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.
You are given a 0-indexed integer array nums.
The effective value of three indices i, j, and k is defined as ((nums[i] | nums[j]) & nums[k]).
The xor-beauty of the array is the XORing of the effective values of all the possible triplets of indices (i, j, k) where 0 <= i, j, k < n.
Return the xor-beauty of nums.
Note that:
val1 | val2 is bitwise OR of val1 and val2.val1 & val2 is bitwise AND of val1 and val2.Example 1:
Input: nums = [1,4] Output: 5 Explanation: The triplets and their corresponding effective values are listed below: - (0,0,0) with effective value ((1 | 1) & 1) = 1 - (0,0,1) with effective value ((1 | 1) & 4) = 0 - (0,1,0) with effective value ((1 | 4) & 1) = 1 - (0,1,1) with effective value ((1 | 4) & 4) = 4 - (1,0,0) with effective value ((4 | 1) & 1) = 1 - (1,0,1) with effective value ((4 | 1) & 4) = 4 - (1,1,0) with effective value ((4 | 4) & 1) = 0 - (1,1,1) with effective value ((4 | 4) & 4) = 4 Xor-beauty of array will be bitwise XOR of all beauties = 1 ^ 0 ^ 1 ^ 4 ^ 1 ^ 4 ^ 0 ^ 4 = 5.
Example 2:
Input: nums = [15,45,20,2,34,35,5,44,32,30]
Output: 34
Explanation: The xor-beauty of the given array is 34.
Constraints:
1 <= nums.length <= 1051 <= nums[i] <= 109Problem summary: You are given a 0-indexed integer array nums. The effective value of three indices i, j, and k is defined as ((nums[i] | nums[j]) & nums[k]). The xor-beauty of the array is the XORing of the effective values of all the possible triplets of indices (i, j, k) where 0 <= i, j, k < n. Return the xor-beauty of nums. Note that: val1 | val2 is bitwise OR of val1 and val2. val1 & val2 is bitwise AND of val1 and val2.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array · Math · Bit Manipulation
[1,4]
[15,45,20,2,34,35,5,44,32,30]
decode-xored-permutation)Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2527: Find Xor-Beauty of Array
class Solution {
public int xorBeauty(int[] nums) {
int ans = 0;
for (int x : nums) {
ans ^= x;
}
return ans;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2527: Find Xor-Beauty of Array
func xorBeauty(nums []int) (ans int) {
for _, x := range nums {
ans ^= x
}
return
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #2527: Find Xor-Beauty of Array
class Solution:
def xorBeauty(self, nums: List[int]) -> int:
return reduce(xor, nums)
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2527: Find Xor-Beauty of Array
// Rust example auto-generated from java reference.
// Replace the signature and local types with the exact LeetCode harness for this problem.
impl Solution {
pub fn rust_example() {
// Port the logic from the reference block below.
}
}
// Reference (java):
// // Accepted solution for LeetCode #2527: Find Xor-Beauty of Array
// class Solution {
// public int xorBeauty(int[] nums) {
// int ans = 0;
// for (int x : nums) {
// ans ^= x;
// }
// return ans;
// }
// }
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2527: Find Xor-Beauty of Array
function xorBeauty(nums: number[]): number {
return nums.reduce((acc, cur) => acc ^ cur, 0);
}
Use this to step through a reusable interview workflow for this problem.
Sort the array in O(n log n), then scan for the missing or unique element by comparing adjacent pairs. Sorting requires O(n) auxiliary space (or O(1) with in-place sort but O(n log n) time remains). The sort step dominates.
Bitwise operations (AND, OR, XOR, shifts) are O(1) per operation on fixed-width integers. A single pass through the input with bit operations gives O(n) time. The key insight: XOR of a number with itself is 0, which eliminates duplicates without extra space.
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: Temporary multiplications exceed integer bounds.
Usually fails on: Large inputs wrap around unexpectedly.
Fix: Use wider types, modular arithmetic, or rearranged operations.