Geodesic
Weak roman domination in graphs
Discussiones Mathematicae. Graph Theory, Tome 31 (2011) no. 1, pp. 161-170.

Voir la notice de l'article provenant de la source Library of Science

Let G = (V,E) be a graph and f be a function f:V → 0,1,2. A vertex u with f(u) = 0 is said to be undefended with respect to f, if it is not adjacent to a vertex with positive weight. The function f is a weak Roman dominating function (WRDF) if each vertex u with f(u) = 0 is adjacent to a vertex v with f(v) > 0 such that the function f': V → 0,1,2 defined by f'(u) = 1, f'(v) = f(v)-1 and f'(w) = f(w) if w ∈ V-u,v, has no undefended vertex. The weight of f is w(f) = ∑_v ∈ Vf(v). The weak Roman domination number, denoted by γ_r(G), is the minimum weight of a WRDF in G. In this paper, we characterize the class of trees and split graphs for which γ_r(G) = γ(G) and find γ_r-value for a caterpillar, a 2×n grid graph and a complete binary tree.
Keywords: domination number, weak Roman domination number 
@article{DMGT_2011_31_1_a9,
     author = {Roushini Leely Pushpam, P. and Malini Mai, T.},
     title = {Weak roman domination in graphs},
     journal = {Discussiones Mathematicae. Graph Theory},
     pages = {161--170},
     publisher = {mathdoc},
     volume = {31},
     number = {1},
     year = {2011},
     language = {en},
     url = {http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/item/DMGT_2011_31_1_a9/}
}
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Roushini Leely Pushpam, P.
AU  - Malini Mai, T.
TI  - Weak roman domination in graphs
JO  - Discussiones Mathematicae. Graph Theory
PY  - 2011
SP  - 161
EP  - 170
VL  - 31
IS  - 1
PB  - mathdoc
UR  - http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/item/DMGT_2011_31_1_a9/
LA  - en
ID  - DMGT_2011_31_1_a9
ER  - 
%0 Journal Article
%A Roushini Leely Pushpam, P.
%A Malini Mai, T.
%T Weak roman domination in graphs
%J Discussiones Mathematicae. Graph Theory
%D 2011
%P 161-170
%V 31
%N 1
%I mathdoc
%U http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/item/DMGT_2011_31_1_a9/
%G en
%F DMGT_2011_31_1_a9
Roushini Leely Pushpam, P.; Malini Mai, T. Weak roman domination in graphs. Discussiones Mathematicae. Graph Theory, Tome 31 (2011) no. 1, pp. 161-170. http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/item/DMGT_2011_31_1_a9/

[1] E.J. Cockayne, P.A. Dreyer, S.M. Hedetniemi and S.T. Hedetniemi, Roman domination in graphs, Discrete Math. 78 (2004) 11-22, doi: 10.1016/j.disc.2003.06.004.

[2] T.W. Haynes, S.T. Hedetniemi and P.J. Slater, (Eds), Fundamentals of Domination in Graphs (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1998).

[3] T.W. Haynes, S.T. Hedetniemi and P.J. Slater, (Eds), Domination in Graphs; Advanced Topics (Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, 1998).

[4] S.T. Hedetniemi and M.A. Henning, Defending the Roman Empire - A new strategy, Discrete Math. 266 (2003) 239-251, doi: 10.1016/S0012-365X(02)00811-7.

[5] M.A. Henning, A characterization of Roman trees, Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 22 (2002) 325-334, doi: 10.7151/dmgt.1178.

[6] M.A. Henning, Defending the Roman Empire from multiple attacks, Discrete Math. 271 (2003) 101-115, doi: 10.1016/S0012-365X(03)00040-2.

[7] C.S. ReVelle, Can you protect the Roman Empire?, John Hopkins Magazine (2) (1997) 70.

[8] C.S. ReVelle and K.E. Rosing, Defendens Romanum: Imperium problem in military strategy, American Mathematical Monthly 107 (2000) 585-594, doi: 10.2307/2589113.

[9] R.R. Rubalcaba and P.J. Slater, Roman Dominating Influence Parameters, Discrete Math. 307 (2007) 3194-3200, doi: 10.1016/j.disc.2007.03.020.

[10] P. Roushini Leely Pushpam and T.N.M. Malini Mai, On Efficient Roman dominatable graphs, J. Combin Math. Combin. Comput. 67 (2008) 49-58.

[11] P. Roushini Leely Pushpam and T.N.M. Malini Mai, Edge Roman domination in graphs, J. Combin Math. Combin. Comput. 69 (2009) 175-182.

[12] I. Stewart, Defend the Roman Empire, Scientific American 281 (1999) 136-139.