← Openai Interview Insights

Openai·Machine Learning Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Senior

Senior
Apr 2026

Summary

OpenAI ML engineer round where you get handed a 400+ line PyTorch codebase and have to complete three required sections plus a bonus. The complexity questions sprinkled throughout caught me more off guard than the coding itself.

Questions Asked (2)

Q1

Given a large PyTorch codebase, complete the required implementation sections and reason about the time and space complexity of the operations you write.

Algorithms & Data StructuresTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

The coding part was manageable but I kept second-guessing my tensor shapes mid-implementation.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

First, clarify the requirements and constraints of the implementation sections, then write clean, vectorized PyTorch code that leverages built-in operations. After implementing, analyze the time and space complexity by considering tensor shapes, operation counts, and memory usage, and discuss potential optimizations.

Pro tip: Always consider the impact of batch size and sequence length on complexity; mentioning how your implementation scales with these dimensions shows deep understanding. Also, note that PyTorch operations often have hidden costs (e.g., memory allocation for intermediate tensors), so discuss trade-offs between readability and efficiency.

1. Understand the task and constraints

Read the problem carefully, identify the required implementations, and note any constraints (e.g., input shapes, dtype, device). Ask clarifying questions if needed.

2. Implement with vectorized operations

Write PyTorch code using tensor operations (e.g., matmul, broadcasting) instead of loops to ensure efficiency. Use in-place operations where safe to reduce memory.

3. Analyze time complexity

Count the dominant operations (e.g., matrix multiplications) and express complexity in terms of input dimensions (e.g., batch size, sequence length, feature size). Consider parallelization on GPU.

4. Analyze space complexity

Identify memory usage from input tensors, intermediate results, and output. Discuss whether gradients are stored (training vs inference) and potential memory bottlenecks.

5. Discuss trade-offs and optimizations

Mention alternative implementations (e.g., using einsum, chunking) and their complexity implications. Highlight any assumptions made.

Key Points to Mention

  • Vectorization and broadcasting in PyTorch to avoid Python loops
  • Time complexity in terms of batch size, sequence length, and hidden dimension
  • Space complexity including intermediate tensors and gradient storage
  • Use of in-place operations and memory efficiency
  • GPU vs CPU considerations and parallelization
  • Trade-offs between different implementations (e.g., readability vs performance)

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

Q2

What is the time and space complexity of matrix multiplication A @ B for two tensors A and B?

Algorithms & Data StructuresTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

Knew the time complexity fine.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the shapes of A and B and the definition of matrix multiplication for tensors. Then derive the time complexity as O(n^3) for square matrices and O(mnk) for rectangular, and space complexity as O(mk) for the output. Finally, mention that this is the naive complexity and that optimized algorithms exist.

Pro tip: Show awareness that in practice, libraries like BLAS use Strassen-like algorithms or hardware optimizations, so the theoretical complexity is an upper bound. Also, note that for batched tensors, the complexity scales with batch size.

1. Clarify dimensions and operation

Assume A is of shape (m, n) and B is of shape (n, k) for standard matrix multiplication. For higher-dimensional tensors, specify that it's batched matrix multiplication over the last two dimensions.

2. Derive time complexity

For each of the m*k output elements, we perform n multiplications and n-1 additions, leading to O(m*n*k) time. For square matrices (n x n), this simplifies to O(n^3).

3. Derive space complexity

The output matrix requires O(m*k) space. If considering auxiliary space, naive implementation uses O(1) extra, but optimized algorithms may use more.

4. Discuss optimizations and practical considerations

Mention that faster algorithms like Strassen (O(n^2.807)) or Coppersmith-Winograd (O(n^2.376)) exist but are rarely used in practice due to overhead. Also note that GPU/TPU implementations may have different performance characteristics.

Key Points to Mention

  • Time complexity O(m*n*k) for A (m x n) and B (n x k), O(n^3) for square matrices.
  • Space complexity O(m*k) for the output matrix.
  • Batched matrix multiplication scales linearly with batch size.
  • Naive algorithm vs. optimized algorithms (Strassen, Coppersmith-Winograd).
  • Practical considerations: BLAS libraries, hardware acceleration, and memory access patterns.
  • Edge cases: non-square matrices, sparse matrices, and broadcasting.

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