This problem requires identifying clusters of similar strings where similarity means two strings differ by at most a swap of two characters. Use a union-find structure or DFS with hash lookups to efficiently group strings. GhostInterview guides you to quickly detect similarity pairs and manage merging groups without unnecessary comparisons.
Problem Statement
Given a list of strings where each string is an anagram of the others, two strings are considered similar if they are identical or can become identical by swapping exactly two letters in one string. Your task is to determine how many groups of strings are connected by similarity, where each string belongs to a group if it is similar to at least one other string in the same group.
For example, consider strs = ["tars","rats","arts","star"]. "tars" is similar to "rats" and "rats" is similar to "arts", forming one connected group {"tars","rats","arts"}. "star" forms a separate group as it is not similar to any of the other strings. Return the total number of such groups.
Examples
Example 1
Input: strs = ["tars","rats","arts","star"]
Output: 2
Example details omitted.
Example 2
Input: strs = ["omv","ovm"]
Output: 1
Example details omitted.
Constraints
- 1 <= strs.length <= 300
- 1 <= strs[i].length <= 300
- strs[i] consists of lowercase letters only.
- All words in strs have the same length and are anagrams of each other.
Solution Approach
Brute Force DFS with Similarity Check
Iterate through each string and perform DFS to mark all strings reachable through similarity. Use a helper function to check if two strings differ by at most two swaps. This approach ensures every group is discovered but can be O(n^2 * m) in the worst case, where n is the number of strings and m is string length.
Union-Find Optimization
Initialize each string as its own parent in a union-find structure. For every pair of strings, union them if they are similar using the two-swap check. After processing all pairs, count the unique roots to determine the number of groups. This reduces repeated DFS visits and leverages efficient merging.
Hash-Based Similarity Candidate Reduction
Instead of comparing all pairs, use a hash map to store string signatures or sorted forms to quickly locate potential similar strings. Only perform the detailed two-swap check on likely candidates, reducing unnecessary comparisons and improving runtime on large arrays.
Complexity Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Time | Depends on the final approach |
| Space | Depends on the final approach |
Time complexity depends on approach: naive DFS is O(n^2 * m) for n strings of length m. Union-Find reduces repeated checks, but still requires pairwise similarity verification in worst case. Space complexity is O(n * m) to store parent pointers or visited flags and possible hash signatures.
What Interviewers Usually Probe
- Asks for an efficient method to count string similarity groups.
- Checks if you can identify similarity using at most two swaps correctly.
- Wants an optimized union-find or DFS implementation to handle up to 300 strings.
Common Pitfalls or Variants
Common pitfalls
- Failing to correctly implement the two-letter swap similarity check.
- Performing unnecessary full pairwise comparisons without candidate reduction.
- Merging groups incorrectly, leading to undercounting or overcounting groups.
Follow-up variants
- Allowing similarity defined by one-letter swap only.
- Strings may have different lengths requiring substring comparisons.
- Counting largest group size instead of total number of groups.
How GhostInterview Helps
- Automatically identifies similarity pairs and manages union-find merges efficiently.
- Highlights candidate strings for DFS to reduce redundant similarity checks.
- Provides step-by-step grouping feedback to prevent miscounting connected components.
Topic Pages
Related GhostInterview Pages
- LeetCode Interview Copilot - Use GhostInterview as a live solver when you want direct help with LeetCode-style coding questions.
- Coding Interview Assistant - See how GhostInterview supports array, string, linked list, graph, and tree interview workflows.
- How GhostInterview Works - Review the screenshot, reasoning, and answer flow before using the solver in a live interview.
FAQ
What defines similarity in the Similar String Groups problem?
Two strings are similar if they are identical or can become identical by swapping exactly two letters.
Can GhostInterview handle large string arrays efficiently?
Yes, by leveraging union-find and hash candidate reduction, it avoids redundant pairwise checks for arrays up to 300 strings.
Why is union-find preferred over plain DFS?
Union-find efficiently merges connected groups without revisiting strings multiple times, reducing overhead in large datasets.
How do I implement the two-letter swap similarity check?
Compare the strings character by character, count differences, and return true only if there are zero or exactly two mismatched positions that can be swapped.
Are there optimizations using string hashing?
Yes, hashing or canonical sorted forms can quickly locate candidate strings likely to be similar, minimizing unnecessary detailed comparisons.
Need direct help with Similar String Groups instead of spending more time grinding it?
Download GhostInterview when you want a LeetCode solver, not another long practice loop. Capture Similar String Groups from a screenshot, get the answer path and complexity, and use supported stealth workflows that stay outside captured layers.
Capture the prompt fast instead of rewriting the problem by hand.
Get the solution path, trade-offs, and complexity summary in one pass.
Stay outside captured layers on supported screen-share workflows.
Stay in the same pattern family
Merge accounts by connecting emails and returning each user's sorted email list using array scanning and hash lookup efficiently.
Open problem page#1202 Smallest String With SwapsFind the lexicographically smallest string by swapping characters in given pairs of indices.
Open problem page#924 Minimize Malware SpreadIdentify which single infected node to remove to minimize total malware spread in a connected network graph efficiently.
Open problem page