Table of Contents
Fetching ...

An Improved Upper Bound on the Threshold Bias of the Oriented-cycle game

Anita Liebenau, Abdallah Saffidine, Jeffrey Yang

TL;DR

This work tackles the threshold bias in the $b$-biased Oriented-cycle game on $K_n$, focusing on the largest $b$ for which OMaker can force a directed cycle. It advances the existing safety-based framework by formalizing a safe-digraph invariant built from a Uniform Directed Biclique and $\alpha$-structures, and by introducing a cost-function driven strategy that grows a balance parameter $s$ until $s\ge n-b$. The main contribution is a refined strategy that achieves $t(n,\mathcal{C}) \le 0.7845\,n + O(1)$, leveraging the functions $G_b$ and $g_b$ and the $Q$-cost to select moves that preserve safety while expanding the partition $(A,B)$. This work sharpens our understanding of threshold biases in orientation games and suggests a near-$3n/4$ conjectured lower bound, with avenues for further improvement and refinements of the safety-based approach.

Abstract

We study the $b$-biased Oriented-cycle game where two players, OMaker and OBreaker, take turns directing the edges of $K_n$ (the complete graph on $n$ vertices). In each round, OMaker directs one previously undirected edge followed by OBreaker directing between one and $b$ previously undirected edges. The game ends once all edges have been directed, and OMaker wins if and only if the resulting tournament contains a directed cycle. Bollobás and Szabó asked the following question: what is the largest value of the bias $b$ for which OMaker has a winning strategy? Ben-Eliezer, Krivelevich and Sudakov proved that OMaker has a winning strategy for $b \leq n/2 - 2$. In the other direction, Clemens and Liebenau proved that OBreaker has a winning strategy for $b \geq 5n/6+2$. Inspired by their approach, we propose a significantly stronger strategy for OBreaker which we prove to be winning for $b \geq 0.7845n + O(1)$.

An Improved Upper Bound on the Threshold Bias of the Oriented-cycle game

TL;DR

This work tackles the threshold bias in the -biased Oriented-cycle game on , focusing on the largest for which OMaker can force a directed cycle. It advances the existing safety-based framework by formalizing a safe-digraph invariant built from a Uniform Directed Biclique and -structures, and by introducing a cost-function driven strategy that grows a balance parameter until . The main contribution is a refined strategy that achieves , leveraging the functions and and the -cost to select moves that preserve safety while expanding the partition . This work sharpens our understanding of threshold biases in orientation games and suggests a near- conjectured lower bound, with avenues for further improvement and refinements of the safety-based approach.

Abstract

We study the -biased Oriented-cycle game where two players, OMaker and OBreaker, take turns directing the edges of (the complete graph on vertices). In each round, OMaker directs one previously undirected edge followed by OBreaker directing between one and previously undirected edges. The game ends once all edges have been directed, and OMaker wins if and only if the resulting tournament contains a directed cycle. Bollobás and Szabó asked the following question: what is the largest value of the bias for which OMaker has a winning strategy? Ben-Eliezer, Krivelevich and Sudakov proved that OMaker has a winning strategy for . In the other direction, Clemens and Liebenau proved that OBreaker has a winning strategy for . Inspired by their approach, we propose a significantly stronger strategy for OBreaker which we prove to be winning for .

Paper Structure

This paper contains 5 sections, 11 theorems, 44 equations, 1 figure.

Key Result

Theorem 1.1

$t(n,\mathcal{C}) \leq 0.7845n + O(1)$.

Figures (1)

  • Figure 1: A depiction of a safe digraph digraph for which $A \cup B \neq V$. The thick arrow represents all arcs from $A$ to $B$. The thin arrows represent the decisive arcs of the $\alpha$-structures $D[V\setminus B]$ and $D[V\setminus A]$ respectively.

Theorems & Definitions (29)

  • Theorem 1.1
  • Definition 2.1
  • Proposition 2.2: Proposition 2.5 in CLEMENS201721
  • Proposition 2.3: Lemma 2.7 in CLEMENS201721
  • Definition 2.4
  • Proposition 2.5
  • proof
  • Proposition 2.6
  • proof
  • Definition 3.1
  • ...and 19 more