classical ml

SVMs separate the candidates who memorized 'maximize the margin' from the ones who can explain why a kernel gives you non-linear separation without ever touching the high-dimensional space. Here is the answer that lands the second signal.

Two simple classifiers that still appear in interviews because they test whether you understand assumptions and tradeoffs, not just sklearn calls. The signal is k-NN's laziness and curse of dimensionality versus Naive Bayes' independence assumption. Here is the answer.

Most candidates can recite 'maximize the margin'. The dual is where you show you actually understand why only support vectors matter and where the kernel trick comes from. Here is the derivation an interviewer wants.

Both tag sequences, but one is generative and one is discriminative, and that difference decides whether you can throw in overlapping features. Here is the comparison that shows you know the modeling tradeoff, not just the acronyms.

Anyone can say 'ensemble of trees'. The real answer is about decorrelating those trees and why that, not just averaging, is what drops variance. Here is what makes the forest more than the sum of its trees.

XGBoost made boosting practical; LightGBM made it fast. The answer is histogram binning, gradient-based sampling, and leaf-wise growth, each with a real tradeoff. Here is what they do and where they bite.

The 'naive' independence assumption is wrong on real data, yet the classifier is a strong baseline for text. The interesting answer explains why classification survives a broken assumption, plus smoothing and the variants. Here it is.

k-NN looks trivial until you ask about choosing k, why distances stop meaning anything in high dimensions, and how to make prediction fast on millions of points. Here is the tradeoff-aware answer.

Univariate ranking is the trap everyone falls into: it keeps redundant features and drops ones that only matter in combination. Here is the filter/wrapper/embedded breakdown plus mRMR and Boruta, and where each one bites.

Lasso gives sparsity, Ridge handles correlated features, and each fails where the other shines. Elastic Net blends them for a specific, common failure. Here is when it earns its two hyperparameters.

Resampling, reweighting, and focal loss attack class imbalance from different angles, and each has a real downside. The signal is matching the method to the model and metric, not blindly oversampling. Here is the breakdown.