ML Case-study Interview Question: Recommending Posts Using Embeddings and Implicit Feedback Signals
Browse all the ML Case-Studies here.
Case-Study question
A major professional networking platform wants to provide personalized recommendations of user-generated posts. Each post is associated with text (post content), user information (company, title, city), and feed (name and description). The platform lacks clear negative interaction data (such as explicit dislikes), so it cannot rely on fully supervised methods. How would you design and implement an embedding-based system that ranks and recommends relevant posts to users, using both text features and limited user-post interaction signals?
Clarifying details:
There is no strong negative signal beyond the absence of user interaction. The dataset contains user-post “like” interactions. The system must handle new posts and new users without learning from scratch. The team wants to incorporate widely used word embeddings (pretrained or fine-tuned), but they also want to explore learned embeddings (for example, via neural networks or graph-based approaches). The final model must run at scale and handle large amounts of data efficiently.
Detailed Solution
High-Level Overview
Train or fine-tune embeddings that represent users and posts in the same vector space. Compute similarity between a user embedding and candidate post embeddings to generate a ranked list. Focus on:
Combining textual features (post text, feed name, feed description) with user attributes (company, title, city).
Fine-tuning pretrained embeddings for better representation.
Optionally learning embeddings via neural networks (for example, a contrastive triplet loss approach) or graph-based approaches (for example, a Graph Convolutional Network).
Content Embeddings with Pretrained Models
Use pretrained models like GloVe or BERT. Extract word-level or sentence-level embeddings for each textual feature. Aggregate them to form an overall embedding.
Text features can include post text, feed name, feed description. User features can include user company, user title, city. If a feature does not apply (for example, a user has no post text), use a zero vector. After concatenating, apply dimensionality reduction (for example, Principal Components Analysis) to reduce noise and lower the final embedding dimension.
Incorporating Interaction Signals
Combine content embedding of users or posts with neighbor information. For a post embedding, consider the embeddings of the users who liked that post. For a user embedding, consider the embeddings of the posts that user liked. Weight or average them before finalizing the embedding.
Here, E_{content} is the concatenated text-derived embedding of the post, U is the set of users who liked the post, M is the number of those users, and beta is a scalar hyperparameter.
Here, E_{content} is the concatenated text-derived embedding of the user’s attributes, P is the set of posts that the user liked, N is the number of those posts, and alpha is a scalar hyperparameter.
Transfer Learning with BERT
Create a single “document” by concatenating user attributes, post text, feed name, and feed description. Fine-tune BERT on your specific corpus (for example, masked language modeling on your domain text). At inference, feed each “document” through BERT to get token embeddings. Pool these embeddings (for example, averaging the last layers) to obtain a single vector. Then reduce dimensionality if desired and optionally incorporate neighbor embeddings.
Learned Embeddings with Contrastive Triplet Loss
Train user and post embeddings using a “siamese” framework with two parallel networks that project user features and post features into a shared space. For each training instance, use:
Anchor: a user embedding.
Positive: a post the user actually liked.
Negative: a random post (preferably from the same feed or a set of “hard negatives”).
Compute the cosine distances between user-post pairs and optimize triplet loss to push positive pairs closer and negative pairs farther:
Here, d() represents a distance metric (for example, 1 - cosine similarity), and gamma is the margin.
Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN)
Build a user-post bipartite graph. Each user or post is a node, with edges marking “like” interactions. Gather a node’s own features and also pool neighbor features within K hops. Pass this pooled feature vector through neural layers to produce the final node embedding. Use contrastive triplet loss for training. Sample the node’s most relevant neighbors (for example, top T neighbors) to reduce computational cost.
Key Observations
A simpler GloVe-based system with manual neighbor aggregation can sometimes outperform deeper architectures if the data is not huge or if the model risks overfitting. Dimensionality reduction (for example, PCA to 128 components) can help performance by removing noisy or correlated features. Neural networks can learn complex relationships if there is sufficient data and carefully chosen negatives.
Follow-Up Question 1
How would you handle scalability issues in production when generating and serving embeddings for millions of users and posts?
Answer and Explanation: Batch process embeddings offline. Store final user and post embeddings in a key-value store (for example, user_id -> embedding, post_id -> embedding). When users open the application, retrieve their embedding by user_id, retrieve candidate posts’ embeddings, compute cosine similarities, and then rank. For new posts, embed them on the fly or in small micro-batches. For new users, generate an embedding with available user attributes or rely on cold-start logic until they interact with some posts.
Ensure the system caches frequently requested embeddings to reduce repetitive computation. Dimensionality reduction (128 or 256 dimensions) speeds up vector lookups. If real-time updates are necessary, define a streaming architecture that increments embeddings as new data arrives, but ensure not to recalculate everything from scratch.
Follow-Up Question 2
How do you ensure that the “hard negatives” used in training are truly informative and not false negatives?
Answer and Explanation: Focus on posts from bowls or feeds that a user has actually joined or browsed. Prefer top or popular posts in those feeds. This raises the likelihood that the user was exposed to them but chose not to interact, making them valid negatives. If you have impression logs or partial impression data, confirm that a user saw a post without reacting. Periodically refresh the negative sampling strategy to avoid model bias due to repeated sampling of the same negative examples.
Follow-Up Question 3
What are the biggest pitfalls when applying Principal Components Analysis and how do you mitigate them?
Answer and Explanation: One pitfall is losing important variation by choosing too few principal components. Another is ignoring that certain embeddings might encode non-linear relationships that PCA cannot capture well. Mitigate by analyzing variance explained by components, performing cross-validation on downstream tasks, and tuning the dimension to optimize your ranking metrics. Confirm you preserve enough semantic features. If the domain is highly non-linear, consider autoencoders or other non-linear dimensionality reduction methods and compare performance.
Follow-Up Question 4
How would you adapt if the platform eventually logs explicit negative signals or obtains new clickstream events?
Answer and Explanation: Switch to a more supervised pipeline. Introduce negative interactions in the objective and train a ranking model (for example, a pairwise or listwise approach). Replace or supplement the unsupervised embedding stage with a model that incorporates both positive and negative labels. Use a two-stage system if the dataset is massive, using learned embeddings for candidate retrieval and then a supervised ranker fine-tuned on explicit positives and negatives to order the final candidates.
Follow-Up Question 5
How do you handle completely new users who have zero engagement?
Answer and Explanation: Start with the user’s declared features (company, title, city). Generate an embedding from these attributes alone. Recommend top posts in relevant feeds or the nearest user cluster based on those attributes. After this user engages with some posts, update their embedding to incorporate actual interactions. This approach reduces cold-start issues by leveraging user metadata until there is enough behavioral data.
Follow-Up Question 6
Which fine-tuning strategies would you suggest for BERT to improve domain adaptation?
Answer and Explanation: Mask random tokens in your domain text, including feed names, job-related keywords, city names, etc. Use standard masked language modeling or next-sentence prediction on the combined user–post feed text. Train with small learning rates to avoid catastrophic forgetting of the original language model knowledge. Periodically evaluate on domain validation sets to verify that embeddings maintain contextual understanding and domain alignment.
Follow-Up Question 7
How would you evaluate the system before deployment?
Answer and Explanation: Train on historical data. Split time-based to avoid leakage from future interactions. Generate user and post embeddings from the training period. Retrieve top K recommended posts for each user in a test window. Compare these top-K sets to the actual posts the user liked in the test window. Calculate Precision@K and Recall@K. Run offline experiments on different embedding sizes, negative sampling approaches, or dimensionality reduction. Once satisfied with offline metrics, run an online experiment (for example, A/B test) to measure user engagement, reaction rates, and time on site.
Follow-Up Question 8
When do Graph Convolutional Networks become overkill?
Answer and Explanation: In scenarios with insufficient user-post interactions or limited user attributes, deeper graph layers can overfit quickly. If you can get a good metric boost with simpler embeddings (for example, GloVe or BERT with partial user-post aggregation), the overhead and hyperparameter tuning for GCN might not be worthwhile. GCNs shine when the data is large, the graph is dense, and the relationship structure is key. Otherwise, simpler approaches can often match or exceed performance.
Follow-Up Question 9
Why does the system sometimes prefer simpler linear layers with PCA over deeper neural networks?
Answer and Explanation: A large neural architecture might overfit user-post interactions that are not truly representative of unseen data. Simpler methods like PCA-based embeddings with minimal additional layers reduce variance and can generalize better. They also train faster, require fewer tuning parameters, and are easier to update. If the simpler pipeline already meets performance targets, there might be no immediate need for more complex architectures until data scale or complexity grows.
Follow-Up Question 10
Could this embedding-based method integrate smoothly with a final ranking algorithm that uses more features?
Answer and Explanation: Yes. Use embedding similarity for fast candidate retrieval. Pass a smaller set of candidates into a second-phase model (for example, gradient boosted trees or a deep ranking network) that uses extra signals (recent user behavior, session context, real-time popularity trends). The two-stage setup leverages the efficient nature of dense embeddings while still exploiting a richer feature set and advanced ranking logic afterward.
Follow-Up Question 11
What if you must handle real-time events where posts gain popularity quickly and embeddings become outdated?
Answer and Explanation: Periodically refresh post embeddings to incorporate new user interactions or reaction counts. Keep user embeddings updated in a similar way. Incremental embeddings or micro-batched updates can avoid full retraining. If real-time re-embedding is expensive, store features separately from the main embedding and add real-time signals (like reaction counts) as a re-ranking factor after the embedding-based candidate retrieval stage. This layered approach balances real-time responsiveness with embedding stability.
Follow-Up Question 12
What are some limitations of purely unsupervised or self-supervised embedding approaches?
Answer and Explanation: No direct control over how negative examples are constructed, risking the inclusion of false negatives. Interaction signals might remain incomplete without explicit skip/ignore logs. There is also no strong notion of user satisfaction beyond a “like,” which might not capture full preference. Integrating partial supervised signals or multi-task objectives (for example, predicting dwell time or user feedback) can yield better alignment of recommendations with actual user preferences.