← DRW Interview Insights

DRW·Data Scientist·Technical Phone Screen·Intermediate

IntermediatePrefer not to say
Apr 2026

Summary

Interviewed for a Data Scientist role at DRW. Three questions across algorithms and system design territory. The candy distribution problem was a classic LeetCode but the tree data structure question caught me more off guard than I expected.

Questions Asked (3)

Q1

Distribute the minimum number of candies to a list of movies such that each gets at least one, and any movie rated higher than a neighbor must receive more candies than that neighbor.

Algorithms & Data Structures
Author's notes

LeetCode 135.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Recognize this as the classic 'Candy' problem and solve it in two passes: left-to-right to satisfy ratings increases from the left, then right-to-left to satisfy increases from the right, taking the maximum of the two constraints. This greedy approach ensures the minimum total candies while meeting all neighbor conditions.

Pro tip: Mention that the two-pass greedy is optimal because each pass enforces a necessary condition, and the maximum of the two passes is the tightest lower bound. Also, note that the problem can be solved in O(n) time and O(n) space, but you can optimize space to O(1) by using a single array and a running sum, though the two-array method is clearer.

1. Clarify and Restate

Confirm that 'higher rated' means strictly greater, and that each movie must get at least one candy. Restate the goal: minimize total candies while satisfying neighbor constraints.

2. Left-to-Right Pass

Initialize an array with 1 candy for each movie. Traverse from left to right; if current rating > previous rating, set current candies = previous candies + 1.

3. Right-to-Left Pass

Traverse from right to left; if current rating > next rating, update current candies = max(current candies, next candies + 1). This ensures the right neighbor constraint is satisfied without violating the left one.

4. Sum and Return

Sum the candies array to get the minimum total. Optionally, discuss time and space complexity: O(n) time, O(n) space.

5. Test with Edge Cases

Walk through examples like strictly increasing, strictly decreasing, equal ratings, and a single movie to verify correctness.

Key Points to Mention

  • Greedy algorithm with two passes
  • Time complexity O(n) and space complexity O(n)
  • Handling equal ratings (no constraint)
  • Proof of optimality: each pass enforces a necessary condition, and max of passes is minimal
  • Edge cases: single element, all equal, strictly increasing/decreasing
  • Potential space optimization to O(1) using a single array and running sum

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

Q2

You have an algorithm with a time complexity that's too slow for the input size. Redesign it using an appropriate tree data structure to speed up the operations.

Algorithms & Data StructuresTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

This one tripped me up more than I'd like to admit.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

First, clarify the problem by identifying the specific operations causing the bottleneck and the input size. Then, choose a tree data structure (e.g., balanced BST, segment tree, Fenwick tree) that optimizes those operations, and explain how it reduces time complexity. Finally, discuss trade-offs and validate the improvement with complexity analysis.

Pro tip: Always quantify the current and improved time complexities, and mention that you would validate the redesign with benchmarks on realistic data to ensure the theoretical gains hold in practice.

1. Identify the bottleneck

Analyze the current algorithm to pinpoint which operations (e.g., search, insert, range query) dominate the runtime and cause the slowdown.

2. Select the appropriate tree

Choose a tree data structure that efficiently supports the bottleneck operations, such as a balanced BST for dynamic ordered data or a segment tree for range queries.

3. Redesign the algorithm

Adapt the algorithm to use the chosen tree, ensuring that all necessary operations are supported and the overall logic remains correct.

4. Analyze complexity

Compare the time and space complexity of the original and redesigned algorithms, highlighting the asymptotic improvement.

5. Discuss trade-offs and validation

Acknowledge any trade-offs (e.g., increased memory, implementation complexity) and propose how to validate the solution with tests or benchmarks.

Key Points to Mention

  • Time complexity analysis (e.g., O(n) to O(log n) per operation)
  • Balanced BSTs (AVL, Red-Black) for dynamic ordered data
  • Segment trees or Fenwick trees for range queries and updates
  • Trade-offs: memory overhead, implementation complexity, constant factors
  • Real-world validation: benchmarking and profiling
  • Applicability to data science tasks (e.g., efficient nearest neighbor search, range aggregations)

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

Q3

Given two lists of software version release dates, sort each list and merge them into a single chronological release schedule.

Algorithms & Data Structures
Author's notes

Straightforward merge of two sorted lists.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

First, clarify the input format and constraints, then propose an efficient algorithm such as merging two sorted lists in linear time. Discuss handling of duplicate dates and potential edge cases, and analyze time and space complexity.

Pro tip: Mention that if the lists are already sorted, you can merge them in O(n+m) time; otherwise, sorting each list first takes O(n log n + m log m). This shows you consider both scenarios and optimize accordingly.

1. Clarify requirements

Ask about input format (e.g., date strings, timestamps), whether lists are sorted, and if duplicates should be preserved or removed.

2. Choose algorithm

If lists are unsorted, sort each individually using an efficient sort; then merge using two pointers. If already sorted, skip sorting and merge directly.

3. Implement merge

Use two pointers to traverse both lists, comparing dates and appending the earlier one to the result. Handle remaining elements after one list is exhausted.

4. Handle edge cases

Consider empty lists, duplicate dates, and different date formats. Decide whether to deduplicate and ensure consistent parsing.

5. Analyze complexity

State time complexity: O(n log n + m log m) if sorting, O(n+m) if already sorted. Space complexity: O(n+m) for the merged list.

Key Points to Mention

  • Time complexity of sorting vs. merging
  • Two-pointer technique for merging sorted lists
  • Handling duplicate dates (preserve or deduplicate)
  • Edge cases: empty lists, single-element lists
  • Date parsing and comparison (e.g., using datetime objects)
  • Space complexity and in-place merging possibilities

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