ML Case-study Interview Question: Operational Transformation for Real-Time Text Editor Suggestions
Browse all the ML Case-Studies here.
Case-Study question
You have a text editing platform that provides real-time suggestions for grammar, style, and clarity. Users type into the editor, and a back-end service streams suggestions on where to insert, delete, or replace text. Each suggestion is expressed as a transform operation over a shared operational transformation protocol. The editor must rebase suggestions whenever users modify text, ensure suggestions remain valid, and allow users to apply multiple suggestions at once without breaking the text. How would you design this system to guarantee correctness, maintain good performance, and give a fluid user experience?
Detailed Solution
Your system needs a robust operational transformation (OT) protocol to represent user text changes and suggestions in a unified way. The central idea is that user edits and suggestions both become operations over the text. Each transform operation must be flexible enough to handle small fixes and large rewrites across multiple paragraphs.
Representing the Text and Suggestions
Use a Delta format to model the entire text. Each user keystroke or suggestion mutates this Delta. A Delta consists of operations, usually "insert," "delete," or "retain," each operating on a segment of the text. When the back-end detects an issue, it returns a suggestion Delta.
Composing Deltas
Composing user edits with suggestions needs a composition rule. The system merges the suggestion Delta with the latest text Delta. This ensures that the final text captures both user changes and the suggested fix. One core formula for this is:
Here, Delta_text is the current text state, and Delta_suggestion is the correction operation. The system merges these to form Delta_final.
Rebasing Suggestions
Users can change text before applying a suggestion. Rebasing modifies a suggestion’s operations so that the suggested fix still applies to the correct region. Each suggestion Delta repositions its operations according to the user’s newly inserted or deleted text. The core formula is:
Delta_suggestion is the original suggestion, and Delta_edit is the user’s intervening text edit. The result is a rebased Delta_suggestion that aligns with the fresh text state.
Multiple Suggestions at Once
Applying many suggestions one by one can stall the UI because each suggestion triggers a cycle of rebasing and composition. A more efficient approach is to batch them. Compose all suggestion Deltas together first, rebasing each new suggestion Delta over the running composition. Then apply the final combined Delta in one shot to the text.
Example pseudo-code for batching:
composed_delta = delta_list[0]
for i in range(1, len(delta_list)):
rebased_delta = delta_list[i].rebase(composed_delta)
composed_delta = composed_delta.compose(rebased_delta)
// composed_delta now represents the union of all suggestions
// Apply composed_delta to the text once
This approach avoids repeated rendering updates and cuts down on CPU-intensive transformations.
Managing Data Flow and Performance
Keep a central Suggestion Repository to track each suggestion’s state (registered, applied, or withdrawn). Attach a Delta Manager to handle rebasing and composition of suggestions. Maintain a Highlights Manager to display highlights. Each user edit triggers a cascade of rebasing and UI refreshes. Careful use of efficient data structures and merging logic is critical to keep the editor responsive.
Ensuring Correctness and Relevance
Hide or invalidate suggestions that become irrelevant if users fix the text themselves. Filter out suggestions whenever the user’s edits overlap the text region the suggestion targeted. Confirm that no flicker occurs by updating the suggestion list immediately on any text change.
Follow-up Question 1
How do you handle cases where a user partially accepts an automated rewrite suggestion that spans multiple sentences?
A partial acceptance needs manual intervention because the original suggestion might become partially invalid. The text region covered by the suggestion now changes in an unanticipated way. The system must remove or rebase the remaining portion of the original suggestion. The Delta Manager checks how much of the suggestion got applied, updates the suggestion’s operations to reflect the partial acceptance, and discards portions that no longer make sense. The Suggestion Repository updates the suggestion state. The UI then highlights only the unaccepted portion of the suggestion if applicable.
Follow-up Question 2
What if the system tries to accept many suggestions in parallel, but some suggestions overlap the same text region?
The composition logic must detect these overlaps. Whenever two suggestions edit the same index range, the second suggestion’s Delta must rebase over the first suggestion’s already-applied text changes. If the overlap is irreconcilable, one suggestion invalidates the other. The Delta Manager merges consistent operations. For truly conflicting operations, the suggestion that arrives later is either canceled or partially altered to avoid corruption in the final text.
Follow-up Question 3
Why is it crucial to do the rebase step locally without waiting for back-end updates?
Waiting for back-end round trips introduces latency. Users would see outdated suggestions that do not match their current text. Local rebasing lets the front-end recalculate the relevant text positions instantly whenever the user types. This ensures suggestions remain aligned even if the back-end has not yet acknowledged the user’s edit. Fast local updates give a smooth user experience and reduce confusion.
Follow-up Question 4
How would you ensure the system scales when the user document becomes very large?
Divide the text into segments or blocks. Each block stores its own Delta representation. Keep track of suggestion Deltas in smaller regions of text. Limit re-rendering to affected segments whenever a user changes a subset of the document. Store indices or offsets in balanced trees or segment trees for quick repositioning. Make sure you reduce the overhead of computing rebase and compose by applying these to minimal ranges instead of the entire document. Use efficient diffing or chunk-based merging if the text size is massive.
Follow-up Question 5
Can you describe a testing strategy to confirm the correctness of rebase and composition operations?
Use a combination of unit tests and randomized fuzz testing. Start with small known text sequences, apply a series of user edits, and verify that final text states match expected results. Run fuzz testing that randomly inserts or deletes text and interleaves suggestion Deltas to catch corner cases. Ensure that all known edge cases—like overlapping suggestions, partial acceptance, and large text transformations—are exercised. Compare final text states with a naive approach (such as sequential application of all edits) to confirm the rebase and composition logic.
Follow-up Question 6
How would you handle style improvements or advanced rewrites that need to manipulate multiple paragraphs?
Use the same Delta approach but retain the ability to operate across paragraph boundaries. Make sure your suggestions can handle large spans of text. Rebase logic must process multi-paragraph offsets, preserving correctness if the user inserts or deletes entire paragraphs. The system updates highlights across paragraph breaks by mapping each textual segment’s changes to the relevant UI blocks. The same composition formula applies, but the Delta operations target text that could be far apart in the document.
Follow-up Question 7
Why is it important to unify user edits and suggestions under the same Delta format?
Both user edits and automated suggestions represent transformations of the text. Merging them under a single data model simplifies the pipeline. The same rebase and composition primitives handle everything. The system can maintain fewer code paths, reducing the risk of inconsistencies. When suggestions and user edits share the same structure, you avoid building separate synchronization mechanisms. The architecture becomes more maintainable, and performance optimizations become uniformly applicable to all text transformations.