Design experiments for marketplace balance
LyftData Scientist · OnsiteLast updated
This question evaluates a data scientist's competency in experimental design, causal inference, metric definition, statistical power calculation, and operational rollout planning for two-sided marketplaces, and it is commonly asked to assess the ability to account for interference, supply constraints, spillovers, and contamination when measuring treatment effects. Categorized under Analytics & Experimentation, it tests both conceptual understanding and practical application by probing exposure and eligibility definitions, metric and guardrail specification, sample-size and clustering adjustments, recognition of heterogeneous treatment effects and sequential monitoring concerns, variance-reduction considerations, and rollout and fallback decision-making.
You propose a new supplier prioritization (ranking) policy intended to increase order completion in a two-sided marketplace with known interference between users and suppliers. (a) Experiment design: Choose an appropriate design (user-level randomization, supplier-level randomization, geo-clustered test, or switchback). Justify your choice given network effects, supply constraints, and spillovers. Define exposure and eligibility, bucketing, and how you will prevent cross-contamination. (b) Metrics: Define the primary metric (e.g., completion rate or GMV per session) and guardrails (e.g., cancellation rate, supplier wait time, fairness across cities/suppliers). Specify event triggers and the exact aggregation level. (c) Power: Baseline completion rate is 60%; the minimum detectable effect is +2 percentage points (absolute). Compute the per-variant sample size for a two-sided test with α=0.05 and power=0.80 under independent Bernoulli outcomes. Then adjust for clustering with a design effect of 1.2 and state the final sample size. Show formulas. (d) Analysis: Detail how you will handle heterogeneous treatment effects (by city, time-of-day, supplier capacity quartile), sequential monitoring without inflating Type I error, and variance reduction (e.g., CUPED or covariate adjustment). Explain how you would detect and correct for marketplace rebalancing artifacts (e.g., improvements in treated geos causing degradations elsewhere). (e) Rollout: Propose a ramp plan and a fallback decision rule if guardrails breach for two consecutive days.
Solution walkthrough is for members
Get the full walkthrough with reference code and complexity analysis, plus Kitty Coach at 300 messages a day. Hints, the code runner and community answers stay free.