ML Interview Q Series: How would you design a Facebook feature suggesting local dining, including data collection and potential concerns?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
Data Acquisition for a Restaurant Recommender
A key foundation of a successful restaurant recommender is having high-quality and comprehensive data about user preferences and restaurant profiles. Potential data sources include internal user interactions, external partners, and public APIs.
One straightforward source would be location data and user check-ins. When users enable location services or check in to certain restaurants, valuable signals about their dining preferences emerge. Another data channel could be direct user feedback, such as “Likes” or “Reactions” on restaurant-related posts, user-generated content such as reviews or ratings on pages, and user posts mentioning particular dining experiences.
Partnering with platforms that have pre-existing restaurant databases or review systems is also an option. Facebook could tap into external APIs (like Yelp’s API or Google Places API) to augment missing details about restaurants, such as cuisine type, price range, and average ratings. Additionally, user-provided profile data, friendship connections, or group memberships can refine recommendations, identifying communities or sub-networks interested in similar cuisines.
Core Recommender Approach
Because Facebook already has an immense social graph, it is well-suited to both collaborative filtering and social-network-based techniques. The system can blend user-based and item-based collaborative filtering with content-based methods and social context.
One fundamental collaborative filtering approach is matrix factorization, where we learn user and restaurant latent vectors:
Where the set (u, i) in script D represents user u and item (restaurant) i pairs for which we have observed user preference r_{u,i}, P_{u} is the latent vector for user u, Q_{i} is the latent vector for item i, and lambda is a regularization parameter that penalizes large vector magnitudes to avoid overfitting.
In text-based explanation: each user and restaurant is mapped to a latent vector, and the system tries to minimize the difference between the predicted preference and the actual known preference, while also discouraging overly large latent vector values to maintain generalization.
Additionally, we can enhance collaborative filtering with content-based metadata. For example, if a restaurant has the attribute “Italian cuisine,” or if user textual posts frequently mention pizza or pasta, the system can directly incorporate that information into the ranking. This also helps with cold-start problems where new restaurants or new users have little or no historical interaction data.
System Architecture and Implementation Details
The pipeline might begin with collecting historical data about user-restaurant interactions, storing them in a distributed data warehouse, and then performing offline batch training for the recommender model (e.g., a matrix factorization approach). For real-time updates, a second process could handle streaming data to quickly adjust recommendations if new signals (user check-ins, reviews, etc.) appear.
A typical stack might include:
• A big data cluster or a cloud-based system for storing user-item interactions. • Spark or similar frameworks for model training jobs. • A service layer exposing model-generated predictions to user-facing features, possibly using an online ranker that personalizes at serving time.
Since it is Facebook, a social component is natural: the recommender can incorporate data about users’ friends and their restaurant check-ins. For instance, if user A and user B are close friends (with similar tastes), and user B has recently checked into or reviewed a particular restaurant, that can boost that restaurant’s rank when recommending it to user A.
Potential Downfalls and Concerns
One crucial consideration is privacy. Location data, check-ins, and close personal preferences are sensitive. Improper usage can expose Facebook to user backlash or even regulatory scrutiny. Strict privacy controls and clarifying user consent are essential.
There is a risk of filter bubbles or recommendation bias, where users only see certain types of cuisines or restaurants, lacking diversity in suggestions. Addressing this may involve injecting diversity or serendipity mechanisms into the recommender logic.
Another possible issue is data quality. If recommendations rely excessively on check-ins or user-provided data that may be sparse or skewed to particular demographics, the overall system might produce incomplete or biased suggestions.
Malicious parties might exploit the system to boost or degrade certain restaurants’ ratings, so moderation and anomaly detection strategies are needed. Maintaining transparency, such as clarifying that certain suggestions are promoted, can further build user trust.
Potential Follow-up Questions
How would you handle the cold-start problem for new users and new restaurants?
One strategy is content-based techniques for new restaurants, leveraging textual descriptions or known attributes (e.g., location, cuisine, price range) to find similarities to existing restaurants in the system. For new users, demographic and location-based factors could serve as initial signals. Additionally, collecting explicit preferences (e.g., “rate some cuisines” or “follow local restaurants”) can help bootstrap the model until enough interaction data becomes available.
Could you incorporate real-time signals for more immediate personalization?
Real-time data ingestion can feed into a streaming layer that updates user embeddings or item embeddings as user preferences shift. If a user checks in at a new place, that signal is quickly integrated into a local, short-term personalization cache. Hybrid architectures that combine daily offline training with real-time updates and re-ranking can keep suggestions fresh while retaining stable long-term embeddings.
How would you use a graph-based approach using Facebook’s social network?
In a graph-based approach, both users and restaurants can be represented as nodes. Edges can represent friendships, check-ins, likes, or reviews. Various graph embedding or label propagation methods can be employed to estimate user preference for a restaurant based on activity in their social subgraph. This approach is particularly powerful for recommendations that involve strong social elements (e.g., “Your friend just dined here!”).
What measures would you take to address privacy concerns?
Compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR or CCPA is fundamental. Users should have control over their location-tracking settings, and their data should be anonymized or aggregated wherever feasible. Clear disclosures about how location and interaction data will be used are critical to building trust. One could also limit the granularity of location data or use ephemeral location storage that expires after a certain period.
How do you test and validate the recommender’s performance?
One would typically do A/B testing, comparing new models or features against a baseline and monitoring metrics like click-through rate, booking or check-in rate, or engagement on recommended items. Offline validation might use standard metrics like Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) or Mean Average Precision (MAP), but real-world success is best measured through user engagement metrics and satisfaction surveys.
How do you guard against spam or “fake” reviews/ratings?
Anomaly detection algorithms can flag unusual patterns of reviews or check-ins, such as rapid spikes in ratings from newly created or suspicious accounts. User reputation systems, trust signals, or friend-based weighting can also reduce the impact of manipulative behavior. Additionally, having a moderation mechanism to remove clearly abusive content or block suspicious pages ensures data integrity.
Are there ways to handle user fatigue if people see too many restaurant recommendations?
Yes. One approach is to employ frequency caps that limit how often a user sees recommendations within a certain time span. Another is to interleave different categories of recommendations (events, groups, restaurants, etc.) so users are not overwhelmed by repetitive suggestions. Personalizing the frequency itself based on each individual user’s activity and tolerance can also improve acceptance of recommendation prompts.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How would you incorporate seasonal or contextual events, like holidays or major local celebrations, into the recommendation system?
One way is by adding explicit features that represent time-based context. For instance, user activity around major holidays (e.g., Christmas, Diwali, Chinese New Year) might indicate interest in certain cuisines or special deals. You could collect data on seasonal menu items or restaurant events and treat this as an additional input to your model.
A more advanced approach is to incorporate seasonality signals into your matrix factorization or embedding system by dynamically adjusting latent factors. For example, each user’s preference vector can become time-dependent, capturing that a user may love warm soups in winter but prefer lighter fare in summer. This approach helps your recommender pivot more accurately when user tastes shift with seasons or events.
Potential pitfalls include data sparsity around certain seasonal events, as not every region or user celebrates them, so you must handle missing or inconsistent event signals. Another subtlety is the risk of overfitting to specific events, which can degrade performance after those events conclude.
How would you handle ephemeral or pop-up restaurants that appear suddenly and potentially disappear just as quickly?
Pop-up restaurants often do not have much historical engagement data. Content-based features play a key role in mitigating the cold start. For instance, if the pop-up restaurant’s metadata indicates that it is a taco stand near a stadium on game day, the system can match it to other Mexican or quick-bite restaurants user clusters have visited.
A quick, on-the-fly model update (or short-term re-ranker) can boost these new places in the recommendation list for nearby users or for those who follow relevant event pages. Monitoring user-generated content such as check-ins or photos posted can further refine recommendations. However, ephemeral restaurants also introduce the risk that the system invests resources in training or indexing a place that becomes irrelevant soon. An archival or garbage-collection pipeline is needed to remove inactive items over time to maintain efficiency.
How do you interpret user feedback signals when many interactions are implicit, such as simple “Likes” or dwell time on restaurant pages, instead of explicit numeric ratings?
Implicit feedback, such as page visits or time spent (dwell time), can be leveraged by converting them into an implicit rating scale. For example, longer dwell time or multiple revisits might be interpreted as strong interest, while quick bounces may indicate disinterest.
A popular approach for handling implicit feedback is weighted matrix factorization that uses confidence levels. In the simplest terms, we would maintain a preference p_{u,i} and a confidence c_{u,i} for each user u and restaurant i. The confidence c_{u,i} might be derived from how strongly user u’s behavior indicates a genuine preference. The objective function could look like:
Where p_{u,i} is the binary (or fractional) preference (1 if user interacted, 0 if not), and c_{u,i} is the confidence factor (often a function of the number of times user u interacted with restaurant i). A higher c_{u,i} means the system is more certain about that preference signal.
However, implicit data can be noisy. Some users might linger on a restaurant’s page simply because they were busy with something else, or they might have scrolled to see photos without actual intention to go there. Proper weighting mechanisms or filtering can mitigate such noise.
How would you approach multi-lingual users and restaurants in different languages, ensuring that recommendations remain relevant across geographic regions?
One method is to maintain metadata for restaurants in multiple languages. This involves retrieving content from external APIs or user-generated data in the local languages. You could also incorporate natural language processing tools to translate user reviews, restaurant descriptions, and relevant tags.
On the user side, you may store language preferences gleaned from their profile settings or from their common interactions (e.g., posts in certain languages). If a user reads and posts in multiple languages, you may unify or keep separate profiles for these languages and then merge or ensemble results. A potential challenge arises from partial or incomplete translations, so ensuring robust NLP pipelines is crucial.
A subtle pitfall is applying the same rating or relevance across widely different cuisines and cultures simply because of translation artifacts. Maintaining region-specific models or language-specific embeddings can yield more accurate recommendations for diverse user segments.
How do you ensure fairness for smaller, lesser-known restaurants so they are not overshadowed by large chains or high-traffic restaurants?
One approach is to introduce fairness or exposure constraints in the recommendation objective. Instead of purely maximizing predicted user preference, you can add a term that encourages a minimum level of visibility for lower-traffic items. For instance, you might stochastically blend in a fraction of lesser-exposed restaurants in recommendation lists.
Such fairness constraints can take the form of re-ranking, where top candidates are diversified by including restaurants that have historically had fewer impressions. Another technique is to incorporate randomization or multi-armed bandit approaches with an “exploration” parameter that occasionally surfaces new or under-represented items.
A potential risk is hurting user satisfaction if underperforming restaurants are shown too often. Balancing the trade-off between fairness and user experience requires careful tuning of these constraints, as well as continuous monitoring of user engagement and business metrics.
How do you tackle the challenge of large-scale data processing and high concurrency in a system with billions of users?
A typical approach is to separate offline batch model training from real-time serving. Offline tasks (e.g., matrix factorization, deep neural network training) run on distributed frameworks like Spark or TensorFlow with GPU clusters. Model artifacts are then persisted for fast retrieval by online inference systems.
For high concurrency, a horizontally scalable prediction service is required, often deployed behind a load balancer. Caching frequently requested recommendation results (e.g., top local restaurants for a certain zip code) can drastically reduce latency. Nearline or streaming pipelines (like Apache Kafka or Flink) handle updates to user preference logs in near real-time, maintaining a balance between fresh data and system stability.
Pitfalls include system bottlenecks in feature retrieval or model inference at peak times. Ensuring consistent model updates across data centers also requires robust DevOps strategies, like canary releases and rollback mechanisms to mitigate partial system failures or buggy model updates.
How would you handle user dissatisfaction when someone frequently clicks “Not interested” on recommended restaurants?
You can capture explicit negative feedback in the user’s preference profile. Over time, the user’s embedding or latent factors will adjust to reduce the weight for restaurants similar to those disliked. Negative signals might also be used in your learning objective with a higher penalty for recommending disliked items.
In a content-based approach, analyzing the attributes of restaurants that the user consistently flags can help the system learn to avoid them in the future. A deeper analysis of negative feedback is crucial, as some may be situational (the user might not want coffee shops at night) and not absolute (the user might still want a coffee shop in the morning). Segmenting negative signals (e.g., time-based or context-based) can refine future recommendations, though this complexity can complicate your model’s design.
How would you incorporate hierarchical taxonomy of cuisines (like “Asian” > “Chinese” > “Sichuan”) in your recommendation pipeline?
A hierarchical taxonomy allows the system to cluster restaurants at different granularity levels. For instance, a new user might indicate liking “Asian cuisine,” so the system can refine suggestions first at that broad category, and if the user frequently interacts with “Japanese” or “Chinese,” it can subsequently drill down.
Such hierarchical features can be folded into content-based vectors, where each restaurant is represented by a multi-hot or embedding vector of its categories. You might also create a tree-based approach (e.g., gradient-boosted trees or a hierarchical attention network) that can weigh the importance of each category level. One subtlety is how to handle restaurants with multiple cuisine tags (like “Fusion” or “Pan-Asian”) without overly diluting the signals or misrepresenting their distinctiveness.
How would you incorporate user-posted images of their dining experiences to improve recommendations?
Images can reveal more specific attributes of a restaurant’s ambiance or menu items than textual descriptions alone. You can apply computer vision models to classify these images into relevant categories (e.g., dish type, plating style, restaurant ambiance). Then, you can use these extracted features to enrich restaurant profiles.
A user-based approach might involve analyzing pictures they upload, identifying patterns in the type of dishes they tend to post about. If, for example, you detect a user predominantly shares photos of desserts, you could adjust the weighting of dessert-oriented venues in the recommendation.
Potential pitfalls include ensuring the reliability of the vision classifier, as poorly classified images (perhaps due to low lighting or unclear angles) can inject noisy signals. Privacy is also key: you must ensure compliance with user consent for analyzing and storing any uploaded images.
How do you handle multi-objective optimization, such as balancing user satisfaction, restaurant revenue, and overall engagement?
A typical solution is to define a combined objective function that weighs multiple metrics. For instance, if you want a trade-off between user click-through rate (CTR) and average restaurant coverage, you can combine them in a weighted sum. Another method is multi-task learning in a neural framework, where shared layers encode user and item representations, and separate output heads predict each objective.
Tuning these objectives is tricky. A small shift in weight can drastically alter final rankings. Monitoring each objective individually is important so that you know if one is being neglected. The complexity increases further if new objectives (e.g., reducing rating inflation or avoiding content duplication) get added over time, making continuous iteration vital.
How do you measure real-world success beyond just clicks or check-in counts?
An ultimate measure is real-world visits or conversions, such as users physically going to a recommended restaurant. A more holistic view may look at overall user satisfaction, derived from sentiment analysis of posted content or surveys. The business might also track repeated visits or user retention to see if the recommendations foster lasting engagement.
One subtle point: even if a user does not click immediately, a top-ranked recommendation might plant the seed for a future visit. This makes attribution a challenge. Using holdout tests or quasi-experimental designs can clarify the recommender’s true impact on conversions and reduce confounding signals (like a user deciding on a restaurant independently of the system).
How do you handle missing, incomplete, or sparse data for certain restaurants or users?
For restaurants, you can augment missing attributes by crawling third-party APIs or user-generated content for tags, images, or reviews. User profiles might also be partially complete: some have only location data, others have reviews but no “Likes,” etc. A robust recommender should gracefully degrade in the absence of certain signals.
For matrix factorization approaches, you can initialize unknown ratings or interactions as zero or near-zero but with lower confidence. Alternatively, content-based or knowledge-graph approaches can fill the gaps by linking partial user interests to partial item attributes. The risk is inaccurate imputation, which may skew user or restaurant embeddings and degrade recommendations. Rigorous monitoring of model outputs for such incomplete cases is essential to catch these errors early.