ML Interview Q Series: How can we determine whether a newly introduced feature, which advises dashers on the best times to be online to match delivery requests, is performing effectively?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
One way to evaluate success is to conduct an experiment that measures whether the feature is truly enabling dashers to be online at peak demand, reducing mismatch between supply and demand, and ultimately improving overall outcomes like dasher earnings or customer satisfaction. Typically, an A/B testing framework is employed to compare a group of dashers who see the feature (treatment) with another group who do not (control). In practice, a random split of dashers can be used to ensure that differences in performance are attributed to the feature rather than underlying confounders.
A common metric of interest might be the difference in a relevant outcome, such as average acceptance rate of delivery requests, average delivery completion time, or total earnings per dasher. If we denote the sample mean of a chosen metric in the treatment group as x_treatment and in the control group as x_control, then a standard measure of performance difference can be:
where bar{x}_treatment is the observed mean of the target metric (for instance, average earnings or acceptance rate) in the treatment group, and bar{x}_control is the corresponding mean in the control group. A statistical significance test is then done on this estimate to decide whether the new feature truly improves outcomes rather than the observed difference being just by chance.
Some typical metrics for success could include how many dashers choose to follow the recommended times, how quickly they receive orders when they go online, and how satisfied both dashers and customers are with delivery times. Retention of dashers might be another long-term metric if the feature helps them earn more consistently. Beyond the raw difference in means, confidence intervals or p-values can be used to assess whether there is a statistically significant improvement.
It is important to also measure longer-term effects, such as the possibility that dashers could oversaturate a given time slot if everyone is pointed to the same high-demand window. That might cause diminishing returns or lead to dasher dissatisfaction if they end up competing more for a finite set of orders. Including metrics that track total supply versus total demand during recommended times and examining potential capacity constraints can provide a clearer picture of the feature’s real-world efficacy.
Another key aspect is user engagement. It is necessary to verify if dashers actually see and act on the recommendations. If adoption is low, performance metrics might not shift significantly, even if the recommendations themselves are accurate. A secondary experiment might be needed to confirm that the feature’s design effectively prompts dashers to change behavior.
In addition, observational data can be leveraged to verify if dashers who follow the guidelines indeed see better outcomes than those who do not. However, caution is required with purely observational comparisons since dashers who follow instructions might differ systematically from those who do not.
Could real-world factors complicate the testing?
Real-world factors like weather patterns, sporting events, holidays, and local road conditions can heavily influence demand. A well-run A/B test needs to span enough time and geographic diversity to factor in these varying conditions. Using a geographically stratified random assignment (or time-based rollout) can help control for these external variables. Persistent changes in dasher behavior, such as learning effects and new usage patterns, must also be factored into extended tests.
How to address potential biases?
If dashers discover the feature partway through the experiment or share information among themselves, contamination between treatment and control groups can occur. Detailed tracking of who has the feature enabled, or employing user-level randomization, helps reduce this risk. It is also necessary to check whether certain dashers in the control group might have prior knowledge or external tools that replicate the effect of your feature, making the treatment effect appear smaller.
Are there any pitfalls in analyzing the results?
It is easy to focus on short-term improvements without considering secondary effects like the oversaturation mentioned earlier. Another pitfall is ignoring user heterogeneity; certain dashers might benefit from the feature more than others. Segment analysis can reveal whether novices or those in specific regions see different benefits than more experienced dashers or those in busy metropolitan areas. Failing to account for these differences can mask important insights or cause incorrectly generalized results.
What implementation details might matter in practice?
In a typical Python-based data science environment, engineers can rely on robust experiment frameworks or libraries to allocate the user groups, log the relevant metrics, and perform statistical tests. In code, a simple approach might look like:
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats
# Example data for treatment and control
treatment_values = np.array([some_metric_values_of_treatment_group])
control_values = np.array([some_metric_values_of_control_group])
mean_treatment = np.mean(treatment_values)
mean_control = np.mean(control_values)
delta_hat = mean_treatment - mean_control
# T-test for significance
stat, p_value = stats.ttest_ind(treatment_values, control_values, equal_var=False)
print("Mean(Treatment):", mean_treatment)
print("Mean(Control):", mean_control)
print("Observed difference (delta_hat):", delta_hat)
print("Test statistic:", stat)
print("p-value:", p_value)
If the p-value is below a certain threshold (commonly 0.05), one can say there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups. Of course, practical significance must also be evaluated: a small but statistically significant difference might not justify a costly engineering investment.
How to handle follow-up decisions?
If the feature succeeds under test conditions, the next step is to roll it out gradually to confirm there are no scaling issues or unforeseen negative effects. Continuous monitoring is essential because dasher availability and customer demand may vary seasonally. Ongoing feedback loops and iterative improvements are the key to ensuring that the feature remains effective as conditions evolve.
How does one measure the long-term impact?
A dedicated holdout group that never receives the feature can be kept for a more extended period to measure how the feature influences dasher engagement and retention over multiple weeks or months. Correlating those metrics with external factors, such as new marketing campaigns or competitor activity, helps isolate the actual effect of your recommendation feature.
Could the recommendations overshoot the demand?
A major risk is over-concentration of dashers in a particular window. If too many dashers are nudged to log in at the same time, each dasher’s individual benefit might drop. Monitoring real-time order volume and performing localized or context-aware recommendations (so that not everyone is funneled into the same short interval) helps mitigate this risk. Adapting the underlying models to dynamically adjust recommendations and performing repeated A/B tests ensures that the system remains up to date and equitable for all dashers.
Below are additional follow-up questions
What if the recommendations cause dashers to miss flexible work opportunities in other time windows?
One subtle risk is that highly targeted recommendations might inadvertently discourage dashers from exploring alternative time slots that could still be profitable. If the system highlights only the single “best” window, dashers may avoid logging in outside that period. This could cause two potential drawbacks. First, some dashers might end up missing out on orders in secondary windows, especially if there’s still moderate demand but fewer dashers working. Second, the system might undermine the flexibility that makes gig work attractive. Over time, dissatisfaction could grow if dashers feel that the feature shepherds them into the same time slot, reducing autonomy.
A robust solution could involve presenting multiple recommended windows ranked by demand level, rather than a single top choice. This multi-option approach preserves flexibility while still providing guidance. Moreover, collecting feedback from dashers on whether they find multiple options helpful can refine future iterations. Another best practice is to continuously monitor time slots outside the top recommendation to see whether the feature inadvertently reduced coverage in those off-peak periods, thereby allowing for quick adjustments or new forms of recommendation if demand patterns shift unexpectedly.
Could the feature inadvertently benefit only specific segments of dashers and disadvantage others?
Under real-world conditions, certain groups—such as dashers with longer experience or those with better knowledge of busy neighborhoods—might adapt more quickly or benefit disproportionately. For instance, if the recommendation is primarily based on overall demand with limited personalization, new dashers might not understand how to navigate competitive hotspots effectively.
Addressing this requires more granular analysis of the feature’s impact on diverse segments. One strategy is to segment users by experience level, geography, or performance tier, then assess if the recommended online times yield uniform improvements. If some groups lag behind, the product team might refine the algorithm to incorporate personalized factors like dashers’ historical acceptance rates or their typical working hours. Including additional user education or in-app guidance can further help level the playing field and ensure new dashers or those unfamiliar with local traffic patterns can benefit equally.
How do we measure the impact on the end-customer experience?
A potent concern is whether the scheduling of dashers aligns with demand in a way that consistently benefits customers. For instance, if an excessive number of dashers sign on at the same time, early deliveries might be fulfilled quickly, but later deliveries could be underserved if many dashers log off together. Another possibility is that the feature could introduce latency in certain time windows if it unintentionally pushes dashers away from them.
In practice, measuring the end-customer experience might involve metrics like order fulfillment speed, delivery time variance, or Net Promoter Score (NPS). One potential approach is to track how many orders were assigned promptly in each half-hour block of the day across both the treatment and control groups. This granular perspective helps highlight if certain pockets of time are improved at the expense of others. Additionally, direct customer feedback—through surveys or app ratings—can reveal if perceived service quality changes over time.
What if a large subset of dashers ignore the recommendations?
Partial compliance is very common in real-world systems. Some dashers may rely on their personal intuition or third-party tools rather than following the new feature’s recommendations. Low compliance can dilute any observed effect, making it difficult to conclude whether the system is beneficial. One might erroneously attribute a lack of measured impact to the feature design, while the true issue is simply underutilization.
To tackle this, product teams can measure the compliance rate by tracking whether dashers actually adjust their active hours in response to the recommendations. If compliance is low, further user research or iterative UI/UX changes may be required to boost engagement. Another approach is to compare metrics specifically for the subgroup that does follow the advice versus those who do not. That said, caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions from such an observational split, because these two groups could differ inherently in ways that affect outcomes. Still, the analysis can uncover signals that validate or refute the assumption that ignoring the feature leads to suboptimal results.
How to prevent “herding effects” where too many dashers crowd the recommended hours?
When the system consistently recommends the same high-demand windows, large numbers of dashers might concentrate in that slot, driving down individual opportunity for each. This “herding” could degrade earnings for dashers and lead to dissatisfaction. Meanwhile, less contested time windows might be underserved.
A robust solution is to factor in capacity constraints. If the algorithm detects that predicted supply in the recommended window is reaching saturation, it could either reduce the recommendation for that time or adaptively suggest alternate windows. More advanced systems implement real-time adjustments, distributing dashers in proportion to predicted demand across multiple time frames. Regularly recalibrating these predictions and testing them in smaller pilot groups can help refine the logic to avoid overly simplistic “peak-only” recommendations.
What if data in certain smaller markets is too sparse to generate accurate recommendations?
In smaller markets, modeling future demand precisely can be challenging if order volume is limited, leading to high variance or noise in the data. This can produce unreliable or oscillating recommendations. Moreover, if the local dashers form a tight community, anecdotal word-of-mouth knowledge about “best times” might overshadow app guidance.
One approach is to apply hierarchical modeling, pooling data from similar markets to increase effective sample size while still allowing for local adjustments. Alternatively, the product can display confidence intervals or a reliability score, indicating how certain or uncertain the recommendation might be. Encouraging dashers in small markets to provide feedback helps refine the model over time. Gradual rollouts combined with region-specific analyses ensure that a single, large-market model is not blindly applied in a context where it performs poorly.
How do we handle privacy concerns if the recommendations require collecting detailed user data?
Delivering precise recommendations typically involves analyzing granular data such as dasher activity patterns, GPS locations, and historical order acceptance. This can raise valid privacy questions or even regulatory compliance issues, especially if data retention policies vary across regions. Dashers might also be uneasy about continuous tracking.
A best practice is to anonymize or aggregate location data whenever possible, retaining only the minimal level of granularity required for accurate recommendations. Region-level or city-block-level aggregation can often achieve good accuracy without revealing personal details. Additionally, informing dashers about what data is being collected, how it is being used, and how it benefits them can help build trust. Where legally required, the app should provide clear opt-outs or data deletion mechanisms. A carefully structured data governance process and compliance checks are crucial to mitigate risk before a widespread launch.
What if the recommended times conflict with surge or incentive programs?
Many gig platforms have surge pricing or bonus structures that encourage dashers to work during times of highest demand. If the new feature’s recommended times do not align well with these incentives, it can create confusion or reduce the effectiveness of either the new feature or existing surge strategies.
An integrated approach should coordinate with surge or incentive models, possibly using a single forecasting engine that considers both demand spikes and planned incentives. If the platform wants to preserve the freedom to set ad-hoc bonuses, the recommendation feature can incorporate real-time notifications that let dashers know a surge has become active. Regularly A/B testing each version of the recommendation algorithm in tandem with surge pricing or incentives ensures that neither system operates in a vacuum.
Could the feature be affected by external market changes or competitor strategies?
If a competitor launches a major marketing campaign or enters the same market with an attractive offering, historical data might no longer be predictive of future patterns. Similarly, local events like a brand-new sports stadium can permanently shift usage patterns. As a result, the best times to go online could evolve significantly faster than a static model anticipates.
A rolling retraining schedule is a practical solution. The underlying forecasting model might be regularly updated (e.g., daily or weekly) with fresh data to capture emerging patterns. Monitoring key metrics for anomalies can alert the team when external factors abruptly change demand or supply conditions. Close partnership with business units helps incorporate known upcoming events or expansions into the model preemptively.
What if the randomization used in A/B testing is flawed or leads to unbalanced groups?
In some cases, random assignment processes can inadvertently create imbalanced groups, especially if user sign-ups are rolling or if certain subgroups are more likely to drop out. This can compromise the validity of the experiment, making it hard to isolate the effect of the new feature. Moreover, if the platform is large, small imbalances might still affect subgroups significantly.
To mitigate these problems, stratified random sampling ensures that relevant factors (such as city or time zone) are proportionately represented. Periodic checks can verify that the distribution of key attributes remains balanced across treatment and control. If an imbalance is identified, re-randomization or weighting techniques can correct it. Robust logging of all events and a system for continuous experiment monitoring help detect these anomalies early.