← Oscar Interview Insights

Oscar·Software Engineer·Technical Phone Screen·Intermediate

Intermediate
Apr 2026

Summary

Two coding problems for an Oscar software engineer interview, both pretty different in flavor. The Morse code one had a tricky follow-up and the second was more of a real-world access-checking simulation.

Questions Asked (3)

Q1

Given a string of lowercase letters, convert it to its concatenated Morse code representation using the standard alphabet mapping.

Algorithms & Data Structures
Author's notes

Pretty mechanical once you set up the lookup table.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Clarify the exact Morse code mapping and whether spaces are needed between letters. Then propose an efficient solution using a hash map for O(1) lookups, iterating through the string and concatenating codes. Discuss time and space complexity, and consider edge cases like empty input or non-lowercase characters.

Pro tip: Mention that you would precompute the Morse code mapping as a static array for O(1) access, and use a StringBuilder for efficient concatenation. This shows attention to performance and memory usage.

1. Clarify requirements

Ask whether the output should include spaces between Morse codes for each letter, and confirm that input contains only lowercase letters. Also confirm the exact Morse code mapping to use.

2. Choose data structure

Use a hash map or an array of size 26 to map each letter to its Morse code. An array is more efficient for lowercase letters.

3. Iterate and build result

Iterate through each character in the input string, look up its Morse code, and append it to a result builder. If spaces are required, add a space between codes.

4. Analyze complexity

State that time complexity is O(n) where n is the length of the string, and space complexity is O(n) for the output. The mapping itself takes O(1) space.

5. Handle edge cases

Consider empty string, and discuss how to handle unexpected characters (e.g., throw an exception or skip).

Key Points to Mention

  • Use of a hash map or array for O(1) lookups
  • Efficient string concatenation with StringBuilder
  • Time and space complexity analysis
  • Handling of spaces between Morse codes (if required)
  • Edge cases: empty string, non-lowercase characters
  • Clarifying the exact Morse code mapping

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

Q2

Follow-up: given a Morse code string with no separators, generate all possible original strings that could have produced it.

Algorithms & Data Structures
Author's notes

This is where it got interesting.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Model the problem as a backtracking search over the Morse string, where at each position you try every possible Morse code letter (1-4 characters) that matches a prefix of the remaining string. Recursively build the decoded string and collect all valid decodings. Use memoization to avoid recomputing overlapping subproblems, especially for long inputs.

Pro tip: Clarify the Morse code mapping first (e.g., standard ITU with letters only or including digits/punctuation) and discuss how the solution scales with input length—mentioning exponential worst-case and pruning via memoization shows you think about efficiency beyond brute force.

1. Clarify the problem and constraints

Ask about the Morse code alphabet (letters only? digits? punctuation?), whether the input is guaranteed valid, and if the output should be deduplicated. Confirm that no separators exist, so ambiguity is inherent.

2. Define the recursive structure

At each index in the Morse string, try all possible code lengths (1 to 4) that match a valid Morse code. For each match, append the corresponding character and recurse on the remaining substring.

3. Implement backtracking with memoization

Use a recursive function that returns all decodings from a given index. Cache results for each index to avoid redundant work, since the same suffix can be reached via different paths.

4. Handle base case and collect results

When the index reaches the end of the string, return a list containing an empty string (or a sentinel) to signal a complete decoding. Combine results from recursive calls by prepending the current character.

5. Analyze complexity and edge cases

Discuss time complexity: worst-case exponential without memoization, but with memoization it becomes O(n * 4^maxCodeLength) or O(n * number of possible codes). Mention edge cases like empty string, invalid prefixes, and very long inputs.

Key Points to Mention

  • Backtracking/recursion as the core algorithmic technique
  • Morse code mapping (e.g., standard ITU table) and variable code lengths (1-4)
  • Memoization to optimize overlapping subproblems and reduce exponential blowup
  • Time and space complexity analysis, including worst-case exponential without memoization
  • Handling invalid Morse sequences (no valid decoding) and returning empty list
  • Potential for iterative dynamic programming as an alternative to recursion

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

Q3

Given a list of providers with specialties and locations, a list of members with required specialties and locations, and a max distance value, return the IDs of members who lack adequate provider access for at least one of their required specialties.

Algorithms & Data StructuresSystem Design
Author's notes

Felt like something pulled from their actual product domain which made sense given it's a health insurance company.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Clarify the problem constraints and assumptions, then propose an efficient algorithm that indexes providers by specialty and location to quickly check coverage for each member. Discuss trade-offs between preprocessing and query time, and handle edge cases like multiple providers and distance calculations.

Pro tip: Mention that you would use a spatial index (e.g., k-d tree or geohash) to accelerate distance queries, and emphasize the importance of defining 'adequate access' precisely (e.g., at least one provider within max distance for each required specialty).

1. Clarify requirements and constraints

Ask about data sizes, distance metric (e.g., Euclidean, Haversine), and whether providers can cover multiple specialties. Confirm that 'lack adequate access' means no provider within max distance for at least one required specialty.

2. Preprocess provider data

Group providers by specialty and build a spatial index (e.g., k-d tree, R-tree, or grid) for each specialty to enable fast nearest-neighbor or range queries.

3. Evaluate each member

For each member, iterate over their required specialties and query the spatial index to check if any provider of that specialty is within max distance. If any specialty lacks coverage, add the member ID to the result.

4. Optimize and handle edge cases

Consider early termination when a missing specialty is found, and handle cases like no providers for a specialty, members with no requirements, or multiple providers at the same location.

5. Analyze complexity and trade-offs

Discuss time and space complexity, and compare with brute-force approaches. Mention potential improvements like caching or parallel processing for large datasets.

Key Points to Mention

  • Spatial indexing techniques (k-d tree, R-tree, geohash) for efficient distance queries
  • Grouping providers by specialty to avoid scanning all providers per member
  • Distance metric choice (e.g., Haversine for geographic coordinates)
  • Early termination when a required specialty is uncovered
  • Time complexity: O(P log P + M * S * log P) with spatial index vs O(M * S * P) brute-force
  • Edge cases: members with no requirements, specialties with no providers, duplicate providers

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