BackhardTwo PointersGoogleAmazon

Payload Cipher Analyzer 49 Solution

Problem Statement

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

Example 1
Input
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
Output
110

Explanation: Step-by-step: Given the input array [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], we initialize two pointers, one at the start and one at the end of the array. We then add the elements at the start and end of the array and move the pointers towards the center. This process continues until the pointers meet in the middle. The sum of the elements at each step is added to the total sum. The final output is the total sum, which is 110.

Example 2
Input
[10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1]
Output
55

Explanation: Step-by-step: Given the input array [10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1], we initialize two pointers, one at the start and one at the end of the array. We then add the elements at the start and end of the array and move the pointers towards the center. This process continues until the pointers meet in the middle. The sum of the elements at each step is added to the total sum. The final output is the total sum, which is 55.

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

Payload Cipher Analyzer 49 — Problem Statement & Solution Guide

Two PointersHardInward Pointers
TimeO(n)
|
SpaceO(1)

Problem Description

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

DSA Pattern Breakdown

DSA Pattern Breakdown

"Payload Cipher Analyzer 49"

hard

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Two‑pointer patterns turn quadratic scans into linear passes, crucial for real‑time analytics.

OPTIMIZATION CHALLENGE

The key is to ensure each index moves at most once, collapsing O(n^2) possibilities into O(n).

REAL-WORLD CONNECTION

Think of a network packet inspector that slides over a stream, constantly updating metrics without re‑reading past packets.

Initialize pointers outside the loop, update aggregates in‑place, and always check boundary conditions before moving the left pointer.

COMPLEXITY AT A GLANCE

⏱ Time:O(n)
💾 Space:O(1)

Core Theory — Why This Approach?

The two‑pointer (or sliding‑window) technique transforms a seemingly quadratic search into linear time by maintaining a dynamic interval whose endpoints move monotonically. By updating aggregate metrics incrementally as the pointers advance, we avoid recomputing from scratch for each sub‑range, which is essential when the input size reaches 10^5 or more. Naïve brute‑force enumeration of all O(n^2) sub‑arrays quickly exceeds time limits and also suffers from repeated calculations of sums or counts. The optimal paradigm leverages the monotonicity of the constraint (e.g., sum ≤ K, distinct count ≤ M) to shrink or expand the window, guaranteeing each element is visited at most twice, yielding O(n) time and O(1) extra space.

Interview Questions on This Problem

Q1When does a sliding‑window solution fail, and how do you detect that condition?

It fails when the constraint is not monotonic, such as requiring a specific pattern rather than a bound. Detect by checking if expanding the window can ever violate the condition in a non‑reversible way.

Q2How can you adapt the two‑pointer method to handle arrays with negative numbers?

Negative values break the monotonic growth of sums, so you must use a prefix‑sum map or a deque to maintain feasible windows. Alternatively, revert to a balanced BST for O(n log n) handling.

Q3What is the space‑time trade‑off when storing auxiliary counts in the window?

Storing frequency maps gives O(1) amortized updates but costs O(distinct) extra space. If the distinct range is bounded, the trade‑off is acceptable; otherwise, compress or use hashing.

Examples

Example 1

Input

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

Output

110

Explanation: Step-by-step: Given the input array [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], we initialize two pointers, one at the start and one at the end of the array. We then add the elements at the start and end of the array and move the pointers towards the center. This process continues until the pointers meet in the middle. The sum of the elements at each step is added to the total sum. The final output is the total sum, which is 110.

Example 2

Input

[10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1]

Output

55

Explanation: Step-by-step: Given the input array [10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1], we initialize two pointers, one at the start and one at the end of the array. We then add the elements at the start and end of the array and move the pointers towards the center. This process continues until the pointers meet in the middle. The sum of the elements at each step is added to the total sum. The final output is the total sum, which is 55.

Constraints

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

Optimal Approach & Strategy

Maintain a sliding window with left and right pointers, updating the metric incrementally; each element is added and removed at most once, achieving O(n) time.

Brute Force Approach

Enumerate every possible sub‑array, compute its metric, and keep the best—O(n^2) time, O(1) extra space.

Verified Code Solutions

JavaScript Solution
Time: O(n)
function solution(nums) {
   let left = 0;
   let right = nums.length - 1;
   let totalSum = 0;
   while (left <= right) {
       totalSum += nums[left] + nums[right];
       left++;
       right--;
   }
   return totalSum;
}

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.