ML Case-study Interview Question: Joint Multi-Task Model for Retail Assistants with Automated Log Annotation Pipeline
Browse all the ML Case-Studies here.
Case-Study question
Imagine you are leading a Data Science team at a large retail enterprise. You have multiple virtual assistants across distinct domains such as voice-based shopping and in-store associates’ assistance. You already have separate models handling intent classification and slot filling for each assistant. Training and maintaining them separately is expensive, and you suspect that combining the datasets and creating a unified multi-task model might improve accuracy for both domains while reducing overhead. Design a single joint model for both assistants. Then describe how you would build an automated pipeline to annotate unlabeled live logs from the store domain to improve recognition of person and time entities. How would you address ambiguous mentions (such as names that can also be products)? Explain your plan to measure success in production.
Proposed solution
A single joint model for both domains can be built using multi-task learning. Intent classification becomes one task. Slot filling becomes another task. A shared encoder captures language features for both tasks. The encoder is usually a Transformer-based network that encodes input utterances into contextual embeddings. Task-specific heads are attached on top of the shared encoder. One head predicts the intent class. Another head predicts slot tags for each token. The model is trained end-to-end using a multi-task objective that sums or weights the cross-entropy losses for both tasks. This joint approach leverages shared representations and generalizes better.
A unified dataset must aggregate labeled utterances from both domains. Data from the voice shopping domain covers product-based interactions, brand queries, and scheduling of deliveries or pickups. The store associates’ domain covers item location requests, schedule inquiries, and references to employees. Each example is labeled with the appropriate intent and token-level slot annotations. Some slot labels overlap (for instance, product or brand), and some are domain-specific (for example, store scheduling references). Combining them boosts training coverage and helps the model learn universal patterns of language.
Live logs from the store domain are added to capture real-world phrasing, especially names and scheduling references that rarely appear in synthetic data. Off-the-shelf named entity recognition (NER) models are used as labeling functions. Weighted major voting resolves disagreements among these models. Context-based heuristics disambiguate brand mentions from person names. For example, if an utterance includes words like “scheduling” or “shift” near a capitalized token, that token is more likely a person name. A brand mention often co-occurs with product-related tokens like “Legos” or “cart.” The pipeline discards logs that do not match relevant patterns. Domain knowledge adjusts or overrides off-the-shelf NER outputs that mistakenly label domain-specific abbreviations as named entities.
Below is a short pseudo-code snippet showing how weighted major voting might be applied. Explanation follows afterward:
# Weighted major voting approach in Python-like pseudocode
labeling_functions = [ner_model1, ner_model2, ner_model3]
weights = [0.5, 0.3, 0.2]
def weighted_vote(tokens):
# Each labeling function outputs entity labels for each token
votes = [lf(tokens) for lf in labeling_functions]
final_labels = []
for i in range(len(tokens)):
label_scores = {}
for idx, vote in enumerate(votes):
label = vote[i]
label_scores[label] = label_scores.get(label, 0) + weights[idx]
best_label = max(label_scores, key=label_scores.get)
final_labels.append(best_label)
return final_labels
Explanation of the approach: Each token in the utterance is assigned one label from each NER model. The label from each model is weighted by its reliability. Summation of scores determines the final chosen label for each token. Context-driven rules handle brand vs person ambiguities. Merged data is then fed into the unified multi-task model, so it learns from both domains.
Model maintenance
The unified model is retrained on the combined dataset instead of training separate models. This saves time and GPU costs. The shared parameters capture common language properties, including shared entities like products, brands, time references, and schedule queries. The final model is validated on domain-specific test sets to ensure it works for both shopping and store tasks.
Expected improvements
Accuracy on intent classification usually improves because the broader range of training data makes the model robust to language variations. Time and person entity recognition also improves because the store logs provide real-world examples of how employees mention schedules. Data augmentation across domains helps the model extract universal language features. The single model reduces maintenance cost. The pipeline for automatic labeling of store logs scales seamlessly. When new log patterns appear, domain knowledge heuristics are updated, and the pipeline re-labels the data to keep the unified training set fresh.
If you decided to keep separate models, why would that be a problem?
Keeping separate models means maintaining and deploying multiple workflows. Each one must be trained, evaluated, and monitored. This results in higher computational costs. Overlapping entity types like product and brand appear in both domains, forcing duplication of effort. Data is not shared across domains, limiting potential improvements in entity recognition. The lack of synergy hurts performance when new real-world utterances cross domain boundaries.
How do you handle conflicting entity labels between the shopping and store domains?
Conflicting labels must be resolved through context. A mention of a capitalized token near scheduling keywords suggests a person. When the same token is near product references, it is labeled as a brand or product. The weighted major voting pipeline merges signals from multiple NER models. Domain-specific heuristics override or correct mistakes. Explicit context checks, such as presence of synonyms for “shift,” “schedule,” “pickup,” or “cart,” help disambiguate. A fallback approach is to mark ambiguous tokens and route them to a rules engine for final classification based on domain knowledge.
How would you measure success in production?
Both offline and online metrics matter. Offline, the main metrics are intent classification accuracy, slot filling F1, and entity-level recall. The test set covers both domains with enough examples of each intent and entity type. Online, you track user experience metrics: successful completion rate of tasks, live user satisfaction scores, and error rates. When the model is updated, you run controlled A/B tests measuring intent detection success and entity extraction precision. Monitoring out-of-distribution utterances is essential. If performance on new real-world queries degrades, you incorporate them back into training.
How would you adapt your unified model for new domains in the future?
Add new domain data into the existing training set. Extend or merge the intent taxonomy with the new domain’s intent set. Annotate domain-specific slots or apply labeling functions. Fine-tune the model on the expanded multi-domain dataset. Maintain core shared layers that capture universal linguistic patterns. Introduce minimal new parameters, if needed, for domain-specific sub-tasks. Perform domain adaptation by adding task-level weighting if one domain has more data than the others. Evaluate new domain performance to confirm that expansions do not regress older domain tasks.
How do you ensure your pipeline automatically labels logs accurately?
NER models are validated on a small labeled subset before large-scale use. Weighted major voting scores are calibrated by comparing predictions against known ground truth on a holdout set. Domain experts define precise heuristics for brand vs person or domain-specific abbreviations. Potentially ambiguous mentions receive special checks. After automatically labeling, a random subset of logs is hand-verified to confirm correctness. Discrepancies lead to refining the labeling rules or adjusting weights. This iterative cycle keeps the pipeline accurate.
How would you handle the challenge of new employee names and brand names that appear over time?
An incremental approach. The pipeline periodically gathers fresh store logs. The same labeling functions are applied. If new names appear, the pipeline attempts to classify them via context. If they appear frequently, domain experts add them to dictionaries or heuristics that highlight them as potential person or brand references. The unified model is retrained with these newly labeled instances. Rare names that confuse the pipeline are flagged for human review. This ensures that the system continually adapts to changing lexical items.
How do you handle noisy Automatic Speech Recognition outputs in real-time voice queries?
The unified model is made robust by training on data that includes typical ASR error patterns. Augment the training set by artificially introducing common ASR mistakes. The store logs can also have partial or misspelled references to employees. The pipeline labeling functions rely on context-based tokens. During inference, a confidence threshold triggers fallback rules if the recognized text is too noisy or uncertain. The system might prompt users to confirm or correct unclear names or brand mentions. The main principle is to teach the model about realistic errors and add domain constraints that help correct them when possible.
Would you consider adding a dedicated language model trained on your in-house text data?
Pretraining or fine-tuning a domain-specific language model on your text data can help the model learn specialized words or abbreviations. This is particularly helpful for unique brand or person names. The domain-specific language model can replace or complement general-purpose pretrained models. The final multi-task classifier fine-tunes those representations for intent classification and slot filling. Such an approach usually improves recognition of new or proprietary terms. It does raise more complexity in the pipeline, but it can be worthwhile if domain vocabulary is large and frequently updated.
Why might multi-task learning outperform separate training even when tasks differ?
Multi-task learning leverages an inductive bias across multiple related tasks. The shared representation captures general language patterns. That helps the model adapt to new user utterances, especially when certain linguistic structures reoccur across tasks. Each task benefits from knowledge learned by the other. This synergy is especially strong when there are overlapping entities (products, brands, time references) or when different tasks involve similar syntax. Separate models lose these cross-task signals and may overfit to their individual datasets, leading to weaker generalization.
How do you ensure the final unified model is not overloaded with too many domains or tasks?
Regular validation on each domain’s holdout set ensures that performance remains acceptable. If the model’s capacity is insufficient for many tasks, consider scaling up model size or employing a modular approach that adds domain-specific parameters. Excessive tasks can degrade performance on earlier tasks if the shared encoder struggles to represent them all. Task-level weighting mitigates this by letting critical tasks dominate the training objective. A gating mechanism can also control how hidden states flow among tasks, preserving domain-specific patterns.
How does your pipeline handle domain drift over time?
Continuous data collection and iterative retraining. Live logs capture changing user behavior, such as referencing new products or employee names. The labeling pipeline updates automatically if domain experts adjust rules. Weighted major voting and heuristics keep adapting to new textual patterns. Each retraining cycle merges the newly labeled data with historical data. Thorough validation ensures that performance remains stable even as user queries shift. When large domain drifts occur, a targeted manual annotation effort might be needed to recalibrate the pipeline.
What if the data for one domain is much larger than the other?
Task-level or domain-level weighting addresses imbalance. One approach is to oversample the smaller dataset or apply higher loss weight to that domain’s samples. The objective function might be: L = alpha * L_intent_domain1 + beta * L_slot_domain1 + gamma * L_intent_domain2 + delta * L_slot_domain2. Tuning alpha, beta, gamma, and delta ensures balanced training signals. Adjusting the number of mini-batches from each domain helps the model see both domains frequently. Careful hyperparameter tuning avoids overshadowing the smaller domain.
How do you ensure real-time latency requirements?
Use an optimized runtime environment with efficient libraries. Convert the unified model to a format suitable for inference, such as ONNX, or apply TensorRT optimizations. Use GPU or specialized hardware if your system handles high throughput. Ensure minimal overhead by batching inference requests while respecting latency requirements. Monitor and profile the system in production. If latency is too high, compress or distill the model or reduce the input sequence length. Because you only maintain one unified model, the overhead of orchestrating multiple models is eliminated.
How would you guarantee the pipeline remains compliant with user privacy rules?
Use de-identification for logs that might contain personally identifiable information (PII). Encrypt data in transit and at rest. The labeling pipeline is restricted to user queries that have been cleared for analysis. The system respects data retention policies, discarding logs that exceed retention windows. Names are treated as entity placeholders after labeling, so any personally identifiable string is not exposed outside the controlled environment. Domain experts regularly review compliance to ensure that the pipeline and the final model obey privacy regulations.