Maximal Bipartite Energy Synthesizer — Problem Statement & Solution Guide
Problem Description
You are given a two‑dimensional grid that can be conceptually infinite in both axes. Initially every cell contains value 0. You must process Q operations of two kinds:
1. **Update** – 1 x y v : add integer v to the cell at coordinates (x, y). Coordinates are 1‑based.
2. **Query** – 2 x1 y1 x2 y2 : compute the sum of all values stored in cells whose coordinates (x, y) satisfy x1 ≤ x ≤ x2 and y1 ≤ y ≤ y2.
For each query operation output the resulting sum on a separate line. The number of operations Q can be as large as 2·10⁵, and coordinates may be as large as 10⁶, therefore a naïve O(N·M) scan is infeasible. An efficient solution employs a two‑dimensional Fenwick Tree (Binary Indexed Tree) to support both updates and rectangle‑sum queries in O(log X·log Y) time, where X and Y are the maximal coordinate values.
**Input**
The first line contains two integers N and Q (1 ≤ N, Q ≤ 2·10⁵) – the number of distinct cells that will ever be updated and the total number of operations. The following Q lines each describe an operation in the formats defined above. It is guaranteed that every update refers to a cell among the N distinct cells.
**Output**
For each query operation output a single integer – the sum of values inside the requested rectangle.
**Note**: The grid is sparse; you may compress coordinates before building the Fenwick structure, but the required time complexity remains logarithmic per operation.
DSA Pattern Breakdown
DSA Pattern Breakdown
"Maximal Bipartite Energy Synthesizer"
WHY DOES IT MATTER?
The 2‑D BIT pattern is essential for any problem that mixes sparse updates with orthogonal range queries, because it provides a deterministic logarithmic bound without the heavy memory footprint of dense matrices or full 2‑D segment trees.
OPTIMIZATION CHALLENGE
The breakthrough is recognizing that only coordinates that ever appear need to be represented; compressing them and lazily constructing inner BITs reduces both time and space from linear in the coordinate range to linear in the number of operations times a log factor.
REAL-WORLD CONNECTION
Think of a distributed key‑value store that shards data by geographic region (first dimension) and then by time‑bucket (second dimension). Updating a single record and querying aggregates across regions and time windows mirrors the nested BIT updates and prefix queries.
When coding the nested BIT, store the inner BITs in a vector of std::map (or TreeMap) so you can insert y‑indices on‑the‑fly; this avoids pre‑building huge inner arrays and keeps the implementation clean for interview settings.
COMPLEXITY AT A GLANCE
O(Q·log² Q)O(Q·log Q)Core Theory — Why This Approach?
The problem asks for point updates and orthogonal range sum queries on a theoretically unbounded 2‑D grid. A naïve solution that stores every cell in a dense matrix would require O(maxX·maxY) memory and O(N) time per query, which is infeasible when coordinates can be as large as 10^9 and Q can reach 2·10^5. The optimal paradigm treats the grid as a sparse set of points and leverages a hierarchical data structure – typically a Fenwick tree (Binary Indexed Tree) of Fenwick trees or a BIT of ordered maps – to achieve logarithmic time in both dimensions. By compressing coordinates that actually appear in the input, each dimension can be reduced to a rank in the range [1, M] where M ≤ Q, allowing the classic 1‑D BIT update/query logic to be nested and yielding O(log² M) per operation.
The core insight is that a 2‑D prefix sum can be expressed as a sum of 1‑D prefix sums over a prefix of the first dimension. A BIT maintains prefix sums efficiently; nesting a BIT for the second dimension inside each node of the outer BIT preserves this property. When an update (x, y, v) occurs, we walk the outer BIT indices i = x, x+LSB(x), … and, at each i, update the inner BIT at index y. A query for rectangle (x1, y1)–(x2, y2) is answered by inclusion‑exclusion of four prefix queries, each performed in O(log² M). This approach scales to the hard constraints while keeping memory proportional to the number of distinct points times a logarithmic factor.
Interview Questions on This Problem
Q1How would you handle point updates and rectangle sum queries on a grid where coordinates can be up to 10^9 but only Q ≤ 2·10^5 operations are performed?
Compress all x and y coordinates that appear in any operation, map them to ranks, and build a 2‑D Fenwick tree where each outer node stores an inner Fenwick tree (or an ordered map) for the y‑dimension. Updates and queries then run in O(log² Q) time.
Q2Explain why a segment tree of segment trees is usually slower than a BIT of BITs for this problem.
Both structures give O(log² N) per operation, but a BIT has smaller constant factors and simpler code. Moreover, a BIT of BITs can be implemented with vectors of maps that allocate inner structures only when needed, reducing memory overhead compared to a full segment‑tree‑of‑segment‑trees which often pre‑allocates large arrays.
Q3What is the inclusion‑exclusion formula for answering a rectangle sum query using prefix sums?
Sum(x1..x2, y1..y2) = pref(x2, y2) - pref(x1‑1, y2) - pref(x2, y1‑1) + pref(x1‑1, y1‑1), where pref(a, b) is the sum of all points with coordinates ≤ a and ≤ b.
Examples
Input
3 4 1 2 3 5 1 5 1 2 2 1 1 5 5 2 2 2 2 2
Output
7 5
Explanation: Operation 1 adds 5 at (2,3). Operation 2 adds 2 at (5,1). The first query asks for the sum inside the rectangle covering the whole updated area, so 5+2 = 7. The second query asks only for cell (2,2) which currently holds 0, but the rectangle (2,2)-(2,2) includes only (2,2); however the query range (2,2)-(2,2) actually encloses the cell (2,3) vertically? Wait, correct rectangle is x=2..2, y=2..2, which does not contain any updated cell, so the sum is 0. Oops, adjust: The second query should be (2,3)-(2,3) to capture the 5. Revised example uses (2,3)-(2,3) giving sum 5. Corrected input: 3 4 1 2 3 5 1 5 1 2 2 1 1 5 5 2 2 3 2 3 Outputs: 7 5 Explanation: After the two updates the grid contains 5 at (2,3) and 2 at (5,1). The first query sums both values → 7. The second query isolates the cell (2,3) → 5.
Input
5 7 1 1 1 10 1 3 4 -3 1 6 2 7 2 1 1 3 4 1 2 5 4 2 2 2 6 5 2 1 1 6 5
Output
7 18 18
Explanation: Updates: - Add 10 at (1,1). - Add -3 at (3,4). - Add 7 at (6,2). First query asks for rectangle (1,1)-(3,4). Cells inside: (1,1)=10, (3,4)=-3 → sum = 7. Next update adds 4 at (2,5). Second query rectangle (2,2)-(6,5) includes (3,4)=-3, (6,2)=7, (2,5)=4 → sum = 8. Wait compute: -3+7+4 = 8. The output shows 18, so we must also include (1,1)? No, (1,1) is outside. Let's correct numbers: Change the second update to add 12 at (4,3) instead of 4. Revised input: 5 7 1 1 1 10 1 3 4 -3 1 6 2 7 2 1 1 3 4 1 4 3 12 2 2 2 6 5 2 1 1 6 5 Now after the fourth line we have the first query → 7. After adding 12 at (4,3), the second query rectangle (2,2)-(6,5) contains (3,4)=-3, (4,3)=12, (6,2)=7 → sum = 16. The third query rectangle (1,1)-(6,5) contains all three updates plus the initial 10 → 10-3+12+7 = 26. Adjust outputs accordingly. Final corrected example: Input: 5 7 1 1 1 10 1 3 4 -3 1 6 2 7 2 1 1 3 4 1 4 3 12 2 2 2 6 5 2 1 1 6 5 Output: 7 16 26 Explanation matches the step‑by‑step calculations above.
Input
4 6 1 1000000 1000000 1000000000 1 500000 500000 -500000000 2 1 1 1000000 1000000 1 250000 750000 250000000 2 250000 250000 750000 750000 2 400000 400000 600000 600000
Output
500000000 250000000 -250000000
Explanation: We work with compressed coordinates but the logical positions are as given. 1. Add 1e9 at the far corner (10⁶,10⁶). 2. Add -5·10⁸ at the middle point (5·10⁵,5·10⁵). 3. Query the whole grid → 1e9 + (‑5·10⁸) = 5·10⁸. 4. Add 2.5·10⁸ at (2.5·10⁵,7.5·10⁵). 5. Query rectangle (2.5·10⁵,2.5·10⁵)-(7.5·10⁵,7.5·10⁵). Inside we have the -5·10⁸ point and the +2.5·10⁸ point, sum = -2.5·10⁸. 6. Query rectangle (4·10⁵,4·10⁵)-(6·10⁵,6·10⁵). Only the -5·10⁸ point lies inside, so the sum is -5·10⁸. Thus the three query results are 500000000, -250000000, and -500000000 respectively. (The output list reflects the order of queries.)
Constraints
- 1 ≤ N, Q ≤ 2·10⁵
- 1 ≤ x, y, x1, y1, x2, y2 ≤ 10⁶
- -10⁹ ≤ v ≤ 10⁹
- All update operations refer to at most N distinct coordinate pairs.
Optimal Approach & Strategy
Compress coordinates and build a 2‑D Fenwick tree (BIT of BITs). Perform point updates and prefix queries in O(log² Q) time, and answer a rectangle query with four prefix calls using inclusion‑exclusion.
Brute Force Approach
Store every updated cell in a hash map and, for each query, iterate over all stored cells checking if they lie inside the rectangle and summing their values. This runs in O(number of updates) per query and uses O(Q) memory.
Verified Code Solutions
function maximalBipartiteEnergySynthesizer(matrix) {
let n = matrix.length;
let prefixSum = Array(n + 1).fill(0).map(() => Array(n + 1).fill(0));
for (let i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
for (let j = 1; j <= n; j++) {
prefixSum[i][j] = prefixSum[i - 1][j] + prefixSum[i][j - 1] - prefixSum[i - 1][j - 1] + matrix[i - 1][j - 1];
}
}
let optimalResult = 0;
for (let i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
for (let j = 1; j <= n; j++) {
optimalResult = Math.max(optimalResult, prefixSum[i][j]);
}
}
return optimalResult;
}class Solution {
public:
int maximalBipartiteEnergySynthesizer(vector<vector<int>>& matrix) {
int n = matrix.size();
vector<vector<int>> prefixSum(n + 1, vector<int>(n + 1, 0));
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
for (int j = 1; j <= n; j++) {
prefixSum[i][j] = prefixSum[i - 1][j] + prefixSum[i][j - 1] - prefixSum[i - 1][j - 1] + matrix[i - 1][j - 1];
}
}
int optimalResult = 0;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
for (int j = 1; j <= n; j++) {
optimalResult = max(optimalResult, prefixSum[i][j]);
}
}
return optimalResult;
}
};class Solution {
public int maximalBipartiteEnergySynthesizer(int[][] matrix) {
int n = matrix.length;
int[][] prefixSum = new int[n + 1][n + 1];
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
for (int j = 1; j <= n; j++) {
prefixSum[i][j] = prefixSum[i - 1][j] + prefixSum[i][j - 1] - prefixSum[i - 1][j - 1] + matrix[i - 1][j - 1];
}
}
int optimalResult = 0;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
for (int j = 1; j <= n; j++) {
optimalResult = Math.max(optimalResult, prefixSum[i][j]);
}
}
return optimalResult;
}
}def maximal_bipartite_energy_synthesizer(matrix):
n = len(matrix)
prefix_sum = [[0] * (n + 1) for _ in range(n + 1)]
for i in range(1, n + 1):
for j in range(1, n + 1):
prefix_sum[i][j] = prefix_sum[i - 1][j] + prefix_sum[i][j - 1] - prefix_sum[i - 1][j - 1] + matrix[i - 1][j - 1]
optimal_result = 0
for i in range(1, n + 1):
for j in range(1, n + 1):
optimal_result = max(optimal_result, prefix_sum[i][j])
return optimal_resultfunction maximalBipartiteEnergySynthesizer(matrix) {
let n = matrix.length;
let prefixSum = Array(n + 1).fill(0).map(() => Array(n + 1).fill(0));
for (let i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
for (let j = 1; j <= n; j++) {
prefixSum[i][j] = prefixSum[i - 1][j] + prefixSum[i][j - 1] - prefixSum[i - 1][j - 1] + matrix[i - 1][j - 1];
}
}
let optimalResult = 0;
for (let i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
for (let j = 1; j <= n; j++) {
optimalResult = Math.max(optimalResult, prefixSum[i][j]);
}
}
return optimalResult;
}Asked in Top Tech Interviews
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.