# Expectation of $\ln(1 + e^x)$, where $x$ is normally distributed

I need to evaluate the following integral:

$$\int_{-\infty}^\infty\mathrm d x \exp\left(-\frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2\nu}\right) \ln(1+e^x)$$

where $$\mu$$ is a finite real number and $$\nu > 0$$. This is just the average value of $$\ln(1+e^x)$$, when $$x$$ is normally distributed with mean $$\mu$$ and variance $$\nu$$.

I think this might not have a closed form solution (but see https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3423097/10063). Anticipating that a closed form solution might not exist, are there any suggestions on how I can evaluate this numerically?

• Using the Taylor expansion of $\ln(1+x)$ around $x=0$ I get the series representation $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} (-1)^{n+1} \frac{1}{n} \exp(n\mu+\frac{1}{2}n^2\nu)$, but as far as numerical approximation goes, this probably has terrible convergence. – StijnDeVuyst Nov 5 '19 at 15:14
• Another thing that maybe helps is that for large $x$, we have $\ln(1+e^x)\approx x$, so the integral is going to be close to $\mu\sqrt{2\pi\nu}$ if $\mu/\sqrt{\nu}$ is positive and sufficiently large, say at least 5 or so. – StijnDeVuyst Nov 5 '19 at 15:18
• If $v$ is small a Laplace approximation may work well. – Jarle Tufto Nov 5 '19 at 15:23
• You could split the integration in three parts say $x < -a$, $-a < x < b$ and $x > b$ so that $\log(1+e^x)$ is close to $0$ and to $x$ on the first and third part. Then the second part could be coped with by using a numerical quadrature. – Yves Nov 5 '19 at 15:36
• Another nice thing is that the error can be easily controlled. On $(-\infty,\, -a)$ we have $\log(1 + e^x) \leq e^x \leq e^{-a}$. On $(b,\, \infty)$ we have $0 \leq \log(1 + e^x) - x \leq e^{-x} \leq e^{-b}$. So taking $b=-a=10$ gives a nice precision for the integrals on the unbounded intervals whatever be $\mu$ and $\nu$. – Yves Nov 5 '19 at 17:17

Gauss-hermite (GH) quadrature is a very efficient method compared to the Monte Carlo method (MC). If you care about the trade off between precision versus speed (here measured by the number of function evaluations) GH is far superior to MC sampling for the specific integral here under consideration.

The software I use for solving the integral by Gauss-Hermite procedure approximates the integral

$$(1) \ \ \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp\left(-z^2\right)g(z) dz$$

as a weighted sum

$$\approx \sum_i w(z_i)g(z_i)$$

The procedure is to select the number of points $$N$$ here referred to as the sample size. The software will then return $$w_1,...,w_N$$ weights and $$z_1,...,z_N$$ nodes. These nodes are plugged into the function $$g()$$ to get $$g_i = g(z_i)$$ and then the user computes $$\sum_i w_i g_i.$$

To apply the procedure the first step is therefore to rewrite the integral $$\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp\left(-z^2\right)g(z) dz$$ to the integral under consideration - up to a known constant of proportionality - which can be done by letting $$z = (x-\mu)/(\sqrt{2v})$$ and by letting $$g(z) = \log(1+\exp(\mu +\sqrt{2v}z)).$$ By substitution it follows that

$$(2) \ \ \int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp\left(-z^2\right)g(z) dz = \frac{1}{2v}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \exp\left(- \frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2v} \right)\log(1+\exp(x))dx$$

since the R code approximates the integral on the left hand side the result has to be multiplied with the constant $$2v$$ to get the result the OP is looking for. The integral is then solved in R by the following code

library(statmod)
g <- function(z) log(1+exp(mu + sqrt(2*v)*z))
sum(hermite$$weights * g(hermite$$nodes))*sqrt(2*v)


The method is here no different than the MC method because the MC method also presuppose that the integral under consideration can be written on a certain form more precisely

$$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}h(x)f(x) dx$$

where $$h(x)$$ is a distribution it is possible to sample from. In the current case this is particularly easy because the OP's problem can be written as

$$\sqrt{2\pi v}\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi v}} \exp\left(- \frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2v} \right)\log(1+\exp(x))dx$$

The OP's problem is then given as $$\sqrt{2\pi v} \ \mathbb E[\log(1+\exp(x))] \approx \sqrt{2\pi v} \frac{1}{N} \sum_i \log(1+\exp(x_i))$$ for a sample $$\{x_i\}_{i=1}^N$$ where $$x_i$$ is a random normal draw of mean $$\mu$$ and variance $$v$$. This can be done using the following R code

f <- function(x) log(1+exp(x))
w <- rnorm(1000,mean=mu,sd=sqrt(v))
sqrt(2*pi*v)*mean(f(w))


Rough Comparison

To make a rough comparison first note that both the MC method and the GH method makes an approximation of the form

$$\sum_{i=1}^N weight_i \cdot F(s_i)$$

it therefore seems reasonable to compare the methods on the precision they achieve for a given sample size $$N$$. In order to do this I use the R function integrate() to find the "TRUE" value of the integral and then calculate the deviation from this assumed true value for different sample sizes $$N$$ for both the MC method and the GH method. The result is displayed in the plot which clearly show how the GH method gets very close even for a small number of function evaluations as indicated by the red line quickly going to 0 whereas MC integration is very slowly goes to zero.

The plot is generated using the following code

library(statmod)
mu <- 0
v <- 10

f <- function(x) log(1+exp(x))
g <- function(z) log(1+exp(mu + sqrt(2*v)*z))
h <- function(x) exp(-(x-mu)^2/(2*v))*log(1+exp(x))

# Monte Carlo integration using function f
w <- rnorm(1000,mean=mu,sd=sqrt(v))
sqrt(2*pi*v)*mean(f(w))

# Integration using build in R function
int.sol <- integrate(h,-500,500)
int.sol$value # Integration using Gauss-Hermite hermite <- gauss.quad(50,kind="hermite") sum(hermite$$weights * g(hermite$$nodes))*sqrt(2*v) # Now wolve for different sample sizes # Set up the sample sizes sample_size <- 1:300 error <- matrix(0,ncol=length(sample_size),nrow=2) for (i in 1:length(sample_size)) { MC <- rep(0,1000) for (j in 1:1000) { w <- rnorm(sample_size[i],mean=mu,sd=sqrt(v)) MC[j] <- sqrt(2*pi*v)*mean(f(w)) } error[1,i] <- mean(abs(MC - int.sol$value))

her.sol <- sum(hermite$$weights * g(hermite$$nodes))*sqrt(2*v)
error[2,i] <- (abs(her.sol - int.sol$value)) } plot(sample_size,error[1,],ylim=c(0,10),type="l",ylab="error") points(sample_size,error[2,],type="l",lwd=2,col="red")  • Just tried out your suggestion from the comments to my answer, but the result is not even close to the correct answer: quad.par <- gauss.quad(1000, "hermite"); sum(quad.par$weights * f(quad.par$nodes, mu=m, s=s)) yields 0.9465. I had replaced "legendre" with "hermite", because "legendre" sets the limits to (-1,1) and would thus require a variable substitution. There is another package ("gaussquad"), but this requires first to create a "rule" table, whose constructor needs mystical parameter arguments. Another problem is that neither function yields an error estimate. – cdalitz Nov 7 '19 at 12:03 • You probably did not do the necessary change of variables, I get the right results. – Stop Closing Questions Fast Nov 7 '19 at 14:45 • @jseper-hybel "necessary change of variables": I give up and acknowlegde that the MC approach is much more viable ;-) – cdalitz Nov 7 '19 at 15:03 • the kernel in is explicitly written as$exp(-z^2)$in the documentation of the R code. So you have to set$z = (x-\mu)/\sqrt(2v)$just like you have to realize that the kernel in the problem stated is only the normal up to a difference in the constant$1/sqrt(2*pi*v)$which is why you have to realize that you have to multiply your MC average with the constant sqrt(2*pi*v) as you have done in your code. But I will post my solution. – Stop Closing Questions Fast Nov 7 '19 at 15:10 • Thank you very much for working out your solution! Is there also a way, like for the MC solution and R's integrate function, to give an estimate of the error? – cdalitz Nov 8 '19 at 9:46 Like you mentioned, This is just the average value of $$\ln(1+e^x)$$, when x is normally distributed with mean μ and variance ν. So all you have to do is: 1) Draw N (large number) of $$X_i \sim N(\mu, \nu)$$ 2) Your estimate $$\hat\theta$$ is then: $$\hat\theta = 1/N * \sqrt{2\pi\nu }\sum^N_{i =1}\ln(1+e^{X_i})$$ • Oh yes I thought of this. But I was aiming for a deterministic numerical evaluation, if possible. – becko Nov 5 '19 at 15:21 Out of curiosity, I have tried the suggestions of both answers with the following R-code (note that the integrand $$\log(1+e^x)$$ must be approximated by $$x$$ for large values to avoid overflow): f <- function(x, mu, s) { # approximate integrand for large values log.part <- ifelse(x<100, log(1+exp(x)), x) return(exp(-(x-mu)^2/(2*s*s)) * log.part) } m <- 1; s <- 1 # Monte Carlo integration N <- 10^6 x <- rnorm(N, mean=m, sd=s) int.mc <- sqrt(2*pi)*s * mean(log(1+exp(x))) int.mc.sd <- sqrt(2*pi)*s * sd(log(1+exp(x))) / sqrt(N) cat(sprintf("Monte Carlo: %f +/- %f\n", int.mc, 2*int.mc.sd)) # numerical integration int.num <- integrate(f, lower=-Inf, upper=Inf, mu=m, s=s) cat(sprintf("Numerical: %f +/- %f\n", int.num$$value, int.num$$abs.error))  It turns out that, for this integral, the results are close to each other, but the numerical integration (R uses a Gauss-Kronrod quadrature in connection with extrapolation by Wynn's Epsilon algorithm) is both faster and more accurate (the Monte Carlo "accuracy" is a 95% confidence interval): Monte Carlo: 3.525610 +/- 0.003548 Numerical: 3.526466 +/- 0.000001  • Thanks. I don't use R, but I bet there is a function log1pexp(x) you can use in place of log(1+exp(x)) to avoid the intermediate overflow you mention? – becko Nov 6 '19 at 12:49 • – becko Nov 6 '19 at 12:50 • @becko: just tried this function, and it does not have any effect on the result. The simple asymptotic formula is thus a good choice for$x>100$. – cdalitz Nov 6 '19 at 13:00 • @JesperHybel Well this answer was posted 20 minutes ago, while the MC answer was yesterday. So give it more time. – becko Nov 6 '19 at 13:05 • @jesper-hybel A possible reason why the MC answer is preferred by many readers might be that it is easy to implement and even includes the code how to do it. Actually I could only try out the numerical integration by relying on a third party library, while I could implement the MC integration myself. If you add coding time to the performance time, MC is often significantly faster ;-) – cdalitz Nov 6 '19 at 13:54 The following diagram compares the desired expectation $$E[\ln \left(1+e^x\right)]$$ to the 45 degree asymptote $$\mu$$ (when the variance is 1), and the $$x$$-axis asymptote when $$\mu$$ is negative. That suggests a very simple approximation when $$\mu$$ is either relatively large negative (0) or relatively large positive ($$\mu$$). More generally, increasing the variance will push outwards the range of 'contact / excellent approximation'. If you play around with it a bit, I suspect it will be possible to come up with some fairly simple rule like $$|\frac{\mu}{2\sqrt{\sigma}}| > 3$$ or similar where the asymptote approximation will work nicely. The following implements Becko's suggestion (see comment below) of using $$E[\max[0,X]]$$ as the approximation (see dashed line) for which closed-form solutions exist. This is equivalent to the value of an option in a world where the parent random variable is Normal (as opposed to Lognormal). It works remarkably well when $$\sigma$$ is large. • I obtained a closer approximation by replacing$\ln(1+e^x)\approx\max(0,x)$, for which the average can be computed analytically using error functions. But as you said this is not very accurate when$\mu$is close to zero. – becko Nov 6 '19 at 14:30 • That is very nice indeed - I was thinking the curve just looked like a call option! – wolfies Nov 6 '19 at 15:06 • I like the graphs, insight, and intuition from this answer. It shows very clearly where approximations work well and where they don't. I wonder whether the curve E[ln(1+e^x)] can't be approximated with some simple function. It looks very much like$E[ln(1+e^x)] \approx ln(1+e^\mu)\$ – Sextus Empiricus Nov 7 '19 at 21:51