Develop Reference

How can I generate numbers in a set range but skewed towards a specific point? [duplicate]

I would like to implement a function in python (using numpy) that takes a mathematical function (for ex. p(x) = e^(-x) like below) as input and generates random numbers, that are distributed according to that mathematical-function's probability distribution. And I need to plot them, so we can see the distribution.
I need actually exactly a random number generator function for exactly the following 2 mathematical functions as input, but if it could take other functions, why not:
1) p(x) = e^(-x)
2) g(x) = (1/sqrt(2*pi)) * e^(-(x^2)/2)
Does anyone have any idea how this is doable in python?

For simple distributions like the ones you need, or if you have an easy to invert in closed form CDF, you can find plenty of samplers in NumPy as correctly pointed out in Olivier's answer.
For arbitrary distributions you could use Markov-Chain Montecarlo sampling methods.
The simplest and maybe easier to understand variant of these algorithms is Metropolis sampling.
The basic idea goes like this:
start from a random point x and take a random step xnew = x + delta
evaluate the desired probability distribution in the starting point p(x) and in the new one p(xnew)
if the new point is more probable p(xnew)/p(x) >= 1 accept the move
if the new point is less probable randomly decide whether to accept or reject depending on how probable1 the new point is
new step from this point and repeat the cycle
It can be shown, see e.g. Sokal2, that points sampled with this method follow the acceptance probability distribution.
An extensive implementation of Montecarlo methods in Python can be found in the PyMC3 package.
Example implementation
Here's a toy example just to show you the basic idea, not meant in any way as a reference implementation. Please refer to mature packages for any serious work.
def uniform_proposal(x, delta=2.0):
return np.random.uniform(x - delta, x + delta)
def metropolis_sampler(p, nsamples, proposal=uniform_proposal):
x = 1 # start somewhere
for i in range(nsamples):
trial = proposal(x) # random neighbour from the proposal distribution
acceptance = p(trial)/p(x)
# accept the move conditionally
if np.random.uniform() < acceptance:
x = trial
yield x
Let's see if it works with some simple distributions
Gaussian mixture
def gaussian(x, mu, sigma):
return 1./sigma/np.sqrt(2*np.pi)*np.exp(-((x-mu)**2)/2./sigma/sigma)
p = lambda x: gaussian(x, 1, 0.3) + gaussian(x, -1, 0.1) + gaussian(x, 3, 0.2)
samples = list(metropolis_sampler(p, 100000))
Cauchy
def cauchy(x, mu, gamma):
return 1./(np.pi*gamma*(1.+((x-mu)/gamma)**2))
p = lambda x: cauchy(x, -2, 0.5)
samples = list(metropolis_sampler(p, 100000))
Arbitrary functions
You don't really have to sample from proper probability distributions. You might just have to enforce a limited domain where to sample your random steps3
p = lambda x: np.sqrt(x)
samples = list(metropolis_sampler(p, 100000, domain=(0, 10)))
p = lambda x: (np.sin(x)/x)**2
samples = list(metropolis_sampler(p, 100000, domain=(-4*np.pi, 4*np.pi)))
Conclusions
There is still way too much to say, about proposal distributions, convergence, correlation, efficiency, applications, Bayesian formalism, other MCMC samplers, etc.
I don't think this is the proper place and there is plenty of much better material than what I could write here available online.
The idea here is to favor exploration where the probability is higher but still look at low probability regions as they might lead to other peaks. Fundamental is the choice of the proposal distribution, i.e. how you pick new points to explore. Too small steps might constrain you to a limited area of your distribution, too big could lead to a very inefficient exploration.
Physics oriented. Bayesian formalism (Metropolis-Hastings) is preferred these days but IMHO it's a little harder to grasp for beginners. There are plenty of tutorials available online, see e.g. this one from Duke university.
Implementation not shown not to add too much confusion, but it's straightforward you just have to wrap trial steps at the domain edges or make the desired function go to zero outside the domain.

NumPy offers a wide range of probability distributions.
The first function is an exponential distribution with parameter 1.
np.random.exponential(1)
The second one is a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1.
np.random.normal(0, 1)
Note that in both case, the arguments are optional as these are the default values for these distributions.
As a sidenote, you can also find those distributions in the random module as random.expovariate and random.gauss respectively.
More general distributions
While NumPy will likely cover all your needs, remember that you can always compute the inverse cumulative distribution function of your distribution and input values from a uniform distribution.
inverse_cdf(np.random.uniform())
By example if NumPy did not provide the exponential distribution, you could do this.
def exponential():
return -np.log(-np.random.uniform())
If you encounter distributions which CDF is not easy to compute, then consider filippo's great answer.

How to calculate one-sided tolerance interval with scipy

I would like to calculate a one sided tolerance bound based on the normal distribution given a data set with known N (sample size), standard deviation, and mean.
If the interval were two sided I would do the following:
conf_int = stats.norm.interval(alpha, loc=mean, scale=sigma)
In my situation, I am bootstrapping samples, but if I weren't I would refer to this post on stackoverflow: Correct way to obtain confidence interval with scipy and use the following: conf_int = stats.norm.interval(0.68, loc=mean, scale=sigma / np.sqrt(len(a)))
How would you do the same thing, but to calculate this as a one sided bound (95% of values are above or below x<--bound)?

I assume that you are interested in computing one-side tolerance bound using the normal distribution (based on the fact you mention the scipy.stats.norm.interval function as the two-sided equivalent of your need).
Then the good news is that, based on the tolerance interval Wikipedia page:
One-sided normal tolerance intervals have an exact solution in terms of the sample mean and sample variance based on the noncentral t-distribution.
(FYI: Unfortunately, this is not the case for the two-sided setting)
This assertion is based on this paper. Besides paragraph 4.8 (page 23) provides the formulas.
The bad news is that I do not think there is a ready-to-use scipy function that you can safely tweak and use for your purpose.
But you can easily calculate it yourself. You can find on Github repositories that contain such a calculator from which you can find inspiration, for example that one from which I built the following illustrative example:
import numpy as np
from scipy.stats import norm, nct
# sample size
n=1000
# Percentile for the TI to estimate
p=0.9
# confidence level
g = 0.95
# a demo sample
x = np.array([np.random.normal(100) for k in range(n)])
# mean estimate based on the sample
mu_est = x.mean()
# standard deviation estimated based on the sample
sigma_est = x.std(ddof=1)
# (100*p)th percentile of the standard normal distribution
zp = norm.ppf(p)
# gth quantile of a non-central t distribution
# with n-1 degrees of freedom and non-centrality parameter np.sqrt(n)*zp
t = nct.ppf(g, df=n-1., nc=np.sqrt(n)*zp)
# k factor from Young et al paper
k = t / np.sqrt(n)
# One-sided tolerance upper bound
conf_upper_bound = mu_est + (k*sigma_est)

Here is a one-line solution with the openturns library, assuming your data is a numpy array named sample.
import openturns as ot
ot.NormalFactory().build(sample.reshape(-1, 1)).computeQuantile(0.95)
Let us unpack this. NormalFactory is a class designed to fit the parameters of a Normal distribution (mu and sigma) on a given sample: NormalFactory() creates an instance of this class.
The method build does the actual fitting and returns an object of the class Normal which represents the normal distribution with parameters mu and sigma estimated from the sample.
The sample reshape is there to make sure that OpenTURNS understands that the input sample is a collection of one-dimension points, not a single multi-dimensional point.
The class Normal then provides the method computeQuantile to compute any quantile of the distribution (the 95-th percentile in this example).
This solution does not compute the exact tolerance bound because it uses a quantile from a Normal distribution instead of a Student t-distribution. Effectively, that means that it ignores the estimation error on mu and sigma. In practice, this is only an issue for really small sample sizes.
To illustrate this, here is a comparison between the PDF of the standard normal N(0,1) distribution and the PDF of the Student t-distribution with 19 degrees of freedom (this means a sample size of 20). They can barely be distinguished.
deg_freedom = 19
graph = ot.Normal().drawPDF()
student = ot.Student(deg_freedom).drawPDF().getDrawable(0)
student.setColor('blue')
graph.add(student)
graph.setLegends(['Normal(0,1)', 't-dist k={}'.format(deg_freedom)])
graph

Understading hyperopt's TPE algorithm

I am illustrating hyperopt's TPE algorithm for my master project and cant seem to get the algorithm to converge. From what i understand from the original paper and youtube lecture the TPE algorithm works in the following steps:
(in the following, x=hyperparameters and y=loss)
Start by creating a search history of [x,y], say 10 points.
Sort the hyperparameters according to their loss and divide them into two sets using some quantile γ (γ = 0.5 means the sets will be equally sized)
Make a kernel density estimation for both the poor hyperparameter group (g(x)) and good hyperparameter group (l(x))
Good estimations will have low probability in g(x) and high probability in l(x), so we propose to evaluate the function at argmin(g(x)/l(x))
Evaluate (x,y) pair at the proposed point and repeat steps 2-5.
I have implemented this in python on the objective function f(x) = x^2, but the algorithm fails to converge to the minimum.
import numpy as np
import scipy as sp
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
from scipy.stats import gaussian_kde
def objective_func(x):
return x**2
def measure(x):
noise = np.random.randn(len(x))*0
return x**2+noise
def split_meassures(x_obs,y_obs,gamma=1/2):
#split x and y observations into two sets and return a seperation threshold (y_star)
size = int(len(x_obs)//(1/gamma))
l = {'x':x_obs[:size],'y':y_obs[:size]}
g = {'x':x_obs[size:],'y':y_obs[size:]}
y_star = (l['y'][-1]+g['y'][0])/2
return l,g,y_star
#sample objective function values for ilustration
x_obj = np.linspace(-5,5,10000)
y_obj = objective_func(x_obj)
#start by sampling a parameter search history
x_obs = np.linspace(-5,5,10)
y_obs = measure(x_obs)
nr_iterations = 100
for i in range(nr_iterations):
#sort observations according to loss
sort_idx = y_obs.argsort()
x_obs,y_obs = x_obs[sort_idx],y_obs[sort_idx]
#split sorted observations in two groups (l and g)
l,g,y_star = split_meassures(x_obs,y_obs)
#aproximate distributions for both groups using kernel density estimation
kde_l = gaussian_kde(l['x']).evaluate(x_obj)
kde_g = gaussian_kde(g['x']).evaluate(x_obj)
#define our evaluation measure for sampling a new point
eval_measure = kde_g/kde_l
if i%10==0:
plt.figure()
plt.subplot(2,2,1)
plt.plot(x_obj,y_obj,label='Objective')
plt.plot(x_obs,y_obs,'*',label='Observations')
plt.plot([-5,5],[y_star,y_star],'k')
plt.subplot(2,2,2)
plt.plot(x_obj,kde_l)
plt.subplot(2,2,3)
plt.plot(x_obj,kde_g)
plt.subplot(2,2,4)
plt.semilogy(x_obj,eval_measure)
plt.draw()
#find point to evaluate and add the new observation
best_search = x_obj[np.argmin(eval_measure)]
x_obs = np.append(x_obs,[best_search])
y_obs = np.append(y_obs,[measure(np.asarray([best_search]))])
plt.show()
I suspect this happens because we keep sampling where we are most certain, thus making l(x) more and more narrow around this point, which doesn't change where we sample at all. So where is my understanding lacking?

So, I am still learning about TPE as well. But here's are the two problems in this code:
This code will only evaluate a few unique point. Because the best location is calculated based on the best recommended by the kernel density functions but there is no way for the code to do exploration of the search space. For example, what acquisition functions do.
Because this code is simply appending new observations to the list of x and y. It adds a whole lot of duplicates. The duplicates lead to a skewed set of observations and that leads to a very weird split and you can easily see that in the later plots. The eval_measure starts as something similar to the objective function but diverges later on.
If you remove the duplicates in x_obs and y_obs you can remove the problem no. 2. However, the first problem can only be removed through the addition of some way of exploring the search space.

Mean and standard deviation of lognormal distribution do not match analytic values

As part of my research, I measure the mean and standard deviation of draws from a lognormal distribution. Given a value of the underlying normal distribution, it should be possible to analytically predict these quantities (as given at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution).
However, as can be seen in the plots below, this does not seem to be the case. The first plot shows the mean of the lognormal data against the sigma of the gaussian, while the second plot shows the sigma of the lognormal data against that of the gaussian. Clearly, the "calculated" lines deviate from the "analytic" ones very significantly.
I take the mean of the gaussian distribution to be related to the sigma by mu = -0.5*sigma**2 as this ensures that the lognormal field ought to have mean of 1. Note, this is motivated by the area of physics that I work in: the deviation from analytic values still occurs if you set mu=0.0 for example.
By copying and pasting the code at the bottom of the question, it should be possible to reproduce the plots below. Any advice as to what might be causing this would be much appreciated!
Mean of lognormal vs sigma of gaussian:
Sigma of lognormal vs sigma of gaussian:
Note, to produce the plots above, I used N=10000, but have put N=1000 in the code below for speed.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
mean_calc = []
sigma_calc = []
mean_analytic = []
sigma_analytic = []
ss = np.linspace(1.0,10.0,46)
N = 1000
for s in ss:
mu = -0.5*s*s
ln = np.random.lognormal(mean=mu, sigma=s, size=(N,N))
mean_calc += [np.average(ln)]
sigma_calc += [np.std(ln)]
mean_analytic += [np.exp(mu+0.5*s*s)]
sigma_analytic += [np.sqrt((np.exp(s**2)-1)*(np.exp(2*mu + s*s)))]
plt.loglog(ss,mean_calc,label='calculated')
plt.loglog(ss,mean_analytic,label='analytic')
plt.legend();plt.grid()
plt.xlabel(r'$\sigma_G$')
plt.ylabel(r'$\mu_{LN}$')
plt.show()
plt.loglog(ss,sigma_calc,label='calculated')
plt.loglog(ss,sigma_analytic,label='analytic')
plt.legend();plt.grid()
plt.xlabel(r'$\sigma_G$')
plt.ylabel(r'$\sigma_{LN}$')
plt.show()

TL;DR
Lognormal are positively skewed and heavy tailed distribution. When performing float arithmetic operations (such as sum, mean or std) on sample drawn from a highly skewed distribution, the sampling vector contains values with discrepancy over several order of magnitude (many decades). This makes the computation inaccurate.
The problem comes from those two lines:
mean_calc += [np.average(ln)]
sigma_calc += [np.std(ln)]
Because ln contains both very low and very high values with order of magnitude much higher than float precision.
The problem can be easily detected to warn user that its computation are wrong using the following predicate:
(max(ln) + min(ln)) <= max(ln)
Which is obviously false in Strictly Positive Real but must be considered when using Finite Precision Arithmetic.
Modifying your MCVE
If we slightly modify your MCVE to:
from scipy import stats
for s in ss:
mu = -0.5*s*s
ln = stats.lognorm(s, scale=np.exp(mu)).rvs(N*N)
f = stats.lognorm.fit(ln, floc=0)
mean_calc += [f[2]*np.exp(0.5*s*s)]
sigma_calc += [np.sqrt((np.exp(f[0]**2)-1)*(np.exp(2*mu + s*s)))]
mean_analytic += [np.exp(mu+0.5*s*s)]
sigma_analytic += [np.sqrt((np.exp(s**2)-1)*(np.exp(2*mu + s*s)))]
It gives the reasonably correct mean and standard deviation estimation even for high value of sigma.
The key is that fit uses MLE algorithm to estimates parameters. This totally differs from your original approach which directly performs the mean of the sample.
The fit method returns a tuple with (sigma, loc=0, scale=exp(mu)) which are parameters of the scipy.stats.lognorm object as specified in documentation.
I think you should investigate how you are estimating mean and standard deviation. The divergence probably comes from this part of your algorithm.
There might be several reasons why it diverges, at least consider:
Biased estimator: Are your estimator correct and unbiased? Mean is unbiased estimator (see next section) but maybe not efficient;
Sampled outliers from Pseudo Random Generator may not be as intense as they should be compared to the theoretical distribution: maybe MLE is less sensitive than your estimator New MCVE bellow does not support this hypothesis, but Float Arithmetic Error can explain why your estimators are underestimated;
Float Arithmetic Error New MCVE bellow highlights that it is part of your problem.
A scientific quote
It seems naive mean estimator (simply taking mean), even if unbiased, is inefficient to properly estimate mean for large sigma (see Qi Tang, Comparison of Different Methods for Estimating Log-normal Means, p. 11):
The naive estimator is easy to calculate and it is unbiased. However,
this estimator can be inefficient when variance is large and sample
size is small.
The thesis reviews several methods to estimate mean of a lognormal distribution and uses MLE as reference for comparison. This explains why your method has a drift as sigma increases and MLE stick better alas it is not time efficient for large N. Very interesting paper.
Statistical considerations
Recalling than:
Lognormal is a heavy and long tailed distribution positively skewed. One consequence is: as the shape parameter sigma grows, the asymmetry and skweness grows, so does the strength of outliers.
Effect of Sample Size: as the number of samples drawn from a distribution grows, the expectation of having an outlier increases (so does the extent).
Building a new MCVE
Lets build a new MCVE to make it clearer. The code bellow draws samples of different sizes (N ranges between 100 and 10000) from lognormal distribution where shape parameter varies (sigma ranges between 0.1 and 10) and scale parameter is set to be unitary.
import warnings
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
# Make computation reproducible among batches:
np.random.seed(123456789)
# Parameters ranges:
sigmas = np.arange(0.1, 10.1, 0.1)
sizes = np.logspace(2, 5, 21, base=10).astype(int)
# Placeholders:
rv = np.empty((sigmas.size,), dtype=object)
xmean = np.full((3, sigmas.size, sizes.size), np.nan)
xstd = np.full((3, sigmas.size, sizes.size), np.nan)
xextent = np.full((2, sigmas.size, sizes.size), np.nan)
eps = np.finfo(np.float64).eps
# Iterate Shape Parameter:
for (i, s) in enumerate(sigmas):
# Create Random Variable:
rv[i] = stats.lognorm(s, loc=0, scale=1)
# Iterate Sample Size:
for (j, N) in enumerate(sizes):
# Draw Samples:
xs = rv[i].rvs(N)
# Sample Extent:
xextent[:,i,j] = [np.min(xs), np.max(xs)]
# Check (max(x) + min(x)) <= max(x)
if (xextent[0,i,j] + xextent[1,i,j]) - xextent[1,i,j] < eps:
warnings.warn("Potential Float Arithmetic Errors: logN(mu=%.2f, sigma=%2f).sample(%d)" % (0, s, N))
# Generate different Estimators:
# Fit Parameters using MLE:
fit = stats.lognorm.fit(xs, floc=0)
xmean[0,i,j] = fit[2]
xstd[0,i,j] = fit[0]
# Naive (Bad Estimators because of Float Arithmetic Error):
xmean[1,i,j] = np.mean(xs)*np.exp(-0.5*s**2)
xstd[1,i,j] = np.sqrt(np.log(np.std(xs)**2*np.exp(-s**2)+1))
# Log-transform:
xmean[2,i,j] = np.exp(np.mean(np.log(xs)))
xstd[2,i,j] = np.std(np.log(xs))
Observation: The new MCVE starts to raise warnings when sigma > 4.
MLE as Reference
Estimating shape and scale parameters using MLE performs well:
The two figures above show than:
Error on estimation grows alongside with shape parameter;
Error on estimation reduces as sample size increases (CTL);
Note than MLE also fits well the shape parameter:
Float Arithmetic
It is worthy to plot the extent of drawn samples versus shape parameter and sample size:
Or the decimal magnitude between smallest and largest number form the sample:
On my setup:
np.finfo(np.float64).precision # 15
np.finfo(np.float64).eps # 2.220446049250313e-16
It means we have at maximum 15 significant figures to work with, if the magnitude between two numbers exceed then the largest number absorb the smaller ones.
A basic example: What is the result of 1 + 1e6 if we can only keep four significant figures?
The exact result is 1,000,001.0 but it must be rounded off to 1.000e6. This implies: the result of the operation equals to the highest number because of the rounding precision. It is inherent of Finite Precision Arithmetic.
The two previous figures above in conjunction with statistical consideration supports your observation that increasing N does not improve estimation for large value of sigma in your MCVE.
Figures above and below show than when sigma > 3 we haven't enough significant figures (less than 5) to performs valid computations.
Further more we can say that estimator will be underestimated because largest numbers will absorb smallest and the underestimated sum will then be divided by N making the estimator biased by default.
When shape parameter becomes sufficiently large, computations are strongly biased because of Arithmetic Float Errors.
It means using quantities such as:
np.mean(xs)
np.std(xs)
When computing estimate will have huge Arithmetic Float Error because of the important discrepancy among values stored in xs. Figures below reproduce your issue:
As stated, estimations are in default (not in excess) because high values (few outliers) in sampled vector absorb small values (most of the sampled values).
Logarithmic Transformation
If we apply a logarithmic transformation, we can drastically reduces this phenomenon:
xmean[2,i,j] = np.exp(np.mean(np.log(xs)))
xstd[2,i,j] = np.std(np.log(xs))
And then the naive estimation of the mean is correct and will be far less affected by Arithmetic Float Error because all sample values will lie within few decades instead of having relative magnitude higher than the float arithmetic precision.
Actually, taking the log-transform returns the same result for mean and std estimation than MLE for each N and sigma:
np.allclose(xmean[0,:,:], xmean[2,:,:]) # True
np.allclose(xstd[0,:,:], xstd[2,:,:]) # True
Reference
If you are looking for complete and detailed explanations of this kind of issues when performing scientific computing, I recommend you to read the excellent book: N. J. Higham, Accuracy and Stability of Numerical Algorithms, Siam, Second Edition, 2002.
Bonus
Here an example of figure generation code:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
fig, axe = plt.subplots()
idx = slice(None, None, 5)
axe.loglog(sigmas, xmean[0,:,idx])
axe.axhline(1, linestyle=':', color='k')
axe.set_title(r"MLE: $x \sim \log\mathcal{N}(\mu=0,\sigma)$")
axe.set_xlabel(r"Standard Deviation, $\sigma$")
axe.set_ylabel(r"Mean Estimation, $\hat{\mu}$")
axe.set_ylim([0.1,10])
lgd = axe.legend([r"$N = %d$" % s for s in sizes[idx]] + ['Exact'], bbox_to_anchor=(1,1), loc='upper left')
axe.grid(which='both')
fig.savefig('Lognorm_MLE_Emean_Sigma.png', dpi=120, bbox_extra_artists=(lgd,), bbox_inches='tight')

Plotting confidence intervals for Maximum Likelihood Estimate

I am trying to write code to produce confidence intervals for the number of different books in a library (as well as produce an informative plot).
My cousin is at elementary school and every week is given a book by his teacher. He then reads it and returns it in time to get another one the next week. After a while we started noticing that he was getting books he had read before and this became gradually more common over time.
Say the true number of books in the library is N and the teacher picks one uniformly at random (with replacement) to give to you each week. If at week t the number of occasions on which you have received a book you have read is x, then I can produce a maximum likelihood estimate for the number of books in the library following https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/615464/how-many-books-are-in-a-library .
Example: Consider a library with five books A, B, C, D, and E. If you receive books [A, B, A, C, B, B, D] in seven successive weeks, then the value for x (the number of duplicates) will be [0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3] after each of those weeks, meaning after seven weeks, you have received a book you have already read on three occasions.
To visualise the likelihood function (assuming I have understood what one is correctly) I have written the following code which I believe plots the likelihood function. The maximum is around 135 which is indeed the maximum likelihood estimate according to the MSE link above.
from __future__ import division
import random
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
#N is the true number of books. t is the number of weeks.unk is the true number of repeats found
t = 30
unk = 3
def numberrepeats(N, t):
return t - len(set([random.randint(0,N) for i in xrange(t)]))
iters = 1000
ydata = []
for N in xrange(10,500):
sampledunk = [numberrepeats(N,t) for i in xrange(iters)].count(unk)
ydata.append(sampledunk/iters)
print "MLE is", np.argmax(ydata)
xdata = range(10, 500)
print len(xdata), len(ydata)
plt.plot(xdata,ydata)
plt.show()
The output looks like
My questions are these:
Is there an easy way to get a 95% confidence interval and plot it on the diagram?
How can you superimpose a smoothed curve over the plot?
Is there a better way my code should have been written? It isn't very elegant and is also quite slow.
Finding the 95% confidence interval means finding the range of the x axis so that 95% of the time the empirical maximum likelihood estimate we get by sampling (which should theoretically be 135 in this example) will fall within it. The answer #mbatchkarov has given does not currently do this correctly.
There is now a mathematical answer at https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/656101/how-to-find-a-confidence-interval-for-a-maximum-likelihood-estimate .

Looks like you're ok on the first part, so I'll tackle your second and third points.
There are plenty of ways to fit smooth curves, with scipy.interpolate and splines, or with scipy.optimize.curve_fit. Personally, I prefer curve_fit, because you can supply your own function and let it fit the parameters for you.
Alternatively, if you don't want to learn a parametric function, you could do simple rolling-window smoothing with numpy.convolve.
As for code quality: you're not taking advantage of numpy's speed, because you're doing things in pure python. I would write your (existing) code like this:
from __future__ import division
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# N is the true number of books.
# t is the number of weeks.
# unk is the true number of repeats found
t = 30
unk = 3
def numberrepeats(N, t, iters):
rand = np.random.randint(0, N, size=(t, iters))
return t - np.array([len(set(r)) for r in rand])
iters = 1000
ydata = np.empty(500-10)
for N in xrange(10,500):
sampledunk = np.count_nonzero(numberrepeats(N,t,iters) == unk)
ydata[N-10] = sampledunk/iters
print "MLE is", np.argmax(ydata)
xdata = range(10, 500)
print len(xdata), len(ydata)
plt.plot(xdata,ydata)
plt.show()
It's probably possible to optimize this even more, but this change brings your code's runtime from ~30 seconds to ~2 seconds on my machine.

The a simple (numerical) way to get a confidence interval is simply to run your script many times, and see how much your estimate varies. You can use that standard deviation to calculate the confidence interval.
In the interest of time, another option is to run a bunch of trials at each value of N (I used 2000), and then use random subsampling of those trials to get an estimate of the estimator standard deviation. Basically, this involves selecting a subset of the trials, generating your likelihood curve using that subset, then finding the maximum of that curve to get your estimator. You do this over many subsets and this gives you a bunch of estimators, which you can use to find a confidence interval on your estimator. My full script is as follows:
import numpy as np
t = 30
k = 3
def trial(N):
return t - len(np.unique(np.random.randint(0, N, size=t)))
def trials(N, n_trials):
return np.asarray([trial(N) for i in xrange(n_trials)])
n_trials = 2000
Ns = np.arange(1, 501)
results = np.asarray([trials(N, n_trials=n_trials) for N in Ns])
def likelihood(results):
L = (results == 3).mean(-1)
# boxcar filtering
n = 10
L = np.convolve(L, np.ones(n) / float(n), mode='same')
return L
def max_likelihood_estimate(Ns, results):
i = np.argmax(likelihood(results))
return Ns[i]
def max_likelihood(Ns, results):
# calculate mean from all trials
mean = max_likelihood_estimate(Ns, results)
# randomly subsample results to estimate std
n_samples = 100
sample_frac = 0.25
estimates = np.zeros(n_samples)
for i in xrange(n_samples):
mask = np.random.uniform(size=results.shape[1]) < sample_frac
estimates[i] = max_likelihood_estimate(Ns, results[:,mask])
std = estimates.std()
sterr = std * np.sqrt(sample_frac) # is this mathematically sound?
ci = (mean - 1.96*sterr, mean + 1.96*sterr)
return mean, std, sterr, ci
mean, std, sterr, ci = max_likelihood(Ns, results)
print "Max likelihood estimate: ", mean
print "Max likelihood 95% ci: ", ci
There are two drawbacks to this method. One is that, since you're taking many subsamples from the same set of trials, your estimates are not independent. To limit the effect of this, I only used 25% of the results for each subset. Another drawback is that each subsample is only a fraction of your data, so estimates derived from these subsets will have more variance than estimates derived from running the full script many times. To account for this, I computed the standard error as the standard deviation divided by the square root of 4, since I had four times as much data in my full data set than in one of the subsamples. However, I'm not familiar enough with Monte Carlo theory to know if this is mathematically sound. Running my script a number of times did seem to indicate that my results were reasonable.
Lastly, I did use a boxcar filter on the likelihood curves to smooth them out a bit. Ideally, this should improve results, but even with the filtering there was still a considerable amount of variability in the results. When calculating the value for the overall estimator, I wasn't sure if it would be better compute one likelihood curve from all the results and use the max of that (this is what I ended up doing), or to use the mean of all the subset estimators. Using the mean of the subset estimators might be able to help cancel out some of the roughness in the curves that remains after filtering, but I'm not sure on this.

Here is an answer to your first question and a pointer to a solution for the second:
plot(xdata,ydata)
# calculate the cumulative distribution function
cdf = np.cumsum(ydata)/sum(ydata)
# get the left and right boundary of the interval that contains 95% of the probability mass
right=argmax(cdf>0.975)
left=argmax(cdf>0.025)
# indicate confidence interval with vertical lines
vlines(xdata[left], 0, ydata[left])
vlines(xdata[right], 0, ydata[right])
# hatch confidence interval
fill_between(xdata[left:right], ydata[left:right], facecolor='blue', alpha=0.5)
This produces the following figure:
I'll try to answer question 3 when I have more time :)