## How To Re-Count Fish

Last week I chatted a bit with a probabilistic, sampling-based method to estimate the population of fish in our backyard pond. The method estimates the population of a thing, in this case the fish, by capturing a sample of size and dividing that by the probability of catching one of the things in your sampling. Since we might know know the chance of catching the thing beforehand, we estimate it: catch some number of the fish or whatever, then put them back, and then re-catch as many. Some number of those will be re-caught, so we can estimate the chance of catching one fish as . So the original population will be somewhere about .

I want to talk a little bit about why that won’t work.

There is of course the obvious reason to think this will go wrong; it amounts to exactly the same reason why a baseball player with a .250 batting average — meaning the player can expect to get a hit in one out of every four at-bats — might go an entire game without getting on base, or might get on base three times in four at-bats. If something has chances to happen, and it has a probability of happening at every chance, it’s *most likely* that it will happen times, but it can happen more or fewer times than that. Indeed, we’d get a little suspicious if it happened exactly times. If we flipped a fair coin twenty times, it’s most likely to come up tails ten times, but there’s nothing odd about it coming up tails only eight or as many as fourteen times, and it’d stand out if it always came up tails exactly ten times.

To apply this to the fish problem: suppose that there are fish in the pond; that 50 is the number we want to get. And suppose we know for a fact that every fish has a 12.5 percent chance — — of being caught in our trap. Ignore for right now how we know that probability; just pretend we can count on that being exactly true. The expectation value, the most probable number of fish to catch in any attempt, is fish, which presents our first obvious problem. Well, maybe a fish might be wriggling around the edge of the net and fall out as we pull the trap out. (This actually happened as I was pulling some of the baby fish in for the winter.)

With these numbers it’s most probable to catch six fish, slightly less probable to catch seven fish, less probable yet to catch five, then eight and so on. But these are all tolerably plausible numbers. I used a mathematics package (Octave, an open-source clone of Matlab) to run ten simulated catches, from fifty fish each with a probability of .125 of being caught, and came out with these sizes for the fish harvests:

M = | 4 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
---|

Since we know, by some method, that the chance of catching any one fish is exactly 0.125, this implies fish populations of:

M = | 4 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

N = | 32 | 48 | 24 | 48 | 56 | 56 | 40 | 56 | 64 | 72 |

Now, none of these is the right number, although 48 is respectably close and 56 isn’t too bad. But the range is hilarious: there might be as few as 24 or as many as 72 fish, based on just this evidence. That might as well be guessing.

This is essentially a matter of error analysis. Any *one* attempt at catching fish may be faulty, because the fish are too shy of the trap, or too eager to leap into it, or are just being difficult for some reason. But we can correct for the flaws of one attempt at fish-counting by repeating the experiment. We can’t *always* be unlucky in the same ways.

This is conceptually easy, and extremely easy to do on the computer; it’s a little harder in real life but certainly within the bounds of our research budget, since I just have to go out back and put the trap out. And redoing the experiment even pays off, too: average those population samples from the ten simulated runs there and we get a mean estimated fish population of 49.6, which is basically dead on.

(That was lucky, I must admit. Ten attempts isn’t really enough to make the variation comfortably small. Another run with ten simulated catchings produced a mean estimate population of 56; the next one … well, 49.6 again, but the one after that gave me 64. It isn’t until we get into a couple dozen attempts that the mean population estimate gets reliably close to fifty. Still, the work is essentially the same as the problem of “I flipped a fair coin some number of times; it came up tails ten times. How many times did I flip it?” It might have been any number ten or above, but I most probably flipped it about twenty times, and twenty would be your best guess absent more information.)

The same problem affects working out what the probability of catching a fish is, since we do that by catching some small number of fish and then seeing how many some smaller number of them we re-catch later on. Suppose the probability of catching a fish really is , but we’re only trying to catch fish. Here’s a couple rounds of ten simulated catchings of six fish, and how many of those were re-caught:

2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |

2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |

0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |

1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |

Obviously any one of those indicates a probability ranging from 0 to 0.5 of re-catching a fish. Technically, yes, 0.125 is a number between 0 and 0.5, but it hasn’t really shown itself. But if we average out all these probabilities … well, those forty attempts give us a mean estimated probability of 0.092. This isn’t excellent but at least it’s in range. If we keep doing the experiment we’d get do better; one simulated batch of a hundred experiments turned up a mean estimated probability of 0.12833. (And there’s variations, of course; another batch of 100 attempts estimated the probability at 0.13333, and then the next at 0.10667, though if you use all three hundred of these that gets to an average of 0.12278, which isn’t too bad.)

This inconvenience amounts to a problem of working with small numbers in the original fish population, in the number of fish sampled in any one catching, and in the number of catches done to estimate their population. Small numbers tend to be problems for probability and statistics; the tools grow much more powerful and much more precise when they can work with enormously large collections of things. If the backyard pond held infinitely many fish we could have a much better idea of how many fish were in it.

## mitchteemley 5:37 pm

onSaturday, 21 February, 2015 Permalink |Here’s my method: “One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish…”

LikeLike

## Joseph Nebus 3:19 am

onFriday, 27 February, 2015 Permalink |Ooh, you’re ready to advise the Supreme Court! Good job.

LikeLike

## How Not To Count Fish | nebusresearch 6:39 pm

onThursday, 26 February, 2015 Permalink |[…] method to estimate the number of fish that might be in our pond out back, and then some of the errors that have to be handled if you want to have a reliable result. Now, I want to get into why the method doesn’t work, […]

LikeLike

## How February 2015 Treated My Mathematics Blog | nebusresearch 9:52 pm

onSunday, 1 March, 2015 Permalink |[…] How To Re-Count Fish, describing problems in the post … […]

LikeLike

## Fish, Counted | nebusresearch 9:42 pm

onTuesday, 9 June, 2015 Permalink |[…] How To Re-Count Fish, which described some of the numerical problems in estimation-based population samples. […]

LikeLike