arXiv++ Combinatorics

In the literature, several identification problems in graphs have been studied, of which, the most widely studied are the ones based on dominating sets as a tool of identification. Hereby, the objective is to separate any two vertices of a graph by their unique neighborhoods in a suitably chosen dominating or total-dominating set. Such a (total-)dominating set endowed with a separation property is often referred to as a code of the graph. In this paper, we study the four separation properties location, closed-separation, open-separation and full-separation. We address the complexity of finding minimum separating sets in a graph and study the interplay of these separation properties with several codes (establishing a particularly close relation between separation and codes based on domination) as well as the interplay of separation and complementation (showing that location and full-separation are the same on a graph and its complement, whereas closed-separation in a graph corresponds to open-separation in its complement).

In the literature, several different identification problems in graphs have been studied, the most widely studied such problems are the ones based on dominating sets as a tool of identification. Hereby, the objective is to separate any two vertices of a graph by their unique neighborhoods in a suitably chosen dominating or total-dominating set. Such a (total-)dominating set endowed with a separation property is often referred to as a "code" of the graph. The problems of determining such codes of minimum cardinality are all shown to be NP-hard. A typical line to attack such problems is, therefore, to provide bounds on the cardinalities of the studied codes. In this paper, we are interested in extremal graphs for lower bounds in terms of the order of the graph. For some codes, logarithmic lower bounds are known from the literature. We provide for eight different identification problems a general construction of extremal graphs minimizing the cardinality of a minimum code compared to the order of the graph. This enables us to reprove the existing logarithmic lower bounds, to establish such bounds for further codes, and to characterize all graphs attaining these bounds.

A domination-based identification problem on a graph $G$ is one where the objective is to choose a subset $C$ of the vertex set of $G$ such that $C$ has both, a domination property, that is, $C$ is either a dominating or a total-dominating set of $G$, and a separation property, that is, any two distinct vertices of $G$ must have distinct closed or open neighborhoods in $C$. Such a set $C$ is often referred to as a code in the literature of identification problems. In this article, we introduce a new separation property, called full-separation, as it combines aspects of the two well-studied properties of closed- and open-separation. We study it in combination with both domination and total-domination and call the resulting codes full-separating dominating codes (or FD-codes for short) and full-separating total-dominating codes (or FTD-codes for short), respectively. Incidentally, FTD-codes have also been introduced in the literature of identification problems under the name of strongly identifying codes (or SID-codes for short) and under a differently formulated definition. In this paper, we address the conditions for the existence of FD- and FTD-codes, bounds for their size, their relation to codes of the other types and present some extremal cases for these bounds and relations. We further show that the problems of determining an FD- or an FTD-code of minimum cardinality in a graph are NP-hard. We also show that the cardinalities of minimum FD- and FTD-codes of any graph differ by at most one, but that it is NP-hard to decide whether or not they are equal for a given graph in general.

Using dominating sets to separate vertices of graphs is a well-studied problem in the larger domain of identification problems. In such problems, the objective is to choose a suitable dominating set $C$ of a graph $G$ which is also separating in the sense that the neighbourhoods of any two distinct vertices of $G$ have distinct intersections with $C$. Such a dominating and separating set $C$ of a graph is often referred to as a code in the literature. Depending on the types of dominating and separating sets used, various problems arise under various names in the literature. In this paper, we introduce a new problem in the same realm of identification problems whereby the code, called open-separating dominating code, or OD-code for short, is a dominating set and uses open neighbourhoods for separating vertices. The paper studies the fundamental properties concerning the existence, hardness and minimality of OD-codes. Due to the emergence of a close and yet difficult to establish relation of the OD-code with another well-studied code in the literature called open (neighborhood)-locating dominating code (referred to as the open-separating total-dominating code and abbreviated as OTD-code in this paper), we compare the two codes on various graph families. Finally, we also provide an equivalent reformulation of the problem of finding OD-codes of a graph as a covering problem in a suitable hypergraph and discuss the polyhedra associated with OD-codes, again in relation to OTD-codes of some graph families already studied in this context.

We consider the following variants of the classical minimum dominating set problem in graphs: locating-dominating set, locating total-dominating set and open locating-dominating set. All these problems are known to be hard for general graphs. A typical line of attack, therefore, is to either determine the minimum cardinalities of such sets in general or to establish bounds on these minimum cardinalities in special graph classes. In this paper, we study the minimum cardinalities of these variants of the dominating set under a graph operation defined by Mycielski in~\cite{Mycielski1955} and is called the Mycielski construction. We provide some general lower and upper bounds on the minimum sizes of the studied sets under the Mycielski construction. We apply the Mycielski construction to stars, paths and cycles in particular, and provide lower and upper bounds on the minimum cardinalities of such sets in these graph classes. Our results either improve or attain the general known upper bounds.

We study upper bounds on the size of optimum locating-total dominating sets in graphs. A set $S$ of vertices of a graph $G$ is a locating-total dominating set if every vertex of $G$ has a neighbor in $S$, and if any two vertices outside $S$ have distinct neighborhoods within $S$. The smallest size of such a set is denoted by $γ^L_t(G)$. It has been conjectured that $γ^L_t(G)\leq\frac{2n}{3}$ holds for every twin-free graph $G$ of order $n$ without isolated vertices. We prove that the conjecture holds for cobipartite graphs, split graphs, block graphs and subcubic graphs.

The problems of determining the minimum-sized \emph{identifying}, \emph{locating-dominating} and \emph{open locating-dominating codes} of an input graph are special search problems that are challenging from both theoretical and computational viewpoints. In these problems, one selects a dominating set $C$ of a graph $G$ such that the vertices of a chosen subset of $V(G)$ (i.e. either $V(G)\setminus C$ or $V(G)$ itself) are uniquely determined by their neighborhoods in $C$. A typical line of attack for these problems is to determine tight bounds for the minimum codes in various graphs classes. In this work, we present tight lower and upper bounds for all three types of codes for \emph{block graphs} (i.e. diamond-free chordal graphs). Our bounds are in terms of the number of maximal cliques (or \emph{blocks}) of a block graph and the order of the graph. Two of our upper bounds verify conjectures from the literature - with one of them being now proven for block graphs in this article. As for the lower bounds, we prove them to be linear in terms of both the number of blocks and the order of the block graph. We provide examples of families of block graphs whose minimum codes attain these bounds, thus showing each bound to be tight.