← Meta Interview Insights

Meta·Machine Learning Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Senior

Senior
Jun 2026

Summary

Meta ML engineer interview that was basically one meaty coding and design question about friend recommendations. The AI-assistance angle was a nice twist I wasn't expecting, felt more like a real work session than a whiteboard grind.

Questions Asked (2)

Q1

Design and implement a Top-K friend recommendation system using mutual friends as the ranking signal. For a given user, score each non-friend candidate by the number of friends they share, then return the K highest-scoring candidates. Walk through your implementation using the existing User class, and discuss time and memory complexity.

Algorithms & Data StructuresSystem DesignTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

I went straight to set intersection and it felt clean enough.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the problem and constraints, then propose a two-phase algorithm: first compute mutual friend counts for all non-friend candidates, then select the top K using a min-heap. Walk through the implementation using the User class, and analyze time and memory complexity, discussing trade-offs and potential optimizations.

Pro tip: Mention that for large-scale systems, you can avoid scanning all non-friends by using a threshold or sampling, and highlight the importance of tie-breaking and excluding existing friends.

1. Clarify requirements and constraints

Ask about the size of the network, whether the graph is directed or undirected, and if K is small relative to the number of users. Confirm that the User class has a friends list.

2. Design the algorithm

For a given user u, iterate over each friend f of u, then for each friend g of f that is not u and not already a friend of u, increment a counter for g. Use a hash map to store counts.

3. Select top K efficiently

After counting, use a min-heap of size K to find the K candidates with the highest mutual friend counts. Iterate through the counts and maintain the heap.

4. Implement using the User class

Assume User has an id and a list of friends (User objects). Write pseudocode or actual code for the algorithm, handling edge cases like no friends or fewer than K candidates.

5. Analyze complexity and discuss trade-offs

Time complexity: O(F * avg_friends) for counting, plus O(N log K) for heap selection, where F is number of friends and N is number of candidates. Memory: O(N) for the hash map. Discuss alternatives like sorting all candidates (O(N log N)) or using approximate methods for scale.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use a hash map to count mutual friends efficiently.
  • Use a min-heap to select top K in O(N log K) time, which is better than sorting when K is small.
  • Exclude the user and existing friends from candidates.
  • Time complexity: O(F * avg_friends + N log K), where F is number of friends, N is number of candidates.
  • Memory complexity: O(N) for the hash map and heap.
  • For large-scale systems, consider distributed processing or approximate algorithms (e.g., sampling, thresholding).

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

Q2

You're allowed to use AI assistance here. Ask it to propose alternative ranking signals beyond mutual friends, such as Adamic-Adar or Jaccard similarity, then analyze the trade-offs between them.

Technical Trade-offsAlgorithms & Data StructuresProduct Analytics & Metrics
Author's notes

Genuinely surprised they let you use an AI tool mid-interview.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the ranking problem and the role of mutual friends as a baseline signal. Then propose alternative graph-based signals like Adamic-Adar and Jaccard similarity, explaining their computation and intuition. Finally, compare them on trade-offs such as computational cost, sensitivity to node degree, and performance in different network contexts, and suggest how to evaluate them offline and online.

Pro tip: Show that you understand the production constraints at Meta's scale: Adamic-Adar is more expensive but often better for sparse graphs, while Jaccard is cheaper but biased toward high-degree nodes. Mention that the best signal may depend on the specific use case (e.g., friend recommendations vs. group suggestions).

1. Clarify the problem and baseline

Restate the ranking task (e.g., recommending friends or connections) and explain why mutual friends is a common baseline signal. Mention its limitations, such as popularity bias and lack of nuance.

2. Propose alternative signals

Introduce Adamic-Adar and Jaccard similarity as alternatives. Define each: Adamic-Adar weights common neighbors by inverse log degree, while Jaccard normalizes by the union of neighbors.

3. Analyze trade-offs

Compare the signals on computational complexity, sensitivity to node degree, and effectiveness in different network densities. Discuss how Adamic-Adar penalizes high-degree common neighbors, reducing popularity bias, while Jaccard is simpler and faster but may over-penalize high-degree nodes.

4. Consider evaluation and production

Explain how to evaluate these signals offline (e.g., AUC, precision@k) and online (A/B tests). Discuss scalability and implementation challenges at Meta's scale, such as approximate algorithms or precomputation.

5. Recommend and iterate

Suggest a recommendation based on the trade-offs, possibly combining signals or using a learned model. Emphasize the importance of experimentation and iteration.

Key Points to Mention

  • Definition and intuition of Adamic-Adar and Jaccard similarity
  • Computational complexity: Adamic-Adar O(sum of degrees of common neighbors) vs. Jaccard O(degree of nodes)
  • Sensitivity to high-degree nodes and popularity bias
  • Performance in sparse vs. dense graphs
  • Offline evaluation metrics (e.g., AUC, precision@k) and online A/B testing
  • Scalability considerations and potential approximations for large-scale graphs

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