ML Case-study Interview Question: Scalable Real-Time Spam Invite Detection Using Logistic Regression
Browse all the ML Case-Studies here.
Case-Study question
A well-known platform allows its users to invite others by email. Some bad actors abuse this invite function to send large volumes of unwanted emails that mimic legitimate invites. The company wants a machine learning solution to detect and block such spam invites. You must design a scalable system that uses historical data to classify invites as spam or not spam, then integrate the solution into the platform’s real-time operations. Describe how you would build this system, including your data gathering plan, modeling approach, feature engineering strategy, deployment pipeline, and safeguards against false positives.
Proposed Solution (Detailed)
Data Collection and Labeling
Collect historical invite data. Each invite record includes the user identifier, email text, team identifier, Internet Protocol address, time of invite creation, and acceptance outcome. Define a label by assuming invites that were never accepted by any user within a short time window are spam.
Log each feature at invite creation time. Recomputing them later can leak future information or distort the original context. Simplify the acceptance cutoff (for example 4 days) so new and old invites are treated equally. This provides a consistent label.
Feature Engineering
Transform textual invite content into tokens or character n-grams. Keep user or team history features such as previous spam invites from the same user. Maintain domain-based features like suspicious email domains. Avoid manual thresholds. Let the model learn patterns from large sets of potential features.
Model Choice
Train a logistic regression classifier on the labeled dataset. It combines weights for the input features to compute a final score, then outputs a spam probability.
Here, y-hat is the predicted probability of the invite being legitimate. z is a weighted sum of features, z = w0 + w1x1 + w2x2 + ... + wn*xn. Each x is a feature (for instance, presence of suspicious terms, team age, domain reputation), and each w is a learned weight. Regularization prunes irrelevant features. This approach is straightforward, handles large sparse feature spaces, and is easy to interpret.
Model Deployment
Use a microservice architecture to expose a prediction API. Store the trained model artifacts (for example weight vectors) in a central location. At inference time, pass features to the service, which calculates the invite’s spam probability. Automatically refresh the model periodically with new data. This pipeline prevents manual rule updates.
Handling False Positives
Set a high enough decision threshold to ensure that important invites are rarely flagged. Monitor flagged invites in a separate channel. If a legitimate invite is blocked, create a whitelist rule or push a rapid model retraining if a misclassification pattern emerges. Over time, the system reduces reliance on manual review.
Maintaining the System
Train and evaluate the model daily or weekly. Monitor key metrics such as fraction of invites blocked vs spam frequency. If there is a drift in data patterns or new spam tactics appear, adapt the feature set and retrain.
Example Python Code Snippet
import pandas as pd
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
# df has columns: features (vectorized), label
X = df.drop(columns=["label"])
y = df["label"]
model = LogisticRegression(solver="saga", max_iter=1000)
model.fit(X, y)
# Saving model weights
import joblib
joblib.dump(model, "model.pkl")
This trains a logistic regression and saves the model to disk. A microservice can then load "model.pkl" and score live invites.
What if the interviewer asks the following?
How would you address the imbalance in spam vs legitimate invites?
Class weights or oversampling can help. In many real-world cases, genuine invites outnumber spam. Balancing encourages the model to learn spam-related signals. For example, instruct the model to penalize spam misclassifications more than legitimate misclassifications by increasing the spam class weight. Another approach is to oversample spam examples or undersample legitimate ones. This ensures that the model sees enough spam instances during training.
How do you prevent the model from blocking real invites that look unusual?
Keep a moderate probability threshold so the system blocks only clearly suspicious invites. Provide a manual appeal or review mechanism. Watch false positive rates closely. If legitimate invites from certain countries or languages are flagged often, incorporate language signals (for example last names or certain linguistic patterns) that differentiate real usage from spam. The model can learn from those patterns.
How do you handle large-scale text data and feature extraction efficiently?
Adopt a streaming architecture with data pipelines. Transform text into sparse feature representations using methods like n-grams or token hashes. If text is large, use subword tokenization. Deploy vectorization logic in a dedicated feature extraction service. Cache frequently computed features like domain-level or user-level signals. Feed these pre-computed features quickly into the classifier at scoring time.
Why not use more advanced approaches like Transformers or deep neural networks?
Starting with a simpler logistic regression is practical when you have large sparse data, limited engineering resources for deep models, and a strict need for interpretable results. Logistic regression is quick to train and update, especially if you have many fresh spam signals daily. Advanced architectures can be explored later if performance plateaus or new text complexities emerge.
What if spam behavior changes frequently?
Schedule frequent retraining. Maintain an incremental data pipeline that logs all new invites and their outcomes. Periodically retrain or fine-tune the model to incorporate the new invite patterns. A robust feedback loop quickly adapts to new spam tactics.
How would you ensure the model does not degrade over time?
Monitor input distributions and outcome metrics. If the acceptance rate of blocked invites changes significantly or if user complaints spike, suspect model drift. Retraining can fix minor drifts. For severe shifts (for instance spammers adopting entirely new approaches), expand the feature set or switch to new architectures. A consistent monitoring framework quickly flags regressions.
Could manual rules be fully replaced?
Yes, if the model is accurate. However, some rule-based checks (for example IP deny lists or well-known malicious patterns) can coexist. Humans review borderline decisions or unusual spikes. Over time, reliance on manual rules decreases as the model matures. This hybrid approach is safer until trust in the model is high.
How would you handle real-time performance constraints?
Set a strict latency requirement for the prediction call. Pre-compute features that are expensive to generate. Use efficient libraries for logistic regression inference. Embed the model service close to the main application’s servers or use caching for repeated user or domain lookups. Minimize overhead by batching requests if needed, although for invites it might be feasible to handle them individually.
How would you safeguard user privacy?
Mask personal details in logs. Tokenize or hash user identifiers, domain names, and email addresses. Only store minimal data for the model. Provide clear terms about data usage for spam prevention. Comply with privacy regulations by retaining invites and logs for only as long as necessary for model training and auditing.
What if the acceptance rate alone is not reliable for labeling?
Supplement with direct spam reports or explicit user feedback. If enough recipients mark an invite as unwanted or malicious, label it spam. Merge multiple signals (short-lifespan teams, repeated suspicious content, abrupt spikes in invites, presence of malicious URLs) and expand the label definition. This yields a more precise ground truth if acceptance rate alone fails to capture all spam cases.
How would you justify logistic regression instead of more complex methods during an interview?
Logistic regression scales well to millions of features, trains quickly, and yields interpretable coefficients. Debugging or explaining false positives becomes simpler by examining the feature weights. For text-based spam, this is often enough to achieve high accuracy. Advanced algorithms can be explored once the basic pipeline is stabilized or if the logistic model fails to achieve desired metrics.
How could you measure the business impact of your spam detection system?
Track the reduction in spam invites delivered. Observe if there is a drop in recipient complaints or an improvement in platform reputation. Compare how many false blocks used to occur with hand-tuned rules vs the new machine learning approach. Ultimately, this protects brand value and keeps legitimate invites reliable, which can be measured through acceptance rates over time.
How do you handle invites that contain multilingual content?
Segment content into different language families. Use relevant tokenization approaches, like character-based embeddings for languages without clear word boundaries. Maintain separate text-based features for each language group. The logistic model can combine them. Track potential spam signals in multiple scripts. Continually expand language coverage if spammers move to new scripts.
Could an unsupervised approach work?
It might detect anomalies, but supervised labeling of spam vs legitimate invites is more direct. Anomalies do not always indicate spam. Supervised methods tend to be more accurate once we have enough labels. That said, anomaly detection can supplement the main classifier, especially if new forms of spam appear that the model has never encountered.
Could you use acceptance rate as a label if invite acceptance is sometimes delayed?
Set a reasonable cutoff that reflects typical user behavior (4 days or 1 week). Most genuine invite acceptances happen within the first few days. This ensures rapid feedback. The few late acceptances have a minimal impact compared to the overall volume of invites. If needed, re-label older invites as new data arrives, then retrain, but keep a consistent approach to avoid confusion.
Would you incorporate cost-sensitive evaluation metrics in training?
Yes, especially if blocking a legitimate invite is more damaging than missing a spam invite. In that case, weigh false positives heavily. This weighting can be done via the cost function or class weights. The final threshold might shift based on acceptable risk tolerance. Summarize results with precision, recall, and F1-score, but also measure real-world cost of false positives vs false negatives.
How do you keep the feature set updated?
When new spam techniques appear, add relevant textual patterns, new user signals, or new domain-level features. Keep updating blacklisted or suspicious domain sets. If new fields in the invite or team metadata become available, integrate them into training. Perform feature selection via regularization to ensure the model does not bloat or incorporate noisy features.
When would you replace logistic regression with something else?
If the volume and complexity of text grow large or the spam tactics become more sophisticated, consider advanced language models. That might be a fine-tuned Transformer-based classifier. Evaluate the computational overhead. If the simpler model is sufficient and cheap, keep it. If advanced models significantly reduce error rates, consider them while also monitoring latency and resource usage.
How would you test this system before full deployment?
Use an offline test set from historical invites. Evaluate precision, recall, and false positives. Then run a shadow deployment to score new invites without blocking them. Compare predicted labels with outcomes. If performance is good, roll it out carefully. Track real-time metrics and have a rollback plan if false positives spike. Once stable, retire old heuristics or keep them as a fallback.
How do you design for interpretability?
Logistic regression naturally exposes feature weights. For a blocked invite, show the top contributing features. This helps spot spurious correlations or bias. For deeper models, adopt interpretability tools like Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations (LIME), but logistic regression is simpler. High interpretability is critical so users or developers can trust the system’s decisions.
How do you ensure teams with genuine low acceptance rates (for example testing or ephemeral use cases) are not penalized?
Track user or team reputation signals. A brand new team with very few invites might have a low acceptance rate initially. The model should also consider other features, like the presence of suspicious text or extremely high invite volume. If the model flags them repeatedly, have an internal system to override for recognized testing or ephemeral teams. Over time, the model will learn that these teams are not malicious if repeated usage is observed.
How would you debug or handle a sudden surge in spam that gets past the model?
Check the logs for new patterns. If spammers use new language or domains, the model might not have trained on them. Quickly gather these spam examples, label them, retrain or fine-tune the model, and watch whether the false negative rate drops. In emergencies, revert to stricter manual rules until the updated model is tested and deployed.
How do you protect the feature set from direct adversarial attacks?
Avoid exposing crucial features externally. For instance, do not indicate which words triggered a block. Keep large, diverse sets of features so a single obfuscation tactic does not bypass the system. Rotate or retrain frequently. Use advanced text analysis that is robust against small changes or unusual encoding of characters. If spammers shift to obfuscated text, incorporate detection features for character-level or encoding anomalies.
How do you maintain compliance and ethics in spam filtering?
Publish clear terms that spam invites will be blocked. Allow rightful invitations from real users. Offer a way to appeal. Prevent discrimination by carefully examining feature weights to ensure no protected groups are disproportionately affected. Do not use personally sensitive attributes as features. Conduct bias audits regularly.