We Keep Coding

Is there a method for finding the root of a function represented as an narray?

I have a function represented as a narray i. e. y = f(x), where y and x are two narrays.
I am searching for a method that find the roots of f(x).
Reading the scipy documentation, I was able to find just methods that works on user defined functions, like scipy.optimize.root_scalar. I thought about using scipy.interpolate.interp1d to get an interpolated version of my function to be used in scipy.optimize.root_scalar, but I'm not sure it can work and it seems pretty complicated.
Is it there some other function that I can use instead?

You have to interpolate a function defined by numpy arrays as all the solvers require a function that can return a value for any input x, not just those in your array. But this is not complicated, here is an example
from scipy import optimize
from scipy import interpolate
# our xs and ys
xs = np.array([0,2,5])
ys = np.array([-3,-1,2])
# interpolated function
f = interpolate.interp1d(xs, ys)
sol = optimize.root_scalar(f, bracket = [xs[0],xs[-1]])
print(f'root is {sol.root}')
# check
f0 = f(sol.root)
print(f'value of function at the root: f({sol.root})={f0}')
output:
root is 3.0
value of function at the root: f(3.0)=0.0
You may also want to interpolate with higher-degree polynomials for higher accuracy of your root-finding, eg How to perform cubic spline interpolation in python?

Python Scipy dblquad function giving wrong answer on short range

I want to integrate the following double integral:
I want to use the dblquad method from the scipy.integrate package, which allows you to do double integrals with limits of the inner integral as a function of the outer integral variable:
import scipy.integrate as spi
import numpy as np
x_limit = 0
y_limit = lambda x: np.arccos(np.cos(x))
integrand = lambda x, y: np.exp(-(2+np.cos(x)-np.cos(y)))
low_limit_y = 0 # inner integral
up_limit_y = y_limit
low_limit_x = x_limit # outer integral
up_limit_x = 2*np.pi-x_limit
integral = spi.dblquad(integrand, low_limit_x, up_limit_x, low_limit_y, up_limit_y)
print(integral)
Output:
(0.6934912861906996, 2.1067956428653226e-12)
The code runs, but does not give me the right answer. Using Wolfram Alpha I get the right answer: 3.58857
Wolfram Alpha method
The only thing I've noticed is that the values from the two methods agree when the signs on the cosines are switched from + to - and vice versa:
Wolfram Alpha method with signs on the cosines swapped
However, I have no plausible reason for why this should be the case. Does anyone have any clue what is going on here? I can separate the function out into the inner integral looping over all values of x and then summing the results which gives the right answer, but that is really quite slow.

Take another look at the docstring of dblquad; it says
Return the double (definite) integral of ``func(y, x)`` from ``x = a..b``
and ``y = gfun(x)..hfun(x)``.
Note the order of arguments of func(y, x): y first, then x.
If you change your definition of integrand to
integrand = lambda y, x: np.exp(-(2+np.cos(x)-np.cos(y)))
you get the expected answer. That is also (in effect) what you did when you changed the signs of the cos terms in the integrand.
(You're not the first one to get tripped up by the expected order of the arguments to func.)

How to implement the following formula for derivatives in python?

I'm trying to implement the following formula in python for X and Y points
I have tried following approach
def f(c):
"""This function computes the curvature of the leaf."""
tt = c
n = (tt[0]*tt[3] - tt[1]*tt[2])
d = (tt[0]**2 + tt[1]**2)
k = n/d
R = 1/k # Radius of Curvature
return R
There is something incorrect as it is not giving me correct result. I think I'm making some mistake while computing derivatives in first two lines. How can I fix that?
Here are some of the points which are in a data frame:
pts = pd.DataFrame({'x': x, 'y': y})
x y
0.089631 97.710199
0.089831 97.904541
0.090030 98.099313
0.090229 98.294513
0.090428 98.490142
0.090627 98.686200
0.090827 98.882687
0.091026 99.079602
0.091225 99.276947
0.091424 99.474720
0.091623 99.672922
0.091822 99.871553
0.092022 100.070613
0.092221 100.270102
0.092420 100.470020
0.092619 100.670366
0.092818 100.871142
0.093017 101.072346
0.093217 101.273979
0.093416 101.476041
0.093615 101.678532
0.093814 101.881451
0.094013 102.084800
0.094213 102.288577
pts_x = np.gradient(x_c, t) # first derivatives
pts_y = np.gradient(y_c, t)
pts_xx = np.gradient(pts_x, t) # second derivatives
pts_yy = np.gradient(pts_y, t)
After getting the derivatives I am putting the derivatives x_prim, x_prim_prim, y_prim, y_prim_prim in another dataframe using the following code:
d = pd.DataFrame({'x_prim': pts_x, 'y_prim': pts_y, 'x_prim_prim': pts_xx, 'y_prim_prim':pts_yy})
after having everything in the data frame I am calling function for each row of the data frame to get curvature at that point using following code:
# Getting the curvature at each point
for i in range(len(d)):
temp = d.iloc[i]
c_temp = f(temp)
curv.append(c_temp)

You do not specify exactly what the structure of the parameter pts is. But it seems that it is a two-dimensional array where each row has two values x and y and the rows are the points in your curve. That itself is problematic, since the documentation is not quite clear on what exactly is returned in such a case.
But you clearly are not getting the derivatives of x or y. If you supply only one array to np.gradient then numpy assumes that the points are evenly spaced with a distance of one. But that is probably not the case. The meaning of x' in your formula is the derivative of x with respect to t, the parameter variable for the curve (which is separate from the parameters to the computer functions). But you never supply the values of t to numpy. The values of t must be the second parameter passed to the gradient function.
So to get your derivatives, split the x, y, and t values into separate one-dimensional arrays--lets call them x and y and t. Then get your first and second derivatives with
pts_x = np.gradient(x, t) # first derivatives
pts_y = np.gradient(y, t)
pts_xx = np.gradient(pts_x, t) # second derivatives
pts_yy = np.gradient(pts_y, t)
Then continue from there. You no longer need the t values to calculate the curvatures, which is the point of the formula you are using. Note that gradient is not really designed to calculate the second derivatives, and it absolutely should not be used to calculate third or higher-order derivatives. More complex formulas are needed for those. Numpy's gradient uses "second order accurate central differences" which are pretty good for the first derivative, poor for the second derivative, and worthless for higher-order derivatives.

I think your problem is that x and y are arrays of double values.
The array x is the independent variable; I'd expect it to be sorted into ascending order. If I evaluate y[i], I expect to get the value of the curve at x[i].
When you call that numpy function you get an array of derivative values that are the same shape as the (x, y) arrays. If there are n pairs from (x, y), then
y'[i] gives the value of the first derivative of y w.r.t. x at x[i];
y''[i] gives the value of the second derivative of y w.r.t. x at x[i].
The curvature k will also be an array with n points:
k[i] = abs(x'[i]*y''[i] -y'[i]*x''[i])/(x'[i]**2 + y'[i]**2)**1.5
Think of x and y as both being functions of a parameter t. x' = dx/dt, etc. This means curvature k is also a function of that parameter t.
I like to have a well understood closed form solution available when I program a solution.
y(x) = sin(x) for 0 <= x <= pi
y'(x) = cos(x)
y''(x) = -sin(x)
k = sin(x)/(1+(cos(x))**2)**1.5
Now you have a nice formula for curvature as a function of x.
If you want to parameterize it, use
x(t) = pi*t for 0 <= t <= 1
x'(t) = pi
x''(t) = 0
See if you can plot those and make your Python solution match it.

Numerical integration with singularities in python (principal value)

I'm trying to integrate a function with singularities using the quad function in scipy.integrate but I'm not getting the desired answer. Here is the code:
from scipy.integrate import quad
import numpy as np
def fun(x):
return 1./(1-x**2)
quad(fun, -2, 2, points=[-1, 1])
This results in IntegrationWarning and return value about 0.4.
The poles for the function are [-1,1]. The answer should be of roughly 1.09 (calculated using pen and paper).

The option weight='cauchy' can be used to efficiently compute the principal value of divergent integrals like this one. It means that the function provided to quad will be implicitly multiplied by 1/(x-wvar), so adjust that function accordingly (multiply it by x-wvar where wvar is the point of singularity).
i1 = quad(lambda x: -1./(x+1), 0, 2, weight='cauchy', wvar=1)[0]
i2 = quad(lambda x: -1./(x-1), -2, 0, weight='cauchy', wvar=-1)[0]
result = i1 + i2
The result is 1.0986122886681091.
With a simple function like this, you can also do symbolic integration with SymPy:
from sympy import symbols, integrate
x = symbols('x')
f = integrate(1/(1-x**2), x)
result = (f.subs(x, 2) - f.subs(x, -2)).evalf()
Result: 1.09861228866811. Without evalf() it would be log(3).

I also couldn't get it to work with the original function. I came up with this to evaluate the principal value in scipy:
def principal_value(func, a, b, poles, eps=10**(-6)):
#edges
res = quad(func,a,poles[0]-eps)[0]+quad(func,poles[-1]+eps,b)[0]
#inner part
for i in range(len(poles)-1):
res += quad(func, poles[i]+eps, poles[i+1]-eps)[0]
return res
Where func is your function handle, a and b are the limits, poles is a list of poles and eps is how near you want to approach the poles. You can make eps smaller and smaller to get a better result, but maybe sympy will be better for a problem like this.
With this function and the standard eps I get 1.0986112886023367 as a result, which is almost the same as wolframalpha gives.

Invert interpolation to give the variable associated with a desired interpolation function value

I am trying to invert an interpolated function using scipy's interpolate function. Let's say I create an interpolated function,
import scipy.interpolate as interpolate
interpolatedfunction = interpolated.interp1d(xvariable,data,kind='cubic')
Is there some function that can find x when I specify a:
interpolatedfunction(x) == a
In other words, "I want my interpolated function to equal a; what is the value of xvariable such that my function is equal to a?"
I appreciate I can do this with some numerical scheme, but is there a more straightforward method? What if the interpolated function is multivalued in xvariable?

There are dedicated methods for finding roots of cubic splines. The simplest to use is the .roots() method of InterpolatedUnivariateSpline object:
spl = InterpolatedUnivariateSpline(x, y)
roots = spl.roots()
This finds all of the roots instead of just one, as generic solvers (fsolve, brentq, newton, bisect, etc) do.
x = np.arange(20)
y = np.cos(np.arange(20))
spl = InterpolatedUnivariateSpline(x, y)
print(spl.roots())
outputs array([ 1.56669456, 4.71145244, 7.85321627, 10.99554642, 14.13792756, 17.28271674])
However, you want to equate the spline to some arbitrary number a, rather than 0. One option is to rebuild the spline (you can't just subtract a from it):
solutions = InterpolatedUnivariateSpline(x, y - a).roots()
Note that none of this will work with the function returned by interp1d; it does not have roots method. For that function, using generic methods like fsolve is an option, but you will only get one root at a time from it. In any case, why use interp1d for cubic splines when there are more powerful ways to do the same kind of interpolation?
Non-object-oriented way
Instead of rebuilding the spline after subtracting a from data, one can directly subtract a from spline coefficients. This requires us to drop down to non-object-oriented interpolation methods. Specifically, sproot takes in a tck tuple prepared by splrep, as follows:
tck = splrep(x, y, k=3, s=0)
tck_mod = (tck[0], tck[1] - a, tck[2])
solutions = sproot(tck_mod)
I'm not sure if messing with tck is worth the gain here, as it's possible that the bulk of computation time will be in root-finding anyway. But it's good to have alternatives.

After creating an interpolated function interp_fn, you can find the value of x where interp_fn(x) == a by the roots of the function
interp_fn2 = lambda x: interp_fn(x) - a
There are number of options to find the roots in scipy.optimize. For instance, to use Newton's method with the initial value starting at 10:
from scipy import optimize
optimize.newton(interp_fn2, 10)
Actual example
Create an interpolated function and then find the roots where fn(x) == 5
import numpy as np
from scipy import interpolate, optimize
x = np.arange(10)
y = 1 + 6*np.arange(10) - np.arange(10)**2
y2 = 5*np.ones_like(x)
plt.scatter(x,y)
plt.plot(x,y)
plt.plot(x,y2,'k-')
plt.show()
# create the interpolated function, and then the offset
# function used to find the roots
interp_fn = interpolate.interp1d(x, y, 'quadratic')
interp_fn2 = lambda x: interp_fn(x)-5
# to find the roots, we need to supply a starting value
# because there are more than 1 root in our range, we need
# to supply multiple starting values. They should be
# fairly close to the actual root
root1, root2 = optimize.newton(interp_fn2, 1), optimize.newton(interp_fn2, 5)
root1, root2
# returns:
(0.76393202250021064, 5.2360679774997898)

If your data are monotonic you might also try the following:
inversefunction = interpolated.interp1d(data, xvariable, kind='cubic')

Mentioning another option because I found this page in a google search and the other option works for my simple use case. Hopefully it'll be of use to someone.
If the function you're interpolating is very simple and always has a 1:1 relationship between y and x, then you can simply take your data, swap x and y when you pass it into interp1d, and then call the interpolation function in that direction.
Adapting code from https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.interpolate.interp1d.html
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy import interpolate
x = np.arange(0, 10)
y = np.exp(-x/3.0)
f = interpolate.interp1d(x, y)
xnew = np.arange(0, 9, 0.1)
ynew = f(xnew)
plt.plot(x, y, 'o', xnew, ynew, '-')
plt.show()
When x and y have been swapped you can call swappedInterpolationFunction(a) to get the x value where that would occur.
f = interpolate.interp1d(y, x)
xnew = np.arange(np.exp(-9/3), np.exp(0), 0.01)
ynew = f(xnew)
plt.plot(y, x, 'o', xnew, ynew, '-')
plt.title("Inverted")
plt.show()
Of course, if the function ever has multiple x values for a given y value (like sine or a parabola) then this will not work because it will no longer be a 1:1 function from x to y, and the above answers are necessary. This is just a simplification in a limited use case.