Paper detail

Sharp thresholds for half-random games I

We study biased Maker-Breaker positional games between two players, one of whom is playing randomly against an opponent with an optimal strategy. In this paper we consider the scenario when Maker plays randomly and Breaker is "clever", and determine the sharp threshold bias of classical graph games, such as connectivity, Hamiltonicity, and minimum degree-$k$. We treat the other case, that is when Breaker plays randomly, in a separate paper. The traditional, deterministic version of these games, with two optimal players playing, are known to obey the so-called probabilistic intuition. That is, the threshold bias of these games is asymptotically equal to the threshold bias of their random counterpart, where players just take edges uniformly at random. We find, that despite this remarkably precise agreement of the results of the deterministic and the random games, playing randomly against an optimal opponent is not a good idea: the threshold bias becomes significantly more tilted towards the random player. An important qualitative aspect of the probabilistic intuition carries through nevertheless: the bottleneck for Maker to occupy a connected graph is still the ability to avoid isolated vertices in her graph.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.