An Upper Bound on the Total Roman {2}-domination Number of Graphs with Minimum Degree Two

M. Kheibari1, H. Abdollahzadeh Ahangar2, R. Khoeilar1, S. M. Sheikholeslami1
1Department of Mathematics Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University Tabriz, Iran
2Department of Mathematics Babol Noshirvani University of Technology Shariati Ave., Babol, I.R. Iran, Postal Code: 47148-71167

Abstract

A total Roman {2}-dominating function on a graph G=(V,E) is a function f:V{0,1,2} with the properties that (i) for every vertex vV with f(v)=0, f(N(v))2 and (ii) the set of vertices with f(v)>0 induces a subgraph with no isolated vertices. The weight of a total Roman {2}-dominating function is the value f(V)=vVf(v), and the minimum weight of a total Roman {2}-dominating function is called the total Roman {2}-domination number and denoted by γtR2(G). In this paper, we prove that for every graph G of order n with minimum degree at least two, γtR2(G)5n6.

Keywords: Roman {2}-domination, Total Roman {2}-domination.

1. Introduction

In this paper, G is a simple graph with vertex set V=V(G) and edge set E=E(G). The order |V| of G is denoted by n(G). For every vertex vV, the open neighborhood N(v) is the set {uV(G)vuE(G)} and the closed neighborhood of v is the set N[v]=N(v){v}. The degree of a vertex vV is degG(v)=|N(v)|. The minimum and maximum degree of a graph G are denoted by δ(G) and Δ(G), respectively. Let Pn and Cn be the path and cycle of order n.

For a graph G and a positive integer k, let f:V(G){0,1,2,,k} be a function, and let (V0,V1,V2,,Vk) be the ordered partition of V(G) induced by f, where Vi={vVf(v)=i} for i{0,1,,k}. There is a 11 correspondence between the function f:V{0,1,2,,k} and the ordered partitions (V0,V1,V2,,Vk) of V, so we will write f=(V0,V1,V2,,Vk). The weight of f is the value f(V(G))=uV(G)f(u).

In [1], Chellali et al. investigated the Roman {2}-domination (called in [2] and elsewhere Italian domination) defined as follows: a Roman {2}-dominating function (R{2}-DF) on G is a function f=(V0,V1,V2) with the property that for every vertex vV0 there is a vertex uN(v), with uV2 or there are two vertices x,yN(v) with x,yV1. The Roman {2} -domination number γR2(G) is the minimum weight of an R{2}-DF on G. Some variant of Italian domination has been studied for example in [3, 4]. Note that, Roman domination and its variants have many applications in the areas such as facility location problems, planning of defence strategies and surveillance related problems, etc. The literature on this topic has been detailed in several papers [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

A total Roman {2}-dominating function (total Roman {2}-dominating function) is an R{2}-DF f such that the set of vertices with f(v)>0 induces a subgraph with no isolated vertices. The weight of a total Roman {2}-dominating function is the sum of its function values over all vertices, and the minimum weight of a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G is the total Roman {2}-domination number γtR2(G). Total Roman {2}-domination was first studied in [11] and investigated in [12, 13].

It is observed in [11] that for all connected graphs G of order n with δ(G)1, 2γtR2(G)n and the graphs attaining the bounds are characterized.

In this paper, we prove that for every graph G of order n with minimum degree at least two, γtR2(G)5n6.

The proof of the following results can be found in [].

Proposition 1. For n2, γtR2(Pn)=2n+23.

Proposition 2. n3, γtR2(Cn)=2n3.

2. A Preliminary Result

Here we focus to construct an upper bound for the total Roman {2}– domination number of connected graphs with minimum degree at least two. We first make a result as follows.

For positive integers j3 and l1, let the graph Cj,l be obtained from a cycle Cj=x1x2xjx1 by adding a pendant path x1y1y2yl.

Proposition 3. For positive integers j3 and l1 with j+l4, γtR2(Cj,l)5(j+l)6.

Proof. If j+l=4, then clearly γtR2(Cj,l)=3<5(j+l)6. Let j+l5. Since adding an edge cannot increase the total Roman {2}-domination number of the path x2xjx1y1yl, using Proposition 2 implies that γtR2(Cj,l)2(j+l)35(j+l)6. ◻

Let R1 be the family of all connected loopless multigraphs with minimum degree at least three and let R be the family of all graphs constructed by some graph in R1 by subdividing whole edges t times with 1t5. We observe that any graph in R has order at least 5.

Proposition 4. Every graph GR has a total Roman {2}-dominating function f such that ω(f)5n(G)6 and f(v)1 for every vertex v of degree at least three.

Proof. Let GR be a graph of order n. We continue the proof by induction on n. If n=5, then G is isomorphic to K2,3 and clearly the result holds. Assume that n6 and let the result hold for any graph of R of order smaller than n. Let GR be a graph of order n6. Let M={uV(G)degG(u)3} and let N=V(G)M. By definition we have |M|2. An M-ear path in G is a path W of G so that V(W)N and the endvertices of W are adjacent to vertices of M. For each i1, define Wi={WW is an M-ear path with |V(W)|=i}. Let W=i1Wi. Observe that MWWV(W) is a partition of V(G). For each M-ear path WW, let XW={wMw is adjacent to a leaf of W}. Clearly M=WWXW and |XW|=2 for each WW. First let there exist an M-ear path W=x1x2xkW4W5 and XW={t1,t2} so that t1x1,t2xkE(G). Assume that the graph G is obtained from G by removing x2,,xk and adding the edge x1t2. Clearly, GR. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G such that f(t1),f(t2)1 and ω(f)5(nk+1)6. If f(x1)1, then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} defined by g(x2)=0,g(x3)=g(x4)==g(xk)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. If f(x1)=0, then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} defined by g(x4)=0,g(xi)=1 for i{2,,k}{4} and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Hence, we may assume that W4W5=. Therefore W=W1W2W3. For each i{1,2,3}, let mi=|Wi|. Then we have that n=|M|+m1+2m2+3m3 and m1+m2+m33. First let |M|=2 and let W3={v1iv2iv3i|1im3} if W3 and W2={w1jw2j|1jm2} when W2. If W3, then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} defined by g(y)=1 for yM, g(v1i)=g(v3i)=1 for each 1im3, g(w2j)=1 for each 1jm2 and g(y)=0 otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Therefore assume that W3=. If m22, then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} defined by g(y)=1 for yM, g(w11)=1, g(w2j)=1 for each 2jm2 and g(y)=0 otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. If m2=1, then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} defined by g(y)=1 for yM, g(w11)=g(w21)=1 and g(y)=0 otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3 since m12. If m3=m2=0, then let zV(G)M and define the function g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(y)=1 for yM{z} and g(y)=0 otherwise. Clearly g is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Henceforth, we may assume that |M|3. First let there are two vertices v,uM such that degG(u),degG(v)4 and there is an M-ear path uWv in F. Let G=GV(W) and W=v1v2vk. By assumption we have k{1,2,3} and GR. By the induction hypothesis on G, it has a total Roman {2}-dominating function f such that f(u),f(v)1. If k=1, then f can be extended to a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G by labeling a 0 to v1, if k=2, then f can be extended to a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G by labeling a 0 to v1 and 1 to v2, and if k=3, then f can be extended to a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G by labeling a 0 to v2 and 1 to v1,v3. In either case we obtain a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G with weight at most 5n6 with desired property. Thus we may assume that there is no M-ear path uWv such that degG(u),degG(v)4. We distinguish two cases.

Case 1. W3.

Let W=x1x2x3W3 and ux1x2x3v be a path in G where v,uM. By assumption, we may assume without loss generality that degG(u)=3. We distinguish the following situations.

Subcase 1.1. u is joined to three M-ear paths in W3.

Let W2=y1y2y3 and W3=z1z2z3 be two M-ear paths in W3 different from W, such that uz1,uy1,tz3,ty3E(G).

Suppose that the graph G is obtained from Gi=23{xi,yi,zi} by joining x1, y1 and z1 to v, t and t, respectively. Clearly, GR. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n6)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

In particular, min{f(u),f(t),f(t)}1. To total dominate u, we can suppose that f(x1)1. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(x3)=g(y1)=g(z1)=g(y3)=g(z3)=1, g(y2)=g(z2)=g(x2)=0 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise. Clearly, g is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+55(n6)6+5=5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Subcase 1.2. u is adjacent to two M-ear paths in W3 and to an M-ear path in W2.

Let W2=y1y2y3W3 be the other M-ear paths in W3 andW3=z1z2W2 such that uz1,uy1E(G). {Assume that {ty3,tz2E(G), and} let {the graph G be obtained from G{x2,x3,y2,y3,z2} {{by joining x1, y1 and z1 to v, t and t, respectively}. Clearly, GR. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a {total Roman 2-dominating function} f of G {of weight ω(f)5(n5)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

In particular, f(u)1. To total dominate u, we can suppose that f(x1)1. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(x3)=g(y1)=g(y3)=g(z1)=1, g(x2)=g(y2)=g(z2)=0 and {g(y)=f(y)} otherwise. Clearly g is a {total Roman {2}-dominating function} {of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+45(n5)6+4<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Subcase 1.3. u is adjacent to two M-ear paths in W3 and to a M-ear path in W1.

Let W2=y1y2y3W3 be the other M-ear paths in W3 and W3=tW1 such that ut,uy1,ty3,ttE(G). First let M be the set of all vertices of degree at least three and independent in G. First let |{v,t,t}|=3. Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{x1,x2,x3,u,y1,y2} by joining y3 and t to v and t, respectively.

Clearly, GR. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G such that f assigns a positive value for any vertex of degree at least three, and ω(f)5(n6)6. If f(y3)+f(t)=0, then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} define by g(x3)=0, g(x1)=g(x2)=g(y1)=g(y2)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+55(n6)6+5=5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

If f(y3)=1, then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(y2)=g(x2)=0, g(x1)=g(x3)=g(u)=g(y1)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+45(n6)6+4<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

For the next, we can assume that |{v,t,t}|<3. Suppose that t=t and tM{v,u} (the case v=t and vM{u,t} is similar). Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{x1,x2,y1,y2,u,t} by joining x3 and y3 to t=t and v, respectively. Clearly, GR. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n6)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

If f(x3)1 (the case f(y3)1 is similar), then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(x2)=0, g(x1)=g(u)=g(y1)=g(y2)=g(t)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+55(n6)6+5=5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Assume that f(x3)+f(y3)=0. Then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(t)=0, g(x1)=g(x2)=g(u)=g(y1)=g(y2)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+55(n6)6+5=5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Next assume that t=v and vt. Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{x1,x2,y1,y2,t,u} by joining t to x3 and y3. A method similar to that described above we can see that ω(g)5n6.

Finally suppose that v=t=t. Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{x1,x2,y1,u} by joining y2 to x3 and t. Clearly, GR. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G such that f labels a positive value for any vertex of degree at least three and ω(f)5(n4)6. Then f(y2)1. If f(y3)=1, the function g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(y1)=0, g(x1)=g(u)=g(x2)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G such that g labels a positive value for any vertex of degree at least three, and we have ω(g)=ω(f)+35(n4)6+3<5n6. Assume that f(y3)=0. Then f(t)+f(x3)1, and the function g:V(G){0,1,2} defined by g(t)=g(x3)=g(y1)=0, g(x1)=g(x2)=g(u)=g(y3)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+35(n4)6+3<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Subcase 1.4. u is adjacent to an M-ear path in W3 and is adjacent to two M-ear paths in W2.

Let Wi=y1iy2iW2 for i{1,2} such that uy11,uy12,ty21,ty22E(G). Let the graph G be obtained from G{x1,u,y11,y12} by joining x2 to y2i for i{1,2}. Clearly, GR. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n4)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

In particular, min{f(x2),f(t),f(t)}1. Also to totally dominate x2 we must have f(x3)+f(y21)+f(y22)1. If f(x3)1, then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(x1)=0, g(y11)=g(u)=g(y12)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+35(n4)6+3<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. If f(y21)1 (the case f(y22)1 is similar), then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(y11)=0, g(x1)=g(u)=g(y12)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Subcase 1.5. u is adjacent to an M-ear path in W3, an M-ear path in W2 and an M-ear path in W1.

Let W2=y1y2W2 and W3=tW1 such that uy1,utE(G) and ty2,ttE(G). We consider the following situations.

(a) |{v,t,t}|=3.
Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{x1,x2,x3,u,y1,} by joining v and t to y2 and t, respectively. Clearly GR and by the induction hypothesis, G has a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of weight ω(f)5(n5)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. If f(y2)=f(t)=0, then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} defined by g(x1)=0, g(x2)=g(x3)=g(y1)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+45(n5)6+4<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. If f(y2)1, then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} defined by g(x1)=g(y1)=0, g(x2)=g(x3)=g(u)=1, g(t)=max{1,f(t)} and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+45(n5)6+4<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. If f(y2)=0,f(t)1, then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} defined by g(x1)=g(y1)=0, g(x2)=g(x3)=g(u)=g(y2)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+45(n5)6+4<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

(b) t=t and vt.
Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{x1,x2,x3,u,y1,} by joining v to y2 and t. Clearly GR and by the induction hypothesis, G has a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of weight ω(f)5(n5)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(x1)=0, g(x2)=g(x3)=g(u)=g(y1)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+45(n5)6+4<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

(c) v=t and vt.
Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{u,x1,x2,y1,t} by joining t to x3 and y2. Clearly, GR. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n5)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(t)=0, g(x1)=g(x2)=g(y1)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(x3)=f(y2)=0, by g(x2)=0, g(x1)=g(y1)=g(u)=g(t)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(x3)1, and by g(y1)=0, g(x1)=g(x2)=g(u)=g(t)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, when f(y2)1. Clearly g is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+4<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

(d) v=t and vt.
Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{u,x1,x2,y1,y2} by joining t to x3 and t. Clearly, GR. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n5)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(y2)=0, g(x1)=g(x2)=g(y1)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(x3)=f(t)=0, by g(x2)=0, g(x1)=g(y1)=g(y2)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(x3)1, and by g(y1)=0, g(x1)=g(x2)=g(u)=g(y2)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, when f(t)1. Clearly g is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+4<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

(e) v=t=t.
Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{u,x1,y1} by joining x2 to y2 and t. Clearly, GR. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G such that f of weight ω(f)5(n3)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Then f(x2)1, and without loss of generality, f(x3)1. Now the function g:V(G){0,1,2} defined by g(t)=g(y2)=g(x1)=0, g(y1)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+2<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Subcase 1.6. u is adjacent to an M-ear path in W3 and is adjacent to two M-ear paths in W1.

Let W1=y1, W2=y2W1 such that uy1,uy2,y1t,y2tE(G). Consider the following situations.

  • v{t,t}.
    Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{x1,x2,x3,u} by joining v to y1 and y2. Clearly, GR. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n4)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Then the function g:V(G){0,1,2} defined by g(x2)=0, g(x1)=g(x3)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+3<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

  • v=t and vt.
    Assume that G is obtained from G{x1,x2,u,y2} by joining t to x3 and y1. Clearly, GR and by the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n4)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(y2)=0, g(x1)=g(x2)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=g(y) otherwise, if f(x3)=f(y1)=0, by g(x2)=0, g(x1)=g(y2)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(x3)1, and by g(y1)=0, g(x1)=g(x2)=g(u)=g(y2)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, when f(y1)1. Clearly g is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+3<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

  • v=t=t.
    Assume that G is obtained from G{x1,u} by joining x2 to y1 and y2. Clearly, GR and by the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n2)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Then f(x2)11, and without loss of generality, f(x3)1. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(x2)=g(y1)=g(y2)=0, g(x1)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise. Clearly g is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+1<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Considering Case 1, we may assume that W3=.

Case 2. W2.

Let W1=x1x2W2 and ux1x2v be a path in G. Suppose, without loss of generality, that degG(u)=3. Consider the following subcases.

Subcase 2.1. u is adjacent to three M-ear paths in W2.

Let W2=y1y2 and W3=t1t2 be the other M-ear paths in W2 such that ut1,uy1E(G) and let ty2,tt2E(G) where t,tM. First let |{v,t,t}|2 and let without loss of generality that v{t,t}. {Assume that G is obtained from G{u,x1,x2,y1,t1} and by joining v to y2 and {t2}. Clearly, GR and by the induction hypothesis, there exists a {total Roman {2}-dominating function} f of G {of weight ω(f)5(n5)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Define the function g:V(G){0,1,2} by {g(u)=g(y1)=g(x1)=g(t1)=1}, g(x2)=0 and {g(y)=f(y)} {otherwise}, when {f(y2)=f(t2)=0}, by {g(u)=g(x2)=g(x1)=g(t1)=1}, g(y1)=0 and {g(y)=f(y)} {otherwise}, when f(y2)1, and by {g(u)=g(x2)=g(x1)=g(y1)=1}, g(t1)=0 and {g(y)=f(y)} {otherwise}, when {f(t2)1.} Clearly g is a {total Roman {2}-dominating function} of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+4<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.}

Now let v=t=t.

Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{u,y1,t1} and by joining x1 to y2 and t2. Clearly, GR and by the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n3)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Then f(x1)1 and max{f(x2),f(y2),f(t2)}1. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(x1)=g(y2)=g(t2)=0, g(x2)=g(u)=g(y1)=g(t1)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+2<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Subcase 2.2. u is adjacent to two M-ear paths in W2 and adjacent to an M-ear path in W1.

Let W2=y1y2 be another M-ear path in W2 and W3=t be a M-ear path in W1 such that uy1,utE(G). Suppose ty2,ttE(G) where t,tM. We consider the following.

  • v{t,t}. Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{u,x1,x2,y1} and by joining v to y2 and t. Clearly, GR and by the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n4)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(x2)=0, g(x1)=g(y1)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(t)=f(y2)=0, by g(y1)=0, g(x1)=g(x2)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(y2)1, and by g(x1)=0, g(x2)=g(y1)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, when f(t)1. Clearly g is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+3<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

  • v=t and vt.
    Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{u,x1,y1,t} by adding the edges tx2 and ty2. Clearly, GR and by the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n4)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(t)=0, g(x1)=g(y1)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(x1)=f(y1)=0, by g(x1)=0, g(y1)=g(t)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, when f(x2)1 (the case f(y2)1 is similar). Clearly g is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+3<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

  • v=t and vt.
    Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{u,y1,y2,x1} by adding the edges tx2 and tt. Clearly, GR and by the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n4)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(y2)=0, g(x1)=g(y1)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(t)=f(x2)=0, by g(x1)=0, g(y1)=g(y2)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(x2)1, and by g(t)=g(y1)=0, g(x2)=g(x1)=g(y2)=g(u)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, when f(t)1. Clearly g is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+3<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

  • v=t=t.
    Let wM{u,v} and w be a neighbor of w in G. Suppose that the graph G is obtained from G{u,x1,x2,y1} by adding the edges wy2 and wt. Clearly, GR and by the induction hypothesis, there exists a total Roman {2}-dominating function f of G of weight ω(f)5(n4)6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3. Define g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(x2)=0, g(u)=g(x1)=g(y1)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(y2)=f(t)=0, and by g(w)=max{1,f(w)}, g(x1)=g(y2)=g(t)=0, g(u)=g(x2)=g(y1)=1 and g(y)=f(y) otherwise, if f(y2)+f(t)1. Clearly, g is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)=ω(f)+3<5n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.

Subcase 2.3. The other neighbor of u belong to M-ear paths in W1. Considering above cases and subcases, we can suppose that any vertex of M is adjacent to at most one vertex in WW2V(W). Then G is a graph obtained from a loopless multigraph G by subdividing each edge of G at most twice such that the set of edges of G subdivided twice forms a matching in G. Note that W=|V(G)||V(G)|+|E(G)||V(G)|+3|V(G)|2=5|V(G)|2 because degG(y)3 for any yV(G). Let M={e1=u1v1,,ek=ukvk} be set of edges of G subdivided twice and let the edge uivi be replaced by uiw1iw2ivi for 1ik. For each vertex x in V(G){u1,,uk}, let x be one of its neighbors in G. Define the function g:V(G){0,1,2} by g(ui)=g(w1i)=1 for 1ik, g(x)=g(x)=1 for xV(G){u1,,uk}, and g(y)=0 otherwise. Clearly, g is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight ω(g)2|V(G)|<5|V(G)|2×565n6 and that labels by positive values any vertex of degree at least 3.  ◻

3. Main Result

In this section we prove our main result.

Theorem 1. If G is a n-vertex graph with δ(G)2, γtR2(G)5n6.

Proof. The proof is by induction on n. If n6, then for any vertex vV(G) with minimum degree, the function f defined by g(v)=0 and g(y)=1 otherwise, is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight n1 and so γtR2(G)n15n6. Assume that n7 and that the result holds for all graph G of order less than n with δ(G)2. Let G be a graph of order n7 with δ(G)2. Since γtR2(G)γtR2(Ge) for every eE(G), we can assume that |E(G)| is as small as possible. If Δ(G)=2, then G is a disjoint union of cycles and the result follows by Proposition 2. Hence assume that Δ(G)3. Let M={vV(G)degG(v)3} and N=V(G)M. By our choice of G, M is an independent set. Consider the M-ear paths and associated notations defined in proof of Proposition 4. Note that M=WWXW,MWWV(W) is a partition of V(G) and 1|XW|2 for each WW. Assume first there exists an M-ear path W for which δ(GV(W))1. This implies that |XW|=1 and since G is simple we have |V(W)|2. Suppose that XW={t} and NG(t)V(W)={t}. Then there exists a unique M-ear path W for which t is a leaf of W. Let G=G(V(W)V(W){t}). Then δ(G)2 and by the induction hypothesis γtR2(G)5|V(G)|6. On the other hand, since G=G[V(W)V(W){t}]C|V(W)|+1,|V(W)|, we have γtR2(G)5|V(G)|6, by Proposition 3. If f is a γtR2(G)function and g is a γtR2(G)-function, then the function l defined on V(G) by l(y)=f(y) for yV(G) and l(y)=g(y) for yV(G), is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G of weight at most 5n6. Suppose that δ(GV(W))2 for each M-ear path WW. It follows that |XW|=2 for each M-ear path WW. First let W(W1W2W3W4W5). Suppose OW(W1W2W3W4W5) and G=GV(O). By Proposition 1 and the induction hypothesis we have γtR2(O)5|V(O)|6 and γtR2(G)5|V(G)|6. If f is a γtR2(G)-function and g is a γtR2(O)-function, then the function l defined on V(G) by l(y)=f(y) for yV(G) and l(y)=g(y) for yV(O), is a total Roman {2}-dominating function of G and hence γtR2(G)γtR2(G)+γtR2(O)5n6. Let W=W1W2W3W4W5. Then GR and the result follows from Proposition 4. This completes the proof. ◻

Acknowledgments

The authors are deeply thankful to the reviewer for his/her valuable suggestions to improve the quality of this manuscript. H. Abdollahzadeh Ahangar was supported by the Babol Noshirvani University of Technology under research grant number BNUT/385001/00.

References:

  1. Chellali, M., Haynes, T.W., Hedetniemi, S.T. and MacRae, A., 2016. Roman {2}-domination. Discrete Applied Mathematics 204, pp.22–28.
  2. Klostermeyer, W.F. and MacGillivray, G., 2019. Roman, Italian, and 2-domination. Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 108, pp.125-146.
  3. Azvin, F., Jafari Rad, N. and Volkmann, L., 2021. Bounds on the outer-independent double Italian domination number. Communications in Combinatorics and Optimization, 6(1), pp.123-136.
  4. Volkmann, L., 2019. The Italian domatic number of a digraph. Communications in Combinatorics and Optimization, 4(1), pp.61-70.
  5. Abdollahzadeh Ahangar, H., Alvarez, M.P., Chellali, M., Sheikholeslami, S.M. and Valenzuela-Tripodoro, J.C., 2021. Triple Roman domination in graphs. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 391, p.125444.
  6. Ahangar, H.A., Amjadi, J., Chellali, M., Nazari-Moghaddam, S. and Sheikholeslami, S.M., 2019. Total Roman reinforcement in graphs. Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory, 39(4), pp.787-803.
  7. Ahangar, H.A., Bahremandpour, A., Sheikholeslami, S.M., Soner, N.D., Tahmasbzadehbaee, Z. and Volkmann, L., 2017. Maximal Roman domination numbers in graphs. Utilitas Mathematica, 103, 245–258.
  8. Abdollahzadeh Ahangar, H., Chellali, M., Kuziak, D. and Samodivkin, V., 2016. On maximal Roman domination in graphs. International Journal of Computer Mathematics, 93(7), pp.1093-1102.
  9. Ahangar, H.A., Chellali, M. and Sheikholeslami, S.M., 2019. Signed double Roman domination in graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 257, pp.1-11.
  10. Ahangar, H.A., Chellali, M. and Sheikholeslami, S.M., 2019. Signed double Roman domination of graphs. Filomat, 33, pp.121–134.
  11. Ahangar, H.A., Chellali, M., Sheikholeslami, S.M. and Valenzuela-Tripodoro, J.C., 2022. Total Roman {2}-dominating functions in graphs. Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory, 42(3), pp.937-958.
  12. Abdollahzadeh Ahangar, H., Chellali, M., Hajjari, M. and Sheikholeslami, S.M., 2022. Further progress on the total Roman {2}-domination number of graphs. Bulletin of the Iranian Mathematical Society, 48(3), pp.1111-1119.
  13. Kheibari, M., Ahangar, H.A., Khoeilar, R. and Sheikholeslami, S.M., 2021. Total Roman 2-Reinforcement of Graphs. Journal of Mathematics, 2021, pp.1-7.