ML Interview Q Series: How can we use ML to match user queries with relevant answers from an existing FAQ list?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

A system that returns the most relevant FAQ answer to a user’s query typically involves converting the query and the FAQ entries into a representation that captures their semantic content. Afterward, it measures similarity or distance between these representations to select the most appropriate match. Various methods exist, ranging from simpler term-frequency approaches to advanced neural network embeddings.

Classic Term-Frequency Approaches

Traditional methods might involve creating sparse vector representations such as Bag-of-Words, TF-IDF (Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency), or count-based embeddings. These methods treat each document (query or FAQ) as a vector in a high-dimensional space, where each dimension corresponds to a unique token or n-gram. The relevance between the query vector and an FAQ vector can be measured with a metric such as cosine similarity or Euclidean distance, then the FAQ with the highest similarity is returned.

Embedding-Based and Transformer Approaches

Recent advances in deep learning suggest using dense vector representations generated by neural networks. These embeddings often come from transformer-based architectures such as BERT, RoBERTa, or Sentence-BERT. The goal is to represent each text (query and FAQ) as a vector in a lower-dimensional space that encodes semantic information. After we obtain these embeddings, the matching process again can rely on a similarity score.

Core Mathematical Concept: Cosine Similarity

A common way to measure similarity in both classic and modern embedding approaches is cosine similarity. This measure is central to many retrieval tasks:

Here, u and v are vector representations (for example, embeddings) of the query and the FAQ text. The term u dot v is the dot product of the two vectors in plain text form, computed by summing the element-wise products of their components. The quantities ||u|| and ||v|| represent the Euclidean norms (square root of the sum of squared components) of vectors u and v respectively. The cosine similarity ranges from –1 to +1, where +1 indicates perfect alignment (the two vectors point in the same direction) and 0 indicates orthogonality (no correlation).

Supervised vs. Unsupervised Techniques

In an unsupervised scenario, no labeled “correct” matches exist. One might simply embed each FAQ and the user’s query, then retrieve the closest embedding. In supervised methods, a training set of (query, FAQ) pairs is created, and a neural network is trained to learn embeddings that bring matched pairs closer in the vector space while pushing mismatched pairs farther apart. This can be achieved via contrastive learning, Siamese networks (like Sentence-BERT), or fine-tuning a transformer on question-answer pairs.

Clustering and Dimensionality Reduction

When the FAQ list is large, dimensionality reduction or clustering can improve efficiency. Techniques such as PCA (Principal Component Analysis) or approximate nearest neighbor search methods (like FAISS or Annoy) can speed up retrieval in high-dimensional embedding spaces. The system might also group similar FAQs into clusters to reduce search complexity.

Practical Python Example

Below is a simple example of a pipeline using a transformer model for embeddings and cosine similarity for FAQ retrieval. This uses the Sentence-BERT library, though in actual practice, you might select any suitable embedding model:

# Install sentence-transformers if needed:
# pip install sentence-transformers

from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer, util

# Load a pre-trained sentence transformer model
model = SentenceTransformer('all-MiniLM-L6-v2')

# Our sample FAQ list
faqs = [
    "What is your return policy?",
    "How can I reset my password?",
    "Where can I track my order?",
    "Do you offer 24/7 customer support?"
]

# Embedding the FAQ list
faq_embeddings = model.encode(faqs)

def get_closest_faq(user_query, faqs, faq_embeddings):
    query_embedding = model.encode(user_query)
    # Compute similarity with all FAQs
    similarities = util.cos_sim(query_embedding, faq_embeddings)
    # Get the index of the best match
    best_match_idx = similarities.argmax()
    return faqs[best_match_idx]

# Example usage
user_query = "I forgot my login details. How do I get back into my account?"
best_faq = get_closest_faq(user_query, faqs, faq_embeddings)
print("Most relevant FAQ:", best_faq)

This approach encodes both the user query and each FAQ entry into dense vectors, calculates their similarity with cos_sim, and returns the FAQ corresponding to the highest similarity score.

Potential Pitfalls and Real-World Considerations

When implementing an FAQ retrieval system, it is essential to account for domain-specific language and jargon. Off-the-shelf embeddings might not adequately capture specialized vocabulary (for example, medical or legal). Fine-tuning or domain adaptation of language models can yield more accurate embeddings. Handling out-of-vocabulary (OOV) tokens also matters when older or simpler text representations (like TF-IDF) are used.

Data imbalance can occur if certain FAQs are more frequently asked than others, skewing the distribution of training examples in supervised approaches. Evaluating the system requires careful curation of validation/test queries that represent the full diversity of user questions.

What if we have multiple FAQ entries that are closely matched?

You might return the top-k results and then use a secondary re-ranking strategy. Alternatively, you can use threshold-based filtering on the similarity score to decide if a certain FAQ is relevant enough. If multiple FAQs exceed the similarity threshold, you might show them all to let the user pick which is most relevant.

How do we handle semantically equivalent but lexically different queries?

Transformer-based embedding approaches excel at capturing semantic similarity, even when the lexical overlap is minimal. Models such as BERT or Sentence-BERT map equivalent meaning to similar vector spaces. For example, “I need to recover my password” and “How do I reset my password?” might have high similarity, despite different wording.

Are there situations where simpler methods still suffice?

Yes, if the domain is very narrow or if the queries often match FAQ text exactly, a well-tuned TF-IDF approach may yield strong performance with minimal computational overhead. This is especially true when the number of FAQs is small and the distribution of user queries is not very diverse in language use.

How can we measure system performance?

One can collect a set of user queries along with their correct or “gold” FAQ matches. Metrics such as accuracy, precision/recall, or mean reciprocal rank (MRR) can measure how effectively the system finds the correct FAQ. Alternatively, using average precision or NDCG (Normalized Discounted Cumulative Gain) can better assess top-k performance when multiple FAQs may be relevant.

Could we improve performance by combining multiple features?

FAQ retrieval can benefit from hybrid approaches. You may combine neural embeddings with additional signals, such as metadata (e.g., category tags or popularity metrics). If a question is about “payment methods,” and you have categories that highlight certain key terms or domain-specific features, merging these signals with neural embeddings can yield more precise matches.

What about handling user typos or incomplete queries?

Preprocessing and language-model embeddings do help reduce the impact of typos, but specialized spell-correction or fuzzy matching algorithms can further improve robustness. Tools such as a domain-adapted spell checker or phonetic similarity checkers can also mitigate issues from typographical errors.

How might we handle updating or expanding the FAQ list?

When new FAQs are added, embedding them once more is straightforward. If the FAQ set becomes very large, indexing with approximate nearest neighbor search libraries (e.g., FAISS) speeds up retrieval. Regularly re-embedding and re-indexing ensures the system stays up to date.

These are some of the core strategies and nuances when designing an FAQ matching system. By combining quality embeddings, a suitable similarity metric, and robust data handling, one can develop a chatbot that is both accurate and efficient in suggesting the best FAQ answers for user queries.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How can we handle multilingual queries or queries that come in a different language than our FAQ content?

One potential challenge arises when users submit questions in languages that your FAQ resource does not cover. A typical approach involves first detecting the language of the query using a language identification model (e.g., fastText or a transformer-based language classifier). Once the language is identified, consider these possibilities:

• Machine Translation: If your FAQ database is in a single language (for instance, English), you can translate the user’s query from the source language to English using a neural machine translation model (like MarianMT, M2M100, or commercial translation APIs). After translation, embed the translated query with the same model used for the FAQs. A major pitfall is the accumulation of translation errors that can degrade the final similarity match. In practice, domain-specific terms may translate poorly, leading to mismatches.

• Separate Models Per Language: If your user base communicates in multiple languages frequently, you might maintain a multilingual embedding model (for example, multilingual BERT). These models can generate embeddings in a shared vector space for different languages. However, domain-specific jargon in multiple languages can be a blind spot if the model has not seen enough training examples for those terms.

• Scaling Concerns: Adding multiple languages raises complexity. For smaller systems, a single multilingual model plus a translator might suffice. But for large systems serving many languages, managing performance and memory usage can be cumbersome, and you may need specialized indexing strategies for multilingual embeddings.

Potential pitfalls: • Translation can significantly alter user intent if the translation model is not domain-adapted. • Multilingual models often perform unevenly across languages; lower-resource languages might produce less accurate embeddings. • Users can mix languages in a single query (code-switching), which complicates both translation and embedding-based approaches.

How should we respond when a user question falls outside the scope of the FAQs?

Even a well-structured FAQ system will occasionally receive queries irrelevant to existing content. Key strategies:

• Threshold-Based Rejection: Set a threshold for the similarity score. If no FAQ answer’s similarity exceeds that threshold, inform the user that the system cannot find a relevant match. This approach requires careful tuning of the threshold to minimize false positives (matching irrelevant content) and false negatives (rejecting truly relevant FAQs).

• Transfer to Human Support: In many business environments, unanswered queries can be routed to human agents or specialized help desk software, ensuring user satisfaction when the FAQ bot fails to understand a question.

• Fine-Tuned Classifier: You could train a classifier that detects whether a question matches any of the known FAQ clusters. If it falls outside all clusters, you redirect the user to alternative support channels.

Potential pitfalls: • Setting the threshold too high can cause excessive rejections. Setting it too low can cause spurious matches that frustrate users. • Training a separate “out-of-scope” classifier requires labeled data for both in-scope and out-of-scope questions, which is not always trivial to collect.

How do we handle extremely large FAQ repositories, possibly containing tens of thousands or even millions of entries?

When dealing with massive FAQ libraries, computational and storage considerations become paramount:

• Approximate Nearest Neighbor (ANN) Search: Libraries such as FAISS (Facebook AI Similarity Search), Annoy, or ScaNN allow you to perform rapid approximate lookups in high-dimensional embedding spaces. They reduce retrieval time from linear to sublinear complexity. However, these methods can produce approximate rather than exact matches, sometimes returning near hits rather than the perfect match.

• Hierarchical Clustering or Pre-Filtering: For example, you might cluster FAQs by topic or category, then search only within the relevant cluster. This step reduces the number of embeddings you need to compare against the query. The challenge is maintaining accurate clustering when new FAQs are continuously added.

• Scaling Hardware and Memory: Large-scale embeddings can demand significant memory. Solutions may include storing embeddings on disk in compressed formats, using GPU-based or distributed setups for real-time queries, or employing caching strategies where frequently accessed FAQs are in fast storage.

Potential pitfalls: • ANN methods require parameter tuning to balance speed and recall. In a high-stakes FAQ environment, missing the correct answer can be worse than returning a close (but incorrect) match, so you must test carefully. • Overly coarse clustering can direct queries into the wrong group, undermining system performance.

How do we handle domain-specific synonyms or jargon that do not exist in common language models?

In specialized fields (e.g., medicine, law, aviation), standard embeddings may not capture domain-specific expressions or acronyms. Several solutions:

• Domain Fine-Tuning: Start with a general embedding model (like BERT) and fine-tune it on domain-relevant texts (journals, documentation). This approach helps the embeddings learn specialized terms, drastically improving accuracy.

• Synonym Dictionaries or Ontologies: Supplement the embedding-based method with a curated dictionary of domain synonyms. When a user’s query contains a known acronym, you can expand it before embedding. Another example is merging synonyms or near-synonyms into the same token or embedding. This approach requires continuous maintenance as new jargon emerges.

• Hybrid Approaches: Combine standard embeddings with symbolic knowledge or concept graphs (like UMLS in the medical domain). The system can use both neural embeddings and structured relational knowledge to enhance similarity decisions.

Potential pitfalls: • Fine-tuning can cause catastrophic forgetting of general language understanding if not done with caution. • Building a synonym dictionary is labor-intensive and prone to missing niche or newly introduced terms. • Over-fitting to domain text might degrade performance when more general queries are asked.

How do we incorporate feedback loops from users who say an answer is incorrect or unhelpful?

A robust FAQ system improves over time by integrating user feedback:

• Active Learning: Track queries that users explicitly mark as unhelpful or that frequently trigger dissatisfaction metrics (e.g., repeated visits or low time-on-page). Those queries can be used as training examples for a fine-tuned model to better distinguish correct vs. incorrect matches.

• Re-Ranking Mechanism: When a user corrects the system by selecting a different FAQ, treat that selection as a positive example for future training or re-ranking logic. This approach personalizes results if certain user segments systematically prefer certain FAQs.

• Automated Logging and Analysis: Collect logs of (query, recommended FAQ, user rating) to identify patterns. If a particular FAQ is consistently rated poorly, you might revise or expand that FAQ entry or add new entries that more precisely address user intent.

Potential pitfalls: • Data quality: Some users may ignore rating prompts or provide random feedback, so a robust system should filter low-quality feedback. • Overfitting: Over-updating based on a small subset of user feedback can degrade performance for the majority of users.

How do we ensure system fairness and avoid embedding biases in an FAQ matching system?

Language models are known to capture and sometimes amplify societal biases from the corpora they were trained on. While this is not typically the main focus of an FAQ chatbot, there are scenarios where biased embeddings could affect user interactions:

• Bias in FAQ Matching: A system might consistently prefer certain topics or phrasing over others if the training data or domain adaptation process skewed certain terms. This could surface if your user base is diverse and some language styles are underrepresented.

• Monitoring and Mitigation: You can occasionally audit retrieval results with a balanced set of user queries (representing various demographics, writing styles, or specialized needs). Additionally, if the domain demands it, explore debiasing strategies (e.g., removing specific bias dimensions from embeddings).

• Transparency and Correction: Provide a way for users or administrators to flag suspected bias or systematically incorrect matches. This feedback can guide targeted retraining or rule-based overrides.

Potential pitfalls: • Over-correction might degrade system performance for legitimate uses of certain terminology. • Lack of representative data can make it difficult to even detect subtle biases.

What factors should we consider when deciding between building a system in-house versus using an off-the-shelf FAQ platform?

• Control Over Customization: In-house solutions grant maximum control over domain adaptation, data handling, and advanced features like custom reranking or specialized embeddings. Off-the-shelf platforms may impose constraints on how you can fine-tune or interpret the model.

• Resource Availability: Creating an in-house system requires data scientists, ML engineers, labeling resources, and possibly specialized hardware for large-scale embeddings or fine-tuning. Off-the-shelf solutions reduce the engineering burden but can be costly and limit customization.

• Data Privacy and Compliance: Some industries (healthcare, finance) may have strict rules about user data. An off-the-shelf solution might store data on external servers you do not fully control. Building in-house can help ensure compliance, but the overhead to maintain secure infrastructure is significant.

• Scalability Requirements: Off-the-shelf platforms often manage the back-end scaling, so if your query volume spikes, you rely on them to handle it. An in-house system can be tailored to your exact throughput and latency constraints, but requires deeper expertise to optimize.

Potential pitfalls: • Vendor Lock-In: Relying on a closed-source solution may cause difficulty switching providers or exporting data in the future. • Over-engineering an internal solution may divert resources from core business needs if your use case could be served by simpler methods.

How can we maintain consistency of answers when there are overlapping or redundant questions in the FAQ?

Over time, organizations often create multiple FAQ entries that address very similar or even identical issues in slightly different language. This can lead to confusion or inconsistent search results:

• Deduplication: Periodically scan the FAQ database for near-duplicate or semantically similar entries. Merge or remove duplicates to simplify the system and maintain a single source of truth. This can be done by clustering the FAQ embeddings and finding extremely high-similarity nodes.

• FAQ Versioning: In some cases, an organization might have versioned policies or multiple answer variants that differ only in minor details (e.g., region-based shipping policies). Tagging or labeling these differences helps ensure the correct version is served. The user might be prompted to specify their region or context to disambiguate.

• Internal Linking or References: If truly distinct entries still overlap heavily, consider cross-referencing them. This might mean “For a more detailed explanation, see FAQ #X,” or merging them into a single, comprehensive entry covering all related details.

Potential pitfalls: • Automatic merging or deduplication can destroy essential nuances if the system fails to recognize subtle differences. • Having multiple near-identical FAQ entries can degrade retrieval performance, especially if it is unclear which version best fits the user’s context.

How can we handle sensitive or potentially harmful queries?

Although FAQ bots are usually benign, users might occasionally ask questions that involve self-harm, medical emergencies, or other urgent issues outside the FAQ scope:

• Policy for Escalation: Define clear rules in your system for recognizing sensitive queries (e.g., mentions of suicidal intent, severe emergencies). Once detected, escalate to human intervention or provide emergency contact information rather than attempt to match to a generic FAQ.

• Filtering or Content Moderation: Use content moderation models or keyword lists that can flag or redirect queries about harmful or inappropriate content. This ensures user safety and protects the organization’s liability.

Potential pitfalls: • Overzealous filtering can incorrectly block legitimate queries. • Under-detection might result in failing to provide crucial help in emergencies. • Implementation of such features often involves cross-functional teams (legal, compliance, mental health experts) to establish guidelines.