There are several ways to make sense of the formula nevertheless, namely:

  • replace $\mathbf{1}_E$ with a test function, then pass to the limit;
  • approximate $\mu$ with a more regular measure, then pass to a limit (as in the answer by Iosif Pinelis);
  • replace the integral by its principal value, i. e., integrate over a box or ball of size $T$ centered about the origin and send $T$ to infinity.

The reason the last approach often works is because cutting out the high frequencies has a smoothening effect on both $\mathbf{1}_E$ and $f$, so it is essentially a combination of the first two. In particular, it always works when $\mu$ is supported away from the boundary of $E$; indeed, by writing $\mu=\mu\star\delta$ and exchangind integrals, it suffices to check the formula for delta-measures, in which case it is just the Fourier inversion formula at a point of smoothness of the original function.

If, on the other hand, $\mu$ is allowed to be supported on the boundary, then the v. p. integration may fail, but so does your formula for rectangles, as far as I can see. For example, in dimension 1, RHS is additive under the union $(a,b)\cup(b,c)$, while the LHS is not if $\mu(\{b\})\neq 0$.


$\newcommand\ep\varepsilon\newcommand\de\delta\newcommand\De\Delta\newcommand\vp\varphi\newcommand\R{\mathbb R}$For real $\ep>0$, let $\mu_\ep$ be the distribution of $X+\ep Z$, where $Z$ is a standard Gaussian random vector in $\R^d$ independent of $X$. Then the pdf $p_\ep$ of $\mu_\ep$ is given by $$p_\ep(x)=\frac1{(2\pi)^d}\int_{\R^d}dt\,e^{-it\cdot x-\ep^2|t|^2/2}\vp_X(t)$$ for $x\in\R^d$.

Note that $X+\ep Z$ converges to $X$ almost surely (as $\ep\downarrow0$), and hence $\mu_\ep$ converges to $\mu$ weakly.

So, for any ball $B$ in $\R^d$ with $\mu(\partial B)=0$, $$ \begin{aligned} \mu(B)&=\lim_{\ep\downarrow0}\mu_\ep(B) \\ &=\lim_{\ep\downarrow0}\int_B dx\, p_\ep(x) \\ &=\nu(B):=\frac1{(2\pi)^d}\lim_{\ep\downarrow0}\int_B dx\, \int_{\R^d}dt\,e^{-it\cdot x-\ep^2|t|^2/2}\vp_X(t). \end{aligned} $$

Take now any open ball $B$ of some radius $r\in(0,\infty)$ and let $B_{-\de}$ denote the open ball concentric with $B$ of radius $r-\de$, where $\de\in(0,r)$. Let $\De:=\{\de\in(0,r)\colon\mu(\partial(B_{-\de}))=0\}$. Then $$\mu(B)=\lim_{\de\downarrow0}\mu(B_{-\de})=\lim_{\de\downarrow0,\,\de\in\De}\mu(B_{-\de}),$$ in view of the monotonicity of $\mu(B_{-\de})$ in $\de$ and because the set $(0,r)\setminus\De$ is at most countable. Therefore and in view of the monotonicity of $\nu(B_{-\de})$ in $\de$, $$\begin{aligned} \mu(B)&=\lim_{\de\downarrow0,\,\de\in\De}\nu(B_{-\de}) \\ &=\lim_{\de\downarrow0}\nu(B_{-\de}) \\ &=\frac1{(2\pi)^d}\lim_{\de\downarrow0}\lim_{\ep\downarrow0}\int_{B_{-\de}} dx\, \int_{\R^d}dt\,e^{-it\cdot x-\ep^2|t|^2/2}\vp_X(t). \end{aligned}$$

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, this is most useful! $\endgroup$ – TOM Mar 29 at 16:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There seems to be a problem with the formula (or maybe I do not see something trivial). Consider a random variable $X$ such that $\mathbb{P}(X=\pm 1)=1/2$. Then the probability that $X$ hits the interval $(-1,1)$ is 0, but the smoothened version of $X$ assigns probability roughly $1/2$ to this interval (with limit $1/2$ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$). Am I missing something here? $\endgroup$ – TOM Mar 30 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ @TOM : Thank you for your comment. This is now fixed. $\endgroup$ – Iosif Pinelis Mar 30 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ In the paragraph startin So, for any ball $B$ in $\mathbb R^d$ with you probably mean $\mu(\partial B)=0$. $\endgroup$ – Jochen Wengenroth Mar 31 at 5:06
  • $\begingroup$ @JochenWengenroth : Yes, of course. :-) Thank you for your comment. $\endgroup$ – Iosif Pinelis Mar 31 at 6:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.