- I met this problem as a subproblem many times and tried to find a solution for it but failed ,So I make an elegent statement for the problem asking for someone's help :


| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | Kevin114514 | 3659 |
| 3 | jiangly | 3640 |
| 4 | turmax | 3450 |
| 5 | tourist | 3382 |
| 6 | strapple | 3360 |
| 7 | Um_nik | 3354 |
| 8 | squareOf105 | 3348 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 3312 |
| 10 | idontwannadothis…e | 3191 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 155 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 151 |
| 3 | maspy | 149 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 145 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 143 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | BledDest | 136 |
| 8 | adamant | 134 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 132 |
| 10 | cry | 130 |


| Name |
|---|



Could you give a publicly available link instead of screenshots? Or at least tell where the problem is from? This looks fishy.
Edited , Bro
The reason why I asked for a link ia to prevent cheating, but considering the statement you sent doesn't even have a bound on the sum of $$$k_i$$$ i will assume youre not.
This is the maximum bipartite matching problem, you can read about it here https://cp-algorithms.com/graph/kuhn_maximum_bipartite_matching.html
However, this is an advanced topic and you should probably worry about other things more. If you're encountering this problem a lot youre probably making the wrong reductions.
I understood the topic , but can't it be solved in time complexity less than O(n*m) time , if we don't need the number of matchings, just need whether or not the solution exists
Kuhn is faster than $$$O(nm)$$$ in practice with the heuristics they talk about there. There is also a $$$O(n\sqrt{n})$$$ that as far as i know is hard to distinguish from kuhn. Asking if there is a perfect matching doesn't help in this problem.
Also, if you are thinking on how to solve a specific problem, send that specific problem instead. A lot of times when beginners ask for help they make wrong reductions and leave out important information, that's probably what is happening here.