ML Interview Q Series: Suppose there's a national park with many deer living both inside its boundaries and in nearby areas. How can one figure out the total deer population confined within the park?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
Estimating deer population within a specific boundary often involves combining ecological survey methods with statistical or machine learning techniques. This ensures that we capture both spatial distribution factors and the sometimes hidden behavior patterns of wildlife. One classical approach is the Mark-Recapture method, but other methods like Distance Sampling or direct observational methods can be viable as well. Below is a detailed exploration of these techniques and key considerations.
Mark-Recapture Method
This is a traditional yet effective way to estimate animal populations. The process usually involves two main phases:
Phase 1 (Capture and Tag): Capture a number of deer, tag them, then release them back into the park. Let the tagged deer distribute themselves naturally over time.
Phase 2 (Recapture): Later, capture another sample of deer. Observe how many in this second group are tagged.
From these observations, one uses a statistical formula to approximate the total population. A common variant of this method is the Chapman estimator, which refines the basic Lincoln-Petersen estimator to reduce bias.
Where C_1 is the number of deer captured and tagged in the first round, C_2 is the total number of deer captured in the second round, and R is the number of tagged deer recaptured during the second round. The term (C_1 + 1), (C_2 + 1), and (R + 1) reflect a bias correction, and the -1 adjusts the final estimate.
After estimating N (population size), one might also compute confidence intervals by considering the variance of this estimator. Key assumptions include random mixing of tagged deer among the population, no births/deaths/emigration/immigration that significantly alter the population in the interval, and no differential catchability of tagged vs. untagged deer.
Distance Sampling Approach
When direct trapping and tagging is not feasible, distance sampling can help estimate density and population size:
Observers (or automated devices like camera traps) traverse random transects within the park.
Each time deer are detected, the perpendicular distance from the transect line to the deer is recorded.
A detection function is fitted to model how detectability decreases with distance from the transect.
From this detection function and the known area surveyed, one can extrapolate to the entire area of the park.
Distance sampling relies on certain conditions, such as random placement of transects, accurate measurements of distance to the animals, and assumptions about detectability depending on proximity to the transect line.
Other Techniques
Remote-sensing images, aerial surveys, or camera traps combined with machine learning can help estimate populations. For instance:
Camera Traps: Deploy cameras in a systematic manner across the park. Use detection events over time to estimate population density. Advanced computer vision models can identify individual deer, track movements, and reduce double counting.
Aerial Surveys and ML: Drones or manned aircraft with high-resolution cameras can capture images. Object detection models can count deer in these images, then estimates are adjusted for coverage and detection biases.
Potential Pitfalls
Underestimation or overestimation can occur if the assumptions of the chosen technique are violated. For instance, in Mark-Recapture, if tagged deer become trap-shy (less likely to be caught again) or trap-happy (more likely to be caught), the recapture ratio skews the estimate. Similarly, in distance sampling, if the habitat complicates visibility, or animals flee transects, the detection function can be inaccurate.
Example of a Simplified Mark-Recapture in Python
Below is a hypothetical code snippet illustrating a simplified estimation workflow using random numbers to simulate the Mark-Recapture process. In a real-world scenario, you would replace the simulation part with actual observed data.
import numpy as np
# Suppose we have a true population (unknown in real scenario, known here for simulation).
true_population_size = 1000
population = np.arange(true_population_size)
# Phase 1: Capture C1 animals at random, mark them
C1 = 200
marked_indices = np.random.choice(population, size=C1, replace=False)
marked_set = set(marked_indices)
# Phase 2: Capture C2 animals at random
C2 = 300
recapture_indices = np.random.choice(population, size=C2, replace=False)
# Count how many are recaptured
R = len(marked_set.intersection(recapture_indices))
# Use Chapman estimator
N_hat = ((C1 + 1) * (C2 + 1)) / (R + 1) - 1
print("Estimated population:", N_hat)
This simplified code uses random draws to simulate the capture process and then applies the Chapman estimator to approximate the population.
What are the assumptions underlying the Mark-Recapture technique?
One must assume:
The population is closed, meaning no significant births, deaths, or migration occur between the tagging and recapture phases.
Each animal is equally likely to be captured at each phase (no trap-shy or trap-happy effects).
Marking does not affect an animal’s chance of being recaptured.
The tagged animals mix uniformly back into the population.
Violations of these assumptions can bias the population estimate. For instance, if tagged animals leave the park or avoid recapture, the final estimate might be inflated.
How can camera traps be integrated with machine learning to refine estimates?
Camera traps can be deployed in grids or in strategically chosen locations. With computer vision or deep learning:
An object detection model (e.g., YOLO, Faster R-CNN, or a custom convolutional neural network) identifies deer in each frame.
Time-stamped images help track the same individuals if they appear in multiple cameras. This can feed into a capture-recapture framework if individual identification is possible (for example, via unique coat patterns, or tags/collars).
Data from multiple cameras can be aggregated for a robust estimate, factoring in detection probabilities derived from calibration runs.
Real-world complexities include false positives (misidentifying other animals as deer), obstructions in the environment, and variation in lighting and weather conditions. A well-labeled dataset is critical for training robust models.
How do you handle boundaries or migrations in distance sampling?
When deer can move across park borders:
One might define a buffer zone around the park and incorporate additional transects to account for animals temporarily outside the park but belonging to the park’s “population.”
A formal approach can be to track animals with GPS collars to estimate cross-boundary migration rates, then adjust counts based on how many are likely within the park at any given time.
If only the inside area matters, the sample area definition needs strict bounding to avoid counting deer outside. If deer are frequently crossing in and out, more advanced methods (e.g., state-space models) can be used to account for movement patterns.
Why might advanced Bayesian methods be useful?
Bayesian methods allow incorporating prior knowledge about deer behavior, birth/death rates, or habitat suitability. This can be particularly helpful if data is sparse or if partial information about the population already exists. Hierarchical Bayesian models can handle complex structured data, such as varying detection probabilities over different habitat types, and can integrate multiple data sources (e.g., Mark-Recapture results plus camera-trap or aerial survey data).
What if resources are limited for large-scale surveys?
One may have to adopt low-cost techniques:
Volunteer-based observational counts: Citizen scientists or park rangers can record sightings on specific trails or vantage points. Models such as occupancy analysis can be used if the data collection is systematic (e.g., presence/absence over repeated visits).
Partial Mark-Recapture: Even a modest capture and tagging program can yield a baseline estimate if carefully planned.
Stratified Sampling: Identify high, medium, and low deer-density zones. Sample each zone proportionally, then combine estimates, which can reduce the amount of data needed while maintaining reasonable accuracy.
By balancing feasibility, cost, and accuracy, one can still arrive at a decent estimate of the population.
How can one validate the accuracy of the chosen population estimate?
Validation involves:
Comparing results from multiple methods (e.g., Mark-Recapture vs. distance sampling).
Conducting pilot studies where the true number of deer in a smaller region is known or can be reliably observed.
Cross-validating detection and capture probabilities by repeating surveys under different conditions (e.g., day vs. night, summer vs. winter).
Checking consistency over time. If the deer population estimate remains stable despite large variations in detection or recapture rates, it may indicate issues with the assumptions.
Such steps help assess potential biases and refine methods for better accuracy.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How would you adjust your estimates if there are other animals in the region that resemble deer, causing potential misidentification?
Misidentification can lead to systematic errors when observers cannot reliably differentiate deer from other similar-looking species (for instance, certain types of antelope or other wildlife in the area). One potential pitfall is overestimation if non-deer are mistakenly counted as deer. Conversely, you might underestimate if observers exclude actual deer due to uncertainty.
A common mitigation approach is to:
Provide in-depth observer training or standardized identification guidelines (e.g., color patterns, antler shapes, body size). Thorough training reduces misclassification rates.
Implement camera traps with high-resolution images or videos. This enables post-processing to verify species identity. Computer vision models specialized on your local wildlife can further reduce confusion.
Adopt a multi-step labeling process. For each suspicious detection, use a secondary validation by experienced ecologists.
Incorporate Bayesian or hierarchical models that can account for misclassification probabilities. If you know the likelihood that a detection is a deer versus another species, you can embed that as a prior or conditional probability in your estimation model. In such a model, each observation is not taken at face value but is weighted by the probability that it’s actually a deer.
A subtle edge case arises if the lookalike species coexists with deer at different densities in different parts of the park. Observers might inadvertently inflate or deflate the deer count in areas with mixed populations. Continual calibration, spot checks, and thorough field verification are keys to accurate modeling.
How do you incorporate seasonal shifts in deer behavior and distribution into population estimates?
Deer distribution and detectability can drastically change with seasons. Food availability, mating habits, or weather shifts all affect how deer move, where they congregate, and how easily observers can spot or capture them. Overlooking these patterns can produce skewed estimates.
A detailed approach involves:
Time-stratified surveys: Conduct separate counts for each major season (e.g., spring, mating season, winter) to get snapshots of population distribution.
Model seasonal movement patterns: If you track deer using GPS collars or repeated sightings, you can fit models that describe daily or seasonal migrations. These models help estimate how many deer might be out of sight or beyond certain survey areas at different times.
Adjust detectability parameters: If thick foliage in summer reduces visibility or if deer are more diurnal in cooler months, incorporate season-dependent detection probabilities.
Birth and mortality rates: If fawning season occurs in spring, the population can spike temporarily before dispersal or mortality. Incorporating time-series or birth-death models can refine your final population estimates.
One common pitfall is to assume a single set of detection probabilities year-round. If detectability is much higher in winter (due to less foliage) than in summer, ignoring that factor leads to poor estimates. Seasonal models that combine ecological data—like precipitation, temperature, and vegetation changes—are typically more robust.
If only limited samples are possible (e.g., very few captures in Mark-Recapture), how do you ensure reliable estimates?
Limited samples can arise if the park is extremely large, resources are scarce, or deer are difficult to capture. In such scenarios, standard estimators like Lincoln-Petersen or Chapman become unstable if the recaptured sample size is small. You might over- or under-inflate population estimates.
Strategies to address small sample sizes:
Repeat sampling over more intervals: Instead of one recapture event, consider multiple waves of capture-recapture, pooling data for a stronger estimate. This strategy leverages a multi-event framework (e.g., the Schnabel or Jolly-Seber approach) to glean more insights from repeated partial data.
Use hierarchical Bayesian methods: Even if direct recapture numbers are minimal, you can incorporate prior knowledge (e.g., from previous years or neighboring regions). Bayesian models let you pool information across time or across different sites, yielding more stable posterior estimates than classical methods.
Stratify the park area: If you suspect certain regions have higher deer density, focus your sampling effort there to gain robust local estimates. You can then extrapolate to lesser-sampled areas with some carefully chosen assumptions or surrogate measures (e.g., vegetation density, water sources, known habitat quality).
Combine multiple data sources: If Mark-Recapture is small, bolster it with observational data from camera traps, footprint counts, or volunteer sightings. Even partial data from multiple angles can reduce variance in the final estimate.
Pitfalls include relying exclusively on sparse Mark-Recapture data without cross-verifying results. Small sample sizes can produce wide confidence intervals, so it is crucial to communicate the inherent uncertainty and explore ways to reduce it.
How can we update our population estimates in near real-time if conditions in the park change rapidly?
Some parks face quickly changing conditions due to climate events, human disturbance, or disease outbreaks. A static approach, where data is collected once and used for months, might be inadequate to monitor these rapid changes.
Potential real-time strategies:
Automated camera trap networks: Cameras can stream or upload data frequently. A real-time object detection or classification pipeline flags how many deer are detected per camera, per time interval.
Adaptive sampling: If an area shows unusual activity (e.g., a wildfire, flood, or major construction), quickly reallocate your sampling or surveying resources to that area to get more frequent estimates.
Continuous Mark-Recapture with RFID/GPS tags: Some deer can be tagged with sensors that continuously transmit location data. Machine learning models transform these signals into population-level movement inferences, highlighting changes in home ranges or habitat usage.
Streaming data integration: Tools like Apache Kafka or real-time databases can ingest continuous signals from sensors or drones. Analytical dashboards then provide near real-time population metrics.
An edge case arises when only certain sub-regions are covered by cameras or sensors. Real-time data from those sub-regions may not generalize well to uncovered areas, leading to potential sampling bias. Another issue is dealing with ephemeral events (e.g., a disease outbreak leads to sudden mortality). Swiftly updating mortality rates or detection probabilities in the model is key to maintaining accurate real-time estimates.
What if there is human intervention such as culling or relocation programs aimed at regulating deer population?
Human interventions like controlled hunting, culling to manage overpopulation, or relocation to other regions can drastically alter the deer count in non-natural ways. If these events are not integrated into models, the estimates can become highly misleading.
To handle these situations:
Log interventions as they occur. Track how many deer are removed or relocated. This allows direct adjustments to the population estimate.
Account for potential biases introduced by interventions. If culling selectively targets specific parts of the park, or specific subsets of the population (e.g., older males), that can shift the population’s structure in ways that might confound standard detection methods or recapture rates.
Temporal partitioning of data: If culling occurs in the middle of a sampling period, separate your data into pre- and post-intervention segments and estimate population changes accordingly.
Demographic models: Use birth-death-migration models that explicitly incorporate known removal or addition events. This can be done with a time-series approach or a population dynamics model.
A subtle complication arises when some deer learn to avoid certain areas due to culling programs. Their behavioral changes can invalidate prior assumptions (e.g., uniform mixing for Mark-Recapture). Continuous monitoring and flexible modeling are necessary to capture these behavioral shifts accurately.
What steps can be taken to detect when one’s model assumptions start to fail over time?
Even well-calibrated models can degrade if the environment or deer behavior changes. Frequent assumption checks help identify potential model failures before estimates become unreliable.
Key steps include:
Residual analysis: If you use a capture-recapture or distance sampling model, analyze residuals to see if the observed vs. predicted captures or detections diverge systematically over time. For example, if the number of recaptures keeps dropping more than expected, it might hint at trap avoidance or population decline.
Hold-out validation: Set aside a subset of data (e.g., a region of the park or a time period) to compare predicted deer counts vs. actual on-the-ground counts. Consistent deviations suggest a breakdown in assumptions.
Continuous feedback loops from park rangers or local experts: Qualitative observations such as “we’re seeing far fewer deer in these valleys than before” can trigger a model re-check or an additional survey wave.
Monitoring extrinsic factors: Large-scale habitat changes (e.g., deforestation, new roads, predators introduced) might invalidate prior models’ assumptions. Tracking land usage, predator prevalence, and climate data helps forecast when an assumption might break.
Neglecting early warning signs can lead to outdated or incorrect estimates, often discovered too late. Regular retraining or recalibration using fresh data ensures assumptions remain aligned with reality.