ML Interview Q Series: How would you determine the fee-free cancellation wait time for a ridesharing customer?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
One way to tackle the decision of choosing a penalty-free cancellation threshold is to examine ride arrival times and user behavior. The core idea is that there is an optimal wait time that balances customer satisfaction (by not imposing fees for rides that are taking too long) with business considerations (avoiding unnecessary loss of revenue from frequent cancellations). This balance typically involves an analysis of wait time distributions, the likelihood of driver arrivals, customer satisfaction surveys, and the cost to the business when rides get canceled at various time intervals.
Understanding the arrival time distribution is often the starting point. Usually, arrival times can vary significantly based on factors like traffic, driver availability, and time of day. If you gather historical data on actual wait times from the moment a ride was requested, you can build an empirical distribution. From that distribution, you can estimate how many riders would likely cancel their ride if they are given a certain cancellation cutoff.
A more data-driven approach is to define a cost function that accounts for both business losses and user dissatisfaction. In simple terms, let T represent the cancellation threshold, measured in minutes. We can define an expected cost function E(T). One might include the probability that a ride’s actual arrival time will exceed T, since those delayed rides are the ones that might get canceled without penalty. This cost function can also include user churn or brand dissatisfaction. By varying T across different values, we look for the value that yields a minimum in total expected cost or maximum in overall utility.
where T is the penalty-free wait time, C_business(T) might be the expected monetary loss from cancellations when the arrival time is longer than T, and C_customer(T) might be a measure of user dissatisfaction that arises if the threshold is set too high or too low. The exact definition of each component can be tailored to business priorities, such as weighting cancellation costs more heavily than churn costs or vice versa.
To find a data-driven estimate of T, you might:
Gather historical wait times from the moment a ride is requested until a driver arrives.
Determine, for each wait time, the cost to the company if a user cancels or if a user is required to pay a penalty. This can be a monetary penalty for the user or opportunity cost for the business.
Evaluate the effect of different thresholds on user satisfaction metrics (like ratings or churn rates).
Optimizing T can be done through numerical methods or by simulating different thresholds and analyzing the results on historical data. For example, you might run an experiment where groups of users are assigned different threshold times and measure cancellation rates, user satisfaction scores, and revenue impact.
Additionally, it might be beneficial to have a dynamic or region-specific threshold. A busy city center with many drivers could allow for shorter wait times, so the penalty-free cancellation threshold can be lower. In a suburban or rural area where drivers take longer to arrive, a higher threshold can help balance user frustration with ensuring drivers do not lose compensation for long-distance travel to customers who suddenly cancel.
Another real-world consideration is how to communicate this threshold to users. Even if the threshold is data-driven, poor communication can lead to negative customer perception. Displaying an estimated arrival time and a grace period that the user can see in real time might reduce unexpected frustration.
A possible pitfall is ignoring the distribution’s tail, where extremely long wait times occur. If your threshold is set so high that a significant portion of customers see no difference in their experience, you may inadvertently alienate a minority of users who regularly face long wait times. On the other hand, setting the threshold too low might result in increased cancellation rates before drivers even have a realistic opportunity to reach the passenger.
Implementation wise, one can gather the ride-level data and, for each potential threshold T, model the expected costs and benefits. A simple Python-based simulation can be done to see how different T values perform on historical logs of wait times.
import numpy as np
# Hypothetical data: ride_wait_times in minutes
ride_wait_times = np.random.exponential(scale=5, size=10000) # some distribution
possible_thresholds = np.arange(1, 15, 0.5) # test thresholds from 1 to 15 minutes
def cost_function(threshold, wait_times):
# Example simple cost model:
# cost_of_cancellation if wait_time > threshold, else cost_of_penalty
# This is just a simplistic example, real model would be more complex
cost_of_cancellation = 5.0
cost_of_penalty = 0.0 # assume no cost if user is forced to keep ride
mask_cancel = wait_times > threshold
cost = np.sum(mask_cancel) * cost_of_cancellation + np.sum(~mask_cancel) * cost_of_penalty
return cost
optimal_threshold = None
lowest_cost = float('inf')
for t in possible_thresholds:
c = cost_function(t, ride_wait_times)
if c < lowest_cost:
lowest_cost = c
optimal_threshold = t
print("Optimal threshold:", optimal_threshold)
print("Associated cost:", lowest_cost)
In this simplified code, we use a hypothetical wait time distribution to evaluate total costs under each threshold. The real scenario would require incorporating user satisfaction metrics, brand impact, re-request rates after cancellations, and more.
Follow-up Questions
How would you account for changing traffic conditions or surge demand periods where average wait times can vary significantly?
You can incorporate real-time or historical context-specific data into the model. By segmenting the data by region, time of day, or traffic congestion levels, you can dynamically adjust T. A dynamic threshold approach recalculates the threshold as conditions change. For instance, if traffic is unusually heavy in a certain area during rush hour, the system might automatically allow a higher penalty-free threshold.
What if users start gaming the system by frequently canceling rides close to the threshold time?
This possibility arises when the threshold is well-known and if there is minimal cost to the customer for booking and then canceling. One approach is to impose a limit on how many times a user can cancel within a certain period without a fee or apply stricter cancellation policies for users who cancel excessively. Another alternative is implementing a personalized approach where users with a history of frequent cancellations might have more stringent policies, whereas regular, loyal users might have more relaxed cancellation thresholds.
How do you balance reducing user churn with preventing lost driver wages?
One option is to measure how many potential rides are lost when customers cancel for free, and balance that with how many customers might leave the platform if they are forced to pay a fee for a ride that was delayed. This can be formalized in the cost function by assigning different weights to each. If driver wage protection is a top priority, you increase that weight. If user retention is paramount, you adjust accordingly. The final threshold is chosen where a business’s risk tolerance aligns with the desired level of user experience.
How would you test this threshold in a real-world experiment?
A common approach is A/B testing. You can split a subset of users into different groups, each with a distinct penalty-free cancellation threshold. By monitoring critical metrics like average ride completion, customer satisfaction scores, reported app ratings, driver earnings, and churn rates, you compare these metrics across groups. The version that yields the best balance of metrics informs how you scale the final solution to all users.
How do you handle edge cases where wait times are extremely high or extremely low?
For very high wait times, you might consider removing outliers from the initial analysis or applying a separate policy (for instance, if the estimated arrival is 30+ minutes, the ride might be automatically cancelable without penalty). For extremely low wait times, such as heavily congested urban areas where the driver is right around the corner, the threshold might be very short. Ensuring that outliers are managed sensibly helps you avoid skewing the model or imposing unfair cancellation restrictions.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How do you handle region-specific differences in driver availability and wait times?
When you have a large geographic footprint, some areas naturally have more drivers, while others may experience shortages at certain times. A fixed global threshold might be too long in well-served city centers, but too short in sparsely populated regions. To address this, you could develop a dynamic, location-based threshold system. This approach might use historical and real-time driver density data to adapt cancellation thresholds for each location.
A potential pitfall is over-segmenting your regions such that the data for each segment is too sparse to generate reliable estimates. Another challenge is that drivers and users can move in ways that blur region boundaries. Using techniques like geo-clustering or even real-time location analytics can help maintain a balance between granularity and reliability. In practice, you might automatically adjust the threshold based on whether driver supply meets or exceeds anticipated demand in that region.
Should the threshold be personalized for individual users based on past behavior?
Personalizing thresholds can be powerful if certain users consistently cancel or if their patience level differs significantly from the average. For instance, repeat riders who rarely cancel might get a more lenient policy, whereas frequent cancellers could be assigned stricter rules. Machine learning models that predict “likelihood of cancellation” might use a user’s history, typical travel patterns, or even feedback ratings.
However, personalization risks fairness and consistency issues if users discover they have worse conditions than others. Transparency can help mitigate negative user perception. Another problem is ensuring that your system’s predictive model remains accurate over time. User habits can shift, especially when they notice changes in their cancellation policy, so frequent model retraining may be necessary. There is also a privacy concern: collecting detailed user data for personalization must be done responsibly and with adequate consent.
How do you manage unexpected events like sudden weather changes or major accidents that spike wait times?
When major disruptions occur, wait times can skyrocket beyond typical distributions. Relying solely on historical averages might lead to thresholds that no longer reflect reality. In these scenarios, dynamic threshold adjustments can be triggered if real-time metrics (e.g., average wait time in an area) deviate substantially from normal patterns.
A pitfall arises when disruptions are short-lived but thresholds remain adjusted for too long. This could result in unnecessary revenue loss from canceled rides. Another edge case is dealing with rapid changes: if the system tries to react to every fluctuation in real-time data, it might introduce instability, confusing both drivers and customers. A smoothing or hysteresis mechanism—where the threshold only adjusts after several consecutive data points confirm the anomaly—could mitigate these swings.
Which data do you track and which metrics do you use to measure the success or failure of a chosen threshold?
You need to track user cancellation rates, wait times, driver earnings, and user satisfaction metrics (like net promoter scores or star ratings). Analyzing how often cancellations happen near the threshold can help you refine the policy. Tracking re-requests (i.e., how often customers immediately request another ride after canceling) can reveal if your threshold is too restrictive or too lenient.
Pitfalls in measurement might include failing to link cancellations directly to threshold policies. Some cancellations have nothing to do with wait times; the user might change plans. Moreover, focusing narrowly on one metric, like cancellation rate, can blind you to negative impacts on driver retention or user churn. Evaluating a balanced set of metrics (financial, operational, and user satisfaction) prevents misaligned optimizations.
Can real-time driver availability or dynamic driver routing be incorporated into determining the threshold?
Modern ride-hailing algorithms can reassign drivers mid-route if a closer one becomes available. This real-time flexibility can reduce wait times. A threshold that accounts for this dynamic routing could be more accurate: for example, if a driver is replaced by another who is only two minutes away, the threshold might shift accordingly.
However, dynamic reassignment can fail if the system constantly reassigns drivers, resulting in wasted time and confusion for both drivers and riders. If your threshold depends heavily on dynamic updates, you risk frequent system changes that leave the user uncertain about whether they are still in the penalty-free period. Designing the user experience with clear messaging—like “We’ve found you a closer driver, your ride will now arrive sooner, and your cancellation timer updates accordingly”—can alleviate confusion. The system should also consider driver fairness: reassigning a driver might mean lost time or partial mileage compensation that has to be fairly addressed.
How do you handle partial progress toward the pickup once the threshold is reached?
If a driver has already traveled most of the distance to the user, but the threshold time just elapsed, should the customer still get a free cancellation? Strictly applying the threshold might be fair from a user perspective, but the driver might have spent significant time and resources getting near the pickup point. One approach is to prorate the penalty based on how far the driver has traveled or how close they are.
A major challenge here is deciding how to measure partial progress reliably and consistently. GPS inaccuracies, sudden route changes, or miscommunications about the pickup location can all complicate these calculations. Additionally, you must ensure that neither drivers nor riders feel penalized for events outside their control, such as traffic jams en route to the pickup.
How do you avoid penalizing users who inadvertently chose a wrong pickup location?
Sometimes, the user might accidentally pin the wrong location, causing a longer wait. If they realize it soon, an immediate cancellation might seem fair. However, from the driver’s perspective, if they have already driven a considerable distance, a free user cancellation could appear unfair. One approach is to allow a short grace period to fix or cancel rides if the pickup location is incorrect—similar to an “undo” feature.
A potential pitfall is that malicious users could exploit this grace period to troll drivers. Placing systematic limits on how often a user can revise a pickup location or providing partial driver compensation can mitigate these issues. Another subtle issue is verifying that the user’s reported “accidental pin” is genuine, which may require analyzing patterns in repeated location changes.
What if the user schedules a ride well in advance, and the driver’s assignment happens much closer to the pickup time?
Scheduled rides introduce a different dynamic. The user might expect timely assignment, but the actual driver dispatch might happen only moments before pickup, leading to unpredictable wait times. In such scenarios, the threshold might consider the user’s scheduled start time rather than the instant they tap “request.” If the user’s request is accepted far in advance, you could define a cancellation policy that differs from on-demand trips.
Edge cases include scheduled rides that are assigned too late, leaving the user waiting with no recourse other than cancellation. Also, last-minute driver changes close to the scheduled time can invalidate any earlier predictions about wait time. Handling these schedules fairly involves robust predictive models that can reliably forecast driver availability at a future time, adjusting the threshold accordingly.
Is there a risk of lower-tier or less optimal drivers consistently being assigned when thresholds are lenient?
If the system “doesn’t mind” cancellations because the threshold is relatively long, it might allow suboptimal driver assignments. Those suboptimal matches could result in more cancellations, higher driver dissatisfaction, and wasted resources. Evaluating driver-user matching quality is crucial. The matching process should continue to optimize for the best possible driver assignment rather than assuming cancellations are “free” from a system perspective.
An overlooked pitfall is that if the platform or drivers interpret lenient thresholds as a sign that cancellations are less costly, the incentives to improve efficiency might diminish. For instance, drivers might be less proactive about quickly heading to pickups if they feel cancellations have minimal impact. Striking a balance involves ensuring that the threshold does not become a crutch for misaligned behaviors in driver-passenger matching.
How do you ensure the threshold policy remains user-centric yet still aligns with business and driver interests?
Maintaining user trust is essential. Even if a threshold is profitable for the company, if it feels unfair or punitive to users, they may switch to competitors. To keep the policy user-centric, it’s helpful to solicit user feedback via surveys or in-app prompts whenever cancellations occur near the threshold. Combining this qualitative feedback with quantitative data (like actual wait times and driver earnings) offers a holistic view.
A subtle issue is that short-term user satisfaction might conflict with long-term profitability or sustainability. If the threshold is set extremely high, users might be delighted initially, but drivers could leave the platform if they are penalized for wasted trips, eventually causing supply shortages. Conversely, if the threshold is set too low, users may face fees they perceive as unfair, harming the brand in the long run. Iterative experimentation, user feedback loops, and well-defined success criteria are needed to find a stable equilibrium that respects the needs of all stakeholders.