OpenFrontiers
← Back to the index

Positional games · 2014-econ-8

Combinatorial, Algorithmic and Applied Game Theory · ICM 2014: Positional games

Inferred from the community field; finer classification has not been reviewed.

Source assessment · not reviewedAs of 2026-08-18Source & evidence ↓

Problem statement

For each positive integer kk, determine

D(k)=min⁡{d:there exists a finite k-uniform hypergraph H=(X,E) with maximum vertex degreeΔ(H)=max⁡x∈X∣{A∈E:x∈A}∣≤d such that Maker has a winning strategyin the following game on X: Maker and Breaker alternately claim one previouslyunclaimed vertex, Maker moves first, and Maker wins by claiming every vertex of some A∈E.}. D(k)=\min\left\{d:\begin{array}{l} \text{there exists a finite $k$-uniform hypergraph $\mathcal H=(X,E)$ with maximum vertex degree}\cr \Delta(\mathcal H)=\max_{x\in X}|\{A\in E:x\in A\}|\le d\text{ such that Maker has a winning strategy}\cr \text{in the following game on $X$: Maker and Breaker alternately claim one previously}\cr \text{unclaimed vertex, Maker moves first, and Maker wins by claiming every vertex of some $A\in E$.} \end{array}\right\}.

Lean 4

Not yet attached

No Lean statement or proof is attached yet. Have a formalization? Share its source to add it to this problem.

Remaining questions in this record

Remaining questions recorded by the source

These are retained within the parent record and are not counted as additional index entries.

Question 1

For each integer k≥2k\ge 2, let D(k)D(k) be the minimum possible maximum vertex degree of a finite kk-uniform hypergraph H\mathcal H on which Maker has a winning strategy in the following game: Maker and Breaker alternately claim one previously unclaimed vertex, Maker moves first, and Maker wins if he claims every vertex of some hyperedge of H\mathcal H. Determine whether there exists a constant ε>0\varepsilon>0 such that D(k)>(1+ε)kD(k)>(1+\varepsilon)^k for every integer k≥2k\ge 2.

Source reference: Heidi Gebauer, Tibor Szabó, and Gábor Tardos, “The Local Lemma Is Asymptotically Tight for SAT,” Journal of the ACM 63(5), Article 43 (2016), 43:1–43:32, Problem 7.1, doi:10.1145/2975386, arXiv:1006.0744.

Question 2

For each integer k≥2k\ge 2, let D(k)D(k) be the minimum possible maximum vertex degree of a finite kk-uniform hypergraph H\mathcal H on which Maker has a winning strategy in the following game: Maker and Breaker alternately claim one previously unclaimed vertex, Maker moves first, and Maker wins if he claims every vertex of some hyperedge of H\mathcal H. Determine whether

D(k)=⌊k2⌋+1 D(k)=\left\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\right\rfloor+1

for every integer k≥2k\ge 2.

Source reference: Heidi Gebauer, Tibor Szabó, and Gábor Tardos, “The Local Lemma Is Asymptotically Tight for SAT,” Journal of the ACM 63(5), Article 43 (2016), 43:1–43:32, Problem 7.4, doi:10.1145/2975386, arXiv:1006.0744.

Question 3

For each integer k≥2k\ge 2, let D(k)D(k) be the minimum possible maximum vertex degree of a finite kk-uniform hypergraph on which Maker has a winning strategy when Maker and Breaker alternately claim one previously unclaimed vertex, Maker moves first, and Maker wins by claiming every vertex of a hyperedge. Let Dpair(k)D_{\mathrm{pair}}(k) be the analogous minimum under the additional requirement that Maker use a pairing strategy: Maker first claims a designated vertex x0x_0, the hypergraph has a fixed family of pairwise disjoint two-element vertex sets not containing x0x_0, and whenever Breaker claims one member of such a pair while its other member is unclaimed, Maker claims the other member on the next move. Prove that, for all sufficiently large kk,

D(k)<Dpair(k). D(k)<D_{\mathrm{pair}}(k).

Source reference: Heidi Gebauer, Tibor Szabó, and Gábor Tardos, “The Local Lemma Is Asymptotically Tight for SAT,” Journal of the ACM 63(5), Article 43 (2016), 43:1–43:32, Problem 7.5, doi:10.1145/2975386, arXiv:1006.0744.

Progress & source assessment

Source-reported assessment from the ICM catalogue snapshot. This is not an independent review by Frontier Science.

The problem is unresolved. Exact values are known only in the initial cases: D(1)=1D(1)=1, D(2)=2D(2)=2, D(3)=2D(3)=2, and D(4)=3D(4)=3. For every kk, the Hall-theorem pairing argument gives

D(k)≥⌊k2⌋+1, D(k)\ge \left\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\right\rfloor+1,

whereas the strongest general construction gives

D(k)≤(1+O(k−1/2))2kek. D(k)\le \left(1+O(k^{-1/2})\right)\frac{2^k}{e k}.

Thus neither the order of growth nor the values for k>4k>4 are known; in particular, the literature explicitly leaves open both whether D(k)D(k) is exponential in kk and whether the elementary lower bound is always exact.

Key references:

  • Heidi Gebauer, Tibor Szabó, and Gábor Tardos, “The Local Lemma Is Asymptotically Tight for SAT,” Journal of the ACM 63(5), Article 43 (2016), 43:1–43:32, doi:10.1145/2975386, arXiv:1006.0744. Theorem 1.6 constructs, for every k≥3k\ge3, a Maker-win kk-uniform hypergraph of maximum degree at most (1+O(k−1/2))2k/(ek)(1+O(k^{-1/2}))2^k/(ek). Section 7.4 proves the pairing lower bound D(k)≥⌊k/2⌋+1D(k)\ge\lfloor k/2\rfloor+1, records that these are the only general bounds on unrestricted D(k)D(k), and explicitly poses the exponential-growth and exact-lower-bound questions.
  • Fiachra Knox, “Two Constructions Relating to Conjectures of Beck on Positional Games,” preprint (2012), arXiv:1212.3345. Knox constructs a 4-uniform Maker-win hypergraph of maximum degree 3. Combined with the pairing lower bound, this proves D(4)=3D(4)=3; the paper also records D(2)=D(3)=2D(2)=D(3)=2.
  • Heidi Gebauer, “Disproof of the Neighborhood Conjecture with Implications to SAT,” Combinatorica 32(5) (2012), 573–587, doi:10.1007/s00493-012-2679-y, arXiv:0904.2541. This introduced the binary-tree construction yielding Maker-win uniform hypergraphs with exponentially smaller maximum degree than the classical complete binary-tree example; it is the precursor improved to the current upper bound above.
  • Michael Krivelevich, “Positional Games,” Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Seoul 2014, Vol. IV (2014), 355–379, arXiv:1404.2731. Problem 8.3 states the exact extremal problem and documents the large gap between the pairing lower bound and the Gebauer–Szabó–Tardos upper construction.
References
  1. [1]ICM Conjectures · 2014-econ-8 link
  2. [2]ICM 2014: Positional games link

Recorded progress

Add yours →

Nothing recorded yet. A pointer to a paper the entry is missing counts.

Machine attempts

0 recorded

Attempts run against the statement below and are recorded in full, including the failures. The point is to stop the next model — and the next person — from re-walking a road that is already known to end. Each attempt costs 25 credits.

No machine attempts recorded.

Sign in to run an attempt. New accounts start with enough credits for ten.

Discussion

0 notes

Notes are for clarifying the statement, flagging a missing reference, or recording why an approach fails. Claimed solutions belong in a submission, where they can be reviewed.

No notes yet.

Sign in to add a note.