- Practice
- Algorithms
- Greedy
- Luck Balance
- Discussions

# Luck Balance

# Luck Balance

nwhitcher + 2 comments The description would be clearer if it read "L is the amount of luck that can be gained by

*losing*the contest." She believes that luck is spent on wins and earned from losses.shesanmigz + 0 comments I got lost on that statement, too. I ignored it and focused on the example.

surajvermav38 + 1 comment Actually the description is intentionally made complex for increasing its value.

edrouwendaal + 0 comments i think you're right on this although you received downvotes

tao_zhang + 15 comments This is the same problem I have done in Week Of Code 21. I copied my solution in Java:

import java.util.*; public class Solution { public static void main(String[] args) { Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in); int n = scanner.nextInt(); int k = scanner.nextInt(); int total = 0; List<Integer> importantContests = new ArrayList<>(); for (int i=0; i<n; i++){ int luck = scanner.nextInt(); int importance = scanner.nextInt(); total += luck; if (importance == 1) { importantContests.add(luck); } } Collections.sort(importantContests); int luckToFlip = 0; int mustWinImprCount = importantContests.size() - k; for (int i=0; i<mustWinImprCount; i++){ luckToFlip += importantContests.get(i); } int result = total - 2*luckToFlip; System.out.println(result); } }

bingo_22 + 0 comments very nice and elegant solution

abhishekbawa111 + 2 comments in the statement int result = total - 2*luckToFlip; why have you put 2*luckToFlip insted of just luckToFlip?

tao_zhang + 1 comment In the description of this problem, it says "If Lena wins the contest, her luck balance will decrease by L; if she loses it, her luck balance will increase by L." I added all the "luck" to total assuming she loses all in the beginning. Winning those games should not only NOT "increase by L" (-luckToFlip to make it even), it should also "decrease by L" (-luckToFlip again).

SherMM + 3 comments I don't understand your explanation

aleksazen + 1 comment import java.util.*; This is the solution came up with, the formatting might be a little easier to understand.

`public class Solution { public static void main(String[] args) { Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in); int numContests = in.nextInt(); int maxLosses = in.nextInt(); ArrayList<Integer>contestLucks = new ArrayList<Integer>(); int totalLuck = 0; for(int i = 0;i<numContests;i++){ int currContestLuck = in.nextInt(); int temp = in.nextInt(); if(temp ==0)totalLuck+=currContestLuck; else contestLucks.add(currContestLuck); } Collections.sort(contestLucks); for(int i = 0;i<contestLucks.size();i++){ if(i<contestLucks.size()-maxLosses)totalLuck-=contestLucks.get(i); else totalLuck +=contestLucks.get(i); } System.out.println(totalLuck); } }`

tat_lim + 0 comments Unfortunately, the "Collections.sort" method degrades the performance to O(N*log(N)). Besides, the "ArrayList" collection uses an additional O(N) amount of memory. An optiomal solution should run in O(N*log(K)) time and use O(K) space.

floshaban + 0 comments In terms I can even understand: Essentially he got the total luck, (all positive), then you remove the luck from winning contests (neutral) but you actually LOSE luck from winning contests, so you need to go negative (take it away again).

key_coder + 0 comments Multiplying with 2 as we have already calculated the luck in total luck so if we are losing the competition instead of gaining X point we are losing the X point so luck = (total - 2 * X)

mail9deep + 0 comments because he has added that luck also which is need to be deleted so he deleted that twice.

daminiaglawe30 + 0 comments very nice solution

tat_lim + 0 comments Unfortunately, the "Collections.sort" method degrades the performance to O(n*log(n)). Besides, the "List" collection uses an additional O(n) amount of memory. An optiomal solution should run in O(n*log(k)) time and use O(k) space.

pariharyash6 + 0 comments exactly same as mine.

jimaica + 0 comments [deleted]jimaica + 1 comment Very nice! Based on this i wrote it in c#

var temp = Console.ReadLine().Split(' '); var arr = Array.ConvertAll(temp, Int32.Parse); var N = arr[0]; var K = arr[1]; List<Tuple<int, int>> luckBalance = new List<Tuple<int, int>>(); for (var contest = 0; contest < N ; contest++){ var ln_temp = Console.ReadLine().Split(' '); var ln = Array.ConvertAll(ln_temp, Int32.Parse); var luck = ln[0]; var importance = ln[1]; luckBalance.Add(Tuple.Create(luck, importance)); } var importanContests = luckBalance.Where(u => u.Item2 == 1).Select(u => u.Item1).OrderBy(u=>u).ToList(); var luckSum = luckBalance.Select(u => u.Item1).Sum(); int luckToFlip = 0; int mustWinImprCount = importanContests.Count() - K; for (int i = 0; i < mustWinImprCount; i++) { luckToFlip += importanContests[i]; } int result = luckSum - 2 * luckToFlip; Console.Write(result);

Shrihari_stark + 0 comments Some performance add-ons would be to just add the zero luck values directly to the resultant luck. The new array would only contain the must win.

Sort the array(O(k * log(k)) where k is the number of 1s).

Finally, Iterate the 1s array and where for each n: if(k <= 0) => result = result - n; else => result = result + n; k--;

Basically, accumulate all the luck you can until you run out of k, once k is zero, start reducing your luck (you will be spending least luck value for reduction)

RodneyShag + 0 comments Hi. Nice solution. For a challenge, try using quickselect to improve runtime like in this O(n) average runtime solution.

maneeshsagar + 0 comments thanks man

hooni + 0 comments would it improve the performance if we replace the last part with

Iterator<Integer> iter = list.iterator(); while(list.size() > k) { totalLuck -= 2*iter.next(); k++; } return totalLuck;

?

akhilvaibhav1 + 0 comments for a test case n == k wont the line

int mustWinImprCount = importantContests.size() - k;

cause a problem, Since Arraylist size is less than n, the variable mustWinImprCount will be initialized with negative value causing the for loop to cease in the beginning?

dylanvanderberg + 1 comment Why not use a heap (PriorityQueue in Java) to remove the need for the O(nlog(n)) operation of sorting the array. Adding to a heap is O(log(n)) in worst-case, but O(1) in the average case. Since that happens n times, it should be faster on average. See my implementation:

// Complete the luckBalance function below. static int luckBalance(int k, int[][] contests) { int numLuck = 0; int totalImportant = 0; PriorityQueue<Integer> minHeap = new PriorityQueue<Integer>(new Comparator<Integer>(){ @Override public int compare(Integer obj1, Integer obj2){ return obj1 - obj2; } }); for(int[] contest : contests){ numLuck += contest[0]; if(contest[1] == 1){ minHeap.offer(contest[0]); totalImportant++; } } for(int i = 0; i < totalImportant - k; i++){ numLuck -= 2 * minHeap.poll(); } return numLuck; }

Shrihari_stark + 1 comment You will be adding n elements to your heap. For each insert it is logn and therefore for n elements, it would be n * log n. No difference is performance. Since there won't be anymore addition/deletion after the sort, it would not make any difference to choose heap over list.

douglasdejesus92 + 0 comments Instead of letting the heap grow, keep it at size k. Now, each insert is logk instead of logn, and the total complexity is therefore nlogk.

kalama449 + 0 comments [deleted]rakeshsenapathi + 0 comments [deleted]sam_littlefair + 0 comments Just completed this problem and this solution is eerily similar to mine:

`static int luckBalance(int k, int[][] contests) { List<Integer> important = new ArrayList<Integer>(); int totalLuck = 0; for(int i = 0; i < contests.length; i++){ if(contests[i][1] == 1){ important.add(contests[i][0]); } totalLuck += contests[i][0]; } int canWin = important.size() - k, score = 0; Collections.sort(important); for(int i = 0; i < canWin; i++){ score += 2 * important.get(i); } return totalLuck - score; }`

Great minds think alike? haha

SnoopDizzle + 6 comments I learned a funny thing by doing this... in C++, the vector.size() method returns an

*unsigned*int, so subtraction might silently wrap around to a large number, instead of a negative one. I can't believe I've never encountered this problem before...lausanne_man + 0 comments I haven't used C++ in over a decade but this implementation certainly makes sense. Would I have caught it right away - probably not!

Kartik1607 + 0 comments Had same problem. Was getting segmentation fault. Thanks buddy.

rwan7727 + 0 comments `int n,k; cin >> n >> k; vector <int> impt; int impt_sum=0; int unimpt_sum=0; for (int i=0;i<n;i++) { int luck,type; cin >> luck >> type; if (type) { impt.push_back(luck); impt_sum+=luck; } else unimpt_sum+=luck; } sort(impt.begin(),impt.end()); int isize=impt.size(); if (k<=isize) for (int i=isize-k-1;i>=0;i--) impt_sum-=(2*impt[i]); cout << impt_sum+unimpt_sum;`

parthkulkarni998 + 0 comments then what changes u did ?

parthkulkarni998 + 1 comment then how did u solved the thing ??

zutianluo + 0 comments u can cast unsigned int (which is returned by vector.size()) to int

zutianluo + 0 comments thx buddy..

notarealhacker + 1 comment Uhh.. what luck balance does she start with? The descriptions on hackerrank are always kinda iffy.

EDIT: Nevermind I figured out the wording. When she loses she gains that event's "luck". When she wins she loses that event's "luck".

So the question is how many events can she lose to gain the most amount of "luck" in the constraints set.

lausanne_man + 0 comments More specifically which events should she lose (if any) of the ones that she is allowed to lose based on the value of k.

acfromspace + 1 comment My Python3 solution:

def luckBalance(k, contests): # sort from greatest luck to least luck contests.sort(reverse=True) luck, important = 0, 0 for contest in contests: if contest[1] == 0: luck += contest[0] elif important < k: luck += contest[0] important += 1 else: luck -= contest[0] return luck

It took a lot of whiteboarding to clearly put out what I wanted. Sorted the nested list by the first value, number of points, and from there chose which points I wanted to add and which points I needed to subtract.

knowsuchagency + 0 comments same idea, but your solution is much clearer and more concise

def luck_balance(k, contests): # group important and unimportant contests sorted_contests = sorted(contests, key=itemgetter(1)) groups = tuple(list(g) for k, g in it.groupby(sorted_contests, key=itemgetter(1))) if len(groups) > 1: unimportant, important = groups elif groups[0][0][1] == 0: unimportant, important = groups[0], [] else: unimportant, important = [], groups[0] # calculate how many matches we need to throw throws = len(important) - k if throws < 1: return sum(luck for luck, _ in important + unimportant) # start by sorting important contests to throw the smallest in terms of luck sorted_important = sorted(important) # group wins and losses losses, wins = sorted_important[:throws], sorted_important[throws:] # do math total = sum(luck for luck, _ in wins + unimportant) net = total - sum(luck for luck, _ in losses) return net

Dmoneyskbow + 1 comment I solved the problem fine, but could someone help me understand why this is a greedy algorithm?

prashant_ravi812 + 0 comments While selecting competition to win you pick competition which is important and has least luck cost. Your solution is optimal at that instant that's why it is greedy.

nyhack56 + 1 comment C# passed all tests:

- Loop through contests array
- Add any non-important contests L to a running total
- Add any import contests L to a list
- Sort and reverse the list
- Loop through the list a. Add the L to total for x = 0 to k b. After that, subtract the rest of the L values in the list

// Complete the luckBalance function below. static int luckBalance(int k, int[][] contests) { int total = 0; List<int> impWins = new List<int>(); for(int x= 0; x < contests.GetLength(0); x++) { if(contests[x][1] == 1) impWins.Add(contests[x][0]); else total += contests[x][0]; } impWins.Sort(); impWins.Reverse(); for(int x = 0; x < impWins.Count; x++) { if (x < k) total += impWins[x]; else total -= impWins[x]; } return total; }

GregBarber + 0 comments As a long LINQ one liner for fun:

`static int luckBalance(int k, int[][] contests) { return contests.Select(contest => new { Luck = contest[0], Importance = contest[1] }).OrderByDescending(contest => contest.Luck).Select(contest => (contest.Importance == 1 && k-- <= 0) ? -contest.Luck : contest.Luck).Sum(); }`

trkmos + 0 comments javaScript solution

function luckBalance(k, contests) { let important = contests.filter(ar => ar[1] === 1).length; let sumAll = contests.reduce((a, b) => a+b[0],0); let sorted = contests.sort((a, b) => a[0] - b[0]) let win = important-k >=0 ?important-k : 0 let min = 0 for(let i=0; i<sorted.length; i++){ if(win === 0) break; if(sorted[i][1] === 0)continue; min += sorted[i][0]; win-- } return sumAll - (2*min); }

prateek181996 + 3 comments Faling Testcase 6,7,8

#include<iostream> #include<algorithm> using namespace std; int main() { int n,k,imp=0,x,j=0,m=0; cin>>n>>k; int l[n],t[n],c[n],d[n]; for(int i=0;i<n;i++) { cin>>l[i]; cin>>t[i]; } for(int i=0;i<n;i++) { if(t[i]==1) { imp++; c[j++]=l[i]; } else if(t[i]!=1) { d[m++]=l[i]; } } x=imp-k; sort(c,c+j); int s1=0,s2=0,s3=0; for(int i=0;i<x;i++) { s1=s1+c[i]; } for(int i=x;i<j;i++) { s2=s2+c[i]; } s2=s2-s1; for(int i=0;i<m;i++) { s3=s3+d[i]; } cout<<s2+s3; return 0; }

Rishabhkv + 1 comment Me too have encountered the same problem,I didn't know why,but I too have same problem,can someone just help us out?

danny10846 + 0 comments You have to account for when there are fewer important tests than number of tests she's allowed to fail.

prachi_1312 + 0 comments you have not taken into consideration the cases when number of unimportant cases are more than or equal to important cases

rajatddjsehgal + 0 comments you have initialized the value of x=imp-k; but as we can assign any value to k,therefore if k>imp :- then x will be negative and after that you have used that x in the for loop also , in which when you have used c[i] where i=x;i

RAMBO_tejasv + 2 comments Two cases 7 and 8 are actually wrong where k value is more than number of important contests

subhadipna + 0 comments Test Case 7 is working for me but test case 8 is failing even though my answere are correct.

abasakk + 0 comments Put the condition if k is more than important then return total count. Here is the snippet and with this condition all test cases are passing (PS: without this condition, test case 7 and 8 were failing). I am not posting the whole code :)

int luckBalance(int k, vector> contests) { sort(contests.begin(), contests.end(), [](vector&a, vector&b){return a[0]=important) return total; ....... //your rest of the logic ....... // goes ........ // here }

Sort 262 Discussions, By:

Please Login in order to post a comment