← Roblox Interview Insights

Roblox·Data Scientist·Technical Phone Screen·Senior

Senior
May 2026

Summary

A technical screen for a data scientist role at Roblox that was basically one giant multi-part pandas problem. The question covered time normalization, feature engineering, and anomaly detection across 50M rows with a 1 GB memory budget. Pretty intense for a phone screen.

Questions Asked (3)

Q1

You have three DataFrames covering factory events, telemetry, and a shift calendar. Events can arrive up to 48 hours late and may be duplicated with timestamps differing by up to 2 seconds. How do you normalize all timestamps to a single time axis and deduplicate events with a deterministic rule while preserving correct event order?

Data ModelingTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

My first instinct was to convert everything to UTC and call it a day, but then I remembered the telemetry table has local timestamps with IANA timezone strings attached, so you have to localize those before converting.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by establishing a unified time axis in UTC, then define a deterministic deduplication rule that prioritizes event completeness and arrival order. Use a composite key (e.g., factory_id + event_type) and a tie-breaker like earliest timestamp or latest ingestion time, while ensuring late-arriving events are handled via watermarking or reprocessing. Finally, validate that the deduplicated sequence preserves the correct event order using monotonic timestamps or sequence numbers.

Pro tip: Mention that you would log the deduplication decisions and maintain an audit trail to debug edge cases, and that you'd test with simulated late and duplicate data to ensure the rule is truly deterministic and scalable.

1. Unify time zones and granularity

Convert all timestamps to UTC and align granularity (e.g., milliseconds) across events, telemetry, and shift calendar. Handle timezone offsets and daylight saving if applicable.

2. Define a deterministic deduplication key

Choose a composite key that uniquely identifies an event (e.g., factory_id, machine_id, event_type, and a rounded timestamp window). Use a tie-breaker such as earliest timestamp or latest ingestion time to pick one record.

3. Handle late-arriving data

Use a watermark or allowed lateness window (e.g., 48 hours) to decide when to finalize deduplication. For batch processing, reprocess affected partitions; for streaming, use stateful deduplication with timers.

4. Preserve event order

After deduplication, sort events by the normalized timestamp and a secondary sequence number if available. Ensure that the deduplication rule does not reorder events incorrectly (e.g., by always keeping the earliest timestamp).

5. Validate and monitor

Check for duplicates after deduplication, compare counts, and monitor for late data. Implement logging and metrics to track deduplication rates and potential data quality issues.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use of UTC and consistent timestamp formats to avoid timezone confusion.
  • Composite key for deduplication that includes business identifiers and a time window (e.g., 2-second tolerance).
  • Deterministic tie-breaker: e.g., keep the record with the earliest timestamp, or latest ingestion time if timestamps are identical.
  • Watermarking or allowed lateness to handle up to 48-hour delays without losing data.
  • Preservation of event order via sorting on normalized timestamp and a monotonic sequence number.
  • Scalability considerations: partitioning by factory_id or date, and using efficient window functions or state stores.

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

Q2

For the last 7 calendar days in each machine's local time, compute per-machine hourly features: count of completed start-to-stop cycles, 95th percentile temperature, and a rolling 24-hour z-score of power_kW. How do you handle missing hours and DST gaps or overlaps correctly?

Data ModelingProduct Analytics & MetricsTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

DST is where I fumbled a bit.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the data model and time semantics: each machine has its own local timezone, so you must convert timestamps to local time and handle DST transitions explicitly. Then outline a pipeline that resamples to hourly buckets, computes the three features with clear rules for missing hours (e.g., forward-fill for z-score, null for percentile), and validates DST gaps/overlaps by using timezone-aware libraries and documenting assumptions.

Pro tip: Mention that you would use a timezone-aware database or library (e.g., pandas with tz_localize, or SQL with AT TIME ZONE) and that you would log DST anomalies to a monitoring table to catch silent data corruption. Also, emphasize that for the 95th percentile, missing hours should be excluded rather than imputed, while for the rolling z-score, you might forward-fill to maintain continuity but flag imputed values.

1. Clarify requirements and data semantics

Confirm the definition of a 'completed start-to-stop cycle', the exact timestamp fields, and how machine local time is stored. Ask about the expected volume and whether the 7-day window is inclusive of today.

2. Handle timezone and DST conversion

Convert all timestamps to the machine's local timezone using a robust library (e.g., pytz, zoneinfo). For DST gaps (spring forward), decide whether to treat the missing hour as null or interpolate; for overlaps (fall back), deduplicate by keeping the first occurrence or aggregating.

3. Resample to hourly buckets and compute features

Group data into hourly bins per machine. For cycles, count completed cycles per hour. For temperature, compute the 95th percentile per hour, ignoring missing hours. For power_kW, compute a rolling 24-hour z-score using a window that respects local time and handles missing hours via forward-fill or interpolation with flags.

4. Address missing hours and DST anomalies

For missing hours, decide per feature: cycles and temperature should be null if no data, while z-score can be forward-filled but marked. For DST, ensure the hourly index is complete and that gaps/overlaps are explicitly handled (e.g., by adding a DST flag column).

5. Validate and document

Run sanity checks: total hours per machine should be 168 minus DST adjustments. Compare results across timezones and document assumptions in a data dictionary or pipeline comments.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use timezone-aware timestamps and convert to local time before any aggregation.
  • For DST gaps, decide whether to impute or leave null; for overlaps, deduplicate or aggregate.
  • Missing hours: exclude for percentile, forward-fill for rolling z-score with imputation flags.
  • Rolling z-score should use a 24-hour window that respects local time and handles missing values.
  • Validate by checking total hours per machine (168 ± DST adjustments) and cross-check with known DST dates.
  • Document assumptions and edge cases in a data dictionary or pipeline metadata.

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

Q3

How would you join these engineered features into a tidy machine-hour panel indexed by machine and hour, impute missing values robustly, and flag anomalies where the absolute z-score exceeds 3? Walk through your pandas code and explain your performance tactics for a 50M-row dataset under a 1 GB memory budget.

System DesignTechnical Trade-offsData Modeling
Author's notes

I went straight to talking about downcasting floats to float32 and using categoricals for machine_id and shift columns, which saved a lot of memory in my head.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by outlining a memory-efficient pipeline: load and join engineered features using categorical dtypes and chunked processing, then build a tidy panel via pivot or groupby with reindexing to fill missing hours. For imputation, use robust methods like median or forward-fill within machine groups, and compute z-scores with groupby transform to flag anomalies. Emphasize performance tactics like using Parquet, avoiding full copies, and leveraging Dask or Polars if pandas alone is insufficient.

Pro tip: Mention that you'd validate the panel's completeness and imputation logic with a small sample before scaling, and consider using a database or distributed framework if the 1 GB budget becomes too tight—showing you know when to escalate.

1. Data Loading and Joining

Load engineered features from Parquet with only necessary columns, convert key columns to categorical, and perform a memory-efficient join (e.g., using merge on machine and hour) in chunks or via Dask if needed.

2. Building the Tidy Panel

Create a complete MultiIndex of all machine-hour combinations, reindex the joined data to this index to introduce NaNs for missing hours, and ensure the panel is sorted for efficient group operations.

3. Robust Imputation

Impute missing values per machine using robust statistics (e.g., median) or time-aware methods like forward-fill/backfill, avoiding global imputation that ignores machine-specific patterns.

4. Anomaly Flagging

Compute z-scores per machine using groupby transform, flag values where absolute z-score > 3, and handle edge cases like zero variance by setting z-scores to 0 or using a fallback.

5. Performance Tactics

Use categorical dtypes, avoid unnecessary copies, process in chunks, and consider out-of-core or distributed libraries (Dask, Polars) to stay within the 1 GB memory budget.

Key Points to Mention

  • Use of categorical dtypes for machine and hour to reduce memory footprint.
  • Chunked processing or Dask for out-of-core computation to handle 50M rows under 1 GB.
  • Reindexing with a complete MultiIndex to create a tidy panel and introduce NaNs for missing hours.
  • Robust imputation strategies like per-machine median or forward-fill, and handling of edge cases (e.g., all-NaN groups).
  • Z-score computation with groupby transform and flagging anomalies where |z| > 3.
  • Performance tactics: reading only needed columns from Parquet, avoiding full copies, and using efficient group operations.

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