The greedy approach feels obvious once you see it but I fumbled the backtracking part for a while.
Treat the problem as finding the smallest permutation of the multiset that is >= the lower bound. Sort the digits and use backtracking with pruning, or generate permutations in lexicographic order and pick the first valid one. Alternatively, use a greedy algorithm that builds the number digit by digit, choosing the smallest possible digit at each position while ensuring a valid completion exists.
Pro tip: Clarify constraints first (e.g., digit count, lower bound size) to choose between brute-force and optimized approaches. Mention that if the lower bound has more digits than the multiset, return -1 immediately; if fewer, return the smallest permutation (sorted ascending).
Restate the problem: given a multiset of digits and a lower bound, find the smallest permutation >= lower bound, else -1. Ask about input size, digit range, and whether leading zeros are allowed.
If the number of digits in the multiset is less than the number of digits in the lower bound, return -1. If greater, return the digits sorted in ascending order (smallest number). If equal, proceed to the main algorithm.
For equal length, use backtracking with pruning or a greedy approach with a feasibility check. Sort the digits and try to match the lower bound prefix as closely as possible, then find the smallest valid suffix.
Write code to generate the next permutation or use DFS. Test with edge cases: lower bound with repeated digits, no valid permutation, leading zeros, and large inputs.
Discuss time and space complexity. Backtracking is O(n!) worst-case but can be optimized. Greedy with binary search is O(n log n). Mention trade-offs between simplicity and efficiency.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.