54 research outputs found

    Maker-Breaker domination number

    Full text link
    The Maker-Breaker domination game is played on a graph GG by Dominator and Staller. The players alternatively select a vertex of GG that was not yet chosen in the course of the game. Dominator wins if at some point the vertices he has chosen form a dominating set. Staller wins if Dominator cannot form a dominating set. In this paper we introduce the Maker-Breaker domination number γMB(G)\gamma_{{\rm MB}}(G) of GG as the minimum number of moves of Dominator to win the game provided that he has a winning strategy and is the first to play. If Staller plays first, then the corresponding invariant is denoted γMB(G)\gamma_{{\rm MB}}'(G). Comparing the two invariants it turns out that they behave much differently than the related game domination numbers. The invariant γMB(G)\gamma_{{\rm MB}}(G) is also compared with the domination number. Using the Erd\H{o}s-Selfridge Criterion a large class of graphs GG is found for which γMB(G)>γ(G)\gamma_{{\rm MB}}(G) > \gamma(G) holds. Residual graphs are introduced and used to bound/determine γMB(G)\gamma_{{\rm MB}}(G) and γMB(G)\gamma_{{\rm MB}}'(G). Using residual graphs, γMB(T)\gamma_{{\rm MB}}(T) and γMB(T)\gamma_{{\rm MB}}'(T) are determined for an arbitrary tree. The invariants are also obtained for cycles and bounded for union of graphs. A list of open problems and directions for further investigations is given.Comment: 20 pages, 5 figure

    Maker-Breaker total domination game

    Full text link
    Maker-Breaker total domination game in graphs is introduced as a natural counterpart to the Maker-Breaker domination game recently studied by Duch\^ene, Gledel, Parreau, and Renault. Both games are instances of the combinatorial Maker-Breaker games. The Maker-Breaker total domination game is played on a graph GG by two players who alternately take turns choosing vertices of GG. The first player, Dominator, selects a vertex in order to totally dominate GG while the other player, Staller, forbids a vertex to Dominator in order to prevent him to reach his goal. It is shown that there are infinitely many connected cubic graphs in which Staller wins and that no minimum degree condition is sufficient to guarantee that Dominator wins when Staller starts the game. An amalgamation lemma is established and used to determine the outcome of the game played on grids. Cacti are also classified with respect to the outcome of the game. A connection between the game and hypergraphs is established. It is proved that the game is PSPACE-complete on split and bipartite graphs. Several problems and questions are also posed.Comment: 21 pages, 5 figure

    Avoidance Games Are PSPACE-Complete

    Get PDF
    Avoidance games are games in which two players claim vertices of a hypergraph and try to avoid some structures. These games are studied since the introduction of the game of SIM in 1968, but only few complexity results are known on them. In 2001, Slany proved some partial results on Avoider-Avoider games complexity, and in 2017 Bonnet et al. proved that short Avoider-Enforcer games are Co-W[1]-hard. More recently, in 2022, Miltzow and Stojakovi\'c proved that these games are NP-hard. As these games corresponds to the mis\`ere version of the well-known Maker-Breaker games, introduced in 1963 and proven PSPACE-complete in 1978, one could expect these games to be PSPACE-complete too, but the question remained open since then. We prove here that both Avoider-Avoider and Avoider-Enforcer conventions are PSPACE-complete, and as a consequence of it that some particular Avoider-Enforcer games also are

    A note on the flip distance between non-crossing spanning trees

    Full text link
    We consider spanning trees of nn points in convex position whose edges are pairwise non-crossing. Applying a flip to such a tree consists in adding an edge and removing another so that the result is still a non-crossing spanning tree. Given two trees, we investigate the minimum number of flips required to transform one into the other. The naive 2nΩ(1)2n-\Omega(1) upper bound stood for 25 years until a recent breakthrough from Aichholzer et al. yielding a 2nΩ(logn)2n-\Omega(\log n) bound. We improve their result with a 2nΩ(n)2n-\Omega(\sqrt{n}) upper bound, and we strengthen and shorten the proofs of several of their results

    Incidence, a Scoring Positional Game on Graphs

    Full text link
    Positional games have been introduced by Hales and Jewett in 1963 and have been extensively investigated in the literature since then. These games are played on a hypergraph where two players alternately select an unclaimed vertex of it. In the Maker-Breaker convention, if Maker manages to fully take a hyperedge, she wins, otherwise, Breaker is the winner. In the Maker-Maker convention, the first player to take a hyperedge wins. In both cases, the game stops as soon as Maker has taken a hyperedge. By definition, this family of games does not handle scores and cannot represent games in which players want to maximize a quantity. In this work, we introduce scoring positional games, that consist in playing on a hypergraph until all the vertices are claimed, and by defining the score as the number of hyperedges a player has fully taken. We focus here on Incidence, a scoring positional game played on a 2-uniform hypergraph, i.e. an undirected graph. In this game, two players alternately claim the vertices of a graph and score the number of edges for which they own both end vertices. In the Maker-Breaker version, Maker aims at maximizing the number of edges she owns, while Breaker aims at minimizing it. In the Maker-Maker version, both players try to take more edges than their opponent. We first give some general results on scoring positional games such that their membership in Milnor's universe and some general bounds on the score. We prove that, surprisingly, computing the score in the Maker-Breaker version of Incidence is PSPACE-complete whereas in the Maker-Maker convention, the relative score can be obtained in polynomial time. In addition, for the Maker-Breaker convention, we give a formula for the score on paths by using some equivalences due to Milnor's universe. This result implies that the score on cycles can also be computed in polynomial time
    corecore