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 array of positive integers arr (not necessarily distinct), return the lexicographically largest permutation that is smaller than arr, that can be made with exactly one swap. If it cannot be done, then return the same array.
Note that a swap exchanges the positions of two numbers arr[i] and arr[j]
Example 1:
Input: arr = [3,2,1] Output: [3,1,2] Explanation: Swapping 2 and 1.
Example 2:
Input: arr = [1,1,5] Output: [1,1,5] Explanation: This is already the smallest permutation.
Example 3:
Input: arr = [1,9,4,6,7] Output: [1,7,4,6,9] Explanation: Swapping 9 and 7.
Constraints:
1 <= arr.length <= 1041 <= arr[i] <= 104Problem summary: Given an array of positive integers arr (not necessarily distinct), return the lexicographically largest permutation that is smaller than arr, that can be made with exactly one swap. If it cannot be done, then return the same array. Note that a swap exchanges the positions of two numbers arr[i] and arr[j]
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Greedy
[3,2,1]
[1,1,5]
[1,9,4,6,7]
Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1053: Previous Permutation With One Swap
class Solution {
public int[] prevPermOpt1(int[] arr) {
int n = arr.length;
for (int i = n - 1; i > 0; --i) {
if (arr[i - 1] > arr[i]) {
for (int j = n - 1; j > i - 1; --j) {
if (arr[j] < arr[i - 1] && arr[j] != arr[j - 1]) {
int t = arr[i - 1];
arr[i - 1] = arr[j];
arr[j] = t;
return arr;
}
}
}
}
return arr;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1053: Previous Permutation With One Swap
func prevPermOpt1(arr []int) []int {
n := len(arr)
for i := n - 1; i > 0; i-- {
if arr[i-1] > arr[i] {
for j := n - 1; j > i-1; j-- {
if arr[j] < arr[i-1] && arr[j] != arr[j-1] {
arr[i-1], arr[j] = arr[j], arr[i-1]
return arr
}
}
}
}
return arr
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #1053: Previous Permutation With One Swap
class Solution:
def prevPermOpt1(self, arr: List[int]) -> List[int]:
n = len(arr)
for i in range(n - 1, 0, -1):
if arr[i - 1] > arr[i]:
for j in range(n - 1, i - 1, -1):
if arr[j] < arr[i - 1] and arr[j] != arr[j - 1]:
arr[i - 1], arr[j] = arr[j], arr[i - 1]
return arr
return arr
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1053: Previous Permutation With One Swap
struct Solution;
impl Solution {
fn prev_perm_opt1(mut a: Vec<i32>) -> Vec<i32> {
let n = a.len();
if n < 2 {
return a;
}
let mut i = n - 2;
while i > 0 && a[i] <= a[i + 1] {
i -= 1;
}
if i == 0 && a[0] <= a[1] {
return a;
}
let mut j = n - 1;
while a[j] >= a[i] || a[j] == a[j - 1] {
j -= 1;
}
a.swap(i, j);
a
}
}
#[test]
fn test() {
let a = vec![3, 2, 1];
let res = vec![3, 1, 2];
assert_eq!(Solution::prev_perm_opt1(a), res);
let a = vec![1, 1, 5];
let res = vec![1, 1, 5];
assert_eq!(Solution::prev_perm_opt1(a), res);
let a = vec![1, 9, 4, 6, 7];
let res = vec![1, 7, 4, 6, 9];
assert_eq!(Solution::prev_perm_opt1(a), res);
let a = vec![3, 1, 1, 3];
let res = vec![1, 3, 1, 3];
assert_eq!(Solution::prev_perm_opt1(a), res);
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #1053: Previous Permutation With One Swap
function prevPermOpt1(arr: number[]): number[] {
const n = arr.length;
for (let i = n - 1; i > 0; --i) {
if (arr[i - 1] > arr[i]) {
for (let j = n - 1; j > i - 1; --j) {
if (arr[j] < arr[i - 1] && arr[j] !== arr[j - 1]) {
const t = arr[i - 1];
arr[i - 1] = arr[j];
arr[j] = t;
return arr;
}
}
}
}
return arr;
}
Use this to step through a reusable interview workflow for this problem.
Try every possible combination of choices. With n items each having two states (include/exclude), the search space is 2ⁿ. Evaluating each combination takes O(n), giving O(n × 2ⁿ). The recursion stack or subset storage uses O(n) space.
Greedy algorithms typically sort the input (O(n log n)) then make a single pass (O(n)). The sort dominates. If the input is already sorted or the greedy choice can be computed without sorting, time drops to O(n). Proving greedy correctness (exchange argument) is harder than the implementation.
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: Locally optimal choices may fail globally.
Usually fails on: Counterexamples appear on crafted input orderings.
Fix: Verify with exchange argument or monotonic objective before committing.