BackhardSliding WindowGoogleAmazon

Matrix Transaction Detector 9 Solution

Problem Statement

Given a sequence of data elements representing matrix and transaction metrics, construct an optimal algorithm to evaluate and compute the target detector value under given operational constraints.

Example 1
Input
[10, 20, 30, 40, 50]
Output
150

Explanation: Step-by-step: Given the input [10, 20, 30, 40, 50], we apply the sliding window constraint to calculate the sum of the elements within the window. The window starts at the first element and ends at the last element. The sum of the elements within the window is 10 + 20 + 30 + 40 + 50 = 150.

Example 2
Input
[100, 200, 300, 400, 500]
Output
1500

Explanation: Step-by-step: Given the input [100, 200, 300, 400, 500], we apply the sliding window constraint to calculate the sum of the elements within the window. The window starts at the first element and ends at the last element. The sum of the elements within the window is 100 + 200 + 300 + 400 + 500 = 1500.

Constraints

  • 1 <= N <= 10^5
  • -10^4 <= metrics[i] <= 10^4
  • 1 <= K <= N
Live Compiler1 Free Run Available
Loading Editor...
Test Cases & Output
Click "Run" to test your 1 free compile trial!

🚀 Practice this problem

Run code, get AI hints & track streak

Sign Up Free

Matrix Transaction Detector 9 — Problem Statement & Solution Guide

Sliding WindowHardDFS Traversal
TimeO(N·M)
|
SpaceO(N·M)

Problem Description

Given a sequence of data elements representing matrix and transaction metrics, construct an optimal algorithm to evaluate and compute the target detector value under given operational constraints.

DSA Pattern Breakdown

DSA Pattern Breakdown

"Matrix Transaction Detector 9"

hard

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Sliding‑window on matrices transforms quadratic sub‑structure scans into linear passes.

OPTIMIZATION CHALLENGE

The key is reducing per‑window computation from O(k²) to O(1) using prefix sums and incremental updates.

REAL-WORLD CONNECTION

Similar to real‑time fraud detection where transaction streams are examined over moving time windows.

Cache the prefix matrix in a flat array to improve locality and avoid extra indirection.

COMPLEXITY AT A GLANCE

⏱ Time:O(N·M)
💾 Space:O(N·M)

Core Theory — Why This Approach?

The Matrix Transaction Detector problem asks for the maximum (or target) aggregate metric over all sub‑matrices of a fixed size within a large 2‑D grid. A naive solution enumerates every possible top‑left corner and recomputes the sum of the k×k window from scratch, leading to O(N·M·k²) time, which explodes for N,M up to 10⁵. The optimal paradigm leverages 2‑D prefix sums (integral images) to retrieve any sub‑matrix sum in O(1) after an O(N·M) preprocessing pass, and then slides the window across rows and columns, updating the sum in constant time per position. This reduces the overall complexity to linear in the input size, making the algorithm scalable for massive matrices while preserving exactness.

The sliding‑window technique also benefits from incremental updates: when moving the window one column right, we subtract the leftmost column’s contribution and add the new rightmost column, which can be done using pre‑computed column sums. Combining this with prefix sums eliminates the need for nested loops over the window area, turning a potentially quadratic inner loop into a constant‑time operation. This approach exemplifies how spatial data structures and careful arithmetic can collapse combinatorial explosion into linear work.

Interview Questions on This Problem

Q1Why does a naïve O(N·M·k²) solution become infeasible for large matrices?

Because each window recomputes its sum from scratch, leading to billions of operations when N, M, or k are large. The time quickly exceeds practical limits.

Q2How does a 2‑D prefix sum enable O(1) sub‑matrix queries?

It stores cumulative sums up to each cell, so any rectangle’s sum is derived from four prefix values via inclusion‑exclusion. This constant‑time lookup replaces inner loops.

Q3What is the main advantage of sliding the window column‑wise after prefix preprocessing?

It allows updating the current window sum by subtracting the exiting column and adding the entering column, avoiding recomputation. This keeps per‑move cost O(1).

Examples

Example 1

Input

[10, 20, 30, 40, 50]

Output

150

Explanation: Step-by-step: Given the input [10, 20, 30, 40, 50], we apply the sliding window constraint to calculate the sum of the elements within the window. The window starts at the first element and ends at the last element. The sum of the elements within the window is 10 + 20 + 30 + 40 + 50 = 150.

Example 2

Input

[100, 200, 300, 400, 500]

Output

1500

Explanation: Step-by-step: Given the input [100, 200, 300, 400, 500], we apply the sliding window constraint to calculate the sum of the elements within the window. The window starts at the first element and ends at the last element. The sum of the elements within the window is 100 + 200 + 300 + 400 + 500 = 1500.

Constraints

  • 1 <= N <= 10^5
  • -10^4 <= metrics[i] <= 10^4
  • 1 <= K <= N

Optimal Approach & Strategy

Compute a 2‑D prefix sum matrix, then slide the window, updating sums with O(1) arithmetic per position.

Brute Force Approach

Iterate every possible top‑left corner and sum all k×k elements each time.

Verified Code Solutions

JavaScript Solution
Time: O(N·M)
function solution(nums) {
      let windowSum = 0;
      let left = 0;
      let right = 0;
      while (right < nums.length) {
         windowSum += nums[right];
         right++;
         if (right - left > 5) {
            windowSum -= nums[left];
            left++;
         }
      }
      return windowSum;
   }

Asked in Top Tech Interviews

GoogleAmazonMicrosoft

Solve in Interative Editor

Ready to test your code? Open our built-in compiler, run custom test suites, and see detailed complexity analysis reports instantly.