Tune fraud threshold under review capacity and costs

Quick Overview

This question evaluates a data scientist's competency in cost-sensitive threshold tuning, calibrated probability modeling, and operational decision-making for fraud triage, including formulating expected costs under review capacity and monetary trade-offs.

Tune fraud threshold under review capacity and costs

Company: Meta

Role: Data Scientist

Category: Machine Learning

Difficulty: medium

Interview Round: Onsite

Your fraud model outputs a calibrated score s in 0 to 1 per account. You can auto-block when s >= t, send to manual review when s in [r, t), and allow otherwise. Constraints and costs: daily volume 2,000,000 accounts, base fake rate 1%, manual review budget 100,000 accounts per day, review detects 95% of fakes it sees, cost of auto-blocking a real user 5 dollars, cost of letting a fake pass 20 dollars, cost of manual review 1 dollar per account. (a) Formulate the expected daily cost as a function of thresholds r and t given calibrated scores. Describe how you would estimate it from historical labeled data using isotonic or Platt calibration and empirical score distributions. (b) Optimize r and t under the review budget. Explain how you would choose the operating point on the PR curve and verify with an online interleaved test. (c) Describe a drift monitoring plan and a weekly threshold re-tuning process with backtesting and safety rails.

Quick Answer: This question evaluates a data scientist's competency in cost-sensitive threshold tuning, calibrated probability modeling, and operational decision-making for fraud triage, including formulating expected costs under review capacity and monetary trade-offs.

|Home/Machine Learning/Meta
Meta logo
Meta
Oct 13, 2025, 9:49 PM
mediumData ScientistOnsiteMachine Learning
3
0

Fraud Triage Thresholding with Calibrated Scores

Context

You have a fraud model that outputs a calibrated score s ∈ [0, 1] per account, where s ≈ P(fake | features). Each day you must triage 2,000,000 accounts into one of three actions:

  • Auto-block if s ≥ t.
  • Send to manual review if r ≤ s < t.
  • Allow otherwise (s < r).

Constraints and costs:

  • Daily volume: 2,000,000 accounts.
  • Base fake rate: ~1% (for reference; calibration handles this implicitly).
  • Manual review budget: ≤ 100,000 accounts/day.
  • Manual review detects 95% of fakes it sees (and misses 5%).
  • Cost of auto-blocking a real user: $5.
  • Cost of letting a fake pass: $20.
  • Cost of manual review: $1 per account.

Assumption: Manual review does not incorrectly block real users (false blocks via review are negligible compared to auto-block false positives). If this is not true in your system, add that cost explicitly.

Tasks

(a) Formulate the expected daily cost as a function of thresholds r and t given calibrated scores. Describe how to estimate it from historical labeled data using isotonic or Platt calibration and empirical score distributions.

(b) Optimize r and t under the review budget. Explain how you would choose the operating point on the precision–recall (PR) curve and verify the choice with an online interleaved test.

(c) Describe a drift monitoring plan and a weekly threshold re-tuning process with backtesting and safety rails.

Loading comments...