arXiv++ Combinatorics

Since its introduction as a Maker-Breaker positional game by Duchêne et al. in 2020, the Maker-Breaker domination game has become one of the most studied positional games on vertices. In this game, two players, Dominator and Staller, alternately claim an unclaimed vertex of a given graph G. If at some point the set of vertices claimed by Dominator is a dominating set, she wins; otherwise, i.e. if Staller manages to isolate a vertex by claiming all its closed neighborhood, Staller wins. Given a graph G and a first player, Dominator or Staller must have a winning strategy. We are interested in the computational complexity of determining which player has such a strategy. This problem is known to be PSPACE-complete on bipartite graphs of bounded degree and split graphs; polynomial on cographs, outerplanar graphs, and block graphs; and in NP for interval graphs. In this paper, we consider the parameterized complexity of this game. We start by considering as a parameter the number of moves of both players. We prove that for the general framework of Maker-Breaker positional games in hypergraphs, determining whether Breaker can claim a transversal of the hypergraph in k moves is W[2]-complete, in contrast to the problem of determining whether Maker can claim all the vertices of a hyperedge in k moves, which is known to be W[1]-complete since 2017. These two hardness results are then applied to the Maker-Breaker domination game, proving that it is W[2]-complete to decide if Dominator can dominate the graph in k moves and W[1]-complete to decide if Staller can isolate a vertex in k moves. Next, we provide FPT algorithms for the Maker-Breaker domination game parameterized by the neighborhood diversity, the modular width, the P4-fewness, the distance to cluster, and the feedback edge number.

The classical Maker-Breaker positional game is played on a board which is a hypergraph $\mathcal{H}$, with two players, Maker and Breaker, alternately claiming vertices of $\mathcal{H}$ until all the vertices are claimed. When the game ends, Maker wins if she has claimed all the vertices of some edge of $\mathcal{H}$; otherwise, Breaker wins. Playing this game in real life can be done by placing tokens on the vertices of the board. In this paper, we study the unfortunate case in which one or both players do not have enough tokens to cover all the vertices and, as such, will have to move their tokens around at some point instead of placing new ones. There may be a bias, in that Maker and Breaker do not necessarily have the same amount of tokens. The present paper initiates the study of this generalization of positional games, called token positional games. A particularly interesting case is when Maker has a winning strategy in the classical game: what is the lowest number of tokens with which she still wins against Breaker's unlimited stock? We notably show that, for $k$-uniform hypergraphs on an arbitrarily large number $n$ of vertices, this number equals $k$ if $k \in\{2,3\}$ but can vary from $k$ to $Ω(n)$ if $k \geq 4$. From an algorithmic point of view, PSPACE-hardness in general is inherited from classical positional games, but we get a polynomial-time algorithm to solve the case where Breaker only has one token. We also establish EXPTIME-completeness for a "token sliding" variation of the game.

The Maker-Breaker domination game is a positional game played on a graph by two players called Dominator and Staller. The players alternately select a vertex of the graph that has not yet been chosen. Dominator wins if at some point the vertices she has chosen form a dominating set of the graph. Staller wins if Dominator cannot form a dominating set. Deciding if Dominator has a winning strategy has been shown to be a PSPACE-complete problem even when restricted to chordal or bipartite graphs. In this paper, we consider strategies for Dominator based on partitions of the graph into basic subgraphs where Dominator wins as the second player. Using partitions into cycles and edges (also called perfect [1,2]-factors), we show that Dominator always wins in regular graphs and that deciding whether Dominator has a winning strategy as a second player can be computed in polynomial time for outerplanar and block graphs. We then study partitions into subgraphs with two universal vertices, which is equivalent to considering the existence of pairing dominating sets with adjacent pairs. We show that in interval graphs, Dominator wins if and only if such a partition exists. In particular, this implies that deciding whether Dominator has a winning strategy playing second is in NP for interval graphs. We finally provide an algorithm in $n^{k+3}$ for $k$-nested interval graphs (i.e. interval graphs with at most $k$ intervals included one in each other).

We propose a generalization of positional games, supplementing them with a restriction on the order in which the elements of the board are allowed to be claimed. We introduce poset positional games, which are positional games with an additional structure -- a poset on the elements of the board. Throughout the game play, based on this poset and the set of the board elements that are claimed up to that point, we reduce the set of available moves for the player whose turn it is -- an element of the board can only be claimed if all the smaller elements in the poset are already claimed. We proceed to analyse these games in more detail, with a prime focus on the most studied convention, the Maker-Breaker games. First we build a general framework around poset positional games. Then, we perform a comprehensive study of the complexity of determining the game outcome, conditioned on the structure of the family of winning sets on the one side and the structure of the poset on the other.

Dominating sets in graphs are often used to model some monitoring of the graph: guards are posted on the vertices of the dominating set, and they can thus react to attacks occurring on the unguarded vertices by moving there (yielding a new set of guards, which may not be dominating anymore). A dominating set is eternal if it can endlessly resist to attacks. From the attacker's perspective, if we are given a non-eternal dominating set, the question is to determine how fast can we provoke an attack that cannot be handled by a neighboring guard. We investigate this question from a computational complexity point of view, by showing that this question is PSPACE-hard, even for graph classes where finding a minimum eternal dominating set is in P. We then complement this result by giving polynomial time algorithms for cographs and trees, and showing a connection with tree-depth for the latter. We also investigate the problem from a parameterized complexity perspective, mainly considering two parameters: the number of guards and the number of steps.

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.

We study the eternal dominating number and the m-eternal dominating number on digraphs. We generalize known results on graphs to digraphs. We also consider the problem "oriented (m-)eternal domination", consisting in finding an orientation of a graph that minimizes its eternal dominating number. We prove that computing the oriented eternal dominating number is NP-hard and characterize the graphs for which the oriented m-eternal dominating number is 2. We also study these two parameters on trees, cycles, complete graphs, complete bipartite graphs, trivially perfect graphs and different kinds of grids and products of graphs.