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 2D integer array ranges where ranges[i] = [starti, endi] denotes that all integers between starti and endi (both inclusive) are contained in the ith range.
You are to split ranges into two (possibly empty) groups such that:
Two ranges are said to be overlapping if there exists at least one integer that is present in both ranges.
[1, 3] and [2, 5] are overlapping because 2 and 3 occur in both ranges.Return the total number of ways to split ranges into two groups. Since the answer may be very large, return it modulo 109 + 7.
Example 1:
Input: ranges = [[6,10],[5,15]] Output: 2 Explanation: The two ranges are overlapping, so they must be in the same group. Thus, there are two possible ways: - Put both the ranges together in group 1. - Put both the ranges together in group 2.
Example 2:
Input: ranges = [[1,3],[10,20],[2,5],[4,8]] Output: 4 Explanation: Ranges [1,3], and [2,5] are overlapping. So, they must be in the same group. Again, ranges [2,5] and [4,8] are also overlapping. So, they must also be in the same group. Thus, there are four possible ways to group them: - All the ranges in group 1. - All the ranges in group 2. - Ranges [1,3], [2,5], and [4,8] in group 1 and [10,20] in group 2. - Ranges [1,3], [2,5], and [4,8] in group 2 and [10,20] in group 1.
Constraints:
1 <= ranges.length <= 105ranges[i].length == 20 <= starti <= endi <= 109Problem summary: You are given a 2D integer array ranges where ranges[i] = [starti, endi] denotes that all integers between starti and endi (both inclusive) are contained in the ith range. You are to split ranges into two (possibly empty) groups such that: Each range belongs to exactly one group. Any two overlapping ranges must belong to the same group. Two ranges are said to be overlapping if there exists at least one integer that is present in both ranges. For example, [1, 3] and [2, 5] are overlapping because 2 and 3 occur in both ranges. Return the total number of ways to split ranges into two groups. Since the answer may be very large, return it modulo 109 + 7.
Start with the most direct exhaustive search. That gives a correctness anchor before optimizing.
Pattern signal: Array
[[6,10],[5,15]]
[[1,3],[10,20],[2,5],[4,8]]
merge-intervals)Source-backed implementations are provided below for direct study and interview prep.
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2580: Count Ways to Group Overlapping Ranges
class Solution {
public int countWays(int[][] ranges) {
Arrays.sort(ranges, (a, b) -> a[0] - b[0]);
int cnt = 0, mx = -1;
for (int[] e : ranges) {
if (e[0] > mx) {
++cnt;
}
mx = Math.max(mx, e[1]);
}
return qpow(2, cnt, (int) 1e9 + 7);
}
private int qpow(long a, int n, int mod) {
long ans = 1;
for (; n > 0; n >>= 1) {
if ((n & 1) == 1) {
ans = ans * a % mod;
}
a = a * a % mod;
}
return (int) ans;
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2580: Count Ways to Group Overlapping Ranges
func countWays(ranges [][]int) int {
sort.Slice(ranges, func(i, j int) bool { return ranges[i][0] < ranges[j][0] })
cnt, mx := 0, -1
for _, e := range ranges {
if e[0] > mx {
cnt++
}
if mx < e[1] {
mx = e[1]
}
}
qpow := func(a, n, mod int) int {
ans := 1
for ; n > 0; n >>= 1 {
if n&1 == 1 {
ans = ans * a % mod
}
a = a * a % mod
}
return ans
}
return qpow(2, cnt, 1e9+7)
}
# Accepted solution for LeetCode #2580: Count Ways to Group Overlapping Ranges
class Solution:
def countWays(self, ranges: List[List[int]]) -> int:
ranges.sort()
cnt, mx = 0, -1
for start, end in ranges:
if start > mx:
cnt += 1
mx = max(mx, end)
mod = 10**9 + 7
return pow(2, cnt, mod)
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2580: Count Ways to Group Overlapping Ranges
/**
* [2580] Count Ways to Group Overlapping Ranges
*/
pub struct Solution {}
// submission codes start here
struct Range {
start: i32,
end: i32,
}
impl Solution {
pub fn count_ways(ranges: Vec<Vec<i32>>) -> i32 {
let mut ranges: Vec<Range> = ranges
.iter()
.map(|a| {
return Range {
start: a[0],
end: a[1],
};
})
.collect();
ranges.sort_unstable_by_key(|x| x.start);
let mut merged_ranges = Vec::with_capacity(ranges.len());
let mut i = 0;
let mut last: Option<&mut Range> = None;
while i < ranges.len() {
if let Some(last_range) = last {
while i < ranges.len() && last_range.end >= ranges[i].start {
last_range.end = last_range.end.max(ranges[i].end);
i += 1;
}
if i >= ranges.len() {
break;
}
}
merged_ranges.push(Range {
start: ranges[i].start,
end: ranges[i].end,
});
last = merged_ranges.last_mut();
i += 1;
}
let mut result = 1;
for _ in 0..merged_ranges.len() as i32 {
result = result * 2 % 1_000_000_007;
}
result
}
}
// submission codes end
#[cfg(test)]
mod tests {
use super::*;
#[test]
fn test_2580() {
assert_eq!(2, Solution::count_ways(vec![vec![6, 10], vec![5, 15]]));
assert_eq!(
4,
Solution::count_ways(vec![vec![1, 3], vec![10, 20], vec![2, 5], vec![4, 8]])
);
}
}
// Accepted solution for LeetCode #2580: Count Ways to Group Overlapping Ranges
function countWays(ranges: number[][]): number {
ranges.sort((a, b) => a[0] - b[0]);
let mx = -1;
let ans = 1;
const mod = 10 ** 9 + 7;
for (const [start, end] of ranges) {
if (start > mx) {
ans = (ans * 2) % mod;
}
mx = Math.max(mx, end);
}
return ans;
}
Use this to step through a reusable interview workflow for this problem.
Two nested loops check every pair or subarray. The outer loop fixes a starting point, the inner loop extends or searches. For n elements this gives up to n²/2 operations. No extra space, but the quadratic time is prohibitive for large inputs.
Most array problems have an O(n²) brute force (nested loops) and an O(n) optimal (single pass with clever state tracking). The key is identifying what information to maintain as you scan: a running max, a prefix sum, a hash map of seen values, or two pointers.
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.