1. Introduction
Let
be a graph without loops and multiple edges, where
and
are the vertex set and edge set of
, respectively. If
, we say that vertices
and
are adjacent, and
is a neighbor of
. The open neighborhood of
, denoted by
, is a set
. And the close neighborhood of
, denoted by
, is a set
. A function
is a double Roman dominating function if a vertex
for which
has at least a neighbor labeled 3 or two neighbors both labeled 2 and a vertex
for which
has at least a neighbor labeled 2 or 3. The sum of the function values of all vertices in
, denoted by
, is
. The weight of
, denoted by
, is the sum of the function values of all vertices in
. The double Roman domination number, denoted by
, equals the minimum weight of a double Roman dominating function on
, and a double Roman dominating function of
with weight
is called a
-function of
.
The double Roman domination was introduced in [1] and has been studied in [2]-[9]. Double Roman domination for cardinal products of graphs was studied in [2], and double Roman trees were characterized in [3]. It is known that the decision problem associated with
is NP-complete for bipartite and chordal graphs, undirected path graphs, chordal bipartite graphs, and circle graphs [4]-[6]. Closely related problems to double Roman domination were studied in [7]-[9].
A Spider is a tree with at most one vertex of degree more than two, called the center of Spider (if no vertex of degree more than two, then any vertex can be the center). A leg of a Spider is a path from the center to a vertex of degree one. If each leg of a Spider has the same length
, we denote the Spider as
with
legs
.
, where
is the center of
.
is shown in Figure 1, which has
vertices.
Figure 1. The spider graph
.
In [4], the authors studied the double Roman domination number of trees and presented a tight lower bound based on the domination number. As a special class of trees, Spider graphs possess a more unique structure, which motivates us to investigate whether stronger results can be derived. In particular, it is natural to explore whether the exact value of the double Roman domination number can be determined for Spider graphs. In this paper, we carry out a study along this line and obtain corresponding results. We determine the exact double Roman domination numbers of Spider graphs
and
, and present an upper bound on the double Roman domination number of
in terms of the order.
The following proposition will be used.
Proposition A [7] In a double Roman dominating function of weight
, no vertex needs to be assigned the value 1.
2. Double Roman domination in Spider Graphs
Lemma 1. Let
be a DRDF on
and
is a leaf of
. Then
.
Proof: Let
be a DRDF on
. Since
is a leaf of
, there is only one element in
, denoted by
. If
or 3, the conclusion is obvious. If
or 1, by the definition of DRDF, we have
. Thus
. In conclusion, the assertion follows. ☐
Lemma 2. Let
be a DRDF on
and
. Then
, where
.
Proof: Let
be a DRDF on
and
.
is a leaf of
, where
.
Case 1
. By the definition of DRDF, we have
. Thus
.
Case 2
. By the definition of DRDF, we have 3
or. Thus
.
Case 3
. Since
, by the definition of DRDF, we have
, which means
. Thus,
.
Case 4
. Obviously, we have
.
In conclusion, the assertion follows. ☐
Theorem 1. For a Spider
with
,
.
Proof: Consider the mapping
, such that
,
and
, where
,as illustrated in Figure 2. Then
is a DRDF on
and
. Thus,
.
Figure 2. The mapping
.
On the other hand, by Proposition A, let
be a
-function of
with no vertex assigned value 1. By Lemma 1, we have
.
In the following, we will show that
. If
, by Lemma 2,
and
. Thus
. If
or 3, by Lemma 1, we have
and
. Thus,
.
In conclusion, we have
. Therefore,
.☐
Lemma 3. Let
be a DRDF on
, then
, where
.
Proof: Let
be a DRDF on
. The open neighborhood of
, denoted by
, is the set
, where
.
Case 1
. By the definition of DRDF, at least one element of
is assigned 3 or both vertices are assigned 2. Thus
.
Case 2
. By the definition of DRDF, at least one element of
is assigned 2 or 3. Thus
.
Case 3
. By the definition of DRDF, we have
, which means
. Thus,
.
Case 4
. Obviously, we have
.
In conclusion, the assertion follows.
Theorem 2. For a Spider
with
,
.
Proof: Consider the mapping
, such that
,
and
, where
, as illustrated in Figure 3. Then
is a DRDF on
and
. Thus,
.
Figure 3. The mapping
.
On the other hand, let
be a
-function of
with no vertex assigned value 1. Next, we proceed by case analysis on the assignment of vertex
.
Case 1
.
By the definition of DRDF, at least one element of
is assigned 3 or two vertices of
are assigned 2. If at least one element of
is assigned 3, without loss of generality, we assume that the value of
is assigned 3. By Lemma 1 and Lemma 3, we have
If there are two vertices of
assigned 2, without loss of generality, we assume that the values of
and
are assigned 2. By Lemma 1, we have
Case 2
or 3.
By Lemma 3, we have
From above, we have
. Thus,
.
Theorem 3. For a Spider graph
with
and
,
.
Proof: Let
be a Spider graph with
legs and each leg is a path of length
. If
, we consider the mapping
, such that
and
,
where
. Then
is a DRDF on
and
. Thus,
. The mapping is illustrated in Figure 4(a) with
and
. If
, we consider the mapping
, such that
and
,
where
. Then
is a DRDF on
and
. Thus,
. The mapping is illustrated in Figure 4(b) with
and
.
In conclusion, the assertion follows.
Figure 4. The values assigned on
. (a) m = 3, n = 4; (b) m = 3, n = 5.
3. Conclusion
As an important and well-studied class of graphs, spider graphs have attracted considerable attention in the literature. In this paper, we determine the exact values of the double Roman domination numbers for two particular spider graphs
and
. Furthermore, we establish an upper bound for the double Roman domination number of the general spider graph
. Given the relatively clear structure of spider graphs, their double Roman domination numbers are expected to be well-determined, which will be further explored in our future work.