Toma Interview Questions (2026)
1 questions · InterviewDB (1)
Audio Stream - Process and Buffer a Real-Time Audio Data Stream
Question Details
Round 1 Coding
Problem
You are building an audio processing pipeline. Audio arrives as a continuous stream of integer samples. Implement an AudioBuffer that:
1. Accepts incoming samples one at a time.
2. When the internal buffer reaches a fixed frame_size, processes the frame (apply a simple gain factor) and emits it.
3. Allows querying how many complete frames have been emitted.
python
class AudioBuffer:
def __init__(self, frame_size: int, gain: float):
pass
def write(self,
**sample**: int) -> list[int] | None:
**Returns** the processed frame when buffer is full; None otherwise
pass
def frames_emitted(self) -> int:
pass
def flush(self) -> list[int] | None:
# Emit a partial frame padded with zeros if any samples remain
pass
Example
buf = AudioBuffer(frame_size=4, gain=2.0)
buf.write(10) # -> None
buf.write(20) # -> None
buf.write(30) # -> None
buf.write(40) # -> [20, 40, 60, 80] (gain applied)
buf.frames_emitted() # -> 1
buf.write(50)
buf.flush() # -> [100, 0, 0, 0]
Follow-ups
- How do you handle overflow when gain causes sample values to exceed int16 range?
- How would you implement a sliding window (overlapping frames) instead of non-overlapping?
- If samples arrive from multiple concurrent threads, how do you make
writethread-safe? - How do you design this for a real-time system where dropped frames cause audible glitches?
Topics
Related companies
Toma Interview Process Overview
The Toma interview process typically includes a recruiter screen, one to two technical phone screens, and a 4-6 round on-site or virtual on-site loop. Each round serves a distinct calibration purpose: coding rounds measure correctness, code quality, and complexity reasoning; system design rounds measure architectural judgment at the appropriate level; behavioral rounds measure ownership, leadership scope, and collaboration. Reports tagged on LeakCode from 2024-2026 show Toma runs a calibrated process consistent with industry norms for companies of its tier.
Difficulty calibration: Toma coding rounds typically run medium difficulty with follow-up depth as the senior discriminator. System design rounds expect production-grade trade-off articulation at L4+ levels. Behavioral rounds expect quantified outcomes ("reduced p99 latency from 800ms to 120ms") rather than vague impact claims. The candidates who advance consistently demonstrate clear thinking out loud rather than perfect final answers.
How To Use Toma Question Reports
Real candidate-reported interview questions are a calibration tool, not a memorization target. Toma updates its question pool every 2-4 months; memorizing exact problems risks misleading you when the interviewer uses a variant. The high-leverage approach: identify the patterns that appear repeatedly in Toma reports, practice those patterns on similar (not identical) problems, and use the reports to understand the interviewer's typical follow-up depth.
Filter the questions above by round type, difficulty, and recency. Focus first on reports from the past 6-12 months; older reports may reference questions that have since rotated out of Toma's pool. Reports tagged with quantified difficulty and explicit round type are higher-signal than reports without those tags. The metadata filters help you build a focused study plan in 1-2 hours rather than 8-10 hours of unstructured browsing.
Common Toma Interview Mistakes
Reports tagged "no hire" at Toma consistently surface a few patterns: jumping into code without clarifying requirements, coding silently for extended periods, missing edge cases (empty input, single element, large input, overflow), producing working code the candidate cannot refactor when probed, and behavioral stories that use "we" instead of "I" diluting individual signal. Strong candidates explicitly avoid these patterns by following a consistent round template.
The single most predictive failure mode in recent reports: not asking clarifying questions. Interviewers are explicitly trained to weight this dimension. Strong candidates ask 3-5 clarifying questions even on problems that look obvious; weak candidates dive into implementation immediately. Strong candidates also verbalize their approach before writing code; weak candidates code in silence and lose the communication dimension of the round's calibration.