← Citadel Interview Insights

Citadel·Software Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Intermediate

Intermediate
Jul 2026

Summary

Citadel software engineer interview with two pretty brutal algorithmic problems. Both required careful thinking about edge cases and complexity, and I left feeling like I'd only half-solved each one.

Questions Asked (2)

Q1

Given an integer array, choose three cut points to split it into four contiguous segments. Define a value as (sum of segment 1) minus (sum of segment 2) plus (sum of segment 3) minus (sum of segment 4), where the segments appear in order. Find the maximum possible value over all valid cut choices, including cases where cuts coincide or fall at the boundaries.

Algorithms & Data Structures
Author's notes

Spent the first few minutes just trying to understand what the alternating sign pattern was actually doing.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

First, clarify the problem constraints and edge cases (e.g., empty array, negative numbers, cuts at boundaries). Then, derive an efficient algorithm, likely using dynamic programming or prefix sums, and analyze its time and space complexity. Finally, walk through a small example to validate the approach and discuss potential optimizations.

Pro tip: Emphasize that the problem allows cuts to coincide or fall at boundaries, which means segments can be empty; this simplifies the DP state transitions and avoids special-case handling.

1. Clarify the problem

Confirm the definition of cut points, segment sums, and the objective. Ask about constraints (array size, value ranges) and edge cases like empty array or all negative numbers.

2. Define the recurrence

Let dp[i][k] be the maximum value for the first i elements split into k segments with alternating signs. Derive the transition by considering the last cut point j.

3. Optimize with prefix sums

Use prefix sums to compute segment sums in O(1). The naive DP is O(n^3) for 4 segments, but can be optimized to O(n) or O(n^2) by maintaining running maxima.

4. Analyze complexity

State the time and space complexity of your solution. For 4 segments, an O(n) solution exists by iterating once and keeping track of best values for each segment count.

5. Test with examples

Walk through a small array (e.g., [1, -2, 3, -4]) to verify the recurrence and edge cases like empty segments.

Key Points to Mention

  • Prefix sums for O(1) segment sum queries
  • Dynamic programming with state (index, number of segments)
  • Handling empty segments when cuts coincide or are at boundaries
  • Time complexity optimization from O(n^3) to O(n) for 4 segments
  • Edge cases: empty array, all negative numbers, large input sizes
  • Space complexity reduction by using rolling arrays

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

Q2

There are n developers each with a unique skill level. Each developer will only join a team if the number of selected teammates with lower skill is within their personal lower-skill tolerance, and the number with higher skill is within their higher-skill tolerance. Find the largest valid team where every selected member's constraints are satisfied simultaneously.

Algorithms & Data StructuresTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

This one wrecked me a bit.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by sorting developers by skill level to simplify counting lower/higher teammates. Then, for each possible team size, check if there exists a contiguous window of that size where every member's constraints are satisfied. Use binary search on team size or two-pointer to find the maximum efficiently.

Pro tip: Emphasize that sorting is key to reducing the problem to checking contiguous subarrays, and mention that constraints can be verified in O(1) with prefix sums or sliding window. This shows you can optimize from brute force to O(n log n) or O(n).

1. Clarify and Restate

Confirm the problem: each developer has a lower-skill tolerance L_i and higher-skill tolerance H_i. In a valid team, for each member, the number of selected teammates with lower skill ≤ L_i and with higher skill ≤ H_i. Ask about input format and constraints.

2. Sort and Observe

Sort developers by skill. In any valid team, the selected members form a contiguous block in sorted order. For a member at position i in the block, the number of lower-skill teammates is i - start, and higher-skill is end - i. So constraints become: i - start ≤ L_i and end - i ≤ H_i.

3. Define Feasibility Check

For a fixed team size k, we need to find a contiguous window [s, s+k-1] such that for all i in window: i - s ≤ L_i and (s+k-1) - i ≤ H_i. This can be checked in O(n) per k using sliding window or prefix maxima/minima.

4. Optimize Search

Use binary search on k (from 1 to n) to find the maximum valid team size. For each mid, check feasibility in O(n). Total O(n log n). Alternatively, use two pointers to maintain a valid window and expand/shrink, achieving O(n).

5. Analyze Trade-offs

Discuss time/space complexity: O(n log n) with binary search, O(n) with two pointers. Mention that sorting is O(n log n) anyway. Consider edge cases: all developers can be in team, no valid team (return 0), etc.

Key Points to Mention

  • Sorting by skill level to transform the problem into finding a contiguous subarray.
  • For a member at index i in a window [s, e], constraints become i - s ≤ L_i and e - i ≤ H_i.
  • Feasibility check for a fixed window size can be done in O(n) using sliding window with prefix maxima of (i - L_i) and prefix minima of (i + H_i).
  • Binary search on team size gives O(n log n) time; two-pointer approach can achieve O(n) after sorting.
  • Edge cases: team size 0 (no valid team), team size n (all developers), and handling large n efficiently.
  • Trade-offs: binary search is simpler to implement; two-pointer is more efficient but trickier to get right.

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