ML Interview Q Series: How can you investigate whether a larger friend count now is associated with a greater likelihood that a member remains active on Facebook six months later?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

One approach is to view this as a causal or at least a strong correlational question. You want to see if the number of friends a user currently has (independent variable) can help predict or is correlated with the binary outcome of whether the user is still active after six months (dependent variable).

Several methods exist to conduct such a test: observational studies using logistic regression, controlled A/B experiments, or matched cohort analyses. Each method provides different levels of confidence regarding causality. Below is a possible plan:

Observational Study Using Logistic Regression

If the data already exist and you do not have the luxury of running an experiment, you can proceed with a logistic regression approach. Label your target variable as "active in 6 months" (1 if the user is active, 0 if not), and use "number of friends" as a key predictor, ideally alongside other covariates (e.g., user’s age, how long they have been on Facebook, engagement metrics, etc.) to account for confounding factors.

Mathematical Formulation

You can represent the probability that a user remains active after 6 months (p) as follows:

Here, p is the probability of being active, x is the number of friends at the starting point, beta_0 is the intercept term, and beta_1 is the coefficient that measures the effect of the number of friends. If beta_1 is positive, then having more friends is associated with a higher probability of remaining active.

Below is a small Python snippet illustrating how you might set up a logistic regression using a hypothetical dataset:

import pandas as pd
import statsmodels.api as sm

# Suppose df is a DataFrame containing 'num_friends' and 'active_in_6_months'
# where 'active_in_6_months' is 1 if active after 6 months, else 0
df = pd.read_csv('facebook_user_data.csv')

# Define features (X) and target (y)
X = df[['num_friends']]
X = sm.add_constant(X)  # Add intercept
y = df['active_in_6_months']

# Fit logistic regression model
model = sm.Logit(y, X).fit()
print(model.summary())

Interpreting the coefficient for num_friends (beta_1):

• A positive value for beta_1 means that as the number of friends increases, the probability of being active in 6 months goes up (holding other factors constant).

• A negative value for beta_1 means that having more friends is inversely correlated with the probability of being active.

• Statistical significance (p-value) tells you whether the coefficient is significantly different from zero.

Adjusting for Confounders

It’s often necessary to include additional variables beyond the number of friends. Factors like age, user activity levels now (e.g., how often they log in or interact), geographical location, or length of time on the platform could all impact the chances of remaining active. Excluding relevant confounders might produce misleading results about the real relationship between friend count and long-term activity.

By including these confounders in the model, you effectively isolate the effect of having more friends from other factors that might also influence long-term engagement.

Propensity Score Matching

If you suspect the number of friends is not randomly distributed among users (certain types of users might have a higher friend count to begin with), you could use a propensity score matching technique. This method pairs up users with similar characteristics (e.g., age, location, initial activity level) but who differ in their number of friends. By matching these users, you can more fairly compare the probability of being active in 6 months between groups, isolating the effect of friend count.

Experimental Approach (If Feasible)

If it were possible to conduct an experiment (though more challenging in social network settings), you could randomly nudge or incentivize certain users to add more friends or connect them automatically within certain groups. Then, track whether this manipulated group remains more active than the control group after six months. This is often difficult in a real social network scenario, but it provides stronger evidence for causality if it can be ethically done.

Practical Steps

1. Data Collection: Gather historical data for users, including how many friends they had at a given baseline time point and whether they are still active after six months.

2. Feature Engineering: Create relevant features (e.g., user’s login frequency, age, region) to control for confounders.

3. Modeling: Fit a logistic regression (or other classification model) to see if the coefficient of friend count is significantly positive after controlling for other factors.

4. Validation: Use techniques like cross-validation or hold-out sets to check how well your model generalizes.

5. Interpretation: Investigate the effect size and significance of friend count. A significant positive coefficient indicates that more friends are associated with a higher probability of remaining active.

How Would You Handle Non-Linear Relationships?

A linear log-odds assumption might not always be correct. You can add polynomial terms or use non-linear models (e.g., random forests or gradient boosting machines) to capture more complex relationships between friend count and engagement.

How Do You Account for Users Who May Deactivate Temporarily?

Real-world user behavior can be erratic. Some users might drop off for a few months, then return. You might redefine “active user” to require a certain threshold of activity rather than a binary active/inactive label. Alternatively, you could consider multiple time points (e.g., 1 month, 3 months, 6 months) and use survival analysis methods.

What If the Data Are Missing or Partially Observed?

Missing data can bias results if not handled carefully. Techniques include:

• Imputing missing friend counts using average friend counts for similar users. • Using models like multiple imputation by chained equations to handle missing data systematically. • Dropping missing rows (only if the missingness is random and does not systematically bias the sample).

How to Distinguish Correlation from Causation?

Even if the logistic regression shows a strong correlation between friend count and staying active, it is challenging to prove causation without a controlled experiment. Observational methods like propensity score matching or instrumental variables can help approximate causality, but the gold standard remains a randomized controlled trial if that is ethically and practically possible.

Could There Be Reverse Causality?

One subtle point is that the direction might be reversed: more active users might naturally end up with more friends. This means that being active causes the increase in friend count, rather than friend count causing more activity. To address this, you’d typically need temporal data (e.g., measure friend count 6 months ago and see if it predicts future activity, controlling for past activity levels).

Example of an Elaborate Follow-Up Analysis

You might do a time-based cohort analysis:

• Select a user cohort at time t0 with varying friend counts. • Track their activity over the next 6 months. • Compare rates of activity at time t0 + 6 months across different friend-count brackets. • Control for all other known confounding factors.

This type of analysis gives a clearer understanding of how friend count at the start might influence long-term engagement.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How Do You Measure “Active” If Users Interact Differently (e.g., Mobile vs. Desktop)?

Measuring “active” might not be as simple as checking whether a user logs in once during a six-month window. Some users are on mobile only, while others primarily use desktop. Others may interact through third-party apps or share links without opening the main platform.

In a real-world scenario, you would define specific thresholds and behaviors that qualify as “active.” For example, you might say a user is active if they: • Log in at least once per month, OR • Send at least one message per month, OR • Post or comment at least once a month

The challenge is ensuring that you capture all relevant channels of user activity. If you rely solely on desktop logins, you might incorrectly mark mobile-only users as inactive. Conversely, if you track only posting behavior, you might exclude those who prefer to read or watch videos rather than post content.

The pitfall is that an incomplete definition of “active” can systematically bias your findings. If the friend count influences the way people engage (e.g., more friends leads to mobile usage rather than desktop usage), then measuring activity based on a specific channel alone could distort the results.

How Do You Manage Extreme Outliers in Friend Count?

Some users may have an extremely large friend count, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands, while most users have a much smaller range. These outliers can skew the distribution of your friend-count variable, making the model overly sensitive to a small fraction of cases.

Potential strategies include: • Capping or winsorizing the friend-count variable, for instance setting an upper bound at the 99th percentile so that extreme values are not as influential. • Transforming the friend-count variable (e.g., applying log transformations to reduce the impact of very large values). • Stratifying users into buckets (e.g., 0–50 friends, 51–200 friends, 201–500 friends, etc.) to see if there is a non-linear jump in activity probability.

The main pitfall is failing to address these outliers. They can distort coefficient estimates, leading to a misleading conclusion about whether having “more” friends truly correlates with continued engagement.

How Do You Account for Network Effects and Peer Influence?

It might not just be the raw number of friends that matters, but also who those friends are. Users who have highly active friends might themselves be more likely to remain active. Conversely, if a user’s network is mostly dormant, having a large friend count may not help.

Some real-world nuances: • Measuring the average activity level of a user’s friend network could be a stronger predictor than raw friend count. • Considering the clustering or homophily of friend networks can clarify how user segments behave. If certain groups form around certain interests, those groups might collectively stay more active.

Ignoring peer influence might lead you to overlook a key driver of user retention. A user with many friends but few connections in the user’s immediate social circle might be different from a user with fewer friends but a highly active network.

How Would You Handle Seasonality or Periodic Fluctuations?

Some times of the year see increased social media activity (e.g., holiday seasons), while other times might see a drop (e.g., exam periods for student-heavy demographics).

To address seasonal factors: • Collect friend-count data and activity metrics at multiple time points throughout the year. • Include seasonal variables or monthly dummies in your model to capture cyclical shifts in user engagement. • Compare cohorts of users with the same start dates, or align each user’s timeline by month of signup.

The pitfall is misattributing seasonal changes in engagement to the effect of friend count. If you do not control for these cyclical patterns, you might falsely conclude that a higher friend count leads to higher activity, when in fact the user happens to be observed during a more active time of year.

How Do You Scale the Analysis to Very Large Datasets?

In large-scale environments like a major social platform, you can easily be dealing with hundreds of millions or billions of users. Traditional logistic regression might become computationally expensive.

Possible solutions: • Distributed computing frameworks (e.g., Spark, Hadoop) to handle the massive data volumes. • Mini-batch or online learning approaches that update estimates incrementally. • Sampling techniques: you could randomly sample a manageable subset of users in a statistically valid way, still capturing the distribution but reducing computational cost.

A common pitfall is overfitting to the massive data or underestimating the memory and computation overhead when data sizes are truly huge. Ensuring your solution is optimized for distributed computing is crucial in these scenarios.

How Do You Explain the Results to Non-Technical Stakeholders?

Even if you find a strong statistical correlation, translating that into actionable business insights is important. Non-technical stakeholders might ask:

• What does it mean if the coefficient on friend count is positive? • What tangible steps should be taken based on these findings?

To communicate effectively: • Use data visualizations to show the relationship between friend count and retention probability. • Present the effect sizes in terms of “For every additional 50 friends, the chance of staying active increases by X%.” • Emphasize any caveats, such as correlation vs. causation, potential confounding, etc.

Pitfalls include overwhelming stakeholders with technical jargon or failing to clarify the real-world impact. If you can’t bridge the technical interpretation to a meaningful strategy (e.g., encouraging users to find and add relevant friends), decision-makers might not see the value in your analysis.

What If New Feature Changes Occur During the 6-Month Window?

Facebook and other platforms frequently roll out new features, interface changes, or changes to the friend system itself. For example, the definition of a “friend” might shift to include “followers” or other connections.

Handling changes: • Segment your cohorts by feature release timeline. Users exposed to the new feature might behave differently than older cohorts. • Investigate whether the new feature biases friend counts (e.g., a new recommended-friends algorithm might inflate friend counts in general). • Track the timeline of product changes and incorporate these events as control variables or separate analyses.

Failing to account for platform changes can lead to flawed assumptions. You might incorrectly attribute changes in user activity to friend count instead of acknowledging the confounding effect of significant platform updates.

How Do You Handle Data Integrity Issues, Such as Duplicate or Spam Accounts?

Fake or spam accounts can inflate friend counts artificially. If these accounts become inactive or get removed, the data might be compromised. A user with many spam accounts as friends might not truly reflect genuine social connections.

Steps to mitigate: • Apply filters or flags to identify suspicious or spammy accounts and exclude them from the dataset. • Ensure your definition of “friends” excludes one-sided or bot accounts. • Validate the data against known patterns, such as a friend graph’s connectivity or normal user behavior benchmarks.

If not addressed, the presence of spam or duplicate accounts can create misleading patterns in the data, particularly around extreme friend counts or users who accept every friend request.

How Might Mergers or Data from Different Platforms Affect the Analysis?

If the platform acquires another social service or merges with a messaging app, friend relationships might get ported over in bulk. Suddenly, certain users might see a huge spike in friend counts, while others remain unaffected.

To manage this scenario: • Track the source of each friend link (e.g., original network vs. merged platform). • Partition the analysis or treat the merged data as a separate feature—“friends from the acquired platform.” • Perform time-based analysis around the merger event to see if there was a sudden shift in the average friend count and subsequent effect on activity.

A real-world pitfall is ignoring the impact of platform mergers or expansions. Large-scale data disruptions can mask or exaggerate the effect of friend count on user retention.

How Do You Distinguish Between Active Humans vs. Automation or Bots?

Sometimes, you might see continued “activity” that is actually automated. This might look like a user is active, but in reality, it is a script or bot that auto-posts. For the purpose of understanding genuine user engagement, such accounts are outliers.

Possible solutions: • Use anomaly detection (e.g., unusual posting frequency, identical posting patterns, IP addresses) to identify potential bots. • Exclude or flag these bot accounts from the analysis. • Label any automated activity distinctly from authentic user-driven activity.

Ignoring automated behavior can inflate the overall activity metrics, and you might mistakenly conclude that high friend counts lead to robust engagement, when some portion of that is simply automated posting.