This problem involves interacting with a hidden array through an API, ArrayReader
. The API provides two functions:
query(a, b, c, d)
: Returns the distribution of values among four elements (a, b, c, d) of the array. It returns:
length()
: Returns the length of the hidden array.The goal is to find the index of the most frequent element (0 or 1) using at most 2*n
calls to query()
, where n
is the array length.
The solution uses a clever approach based on comparing groups of elements and tracking the consistency of results. Here's a breakdown:
Initial Query: The solution starts by querying the first four elements (reader.query(0, 1, 2, 3)
) to get an initial distribution (x
).
Iterative Comparison: It then iterates through the remaining elements, comparing each with the first three elements (reader.query(0, 1, 2, i)
). If the result matches the initial distribution (x
), it increments a counter (a
); otherwise, it increments another counter (b
) and records the index (k
) of the differing element. This helps determine whether the majority is among the first three elements or in the rest.
Refining the Majority: After this loop, we have a preliminary count (a
and b
).However, this is insufficient to determine the majority if it's not contained within the first 3 or last element. Thus, we query a few more combinations of the first 4 elements to get a more conclusive estimate.
Final Check: Finally, it compares a
and b
. If they are equal, it means there's a tie, and -1 is returned. Otherwise, the index of the most frequent element is returned.
Time Complexity: O(n), where n is the length of the array. The solution iterates through the array once in the main loop, and performs a few additional constant time operations.
Space Complexity: O(1). The solution uses a constant amount of extra space to store variables and counters. The space used doesn't scale with the input size.
The code implementations provided earlier show this solution in Python, Java, C++, Go, and TypeScript. All versions follow the same algorithmic approach described above. They differ only in syntax and specific language features. The core logic remains consistent across all implementations.