← Airbnb Interview Insights

Airbnb·Software Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Senior

SeniorPrefer not to say
Jun 2026Remote

Summary

Airbnb software engineer interview focused almost entirely on a single meaty optimization problem involving combo pricing and dynamic programming. The follow-ups kept coming and I was not fully prepared for how deep they wanted to go on complexity analysis and the N=3 special case.

Questions Asked (3)

Q1

Given N menu items each with a unit price and a list of combo offers (each specifying quantities of certain items and a bundled price), write an algorithm that finds the minimum cost to fulfill a specific order without purchasing any extra items. Walk through your state definition, transitions, and base cases for a DP or memoized approach, and analyze time and space complexity in terms of N, Q (max quantity needed per item), and S (number of offers).

Algorithms & Data StructuresTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

This took me a while to frame correctly.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Define a DP state as a vector of remaining quantities for each item, then recursively try purchasing each item individually or applying any combo offer that does not exceed the remaining quantities. Use memoization to avoid recomputing overlapping subproblems, and analyze complexity based on the number of possible states and transitions.

Pro tip: Emphasize that the DP is exact because we only consider offers that do not exceed the remaining quantities, ensuring no extra items are purchased. Also, mention that pruning offers that are dominated (e.g., more expensive and less quantity than another) can significantly reduce the state space in practice.

1. Define the DP state

Let dp[remaining] be the minimum cost to fulfill the remaining order, where remaining is a vector of length N representing the quantities still needed for each item. The initial state is the full order, and the goal is dp[order].

2. Establish base cases

If all remaining quantities are zero, dp[remaining] = 0. If any remaining quantity is negative (which should not happen if transitions are valid), treat as invalid (infinity).

3. Define transitions

For each item i with remaining[i] > 0, consider buying one unit at unit price: cost = price[i] + dp[remaining with remaining[i]-1]. For each offer j, if the offer's quantities do not exceed remaining, consider applying it: cost = offer_price[j] + dp[remaining - offer_quantities[j]]. Take the minimum over all valid options.

4. Implement memoization

Use a hash map or multi-dimensional array to store computed dp values. Recursively compute dp for each state, caching results to avoid redundant calculations.

5. Analyze complexity

The number of states is at most (Q+1)^N, where Q is the maximum quantity needed per item. Each state considers up to N + S transitions. Thus time complexity is O((Q+1)^N * (N + S)) and space complexity is O((Q+1)^N) for memoization.

Key Points to Mention

  • State representation as a vector of remaining quantities, which captures the exact order requirements.
  • Transition choices: buying individual items or applying combo offers, ensuring no extra items are purchased.
  • Base case: zero remaining quantities yields cost 0.
  • Memoization to handle overlapping subproblems and avoid exponential recomputation.
  • Time complexity: O((Q+1)^N * (N + S)) and space complexity: O((Q+1)^N).
  • Potential optimizations: pruning dominated offers, using BFS/DP over states, or meet-in-the-middle for large N.

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

Q2

When N is fixed at 3, how would you redesign the solution using an explicit 3D state (i, j, k) to reduce overhead? What preprocessing steps like pruning dominated offers or capping offer quantities to actual needs would you apply, and what does the resulting complexity look like?

Algorithms & Data StructuresTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

The N=3 specialization question is where I started losing ground.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by explaining how fixing N=3 allows replacing a general DP with a 3D state (i, j, k) that tracks the quantities of each offer type, reducing overhead from generic loops. Then describe preprocessing steps like pruning dominated offers and capping quantities to actual needs, and finally derive the resulting time and space complexity.

Pro tip: Emphasize that fixing N=3 is a common interview twist to test whether you can simplify a general solution into a more efficient specialized one, and always discuss the trade-off between preprocessing time and DP efficiency.

1. Define the 3D DP state

Explain that with N=3, the state can be (i, j, k) representing the number of items taken from each of the three offer types, and the DP value stores the minimum cost or maximum value.

2. Preprocess offers

Describe pruning dominated offers: if one offer is strictly worse than another (higher cost for same or fewer items), remove it. Also cap each offer's quantity to the maximum needed (e.g., total items required).

3. Implement the DP transition

Show how to iterate over i, j, k within capped bounds and update the DP by considering taking one more of each offer type, ensuring transitions are O(1) per state.

4. Analyze complexity

State that the time complexity becomes O(M1 * M2 * M3) where Mi is the capped quantity for offer i, and space is O(M1 * M2 * M3), which is efficient when caps are small.

5. Discuss trade-offs

Mention that preprocessing adds overhead but reduces the DP state space, and that the approach is specific to N=3 but can be generalized for small N.

Key Points to Mention

  • Fixing N=3 allows explicit 3D state (i, j, k) instead of a general N-dimensional DP, reducing overhead.
  • Pruning dominated offers: remove offers that are strictly worse than another (e.g., higher cost for same or fewer items).
  • Capping offer quantities to the maximum needed (e.g., total items required) to limit state space.
  • Time complexity: O(M1 * M2 * M3) where Mi is the capped quantity for offer i.
  • Space complexity: O(M1 * M2 * M3) for the DP table.
  • Trade-off: preprocessing time vs. DP efficiency; the approach is specialized for small N.

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

Q3

What additional practical optimizations can you apply, such as skipping offers that exceed current needs mid-search or reordering state dimensions to allow bottom-up computation instead of top-down memoization?

Algorithms & Data StructuresSystem Design
Author's notes

Felt more comfortable here.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by clarifying the problem context and constraints, then systematically discuss practical optimizations like pruning, reordering, and iterative approaches. Emphasize trade-offs and how these optimizations improve time/space complexity in real-world scenarios.

Pro tip: Always tie optimizations back to concrete metrics (e.g., reduced time complexity from O(n^2) to O(n log n)) and mention how you'd validate them with tests or profiling.

1. Clarify the problem and constraints

Ask questions to understand the problem domain, input size, and performance requirements. This ensures your optimizations are relevant and targeted.

2. Identify inefficiencies in the naive approach

Analyze the current solution (e.g., top-down memoization) to pinpoint bottlenecks such as redundant computations or excessive memory usage.

3. Propose practical optimizations

Suggest specific techniques like pruning offers that exceed needs, reordering state dimensions for bottom-up DP, or using iterative deepening. Explain how each addresses the inefficiencies.

4. Evaluate trade-offs and impact

Discuss the pros and cons of each optimization, including changes in time/space complexity, code complexity, and maintainability.

5. Summarize and validate

Conclude with the most impactful optimizations and how you would test or profile them to ensure they work as expected.

Key Points to Mention

  • Pruning: skipping offers that exceed current needs to reduce search space
  • Reordering state dimensions to enable bottom-up DP and avoid recursion overhead
  • Converting top-down memoization to bottom-up tabulation for better cache efficiency
  • Using iterative approaches to avoid stack overflow and improve performance
  • Analyzing time and space complexity trade-offs (e.g., O(n^2) vs O(n log n))
  • Real-world considerations: input size, memory limits, and code readability

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