Table of Contents
Fetching ...

(Independent) Roman Domination Parameterized by Distance to Cluster

Pradeesha Ashok, Gautam K. Das, Arti Pandey, Kaustav Paul, Subhabrata Paul

Abstract

Given a graph $G=(V,E)$, a function $f:V\to \{0,1,2\}$ is said to be a \emph{Roman Dominating function} (RDF) if for every $v\in V$ with $f(v)=0$, there exists a vertex $u\in N(v)$ such that $f(u)=2$. A Roman Dominating function $f$ is said to be an \emph{Independent Roman Dominating function} (IRDF), if $V_1\cup V_2$ forms an independent set, where $V_i=\{v\in V~\vert~f(v)=i\}$, for $i\in \{0,1,2\}$. The total weight of $f$ is equal to $\sum_{v\in V} f(v)$, and is denoted as $w(f)$. The \emph{Roman Domination Number} (resp. \emph{Independent Roman Domination Number}) of $G$, denoted by $γ_R(G)$ (resp. $i_R(G)$), is defined as min$\{w(f)~\vert~f$ is an RDF (resp. IRDF) of $G\}$. For a given graph $G$, the problem of computing $γ_R(G)$ (resp. $i_R(G)$) is defined as the \emph{Roman Domination problem} (resp. \emph{Independent Roman Domination problem}). In this paper, we examine structural parameterizations of the (Independent) Roman Domination problem. We propose fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) algorithms for the (Independent) Roman Domination problem in graphs that are $k$ vertices away from a cluster graph. These graphs have a set of $k$ vertices whose removal results in a cluster graph. We refer to $k$ as the distance to the cluster graph. Specifically, we prove the following results when parameterized by the deletion distance $k$ to cluster graphs: we can find the Roman Domination Number (and Independent Roman Domination Number) in time $4^kn^{O(1)}$. In terms of lower bounds, we show that the Roman Domination number can not be computed in time $2^{εk}n^{O(1)}$, for any $0<ε<1$ unless a well-known conjecture, SETH fails. In addition, we also show that the Roman Domination problem parameterized by distance to cluster, does not admit a polynomial kernel unless NP $\subseteq$ coNP$/$poly.

(Independent) Roman Domination Parameterized by Distance to Cluster

Abstract

Given a graph , a function is said to be a \emph{Roman Dominating function} (RDF) if for every with , there exists a vertex such that . A Roman Dominating function is said to be an \emph{Independent Roman Dominating function} (IRDF), if forms an independent set, where , for . The total weight of is equal to , and is denoted as . The \emph{Roman Domination Number} (resp. \emph{Independent Roman Domination Number}) of , denoted by (resp. ), is defined as min is an RDF (resp. IRDF) of . For a given graph , the problem of computing (resp. ) is defined as the \emph{Roman Domination problem} (resp. \emph{Independent Roman Domination problem}). In this paper, we examine structural parameterizations of the (Independent) Roman Domination problem. We propose fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) algorithms for the (Independent) Roman Domination problem in graphs that are vertices away from a cluster graph. These graphs have a set of vertices whose removal results in a cluster graph. We refer to as the distance to the cluster graph. Specifically, we prove the following results when parameterized by the deletion distance to cluster graphs: we can find the Roman Domination Number (and Independent Roman Domination Number) in time . In terms of lower bounds, we show that the Roman Domination number can not be computed in time , for any unless a well-known conjecture, SETH fails. In addition, we also show that the Roman Domination problem parameterized by distance to cluster, does not admit a polynomial kernel unless NP coNPpoly.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 11 sections, 14 theorems.

Key Result

Theorem 4

DBLP:books/sp/CyganFKLMPPS15 Let there be a parameterized reduction from parameterized problem $P_1$ to parameterized problem $P_2$. Then if $P_2$ is FPT, then so is $P_1$. Equivalently, if $P_1$ is $W[i]$-hard for some $i \geq 1$, then so is $P_2$.

Theorems & Definitions (20)

  • Definition 1
  • Definition 2
  • Definition 3
  • Theorem 4
  • Definition 5
  • Definition 6
  • Theorem 7
  • Conjecture 8
  • Theorem 9
  • Theorem 12
  • ...and 10 more