Paired Domination versus Domination and Packing Number in Graphs

TL;DR

This paper investigates the computational complexity of relationships between various domination and packing parameters in graphs, proving NP-hardness results and providing characterizations and algorithms for specific cases.

Contribution

It establishes NP-hardness of determining equality between paired domination and other parameters, and characterizes trees with a specific equality, offering new insights and algorithms.

Findings

NP-hard to decide if γ_pr(G) = 2γ(G) for bipartite graphs

Polynomial-time recognition of trees with γ_pr(G) = 2γ(G)

NP-hard to determine if γ_pr(G) = γ_t(G) and related equalities

Abstract

Given a graph $G=(V(G), E(G))$, the size of a minimum dominating set, minimum paired dominating set, and a minimum total dominating set of a graph $G$ are denoted by $\gamma(G)$, $\gamma_{\rm pr}(G)$, and $\gamma_{t}(G)$, respectively. For a positive integer $k$, a $k$-packing in $G$ is a set $S \subseteq V(G)$ such that for every pair of distinct vertices $u$ and $v$ in $S$, the distance between $u$ and $v$ is at least $k+1$. The $k$-packing number is the order of a largest $k$-packing and is denoted by $\rho_{k}(G)$. It is well known that $\gamma_{\rm pr}(G) \le 2\gamma(G)$. In this paper, we prove that it is NP-hard to determine whether $\gamma_{\rm pr}(G) = 2\gamma(G)$ even for bipartite graphs. We provide a simple characterization of trees with $\gamma_{\rm pr}(G) = 2\gamma(G)$, implying a polynomial-time recognition algorithm. We also prove that even for a bipartite graph, it is NP-hard to determine whether $\gamma_{\rm pr}(G)=\gamma_{t}(G)$. We finally prove that it is both NP-hard to determine whether $\gamma_{\rm pr}(G)=2\rho_{4}(G)$ and whether $\gamma_{\rm pr}(G)=2\rho_{3}(G)$.