REVIEW 2 cited by
Solving Maker-Breaker Games on 5-uniform hypergraphs is PSPACE-complete
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
Let $(X, \mathcal{F})$ be a hypergraph. The Maker-Breaker game on $(X, \mathcal{F})$ is a combinatorial game between two players, Maker and Breaker. Beginning with Maker, the players take turns claiming vertices from $X$ that have not yet been claimed. Maker wins if she manages to claim all vertices of some hyperedge $F \in \mathcal{F}$. Breaker wins if he claims at least one vertex in every hyperedge. M. L. Rahman and Thomas Watson proved in 2021 that, even when only Maker-Breaker games on 6-uniform hypergraphs are considered, the decision problem of determining which player has a winning strategy is PSPACE-complete. They also showed that the problem is NL-hard when considering hypergraphs of rank 5. In this paper, we improve the latter result by showing that deciding who wins Maker-Breaker games on 5-uniform hypergraphs is still a PSPACE-complete problem. We achieve this by polynomial transformation from the problem of solving the generalized geography game on bipartite digraphs with vertex degrees 3 or less, which is known to be PSPACE-complete.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Maker-Maker games of rank 4 are PSPACE-complete
Maker-Maker games on hypergraphs of rank 4 are PSPACE-complete, via a reduction from 3-QBF through achievement games with disjoint red edges.
-
Faster Algorithms for Deciding the Unbiased Maker-Breaker Triangle Game on General Graphs
The winner of the unbiased triangle game can be decided in O(n^7) time on general graphs, O(n^{ω+1}) on connected K4-containing graphs, and O(n^3) when the edge-triangle incidence graph is a cactus.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.