Interview guides · DataVisor

DataVisor Data Scientist Interview Questions & Guide 2026

Case practice for DataVisor data scientist candidates: scope a vague prompt into a measurable question before you analyze it.

The 60-second brief

At DataVisor, a Data Scientist is not merely an analyst; you are an "Architect of Efficacy." You are tasked with building the mathematical core of the world’s leading AI-powered fraud and risk platform. Your work directly protects vulnerable people and organizations from sophisticated, fast-evolving fraud rings, including synthetic identity theft, account takeovers, and money laundering.

If the team owns experimentation, expect depth past a two-sample test: minimum detectable effect and its roughly inverse-square-root dependence on sample size (holding power, significance level and variance fixed), variance reduction from pre-period covariates, interference between units, and when a sequential design is the right call.

Focus areas

Read vintage curves, not blended portfolio averages
Set fraud thresholds by expected cost
Separate authorization, settlement and dispute outcomes cleanly

Overview

You will operate at the intersection of cutting-edge research and product scalability. By mining global intelligence networks and architecting "Cold Start" logic, you ensure that clients receive immediate protection from day one. This role is highly impactful, as it requires translating complex, real-world fraud patterns into robust, production-grade machine learning models that function in real-time environments.

The team is described as small, tight-knit, and exceptionally intelligent. You should expect to collaborate closely with cross-functional partners in Product, Strategy, and Engineering, requiring both technical depth and the ability to articulate complex concepts to non-technical stakeholders.

Where to focus your preparation

Treat the sections below as preparation areas and confirm the format with your recruiter.

Preparation focus

No round sequence has been reported for this company, so work the categories below and confirm the format with your recruiter.

What to demonstrate

Breadth across SQL, experimentation and product reasoning
Ability to state assumptions before choosing a method

How to prepare

Drill the practice exercises below and time yourself
Prepare three quantified stories about decisions you drove

Where candidates lose points

Reading the most recent months of fraud and dispute rates as final

Consumer dispute rights commonly run around 120 days from the transaction or expected delivery date, and several reason codes run considerably longer, so the disputes belonging to a recent transaction month have simply not been filed yet. Any chart attributed by transaction date therefore slopes down at the right edge regardless of what is happening. The fix is to report only matured cohorts, or to apply development factors estimated from completed months and to show the estimate as an estimate.

Averaging delinquency across a book that is growing

A loan three months old cannot be 90 days past due, so a portfolio with many recent originations reports a low blended 90+ rate purely from age mix. The blended rate falls fastest exactly when originations grow fastest, which is precisely when credit quality most needs watching, so the metric moves in the reassuring direction during the riskiest period. Only comparisons at equal months on book are valid, which is what a vintage or roll-rate view enforces.

Reading experiment results before checking the arm split

Compare observed arm counts against the intended allocation ratio, not an assumed even split, and set the alarm far below the conventional 0.05: at 0.05 roughly one healthy experiment in twenty trips it, which is why sample-ratio checks usually run at p < 0.001 or stricter. The test's power scales with sample size, so it misses a real diversion on a small experiment and fires on an imbalance too small to move the estimate on a very large one. A flag means go find the assignment or logging fault before reading any outcome, not report a mismatch.

Building features from data that postdates the prediction time

Check every feature against the timestamp at which the model would actually score, and drop anything computed from a window that includes or follows the label event. For a forecasting use case, split train and test by time rather than at random, and split by entity when the same entity recurs.

Questions & practice

Explain the trade-offs between precision and recall in the context of high-volume fraud detection.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.

Follow-up

What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?

Implement a function to calculate the KS (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) statistic for a binary classifier.

Medium · machine learning and modelling

Approach

Say how the offline result would be validated online before it is trusted.
Frame the prediction: the label, the moment of prediction, and the action it triggers.
Check what information would not exist at prediction time, and exclude it.

Follow-up

What would you monitor after launch to know the model is still valid?
How would you choose the decision threshold, and who owns that choice?

Estimate a delinquency roll-rate matrix and project twelve months

Hard · roll rates · markov chain · survivorship

fct_loan_performance_monthly gives loan_id, as_of_month_end, months_on_book, delinquency_bucket, charge_off_flag, prepaid_in_full_flag and restructured_flag. Build a month-to-month transition matrix over the five delinquency buckets plus absorbing charged_off and prepaid states. Loans that stop appearing must be routed to an absorbing state rather than dropped. Project the current book forward 12 months by repeated matrix multiplication and report the projected share reaching charge-off. Handle restructured_flag explicitly, and name one place the Markov assumption fails on this data.

Approach

Build consecutive month pairs per loan by shifting as_of_month_end within loan_id, then verify the shifted value is exactly one month later. A gap is not a transition, it is an exit you have not resolved yet.
Resolve exits before counting anything. A loan whose last row carries charge_off_flag moves to charged_off, one carrying prepaid_in_full_flag moves to prepaid, and one that disappears with neither is a data question to raise rather than silently discard, because discarding it is survivorship that inflates every cure rate.
Count pairs into a 7 by 7 matrix and row-normalise. Assert every row sums to one and the two absorbing rows are the identity; a row that does not sum to one means exits were dropped.
Decide and state the restructure rule. Restructuring resets days_past_due, so a dpd_60_89 to current move on a restructured loan is not a cure. Either give restructured loans their own state or carry the pre-restructure bucket, but do not let that move land in the cure cell.
Project by taking the current bucket distribution as a row vector and multiplying by the matrix twelve times. Report the charged_off entry, and report it again from an all-current starting vector so the reader can see how much of the projection comes from loans that are already delinquent today.
State the homogeneity failure plainly: transition rates depend strongly on months_on_book, so one pooled matrix applied to a book with a young mix understates early-life delinquency. If the mix is moving, estimate separate matrices by seasoning band.

Worked solution (45 min)

Sort by loan_id and as_of_month_end, shift to form (from_state, to_state) pairs, and flag pairs whose month gap is not exactly one.
For each loan's final row, assign the absorbing destination from charge_off_flag or prepaid_in_full_flag, and list loans that vanish with neither as an exception count to report.
Apply the restructure rule, then build the 7 by 7 count matrix with a cross-tabulation over ordered state categories and row-normalise it.
Assert row sums equal one and absorbing rows are the identity, then take the current month's bucket distribution as a row vector.
Multiply twelve times, report the charged_off component, and repeat from an all-current vector for comparison.

Expected result: A 7 by 7 row-stochastic matrix with identity rows for charged_off and prepaid, a current-to-current diagonal typically above 0.95, roll rates rising with bucket depth, and a 12-month projected charge-off share of a few percentage points from an all-current start and materially higher from the actual book.

Verify it yourself

Every row sums to one within floating-point tolerance, and both absorbing rows are exactly the identity.
No mass sits in cells that skip a bucket upward, such as dpd_1_29 to dpd_60_89 in one month; if there is, the pairs are not actually consecutive months.
The projection from an all-current start is strictly below the projection from the real book distribution.
Backtest by estimating on months up to t minus 12 and comparing the projected distribution with the realised one at t; a systematic optimistic gap points at dropped exits or at seasoning, not at noise.

Follow-up

How would you validate the projection against what actually happened, and over what window?
The cure rate out of dpd_30_59 rose five points last quarter. What are the candidate explanations and how would you separate them?
When would you prefer a vintage curve to a roll-rate projection, and why?

Customers with no credit application, avoiding the NOT IN trap

Medium · null semantics · anti-join · scd type 2

Count current customers who have never submitted a credit application, broken out by segment. dim_customer is a slowly changing dimension type 2, so restrict to is_current = true, kyc_status = 'verified' and closed_at null. In fct_loan_application, customer_id is null for applicants who were not customers when they applied. Write the anti-join, return segment and customer_count, and state in one line what NOT IN (SELECT customer_id FROM fct_loan_application) returns against this table and why.

Approach

Pin the dimension to one row per customer first: is_current = true already guarantees that, but say so out loud, because forgetting it multiplies every count by the number of attribute versions a customer has accumulated.
Write the anti-join as NOT EXISTS with a correlated predicate on customer_id, which evaluates per row and is unaffected by nulls anywhere in the applications table.
Name the failure explicitly: NOT IN against a nullable column compares each candidate to a set containing NULL, the comparison yields UNKNOWN rather than TRUE, and the whole predicate is therefore never satisfied, so the query returns zero rows.
If NOT IN is required for some reason, add WHERE customer_id IS NOT NULL inside the subquery, which restores the intended semantics, and note that a LEFT JOIN with an IS NULL filter is equally safe.
Group by segment and sanity-check the total against the unfiltered current-customer count minus the count of distinct applying customers.

Worked solution (20 min)

SELECT segment, COUNT(*) FROM dim_customer c WHERE c.is_current AND c.kyc_status = 'verified' AND c.closed_at IS NULL.
Add AND NOT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM fct_loan_application a WHERE a.customer_id = c.customer_id).
Group by segment and order by the count descending.
Run the NOT IN variant alongside it and record that it returns zero rows, then run it again with IS NOT NULL added to the subquery and confirm the counts match the NOT EXISTS version.

Expected result: One row per segment present in the current dimension (retail, sme, corporate), each with a non-zero customer_count. The NOT EXISTS and the null-guarded NOT IN forms agree exactly; the unguarded NOT IN form returns no rows at all.

Verify it yourself

COUNT(DISTINCT customer_id) equals COUNT(*) on the filtered dimension, which confirms is_current really collapsed the type 2 versions.
The total across segments plus COUNT(DISTINCT customer_id) from fct_loan_application restricted to current verified open customers equals the full current verified open customer count.
Swapping NOT EXISTS for the unguarded NOT IN changes the result from a populated set to an empty one, which is the whole point of the exercise.

Follow-up

Rewrite it as a LEFT JOIN with IS NULL and say when you would prefer that form to NOT EXISTS.
How does the answer change if you want customers who never applied as of a historical date rather than today?
The applications table has 40,000 rows with a null customer_id. What are those rows, and are they a data quality problem or a product fact?

Count-weighted and dollar-weighted approval rates on one currency

Easy · aggregation · denominators · minor units

Using fct_payment_authorization, report the trailing 7-day authorization approval rate two ways for transaction_currency = 'EUR': count-weighted, and dollar-weighted on amount_minor. Exclude is_reversal = true, exclude incremental authorizations (parent_auth_id not null), and exclude zero-amount account verifications. auth_result = 'approved' is the numerator; the four declined_* values make up the rest of the denominator. Return channel, attempts, approved_attempts, approval_rate_count and approval_rate_value. State every exclusion and its reason before you write the SELECT.

Approach

Say the denominator out loud first: attempts on a single transaction currency, excluding reversals, incremental authorizations and zero-amount verifications, because none of those is a purchase attempt a merchant is trying to get approved.
Filter requested_at against a half-open interval (>= start AND < end) so the boundary day is neither dropped nor double counted.
Compute both rates in one pass with FILTER clauses: COUNT() FILTER (WHERE auth_result = 'approved') over COUNT(), and SUM(amount_minor) FILTER (WHERE auth_result = 'approved') over SUM(amount_minor).
Cast one side of each ratio to numeric before dividing, since amount_minor and the counts are integers and integer division silently truncates to zero.
Group by channel and sort by the value-weighted rate, then read the gap between the two rates as a statement about where the declines sit rather than as noise.

Follow-up

The two rates diverge by four points on the ecommerce channel but agree on card_present. What does that tell you, and what would you cut next?
How would you extend this to all currencies without summing amount_minor across them?
Which of the four decline reasons belong in the denominator of a rate you would put in front of a risk team, and which are really the network's problem?

How would you use graph theory to identify organized fraud rings?

Medium

Approach

Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.
Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.

Follow-up

What assumption would you test first?
How would you know your answer was wrong?

How would you design a detection strategy for a new client with no historical data?

Medium

Approach

Say what you would check first and why it is the highest-information step.
State your assumptions explicitly before working the problem.
Clarify what is being asked and what a complete answer would contain.

Follow-up

How would you know your answer was wrong?
What assumption would you test first?

Measure an underwriting automation programme without hiding cost

Medium · metric gaming · swap set · operations metrics

An operations programme aims to cut manual underwriting. The proposed metric is manual review rate: decided_by = 'manual' over applications with decision in ('approve','decline') in fct_loan_application. The team controls the referral rules recorded in policy_rule_hits. Explain how they can halve that metric in one release while making the book worse, then design the readout that catches it: primary metric, the cuts it must always be reported in, and the guardrails. Say what evidence you would require before declaring a batch of referrals safe to auto-decide.

Approach

Name the exploit precisely. Referrals can be converted to automatic declines by a rule change, which removes them from the numerator at no operational cost while they stay in the denominator, so the rate falls and applicants a human would have approved are rejected instead. Auto-approving the same population moves the metric identically with the mirror-image failure mode.
Refuse the bare rate as a primary. Make it conditional on outcomes: manual review rate measured at a held-constant approval rate within each model_pd_12m band, so a reduction is creditable only when the decisions themselves did not move.
Require fixed cuts on every report: by model_pd_12m band and by the rule identifier inside policy_rule_hits. A single blended operations number cannot be decomposed after the fact, and the decomposition is the entire diagnostic.
Set guardrails on the things the exploit disturbs: approval rate within each score band, the override rate where manual decisions disagree with the automated recommendation, and the vintage 90+ rate at months_on_book = 12 for the newly auto-decided population against the referrals of the prior regime.
Fix the evidence bar for retiring a referral rule: a shadow period where the rule fires and the case is still worked manually, recording what the automation would have decided, what the human decided, and, for the disagreement group alone, the realised performance. Agreement on the easy majority establishes nothing about the disputed minority.
State the conflict honestly rather than designing around it. The referral population exists because the model is least certain there, so automating it trades loss for cost by construction, and the readout's job is to price that trade rather than to make it disappear.

Worked solution (30 min)

Compute manual review rate for a recent month overall, then by model_pd_12m band, then by rule identifier extracted from policy_rule_hits.
For each rule, compute the approve share and decline share of the applications it touches, so the rules whose removal would actually change decisions are identified before anyone proposes removing them.
Simulate the exploit: reclassify one high-volume referral rule's applications as automatic declines, then recompute the blended rate and the band-level approval rates side by side.
Write the readout spec: the primary with its conditioning, the two mandatory cuts, the three guardrails, and the shadow-period evidence bar.

Expected result: A table in which the simulated rule change lowers the blended manual review rate materially while approval rate in the affected model_pd_12m bands falls at the same time, together with a readout spec that makes it impossible to publish the first effect without the second.

Verify it yourself

The simulated change lowers the manual review rate and the band-level approval rate together. If band approval rate is unchanged, that rule was not binding and its removal is genuinely free.
Rule-level counts reconcile to the blended rate once applications hitting several rules are counted once. A jsonb array of rule identifiers is the usual place this double-counts.
The newly auto-decided population and the prior manual referrals are compared at equal months on book, not at equal calendar dates.

Follow-up

The override rate falls to near zero after the change. Is that good?
How long must the shadow period run, given the outcome matures at twelve months on book?
The rule fires on 200 applications a month. What can and cannot be established at that volume?

Approval rate rose in every band yet fell overall

Medium · mix shift · simpsons paradox · segmentation

Monthly application approval rate on fct_loan_application fell from 62 to 57 percent. Cut by bureau_score band, the rate rose in every band, including the null-bureau band. Columns: application_id, channel, submitted_at, requested_amount_minor, declared_annual_income_minor, bureau_score, model_pd_12m, model_version, policy_rule_hits, decision, decided_by, decision_at. The denominator is decision in ('approve','decline'). Explain the arithmetic, quantify how much of the five-point fall is mix versus within-band movement, and say what you would tell the team that owns acquisition.

Approach

Confirm the paradox is real rather than a banding artefact. Rebuild the bands on fixed cutpoints taken from the earlier period, because quantile bands re-cut each month move with the population and can manufacture this pattern on their own.
Compute the exact decomposition rather than describing it: within = sum of w_i0 * (r_i1 - r_i0), mix = sum of r_i0 * (w_i1 - w_i0), interaction = sum of (w_i1 - w_i0) * (r_i1 - r_i0). The three terms sum identically to the change in the blended rate, so the report can state the split.
Attribute the weight change by cutting the same fixed bands by channel. Keep null bureau_score as its own band; a thin file is a population signal, not missing data to be imputed away.
Check whether the new arrivals also changed the population inside a band, by comparing requested_amount_minor and declared_annual_income_minor distributions within one band across the two months.
Deliver two numbers rather than one story: policy is looser in every band, and the funnel is being fed a different population. Those have different owners and different fixes.

Follow-up

If the new channel is profitable at its own approval rate, is the blended fall a problem at all?
How would you present this so that nobody reads the blended series unaccompanied again?
What breaks if you fix the mix by reweighting to a frozen band distribution every month?

Suggested practice checklist

Roughly 90 minutes a night on weekdays with one longer weekend block. The plan deliberately cuts scope rather than compressing everything, on the assumption that finishing one thing a night beats half-starting four.

Day 1 — Fix the scope and set a baseline

Read the role description and write the three things the loop will almost certainly test, then write an explicit not-doing list for everything else and keep it visible all week.
Take one 20-minute SQL prompt and one 10-minute metric question cold, and write the single sentence that says what blocked each attempt, since that sentence is what decides which two topics get the most evenings.
Set the week's one rule: one problem finished to completion every night, including the night you only have 40 minutes.

Deliverable: A one-page scope with an explicit not-doing list and two cold attempts, each carrying one sentence on what blocked it.

Day 2 — One query pattern, written three times

Choose the single pattern most likely to appear (a cohort retention grid, or a funnel counted by user) and write it three times from a blank file rather than editing the previous attempt.
On the third attempt, write the grain of every CTE as a comment before writing its body.
Stop at 90 minutes even if the third version is imperfect, and write the one thing you would fix with another hour.

Deliverable: Three independent versions of the same query plus a note on what changed between them.

Day 3 — Only the statistics you will be asked to defend

Write, in under 200 words, how you would decide whether a difference between two groups is real: the test, its assumptions, and what you would switch to when an assumption fails.
Compute a 95 percent confidence interval for a difference in proportions by hand on realistic numbers, then write in one sentence what changes if the two samples are paired rather than independent.
Write your answer to "what does a p-value mean", check it against a definition, and delete the version that describes it as the probability the hypothesis is true.

Deliverable: A 200-word written answer and one hand-computed interval you can reproduce under pressure.

Day 4 — One case, and the assumptions holding it up

Answer one product case aloud in 20 minutes with a recording running, then listen back with a pen and mark every claim you asserted without saying what it rested on: an assumed user behaviour, an assumed data source, an assumed baseline rate, an assumed grain.
Pick the three assumptions the recommendation actually depends on, write how you would check each one against data, and say which one being wrong would flip the recommendation rather than merely weaken it.
Write the four-step structure you used onto a card small enough to hold in working memory when you are nervous.

Deliverable: One recording, three load-bearing assumptions each with a written check, and a four-step structure card.

Day 5 — Your own work, timed

Write a 90-second version and a four-minute version of your main project, and time both out loud rather than reading them.
Prepare answers to the two follow-ups that always come: what you would do differently, and how you knew it worked.
Put one number in the first sentence and be able to say exactly where that number came from and what it excludes.

Deliverable: Two timed narratives with one defensible number in the opening line.

Day 6 — The one full rehearsal, in a longer weekend block

Run a 60-minute mock covering query work, a case and a behavioural question in a single sitting with no breaks, because sustained attention is the thing evenings have not trained.
Immediately afterwards, and before hearing any feedback, write the three moments you lost the thread.
Spend the rest of the block only on those three moments, and on nothing you merely feel shaky about.

Deliverable: Mock notes naming three failure moments with a specific fix written under each.

Day 7 — Taper

Write the 20-minute warm-up you will actually do on the morning of the interview: one query you can already write from a blank file, one metric you can define out loud, and nothing you have never seen before.
Re-read only your own notes from this week, and open no new material.
Write down the logistics: the tool you will be asked to work in, whether lookups are allowed, and the sentence you will use when you do not know something.

Deliverable: A one-page card holding the case structure, the project numbers, and the logistics.

Rigour against a deadline

Nearly every data role forces a trade between the analysis you want and the one that fits the decision window. Prepare a case where you deliberately shipped something less rigorous, named the weakness to the person relying on it, and said what would change your answer. The naming is the part interviewers listen for.

How do you handle imbalanced datasets typical of fraud environments?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
Close with what you would do differently, concretely.
Quantify the outcome, including what you would not claim credit for.

Follow-up

How did you know the outcome was caused by your change?
What would you do differently if you ran that project again?

What is your experience with unsupervised learning techniques for anomaly detection?

Medium · behavioural and stakeholder questions

Approach

Name the disagreement or constraint, and how you resolved it with evidence.
Pick a story where you drove the decision, not one where you observed it.
State the situation in two sentences and spend the rest on your reasoning.

Follow-up

What would you do differently if you ran that project again?
What did you decide not to do, and why?

Allocate one analyst-week across three competing risk requests

Medium · prioritisation · decision deadlines · stakeholder negotiation

Three requests land in the same week and you have one analyst-week. Payments wants a merchant-level decline teardown before a contract renewal in nine days. Credit wants a swap-set analysis on a cutoff change scheduled to ship in six weeks. Insurance wants accident-quarter loss ratios at 12 months development for a reserving review with no fixed date. Each sponsor believes theirs is first, and each has escalated before. Produce the allocation, the reasoning you would say out loud to all three at once, and what you explicitly drop.

Approach

Score each request on the decision it unblocks rather than on effort or on how loudly it arrived: what changes if it is late, and is that change reversible.
Separate deadline from value. The nine-day renewal is a hard, irreversible date with a bounded prize; the six-week cutoff has slack but a much larger downside if it ships unmeasured; the reserving number has no date but feeds external reporting, which is its own kind of hard.
Hunt for the cheap partial in each: a decline teardown restricted to the top merchants by declined value usually answers the contract question at a fraction of the full cut.
Sequence by hard date first, then by largest irreversible downside, and deliver the trade-off to all three sponsors in one message rather than three, so nobody negotiates privately against a version you told someone else.
Name what is dropped and who now owns that consequence, in writing, so the trade-off is visible rather than silently absorbed by you.

Follow-up

The credit sponsor escalates to your manager. What do you change, and what do you refuse to change?
How would you make this allocation reproducible so the next contested week is a rule application rather than a negotiation?