← Scale.ai Interview Insights

Scale.ai·Software Engineer·Onsite - Coding / Algorithms·Senior

Senior
Jun 2026

Summary

Scale.ai coding round focused on a classic scheduling problem, the kind where you think you know it until they ask for the exact solution and you realize greedy alone won't cut it. Pretty algorithmic, no fluff.

Questions Asked (2)

Q1

Given a list of tasks with positive durations and K identical workers, find the minimum makespan (the earliest time all tasks finish). Tasks can't be preempted, workers handle one task at a time, and every task must be assigned to exactly one worker.

Algorithms & Data StructuresTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

I knew the special cases right away, K=1 means sum everything, K >= number of tasks means just take the max.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Recognize this as the identical parallel machine scheduling problem (P||Cmax), which is NP-hard. Propose a binary search on the makespan combined with a feasibility check using a greedy algorithm like Longest Processing Time (LPT) or a bin-packing heuristic. Discuss the trade-off between optimality and efficiency, and mention that for small inputs exact methods like DP or branch-and-bound can be used.

Pro tip: Acknowledge that the problem is NP-hard and that practical solutions often use approximation algorithms with proven bounds (e.g., LPT guarantees a makespan at most 4/3 - 1/(3K) times optimal). This shows you understand both theory and real-world constraints.

1. Clarify problem constraints and assumptions

Confirm that tasks are non-preemptive, workers are identical, and each task must be assigned to exactly one worker. Ask about input size and whether an exact or approximate solution is preferred.

2. Identify problem class and complexity

State that this is the identical parallel machine scheduling problem (P||Cmax), which is NP-hard. Mention that no polynomial-time exact algorithm is known unless P=NP.

3. Propose an algorithmic approach

For exact solutions on small inputs, suggest binary search on makespan with a backtracking feasibility check, or dynamic programming. For large inputs, recommend approximation algorithms like LPT or binary search with a greedy feasibility check.

4. Analyze trade-offs and guarantees

Compare exact vs. approximate methods in terms of time complexity and solution quality. Highlight that LPT runs in O(n log n) and guarantees a makespan within 4/3 of optimal, while binary search with greedy check may not guarantee optimality but is fast.

5. Discuss implementation details and edge cases

Explain how to implement the chosen algorithm, including data structures (e.g., priority queue for LPT) and handling of edge cases like K >= n or very large durations.

Key Points to Mention

  • Problem is NP-hard (P||Cmax), so exact polynomial-time solution unlikely.
  • Longest Processing Time (LPT) heuristic: sort tasks descending, assign each to the least loaded worker.
  • LPT approximation guarantee: makespan ≤ (4/3 - 1/(3K)) * OPT.
  • Binary search on makespan with feasibility check (e.g., using backtracking or greedy) for exact solutions on small inputs.
  • Dynamic programming for small K and n (e.g., O(n * (sum of durations)^K) or state compression).
  • Trade-off between optimality and computational efficiency; practical solutions often use heuristics.

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

Q2

Walk through the correctness and complexity of the Longest-Processing-Time-First (LPT) approximation, and how tight is the approximation bound?

Algorithms & Data StructuresTechnical Trade-offs
Author's notes

The 4/3 bound is one of those things I half-remembered from school and had to reconstruct on the spot.

Create a free account to read the full note

AI HintsAI Generated

Suggested Approach

Start by formally defining the problem and the LPT algorithm, then prove its approximation ratio using a tight example, and finally analyze its time complexity. Emphasize the intuition behind why LPT works and discuss practical implications.

Pro tip: Mention that LPT is a 4/3-approximation and that this bound is tight, but also note that in practice it often performs much better; this shows you understand both theory and real-world performance.

1. Define the problem and LPT

Clearly state the makespan minimization problem on identical machines and describe the LPT algorithm: sort jobs in non-increasing order of processing time and assign each to the machine with the smallest current load.

2. Prove the approximation ratio

Show that LPT achieves a makespan at most (4/3 - 1/(3m)) times the optimal, where m is the number of machines. Use a proof by contradiction or exchange argument, focusing on the last job assigned to the critical machine.

3. Demonstrate tightness

Provide a tight example that achieves the 4/3 bound (e.g., three machines with jobs of sizes 3,3,2,2,2) to show the bound cannot be improved.

4. Analyze time complexity

Explain that sorting takes O(n log n) and assigning jobs using a min-heap takes O(n log m), so overall O(n log n + n log m) = O(n log n) since m ≤ n.

5. Discuss practical implications

Mention that LPT is simple, fast, and often near-optimal in practice, but for exact solutions one might use dynamic programming or branch-and-bound for small instances.

Key Points to Mention

  • LPT is a 4/3-approximation algorithm for makespan minimization on identical machines.
  • The bound is tight: there exist instances where LPT produces a makespan exactly 4/3 times optimal.
  • Proof technique: consider the job that finishes last; if it starts after the optimal makespan, then all machines were busy, leading to a contradiction.
  • Time complexity: O(n log n) due to sorting and heap operations.
  • LPT is a greedy algorithm that balances load by always assigning to the least loaded machine.
  • In practice, LPT often performs better than the worst-case bound suggests.

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