Develop Reference

solve_ivp from scipy does not integrate the whole range of tspan

I'm trying to use solve_ivp from scipy in Python to solve an IVP. I specified the tspan argument of solve_ivp to be (0,10), as shown below. However, for some reason, the solutions I get always stop around t=2.5.
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import scipy.optimize as optim
def dudt(t, u):
return u*(1-u/12)-4*np.heaviside(-(t-5), 1)
ic = [2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20]
sol = solve_ivp(dudt, (0, 10), ic, t_eval=np.linspace(0, 10, 10000))
for solution in sol.y:
y = [y for y in solution if y >= 0]
t = sol.t[:len(y)]
plt.plot(t, y)

What is going wrong
You should always look at what the solver returns. In this case it gives
message: 'Required step size is less than spacing between numbers.'
Think of the process of solving your initial value problem with scipy.integrate.solve_ivp as repeatedly estimating a direction and then going a small step in that direction. The above error means that the solutions to your equation change so fast that taking the minimal step size possible is too far. But your equation is simple enough that at least for t =< 5 where 4*np.heaviside(-(t-5), 1) always gives 4 it can be solved exactly/symbolically. I will explain more for t > 5 later.
Symbolic Solution
Sympy can solve your differential equation. While you can provide it an initial value it would have taken much longer to solve it once for each of your initial values. So instead I told it to give me all solutions and then I calculated the parameters C1 for your initial value separately.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from sympy import *
ics = [2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20]
f = symbols("f", cls=Function)
t = symbols("t")
eq = Eq(f(t).diff(t),f(t)*(1-f(t)/12)-4)
base_sol = dsolve(eq)
c1s = [solve(base_sol.args[1].subs({t:0})-ic) for ic in ics]
# Apparently sympy is unhappy that numpy does not supply a cotangent.
# So I do that manually.
sols = [lambdify(t, base_sol.args[1].subs({symbols('C1'):C1[0]}),
modules=['numpy', {'cot':lambda x:1/np.tan(x)}]) for C1 in c1s]
t = np.linspace(0, 5, 10000)
for sol in sols:
y = sol(t)
mask = (y > -5) & (y < 20)
plt.plot(t[mask], y[mask])
At first glance the picture looks odd. Especially the blue and orange straight line part. This is just due to the values lying outside the masked range so matplotlib connects them directly. What is actually happening is a sudden jump. That jumped tipped off the numeric ode solver earlier. You can see it even more clearly when you make sympy print the first solution.
The tangent is known to have a jump at pi/4 and if you solve the argument of the tangent above you get 2.47241377386575. Which is probably where your plotting stopped.
Now what about t>5?
Unfortunately your equation is not continuous in t=5. One approach would be to solve the equation for t>5 separately for the initial values given by following the solutions of the first equation. But that is an other question for an other day.

Matlab's spline equivalent in Python, three inputs.

I'm converting a matlab script to python and I have it a roadblock.
In order to use cubic spline interpolation on a signal. The script uses the command spline with three inputs. f_o, c_signal and freq. so it looks like the following.
cav_sig_freq = spline(f_o, c_signal, freq)
f_o = 1x264, c_signal = 1x264 and freq = 1x264
From the documentation in matlab it reads that "s = spline(x,y,xq) returns a vector of interpolated values s corresponding to the query points in xq. The values of s are determined by cubic spline interpolation of x and y."
In python i'm struggling to find the correct python equivalent. Non of different interpolation functions I have found in the numpy and Scipy documentation let's use the third input like in Matlab.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. If there are any suggestion to how I can make it more clear, I'll be happy to do so.

Basically you will first need to generate something like an interpolant function, then give it your points. Using your variable names like this:
from scipy import interpolate
tck = interpolate.splrep(f_o, c_signal, s=0)
and then apply this tck to your points:
c_interp = interpolate.splev(freq, tck, der=0)
For more on this your can read this post.

Have you tried the InterpolatedUnivariateSpline within scipy.interpolate? If I understand the MatLab part correctly, then I think this will work.
import numpy as np
from scipy.interpolate import InterpolatedUnivariateSpline as ius
a = [1,2,3,4,5,6]
b = [r * 2 for r in a]
c = ius(a, b, k=1)
# what values do you want to query?
targets = [3.4, 2.789]
interpolated_values = c(targets)
It seems this may add one more step to your code than what MatLab provides, but I think it is what you want.

Scipy: efficiently generate a series of integration (integral function)

I have a function, I want to get its integral function, something like this:
That is, instead of getting a single integration value at point x, I need to get values at multiple points.
For example:
Let's say I want the range at (-20,20)
def f(x):
return x**2
x_vals = np.arange(-20, 21, 1)
y_vals =[integrate.nquad(f, [[0, x_val]]) for x_val in x_vals ]
plt.plot(x_vals, y_vals,'-', color = 'r')
The problem
In the example code I give above, for each point, the integration is done from scratch. In my real code, the f(x) is pretty complex, and it's a multiple integration, so the running time is simply too slow(Scipy: speed up integration when doing it for the whole surface?).
I'm wondering if there is any way of efficient generating the Phi(x), at a giving range.
My thoughs:
The integration value at point Phi(20) is calucation from Phi(19), and Phi(19) is from Phi(18) and so on. So when we get Phi(20), in reality we also get the series of (-20,-19,-18,-17 ... 18,19,20). Except that we didn't save the value.
So I'm thinking, is it possible to create save points for a integrate function, so when it passes a save point, the value would get saved and continues to the next point. Therefore, by a single process toward 20, we could also get the value at (-20,-19,-18,-17 ... 18,19,20)

One could implement the strategy you outlined by integrating only over the short intervals (between consecutive x-values) and then taking the cumulative sum of the results. Like this:
import numpy as np
import scipy.integrate as si
def f(x):
return x**2
x_vals = np.arange(-20, 21, 1)
pieces = [si.quad(f, x_vals[i], x_vals[i+1])[0] for i in range(len(x_vals)-1)]
y_vals = np.cumsum([0] + pieces)
Here pieces are the integrals over short intervals, which get summed to produce y-values. As written, this code outputs a function that is 0 at the beginning of the range of integration which is -20. One can, of course, subtract the y-value that corresponds to x=0 in order to have the same normalization as on your plot.
That said, the split-and-sum process is unnecessary. When you find an indefinite integral of f, you are really solving the differential equation F' = f. And SciPy has a built-in method for that, odeint. Just use it:
import numpy as np
import scipy.integrate as si
def f(x):
return x**2
x_vals = np.arange(-20, 21, 1)
y_vals = si.odeint(lambda y,x: f(x), 0, x_vals)
The output is essential identical to the first version (within tiny computational errors), with less code. The reason for using lambda y,x: f(x) is that the first argument of odeint must be a function taking two arguments, the right-hand side of the equation y' = f(y, x).

For the equivalent version of user3717023's answer using scipy's solve_ivp you need to keep in mind the different ordering of x and y in the function f (different from the odeint version).
Further, keep in mind that you can only compute the solution up to a constant. So you might want to shift the result according to some given condition. In the example here (with the function f(x)=x^2 as given by the OP), I shifted the numeric solution such that it goes through the origin, matching the simplest analytic solution F(x)=x^3/3.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp
def f(x):
return x**2
xs = np.linspace(-20, 20, 1001)
# This is the integration step:
sol = solve_ivp(lambda x, y: f(x), t_span=(xs[0], xs[-1]), y0=[0], t_eval=xs)
plt.plot(sol.t, sol.t**3/3, ls='-', c='C0', label="analytic: $F(x)=x^3/3$")
plt.plot(sol.t, sol.y[0], ls='--', c='C1', label="numeric solution")
plt.plot(sol.t, sol.y[0] - sol.y[0][sol.t.size//2], ls='-.', c='C3', label="shifted solution going through origin")
plt.legend()
In case you don't have an analytical version of the function f, but only xs and ys as data points, then you can use scipy's interp1d function to interpolate between the data points and pass on that interpolating function the same way as before:
from scipy.interpolate import interp1d
f = interp1d(xs, ys)

scipy.interp2d warning and large errors off the grid

I am trying to interpolate a 2-dimensional function and I am running into what I consider weird behavior by scipy.interpolate.interp2d. I don't understand what the problem is, and I'd be happy for any help or hints.
import numpy as np
from scipy.interpolate import interp2d
x = np.arange(10)
y = np.arange(20)
xx, yy = np.meshgrid(x, y, indexing = 'ij')
val = xx + yy
f = interp2d(xx, yy, val, kind = 'linear')
When I run this code, I get the following Warning:
scipy/interpolate/fitpack.py:981: RuntimeWarning: No more knots can be
added because the number of B-spline coefficients already exceeds the
number of data points m. Probable causes: either s or m too small.
(fp>s) kx,ky=1,1 nx,ny=18,15 m=200 fp=0.000000 s=0.000000
warnings.warn(RuntimeWarning(_iermess2[ierm][0] + _mess))
I don't understand why interp2d would use any splines when I tell it it should do linear interpolation. When I continue and evaluate f on the grid everything is good:
>>> f(1,1)
array([ 2.])
When I evaluate it off the grid, I get large errors, even though the function is clearly linear.
>>> f(1.1,1)
array([ 2.44361975])
I am a bit confused and I am not sure what the problem is. Did anybody run into similar problems? I used to work with matlab and this is almost 1:1 how I would do it there, but maybe I did something wrong.
When I use a rectangular grid (i.e. y = np.arange(10)) everything works fine by the way, but that isn't what I need. When I use cubic instead of linear interpolation, the error gets smaller (that doesn't make much sense either since the function is linear) but is still unacceptably large.

I tried a couple of things and managed to get (kind of) what I want using scipy.LinearNDInterpolator. However, I have to convert the grid to lists of points and values. Since the rest of my program stores coordinates and values in grid format that is kind of annoying, so if possible I'd still like to get the original code to work properly.
import numpy as np
import itertools
from scipy.interpolate import LinearNDInterpolator
x = np.arange(10)
y = np.arange(20)
coords = list(itertools.product(x,y))
val = [sum(c) for c in coords]
f = LinearNDInterpolator(coords, val)
>>>f(1,1)
array(2.0)
>>> f(1.1,1)
array(2.1)

Using brentq with two lists of data

I am trying to find the root(s) of a line which is defined by data like:
x = [1,2,3,4,5]
y = [-2,4,6,8,4]
I have started by using interpolation but I have been told I can then use the brentq function. How can I use brentq from two lists? I thought continuous functions are needed for it.

As the documentation of brentq says, the first argument must be a continuous function. Therefore, you must first generate, from your data, a function that will return a value for each parameter passed to it. You can do that with interp1d:
import numpy as np
from scipy.interpolate import interp1d
from scipy.optimize import brentq
x, y = np.array([1,2,3,4,5]), np.array([-2,4,6,8,4])
f = interp1d(x,y, kind='linear') # change kind to something different if you want e.g. smoother interpolation
brentq(f, x.min(), x.max()) # returns: 1.33333
You could also use splines to generate the continuous function needed for brentq.