The domination game conjecture for Cartesian products of paths

From papers

Let PkP_k and PmP_m be paths on kk and mm vertices, respectively, and let G=PkPmG=P_k\mathbin{\square}P_m denote their Cartesian product. For a graph GG, write D(G){\mathbb D}(G) for the outcome of the new dominating set game, with P{\sf P} denoting that the second player has a winning strategy. Domination game conjecture. For k,m>1k,m>1 with mkmk even, we have

D(PkPm)P.{\mathbb D}(P_k\mathbin{\square}P_m)\in{\sf P}.

The first several cases are easy to verify by hand; the conjecture concerns the winner of the game on all even-order Cartesian products of two nontrivial paths.

Progress summary

Open

The conjecture remains open, with no verified proof or counterexample found in the available record.

The conjecture asserts that the second player wins the new dominating-set game on every Cartesian product of two nontrivial paths having even order. A 2025 preprint records this as Conjecture 2323, explicitly treats it as open, and notes that it would settle the case P4PmP_4\mathbin{\square}P_m for all m2m\ge 2.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture is open; no retrieved source verifies a proof or counterexample, and the available mathematical source continues to present it as unresolved.

Sources
Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Sean Fiscus, Glenn Hurlbert, Eric Myzelev and Travis Pence, “A New Dominating Set Game on Graphs”, arXiv:2504.03448 (2025).

Solutions 1

Counterexample

Counterexample: the smallest even-order grid on which the first player wins.

In the latest revision of Fiscus, Hurlbert, Myzelev, and Pence, arXiv:2504.03448v2, Conjecture 24 asserts

k,m>1,km0(mod2)D(PkPm)P.k,m>1,\quad km\equiv0\pmod2 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad \mathbb D(P_k\square P_m)\in\mathcal P.

An older author-hosted manuscript numbers the identical statement Conjecture 23.

The conjecture fails for

D(P2P7)N.\boxed{\mathbb D(P_2\square P_7)\in\mathcal N.}

Although this grid has even order 1414, the first player has four winning opening moves:

(1,2),(1,6),(2,2),(2,6),(1,2),\quad(1,6),\quad(2,2),\quad(2,6),

using one-based row and column coordinates.

The source's game permits selection of any previously unchosen vertex, including a vertex already dominated. Play stops immediately when the chosen vertices form a dominating set, and the player making that move wins. The following complete finite backward-induction certificate uses precisely these rules.

Index (r,c)(r,c) by i=7(r1)+(c1)i=7(r-1)+(c-1), put F=2141F=2^{14}-1, and encode the chosen vertex set by a mask ss. Let

Ci=2i+j:vjvi2jC_i=2^i+\sum_{j:v_j\sim v_i}2^j

be its closed-neighborhood masks. Compute

D(0)=0,D(s)=D(s2i)ORCi,D(0)=0,\qquad D(s)=D(s-2^i)\mathbin{\mathrm{OR}}C_i,

where ii is the least occupied bit of ss. Then D(s)D(s) represents the dominated set.

Define the exact outcome indicator in decreasing mask order:

w(s)={0,D(s)=F,1,D(s)F and w(sOR2i)=0 for some unchosen i,0,otherwise.w(s)= \begin{cases} 0,&D(s)=F,\\ 1,&D(s)\ne F\text{ and } w(s\mathbin{\mathrm{OR}}2^i)=0 \text{ for some unchosen }i,\\ 0,&\text{otherwise}. \end{cases}

Every follower mask is strictly larger than ss, so every required child has already been evaluated. Induction on the number of unchosen vertices proves

w(s)=1    s is a first-player-winning position.w(s)=1\iff s\text{ is a first-player-winning position}.

Exhaustive evaluation of all 214=16,3842^{14}=16{,}384 masks yields the following complete certificate:

Chosen verticesDominating terminalNondominating P\mathcal PNondominating N\mathcal N
0001
10410
201378
3056308
42268731
5863201596
65881532262
71518241890
820466951
917060296
10949052
1136004
129100
131400
14100
Total73618448179

In particular, w(0)=1w(0)=1, and exactly four singleton masks have outcome P\mathcal P, corresponding to the four winning openings above.

For the opening (1,2)(1,2), the following gives a winning response to every possible second-player move; each resulting three-vertex position has outcome P\mathcal P:

Second-player moveFirst-player responsehline(1,1)(1,6)(1,3)(1,7)(1,4)(1,5)(1,5)(1,4)(1,6)(1,1)(1,7)(1,3)(2,1)(1,6)(2,2)(1,5)(2,3)(2,7)(2,4)(1,7)(2,5)(1,4)(2,6)(1,6)(2,7)(1,5)\begin{array}{c|c} \text{Second-player move}&\text{First-player response}\\hline (1,1)&(1,6)\\ (1,3)&(1,7)\\ (1,4)&(1,5)\\ (1,5)&(1,4)\\ (1,6)&(1,1)\\ (1,7)&(1,3)\\ (2,1)&(1,6)\\ (2,2)&(1,5)\\ (2,3)&(2,7)\\ (2,4)&(1,7)\\ (2,5)&(1,4)\\ (2,6)&(1,6)\\ (2,7)&(1,5) \end{array}

The full outcome table, interpreted as 16,38416{,}384 consecutive indicator bytes, has SHA-256 digest

a4b410df13688cfb66aecba5067a6fc6f1208d939647a6f98f1500f69065b7a9.\texttt{a4b410df13688cfb66aecba5067a6fc6f1208d939647a6f98f1500f69065b7a9}.

The same exact recurrence gives outcome P\mathcal P for P2PmP_2\square P_m, 2m62\le m\le6, and for P3P4P_3\square P_4. These exhaust all nontrivial rectangular grids of even order less than 1414, up to transposition. Therefore P2P7P_2\square P_7 is the smallest possible counterexample to the stated conjecture.

0 endorsements
Shivam Patel ·