← Two Sigma Interview Insights
This one sprawled in a way I wasn't ready for.
Start by defining a true duplicate as a record that represents the same real-world transaction, which requires understanding the data model and business context. Then systematically explore causes of duplication, implement detection for exact and near-duplicates using appropriate techniques, and quantify and extract duplicates with clear criteria. Emphasize trade-offs between precision and recall and the importance of domain knowledge.
Pro tip: In interviews, demonstrate that you consider the business impact of false positives and false negatives—e.g., flagging a legitimate transaction as duplicate could harm customer experience. Also, mention that near-duplicate detection often requires a combination of deterministic and probabilistic methods, and that you would validate with domain experts.
Clarify what constitutes a true duplicate by considering the business definition: same transaction ID, same amount, timestamp, merchant, and card, but also account for legitimate repeated transactions (e.g., subscriptions). Engage stakeholders to agree on criteria.
Explore potential sources: system glitches, double submission, data integration errors, or intentional duplicates. Understand the data pipeline to pinpoint where duplication might occur.
For exact duplicates, use hashing or grouping on all fields. For near-duplicates, define similarity metrics (e.g., Jaccard, Levenshtein, or cosine similarity on embeddings) and set thresholds. Consider blocking or indexing to scale.
Quantify the extent by counting duplicate groups and estimating impact. Extract duplicates by flagging or removing them, ensuring you preserve a mapping for auditing. Use clustering or graph-based methods for transitive duplicates.
Validate results with domain experts and measure precision/recall if labels exist. Iterate on thresholds and features to balance false positives and negatives based on business cost.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.