They were somewhat sloppy with phone interview logistics, ignoring email about available times and calling me at the wrong phone number. This somewhat killed my interest in the position. For a company who prides themselves on excellence in logistics, this surprised me.
Also interesting is that their scheduling system assumed PDT and did not translate to EDT
time zone.
The interview was very strange. They were artificially manufacturing a pressure filled feel to the interview by talking very fast, constantly interrupting me and changing the scope and question as I answered. While English is my native language, I grew up Speaking non-American English, so the interviewer speaking really fast made it difficult at times for me
to understand what they were asking.
The interview material was pretty standard. There was a very specific and basic data structures question and an open ended question.
The basic data-structures question on sorting a list and finding the median caught me by surprise, since in my experience it is not typical asked for a research scientist position as there are more advanced things one might expect from a research scientist. Anyway, I answered the question explaining how the sorting algorithm works but forgot what it was called. I gave them the algorithmic complexity (big-Oh) and they switched to the open ended topic.
The open ended topic involved a robotic device. It took me as strange since the position was not for a Machine Learning position in robotics, rather it was for the Amazon Go group.
Anyway, I began with how one must first understand the domain, as you cannot design a robot for an activity when you don't understand the variations, dynamics, etc. for said activity. Nonetheless, the interviewers were not interested in any of that. They changed the focus, interrupting, to concentrate solely on perception. I began describing the sensor package, what issues arise in the task, and justifying the sensor choices. Again they interrupted me limiting only to cameras. OK, so I described what type of features I would use and why, then they interrupted me again asking "where would you put the camera?" I answered that question and then they asked about detecting people. The best solution was a thermal camera and I answered that one is not just concerned about people, but any living thing as you wouldn't want the lawnmower to run over your dog.
So they interrupted and changed the question again asking how would you detect people with a regular camera. I described a traditional approach using images. They interrupted again and asked what if the person is partially occluded. I answered that you could implement a parts based skeletal model. They asked me how, specifically I would implement it. I answered that.
Then they changed the subject saying that you are discussing video and have motion information, how would you do that using static images. I described a shape based approach for computing a skeleton of the subject and effectively testing it against an idealized model based on the blob height for the foreground object.
Then they asked me how would I pick up images from the camera I described earlier using features for navigation. I introduced a second camera pointing forward that had a hemisphere sense to pick up a 270-degree cone.
I also described a semi autonomous version where you place beacons at the vertices of the lawn's polygon and use a harmonic function to repel the robot around obstacles.
They switched topics again, this time to scenarios about when I had to make a difficult decision because a project objective couldn't be satisfied. They also asked about a time when I had many different alternatives for a project and how I decided how to proceed.
The position was for Machine learning, but the bulk of the questions concerned Computer Vision and data-structures. I had even asked them, "aren't you going to ask me a Machine Learning question?"
In all, it appeared they were more interested in how you would implement versus understanding how something might work and why you would chose certain approaches.
It became very clear that for this position, they are more interested in Development and Implementation than Research. This is a very applied position and perhaps should be advertised as such.
Nonetheless, I wish them the best of luck. If offered the job, I wouldn't have taken it as it was not the right fit.
They sent me an email that they are not continuing further. The strange part was that it said that their policy is that they do not share feedback the interviewers had as to why they do not further pursue.