ML Case-study Interview Question: Optimizing Food Delivery: Global Matching, Dynamic Pricing & Deep Learning ETAs
Browse all the ML Case-Studies here.
Case-Study question
A new food delivery service struggles with assigning delivery partners to orders in real time, pricing deliveries according to varying supply and demand, estimating arrival times accurately, and maintaining balanced resource allocation. Customers expect quick, reliable service; delivery partners need fair compensation; and the company must keep costs low. Propose a rigorous solution architecture covering order assignment, dynamic pricing, delivery time estimation, plus strategies for preventing supply–demand mismatches and determining a merchant’s delivery zone.
Proposed Solution Architecture
Efficient order assignment, adaptive pricing, and accurate estimated time of arrival (ETA) are critical. A robust approach involves several components:
Order Assignment
Global matching is used instead of greedy methods. Each order and each delivery partner (DP) forms a bipartite graph. A scoring function ranks how suitable a DP is for an order. A global solver assigns every order to a DP so the total score is maximized.
Here i is an order, j is a DP, Score(i,j) is the matching score, and X(i,j) is 1 if order i is assigned to DP j, else 0. Score(i,j) incorporates distance, predicted acceptance likelihood, ongoing tasks, and wait times. Higher scores indicate better match quality.
After the assignment, DPs have the option to accept or decline. A high match score and fair pricing reduce declines. Real-time constraints demand that the matching phase be executed in seconds, so advanced data structures and parallelization are employed.
Pricing
Static pricing uses a baseline fee plus bonuses (missions). Missions reward DPs for completing a set number of orders in a time window. Dynamic pricing adjusts fees for each region and task based on predicted supply–demand ratios. Tasks that are harder to fulfill have higher price increments, while simple tasks remain near the baseline to reduce cost-per-order.
A supply–demand forecast runs every few minutes, analyzing short-term patterns. If the ratio of orders to DPs is rising too quickly, prices increase. Otherwise, prices decrease to save costs. Task-level acceptance feedback is monitored. When acceptance for a task is unusually low, short-term price surges are triggered for that task alone.
Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA)
Food prep time is modeled with regression on historical durations for each merchant’s cuisine type, number of items, and real-time signals. Delivery time is more complex. A top-down model uses deep neural networks to predict total delivery time directly. The model learns from features like DP travel speed, location, time-of-day traffic, and building navigation overheads.
A bottom-up method is also possible, breaking the journey into sub-tasks (order acceptance time, pickup travel time, building entry time, etc.). However, errors can accumulate. A single end-to-end predictor often yields lower bias if sufficient data exists.
Balancing Supply and Demand
Large influxes of orders cause supply shortages, while low demand results in wasted DP effort. Pricing is the main lever, but other measures help. Geo-fencing merchants to smaller delivery radii can slow down new inflows temporarily. Pausing or reducing user promotions helps too. Over-supply is addressed by broadening merchant delivery scope and adding promotions.
Delivery Scope Design
Circular coverage can be overly simplistic. Isochrone-based zones factor in roads, traffic, and building layouts. Geographic data suggests the real travel distance for each potential customer’s location. Including this approach ensures that scope expansions maintain fast delivery times.
Illustrative Python Snippet for a Simple Matching Simulation
import numpy as np
# Suppose we have M orders and N DPs
# score_matrix is M x N, each entry is Score(i,j)
def assign_orders(score_matrix):
# This is a simplified Hungarian Algorithm approach
from scipy.optimize import linear_sum_assignment
# We convert the problem to cost by negating the scores
cost_matrix = -1 * score_matrix
row_ind, col_ind = linear_sum_assignment(cost_matrix)
# row_ind[i], col_ind[i] is the matched pair
return list(zip(row_ind, col_ind))
# Example usage:
M, N = 3, 3 # 3 orders, 3 DPs
scores = np.array([[10, 2, 5],
[2, 9, 1],
[6, 1, 8]])
assignments = assign_orders(scores)
print(assignments)
This sample demonstrates a global bipartite matching approach. A real implementation would integrate more complex features in the score function and handle real-time constraints.
Follow-up question 1
How do you incorporate the effects of distance, waiting time, and acceptance behavior into the matching score?
Explanation
Separate sub-models or heuristics quantify each factor. Distance-based travel time can come from a learned function with location and traffic variables. Waiting time can be derived from queue lengths. Acceptance behavior is learned from historical acceptance patterns: for instance, a logistic regression or neural network can predict the probability of acceptance for each order–DP pair. The final score is a weighted combination. Weights are fine-tuned through experiments. If acceptance probability is crucial, that term’s weight is increased to boost the chance that orders are quickly accepted.
Follow-up question 2
Why would you choose a top-down deep learning model for delivery ETA instead of a bottom-up approach?
Explanation
A single model can detect correlated factors in an end-to-end way. Bottom-up methods predict sub-task durations individually. Each sub-task error adds up, sometimes causing large final deviations. A deep network with enough data can capture road conditions, DP travel patterns, or building complexities in one pass. This approach often has better overall accuracy. If data is limited or interpretability is a priority, a bottom-up approach might be chosen to provide breakdowns of each sub-task.
Follow-up question 3
How do you ensure dynamic pricing does not upset loyal users or reduce order volume significantly?
Explanation
User impact is controlled by limiting price changes within acceptable ranges. Historical elasticity analysis shows how small price increases affect order volume. The model avoids raising prices aggressively if the forecasted user drop-off is too high. Gradual adjustments, micro-promotions, and stable baseline fees prevent user backlash. Monitoring real-time metrics (order dropouts, bounce rates) helps revert or soften pricing surges. This ensures satisfaction is maintained while balancing supply.
Follow-up question 4
Why would you replace circular delivery scopes with isochrone-based polygons?
Explanation
Circular zones ignore actual road networks. Customers inside a circle might require a circuitous route. Isochrone shapes account for real travel times, so identical distances on a road are included together. This avoids including areas with fast “as-the-crow-flies” distance but poor road access. Actual travel time polygons lead to more accurate coverage, consistent delivery performance, and fewer outliers in arrival time.
Follow-up question 5
How do you validate these solutions under real-time loads before production deployment?
Explanation
Offline simulations and replay of historical data confirm that the algorithms can handle peak volumes. Synthetic stress tests measure latency. Online A/B experiments release the new approach to a fraction of users. Observing assignment speed, acceptance rate, driver feedback, and user satisfaction indicates whether the solution meets targets. Gradual rollouts in different regions or time windows mitigate risk. Production logging then confirms real-world performance matches experimentation.
Follow-up question 6
What if your deep learning ETA model starts drifting over time due to changing traffic, new merchants, or user habits?
Explanation
Retraining frequency must keep pace with environment changes. Automated data pipelines refresh the training set daily or weekly. Weight-based adaptation or model fine-tuning reduces drift. Real-time feedback loops detect distribution shifts through error metrics. If errors exceed thresholds, the system triggers partial or full retraining. Integration with new merchant location data or updated road maps ensures consistent model quality.
Follow-up question 7
Why not rely solely on average historical statistics for each merchant’s preparation time?
Explanation
Averaging ignores day-of-week, surge hours, or unusual events. Sometimes different staff or peak days affect prep speed. Average-based predictions quickly become inaccurate. A regression model considers contextual factors (time, day, merchant’s typical queue length). It can also produce a confidence interval for adjusting dispatch or informing the DP. Real-time corrections further sharpen estimates if the restaurant is unusually busy.
Follow-up question 8
How do you minimize overhead costs while providing these advanced features?
Explanation
Cloud-based servers scale up or down dynamically. Lean modeling pipelines prevent heavy computations. Caching frequently used predictions or partial results reduces redundant processing. Efficient algorithms, such as the Hungarian or specialized maximum bipartite matching methods, allow real-time decisions. Careful microservice design localizes resource-intensive tasks. Periodic model retraining can be scheduled at off-peak times to avoid service interruptions.
Final Remarks
This structure integrates real-time bipartite matching, dynamic pricing, end-to-end ETA modeling, supply–demand forecasting, and personalized delivery scopes into a cohesive system. Clear data pipelines, rapid model deployment, and rigorous monitoring ensure the solution can handle sudden workload spikes.