A dominating broadcast of a graph is a function such that for all , where is the eccentricity of , and for every vertex , there exists a vertex with and . The cost of is . The minimum of costs over all the dominating broadcasts of is called the broadcast domination number of . A graph $G$ is said to be radial if . In this article, we give tight upper and lower bounds for the broadcast domination number of the line graph of , in terms of , and improve the upper bound of the same for the line graphs of trees. We present a necessary and sufficient condition for radial line graphs of central trees, and exhibit constructions of infinitely many central trees for which is radial. We give a characterization for radial line graphs of trees, and show that the line graphs of the -subdivision graph of and a subclass of caterpillars are radial. Also, we show that for any caterpillar .
Keywords: Dominating broadcast, Broadcast domination number, Domination, Line graph
1. Introduction
Broadcast domination is a variety of distance related domination
parameter. For a radio station, the range and the cost of a broadcasting
tower depends on the capacity of the tower. Tactical installation of
broadcasting towers of varying capacities at different locations of a
region so that the whole region can hear the broadcast from the radio
station is one of the real-life instances of the application of the
broadcast domination.
Formally, a broadcast of a graph is a function such that is at most the eccentricity of for all . The cost of is
and is
denoted by . A vertex
is a broadcasting vertex
if , and the set of
all broadcasting vertices is denoted by or simply . A vertex is said to be -dominated by a broadcasting vertex
if . It is clear that a
broadcasting vertex is -dominated
by itself. A vertex is
said to be over--dominated or
overdominated (when the broadcast is clear from the context) by
a broadcasting vertex if . A vertex is said to be a boundary
vertex of a broadcasting vertex if , and the set of all boundary vertices of a broadcasting
vertex is denoted by . For each vertex , the closed
f-neighborhood of
is the set . A broadcast is
a dominating broadcast if , and the minimum of costs over all the dominating
broadcasts of is called the
broadcast domination number of . A dominating broadcast of is said to be an optimal dominating
broadcast if . A dominating broadcast of is said to be an efficient
dominating broadcast if every vertex of is -dominated by exactly one broadcasting
vertex. From now onwards, we use
and in place of dominating
broadcast and optimal dominating broadcast, respectively. In a graph
, a set is said to be a
dominating set if every vertex in is either belongs to or adjacent to some vertex of . The domination number is the minimum size of a
dominating set in .
The concept of the line graph of a graph was first introduced by
[1] but the
formal studies on the line graph itself was by [1]. Two edges in a simple
graph are said to be adjacent if they are incident on a common vertex.
For a given simple graph with at
least one edge, the line graph
is defined as the graph such that and two vertices of are adjacent if the corresponding
edges are adjacent in .
In this paper, every graph, unless mentioned, is simple and
connected. For any two vertices
and in a graph, is written for “ and are adjacent”. An edge with end
vertices and is denoted as . If is a subgraph of a connected graph
, then for any vertex , or simply is . A caterpillar is a tree of order at least such that deletion of all the leaves
yield a path called the spine. A vertex of spine is called
stem if it is adjacent to a pendant vertex and a vertex of
spine is called trunk if it is not adjacent to any pendant
vertex. It is clear that the first and last vertices of the spine are
necessarily stem vertices. In a graph , the -subdivision of an edge is an operation of deleting the edge
, introducing an -path of order , and making and adjacent to and , respectively. For any graph , the -subdivision graph of , denoted by , is the graph obtained from
by considering -subdivision for every edge of
.
1.1. Literature survey
The concept of broadcast domination was first presented by [3]. For a graph , [3] gave bounds for in terms of the diameter,
the radius and the domination number of .
Figure 1. A tree with a split-set .
Theorem 1. [3] For a non-trivial connected graph , .
In the light of the upper bound given in Theorem 1, [4] proposed the
following classification of graphs and related studies can be found in
[3,6,78].
A graph is
Type I or -cap graph if
.
Type II or radial graph if .
Type III if .
[4] proved
that every graph has an efficient . [6] characterized radial trees. If is a diametrical path of a tree , then a set of edges of is said to be a split-P-set if
end vertices of every edge of
have degree two and for every component of , the path is a diametrical path
of with even positive
length. A tree is said to have a split-set if it has a
split--set for some diametrical
path . In Figure 1, the set is a split-set
of corresponding to the
diametrical path induced by the black colored vertices.
Figure 2. The shortest -path .
Theorem 2. [6] A tree is radial if and only if it has
no non-empty split-set.
Let be any graph of order
and be any
graphs. Then, the generalized corona
is the graph obtained by making adjacent the vertex of with all the vertices of .
Theorem 3. [6] For any connected graph of order and for any graphs , the
graph is radial.
[9]
observed that for any spanning subgraph of , .
[1] showed that the
broadcast domination number of a graph is the minimum of the broadcast
domination numbers of its spanning trees. [6] proved that the broadcast domination
number of a graph of order is at
most . For
an efficient of , [11] defined the domination
graph, where and if .
Further, they proved the result below.
Theorem 4. [11] For any graph , there exists an efficient optimal
dominating broadcast such that
is either a path or a
cycle.
For trees , the above theorem
can be restated as, there exists an efficient such that is a path.
[10]
was the first author to characterize line graphs. For a brief survey on
line graphs, one may look into [2].
Theorem 5. [10] A graph is a line graph of some connected graph
if and only if has a clique
decomposition such that every vertex of lies in at most two cliques.
For a graph , a collection
of subgraphs is said to
be a Krausz decomposition if it has the following three
properties.
Each element of
is a complete graph.
Every edge of belongs to
exactly one element of .
Every vertex of belongs to
exactly two elements of .
Considering also as a
clique, Theorem 5 can be restated as, a graph is a line graph of a connected graph if
and only if has a Krausz
decomposition. For any graph , the
edges incident on each vertex form a clique in and the collection of all those
cliques is a Krausz decomposition of . In a Karusz decomposition, we say a
clique as a trivial clique if it is . The theorem below implies that for
any tree except , has a unique Krausz
decomposition.
Theorem 6. [2] Every connected line graph
, other than the line graphs of
and
, has a unique Krausz
decomposition.
Our contributions start from Section 2. In Subsection 2.1, we
prove that for any connected
graph and the upper bound is
further improved to for trees . As for any
bicentral and radial tree , for
central trees , we show that is radial if and only if is radial and . We give a
characterization for radial line graphs of trees in Subsection 2.2, by
defining a concept of separating-set for trees. Further, we give the
value of involving
the maximum size of a separating-set in . We denote the class of central trees
with is radial as and endow a couple of
constructions of infinitely many trees of . We study the broadcast
domination in line graphs of caterpillars and -subdivision graph of in Subsection 2.3. We prove that
the line graphs of caterpillars are Type I, and show that a subclasss of
caterpillars and -subdivision
graph of belong to .
2. Results
2.1. Upper and lower bounds for
In this subsection, we present a relation between and . In the line graph of , we denote the vertex corresponding to
the edge of as . Conversely, the edge of corresponding to the vertex in is denoted as .
Theorem 7. For any connected graph , .
Proof. Let be an
efficient of and . Then, we define a broadcast of as below. It is easy to see that is a of with cost . Therefore,
.
Let be an efficient of and . Let be an edge incident on , . Now, we define a of as follows. Therefore, . Hence, .
A bistar graph is a graph
obtained by joining centers of two star graphs and by an edge. A wheel graph is a graph on vertices which contains a cycle and all the vertices of are adjacent to a single vertex. It
is easy to verify that and .
From the proof of Theorem 7, it is evident that, working on an efficient
s with minimum number of
broadcasting vertices give better bounds. Since, for any tree, there
exists no edge between two boundary vertices of a broadcasting vertex
and there exists a unique path between two broadcasting vertices, the
upper bound given in Theorem 7 is improved for trees in Theorem 9.
For any shortest path of order in a graph , there exists a shortest -path of order
in , where , . Conversely, for every
shortest -path of order in , there exists a shortest -path of order in . Hence, we have the following
observation. We say a tree is central (bicentral) if its center is ().
Observation 8. If is a central tree, then , and if
is a bicentral tree, then .
Theorem 9. For any tree , .
Proof. For radial trees, it is easy to observe from Theorem
1 and
Observation 8 that .
For any non-radial tree , every
of has at least two broadcasting vertices.
Let be an efficient of such that is a path. Let and . Then, there is a -path in containing all the broadcasting
vertices. Let be the edge
incident on and lie on -subpath of -path in , . Let be the edge incident on and lie on -subpath of -path in . Let be a of defined as follows. Therefore, .
It is straightforward from Theorem 9 and Observation 8 that if
a tree is radial and bicentral,
then . Hence,
if a tree is radial and
bicentral, then can be radial
or non-radial. Therefore, if a radial tree has the property , then
must be central. The following
result is a direct implication of Theorem 9 and Observation 8.
Corollary 1. For a central tree , is radial if and only if is radial and .
2.2. Radial line graphs of trees
In this subsection, we characterize those line graphs of trees that
are radial. Further, we construct infinitely many radial line graphs of
central trees. Before advancing, we give some results that we use in the
subsequent part of the paper.
Observation 10. In the line graph of any tree , there exists a unique shortest path
between every pair of vertices.
Proof. Since every shortest path in implies a path in , we have the proof.
Lemma 1. For any tree , the line graph has an efficient optimal dominating
broadcast such that is a path.
Proof. Let be an
efficient of such that is a cycle. Let be , where
. Now, the shortest -paths for , and the
shortest -path together
form a cycle in . Then, the end vertices of the edges
in corresponding to the vertices
of form a cycle in , which is a contradiction. Therefore,
has no efficient such that is a cycle. By Theorem 4, has an efficient such that is a path.
Theorem 11. The line graph of a tree has an efficient optimal dominating
broadcast such that the
broadcasting vertices lie on a diametrical path of . Moreover, the end vertices of the
diametrical path are not over--dominated if one of the following
conditions hold.
is
bicentral.
is central and is non-radial.
Proof. We divide our proof into two cases. For any two
vertices and , we denote a shortest -path as . A broadcast of a
graph is a radial
broadcast if for some central vertex , and if . Case 1:
is radial
As is radial, the radial
broadcast of is an efficient of with the broadcasting vertex lying
on a diametrical path in . One
can note that for any diametrical path in , there is a diametrical path of length
in , and vice versa. If is bicentral, then there is a unique
central vertex in and is even, and hence, the
end vertices of the diametrical path are not over--dominated. Case 2:
is non-radial
Every of has at least two broadcasting
vertices. By Lemma 1, let
be an efficient of such that is a path. Let be , where . Let and be boundary vertices of and , respectively, and and be two distinct boundary
vertices of for such that and , . Let be the shortest -path in described as below (see Figure 2). The
dashed circle around in
Figure 2 is .
Let () be the set of farthest vertices
from () in (). If there exists a
vertex () such that
(),
then the path is the diametrical path of which contains all the broadcasting
vertices of . If for every vertex
, but the vertex exists in , then let be a vertex in such that does not
intersect . Then, the broadcast
defined as and for all , where is the neighbor of in , is an
efficient of . If is the neighbor of in , then the path is the diametrical path of which contains all the broadcasting
vertices of . If for every
vertex , but the vertex exists in , then, for a vertex with does not
intersect , we can define an
efficient , similar to , whose broadcasting vertices lie
on the diametrical path ,
where and are the neighbors of in and , respectively. If for every vertex
and , and , then we can choose
two vertices and such that and do not
intersect . Then, similar to the
above, we can get an efficient
whose broadcasting vertices lie on the diametrical path ,
where () is the neighbor of () in (). As
is an of , it is not possible that for every
vertex (), () and () intersects ; else we can define a of as and for all such that , which is not possible.
For the ease of analysis in the latter part of the proof, we rename
the efficient whose
broadcasting vertices lie on a diametrical path, as ; the broadcasting vertices as with
; the shortest -path in , as described earlier, as . Let be the diametrical
path of . Let and be the neighbors of and in , respectively.
If both and are not over--dominated, then is our desired efficient and is our desired diametrical path in
. Suppose that at least one of
and is over--dominated. If is over--dominated, then , else we have
another defined by and otherwise, having which
is not possible. Similarly, if is over--dominated, then .
Suppose is overdominated
by , and is not overdominated by . Then, we perform a couple of
modifications on to have a new
efficient whose broadcasting
vertices lie on and is not overdominated. Let be the defined as and for all . Then, is not over--dominated and all the broadcasting
vertices lie on . Now, with .
Then, there exists a vertex on
-subpath of
such that and
.
Now, we modify to as for , and for all . It is easy to verify that is an efficient . If is over--dominated but not or both and are over--dominated, then, in a similar manner,
we can get an efficient whose broadcasting vertices lie on a
diametrical path, and and
are not over--dominated.
Motivated by the concept of a split-set in a tree, we define
separating-set, a collection of vertices in a tree, and prove
that the radialness of depends
on the existence of a separating-set in a tree . Later, we show a relation between a
split-set and a separating-set of a tree. For any diametrical path of
, let and be two vertices on that path such
that and are less than or equal
to , and denotes the -path in . We define is the subtree of induced by .
Definition 1.
Let be a tree and be a
diametrical path of it. We say a collection ,
, of vertices of is
a separating--set
if
,
for ,
, , is odd and
greater than one, where and , and
-path is a
diametrical path of the subtree , for .
We say a tree has a separating-set if has a separating--set for some diametrical path .
Example 1. In Figure 3, the collection
is a separating-set
of the tree corresponding to the diametrical path .
Figure 3. A tree with a separating-set .
Theorem 12. For any tree , is radial if and only has no separating-set.
Proof. We prove the contrapositive of the statement. Let
be a tree with a diametrical path
. Then, the path is a diametrical path of . Suppose has a separating--set ,
, and let and . Let be a broadcast defined as follows.
As for each , -path is a
diametrical path of the subtree of odd length, the
corresponding -subpath of is the diametrical path of the
subgraph of
even length. Moreover, since the broadcast assigns label to the
middle vertex of the -subpath for each , is a of with . Therefore, is not radial.
Conversely, suppose is not
a radial graph. By Theorem 11, there exists an efficient of such that all the broadcasting
vertices lie on a diametrical path, say , and none of the end vertices of are over--dominated. If is , then the
corresponding path is a diametrical path
in . Let the set of broadcasting
vertices of be , , and and be the boundary vertices of and , respectively. For every
consecutive pair of broadcasting vertices and , there exists a pair of
adjacent vertices and
such that and
, where . If is the common end vertex of
and in for , then we consider the set .
Moreover, .
Now, we prove that the set is
indeed a separating--set of
. It is clear that the degree of
each vertex in is . Let and . As each broadcasting
vertex -dominates exactly odd
number of vertices of in , , , is odd and
greater than one. Moreover, since
is an efficient of such that none of the end vertices
of are over--dominated, -subpath is a
diametrical path of the subtree , for . Therefore, the set
is a separating--set of .
Remark 1.
It is easy to observe that if , then the tree
cannot have a separating-set and
hence is radial.
If is a diametrical
path of and has a split--set of size at least two, then has a separating--set .
[6] have proved that
if a central tree is not radial, then the maximum size of a split-set is
at least two. So, it is straightforward that if a central tree is not radial, then is not radial. If the maximum size
of a split-set in is one, then
may or may not have a
separating-sets.
For any non-radial of a
tree with , let be an efficient of such that all the broadcasting
vertices lie on a diametrical path of and none of the end vertices are
over--dominated, and be the corresponding separating-set
of obtained in the proof of
Theorem 12. Then, .
If is not of maximum size,
then there exists a separating-set of of size more than and the corresponding defined in Equation of the proof of Theorem 12, in
, has cost less than , which is a contradiction. Therefore,
we have the following result.
Theorem 13. Let be a tree of diameter . Then,
Remark 1. In order to determine when is non-radial, finding the maximum
of the sizes of all the separating-sets of is the key task. One of the naive
approaches is to find a separating-set of maximum size for every
diametrical path and then find the separating-set of maximum cardinality
among all such separating-sets. It is to be observed that for a
diametrical path , if the set ,
, is a separating--set, then is always even and is always odd, for . One can exploit this
property to obtain a separating-set of maximum size for a tree.
Theorem 14.
For a central tree , the following
statements are equivalent.
is radial and .
is radial.
has no separating-set.
has no efficient
optimal dominating broadcast such
that all the broadcasting vertices lie on a diametrical path and the end
vertices of the diametrical path are not over--dominated.
Proof. The equivalencies of 1, 2 and 3 are
straightforward from Corollary 1 and Theorem 12. From Theorem 11, if
is non-radial, then has an efficient such that all the broadcasting vertices
lie on a diametrical path and the end vertices of the diametrical path
are not over--dominated.
Therefore, 4 implies 2. Let be an efficient of such that all the broadcasting
vertices lie on a diametrical path and the end vertices of the
diametrical path are not over--dominated. As is central, has two adjacent minimum
eccentricity vertices on any diametrical path. So, . Then, by
the second part of the proof of Theorem 12, has a separating-set and hence, by
Theorem 12, is
non-radial. Therefore, 2 implies 4.
We denote the class of central trees for which is radial as . Now, we give some types
of constructions of infinitely many trees of .
Theorem 15. For any central tree of order , if
( for ), then .
Proof. As is central,
is also central, and by
Observation 8, . As degree
of each non-pendant vertex of is
at least in ,
has no separating-set. So, by Theorem 12, is radial. Hence, we have the
proof.
Next, we present a construction of a bigger tree of from a tree of . Let be a central tree and be its central vertex. A new tree is obtained from by merging a leaf of () to a leaf
of such that (Method
), or by merging the center
of () to a leaf of such that (Method
). In Figure 4, examples of
Method and Method are given. The tree is obtained using Method from by merging vertices marked with in and , and the tree is obtained using Method
from by merging vertices marked with in and .
Figure 4. From a tree , a tree is obtained by Method and a tree is obtained by Method .
Theorem 16. If is a tree obtained from a tree
by Method
or Method of construction, then .
Proof. The constructed tree is always a central tree, and its
radius, with respect to , depends
on the position of merging of a vertex of . Further, as the tree is a subtree of the tree , is a subgraph of . Let be the central vertex of and be the leaf of where the merging of a vertex of has happened. We use the
equivalencies of Theorem 14 to prove our claim. Case 1:
Let be an efficient of . Then, the broadcast of defined as is a of cost . So, . As , is radial. Therefore, . Case 2:
Let be an efficient of such that every broadcasting
vertex lie on a diametrical path of . Then, there exists a
broadcasting vertex which -dominates the vertices of . Let be the neighbor of on the diametrical path, such that
. Then, we define a
of such that , (if ) and
for other vertices of . Hence,
. As, ,
is radial. Therefore,
.
2.3. Broadcast domination number of line graphs of some
graphs
In this subsection, we explore the line graphs of two classes of
graphs, namely, caterpillar graph and -subdivision graph of star graph. First,
we show that the line graph of caterpillar is Type I.
Theorem 17. For any caterpillar of order at least , .
Proof. Let be an
efficient of . A broadcasting vertex -dominates all the vertices of at most
cliques. Then, it can be
observed from Figure 5 that those vertices can be dominated by at
most vertices of . The dashed circles in Figure 5
represent cliques of in its
Krausz decomposition. Then, the set
forms a dominating set of of
size at most .
Hence, . Therefore, by Theorem 1, we have the
proof.
Figure 5. All the vertices of cliques, that are -dominated by and dominated by .
Let the spine of a caterpillar
be .
Ignoring all the leaves, except one leaf each attached to and , we get a diametrical path of . Then, if exists, finding a
separating-set of maximum size on this diametrical path is enough to
find . Hence, by
Theorem 17, we can determine the domination number of
. Now, we give a subclass of
caterpillars which satisfy the
equality .
Proposition 1. Let be a caterpillar with the spine , is odd. If each , , is a stem,
then .
Proof. As has odd
number of spine vertices, is
central. Moreover, it is not hard, due to the way is defined, to observe that it has no
separating-set. Hence, by Theorem 12, is radial. Therefore, by Theorem 14,
.
Finally, we show that is radial.
Theorem 18. For , .
Proof. It is easy to observe that is central, and let be the central vertex. Let be a diametrical path of . As has at least three
diametrical paths and lies on
every diametrical path, due to 1 of Definition [def], cannot have a
separating-set. Hence, by Theorem 12, is radial, and by
Theorem 14, we have the proof.
3. Conclusion
We conclude the article with some remarks which require further
investigation.
In this article, we gave a characterization of line graphs of
trees to be radial, by introducing the concept of separating-set on
trees. One may generalize the concept to graphs to deal with the
radialness of line graphs.
The next interesting problem is to characterize Type I line
graphs of trees.
In this article, for radial trees , we completely settled the case when
.
The same problem is open for non-radial trees.
We show that the line graphs of caterpillars are -cap graphs, and in Proposition 1, we
present a subclass of caterpillars whose line graphs are radial. So, we
propose to determine the complete subclass of caterpillars whose line
graphs are both radial and -cap.
Conflict of
Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
References:
Whitney, H., 1992. Congruent graphs and the connectivity of graphs. Hassler Whitney Collected Papers, pp.61-79.[Google Scholor]
Krausz, J., 1943. Démonstration nouvelle d’une théoreme de Whitney sur les réseaux. Matematikai és fizikai lapok, 50, pp.75-85.[Google Scholor]
Erwin, D. J., 2001. Cost domination in graphs. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Western Michigan University.[Google Scholor]
Dunbar, J. E., Erwin, D. J., Haynes, T. W., Hedetniemi, S. M., and Hedetniemi, S. T., 2006. Broadcasts in graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 154(1), pp.59-75. [Google Scholor]
Herke, S., 2009. Dominating broadcasts in graphs. Master’s Thesis, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Victoria.
Herke, S., and Mynhardt, C. M., 2009. Radial trees. Discrete mathematics, 309(20), pp.5950-5962. [Google Scholor]
Cockayne, E. J., Herke, S., and Mynhardt, C. M., 2011. Broadcasts and domination in trees. Discrete mathematics, 311(13), pp.1235-1246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disc.2009.12.012[Google Scholor]
Mynhardt, C. M., and Wodlinger, J., 2013. A class of trees with equal broadcast and domination numbers. Australasian Journal of Combinatorics, 56, pp.3-22.[Google Scholor]
Brešar, B., and Špacapan, S. (2009). Broadcast domination of products of graphs. Ars Combinatoria, 92, pp.303-320.[Google Scholor]
Hemminger, R. L., and Beineke, L. W. (1978). Line Graphs and Line Digraphs. In L. W. Beineke & R. J. Wilson (Eds.), Selected topics in graph theory (Vol. 1, pp. 271-305). Academic Press London.[Google Scholor]
Heggernes, P., and Lokshtanov, D. (2006). Optimal broadcast domination in polynomial time. Discrete Mathematics, 306(24), pp.3267-3280. [Google Scholor]