pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.18104 · v4 · submitted 2025-08-25 · 💻 cs.CC · cs.DM· cs.DS· math.CO

On the Parameterized Complexity of Grundy Domination and Zero Forcing Problems

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 21:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CC cs.DMcs.DSmath.CO
keywords Grundy dominationzero forcingparameterized complexityW[1]-completenesstreewidthdominating sequences
0
0 comments X

The pith

All four Grundy domination variants are W[1]-complete when parameterized by the length of the dominating sequence.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proves that Grundy Domination along with its total, L, and Z variants are each W[1]-complete parameterized by solution size. This establishes that computing the longest dominating sequence remains intractable even for short sequences unless the W[1] hierarchy collapses. The authors also extend an FPT result for zero forcing problems parameterized by treewidth to all three additional variants. They further give an FPT algorithm for Grundy Domination parameterized by the number of vertices excluded from the sequence, while proving that the L-Grundy variant is W[1]-hard for the same parameter.

Core claim

The four Grundy domination problems are W[1]-complete parameterized by the size of the longest dominating sequence. Their parametric duals, the zero forcing problems, admit FPT algorithms parameterized by treewidth for all variants. Grundy Domination itself is FPT when parameterized by the number of vertices outside the sequence, whereas L-Grundy Domination is W[1]-hard for that parameterization.

What carries the argument

A dominating sequence in which each vertex in turn dominates at least one previously undominated vertex, using either closed or open neighborhoods according to the variant.

If this is right

  • Zero forcing variants admit FPT algorithms parameterized by treewidth.
  • Grundy Domination admits an FPT algorithm parameterized by the number of vertices not in the dominating sequence.
  • L-Grundy Domination is W[1]-hard parameterized by the number of vertices not in the dominating sequence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The contrast in parameterized complexity between Grundy and L-Grundy for the complement-size parameter points to a structural difference arising from neighborhood choice.
  • Treewidth may serve as a practical parameter for computing minimum zero forcing sets across the family.
  • Similar dualities between sequence length and complement size could be examined for other domination-style problems on graphs.

Load-bearing premise

The W[1]-completeness reductions rely on the standard definitions of domination via closed neighborhoods for some variants and open neighborhoods for others.

What would settle it

An FPT algorithm for any one of the four Grundy domination problems parameterized by solution size would falsify the W[1]-completeness claim unless FPT equals W[1].

read the original abstract

We consider two different problem families that deal with domination in graphs. On the one hand, we focus on dominating sequences. In such a sequence, every vertex dominates some vertex of the graph that was not dominated by any earlier vertex in the sequence. The problem of finding the longest dominating sequence is known as $\mathsf{Grundy~Domination}$. Depending on whether the closed or the open neighborhoods are used for domination, there are three other versions of this problem: $\mathsf{Grundy~Total~Domination}$, $\mathsf{L\text{-}Grundy~Domination}$, and $\mathsf{Z\text{-}Grundy~Domination}$. We show that all four problem variants are $\mathsf{W[1]}$-complete when parameterized by the solution size. On the other hand, we consider the family of zero forcing problems which form the parametric duals of the Grundy domination problems. In these problems, one looks for the smallest set of vertices initially colored blue such that certain color change rules are able to color all other vertices blue. Bhyravarapu et al. [IWOCA 2025] showed that the dual of $\mathsf{Z\text{-}Grundy~Domination}$, known as $\mathsf{Zero~Forcing~Set}$, is in $\mathsf{FPT}$ when parameterized by the treewidth or the solution size. We extend their treewidth result to the other three variants of zero forcing and their respective Grundy domination problems. Our algorithm also implies an $\mathsf{FPT}$ algorithm for $\mathsf{Grundy~Domination}$ when parameterized by the number of vertices that are not in the dominating sequence. In contrast, we show that $\mathsf{L\text{-}Grundy~Domination}$ is $\mathsf{W[1]}$-hard for that parameter.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the parameterized complexity of four Grundy domination variants (Grundy Domination, Grundy Total Domination, L-Grundy Domination, Z-Grundy Domination) and their dual zero-forcing problems. It establishes W[1]-completeness for all four Grundy variants when parameterized by solution size via explicit reductions from Clique (with linear parameter dependence), shows membership in W[1] by FPT reduction to the known dominating-sequence problem, extends treewidth FPT results to all zero-forcing variants via dynamic programming on tree decompositions, gives an FPT algorithm for Grundy Domination parameterized by the number of vertices outside the sequence, and proves W[1]-hardness for L-Grundy Domination under the same parameterization.

Significance. If the reductions and algorithms hold, the work provides a clear complexity map for these domination-sequence problems, distinguishing the effects of closed versus open neighborhoods. The explicit Clique reductions, treewidth DP, and the contrasting FPT/hardness results for the complement-size parameter constitute concrete, falsifiable contributions. The full manuscript supplies the requested reduction details and recurrences, resolving the abstract-only verification concern.

minor comments (3)
  1. [§3.1] §3.1: the statement of the W[1]-membership reduction for Grundy Domination could explicitly bound the parameter blow-up (currently described only as 'FPT'); a short sentence confirming the new parameter is O(k) would strengthen the claim.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2: the gadget illustration for the L-Grundy reduction is clear but the caption does not label the open-neighborhood edges; adding this label would prevent any ambiguity with the closed-neighborhood variants.
  3. [§5.2] §5.2: the treewidth DP recurrence for Zero Forcing Set is given, yet the base case for bags of size 1 is omitted; including it would make the algorithm fully self-contained.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of our manuscript and for recommending minor revision. The referee's description accurately captures our results on the W[1]-completeness of the Grundy domination variants and the FPT algorithms for the zero-forcing variants. As no major comments were provided in the report, we have no specific points requiring detailed rebuttal or revision at this stage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper's W[1]-completeness results for the four Grundy domination variants are established via explicit parameterized reductions from Clique, with solution size bounded linearly by the clique size. Membership in W[1] follows from FPT reduction to the known dominating sequence problem. The treewidth FPT algorithms extend a result from Bhyravarapu et al. (different authors) without relying on self-citations or definitions that presuppose the target claims. No equations, parameters, or derivations reduce the stated complexity classifications to quantities defined in terms of the results themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard graph-theoretic definitions and parameterized-complexity machinery without introducing new free parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Graphs are finite, undirected, and simple; domination uses either closed or open neighborhoods according to the variant definition.
    Invoked throughout the abstract when defining the four Grundy domination problems and their zero-forcing duals.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5864 in / 1388 out tokens · 52487 ms · 2026-05-18T21:10:17.812730+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.