<think>首先，用户的问题是关于一个n×m的01矩阵。用户可以选择任意次翻转某一行的所有元素（即把0变成1，1变成0）。目标是最大化满足“该列恰好有一个1”的列的数量。
关键点：
- 操作：翻转整行（可以翻转任意行任意次）。
- 目标：使尽可能多的列中恰好有一个1。
由于翻转行多次是无效的（因为翻转两次等于没翻转），所以对于每一行，我们只关心是否翻转它一次或不翻转。本质上，对于每一行，我们有一个二元选择：翻转或不翻转。
翻转行会影响该行所有列的元素。所以，我们需要决定一个行的翻转策略，使得在最终矩阵中，尽可能多的列中恰好有一个1。
现在，考虑一个列。对于一个给定的列，它的元素由原始矩阵和哪些行被翻转决定。翻转行会改变该列的元素值。
设原始矩阵为A，其中A[i][j]表示第i行第j列的元素（0或1）。
如果我们翻转第i行，那么该行所有元素取反：0变1，1变0。
对于列j，在应用行翻转后，它的元素值取决于原始值和哪些行被翻转。
具体地，对于列j，最终的值是：对于每个行i，如果行i被翻转，则元素变为1 - A[i][j]，否则为A[i][j]。
我们关心的是，在最终矩阵中，列j中1的个数。我们希望这个个数恰好为1。
所以，对于每个列j，我们需要决定行翻转向量（一个n维二进制向量，表示每行是否翻转），使得该列中1的个数恰好为1。
但行翻转是全局的，即同一个行翻转向量应用于所有列。所以，我们需要选择一个行翻转向量，使得在多个列中，每个列中1的个数恰好为1。
目标是最大化这样的列的数量。
现在，问题是如何选择行翻转，使得尽可能多的列满足“恰好有一个1”。
由于列之间是独立的吗？不，因为行翻转是共享的，所以列之间不是完全独立的。一个行翻转会影响所有列。
所以，我们需要一个全局的行翻转决策来优化列满足条件的数量。
现在，考虑一个列j。在给定原始列值的情况下，我们什么时候可以使该列恰好有一个1。
设S_j为列j中原始1的个数。即，在未翻转前，列j有S_j个1。
现在，当我们翻转一些行时，如果行i被翻转，那么对于列j，如果A[i][j]是1，翻转后变为0；如果A[i][j]是0，翻转后变为1。
所以，翻转一个行会改变该列中1的个数：如果该位置是1，翻转后1减少；如果是0，翻转后1增加。
更精确地，对于列j，初始1的个数是S_j。
当我们翻转一个行i时，它会影响列j的元素：如果A[i][j] = 1，翻转后变为0，所以1的个数减少1；如果A[i][j] = 0，翻转后变为1，所以1的个数增加1。
因此，翻转行i会使列j的1的个数变化：Δ = 1 - 2*A[i][j]。因为如果A[i][j]=1，Δ=-1；如果A[i][j]=0，Δ=1。
设X_i为指示变量：X_i = 1表示翻转行i，X_i = 0表示不翻转。
那么，对于列j，最终1的个数为：S_j + sum_{i} (1 - 2*A[i][j]) * X_i
因为每个翻转行i贡献(1 - 2*A[i][j])的变化量。
简化：S_j + sum_i (1 - 2A[i][j]) X_i
我们想这个值等于1。
即 S_j + sum_i (1 - 2A[i][j]) X_i = 1
设B_i^j = 1 - 2A[i][j]。注意B_i^j 是 -1 或 1，取决于A[i][j]。
如果A[i][j]=0，B_i^j=1；如果A[i][j]=1，B_i^j=-1。
所以方程是：S_j + sum_i B_i^j X_i = 1
移项：sum_i B_i^j X_i = 1 - S_j
右边1 - S_j是一个常数，取决于列j。
设C_j = 1 - S_j
所以对于每个列j，我们有：sum_i B_i^j X_i = C_j
其中X_i是二进制变量（0或1）。
B_i^j 是已知的，基于原始矩阵A。
C_j 也是已知的。
所以，对于每个列j，我们有一个方程：sum_{i=1}^n B_i^j X_i = C_j
我们想选择X_i（行翻转决策），使得尽可能多的这样的方程成立。
因为每个方程对应一个列满足条件。
所以，问题转化为：给定一个系统，其中每个列j有一个线性方程 sum_i B_i^j X_i = C_j，我们要最大化满足方程的j的数量。
X_i是二进制变量。
B_i^j 和 C_j 是整数（B_i^j 是 ±1，C_j 是整数）。
C_j = 1 - S_j，S_j 是列j中1的个数，所以 S_j 在 0 到 n 之间，因此 C_j 在 1-n 到 1 之间。
n 是行数。
现在，sum_i B_i^j X_i 是整数，因为 B_i^j 是 ±1，X_i 是 0 或 1。
所以方程是整数方程。
但问题是我们需要处理多个列共享相同的 X_i。
这类似于最大化满足线性约束的数量。
由于 n 和 m 可能很大，我们需要一个高效的方法。
或许我们可以考虑每列在什么条件下可以被满足。
对于固定的行翻转决策 X，对于列 j，最终 1 的数量是 S_j + sum_i (1 - 2A[i][j]) X_i
我们想要这个值等于 1。
注意 sum_i (1 - 2A[i][j]) X_i 依赖于 X。
但 X 是全局的。
另一个方式：考虑翻转之后，对于列 j，1 的数量是原始值经过翻转行的影响。
但或许我们可以考虑每个列“偏好”某些行翻转。
注意，对于列 j，方程 sum_i B_i^j X_i = C_j 必须成立。
B_i^j 是 ±1。
所以对于每个 j，我们有 sum_i B_i^j X_i = C_j。
这看起来像是一个线性方程。
但不同 j 有不同的方程。
现在，由于 X_i 是二进制的，并且 n 可能很大，但或许我们可以考虑所有可能的行翻转组合？但那将是 2^n 种可能，如果 n 很大，这是不可行的。
所以我们需要一个更聪明的方法。
或许我们可以将问题建模为最大化满足的列数。
但怎么做呢？
另一个想法：注意对于某一列，是否可以被满足取决于行翻转操作。
对于给定的列 j，在什么情况下我们可以使该列恰好有一个 1？
设 T_j 为最终列 j 中 1 的数量。
我们有 T_j = S_j + sum_i (1 - 2A[i][j]) X_i
设 D_i^j = 1 - 2A[i][j]，所以 T_j = S_j + sum_i D_i^j X_i
D_i^j 是 +1 或 -1。
我们希望 T_j = 1。
所以 S_j + sum_i D_i^j X_i = 1
因此 sum_i D_i^j X_i = 1 - S_j
如前所述。
现在，1 - S_j 是固定的，而 D_i^j 也是固定的。
对于列 j，只有当 1 - S_j 的值在 sum_i D_i^j X_i 的可能取值范围内时，该列才能被满足，但该和取决于 X_i。
由于 X_i 是二进制的，sum_i D_i^j X_i 的范围是从 -n 到 n，但具体取决于 D_i^j。
但更重要的是，对于每个 j，给定 S_j，C_j = 1 - S_j，而方程必须成立。
但 X 是共享的。
也许我们可以考虑列之间的差异。
注意，对于两个列 j 和 k，方程可能不同。
但也许对于某些列，方程是兼容的。
另一个想法：设 Z_i = X_i，但也许我们可以考虑翻转对列的影响。
我们来思考一下翻转一行会发生什么。
当你翻转一行时，对于每一列，如果该行在该列中是 1，则 1 的数量会减少 1；如果是 0，则 1 的数量会增加 1。
但就我们而言，对于某一列，我们希望 1 的数量恰好为 1。
但也许我们可以考虑每一列“需要”的翻转次数。
对于列 j，设 O_j 为原始列中 1 的数量。
我们希望最终 1 的数量为 1。
所以变化量必须是 1 - O_j。
变化量来自被翻转的行：对于每个被翻转的行 i，如果 A[i][j] = 1，变化量为 -1；如果 A[i][j] = 0，变化量为 +1。
所以净变化量是：设 F 为在 j 处为 0 的翻转行集合，则对于这些行，翻转会使 1 的数量增加 1。
设 G 为在 j 处为 1 的翻转行集合，则对于这些行，翻转会使 1 的数量减少 1。
所以净变化量是 |F| - |G|。
但 |F| + |G| = 被翻转行的总数，记为 R，但 |F| 和 |G| 取决于列。
设 R_j^0 为在 j 处为 0 的翻转行数，R_j^1 为在 j 处为 1 的翻转行数。
那么净变化量是 R_j^0 - R_j^1。
并且 R_j^0 + R_j^1 = R，即被翻转的总行数，但 R 对所有列是相同的吗？不，R 是全局的，但 R_j^0 和 R_j^1 取决于列，因为哪些行在 j 处是 0 或 1 是列相关的。
所以对于列 j，净变化量 Δ_j = R_j^0 - R_j^1。
但 R_j^0 + R_j^1 = R，其中 R 是全局被翻转的行数。
但 R 是固定的吗？不，R 是选择的结果。
此外，R_j^0 和 R_j^1 取决于列。
设 P_j 为在列 j 中为 0 的行数，Q_j 为在列 j 中为 1 的行数，所以 P_j + Q_j = n。
但 R_j^0 是那些在 j 中为 0 且被翻转的行子集，所以 R_j^0 <= P_j，类似地 R_j^1 <= Q_j。
但更重要的是，Δ_j = R_j^0 - R_j^1。
我们希望 O_j + Δ_j = 1。
但 O_j 是原始 1 的数量，即 Q_j。
所以 Q_j + (R_j^0 - R_j^1) = 1。
但 R_j^0 和 R_j^1 不是独立的。
注意，对于列 j，被翻转的行集合中，在 j 中为 0 的行贡献 +1，在 j 中为 1 的行贡献 -1。
但选择是全局的。
也许关键是，对于每一列，在行翻转之后，最终的值取决于原始值和翻转操作。
但也许我们可以考虑每个位置，但不行。
另一个想法：注意，对于某一列，是否可以通过某种行翻转使其恰好有一个 1，取决于该列的模式。
例如，如果某一列中全是 0，那么 O_j=0，我们希望 T_j=1，所以我们需要净增加 1 个 1。由于翻转一行在 j 处为 0 的位置会增加一个 1，所以我们需要翻转一行在 j 处为 0 的行。但如果有多个这样的行，我们只需要翻转一个，但翻转是全局的，所以如果我们在该行为 0 的位置翻转一行，它也会影响其他列。
但就列 j 本身而言，只要至少有一行在 j 处为 0，我们就可以通过翻转该行使 T_j=1。如果我们翻转一行在 j 处为 0 的行，那么该列会获得一个 1，而其他位置不变，所以如果 O_j=0，那么 T_j=1。如果我们不翻转任何在 j 处为 0 的行，那么 T_j=0，不是 1。如果我们翻转多个在 j 处为 0 的行，那么 T_j 就会大于 1。
所以对于 O_j=0 的列，为了使其 T_j=1，我们需要恰好翻转一行在 j 处为 0 的行。
类似地，如果 O_j=1，原始有一个 1，我们希望 T_j=1。如果我们不翻转任何行，T_j=1。如果我们翻转一行在 j 处为 1 的行，那么该 1 变为 0，所以 T_j 减少。如果我们翻转一行在 j 处为 0 的行，那么会增加一个 1，所以 T_j=2。所以为了保持 T_j=1，我们既不能翻转在 j 处为 1 的行（这会移除唯一的 1），也不能翻转在 j 处为 0 的行（这会增加一个额外的 1）。所以我们必须不翻转任何在 j 处为 1 或 0 的行，但所有行要么是 0 要么是 1，所以我们必须不翻转任何行。更准确地说：我们不能翻转在 j 处为 1 的行，因为这会减少 1 的数量；我们也不能翻转在 j 处为 0 的行，因为这会增加 1 的数量。所以对于 O_j=1 的列，为了保持 T_j=1，我们需要不翻转任何行，或者更具体地说，不翻转任何在 j 处为 1 的行，也不翻转任何在 j 处为 0 的行，但那是所有行，所以唯一的办法是不翻转任何行。
如果 O_j=1，并且我们不翻转任何行，T_j=1。
如果我们翻转一行在 j 处为 1 的行，那么那个 1 变成 0，所以 T_j=0。
如果我们翻转一行在 j 处为 0 的行，那么新增一个 1，所以 T_j=2。
如果我们翻转多行，情况更糟。所以确实，对于 O_j=1 的列，只有当没有行被翻转时，T_j 才为 1。
但“没有行被翻转”是全局的。
类似地，对于 O_j=2，原始有两个 1。我们希望 T_j=1。所以我们需要净减少一个 1。这可以通过翻转一个在 j 处为 1 的行（减少一个 1）并且不翻转任何在 j 处为 0 的行来实现，或者通过翻转一个在 j 处为 0 的行并翻转一个在 j 处为 1 的行，但净效果是：要减少一个 1，我们需要翻转奇数个在 j 处为 1 的行，并且翻转在 j 处为 0 的行会增加 1 的数量，所以为了净减少一个 1，我们需要翻转一个在 j 处为 1 的行，并且不翻转任何在 j 处为 0 的行，或者翻转两个在 j 处为 1 的行和一个在 j 处为 0 的行，但净变化是 -1 +1 =0？我们仔细思考一下。
设 a = 在 j 处为 1 的翻转行数。
b = 在 j 处为 0 的翻转行数。
那么 Δ_j = b - a (因为 b 贡献 +1，a 贡献 -1)
原始 O_j = 1 的数量，记为 Q_j。
T_j = Q_j + (b - a)
我们希望 T_j = 1。
所以 Q_j + b - a = 1。
另外，被翻转的总行数 a + b = R，但 R 是全局的，不过对于列 j，a 和 b 是局部的。
a 和 b 必须满足 0 <= a <= Q_j，0 <= b <= P_j，其中 P_j 是列 j 中 0 的数量，Q_j 是 1 的数量，P_j + Q_j = n。
但 a 和 b 是由全局翻转决定的。
对于列 j，方程 Q_j + b - a = 1 必须成立。
但 a 和 b 取决于哪些行被翻转以及它们在列 j 中的值。
由于翻转是全局的，a 和 b 对于每个 j 是固定的，但它们是相关的。
也许对于每一列，能否被满足的条件取决于全局的 X。
但为了优化，我们需要选择 X 以最大化满足 Q_j + b_j - a_j = 1 的 j 的数量，其中 a_j 和 b_j 是列 j 的变量。
但 a_j 和 b_j 是由 X 和矩阵决定的。
注意，对于列 j，a_j 是在列 j 中为 1 且被翻转的行数，b_j 是在列 j 中为 0 且被翻转的行数。
但被翻转的行集合是全局的。
所以对于每个列，给定全局翻转集合 S（被翻转的行集合），那么对于列 j，a_j = |S ∩ H_j|，其中 H_j 是列 j 中为 1 的行集合，b_j = |S ∩ Z_j|，其中 Z_j 是列 j 中为 0 的行集合。
那么 T_j = Q_j + b_j - a_j
并且我们希望 T_j = 1。
所以 Q_j + |S ∩ Z_j| - |S ∩ H_j| = 1
|S ∩ Z_j| 和 |S ∩ H_j| 依赖于 S。
现在，H_j 和 Z_j 是互补的，因为每个行在列 j 中要么是 0 要么是 1。
所以 |S ∩ Z_j| + |S ∩ H_j| = |S|，记为 R。
但 |S ∩ Z_j| - |S ∩ H_j| = 2|S ∩ Z_j| - |S|，因为 |S ∩ H_j| = |S| - |S ∩ Z_j|，所以 |S ∩ Z_j| - |S ∩ H_j| = |S ∩ Z_j| - (|S| - |S ∩ Z_j|) = 2|S ∩ Z_j| - |S|
类似地，T_j = Q_j + 2|S ∩ Z_j| - |S|
我们希望这个等于 1。
所以 Q_j + 2|S ∩ Z_j| - |S| = 1
因此 2|S ∩ Z_j| = 1 - Q_j + |S|
设 D_j = 1 - Q_j，所以 2|S ∩ Z_j| = D_j + |S|
D_j 是固定的，|S| 是全局的。
|S ∩ Z_j| 必须是整数，所以右边必须是偶数，等等，但更重要的是，|S ∩ Z_j| 由 S 决定。
所以对于每个 j，我们有 2|S ∩ Z_j| = D_j + |S|
因此 |S ∩ Z_j| = (D_j + |S|)/2
所以 (D_j + |S|) 必须是偶数，并且 0 <= (D_j + |S|)/2 <= min(|S|, |Z_j|)，但 |Z_j| = P_j 是固定的。
但 S 是选择的。
现在，|S ∩ Z_j| 是 S 和 Z_j 交集的大小。
Z_j 是列 j 中为 0 的行集合。
注意，对于不同的 j，Z_j 可能不同。
但也许我们可以考虑行集合。
关键点是，对于固定的 S，每个 j 是否被满足取决于 S。
但我们需要选择 S 来最大化满足该条件的 j 的数量。
由于 n 可能很大，2^n 太大，我们需要一个多项式时间的方法。
也许我们可以考虑行翻转对列的影响。
另一个想法：注意，当我们翻转一行时，它会改变所有列中 1 的数量。
但对于某一列，1 的数量变化是 +1 或 -1，取决于该行在该列中是 0 还是 1。
但我们希望变化后，1 的数量为 1。
但也许我们可以考虑每一列“偏好”是否被翻转，但这取决于其他列。
让我们考虑两个列的情况。
假设我们有两列 j 和 k。
对于 j，要满足条件，需要特定的翻转模式。
例如，如果两列相同，那么相同的翻转可能对两者都有效。
如果两列不同，可能无法同时满足两者。
但一般来说，这是一个最大覆盖问题或类似的东西。
也许我们可以将其建模为一个最大满足性问题。
每个列 j 对行翻转有一个约束。
从之前的推导，对于列 j，方程是 sum_i B_i^j X_i = C_j，其中 B_i^j = 1 - 2A[i][j]，C_j = 1 - S_j。
B_i^j 是 +1 或 -1。
X_i 是 0 或 1。
所以对于每个 j，我们有一个线性方程 sum_i B_i^j X_i = C_j。
我们需要选择 X 来最大化满足方程的 j 的数量。
这是一个最大化线性方程系统满足数目的问题，其中系数为 ±1，变量为二进制。
在一般情况下，这可能是 NP 难的，但对于这个特定问题，由于系数是 ±1，也许有办法。
注意 B_i^j = 1 - 2A[i][j]，所以如果 A[i][j]=0，B_i^j=1；如果 A[i][j]=1，B_i^j= -1。
C_j = 1 - S_j，S_j 是列 j 中 1 的数量。
S_j = sum_i A[i][j]，因为 A[i][j] 是 0 或 1。
所以 C_j = 1 - sum_i A[i][j]
现在，方程是 sum_i B_i^j X_i = C_j
但 sum_i B_i^j X_i = sum_i (1 - 2A[i][j]) X_i
C_j = 1 - sum_i A[i][j]
所以方程是 sum_i (1 - 2A[i][j]) X_i = 1 - sum_i A[i][j]
让我们简化。
左边： sum_i X_i - 2 sum_i A[i][j] X_i
右边： 1 - sum_i A[i][j]
所以 sum_i X_i - 2 sum_i A[i][j] X_i = 1 - sum_i A[i][j]
将所有项移到一边：
sum_i X_i - 2 sum_i A[i][j] X_i - 1 + sum_i A[i][j] = 0
分组常数项和含 X 的项。
常数项： -1 + sum_i A[i][j] = -1 + S_j
X 项： sum_i X_i - 2 sum_i A[i][j] X_i
但 sum_i A[i][j] X_i 是 dot product。
注意 sum_i (1 - 2A[i][j]) X_i - (1 - sum_i A[i][j]) = 0
但也许我们可以写成：
sum_i X_i - 2 sum_i A[i][j] X_i - 1 + sum_i A[i][j] = 0
令 T = sum_i X_i，即被翻转的行数。
那么 sum_i A[i][j] X_i 是列 j 中为 1 且被翻转的行数，记为 a_j，如前所述。
那么方程为 T - 2 a_j - 1 + S_j = 0
但 S_j = Q_j，即 1 的数量，而 a_j 是那些被翻转的行中 1 的数量。
所以 T - 2 a_j + S_j - 1 = 0
因此 2 a_j = T + S_j - 1
所以 a_j = (T + S_j - 1)/2
所以为了使列 j 被满足， (T + S_j - 1) 必须是偶数，且 0 <= (T + S_j - 1)/2 <= min(T, S_j)，并且 a_j 必须等于该值。
但 a_j 依赖于 S，而 S 是全局的。
对于固定的 T，即被翻转的行数，对于每个 j，a_j 必须为 (T + S_j - 1)/2
但 a_j = sum_{i in H_j} X_i，其中 H_j 是列 j 中为 1 的行集合。
所以对于固定的 T，我们需要选择大小为 T 的集合 S（被翻转的行），使得对于尽可能多的 j，有 |S ∩ H_j| = (T + S_j - 1)/2
S_j 是 H_j 的大小，即列 j 中 1 的数量。
所以 |S ∩ H_j| = (T + |H_j| - 1)/2
现在，|S ∩ H_j| 是 S 和 H_j 交集的大小。
H_j 是列 j 中为 1 的行集合。
注意，对于不同的 j，H_j 可能不同。
所以对于固定的 T，问题简化为：选择大小为 T 的子集 S，以最大化满足 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j 的 j 的数量，其中 k_j = (T + |H_j| - 1)/2
并且 k_j 必须是整数，所以 (T + |H_j| - 1) 必须是偶数。
对于每个 j，如果 (T + S_j - 1) 是奇数，则它不能被满足，因此我们只考虑 (T + S_j - 1) 为偶数的 j。
然后对于这些 j，我们需要 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j。
现在，H_j 是一个集合，我们需要 S 与这些集合有指定的交集大小。
这是一个最大覆盖问题或带约束的集合选择问题。
在一般情况下，这仍然很困难，但对于这个特定问题，由于矩阵是01矩阵，且 n 和 m 是有限的，也许我们可以考虑所有可能的 T，或者找到一种方法。
T 的范围是从 0 到 n，所以我们可以遍历所有可能的 T，从 0 到 n，对于每个 T，解决最大化满足 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j 的列数的问题，其中 k_j = (T + S_j - 1)/2，但仅当 (T + S_j - 1) 为偶数时才成立。
对于每个 T，问题在于选择大小为 T 的 S，以最大化满足 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j 的 j 的数量。
|S ∩ H_j| = k_j 是一个精确的集合大小约束。
这等价于：对于每个 j，如果我们将 j 包含在“满足”的集合中，那么 S 必须与 H_j 在恰好 k_j 个元素上相交。
但 S 是相同的。
一种方法是注意到，对于两个列 j 和 k，约束可能兼容也可能不兼容。
但也许我们可以考虑行。
每行对应于一个元素，我们需要选择行的子集。
约束在列上。
这类似于在列约束下选择行的子集。
一种标准方法是使用贪心或动态规划，但维度可能很大。
由于 k_j 依赖于 T 和 S_j，而 S_j 是已知的，对于每个 T，k_j 是固定的。
所以对于每个 T，我们有一个关于每个列 j 的目标交集大小 k_j。
我们需要选择 S 来最大化满足 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j 的 j 的数量。
这是一个最大化满足带大小约束的线性方程的数量的问题。
在计算中，如果 m 很大，这可能会很耗时，但也许我们可以利用交集大小的事实。
另一种方式：注意 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j 意味着 S 与 H_j 的交集大小恰好为 k_j。
H_j 是列 j 中为 1 的行集合。
对于一行，它属于某些 H_j。
但也许我们可以考虑指示变量。
设 y_i = X_i，表示是否翻转第 i 行。
那么对于列 j，a_j = sum_{i in H_j} y_i
我们需要 a_j = k_j，其中 k_j = (T + S_j - 1)/2，但 T = sum_i y_i，所以 k_j 依赖于 T，而 T 依赖于 y。
对于固定的 T，k_j 是固定的，但 T 是由 y 决定的。
对于固定的 T，k_j 是常数，所以 a_j = sum_{i in H_j} y_i = k_j
所以对于每个 j，我们有一个线性方程 sum_{i in H_j} y_i = k_j
但 y_i 是二进制的，并且 sum_i y_i = T。
所以对于固定的 T，我们有一个系统，其中对于每个列 j，有一个约束 sum_{i in H_j} y_i = k_j，并且 sum_i y_i = T，y_i 为二进制。
我们 want to satisfy as many of the sum_{i in H_j} y_i = k_j as possible, but the constraint is that for the columns we want to satisfy, the equation must hold, but we can choose which columns to satisfy.
在最大化中，我们选择 y，然后观察哪些 j 满足 a_j = k_j。
所以对于固定的 T，问题在于选择 y，使得 sum_i y_i = T，并最大化满足 sum_{i in H_j} y_i = k_j 的 j 的数量。
由于 y 是二进制的，并且 sum_i y_i = T，这就像是在选择大小为 T 的子集。
对于每个列 j，当 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j 时，该列被满足。
为了最大化这样的 j 的数量，我们可以考虑，对于每个可能的 S，计算有多少个 j 满足 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j，但这需要 2^n 的时间，效率不高。
由于矩阵是01矩阵，或许我们可以利用列是独立的这一事实，但又不是。
另一个想法：注意，对于某一列，是否被满足取决于 S 和 H_j 的交集大小。
但 H_j 是固定的。
或许我们可以对列进行分组，或者使用哈希之类的方法。
但让我们寻找一个多项式时间的解决方案。
或许我们可以将问题转化为图论或线性代数问题。
注意，从方程 a_j = (T + S_j - 1)/2
但 a_j = |S ∩ H_j|，而 S_j = |H_j|。
所以 |S ∩ H_j| = (T + |H_j| - 1)/2
这意味着 |S ∩ H_j| 是固定的，对于给定的 T 和 |H_j|。
现在，|S ∩ H_j| 依赖于 S。
为了有 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j，其中 k_j = (T + |H_j| - 1)/2
现在，k_j 必须是非负整数，等等。
但关键是，对于两个列 j 和 k，如果 H_j = H_k，那么它们有相同的 |H_j|，因此有相同的 k_j，因此相同的约束，因此它们可以一起被满足。
如果 H_j 不同，约束也不同。
但或许我们可以考虑列之间的差异。
另一个观察：|S ∩ H_j| - |S ∩ H_k| 等等，但可能没有帮助。
或许最优解是翻转所有行或不翻转任何行，但这可能不是最优的。
例如，假设 n=1，m=2。
如果该行是 [0,0]，那么如果我不翻转，T_j=0 对于两列，不是 1。如果我翻转，T_j=1 对于两列，所以两列都满足，因此答案是 2。
如果该行是 [0,1]，那么如果我不翻转，列1的 T=0，列2的 T=1，所以只有列2满足。如果我翻转，列1的 T=1，列2的 T=0，所以只有列1满足。所以最大是 1。
类似地。
现在，对于更大的 n。
回到用户的问题，我需要给出一个算法或方法。
或许有一个贪心算法。
或者我们可以将其表述为整数线性规划，但那可能太慢。
另一个想法：注意，对于某一列，它是否可以被满足，取决于 T 和 S_j，但 T 是全局的。
具体来说，对于列 j，只有当 (T + S_j - 1) 是偶数时，它才能被满足，并且 a_j = (T + S_j -1)/2。
但 a_j 必须在 0 到 min(T, S_j) 之间，等等。
但更重要的是，对于固定的 T，列 j 要能被满足，必须满足 (T + S_j -1) 是偶数，并且 0 <= (T + S_j -1)/2 <= min(T, S_j)，这通常成立，如果 S_j 在 0 到 n 之间，T 在 0 到 n 之间。
但关键条件是奇偶性：T + S_j 必须是奇数，因为 -1，所以 T + S_j -1 为偶数意味着 T + S_j 为奇数。
所以 T + S_j 是奇数。
S_j 是列 j 中 1 的数量。
所以对于列 j 能被满足，T + S_j 必须是奇数。
然后，如果满足这个条件，那么 k_j 被确定，并且我们需要 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j。
现在，对于固定的 T，满足 T + S_j 为奇数的列 j 可以被满足，但前提是 S 被正确选择。
对于这些列，我们需要 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j。
现在，为了最大化，我们或许可以选择 S，使其与尽可能多的 j 的 H_j 在 k_j 个元素上相交。
但由于 k_j 依赖于 S_j，而 S_j = |H_j|，所以 k_j = (T + |H_j| -1)/2
现在，|H_j| 对于每个 j 是固定的，所以 k_j 是固定的。
所以对于固定的 T，问题在于选择大小为 T 的 S，以最大化满足 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j 的 j 的数量，其中 k_j = (T + |H_j| -1)/2，并且仅当 T + |H_j| 为奇数时才考虑 j，否则该列不能被满足。
对于 T + |H_j| 为偶数的列，它们永远无法被满足，因此我们可以忽略它们。
对于 T + |H_j| 为奇数的列，它们可以被满足，但前提是 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j。
现在，|S ∩ H_j| = k_j 是一个严格的约束。
为了最大化满足的数量，我们可以使用贪心或随机方法，但我们需要精确的算法。
在竞赛编程中，有时使用位运算或DP，但n和m可能很大。
例如，n和m最多为10^3或10^4，所以O(n m)或O(n^2 m)可能可以接受，但O(2^n)不行。
所以对于固定的T，我们如何选择S来最大化满足 |S ∩ H_j| = k_j 的 j 的数量。
|S ∩ H_j| 是 S 和 H_j 的交集大小。
H_j 是列 j 中为 1 的行集合。
我们可以把每一行看作一个特征，但 perhaps we can consider the rows as elements, and for each column, it defines a constraint on the sum over the rows in H_j.
Since the constraints are on the sum, and we want the sum to be exactly k_j for each column we satisfy.
But we want to maximize the number of satisfied constraints.
This is similar to the "maximum feasible subsystem" problem, which is often NP-hard, but for this case with binary variables and specific coefficients, it might be easier.
Note that the constraints are linear: for each j, sum_{i in H_j} y_i = k_j.
But y_i are binary, and we have the constraint sum_i y_i = T.
So it's a system with m equations (for the columns) but we only care about how many are satisfied, not all.
To solve this for fixed T, we can use dynamic programming over the rows.
Let dp[i][s] = the maximum number of columns that can be satisfied after processing the first i rows, with s rows flipped so far.
But s is the number of flipped rows, and for each column, we need to know |S ∩ H_j| for the first i rows.
But |S ∩ H_j| depends on which rows are flipped and whether they are in H_j.
In the DP, when we add a row, for each column, if the row is in H_j, and we flip it, it contributes to the sum.
But the state needs to encode for each column the current sum, which is not feasible because m may be large.
Since the only thing that matters for each column is the current |S ∩ H_j| for the selected rows, but as we add rows, for each column, if the row is not in H_j, it doesn't affect, if it is, it may increase the sum if flipped.
But to know whether the constraint is satisfied, we need the final sum, but at the end when all rows are processed.
So in the DP, after all rows, we can check for each column if |S ∩ H_j| = k_j.
But in the state, we need to store the current sum for each column, which is O(m) per state, and there are O(n) rows and O(n) choices for s, so state space is O(n * n) = O(n^2) for i and s, but for each state, to store the current sums for all columns, it's O(m) space, and when processing a new row, for each state, we consider flipping or not, and update the sums for all columns that have this row in H_j.
Updating takes O(m) per state per row, and there are O(n^2) states, so total time O(n^3 m)，如果 n 和 m 为 10^3，则 n^3 m = 10^9，勉强可行，但可能很慢，而如果 n 为 10^4，则 10^12，不可行。
We need a better way.
Note that for each column, the constraint depends only on the size of the intersection, not on which specific rows are flipped, as long as |S ∩ H_j| = k_j.
But the value |S ∩ H_j| depends on S and H_j.
To compute |S ∩ H_j| for a given S, we need to know how many of the flipped rows are in H_j.
But in the DP, if we don't store the per-column sums, we can't compute it at the end.
Perhaps we can use the fact that the columns are independent given S, but to evaluate a S, we can compute for each j if |S ∩ H_j| = k_j, but that takes O(m) per S, and there are many S.
For fixed T, we need to choose a subset of size T, and evaluate the number of j with |S ∩ H_j| = k_j.
Evaluating for a given S takes O(m n) or O(m) if we precompute the membership, but still, enumerating all subsets of size T is C(n,T) which is large.
So not feasible.
Perhaps we can use greedy or approximation, but the user wants an exact solution.
Another idea: perhaps the optimal solution can be found by considering the rows and their vector.
Each row is a bit vector of length m.
When we flip a row, it's like adding the vector where each entry is 1 if the row was 0, 0 if it was 1, or something.
Let's define the effect.
For each column j, the initial number of 1's is S_j.
When we flip a set S of rows, for column j, the change in number of 1's is: for each flipped row i, if A[i][j] = 0, change +1, if A[i][j] = 1, change -1.
So the net change for j is sum_{i in S} (1 - 2A[i][j])
As before.
We want S_j + sum_{i in S} (1 - 2A[i][j]) = 1
So sum_{i in S} (1 - 2A[i][j]) = 1 - S_j
Now, 1 - 2A[i][j] is +1 if A[i][j]=0, -1 if A[i][j]=1.
So the left side is the dot product of the flip vector and the column vector of B.
For the entire matrix, let B be the matrix where B[i][j] = 1 - 2A[i][j], so B[i][j] = 1 if A[i][j]=0, -1 if A[i][j]=1.
Then for each column j, we have sum_i B[i][j] X_i = C_j, where C_j = 1 - S_j.
X_i is 0 or 1.
This is a system: B^T X = C, where B is n x m matrix, X is n x 1 binary vector, C is m x 1 vector.
We want to maximize the number of equations that are satisfied.
In combinatorial optimization, this is the maximum feasible subsystem problem for integer equations.
With binary variables and coefficients ±1, it might be solvable.
Note that each equation is of the form sum_i B_i^j X_i = C_j, with B_i^j = ±1, C_j integer.
A key observation is that for a fixed X, the left side sum_i B_i^j X_i is integer, and we can compute it for each j.
But to find X that maximizes the number of j with sum_i B_i^j X_i = C_j.
Since B_i^j = ±1, the sum sum_i B_i^j X_i can range from -n to n.
For each possible value of the sum, but it's per j.
Perhaps we can consider that the value sum_i B_i^j X_i depends on the agreement between X and the vector (B_{1j}, B_{2j}, ..., B_{nj}).
But B_i^j is fixed for each i,j.
Another idea: for each column j, the equation sum_i B_i^j X_i = C_j can be rewritten as sum_i B_i^j X_i - C_j = 0.
But B_i^j is ±1.
Perhaps the difference between columns.
But let's think about the row vectors.
Each row i corresponds to a vector V_i in { -1,1}^m, where V_i[j] = B[i][j] = 1-2A[i][j].
When we set X_i=1, it means we include this vector in the sum, with coefficient 1.
X_i=0 means not include.
Then for each column j, the sum sum_i V_i[j] X_i = C_j.
So we want sum_{i} V_i[j] X_i = C_j for as many j as possible.
This is like approximating the vector C by the sum of a subset of the vectors V_i.
With the goal of exact equality in as many coordinates as possible.
This is a subset sum in multiple dimensions, but with binary coefficients.
To maximize the number of coordinates where the sum equals C_j.
In general, this is NP-hard, but for small dimensions or with structure, it might be solvable.
For this problem, since m is the number of columns, and it might be large, we need an efficient algorithm.
Perhaps there is a dynamic programming over the rows.
Let's define dp[i][s] as a vector of size m, storing the current sum for each column after i rows, with s rows flipped, but that requires O(m) space per state, and s up to n, i up to n, so O(n^2 m) space, which is O(n^3) if n=m, which is 10^6 for n=100, acceptable, but time would be O(n^2 m) for the DP, with O(m) per state per row, so O(n^2 m^2), which for n=m=1000, is 10^12, too slow.
If we do it per row, for each new row, for each state (i,s), and for each choice (flip or not), we update the sum vector for all m columns, which takes O(m) per state per row.
Number of states is O(i * s) = O(n^2) for all i and s.
For each i, s ranges from 0 to i, so for each i, O(i) states.
For each state, updating takes O(m), so for each i, time O(i * m).
Sum over i from 1 to n, total time O(m sum_{i=1}^n i) = O(m n^2).
For n=1000, m=1000, n^2 m = 10^9, which is acceptable in C++ for example, but in Python might be slow, but for the purpose of the algorithm, we can describe it.
Space is O(n^2 m), which is 10^9 * 4 bytes = 4GB for n=m=1000, which is borderline, but possible with good machine.
For larger n, it may not be feasible, but perhaps we can optimize.
In the DP, dp[i][s] can be a vector of the current sums for each column.
But at the end, after i=n, for each s, we have a sum vector, then for each column j, we can check if the sum equals C_j, and count how many are satisfied, then maximize over s and the state.
But for fixed s, the sum vector depends on which rows are flipped, not just how many, because different rows have different vectors.
In the DP, when we go row by row, and we choose to flip or not, the state needs to include the current sum vector, but the sum vector is of size m, and there are 2^i possibilities for the choices, so it's exponential.
I think I confused myself.
In the DP over rows, if we want to keep track of the current sum for each column, the state should include the current sum vector, which has m components, each of size O(n), so state space is O(n^m), which is exponential in m, not good.
Earlier I said for fixed s, but s is the number of flipped rows, but for fixed s, the sum vector depends on which s rows are flipped, so there are C(n,s) possibilities, which is large.
So that doesn't work.
For the fixed T approach, with dynamic programming over rows, storing the current sum for each column is not feasible.
Perhaps we can use a different state.
Another idea: since the constraints are on the size of intersection with H_j, and H_j is a set, perhaps we can use the inclusion of each row in the H_j's.
But still.
Perhaps the optimal solution can be found by considering the炬陣.
Let's look for known problems or think differently.
Notice that for a column to be satisfiable, T + S_j must be odd, as we had.
Then for those columns, we need |S ∩ H_j| = (T + S_j -1)/2
Now, |S ∩ H_j| = (T + |H_j| -1)/2
|H_j| = S_j, so k_j = (T + S_j -1)/2
Now, this can be rewritten as 2|S ∩ H_j| = T + S_j -1
But |S ∩ H_j| is the number of flipped rows that are 1 in column j.
Perhaps for the entire set, but it's per j.
Another observation: if we consider the炬陣 A, and the flip vector X, then the final matrix is A xor (X * 1^T) or something, but in terms of values, when we flip a row, the values change.
In the final matrix, for column j, the number of 1's is the dot product or something.
Perhaps we can consider the sum over all columns.
But that may not help.
Let's consider that the condition for column j is that the number of 1's is 1 after flip.
But after flip, the value in cell (i,j) is A[i][j] if X_i=0, or 1-A[i][j] if X_i=1.
So the final value is A[i][j] xor X_i, if we think of it as bit.
Then for column j, the sum over i of (A[i][j] xor X_i) = 1.
A[i][j] xor X_i = 1 when A[i][j] != X_i, else 0.
So the number of 1's in column j is sum_i (A[i][j] xor X_i)
And we want this sum = 1 for as many j as possible.
So we want to choose X such that for many j, the number of i where A[i][j] != X_i is 1.
A[i][j] != X_i means that in column j, at row i, the value differs from X_i.
For each column j, we want exactly one i such that A[i][j] != X_i.
In other words, for each column j, there is exactly one row i where the final value differs from the original, but only if we flip that row, etc.
But the condition is that in the column, after flip, there is exactly one 1, which is sum_i (A[i][j] xor X_i) = 1.
Yes.
So for each j, we want the number of i with A[i][j] != X_i to be exactly 1.
X_i is the flip decision for row i.
So for each column j, there should be exactly one row i such that A[i][j] != X_i.
But A[i][j] != X_i depends on both.
For a fixed X, for each j, the number of i with A[i][j] != X_i should be 1.
To maximize the number of j where this holds.
Now, this is interesting.
For each cell (i,j), we have a condition that A[i][j] != X_i contributes to the count for j.
But for column j, the number of i where A[i][j] != X_i is the number of disagreements between the column vector and the flip vector at that row.
Perhaps we can think of X as a vector, and for each column j, we want the Hamming distance between the j-th column vector and the flip vector X to be exactly 1? No.
A[i][j] is the value, X_i is the flip decision.
The final value is A[i][j] if not flipped, or 1-A[i][j] if flipped, which is equivalent to A[i][j] xor X_i, as we have.
Then the number of 1's in column j is sum_i (A[i][j] xor X_i)
And we want this sum = 1.
A[i][j] xor X_i = 1 when A[i][j] != X_i, else 0.
So yes, sum over i of 1_{A[i][j] != X_i} = 1.
So for each column j, we want exactly one row i where A[i][j] != X_i.
In other words, for each column j, there is exactly one position i where the value in the matrix differs from the flip decision X_i.
For the other positions, A[i][j] == X_i.
So for each column, all entries agree with X except for one row where they disagree.
To maximize the number of such columns.
Now, X is a binary vector of length n.
For each column j, the set of i where it disagrees with X must be a singleton.
But the disagreement pattern must be that for each j, there is exactly one i with disagreement.
Now, this must hold for the columns that are satisfied.
For the columns that are not satisfied, it doesn't matter.
So we need to choose X such that for as many j as possible, there is exactly one i with A[i][j] != X_i.
Now, for a fixed X, for each j, we can compute the number of i with A[i][j] != X_i, and see if it is 1.
But to find X that maximizes the number of j with that property.
Since the matrix is given, we can think for each possible X, but 2^n is too many.
Note that for a column j, the condition depends on X.
Specifically, for column j, the number of disagreements with X is the Hamming distance between the column vector and X, but only if we consider the vector.
Let C_j be the column vector of length n for column j.
Then the number of i with C_j[i] != X_i is the Hamming distance d(C_j, X).
We want d(C_j, X) = 1 for as many j as possible.
So we want to choose a vector X (in {0,1}^n) that minimizes the Hamming distance to as many C_j as possible, but not minimize, we want the distance to be exactly 1, not minimized.
We want d(C_j, X) = 1, not minimized to 1.
So it's not about closeness, but about being at distance exactly 1.
So we want X such that many C_j are at Hamming distance 1 from X.
In other words, X should be such that for many j, C_j is adjacent to X in the Hamming cube.
To maximize the number of j with d(C_j, X) = 1.
This is a standard problem: given a set of vectors (the columns), find a vector X that maximizes the number of vectors at Hamming distance 1 from X.
In coding theory or combinatorics, this might have been studied.
How to solve it efficiently.
Note that for a fixed X, we can compute for each C_j the distance to X, but that takes O(n) per j, so O(n m) per X, and there are 2^n X's, not feasible.
But perhaps we can use the fact that the vectors are from {0,1}^n.
Another way: for each possible vector Y, but it's the same.
Note that if X is at distance 1 from C_j, then X differs from C_j in exactly one position.
So for each C_j, the vectors X that are at distance 1 from C_j are exactly those X that differ from C_j in exactly one coordinate.
There are n such X for each C_j.
Specifically, for each row i, the vector X that is C_j with the i-th bit flipped.
So for each column j, there are n choices of X that satisfy d(C_j, X) = 1.
To maximize the number of j that are covered, we need to choose an X that is in the "good" set for as many j as possible.
In other words, for each j, let S_j be the set of X such that d(C_j, X) = 1. |S_j| = n.
Then we want to choose X that maximizes |{ j : X in S_j }|.
Which is the same as maximizing the number of j for which X is in S_j.
S_j is the set of vectors that differ from C_j in exactly one position.
So for a fixed X, it is in S_j if and only if d(C_j, X) = 1, which is what we have.
To find an X that is in many S_j.
Since each S_j has size n, and there are m columns, we can think of it as a covering problem.
A key observation is that two columns j and k may have the same C_j, then their S_j are the same, so they are satisfied together if X in S_j.
If C_j are different, S_j may overlap.
But in general, to find the X that is in the most S_j, we can iterate over all possible X, but 2^n is exponential.
Since each S_j corresponds to the vectors at distance 1 from C_j, and there are m such sets, each of size n, the union of all S_j has size at most m n, but可能有 overlap.
The total number of distinct X that are in some S_j is at most min(2^n, m n), but m n may be large.
But we can list all possible X that are at distance 1 from some C_j.
Specifically, for each column j and for each row i, the vector X = C_j with the i-th bit flipped is a candidate.
There are m n such candidates X.
For each such candidate X, we can compute how many j' have d(C_{j'}, X) = 1, i.e., how many columns are at distance 1 from X.
Then we take the candidate X with the maximum number.
Since there are m n candidates, and for each candidate, checking all m columns takes O(n m) time (since for each column, computing Hamming distance to X takes O(n)), so total time O((m n) * (m n)) = O(m^2 n^2).
For n=1000, m=1000, m^2 n^2 = 10^{12}, which is 10^12 operations, in C++ about 10^3 seconds, which is 17 minutes, acceptable for offline, but in contest might be slow, but for the purpose of this problem, we can use this.
And it's polynomial.
So the algorithm is:
1. Generate all possible candidate vectors X that are obtained by taking some column j and flipping one bit in it (in any row i). There are m * n such candidates.
2. For each candidate X, initialize count = 0.
3. For each column k, compute the Hamming distance d(C_k, X). If d(C_k, X) == 1, then increment count.
4. Record the count for this X.
5. After evaluating all candidates, select the candidate with the highest count.
6. The maximum number of satisfied columns is that highest count.
But is this correct?
We want X such that for many j, d(C_j, X) = 1.
The candidates are all vectors that are at distance 1 from some column vector.
But is it possible that the optimal X is not at distance 1 from any column? For example, if all columns are the same, say all 0, then the optimal X could be all 0 with one bit flipped, but if we take X all 0, then d(C_j, X) = 0, not 1, so for a column of all 0, to have exactly one 1 after flip, we need to flip exactly one row, so X should have exactly one 1, which is at distance 1 from the all-0 vector, so it is covered in the candidates.
Similarly, if a column has one 1, to be satisfied, we need no flip, so X= all 0, but d(C_j, X) for C_j being the vector with one 1, d=1 only if X has all 0 except where the 1 is, but if X is all 0, d=1 if C_j has exactly one 1, which is the case, so for C_j with one 1, d(all-0, C_j) = number of positions where they differ, which is 1 if C_j has exactly one 1, yes.
In general, for a column to be satisfiable, there must be an X that satisfies it, and that X is at distance 1 from C_j.
Moreover, for the optimal X, it may not be at distance 1 from any column, but in this case, if it is not, then for a column to be satisfied, d(C_j, X) must be 1, so if d(C_j, X)=1, then X is at distance 1 from C_j, so it is in the candidate set for that j.
But for a fixed optimal X, it is in S_j for each j that is satisfied, and S_j is the set of vectors at distance 1 from C_j, so for each such j, X is a candidate because it is obtained by flipping one bit of C_j.
Therefore, the optimal X is included in the candidate set we generate.
Moreover, we evaluate all candidates, so we will find it.
The candidates are generated from each column and each bit flip, so yes, any vector that is at distance 1 from some column is included.
And since the optimal X must be at distance 1 from every column it satisfies, it is included for each such column, but it is a single vector, so it will be generated when we take any j that it satisfies and flip the appropriate bit, but since it is fixed, it will be generated multiple times if it is at distance 1 from multiple columns, but in the candidate list, it will appear multiple times, but when we evaluate it, we compute the count, and since it's the same X, we can avoid redundant computation by using a set, but even if we compute multiple times, it's fine, as long as we take the max.
To save time, we can use a hash to store each candidate X and compute its count only once.
But in terms of time, generating all candidates: there are m n candidates, each is a vector of size n.
For each candidate, we need to compute the Hamming distance to all m columns.
Computing Hamming distance between two vectors of length n takes O(n) time.
So for one candidate, O(n m) time.
Total time: number of candidates times O(n m) = (m n) * (n m) = n^2 m^2.
As I said, O(n^2 m^2).
For n=1000, m=1000, 10^{12} operations, which is heavy, but perhaps acceptable.
We can optimize by noting that for a fixed candidate X, when we compute for each column k, d(C_k, X), we can do it in O(n) per column, but perhaps we can precompute something.
Since the columns are given, we can store them.
Another way: for each candidate X, which is obtained from some column j by flipping bit i, but when we have X, we compute from scratch.
To save time, we can iterate over the candidates in a smarter way, but I think n^2 m^2 is the best we can do for this approach.
Perhaps there is a better way.
Note that the condition d(C_k, X) = 1 means that C_k and X differ in exactly one position.
For a fixed X, it is satisfied by columns k where C_k differs from X in exactly one bit.
But when we generate candidates from columns, perhaps for each possible X, but we don't iterate over all X.
Another approach: instead of generating candidates, we can consider that the optimal X must be close to the columns.
But perhaps for practical purposes, we can use this.
In the context of the user, I can describe this algorithm.
But let's confirm with a small example.
Suppose n=2, m=2, matrix:
Row1: [0,0]
Row2: [0,1]
Columns: col1: [0,0], col2: [0,1]
We want to find X=(X1,X2) such that number of columns with d(C_j,X)=1 is maximized.
Possible X:
List candidates.
From col1: flip bit1: X=[1,0]
Flip bit2: X=[0,1]
From col2: flip bit1: X=[1,1]
Flip bit2: X=[0,0]
Now, evaluate each candidate:
1. X=[1,0]
For col1: C1=[0,0], d= number of differences: pos1: 0vs1 diff, pos2:0vs0 same, so d=1
For col2: C2=[0,1], X=[1,0], pos1:0vs1 diff, pos2:1vs0 diff, so d=2
So only col1 satisfied, count=1
2. X=[0,1]
Col1: [0,0] vs [0,1]: pos1 same, pos2 diff, d=1
Col2: [0,1] vs [0,1]: same, d=0
So only col1 satisfied, count=1? But for col2, d=0, not 1.
Can col2 be satisfied? To have exactly one 1: if we flip no row, col2 has values 0 and 1, sum=1, so yes, but in this case, with X=[0,0]? X is flip decision, if X=[0,0], no flip, then col1 has [0,0], sum=0, not 1; col2 has [0,1], sum=1, good.
But in our candidates, we have X=[0,0] from flipping col2 bit2? When we take col2 and flip bit2, C2=[0,1], flip bit2 (row2), so X=[0,0]? Flipping the bit means changing the value, so if C2 is [0,1], flipping row1: becomes [1,1], flipping row2: becomes [0,0].
Yes, X=[0,0] is a candidate.
3. X=[1,1] (from flipping col2 bit1)
Col1: [0,0] vs [1,1]: both differ, d=2
Col2: [0,1] vs [1,1]: pos1 differ, pos2 same, d=1
So only col2 satisfied, count=1
4. X=[0,0] (from flipping col2 bit2)
Col1: [0,0] vs [0,0]: d=0
Col2: [0,1] vs [0,0]: pos2 differ, d=1
So only col2 satisfied, count=1
But earlier with X=[0,0], col2 is satisfied, col1 is not, count=1.
Is there an X that satisfies both? For col1 to be satisfied, d(C1,X) must be 1. C1=[0,0], so X must be [1,0] or [0,1], as above, but with those, col2 is not satisfied.
For example, X=[1,0]: col1 d=1, good; col2 d=2, not 1.
Similarly, X=[0,1]: col1 d=1, good; col2 d=0, not 1.
With X=[0,0]: col1 d=0, not 1; col2 d=1, good.
With X=[1,1]: col1 d=2, not 1; col2 d=1, good.
So maximum is 1, which is correct, as in the earlier small example.
Now, in this case, the candidates include all possibilities, and we find max count 1.
But is there an X not in candidates? For example, X=[1,0] is in candidates, etc.
All possible X with at least one 1 are candidates? X=[0,0] is also a candidate.
So covered.
Now for the algorithm, we have it.
Time O(n^2 m^2), which is polynomial.
For the user, I can describe it.
But in the problem, we also have the choice of not flipping, etc., but it's included.
Now, to answer the user.
First, I need to provide the solution.
The user asked for the maximum number.
Also, generate related questions.
But first, let's formalize.
So the algorithm is:
- For each column j (from 1 to m)
- For each row i (from 1 to n)
- Let X be the vector obtained by taking the j-th column vector and flipping its i-th bit.
- (Store this candidate)
- To avoid duplicates, we can use a set of vectors, but even if duplicate, we can compute once.
- For each unique candidate X (or for each, but better to use a set)
- Initialize count = 0
- For each column k (from 1 to m)
- Compute the Hamming distance between the k-th column vector and X.
- If the distance is exactly 1, increment count.
- Record (X, count)
- Find the candidate X with the maximum count.
- The maximum number of columns that can have exactly one '1' is this count.
Then, we can output the count.
In the process, we can also output the flip decisions.
But the user asked for the number, I think.
The question: "求最多能使多少列满足该列恰好有一个1" so the maximum number.
So this gives the number.
Time complexity O(n^2 m^2), as above.
We can optimize by precomputing the column vectors, but the complexity is the same.
For the related questions.
Now, to write the response.</think>### 解决01矩阵行翻转问题
给定一个 $n \times m$ 的01矩阵，您可以任意次翻转某一整行（即该行所有元素0变1、1变0）。目标是最大化满足“该列恰好有一个1”的列的数量。以下将详细解释解决此问题的算法，并给出时间复杂度和实现思路。
#### 关键观察
- **翻转操作的本质**：由于翻转行多次无效（翻转两次等于不翻转），因此对每行只需决定是否翻转一次（二元选择：翻转或不翻转）。
- **列条件分析**：对于列 $j$，设 $S_j$ 为原始矩阵中该列1的个数。翻转后，我们希望该列1的个数恰好为1。这等价于：选择行翻转向量 $X = (X_1, X_2, \dots, X_n)$（$X_i = 1$ 表示翻转第 $i$ 行，$X_i = 0$ 表示不翻转），使得尽可能多的列 $j$ 满足：
$$
\sum_{i=1}^n (A[i][j] \oplus X_i) = 1
$$
其中 $A[i][j]$ 是原始矩阵元素，$\oplus$ 表示异或操作（即 $A[i][j] \oplus X_i = 1$ 当且仅当 $A[i][j] \neq X_i$）。
- **汉明距离解释**：令 $C_j$ 表示第 $j$ 列的向量（长度 $n$）。则上述条件等价于汉明距离 $d(C_j, X) = 1$，即 $X$ 与 $C_j$ 在恰好一个位置不同。
- **优化目标**：选择 $X$ 以最大化满足 $d(C_j, X) = 1$ 的列 $j$ 的数量。
#### 算法设计
由于直接枚举所有可能的 $X$（$2^n$ 种）在 $n$ 较大时不可行，我们采用以下高效算法：
1. **生成候选解**：最优解 $X$ 必须与至少一个列向量 $C_j$ 的汉明距离为1（否则无法满足任何列）。因此，候选解 $X$ 可以通过对每个列 $j$ 和每个行 $i$ 翻转 $C_j$ 的第 $i$ 位得到：
- 共有 $m \times n$ 个候选 $X$（每个列 $j$ 有 $n$ 个候选）。
- 具体操作：对于每个列 $j$ 和每个行 $i$，计算 $X = C_j$ 但翻转第 $i$ 位（即 $X_i = 1 - C_j[i]$，其他位不变）。
2. **评估候选解**：对每个候选 $X$，计算有多少列 $k$ 满足 $d(C_k, X) = 1$（即汉明距离为1）。
3. **选择最优解**：选取评估中计数最大的候选 $X$，其计数即为最大可满足列数。
#### 算法步骤
1. **预处理**：存储所有列向量 $C_1, C_2, \dots, C_m$（每个向量长度 $n$）。
2. **生成候选集合**：
- 初始化一个空集合 `candidates`（存储唯一候选 $X$，避免重复计算）。
- 对于每个列 $j$（$1 \leq j \leq m$）：
- 对于每个行 $i$（$1 \leq i \leq n$）：
- 创建新向量 $X$：$X = C_j$，但 $X[i] = 1 - C_j[i]$（翻转第 $i$ 位）。
- 将 $X$ 添加到 `candidates`（使用哈希或向量比较去重）。
3. **评估每个候选**：
- 初始化 `max_count = 0`。
- 对于每个候选 $X$ 在 `candidates` 中：
- 初始化 `count = 0`。
- 对于每个列 $k$（$1 \leq k \leq m$）：
- 计算汉明距离 $d(C_k, X)$：统计满足 $C_k[i] \neq X[i]$ 的 $i$ 的数量。
- 如果 $d(C_k, X) == 1$，则 `count += 1`。
- 如果 `count > max_count`，则更新 `max_count = count`。
4. **输出结果**：`max_count` 即为最多可满足的列数。
#### 时间复杂度
- **生成候选**：$O(m \cdot n \cdot n)$ 时间（$m n$ 个候选，每个候选复制向量需 $O(n)$）。
- **评估候选**：设唯一候选数为 $U$（最坏 $U = m n$），每个候选评估需 $O(m \cdot n)$ 时间（计算 $m$ 个汉明距离，每个距离计算需 $O(n)$）。
- **总时间复杂度**：$O(m n \cdot (n + m n)) = O(m^2 n^2)$。
- **空间复杂度**：$O(m n)$ 存储候选和列向量。
对于 $n, m \leq 10^3$，$m^2 n^2 = 10^{12}$ 操作在 C++ 中可接受（约数秒至数分钟），但在 Python 中可能较慢。优化建议：
- **去重**：使用哈希存储候选向量，减少重复评估。
- **并行**：评估不同候选独立，可并行化。
- **启发式**：如果 $m n$ 太大，可采样部分候选，但可能非最优。
#### 实现示例（Python 伪代码）
```python
def max_columns_with_one(matrix):
n = len(matrix) # 行数
m = len(matrix[0]) # 列数
# 提取列向量 C_j
columns = []
for j in range(m):
col = [matrix[i][j] for i in range(n)]
columns.append(col)
# 生成候选 X (去重)
candidates = set()
for j in range(m):
c_j = columns[j]
for i in range(n):
x = list(c_j) # 复制 C_j
x[i] = 1 - x[i] # 翻转第 i 位
candidates.add(tuple(x)) # 使用元组可哈希
max_count = 0
for x in candidates:
count = 0
for k in range(m):
c_k = columns[k]
dist = sum(1 for i in range(n) if c_k[i] != x[i]) # 汉明距离
if dist == 1:
count += 1
if count > max_count:
max_count = count
return max_count
# 示例输入
matrix = [
[0, 0],
[0, 1]
]
print(max_columns_with_one(matrix)) # 输出: 1 (只能使一列满足)
```
#### 正确性说明
- 该算法确保最优，因为任何满足 $d(C_j, X) = 1$ 的 $X$ 必在候选集中（由某个 $C_j$ 翻转一位生成）。
- 示例验证：如上代码，输入矩阵 $\begin{bmatrix}0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1\end{bmatrix}$，最大满足列数为 1（翻转第一行后，第一列满足；或不翻转，第二列满足）。
此方法高效且易于实现，适用于中等规模矩阵。
### 相关问题
1. **如何优化算法以处理更大的矩阵（如 $n, m \geq 10^4$）？**
（可探讨近似算法、随机采样或并行计算优化。）
2. **如果允许翻转列（而非行），问题如何变化？**
（分析翻转列操作的影响，并比较与行翻转的差异。）
3. **在01矩阵中，如何同时最小化翻转操作次数以满足最多列？**
（结合行翻转决策，添加操作次数约束，探讨多目标优化。）
[^1]: 参考站内引用:引用[1]:2021-10-01：矩阵置零。给定一个 m x n 的矩阵，如果一个元素为 0 ，则将其所在行和列的所有元素都设为 0 。请使用 原地 算法。进阶：一个直观的解决方案是使用 O(mn) 的额外空间，但这并不是一个好的解决方案。一个简单的改进方案是使用 O(m + n) 的额外空间，但这仍然不是最好的解决方案。你能想出一个仅使用常量空间的解决方案吗？力扣73。
[^2]: 参考站内引用:引用[2]:面试题：01矩阵变换每行每列都为偶数个1。给定一个m×n的矩阵，其中m、n都为奇数，且矩阵元素非0即1，为了使矩阵每行每列的和都为偶数，现可以对某行或者某列进行取反操作：即将改行或者该列中元素1变为0,0变为1.求最少的操作次数使得该矩阵中每行和每列和都为偶数。 解题思路。
[^3]: 参考站内引用:引用[3]:矩阵中找出01二维矩阵中只包含 1 的最大正方形，并输出其面积。在一个二维01矩阵中找到全为1的最大正方形 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 以矩阵中每一个点作为正方形右下角点来处理，而以该点为右下角点的最大边长最多比以它的左方、上方和左上方为右下角的正方形边长多1，所以这时只能取另外三个正方形中最小的正方形边长+1。用d[i][j]表示以i，j坐标为右下角的正方形最大边。则有状态转移方程：dp[i][j] = min(dp[i-1][j-1], min(dp[i-1][j], dp[i][j-1])) + 1，具体代码如下： public static int maxSquare(int[][] matrix) { if (matrix.length==0||matrix[0].length==0) { return 0; } int M = matrix.length, N = matrix[0].length, res = 0; int[][] dp = new int[M][N]; for (int i=0; i<M; i++) { if (matrix[i][0] == 1) { dp[i][0] = 1; res = 1; } } for (int j=0; j<N; j++) { if (matrix[0][j] == 1) { dp[0][j] = 1; res = 1; } } for (int i=1; i<M; i++) { for (int j=1; j<N; j++) { if (matrix[i][j] == 1) { dp[i][j] = min(dp[i-1][j-1], min(dp[i-1][j], dp[i][j-1])) + 1; } res = max(res, dp[i][j]); } } return res; } 采用动态规划方法正向依次利用之前存储的状态计算出下一个状态值，从而避免了重复计算，大大提升了时间复杂度。
本文探讨了一个n*m矩阵的填充问题，要求矩阵中的每个元素从左到右、从上到下递增，探究了所有可能的0和1填充方案数量，并提供了一种基于动态规划的方法来解决这一挑战。
扫一扫
2278
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
