Paper detail

On the parameterized complexity of the Maker-Breaker domination game

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.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.