Submission #874541

#TimeUsernameProblemLanguageResultExecution timeMemory
874541LibRoller Coaster Railroad (IOI16_railroad)C++14
30 / 100
74 ms10928 KiB
#include <bits/stdc++.h> #include "railroad.h" using namespace std; int n; vector <pair <int,int> > EnterSpeed; vector <pair <int,int> > ExitSpeed; long long plan_roller_coaster (vector <int> s, vector <int> t){ n=s.size(); EnterSpeed.clear(); ExitSpeed.clear(); /* Subtask 1 and 2 is trival and basically not worth spending time for, so I'll skip it Of course, there exists a better solution to subtask 3 that is actually relevant to the full solution, but 30 points is 30 points, especially if that's from a shitty greedy solution */ /* If a finished track could be created without adding in any additional segments, this is the equivalent of: for all but 1 segment, there has to be a track segment that follows it. => Just greedily assign exit speeds with corresponding entrance speeds that isn't from the same segment, if n-1 pairs (or more) could be formed, there exists an answer. Simple as that. */ for(int i=0;i<n;i++){ EnterSpeed.push_back({s[i],i}); ExitSpeed.push_back({t[i],i}); } sort(EnterSpeed.begin(),EnterSpeed.end(),greater<pair <int,int> >()); sort(ExitSpeed.begin(),ExitSpeed.end(),greater<pair <int,int> >()); int ValidPairs=0; pair <int,int> temp; //Assigning track endpoints with new tracks while(!EnterSpeed.empty()&&!ExitSpeed.empty()&&ValidPairs<n-1){ //Trying to match with the startpoint that isn't in the same track, and has the smallest entrance speed possible while(!EnterSpeed.empty()&&ExitSpeed.back().first>EnterSpeed.back().first){ EnterSpeed.pop_back(); } //It matches and doesn't belong to the same sector. Is valid, so increase the amount of matched pairs by 1 if(!EnterSpeed.empty()&&ExitSpeed.back().second!=EnterSpeed.back().second){ ValidPairs++; EnterSpeed.pop_back(); ExitSpeed.pop_back(); }else if(EnterSpeed.size()>1){ //It matches, but both of this startpoint and endpoint belongs in the same segment. Match it with the //next smallest unmatched entrance speed temp=EnterSpeed.back(); EnterSpeed.pop_back(); EnterSpeed.pop_back(); ExitSpeed.pop_back(); ValidPairs++; EnterSpeed.push_back(temp); }else{ //If you can't find any other segment and ran into a conflict, all is lost and done. Stop the assigning //process immediately and hope for the best break; } } //If at least N-1 pairs could be matched, there exists 1 valid rollercoaster using only the default tracks. Otherwise, no return (ValidPairs<n-1); } /* Further update: this greedy algorithm is pretty much outright wrong. We could think like this: Whenever we connect the end of track i with the beginning of track j, we are essentially creating an edge from vertex i to vertex j, if we're thinking abouut the set of tracks as vertices on a graph. The resulting "graph" of a valid track allocation should be either a "chain"/line/whatever, or a singular cycle. This kind of greedy assignment wouldn't always result in a valid graph. THe created graph is only guaranteed to be a graph with n vertices, n/n-1 edges, and each vertex only have an in and out degree of 0 or 1. Basically, it could create a graph with several cycles and a chain, instead of a singular chain or a singular cycle. Take this test as an example: 5 2 11 8 3 4 7 10 5 6 9 (stolen from Codeforces). Ideally, the track allocation should be a permutation of (1,2,3,4,5). However, whatever tf you do, this greedy algorithm would result in 2 cycles (2=>3,3=>2), (4=>5,5=>4) and the 1st track is left alone. Turns out the test for this problem is shitty, lmao. Imagine passing with a wrong greedy algorithm. They should've seen it coming tbh. .......30 free pts in something this hard is still funny doe. This *is* a shitty greedy, after all */
#Verdict Execution timeMemoryGrader output
Fetching results...
#Verdict Execution timeMemoryGrader output
Fetching results...
#Verdict Execution timeMemoryGrader output
Fetching results...
#Verdict Execution timeMemoryGrader output
Fetching results...