ML Interview Q Series: How would you design a model to predict trip acceptance, choose algorithms, compare tradeoffs, and features?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

One could frame the problem of predicting whether a driver will accept or reject a ride request as a supervised binary classification task. The model’s output should be the probability that the driver will accept the request. A suitable approach can be logistic regression, a tree-based method, or a neural network. The final choice will depend on factors such as data volume, the need for interpretability, the distribution of classes (imbalanced or not), and latency constraints.

Key Classification Models

Logistic Regression

A classic baseline is logistic regression, which directly models the probability that the label is 1 (driver accepts) or 0 (driver rejects). The key step is the computation of the linear combination of features, denoted as z, and the use of the sigmoid function to squish z into a [0,1] probability range.

In this expression, w is the weight vector, x is the feature vector (including things like request time, driver’s current location, etc.), and b is the bias term.

Once we have z, the logistic function is

Here p(x) is the probability of the driver accepting the request for features x. Logistic regression is easy to train, relatively interpretable, and well-suited for data sets of moderate to large size. However, it may underfit complex interactions among features if those interactions are highly non-linear.

Tree-Based Methods (Random Forests, Gradient Boosted Trees)

Decision trees and their ensembles can naturally capture complex feature interactions without explicitly requiring them to be engineered. A single decision tree can be prone to overfitting. Ensemble methods like random forests (bagging) or gradient boosting frameworks (e.g., XGBoost, LightGBM) are robust and often yield strong predictive performance.

These methods can handle both continuous and categorical variables well and often have a mechanism for handling missing data effectively. Although they are less straightforward to interpret than a simple logistic regression, tree-based feature importance methods can still provide some level of explainability.

Neural Networks

Neural networks, including feedforward deep networks or specialized architectures, can model intricate, non-linear relationships. If there is a very large training set and we expect highly complex relationships among features, a deep learning model can yield performance gains. However, neural networks often require more careful hyperparameter tuning, larger computational resources, and can be more challenging to interpret for business stakeholders.

Tradeoffs Between Classifiers

Interpretability vs. Performance. Simple models like logistic regression are interpretable, allowing you to see how each feature influences acceptance. Complex models like neural networks may provide higher accuracy but sacrifice interpretability.

Scalability. Tree-based methods and neural networks can handle large datasets efficiently. Logistic regression can also be scaled with techniques such as stochastic gradient descent.

Handling Non-linearities. Tree-based methods and neural networks excel at modeling complex interactions among features. Logistic regression, unless engineered with non-linear transformations and interaction terms, may miss crucial relationships.

Latency Requirements. If predictions are served in real-time (e.g., to display immediate acceptance probability), neural networks might require optimized inference pipelines. Logistic regression and tree-based methods, once trained, can usually be deployed with low latency.

Potential Features

Time-based features. This includes the time of day and day of week, which can affect drivers’ propensity to accept (e.g., rush hour vs. late night).

Location-based features. The driver’s location, the pickup location, distance to the pickup, average traffic in the area, and historical acceptance rate for that region.

Driver context features. Historical acceptance rate of the driver, number of completed trips, average rating, typical driving shift length, the driver’s preferences (e.g., for longer vs. shorter trips).

Trip context features. Trip estimated fare, trip distance, route attractiveness, and surge multipliers or prime-time pricing.

External context. Weather conditions, major events or holidays (which can change typical demand or route viability).

Common Steps in Implementation

Data collection. Historical logs of ride requests and whether each driver accepted or rejected, along with relevant context (time, location, pricing).

Data preprocessing. Cleaning and engineering input features, dealing with missing data, encoding categorical variables (e.g., driver ID, location bins), and normalizing or scaling numeric values if needed.

Train-test split or cross-validation. Ensures a robust measure of generalization performance.

Model training. Trying different models such as logistic regression, random forest, or gradient boosting. Fine-tuning hyperparameters.

Model evaluation. Metrics such as ROC AUC, accuracy, precision, recall, or F1-score depending on business priorities (is it more critical to identify high-likelihood acceptances or to reduce the number of incorrectly assumed acceptances?).

Deployment. The final model might be hosted in a real-time inference environment due to the low-latency requirement for trip assignment.

Below is a concise Python snippet showing how one might set up a training pipeline with a tree-based classifier (for demonstration):

import pandas as pd
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.metrics import roc_auc_score

# Example dataset (features already preprocessed)
df = pd.read_csv("rides_data.csv")

X = df.drop("accept_label", axis=1)
y = df["accept_label"]

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)

model = RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=100, max_depth=10, random_state=42)
model.fit(X_train, y_train)

y_pred_proba = model.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1]
auc = roc_auc_score(y_test, y_pred_proba)

print("ROC AUC:", auc)

Follow-up Questions

How do you handle class imbalance if the number of accepted requests is significantly larger or smaller than the number of rejections?

Class imbalance might skew the model training process. If most drivers accept (or reject), a naive classifier might learn to predict the majority class almost always and still get a deceptively high accuracy. Several strategies exist. Oversampling the minority class or undersampling the majority class can help. Methods like SMOTE or ADASYN synthetically generate new samples for the minority class. Alternatively, setting class weights in algorithms like logistic regression or tree-based classifiers is often simpler and effective.

In real-world systems, sampling methods should reflect deployment conditions, ensuring that the model’s training distribution resembles the operational environment. Metrics such as ROC AUC, precision-recall curves, or F1-score at relevant decision thresholds may better capture performance under imbalance compared to plain accuracy.

How would you explain this model’s decisions to non-technical stakeholders?

Logistic regression can be explained by showing each feature’s coefficient and how it influences the acceptance probability. Random forests and gradient boosted trees can provide feature importance scores, partial dependence plots, or SHAP (Shapley Additive Explanations) values to demonstrate how each feature or combination of features changes the model’s prediction. For complex deep learning solutions, methods like integrated gradients or attention mechanisms might be used. In each case, simplifying the complexity into key driver insights is necessary to maintain stakeholder trust and understanding.

What techniques might you use if real-time prediction speed is critical?

When speed is paramount, a smaller model size (fewer parameters) or optimized libraries can be used. Techniques include model distillation (where a smaller model is taught to mimic a larger, more complex model), pruning or quantization (especially for neural networks), or hardware accelerators (GPUs or specialized inference hardware). Also, logistic regression and small tree ensembles are typically very fast to evaluate once trained. Caching frequently used features or precomputing partial model components can further reduce the inference time.

How would you adjust for changing driver behavior or external conditions over time?

Drivers’ behavior might evolve due to seasonal effects, changes in the payment structure, or personal preference shifts. Continuous model monitoring helps detect distribution shifts. If new data indicates the model’s predictive power is degrading, retraining or fine-tuning with a rolling window of recent data can maintain performance. Online learning methods or incremental learning approaches let the model update parameters as new data arrives. Capturing real-time feedback (e.g., driver’s actual accept/reject) is crucial for fast adaptation.

Are there any privacy or ethical considerations?

Yes. The system uses driver behavior data and location data. Such data might be sensitive. Aggregating or anonymizing location data where possible, encrypting data at rest and in transit, obtaining clear consent, and only using data necessary for the prediction are all important steps to protect privacy. Transparency about how the model is used and how it impacts drivers is also vital. If surge pricing or other factors might be considered “unfair,” the system design and communication around it should be carefully managed to avoid ethical pitfalls.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How would you handle cold-start scenarios for new drivers who don’t have much (or any) historical acceptance data?

One scenario arises when newly onboarded drivers begin receiving ride requests before the system has enough historical data about their behavior. This makes it difficult to predict acceptance probability because features specific to the driver (e.g., past acceptance rate, driving patterns) are nonexistent or too sparse. A typical solution is to incorporate population-level statistics or group drivers based on similar attributes. For instance, you can create a profile for drivers in the same geographic region or with similar demographic attributes (like hours of driving experience, time of day they work, etc.) and use aggregated acceptance statistics as prior estimates.

As new drivers accumulate data, you can gradually shift from population-level estimates to personalized ones. One practical approach is to maintain a hierarchical model where higher-level parameters capture group behaviors (e.g., by region or shift time), and individual-level parameters adjust once enough data is available. This approach addresses the pitfall of overly relying on generalized assumptions that may not hold for specific drivers.

How would you adapt your model for drivers who exhibit adversarial or strategic behavior?

Some drivers might accept a request only to cancel it later if the trip doesn’t meet their criteria (e.g., distance or fare), or they may systematically manipulate acceptance data. This strategic behavior can degrade the model’s effectiveness and the user experience. One approach is to incorporate additional labels such as cancellation events or final trip completions to calibrate the predicted acceptance probability. For example, you might refine your definition of “acceptance” to mean not just tapping the accept button but also starting the trip without an unusually high cancellation rate.

Moreover, you can use anomaly detection to identify drivers whose acceptance patterns deviate starkly from normal behavioral distributions. If a subset of drivers consistently manipulates accept/reject signals, the model might weigh their data less or flag them for deeper investigation. An edge case is that well-intentioned drivers could occasionally demonstrate unusual acceptance patterns due to external factors (e.g., personal emergencies), so careful consideration of false positives is necessary.

Could there be a need to handle time-varying preferences in real-time (concept drift), and how would you do that?

Drivers’ acceptance decisions can evolve due to factors like changing local economic conditions, personal schedule changes, or platform policy updates. If the environment changes significantly—known as concept drift—the model trained on past data can become outdated quickly. One solution is to use rolling retraining, regularly updating the model with the latest data (e.g., daily or even hourly if changes are rapid).

An online learning paradigm can be useful if predictions must adapt instantly to new data. For example, streaming algorithms like online gradient descent or incremental tree-based models (which partially update their splits without a full retrain) can adjust parameters as soon as a new acceptance or rejection is logged. A key pitfall is deciding how much weight to give the newest data vs. historical data. Too much focus on recent data could introduce noise; too little focus might make the model slow to respond to real changes.

How do you address potential data leakage or spurious correlations in driver acceptance features?

In highly dynamic systems, certain features might appear predictive of acceptance but are actually proxies for future or extraneous information. For example, if the system records the ride destination (available only after acceptance under some policies), that data might create leakage. One needs to ensure that only features known at the time of the request are used. Another example of spurious correlation is if acceptance is strongly linked with surge price only because that feature is correlated with high-traffic areas, but not because the driver truly cares about surge in isolation.

A thorough approach is to examine feature engineering pipelines carefully and confirm each feature is realistically available at prediction time. Employing cross-validation while removing certain suspicious features can help detect data leakage. Whenever there is doubt about whether a feature might represent future information or an artifact of the data collection process, it should either be discarded or tested under controlled experiments.

What if the model needs to optimize secondary objectives, such as balancing driver satisfaction and wait time?

Sometimes, acceptance probability alone is insufficient. For instance, you might also want to minimize passenger wait time or maximize driver earnings. This leads to a multi-objective optimization problem. One option is to create a composite objective function that weighs acceptance likelihood against these other metrics. Another approach is a constrained optimization framework, where you ensure acceptance stays above a certain threshold while optimizing for wait time or vice versa.

In practice, you might train separate models or one multi-task model with different output heads—one that predicts acceptance probability and another that estimates likely wait time. During real-time assignment, you can combine both predictions based on business logic. A frequent pitfall is that improving one metric (e.g., acceptance probability) might degrade another (e.g., wait time), so stakeholder alignment on objective trade-offs is crucial.

How would you handle partial or missing location data when GPS signals are unavailable?

In real-world scenarios, location data can be intermittently missing or delayed due to connectivity problems. You need a robust strategy for inference when certain features—like driver’s exact coordinates—aren’t present. One method is to fallback to higher-level location features, such as the last known city or region. Another approach is to impute missing features based on either historical averages or population-level patterns.

A potential edge case is large-scale outages where entire regions lose connectivity (e.g., big events or phone network issues). In such cases, your fallback features must still be meaningful. You might also incorporate uncertainty estimations to indicate that your predictions are less confident when location accuracy is compromised. This helps avoid over-reliance on location-based predictions that might be incorrect.

Can you describe how you might calibrate the probability outputs of your classifier?

A model’s raw outputs (e.g., log-odds from logistic regression or score from random forests) might be poorly calibrated probabilities. Probability calibration methods adjust these raw outputs so that the predicted probability matches the observed frequency. Common techniques include Platt scaling (using a small logistic regression on the model’s scores) or isotonic regression (a non-parametric calibration method).

An example workflow might be: train a random forest on the main dataset, then split off a calibration set to learn a mapping from raw forest scores to well-calibrated probabilities. This helps ensure that if you predict a 70% acceptance probability, the actual fraction of acceptances is around 70% in real data. A subtle pitfall is that calibration can deteriorate if the data distribution shifts. Thus, recalibration steps may also need updating over time, especially in rapidly changing conditions.

How do you address interpretability if a black-box model like a deep neural network or gradient boosted ensemble is used?

When the business or regulatory environment requires transparency, purely black-box models can be an obstacle. Modern techniques, such as SHAP (Shapley Additive exPlanations) or LIME (Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations), can highlight which features most influence a particular prediction. In a rideshare setting, you might show that for a given driver’s acceptance, the relevant factors were “high surge multiplier,” “short distance to pickup,” and “favorable traffic conditions.”

A subtle complication arises when stakeholders expect simple, direct explanations that mirror how human decision-makers reason. SHAP values still require a certain level of technical sophistication to interpret correctly. Additionally, some features might be highly correlated (e.g., surge multiplier often coincides with peak hours), making it difficult to provide easy explanations of independence. If interpretability is paramount, occasionally a simpler model or a two-stage approach—where a simpler proxy is used for explanation—may be preferred.

How can you manage a situation where regulatory constraints or company policy demands certain constraints on the acceptance predictions?

There may be rules mandating that certain areas or certain passenger segments must receive equitable service. For instance, a city might require minimal discrimination across neighborhoods. In such cases, fairness constraints might need to be integrated into the model. For example, you could impose that the true positive rate for acceptance in different demographic groups cannot differ significantly. Alternatively, you might post-process predictions to ensure they satisfy group fairness criteria.

One pitfall is that imposing these constraints could lower overall model accuracy or create tension with business metrics. Another subtlety arises if the constraints are dynamic or only partially specified (e.g., the city imposes them suddenly). Quick adaptation might involve a combination of fairness-aware model training and real-time post-processing adjustments.

How do you handle user interface or user experience factors that might influence acceptance, and can you measure them accurately?

A driver’s app interface (or friction in the acceptance flow) can significantly shape how likely they are to accept a ride. If a new app update adds extra steps for acceptance, acceptance rates could drop, but that’s not necessarily because of driver preference—rather, it’s an artifact of UI changes. Accounting for user interface factors means explicitly capturing whether the driver’s app version changed, or if certain UI experiments are active.

In an A/B testing context, you could randomize interface changes among subsets of drivers and track acceptance rates to isolate the effect of the new design from genuine driver preference. Failing to do so might cause the model to learn spurious correlations—for instance, linking acceptance to the “modern app version” feature, when in reality it’s just an artifact of the new UI. It’s crucial to measure and record any interface changes to maintain data validity and interpret the acceptance patterns in context.