← LinkedIn Interview Insights

LinkedIn·Data Scientist·Technical Phone Screen·Senior

Senior
May 2026

Summary

LinkedIn data scientist interview with a stats-heavy scenario question about conflicting A/B test results across two cities. Pretty classic setup but the depth they expected was real.

Questions Asked (1)

Q1

An A/B test ran in two separate cities. In each city individually, variant A outperforms variant B. But when you combine the data from both cities, variant B looks better overall. How do you make sense of that, what decision do you make, and what additional analysis would you run before rolling anything out?

A/B Testing & ExperimentationRoot Cause AnalysisProduct Analytics & Metrics
Author's notes

This is Simpson's paradox dressed up in a product scenario and I knew it the second I read it, which almost made it worse because I rushed into the explanation without thinking through the decision layer.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Recognize this as Simpson's paradox, where a confounding variable (likely city-level differences in traffic mix or sample sizes) reverses the aggregate effect. Explain the paradox, then recommend analyzing the data stratified by city and other relevant dimensions to identify the confounder before making a decision. Emphasize that the correct decision depends on whether the cities are exchangeable and whether the confounder is a true effect modifier.

Pro tip: Don't just say 'it's Simpson's paradox'—show you understand that the aggregate result is misleading only if the confounder is not a true effect modifier. Propose a weighted analysis or a hierarchical model to estimate the overall effect while accounting for city-level heterogeneity.

1. Identify the Paradox

State that this is a classic case of Simpson's paradox, where a trend appears in subgroups but reverses when groups are combined. Clarify that the overall result is not necessarily wrong but is confounded by city-level differences.

2. Diagnose the Confounder

Investigate what differs between the cities: sample sizes, user demographics, traffic sources, or baseline conversion rates. Check if the treatment assignment was balanced within each city and whether the cities have different proportions of users who respond differently to the variants.

3. Decide on Aggregation

Determine whether the cities are exchangeable and whether the confounder is a true effect modifier. If the cities are not exchangeable, the overall effect may not be meaningful; if the confounder is an effect modifier, report city-specific results.

4. Run Additional Analysis

Perform stratified analysis, weighted averages, or a mixed-effects model to estimate the overall effect while accounting for city-level variation. Check for interactions between city and variant, and consider segmenting by other relevant dimensions.

5. Make a Decision

Based on the analysis, decide whether to roll out variant A, B, or neither. If the effect is heterogeneous, consider a targeted rollout or further experimentation to understand the drivers.

Key Points to Mention

  • Simpson's paradox and confounding variables
  • Sample size imbalance between cities
  • Effect modification vs. confounding
  • Stratified analysis and weighted averages
  • Hierarchical or mixed-effects models
  • Practical significance and business impact

AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.