arXiv++ Combinatorics

A subset $S$ of vertices in a graph $G=(V, E)$ is a Dominating Set if each vertex in $V(G)\setminus S$ is adjacent to at least one vertex in $S$. Chellali et al. in 2013, by restricting the number of neighbors in $S$ of a vertex outside $S$, introduced the concept of $[1,j]$-dominating set. A set $D \subseteq V$ of a graph $G = (V, E)$ is called a $[1,j]$-Dominating Set of $G$ if every vertex not in $D$ has at least one neighbor and at most $j$ neighbors in $D$. The Minimum $[1,j]$-Domination problem is the problem of finding the minimum $[1,j]$-dominating set $D$. Given a positive integer $k$ and a graph $G = (V, E)$, the $[1,j]$-Domination Decision problem is to decide whether $G$ has a $[1,j]$-dominating set of cardinality at most $k$. A polynomial-time algorithm was obtained in split graphs for a constant $j$ in contrast to the Dominating Set problem which is NP-hard for split graphs. This result motivates us to investigate the effect of restriction $j$ on the complexity of $[1,j]$-domination problem on various classes of graphs. Although for $j\geq 3$, it has been proved that the minimum of classical domination is equal to minimum $[1,j]$-domination in interval graphs, the complexity of finding the minimum $[1,2]$-domination in interval graphs is still outstanding. In this paper, we propose a polynomial-time algorithm for computing a minimum $[1,2]$-dominating set on interval graphs by a dynamic programming technique. Next, on the negative side, we show that the minimum $[1,2]$-dominating set problem on circle graphs is $NP$-complete.

A set $S \subseteq V$ of the graph $G = (V, E)$ is called a $[1, 2]$-set of $G$ if any vertex which is not in $S$ has at least one but no more than two neighbors in $S$. A set $S \subseteq V$ is called a $[1, 2]$-total set of $G$ if any vertex of $G$, no matter in $S$ or not, is adjacent to at least one but not more than two vertices in $S$. In this paper we introduce a linear algorithm for finding the cardinality of the smallest $[1, 2]$-sets and $[1, 2]$-total sets of a tree and extend it to a more generalized version for $[i, j]$-sets, a generalization of $[1, 2]$-sets. This answers one of the open problems proposed in [5]. Then since not all trees have $[1, 2]$-total sets, we devise a recursive method for generating all the trees that do have such sets. This method also constructs every $[1, 2]$-total set of each tree that it generates.