ML Interview Q Series: In the process of drawing a sample from a population, which types of sampling biases could potentially be introduced and how might they affect the final outcomes?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

Sampling bias occurs when the selected subset of data does not accurately represent the underlying population. This misrepresentation leads to systematic errors and skewed estimates of key parameters. The bias can be understood in a more formal sense by referencing the common definition of estimator bias.

Here, θ represents the true parameter in the population (for example, the actual mean or proportion), and θ_hat is the estimator derived from the sample. If the expected value of the estimator is not equal to the true parameter, the difference is the bias. In practical data scenarios, the way we collect or filter data can create various forms of sampling bias.

Selection Bias

Selection bias arises when the sampling mechanism systematically favors certain subgroups over others. If a particular portion of the population is over-represented or under-represented, the result is a distorted dataset. In real-world projects, you might see this occur if you only gather data from certain geographic regions or certain user demographics that are easier to access.

Coverage Bias

Coverage bias emerges when some relevant sections of the population are completely left out of the sampling frame. For example, if you conduct an online survey but a segment of the population does not have internet access, you lose representation from that group.

Non-Response Bias

Non-response bias is introduced when individuals who choose not to respond have systematically different characteristics from those who do respond. If the non-responses are not random, the collected data will be skewed. This situation often arises in customer feedback forms where only extremely dissatisfied or extremely satisfied customers respond, leaving moderate viewpoints unrepresented.

Voluntary Response Bias

Voluntary response bias is closely related to non-response bias but typically involves a scenario where participants opt into the sample. This bias tends to give more weight to individuals who hold strong opinions. Online polls or call-in shows frequently encounter this problem because only people with certain motivations go out of their way to participate.

Undercoverage Bias

Undercoverage bias is present when certain groups are inadequately represented in the sampling. This could happen if your sampling strategy focuses only on certain time slots, ignoring populations active at other times. If a tech company only surveys weekday office workers, it might exclude key insights from those who work weekend shifts or have different schedules.

Survivorship Bias

Survivorship bias occurs when you only analyze surviving or existing observations in a dataset and overlook those that dropped out or failed at an earlier stage. In a business context, analyzing successful startups without including those that went bankrupt can lead to overly optimistic conclusions about success rates and time-to-profit metrics.

Practical Example in Python

Below is a short snippet illustrating how you might create a stratified sampling approach in Python to mitigate some forms of sampling bias. Stratified sampling ensures that various subgroups in a population are represented according to their proportions in the overall dataset.

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from sklearn.model_selection import StratifiedShuffleSplit

# Example dataset creation
data = {
    'feature1': np.random.randn(1000),
    'feature2': np.random.randn(1000),
    'category': np.random.choice(['A', 'B', 'C'], size=1000, p=[0.2, 0.5, 0.3])
}
df = pd.DataFrame(data)

# Stratified shuffle split
splitter = StratifiedShuffleSplit(n_splits=1, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)

for train_index, test_index in splitter.split(df, df['category']):
    train_set = df.iloc[train_index]
    test_set = df.iloc[test_index]

# Check distribution in category for train and test
print("Train category distribution:")
print(train_set['category'].value_counts(normalize=True))
print("\nTest category distribution:")
print(test_set['category'].value_counts(normalize=True))

In this code, the StratifiedShuffleSplit ensures the proportions of each category in the train and test sets match the overall distribution. This helps reduce coverage bias or underrepresentation of certain categories.

How to Detect and Mitigate Sampling Bias

Data exploration is the first step. Visualize distributions, check for underrepresented categories, and look for unusual patterns in missing or non-responding subgroups. Methods such as comparing your sample’s characteristics against known population statistics can reveal gaps. Applying techniques like oversampling, undersampling, or stratification can address imbalances. If systematic non-response is suspected, additional follow-up attempts or weighting methods can help correct for it.

Potential Follow-Up Questions

What are the main differences between Selection Bias and Coverage Bias, and how do they overlap in real projects?

They often appear similar, but coverage bias is specifically about entirely missing a portion of the population (no chance of selection at all), while selection bias can also imply a skew in how eligible participants are chosen. In practice, a poorly designed sampling frame might exclude certain regions (coverage bias), and among the remaining regions, the sampling procedure might selectively favor certain demographics (selection bias). Both can occur simultaneously, compounding each other’s effects.

How can you recognize Non-Response Bias before a project concludes?

Non-response bias often comes to light when you begin to see a pattern in who is failing to respond. You might compare demographics from your invited participants versus the respondents. If you notice discrepancies in age, location, or experience, then you have evidence of non-response bias. One practical approach involves sending a short follow-up survey or offering an incentive to see whether the response rate among certain subgroups improves.

Are there statistical approaches to correct or minimize the impact of Sampling Bias after data collection?

One common approach is to use post-stratification weighting. If you know the actual proportions of specific demographic segments in the entire population, you can assign weights to the sample respondents so that these segments match their true population proportions. Another approach is multiple imputation for missing data, although that is usually more relevant to missing feature values than missing participants. However, none of these fully solves the root problem if critical groups were never sampled in the first place.

Could Survivorship Bias lead to misleading conclusions in machine learning model evaluation?

Yes. If you only train or evaluate on “survivors” (for instance, customers who remain active and never churn), you might drastically overestimate certain performance metrics. This can lead to an overly optimistic perception of model accuracy or generalizability. To mitigate survivorship bias, you must incorporate historical records of those who left the system or failed at some point.

How does Sampling Bias affect Large Language Models (LLMs)?

Large Language Models, which are trained on vast corpora, can exhibit sampling bias if certain languages, regions, or demographic groups are underrepresented in the training set. This leads to uneven performance, where the model might show excellent fluency in some languages or topics but struggles with others. It can also inherit and perpetuate societal biases if the data skews toward particular viewpoints or cultural norms. Mitigation strategies often involve curating diverse training data, applying bias detection tools, and implementing post-processing corrections.

Sampling bias is pervasive and can be subtle. Recognizing, preventing, and correcting it is crucial to produce models and analyses that generalize well and reflect the true characteristics of the population.

Below are additional follow-up questions

In what ways can time-series data exacerbate sampling bias, and how would you mitigate it?

Time-series data is often collected sequentially, and certain periods might be missing or underrepresented due to system outages, user activity patterns, or specific events like holidays. When these time segments are missing or skewed, the model could learn seasonally biased behaviors that do not generalize to the entire timeline.

One possible mitigation strategy is to partition the entire timeline into consistent intervals, ensuring that data from each relevant period (e.g., each day, week, or month) is equally captured. Another step is to apply interpolation methods or data augmentation techniques for missing or underrepresented segments. Additionally, you can examine seasonality in the dataset to see if certain times or conditions are systematically over- or under-sampled. If that pattern is uncovered, weighting or resampling from those periods can be used to rebalance the distribution.

A common pitfall is failing to address concept drift. If the data distribution genuinely evolves over time, forcing a uniform distribution across historical periods might also introduce inaccuracies. Carefully distinguishing true shifts in data from mere sampling gaps is essential.

How could sampling bias be introduced when dealing with multiple data sources, and what are some strategies to handle it?

When data is aggregated from different sources (e.g., multiple databases, APIs, or user channels), each source might have its own idiosyncrasies. For instance, one API might return more data for certain user demographics, or one data provider might selectively filter certain event types. These discrepancies can compound into overall sampling bias.

A multifaceted approach can help:

• Source-Aware Labeling: Tag each record with its origin and compare distributions across sources to see if one source systematically skews a particular feature. • Harmonization Strategies: Align the schemas and definitions used across different sources to ensure consistent interpretation of features. • Weighting by Source Proportions: If the proportion of records from a particular source is not aligned with reality, apply weighting to match the known or desired real-world distribution. • Investigate Inconsistencies in Metrics: If key performance indicators differ drastically between sources, you may need to adjust the sampling or re-define how you collect the data from one source.

Pitfalls include overlooking the fact that some sources might have changed their policies mid-collection or that different teams collect data under inconsistent protocols. Failing to manage these variations often leads to an unbalanced representation.

Could random undersampling or oversampling approaches themselves introduce new biases, and how can this be avoided?

Random undersampling can discard valuable data points, especially from small minority classes or groups, potentially removing important patterns. Oversampling, particularly naive repetition of minority samples, risks overfitting to specific examples and distorting the true variance in that subgroup.

One alternative is to use more sophisticated methods like SMOTE (Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique) for tabular data or data augmentation in computer vision and NLP contexts. SMOTE attempts to create synthetic data points by interpolating between existing samples, thus preserving some of the diversity without over-repeating specific records. Even with these techniques, careful validation and out-of-sample testing are needed to ensure that you do not inadvertently create artificial structures in the data.

A notable pitfall is applying identical oversampling rates to all minority classes without considering how some minority classes might have unique data shapes or cluster structures. Methods like SMOTE can produce unrealistic samples for small or highly distinct clusters, so always visually inspect or evaluate the synthetic data for plausibility.

What role does active learning play in reducing sampling bias, and under what circumstances could it fail?

Active learning involves iteratively selecting data points that are most beneficial for training based on model uncertainty or disagreement among ensemble models. By focusing sampling on uncertain regions of the input space, you can reduce bias toward easy or frequently seen examples, especially in scenarios where labeling is expensive.

However, it can fail when the uncertainty estimates themselves are biased. If the model has not yet learned enough about certain regions or subgroups in the data, its uncertainty metrics might be misleading. Also, if there's a coverage gap (e.g., some populations are never even queried because of how the query strategy is defined), then active learning won't fix that. Ensuring diversity in sample queries can mitigate this issue.

Another pitfall is using active learning on streaming data where the distribution shifts rapidly. The model might fixate on older, out-of-date patterns, ignoring emerging changes in the data.

How does sampling bias affect interpretability methods, such as feature importance or SHAP values?

When the training data is skewed, interpretability results derived from the model—like feature importance scores, SHAP values, or partial dependence plots—reflect that skew. The model might highlight certain features as important for a subgroup that is overly represented, while features relevant to minority subgroups go under-recognized.

To handle this, you can:

• Evaluate interpretability metrics by subgroup to ensure each group’s local feature importances are properly understood. • Use debiasing techniques or balanced sampling before training to ensure all relevant feature interactions are captured. • Combine interpretability with domain expertise to detect anomalies where the model is placing suspiciously high emphasis on features that are known proxies for certain subpopulations.

A subtle pitfall is assuming that a single global interpretation method is unbiased. Model explanation tools often average effects across all sampled points, which can hide local patterns that matter to underrepresented communities.

What ethical considerations emerge from ignoring sampling bias in production systems?

Ignoring sampling bias can lead to models that discriminate against certain demographics, reinforce societal stereotypes, or exclude minority groups from beneficial outcomes. For example, in loan approvals, a biased dataset might yield systematically lower credit scores for specific populations, perpetuating inequality.

Addressing ethics involves collecting demographic information responsibly, applying fairness metrics, and consulting with legal teams or ethics boards to identify at-risk groups. Transparency also matters: letting users or stakeholders know about known limitations in your data can prompt more responsible usage.

A pitfall is the “colorblind” approach, where developers deliberately avoid collecting any demographic data to appear unbiased. This approach makes it difficult to detect or mitigate biases already in the system. Another pitfall is using superficially balanced data that does not reflect real-world distributions, leading to other forms of misrepresentation.

How can domain adaptation techniques help if you realize your original sample is biased relative to the target domain?

Domain adaptation focuses on transferring knowledge from a source domain (often well-labeled but biased data) to a target domain (little labeled data, or underrepresented groups). This can be done via:

• Domain-Adversarial Training: Align hidden representations of source and target data so that the model becomes domain-invariant. • Fine-Tuning on Target Data: Even a small amount of labeled data from the target domain can significantly reduce bias if used effectively. • Weighted or Importance Sampling: Assign higher weights to data points in the source domain that are most similar to the target distribution.

Potential pitfalls include failing to capture truly novel features in the target domain that do not exist in the source domain. Also, domain adaptation might mask critical differences if the domains are fundamentally incompatible or if certain subgroups in the target domain have no analogy in the source domain.

How can weighting schemes in sample rebalancing inadvertently introduce new biases?

Weighting schemes adjust the importance of certain samples to correct for underrepresentation. If these weights become too large, the model might overly focus on that subset, ignoring the rest of the distribution. If they’re too small or not carefully calibrated, the imbalance remains.

Furthermore, weighting can distort variance estimates and confidence intervals. In a statistical context, heavily weighted observations can produce artificially narrow or wide confidence intervals depending on how the weights are incorporated.

A hidden pitfall is double-counting. If some samples come from a data source that is already rebalanced or from an oversampled pool, applying additional weights could result in an extreme distortion. Hence, you should track the history of each record—whether it was naturally collected, artificially generated, or already adjusted—to apply weighting properly.

How can you confirm that your deployed model remains robust to sampling biases over time?

Continuous monitoring is crucial. By tracking model performance metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, or more advanced fairness metrics) across different demographic or usage segments, you can detect drift that might indicate reemerging or newly introduced bias. Implement an automated pipeline that flags unusual drops in performance for specific subgroups.

Monitoring data drift involves comparing the distribution of incoming production data to historical training data. If you observe that certain features or subgroups are no longer showing up at the same rate, you might re-train or re-validate the model. Another strategy is canary testing, where you deploy a model update to a small user segment first and monitor performance before rolling it out widely.

A key pitfall is overreacting to noisy signals. Sometimes, small fluctuations are natural and do not signify bias. Properly establishing thresholds and confidence intervals can help you discern genuine bias reintroduction from random fluctuations.

How can data augmentation methods help address sampling bias in domains like computer vision or NLP?

In fields like computer vision, you can artificially enlarge your dataset by applying transformations (rotations, flips, color shifts). For NLP, you can use synonym replacements or back-translation. These techniques help ensure that the model sees a broader range of variations that might exist in the real world, partially offsetting underrepresented conditions or viewpoints.

A subtle pitfall arises if the transformations do not reflect realistic variations for certain subgroups. For instance, rotating an image might not help if you are dealing with text-based logos that become unreadable. Similarly, back-translation might alter the meaning of sentences if the language pairs are not well-trained or if the text is domain-specific (e.g., medical or legal). Additionally, augmentation does not fix coverage bias if entire subgroups never appear in the dataset.