ML Interview Q Series: As a Facebook data scientist, how would you reduce harmful ads despite their high revenue contribution?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

It is vital to uphold user trust and platform integrity by mitigating deceptive or problematic ads. Even though there could be significant revenue generated by such ads, allowing them to proliferate undermines the long-term sustainability of the platform. Users are more inclined to trust and remain loyal to a platform where content quality is preserved, so tackling the problem of fake ads directly benefits long-term business metrics.

A straightforward approach to detecting and curbing fake ads involves formulating a classification or ranking pipeline that sorts valid ads from questionable ones. Multiple data sources can be harnessed, including textual descriptions, images, advertiser histories, user feedback, and engagement patterns. A blend of supervised and unsupervised strategies often provides better coverage of emerging threats.

In a supervised classification setting, a useful formula for optimizing a binary classifier (fake vs. genuine) is cross-entropy loss, often referred to as logistic loss in a binary scenario:

Where m is the number of training samples, y_i is 1 if the ad is labeled fake and 0 if it is genuine, x_i represents the features for the i-th ad (like text, image embeddings, advertiser metadata, etc.), h_theta(x_i) is the model’s predicted probability of the ad being fake, and theta are the parameters of the classifier. Minimizing J(theta) drives the model to assign correct probabilities for the label of each ad.

By combining textual signals (e.g., suspicious claims, typical “red flag” keywords, spammy language), visual signals (image tampering, logos of well-known brands used deceptively, poor-quality design), and advertiser-level signals (brand-new advertisers, advertisers with a history of user complaints), the system can more effectively detect fraudulent ads. Crowd-sourced or user-reported feedback is also a strong indicator. A typical pipeline might incorporate the following:

Collect raw data from historical ads, user reports, and known fraudulent cases. Extract features from text, images, and advertiser metadata. Train supervised models on labeled examples (fake vs. legitimate ads). Deploy the model to flag incoming ads in real time or near real time. Periodically retrain and update the model with the newest trends and known malicious patterns.

While detection is central, deterrence measures also matter. Setting stricter enforcement policies and verifying advertiser identities can drastically reduce the creation of new suspicious accounts. This combined approach (machine learning detection plus policy enforcement) strikes a balance between monetization goals and platform integrity.

Practical Implementation Details

A practical setup might rely on a pipeline that processes ads before they go live. Features can be extracted for text (e.g., transformer-based embeddings from a model such as BERT or DistilBERT), images (e.g., CNN-based embeddings), and additional signals like the advertiser’s reputation score. The classifier can be trained using Python’s ecosystem (PyTorch or TensorFlow), and the final system might look like:

import torch
import torch.nn as nn
from transformers import DistilBertModel

class AdClassifier(nn.Module):
    def __init__(self, num_features=300, hidden_dim=128):
        super(AdClassifier, self).__init__()
        self.text_embedding = DistilBertModel.from_pretrained("distilbert-base-uncased")
        self.linear = nn.Linear(num_features, hidden_dim)
        self.classifier = nn.Linear(hidden_dim, 1)
        self.sigmoid = nn.Sigmoid()

    def forward(self, text_tokens, additional_features):
        # Extract text embeddings (CLS token)
        text_outputs = self.text_embedding(**text_tokens)
        text_vec = text_outputs.last_hidden_state[:, 0, :]  # [batch_size, hidden_dim_text]

        # Combine text with additional features
        x = torch.cat([text_vec, additional_features], dim=1)
        x = self.linear(x)
        x = torch.relu(x)
        x = self.classifier(x)
        x = self.sigmoid(x)
        return x

# Example usage:
# text_tokens: tokenized text from the ad
# additional_features: a vector representing advertiser credibility, image features, etc.
# output: probability of fake ad

Once an incoming ad is flagged by this classifier, it either goes into a review queue or is instantly rejected, depending on the severity of the signals. Over time, suspicious patterns evolve, so the model needs continuous retraining on newly collected data. Additionally, a robust feedback mechanism is essential to capture new fake-ad types that evade existing detection methods.

Strategies to Handle Evolving Threats

Malicious advertisers often adapt tactics as detection improves. Techniques to handle these include anomaly detection methods such as autoencoders or clustering. Unsupervised approaches can detect deviations from normal advertising distribution. Real-time updates or near real-time feature extraction are important to ensure minimal deployment delay.

Periodic model refresh with data from newly uncovered fraud patterns. Recurrent neural network or transformer-based systems for textual content that shifts rapidly (e.g., changing product descriptions or brand names). Computer vision models that adapt to new forms of misleading images.

Having a dynamic rules engine that complements the ML model is helpful. When the model indicates borderline suspicion, a set of business logic rules can provide extra checks based on brand usage, suspicious URLs, or user reviews.

Ethical and Business Considerations

There is an inherent tension between short-term revenue gains from questionable ads and the long-term sustainability that stems from user trust. By incorporating strong detection, transparent enforcement policies, and user-friendly reporting mechanisms, the platform stands to minimize fake ads and preserve authenticity.

Limiting these ads protects users from scams and misinformation, reducing the risk of reputation damage. That reputation is crucial for retaining advertisers who want to appear alongside high-quality content.

Potential Follow-up Questions

How do you handle highly imbalanced data where most ads are legitimate?

Imbalanced data is typical, with a small fraction of ads being fake. Techniques include oversampling minority classes (e.g., SMOTE), undersampling, and using class-weighted loss functions. It is essential to pick metrics such as precision, recall, or F1-score to accurately gauge performance rather than accuracy alone, since accuracy can be misleading in highly skewed data.

What if malicious advertisers keep changing strategies to circumvent the model?

Continuously updating the model is necessary. A combination of real-time feedback loops, adaptive learning techniques, and a robust feature engineering pipeline helps capture new evolving patterns. Anomaly detection methods that flag data points not seen in training can serve as an early warning system, prompting deeper investigation.

Could a strict ad-blocking policy lead to significant revenue loss?

In the short term, stricter policies may remove some revenue. However, focusing on platform integrity protects long-term revenue because trust can be maintained. Advertisers appreciate platforms that promote a healthy ecosystem, and users are more likely to interact with legitimate ads in a trustworthy environment. The long-term brand value often surpasses any immediate losses.

How do you ensure the model remains fair and does not unintentionally block genuine small advertisers?

Fairness can be maintained by using unbiased training data and monitoring rejection rates across different advertiser segments. If certain groups are disproportionately affected, data scientists can refine features, incorporate more training data from underrepresented segments, or adjust model thresholds to reduce unintended discrimination while still maintaining high efficacy.

What metrics would you prioritize to measure success?

Precision and recall at meaningful operational thresholds, especially when dealing with suspicious ads that could damage user trust, are paramount. AUC (area under the ROC curve) can provide a holistic picture of classifier performance. Tracking user complaint rates, brand safety scores, and the volume of content requiring manual review are also valuable for evaluating ongoing model effectiveness.

By merging strong machine learning pipelines, adaptive policies, and continuous monitoring, the prevalence of fake or deceptive ads can be significantly reduced while preserving user confidence and sustaining a viable long-term revenue strategy.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How would you address false positives where legitimate ads get mistakenly flagged?

A false positive indicates that a legitimate ad was incorrectly classified as fraudulent, leading to potential loss of revenue and dissatisfaction among genuine advertisers. Several strategies can be employed to address this:

• Threshold Tuning and Custom Scoring Setting a classification threshold too low or too high can create a flood of false positives or false negatives. You can calibrate the model by examining the precision-recall tradeoff and selecting a threshold that strikes a suitable balance for your business objectives. Periodic reviews of the threshold might be necessary as data distribution changes over time.

• Human-in-the-Loop Reviews For borderline cases, you can route flagged ads to a human review team. Although this introduces overhead, it can ensure minimal disruption for legitimate advertisers. Over time, these manual reviews help refine the model’s feature weighting by providing updated training examples, particularly for the borderline classifications.

• Ad Lifecycle Management You can build a pipeline where ads suspected of fraud are placed in a short “quarantine” phase to collect user feedback. If user engagement suggests the ad is authentic, it can be reclassified automatically. This approach allows an adaptive system that reduces human intervention unless absolutely necessary.

• Post-Detection Logging and Analysis Maintaining a log of flagged ads that turned out to be false positives can help you pinpoint features or patterns that contribute to erroneous classifications. Regularly updating your feature set to correct these misjudgments will incrementally enhance precision over time.

A major pitfall occurs when lowering the strictness to cut down false positives ends up increasing false negatives. Carefully monitoring both types of errors is necessary, especially in a highly regulated environment.

How do you handle advertisers who have multiple accounts and switch between them to evade detection?

Repeat offenders often create new advertiser profiles once a single profile is flagged. This behavior complicates detection. A robust approach involves:

• Centralized Entity Linking Use a graph-based or embedding-based solution to link closely related advertiser accounts. If two or more accounts share suspiciously similar payment methods, IP addresses, or device fingerprints, you can group them as a “cluster” for cumulative scrutiny.

• Behavioral Pattern Analysis Analyze usage timing, posting frequencies, creative styles, or product categories. If the same suspicious pattern emerges across multiple newly created accounts, the system automatically increases the risk score of those accounts.

• Dynamic Risk Scoring Establish dynamic risk scores for advertisers based on a combination of historical performance, user reports, and similarity to known fraudulent profiles. When a new account has a high correlation with existing fraudulent patterns, it can be flagged even before any ad is posted.

• Policy Deterrence Tie advertiser accounts to verifiable details (e.g., business registration documents, phone numbers). This step helps ensure that individuals cannot quickly produce a series of anonymous accounts without detection. The trade-off is increased onboarding friction, which might deter some legitimate advertisers, so calibrating this approach is essential.

A common pitfall here is an over-reliance on just IP address or device fingerprint, which can be easily spoofed. Combining a diverse range of attributes, both digital and offline, improves the system’s resilience against adversarial behavior.

How do you incorporate real-time user feedback into your detection system?

Ads on a fast-paced social platform require a continuous feedback loop:

• Live Reporting Mechanism Create user-friendly reporting options for ads suspected to be problematic. This feedback enters a real-time pipeline where reports are aggregated and used to update risk scores for the advertiser and the specific ad.

• Streaming Analytics Adopt a streaming architecture (e.g., using Apache Kafka or AWS Kinesis) to process incoming user reports or click behaviors as they happen. This architecture allows the model or a secondary detection layer to act swiftly, preventing further exposure of flagged ads.

• Model Retraining and Online Learning Periodically or continuously retrain your model with newly labeled data from user reports. While batch retraining may be adequate at lower scales, advanced setups may use online learning algorithms that adapt to fresh data in real time, narrowing the window in which malicious ads remain undetected.

• User Feedback Quality Check User feedback can be noisy or malicious. Some genuine advertisers might be targeted by competitors who submit false reports. To handle this, weigh user feedback based on user reputation scores or historical accuracy of reports.

A subtle edge case arises when malicious users try to game the feedback system by mass-reporting legitimate ads. Implementing a robust trust or reputation measure for user feedback helps guard against orchestrated smear campaigns.

What considerations go into designing the data pipeline to handle large-scale ad volumes?

Platforms like Facebook can handle millions or billions of ad impressions daily. To manage this scale:

• Distributed Computing Use distributed storage (e.g., HDFS, cloud-based object storage) and distributed processing frameworks (e.g., Spark, Flink) to handle high-volume data. This ensures parallel ingestion of new data (e.g., ad text, images, user feedback) and parallel feature extraction.

• Streaming vs. Batch A hybrid approach often works best. Real-time streaming detection can flag obviously malicious ads and reduce exposure risk, while daily or weekly batch processing tasks can perform resource-intensive feature engineering and model training. The synergy ensures minimal latency for detection while continuously improving the underlying model.

• Efficient Feature Engineering Feature computation needs to be optimized. Caching results from heavy compute tasks (like image embedding generation) speeds up data processing. Feature stores can centralize curated features to ensure consistency and reusability across multiple models.

• Scalable Model Serving Inference at scale might require optimized model serving solutions that can handle high request throughput (e.g., using ONNX for faster inference, specialized GPU or TPU hardware when necessary). Autoscaling infrastructure is particularly critical during peak hours.

A risk in large-scale pipelines is that incremental changes in data distribution or infrastructure complexity can lead to bottlenecks or subtle breakages. Continuous monitoring of system performance and model predictions helps detect anomalies or drifts before they cause widespread disruption.

How would you evaluate the long-term impact of blocking certain ad categories on user engagement and revenue?

Even if ads are questionable, they might attract user clicks. Over-aggressive blocking could have complex ripple effects:

• Longitudinal A/B Testing Rather than blocking certain categories outright, use controlled experiments to track the effect on user engagement and revenue over extended periods. This helps in quantifying the trade-off between immediate ad clicks and potential user dissatisfaction or churn caused by exposure to misleading content.

• User-Centric Metrics Monitor user engagement, time spent on site, churn rates, and brand sentiment alongside short-term revenue metrics. An honest ad ecosystem may encourage users to stay longer, thus offsetting potential revenue dips from blocked ads.

• Advertiser Retention and Expansion Legitimate advertisers may be more willing to invest if the platform is known for enforcing quality. Track how many top-tier advertisers remain or expand their campaigns. A stable, high-quality ad environment often attracts more reputable brands over time.

• Holistic Value Calculation Calculate the net present value of user trust. Users who encounter fake or harmful ads may lose confidence in the platform, resulting in long-term decline in usage and revenue. Factoring in these intangible costs can justify stricter ad policies.

The tricky edge case here is new or borderline legitimate ad categories. Blocking them too aggressively might discourage genuine innovation or smaller advertisers. Adopting a nuanced approach that carefully monitors analytics is critical to avoid harming healthy growth opportunities.

What strategy would you adopt if malicious ads display seemingly harmless external websites but switch to harmful content after initial review?

Known as “cloaking,” this tactic exploits the gap between initial ad review and live content:

• Live Content Crawlers Periodic re-crawling and re-checking of landing pages after the ad goes live can detect content changes. This can be automated to happen at different intervals, ensuring malicious actors cannot bypass a simple single-time verification.

• Behavioral Tracking In addition to scanning the final URL, monitor click behavior post-ad engagement. If user activity abruptly changes or users report suspicious content after clicking, you can trigger a deeper inspection of the landing page in near real time.

• Multi-Layer Classification Assign risk scores not only to the ad creative (text, images) but also to the advertiser’s website, domain age, hosting details, SSL certificates, and any third-party trackers found on the site. Potential malicious patterns (e.g., rapid domain ownership changes) raise red flags.

• Anomaly Detection Use time-series analysis or streaming analytics to identify spikes in user complaints or bounce rates immediately after the ad is published. A sudden surge of negative user signals is a strong indicator that the landing page content may have changed.

A subtle pitfall is over-reliance on static snapshots, which can be easily fooled by sophisticated cloaking techniques that serve benign content only to known crawlers. Incorporating real user experience signals from distributed vantage points is essential to catch well-camouflaged ads.

How do you ensure that your detection model remains explainable for audits and regulatory compliance?

Certain industries (e.g., finance, healthcare) or certain regions require transparency in automated decision-making:

• Model Interpretability Tools Implement methods like LIME or SHAP to provide local explanations of a model’s output. This is particularly relevant when advertisers request insight into why their ad was flagged.

• Simplified Surrogate Models Use interpretable surrogate models (e.g., decision trees) to approximate complex deep learning classifiers. While surrogates are not fully accurate representations, they can offer a rough sense of important features influencing the model’s decisions.

• Feature Attribution and Logging Maintain detailed logs of which features contributed to the final risk score. If an advertiser challenges a decision, you can reference these logs to clarify the rationale behind the classification.

• Incremental Model Updates and Version Control Consistently manage and version your models. Document each model version’s training data, hyperparameters, and performance metrics. This practice allows clear auditing paths, especially important for legal or compliance disputes.

A potential pitfall arises when you attempt to enforce purely black-box methods in jurisdictions with strict transparency requirements. Failing to offer any explanation for why an ad was blocked can lead to user distrust or legal challenges.

How would you maintain an effective labeling strategy given that labeling fraudulent ads is time-consuming and may require specialized expertise?

High-quality labels are critical for supervised learning, but labeling fraudulent ads can be costly:

• Labeling with Expert Review Panels While crowdsourced labeling is useful for general classification, fraudulent ads often demand specialized knowledge (e.g., domain-specific scam recognition). A two-tier labeling system could involve a broad crowd for initial filtering, followed by experts for finer classification.

• Active Learning Use an active learning loop where the model queries only the most uncertain or high-risk samples for expert labeling. This reduces labeling workload by focusing on examples that can most improve the model’s decision boundary.

• Semi-Supervised and Weakly Supervised Methods In scenarios with limited labeled examples, semi-supervised learning can leverage large amounts of unlabeled data to refine decision boundaries. Weak supervision (heuristics or domain rules) can generate noisy labels at scale, which are then refined via smaller expert-labeled sets.

• Continuous Label Updates Fraud tactics evolve quickly, so a static labeling approach becomes stale. Consistently incorporate fresh examples into the labeled set and re-check older labels if the domain context or guidelines change. Stale labels can degrade model performance over time.

One challenge is the domain drift scenario, where an ad deemed legitimate a month ago could become suspicious under new policies or novel fraudulent patterns. Keeping labeling guidelines updated ensures a consistent approach to dynamic market conditions.