Distance domination and distance irredundance in

graphs
Adriana Hansberg, Dirk Meierling and Lutz Volkmann
Lehrstuhl II f
ur Mathematik, RWTH Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany
e-mail: {hansberg,meierling,volkm}@math2.rwth-aachen.de
Submitted: Feb 13, 2007; Accepted: Apr 25, 2007; Published: May 9, 2007
Mathematics Subject Classification: 05C69

Abstract
A set D V of vertices is said to be a (connected) distance k-dominating set
of G if the distance between each vertex u V D and D is at most k (and
D induces a connected graph in G). The minimum cardinality of a (connected)
distance k-dominating set in G is the (connected) distance k-domination number
of G, denoted by k (G) (kc (G), respectively). The set D is defined to be a total
k-dominating set of G if every vertex in V is within distance k from some vertex
of D other than itself. The minimum cardinality among all total k-dominating sets
of G is called the total k-domination number of G and is denoted by kt (G). For
x X V , if N k [x] N k [X x] 6= , the vertex x is said to be k-irredundant
in X. A set X containing only k-irredundant vertices is called k-irredundant. The
k-irredundance number of G, denoted by ir k (G), is the minimum cardinality taken
over all maximal k-irredundant sets of vertices of G. In this paper we establish
lower bounds for the distance k-irredundance number of graphs and trees. More
c
precisely, we prove that 5k+1
2 irk (G) k (G) + 2k for each connected graph G and
c
(2k + 1)irk (T ) k (T ) + 2k |V | + 2k kn1 (T ) for each tree T = (V, E) with
n1 (T ) leaves. A class of examples shows that the latter bound is sharp. The second
inequality generalizes a result of Meierling and Volkmann [9] and Cyman, Lema
nska
and Raczek [2] regarding k and the first generalizes a result of Favaron and Kratsch
t
[4] regarding ir1 . Furthermore, we shall show that kc (G) 3k+1
2 k (G) 2k for
each connected graph G, thereby generalizing a result of Favaron and Kratsch [4]
regarding k = 1.
Keywords: domination, irredundance, distance domination number, total domination number, connected domination number, distance irredundance number, tree
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 05C69

the electronic journal of combinatorics 14 (2007), #R35

Terminology and introduction

In this paper we consider finite, undirected, simple and connected graphs G = (V, E) with
vertex set V and edge set E. The number of vertices |V | is called the order of G and is
denoted by n(G). For two distinct vertices u and v the distance d(u, v) between u and v is
the length of a shortest path between u and v. If X and Y are two disjoint subsets of V ,
then the distance between X and Y is defined as d(X, Y ) = min {d(x, y) | x X, y Y }.
The open k-neighborhood N k (X) of a subset X V is the set of vertices in V \ X
of distance at most k from X and the closed k-neighborhood is defined by N k [X] =
N k (X) X. If X = {v} is a single vertex, then we denote the (closed) k-neighborhood of
v by N k (v) (N k [v], respectively). The (closed) 1-neighborhood of a vertex v or a set X of
vertices is usually denoted by N (v) or N (X), respectively (N [v] or N [X], respectively).
Now let U be an arbitrary subset of V and u U . We say that v is a private k-neighbor
of u with respect to U if d(u, v) k and d(u0 , v) > k for all u0 U {u}, that is
v N k [u] N k [U {u}]. The private k-neighborhood of u with respect to U will be
denoted by P N k [u, U ] (P N k [u] if U = V ).
For a vertex v V we define the degree of v as d(v) = |N (v)|. A vertex of degree one
is called a leaf and the number of leaves of G will be denoted by n1 (G).
A set D V of vertices is said to be a (connected) distance k-dominating set of G
if the distance between each vertex u V D and D is at most k (and D induces a
connected graph in G). The minimum cardinality of a (connected) distance k-dominating
set in G is the (connected) distance k-domination number of G, denoted by k (G) (kc (G),
respectively). The distance 1-domination number 1 (G) is the usual domination number
(G). A set D V of vertices is defined to be a total k-dominating set of G if every
vertex in V is within distance k from some vertex of D other than itself. The minimum
cardinality among all total k-dominating sets of G is called the total k-domination number
of G and is denoted by kt (G). We note that the parameters kc (G) and kt (G) are only
defined for connected graphs and for graphs without isolated vertices, respectively.
For x X V , if P N k [x] 6= , the vertex x is said to be k-irredundant in X. A
set X containing only k-irredundant vertices is called k-irredundant. The k-irredundance
number of G, denoted by irk (G), is the minimum cardinality taken over all maximal
k-irredundant sets of vertices of G.
In 1975, Meir and Moon [10] introduced the concept of a k-dominating set (called a
k-covering in [10]) in a graph, and established an upper bound for the k-domination
number of a tree. More precisely, they proved that k (T ) |V (T )|/(k + 1) for every tree
T . This leads immediately to k (G) |V (G)|/(k + 1) for an arbitrary graph G. In 1991,
Topp and Volkmann [11] gave a complete characterization of the class of graphs G that
fulfill the equality k (G) = |V (G)|/(k + 1).
The concept of k-irredundance was introduced by Hattingh and Henning [5] in 1995.
With k = 1, the definition of an k-irredundant set coincides with the notion of an irredundant set, introduced by Cockayne, Hedetniemi and Miller [1] in 1978. Since then a lot
of research has been done in this field and results have been presented by many authors
(see [5]).

the electronic journal of combinatorics 14 (2007), #R35

In 1991, Henning, Oellermann and Swart [8] motivated the concept of total distance
domination in graphs which finds applications in many situations and structures which
give rise to graphs.
For a comprehensive treatment of domination in graphs, see the monographs by
Haynes, Hedetniemi and Slater [6], [7].
In this paper we establish lower bounds for the distance k-irredundance number of
irk (G) kc (G) + 2k for each congraphs and trees. More precisely, we prove that 5k+1
2
nected graph G and (2k + 1)irk (T ) k (T ) + 2k |V | + 2k kn1 (T ) for each tree
T = (V, E) with n1 (T ) leaves. A class of examples shows that the latter bound is sharp.
Since k (G) irk (G) for each connected graph G, the latter generalizes a result of Meierling and Volkmann [9] and Cyman, Lemanska and Raczek [2] regarding k and the former
generalizes a result of Favaron and Kratsch [4] regarding ir1 . In addition, we show that
if G is a connected graph, then kc (G) (2k + 1)k (G) 2k and kc (G) 3k1
kt (G) 2k
2
thereby generalizing results of Duchet and Meyniel [3] for k = 1 and Favaron and Kratsch
[4] for k = 1, respectively.

Results

First we show the inequality kc (2k + 1)k 2k for connected graphs.

Theorem 2.1. If G is a connected graph, then
kc (G) (2k + 1)k (G) 2k.
Proof. Let G be a connected graph and let D be a distance k-dominating set. Then G[D]
has at most |D| components. Since D is a distance k-dominating set, we can connect two
of these components to one component by adding at most 2k vertices to D. Hence, we
can construct a connected k-dominating set D 0 D in at most |D| 1 steps by adding
at most (|D| 1)2k vertices to D. Consequently,
kc (G) |D 0 | |D| + (|D| 1)2k = (2k + 1)|D| 2k
and if we choose D such that |D| = k (G), the proof of this theorem is complete.
The results given below follow directly from Theorem 2.1.
Corollary 2.2 (Duchet & Meyniel [3] 1982). If G is a connected graph, then
c (G) 3(G) 2.
Corollary 2.3 (Meierling & Volkmann [9] 2005; Cyman, Lema
nska & Raczek
[2] 2006). If T is a tree with n1 leaves, then
k (T )

|V (T )| kn1 + 2k
.
2k + 1

the electronic journal of combinatorics 14 (2007), #R35

Proof. Since kc (T ) |V (T )| kn1 for each tree T , the proposition is immediate.

The following lemma is a preparatory result for Theorems 2.5 and 2.7.
Lemma 2.4. Let G be a connected graph and let I be a maximal k-irredundant set such
that irk (G) = |I|. If I1 = {v I | v P N k [v]} is the set of vertices that have no
k-neighbor in I, then
|I I1 |
.
2
Proof. Let G be a connected graph and let I V be a maximal k-irredundant set. Let
kc (G) (2k + 1)irk (G) 2k + (k 1)

I1 := {v I | v P N k [v]}
be the set of vertices in I that have no k-neighbors in I and let
I2 := I I1
be the complement of I2 in I. For each vertex v I2 let uv P N k [v] be a k-neighbor of
v such that the distance between v and uv is minimal and let
B := {uv | v I2 }
be the set of these k-neighbors. Note that |B| = |I2 |. If w is a vertex such that w
/
k
N [I B], then I {w} is a k-irredundant set of G that strictly contains I, a contradiction.
Hence I B is a k-dominating set of G.
Note that G[I B] has at most |I B| = |I1 | + 2|I2 | components. From I B we shall
construct a connected k-dominating set D I B by adding at most




|I2 |
|I2 |
1)2k +
(k 1)
|I2 |(k 1) + (|I1 | +
2
2
vertices to I B.
We can connect each vertex v I2 with its corresponding k-neighbor uv B by adding
at most k 1 vertices to I B.
Recall that each vertex v I2 has a k-neighbor w 6= v in I2 . Therefore we need to
add at most k 1 vertices to I B to connect such a pair of vertices.
By combining the two observations above, we can construct a k-dominating set D 0
I B from I B with at most |I1 | + b|I2 |/2c components by adding at most (k 1)|I2 | +
(k 1)d|I2 |/2e vertices to I B. Since D 0 is a k-dominating set of G, these components
can be joined to a connected k-dominating set D by adding at most (|I1 | + b|I2 |/2c 1)2k
vertices to D 0 .
All in all we have shown that there exists a connected k-dominating set D of G such
that




|I2 |
|I2 |
|D| |I1 | + 2|I2 | + (k 1)|I2 | + (k 1)
+ 2k(|I1 | +
1)
2
2
|I2 |
(2k + 1)|I| 2k + (k 1)
.
2
the electronic journal of combinatorics 14 (2007), #R35

Hence, if we choose the set I such that |I| = irk (G), the proof of this lemma is complete.
Since |I2 | |I| for each k-irredundant set I, we derive the following theorem.
Theorem 2.5. If G is a connected graph, then
kc (G)

5k + 1
irk (G) 2k.
2

The next result follows directly from Theorem 2.5.

Corollary 2.6 (Favaron & Kratsch [4] 1991). If G is a connected graph, then
c (G) 3ir(G) 2.
For acyclic graphs Lemma 2.4 can be improved as follows.
Theorem 2.7. If T is a tree, then
kc (T ) (2k + 1)irk (T ) 2k.
Proof. Let T be a tree and let I V be a maximal k-irredundant set. Let
I1 := {v I | v P N k [v]}
be the set of vertices in I that have no k-neighbors in I and let
I2 := I I1
be the complement of I2 in I. For each vertex v I2 let uv P N k [v] be a k-neighbor of
v such that the distance between v and uv is minimal and let
B := {uv | v I2 }
be the set of these k-neighbors. Note that |B| = |I2 |. If w is a vertex such that w
/
N k [I B], then I {w} is a k-irredundant set of G that strictly contains I, a contradiction.
Hence I B is a k-dominating set of G.
Note that T [I B] has at most |I B| = |I1 | + 2|I2 | components. From I B we shall
construct a connected k-dominating set D I B by adding at most
(2k 1)|I2 | + 2k(|I1 | 1)
vertices to I B. To do this we need the following definitions. For each vertex v I2 let
Pv be the (unique) path between v and uv and let xv be the predecessor of uv on Pv . Let
I2 = S L1 L2 be a partition of I2 such that
S = {v I2 | d(v, uv ) = 1}
the electronic journal of combinatorics 14 (2007), #R35

is the set of vertices of I2 that are connected by a short path with uv ,

L1 = {v I2 | N k (xv ) I1 6= }
is the set of vertices of I2 that are connected by a long path with uv and the vertex xv
has a k-neighbor in I1 and
L2 = I2 (S L1 )
is the complement of S L1 in I2 . In addition, let L = L1 L2 . We construct D following
the procedure given below.
Step 0: Set I := I2 , S := S and L := L.
Step 1: We consider the vertices in S.
Step 1.1: If there exists a vertex v S such that d(v, w) k for a vertex
w L, we can connect the vertices v, uv , w and uw to one component by
adding at most 2(k 1) vertices to I B.
Set I := I {v, w}, S := S {v} and L := L {w} and repeat Step 1.1.
Step 1.2: If there exists a vertex v S such that d(v, w) k for a vertex
w S with v 6= w, we can connect the vertices v, uv , w and uw to one
component by adding at most k 1 vertices to I B.
Set I := I {v, w} and S := S {v, w} and repeat Step 1.2.
Step 1.3: If there exists a vertex v S such that d(v, w) k for a vertex
w I2 (S L), we can connect the vertices v and uv to w by adding at most
k 1 vertices to I B.
Set I := I {v} and S := S {v} and repeat Step 1.3.
Note that after completing Step 1 the set S is empty and there are at most
|I1 | + 2|I2 | 3(r1 + r2 ) 2r3 components left, where ri denotes the number
of times Step 1.i was repeated for i = 1, 2, 3. Furthermore, we have added at
most (k 1)(2r1 + r2 + r3 ) vertices to I B.
Step 2: We consider the vertices in L1 .
If there exists a vertex v L1 L, let w I1 be a k-neighbor of xv . We can
connect the vertices v, uv and w to one component by adding at most 2(k 1)
vertices to I B.
Set I := I {v} and L := L {v} and repeat Step 2.
Note that after completing Step 2 we have L L2 and there are at most |I1 | +
2|I2 |3(r1 +r2 )2r3 2s components left, where s denotes the number of times
Step 2 was repeated and the numbers ri are defined as above. Furthermore,
we have added at most (k 1)(2r1 + r2 + r3 + 2s) vertices to I B.
Step 3: We consider the vertices in L2 . Recall that for each vertex v L2 the
vertex xv has a k-neighbor w I2 besides v.

the electronic journal of combinatorics 14 (2007), #R35

Let v be a vertex in L2 L such that xv has a k-neighbor w I2 I. We can

connect the vertices v, uv and w by adding at most 2(k 1) vertices to I B.
Set I := I {v} and L := L {v} and repeat Step 3.
Note that after completing Step 3 the sets I and L are empty and there are at
most |I1 | + 2|I2 | 3(r1 + r2 ) 2r3 2s 2t components left, where t denotes
the number of times Step 3 was repeated and the numbers ri and s are defined
as above. Furthermore, we have added at most (k 1)(2r1 + r2 + r3 + 2s + 2t)
vertices to I B.
Step 4: We connect the remaining components to one component.
Let D 0 be the set of vertices that consists of I B and all vertices added in
Steps 1 to 3. Since D 0 is a k-dominating set of G, the remaining at most
|I1 | + 2|I2 | 3(r1 + r2 ) 2r3 2s 2t components can be connected to one
component by adding at most (|I1 | + 2|I2 | 3(r1 + r2 ) 2r3 2s 2t 1)2k
vertices to D 0 .
After completing Step 4 we have constructed a connected k-dominating set
D I B by adding at most
(k 1)(2r1 + r2 + r3 + 2s + 2t) + (|I1| + 2|I2 | 3(r1 + r2 ) 2r3 2s 2t 1)2k
vertices to I B.
We shall show now that the number of vertices we have have added is less or equal
than (2k 1)|I2 | + 2k(|I1 | 1). Note that |I2 | = 2r1 + 2r2 + r3 + s + t. Then
(k 1)(2r1 + r2 + r3 + 2s + 2t) + (|I1 | + 2|I2 | 3(r1 + r2 ) 2r3 2s 2t 1)2k
(2k 1)|I2 | 2k(|I1 | 1)
= (2k + 1)|I2 | 3k(2r1 + 2r2 + r3 + s + t) k(r3 + s + t)
+ (k 1)(2r1 + r2 + r3 + 2s + 2t)
= (k 1)(2r1 + 2r2 + r3 + s + t) k(r3 + s + t) + (k 1)(2r1 + r2 + r3 + 2s + 2t)
= (k 1)r2 kr3 s t
0.
If we choose |I| such that |I| = irk (T ), it follows that
kc (T ) |D| |I1 | + 2|I2 | + 2k|I1 | + (2k 1)|I2 | 2k
= (2k + 1)|I| 2k
= (2k + 1)irk (T ) 2k
which completes the proof of this theorem.
As an immediate consequence we get the following corollary.

the electronic journal of combinatorics 14 (2007), #R35

Corollary 2.8. If T is a tree with n1 leaves, then

|V (T )| kn1 + 2k
.
2k + 1

irk (G)

Proof. Since kc (T ) |V (T )| kn1 for each tree T , the result follows directly from
Theorem 2.7.
Note that, since k (G) irk (G) for each graph G, Corollary 2.8 is also a generalization
of Corollary 2.3. The following theorem provides a class of examples that shows that the
bound presented in Theorem 2.7 is sharp.
Theorem 2.9 (Meierling & Volkmann [9] 2005; Cyman, Lemanska & Raczek
[2] 2006). Let R denote the family of trees in which the distance between each pair of
distinct leaves is congruent 2k modulo (2k + 1). If T is a tree with n1 leaves, then
|V (T )| kn1 + 2k
2k + 1

k (T ) =

if and only if T belongs to the family R.

Remark 2.10. The graph in Figure 1 shows that the construction presented in the proof
of Theorem 2.7 does not work if we allow the graph to contain cycles. It is easy to see
that I = {v1 , v2 } is an ir2 -set of G and that D = {u1 , u2 , x1 , x2 , x3 } is a 2c -set of G.
Following the construction in the proof of Theorem 2.7, we have I 1 = , I2 = {v1 , v2 }
and B = {u1 , u2 } and consequently, D 0 = I2 B {x1 , x2 , x3 }. But |D 0 | = 7 6 6 =
(2 2 + 1)|I| 2 2 and D contains none of the vertices of I.
v1

x1

u1

v2

x3

u2

x2

Figure 1.
Nevertheless, we think that the following conjecture is valid.
Conjecture 2.11. If G is a connected graph, then
kc (G) (2k + 1)irk (G) 2k.
Now we analyze the relation between the connected distance domination number and
the total distance domination number of a graph.

the electronic journal of combinatorics 14 (2007), #R35

Theorem 2.12. If G is a connected graph, then

kc (G)

3k + 1 t
k (G) 2k.
2

Proof. Let G be a connected graph and let D be a total k-dominating set of G of size
kt (G). Each vertex x D is in distance at most k of a vertex y D {x}. Thus we get a
dominating set of G with at most b|D|/2c components by adding at most d|D|/2e(k 1)
vertices to D. As in the proof of Lemma 2.4, the resulting components can be joined to a
connected k-dominating set |D 0 | by adding at most (b|D|/2c1)2k vertices. Consequently,




|D|
3k + 1
3k + 1 t
|D|
c
0
(k 1)+(
1)2k
|D|2k =
k (G)2k
k (G) |D | |D|+
2
2
2
2
and the proof is complete.
For distance k = 1 we obtain the following result.
Corollary 2.13 (Favaron & Kratsch [4] 1991). If G is a connected graph, then
c (G) 2 t (G) 2.
The following example shows that the bound presented in Theorem 2.12 is sharp.
Example 2.14. Let P be the path on n = (3k + 1)r vertices with r N. Then kc (P ) =
n 2k, kt (P ) = 2r and thus, kc (P ) = 3k+1
kt (P ) 2k.
2

References
[1] E.J. Cockayne, S.T. Hedetniemi and D.J. Miller: Properties of hereditary hypergraphs and middle graphs, Canad. Math. Bull. 21 (1978), 461-468.
[2] J. Cyman, M. Lema
nska and J. Raczek: Lower bound on the distance k-domination
number of a tree, Math. Slovaca 56 (2006), no. 2, 235-243.
[3] P. Duchet, H. Meyniel: On Hadwigers number and the stability number, Ann.
Discrete Math. 13 (1982), 71-74.
[4] O. Favaron and D. Kratsch: Ratios of domination parameters, Advances in graph
theory, Vishwa, Gulbarga (1991), 173-182.
[5] J.H. Hattingh and M.A. Henning: Distance irredundance in graphs, Graph Theory,
Combinatorics, and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1 (1995) 529-542.
[6] T.W. Haynes, S.T. Hedetniemi and P.J. Slater: Fundamentals of Domination in
Graphs, Marcel Dekker, New York (1998).
[7] T.W. Haynes, S.T. Hedetniemi and P.J. Slater: Domination in Graphs: Advanced
Topics, Marcel Dekker, New York (1998).

the electronic journal of combinatorics 14 (2007), #R35

[8] M.A. Henning, O.R. Oellermann and H.C. Swart: Bounds on distance domination
parameters, J. Combin. Inform. System Sci. 16 (1991) 11-18.
[9] D. Meierling and L. Volkmann: A lower bound for the distance k-domination number of trees, Result. Math. 47 (2005), 335-339.
[10] A. Meir and J.W. Moon: Relations between packing and covering number of a tree,
Pacific J. Math. 61 (1975), 225-233.
[11] J. Topp and L. Volkmann: On packing and covering numbers of graphs, Discrete
Math. 96 (1991), 229-238.

the electronic journal of combinatorics 14 (2007), #R35

10