Off-by-one on range boundaries
Wrong move: Loop endpoints miss first/last candidate.
Usually fails on: Fails on minimal arrays and exact-boundary answers.
Fix: Re-derive loops from inclusive/exclusive ranges before coding.
Move from brute-force thinking to an efficient approach using array strategy.
Given an integer array arr, partition the array into (contiguous) subarrays of length at most k. After partitioning, each subarray has their values changed to become the maximum value of that subarray.
Return the largest sum of the given array after partitioning. Test cases are generated so that the answer fits in a 32-bit integer.
Example 1:
Input: arr = [1,15,7,9,2,5,10], k = 3 Output: 84 Explanation: arr becomes [15,15,15,9,10,10,10]
Example 2:
Input: arr = [1,4,1,5,7,3,6,1,9,9,3], k = 4 Output: 83
Example 3:
Input: arr = [1], k = 1 Output: 1
Constraints:
1 <= arr.length <= 5000 <= arr[i] <= 1091 <= k <= arr.lengthProblem summary: Given an integer array arr, partition the array into (contiguous) subarrays of length at most k. After partitioning, each subarray has their values changed to become the maximum value of that subarray. Return the largest sum of the given array after partitioning. Test cases are generated so that the answer fits in a 32-bit integer.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Dynamic Programming
[1,15,7,9,2,5,10] 3
[1,4,1,5,7,3,6,1,9,9,3] 4
[1] 1
subsequence-of-size-k-with-the-largest-even-sum)partition-string-into-minimum-beautiful-substrings)minimum-substring-partition-of-equal-character-frequency)Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1043: Partition Array for Maximum Sum
class Solution {
public int maxSumAfterPartitioning(int[] arr, int k) {
int n = arr.length;
int[] f = new int[n + 1];
for (int i = 1; i <= n; ++i) {
int mx = 0;
for (int j = i; j > Math.max(0, i - k); --j) {
mx = Math.max(mx, arr[j - 1]);
f[i] = Math.max(f[i], f[j - 1] + mx * (i - j + 1));
}
}
return f[n];
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1043: Partition Array for Maximum Sum
func maxSumAfterPartitioning(arr []int, k int) int {
n := len(arr)
f := make([]int, n+1)
for i := 1; i <= n; i++ {
mx := 0
for j := i; j > max(0, i-k); j-- {
mx = max(mx, arr[j-1])
f[i] = max(f[i], f[j-1]+mx*(i-j+1))
}
}
return f[n]
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #1043: Partition Array for Maximum Sum
class Solution:
def maxSumAfterPartitioning(self, arr: List[int], k: int) -> int:
n = len(arr)
f = [0] * (n + 1)
for i in range(1, n + 1):
mx = 0
for j in range(i, max(0, i - k), -1):
mx = max(mx, arr[j - 1])
f[i] = max(f[i], f[j - 1] + mx * (i - j + 1))
return f[n]
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1043: Partition Array for Maximum Sum
struct Solution;
impl Solution {
fn max_sum_after_partitioning(a: Vec<i32>, k: i32) -> i32 {
let n = a.len();
let mut dp = vec![0; n + 1];
let k = k as usize;
for r in 1..=n {
let l = r - 1;
let mut max = a[l];
for i in 0..k.min(r) {
max = max.max(a[l - i]);
dp[r] = dp[r].max(dp[l - i] + max * (i + 1) as i32);
}
}
dp[n]
}
}
#[test]
fn test() {
let a = vec![1, 15, 7, 9, 2, 5, 10];
let k = 3;
let res = 84;
assert_eq!(Solution::max_sum_after_partitioning(a, k), res);
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1043: Partition Array for Maximum Sum
function maxSumAfterPartitioning(arr: number[], k: number): number {
const n: number = arr.length;
const f: number[] = new Array(n + 1).fill(0);
for (let i = 1; i <= n; ++i) {
let mx: number = 0;
for (let j = i; j > Math.max(0, i - k); --j) {
mx = Math.max(mx, arr[j - 1]);
f[i] = Math.max(f[i], f[j - 1] + mx * (i - j + 1));
}
}
return f[n];
}
Use this to step through a reusable interview workflow for this problem.
Pure recursion explores every possible choice at each step. With two choices per state (take or skip), the decision tree has 2ⁿ leaves. The recursion stack uses O(n) space. Many subproblems are recomputed exponentially many times.
Each cell in the DP table is computed exactly once from previously solved subproblems. The table dimensions determine both time and space. Look for the state variables — each unique combination of state values is one cell. Often a rolling array can reduce space by one dimension.
Review these before coding to avoid predictable interview regressions.
Wrong move: Loop endpoints miss first/last candidate.
Usually fails on: Fails on minimal arrays and exact-boundary answers.
Fix: Re-derive loops from inclusive/exclusive ranges before coding.
Wrong move: An incomplete state merges distinct subproblems and caches incorrect answers.
Usually fails on: Correctness breaks on cases that differ only in hidden state.
Fix: Define state so each unique subproblem maps to one DP cell.