Discrete Applied Mathematics 263 (2019) 88–95

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Discrete Applied Mathematics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dam

Total Roman domination in the lexicographic product of

graphs
Nicolás Campanelli a , Dorota Kuziak b, *
a
Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de Cádiz, Av. Ramón Puyol s/n, 11202 Algeciras, Spain
b
Departamento de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, Universidad de Cádiz, Av. Ramón Puyol s/n, 11202 Algeciras, Spain

article info a b s t r a c t
Article history: A total Roman dominating function of a graph G = (V , E) is a function f : V (G) → {0, 1, 2}
Received 29 October 2017 such that for every vertex v with f (v ) = 0 there exists a vertex u adjacent to v with
Received in revised form 7 May 2018 f (u) = 2, and such that the subgraph induced by the set of vertices labeled one or two
Accepted 3 June 2018
has no isolated
∑ vertices. The total Roman domination number of G is the minimum value
Available online 29 June 2018
of the sums v∈V f (v ) over all total Roman dominating functions f of G. In this paper we
study the total Roman domination number of the lexicographic product of graphs.
Keywords:
Total Roman domination © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Roman domination
Lexicographic product graphs

1. Introduction

The topic of domination in graphs is one of the most popular research areas in graph theory. This can be seen for
instance, through the huge number of published articles appearing in the MathSciNet data base by making a query with
the terms ‘‘domination number’’ (or ‘‘dominating set’’) together with ‘‘graphs’’. Even in the most recent year, such number
has significantly increased due to a high quantity of other domination related parameters that have appeared in several
investigations. One of the domination concepts which is becoming more and more popular concerns the so-called Roman
domination number, in connection with historical problems regarding some strategies addressing the protection of the
Roman Empire. In this work, we make some contributions to this topic throughout the study of total Roman dominating
functions in the lexicographic product of graphs. We first introduce all the required terminology, notations and some basic
results in the topic, that would be useful tools in our work.
A dominating set in a graph G with vertex set V (G) is a set S of vertices of G such that every vertex in V (G) \ S is adjacent
to at least one vertex in S. The domination number of G, denoted by γ (G), is the minimum cardinality of a dominating set of
G. A dominating set of G of cardinality γ (G) is called a γ (G)-set. The literature on the subject of domination parameters in
graphs up to the year 1997 has been surveyed and detailed in the two books [12,13].
A total dominating set of a graph G with no isolated vertex is a set S of vertices of G such that every vertex in V (G) is
adjacent to at least one vertex in S. The total domination number of G, denoted by γt (G), is the minimum cardinality of a
total dominating set of G. A total dominating set of G of cardinality γt (G) is called a γt (G)-set. Total domination is now well
studied in graph theory. The literature on the subject of total domination in graphs has been surveyed and detailed in the
recent book [16]. A survey of total domination in graphs can also be found in [14].
As already mentioned, in this paper we continue the study of Roman dominating functions ∑ in graphs. For a subset
S ⊆ V (G) of vertices of a graph G and a function f : V (G) −→ R, we define f (S) = x∈ S f (x). A Roman dominating
function on a graph G is a function f : V (G) → {0, 1, 2} satisfying the condition that every vertex u for which f (u) = 0

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dorota.kuziak@uca.es (D. Kuziak).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2018.06.008
0166-218X/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 N. Campanelli and D. Kuziak / Discrete Applied Mathematics 263 (2019) 88–95 89

is adjacent to at least one vertex v for which f (v ) = 2. The weight, ω(f ), of f is defined as f (V (G)). The Roman domination
number, denoted γR (G), is the minimum weight of any Roman dominating function of G. That is, γR (G) = min{ω(f ) |
f is a Roman dominating function in G}G. A Roman dominating function with minimum weight γR (G) in G is called a γR (G)-
function. For a Roman dominating function f , let Vi = {v ∈ V (G) : f (v ) = i} for i = 0, 1, 2. Since these three sets determine
f , we can equivalently write f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ). We observe that ω(f ) = |V1 | + 2|V2 |. The concept of a Roman dominating
function was first defined by Cockayne, Dreyer, Hedetniemi, and Hedetniemi [8] and was motivated by the works [25,26].
Roman domination in graphs is now very well studied (see for example [1,6,10,19,20,23,24,30]).
Recently, Liu and Chang [21] introduced the concept of total Roman domination in graphs albeit in a more general setting.
A total Roman dominating function of a graph G with no isolated vertex, abbreviated TRD-function, is a Roman dominating
function f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) on G with the additional property that the subgraph of G induced by the set of all vertices V1 ∪ V2
of positive weight under f has no isolated vertices. The total Roman domination number γtR (G) is the minimum weight of
a total Roman dominating function on G. A total Roman dominating function with minimum weight γtR (G) in G is called a
γtR (G)-function. Total Roman domination in graphs is less studied until now and only a couple of works are already known.
For instance, Liu and Chang [21] investigated algorithmic aspect of total Roman domination in graphs and several other
combinatorial results were published in [2].
Another topic which is nowadays very popular in graph theory concerns so called product graphs. There are two main
lines on this regard. The first one deals with studying the structure and recognition of a product, and the second one is
centered on the behavior of some parameters over the product, where one of the most common results is related to finding
relationships between the value of a given parameter in the product and that of its factors. Examples like Vizing’ conjecture
or Hedetnimi’s conjecture are most probably in the background knowledge of the reader.
A graph product • of two graphs G and H (called the factors of the product) is a graph G • H with vertex set V (G) × V (H),
and where the adjacency of two vertices (u, v ), (u′ , v ′ ) in the product is determined entirely by the adjacency (or equality,
or non-adjacency) of u and u′ in G and of v and v ′ in H. The concept of domination in graph products is a concept that has
been extensively studied, especially the strong, the cartesian and the direct products (see for instance [5,15,17] and [18],
although there are several other more examples which are not cited here). For instance, the Vizing’s conjecture states that
the domination number of Cartesian product graphs is at least the product of the domination number of its factors (see [4]).
Although a number of advances have been made on this conjecture, it still remains unsolved. In this sense, several authors
focused on proving Vizing’s-like results for other graph products or other domination types parameters. Concerning the
lexicographic product and domination, in [22], the authors observed that γ (G ◦ H) ≤ γ (G)γ (H). In the case of Roman
domination and Cartesian product graphs, in [28], Wu shows that γR (G□H) ≥ γR (G)γR (H) (where G□H represents the
Cartesian product of G and H). Some other results concerning Roman domination in Cartesian product graphs and strong
product graphs were published in [29,30]. The lexicographic product of two graphs G and H is defined as the graph G ◦ H
with vertex set V (G) × V (H) and edge set E(G ◦ H) = {(u, v )(u′ , v ′ )|uu′ ∈ E(G) or ((u = u′ and vv ′ ∈ E(H))}. In [27], the
authors have studied the Roman domination in the lexicographic product of graphs. In this paper we tackle the problem of
total Roman domination in the lexicographic product.

1.1. Notation and necessary tools

All graphs considered in this paper are nontrivial, finite and without loops and multiple edges. For notation and graph
theory terminology, we in general follow Haynes, Hedetniemi and Slater [13]. Specifically, let G be a graph with vertex
set V (G) and edge set E(G). The integers n(G) = |V (G)| and m(G) = |E(G)| are the order and the size of G, respectively.
The open neighborhood of a vertex v in G is the set NG (v ) = {u ∈ V (G) | uv ∈ E(G) ⋃} and the closed neighborhood of v is
NG [v] = {v} ∪ NG (v ). For a set S ⊆ V (G), its open neighborhood is the set NG (S) = v∈S NG (v ), and its closed neighborhood
is the set NG [S ] = NG (S) ∪ S. If the graph G is clear from the context, we omit it in the expressions above. For example, we
write N [v] and N(v ) rather than NG [v] and NG (v ), respectively. A vertex v ∈ V (G) is an universal vertex if N [v] = V (G).
If X and Y are sets of vertices in G, then X dominates Y if Y ⊆ N [X ] and X totally dominates Y if Y ⊆ N(X ). In particular, if
X dominates V (G), then X is a dominating set in G, while if X totally dominates V (G), then X is a total dominating set in G.
The degree of a vertex v in G is dG (v ) = |NG (v )|. The minimum and maximum degree of a graph G are denoted by δ (G)
and ∆(G), respectively. For a set S ⊆ V (G), the subgraph induced by S is denoted by G[S ]. A leaf of G is a vertex of degree 1,
while a support vertex of G is a vertex adjacent to a leaf. We denote by L(G) and S(G) the set of leaves and support vertices in
G, respectively. An edge incident with a leaf is a pendant edge and the leaf is also called a pendant vertex.
Since γtR (G) is defined for graphs with no isolated vertices, if the contrary is not mentioned, we only consider graphs with
no isolated vertices as factors. With this consideration we can make the next observations.

Observation 1. γtR (G) = 2 if and only if G is K2 .

Observation 2. γtR (G) = 3 if and only if G is different from K2 and has a universal vertex.

Observation 3. Let G = (V (G), E(G)) and H = (V (H), E(H)) be graphs. If uu′ ∈ E(G), then (u, v )(u′ , v ′ ) ∈ E(G ◦ H) for every
v, v ′ ∈ V (H).
90 N. Campanelli and D. Kuziak / Discrete Applied Mathematics 263 (2019) 88–95

We first comment on some straightforward results concerning γtR (G ◦ H). For any two graphs G, H with γtR (G) = γtR (H) =
2 we have that G ∼ = H ∼= K2 and so, G ◦ H ∼ = K4 that gives γtR (G ◦ H) = 3. Now, let G be a graph different from K2 with
γtR (G) ≤ 3 and a universal vertex u. If H is a graph such that γtR (H) ≤ 3 with universal vertex v , then the vertex (u, v ) is
universal in G ◦ H and therefore γtR (G ◦ H) = 3. For example, γtR (Kn ◦ Km ) = 3. Also, if γtR (H) ≥ 4, then H has no universal
vertex and, we can relatively easily deduce γtR (G ◦ H) = 4.

2. Results

It is natural to think that the total Roman domination number of lexicographic product of graphs is related to the total
Roman domination numbers of its factors. However, throughout the whole work, we will observe that the relationships are
mainly with the first factor of the product, which very frequently occurs for this specific product. This is highly based on the
non commutativity property of the lexicographic product. Our first result gives the first hint in this concern.

Theorem 4. If G = (V , E) is a connected graph with a γtR (G)-function h = (V0 , V1 , V2 ), then for every graph H,
γtR (G) ≤ γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ γtR (G) + |V1 |.

Proof. Let V (G) = {u1 , u2 , . . . , un } and let H = (V (H), E(H)) be a graph with V (H) = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vm }. Let f = (V0 , V1 , V2 )
be a total Roman dominating function for G ◦ H. Let P : V (G) → {0, 1, 2} be the function projection of f onto G defined as
P(u) = max{f (u, vj ) : 1 ≤ j ≤ m}. Now we distinguish the following sets in G.
A1 = {u ∈ V (G) : P(u) = 1 and P(x) = 0 for all x ∈ N(u)}.
A′1 = {u ∈ V (G) : P(u) = 1 and there exists x ∈ N(u) with P(x) ≥ 1}.
A2 = {u ∈ V (G) : P(u) = 2 and P(x) = 0 for all x ∈ N(u)}.
A′2 = {u ∈ V (G) : P(u) = 2 and there exists x ∈ N(u) with P(x) ≥ 1}.
We will now form two extra sets C1 and C2 as follows. For each vertex ui ∈ A1 pick one vertex in N(ui ) which is neither in C1
nor in C2 (if such vertex exists) and add it to the set C1 . In a similar way, for each vertex uj ∈ A2 pick one vertex in N(uj ) which
is neither in C2 nor in C1 and add it to the set C2 (if such vertex exists). Notice that if there exists x ∈ V (G) such that P(x) = 0
and x ∈ N(A1 ) ∩ N(A2 ), then x could be in the set C1 or C2 . Moreover note that, if a vertex y in A1 (in A2 ) has not the required
neighbor to be added to C1 (to C2 ), then this means that all neighbors of y were already added to C1 or to C2 in connection
with other vertex y′ ̸ = y in A1 or in A2 . In such case, we do not add any vertex to C1 or C2 , since the total domination condition
for y in G is already satisfied. Hence, let q = (B0 , B1 , B2 ) be a function on V (G) where B2 = A2 ∪ A′2 , B1 = A1 ∪ A′1 ∪ C1 ∪ C2
and B0 = V (G) \ (B1 ∪ B2 ). It is readily seen that q is a total Roman dominating function. Now, if u ∈ A2 then, every vertex in
u′ ∈ N(u) satisfies P(u′ ) = 0. Thus, there must exist (u, vj ) ∈ {u} × V (H) such that f (u, vj ) ≥ 1 (in order to satisfy the total
domination condition for f in G ◦ H), and so f ({u} × V (H)) ≥ 3. On the other hand, as for each u ∈ A2 we have added at most
one extra vertex of N(u) to C2 , we obtain q(B2 ∪ C2 ) ≤ f (B2 × V (H)). Analogously, q(B1 \ C2 ) ≤ f ((B1 \ C2 ) × V (H)). Since
(B2 ∪ C2 ) ∩ (B1 \ C2 ) = ∅ and ((B2 ∪ C2 ) × V (H)) ∩ ((B1 \ C2 ) × V (H)) = ∅ we deduce,
γtR (G ◦ H) = f (V (G ◦ H))
≥ f ((B2 ∪ C2 ) × V (H)) + f ((B1 \ C2 ) × V (H))
≥ q(B2 ∪ C2 ) + q(B1 \ C2 )
= q(B2 ) + q(B1 )
≥ γtR (G).
So, γtR (G) ≤ γtR (G ◦ H) and the lower bound is proved.
On the other hand, let h = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) be a total Roman dominating function for G. Let h′ = (B0 , ∅, B2 ) where
B2 = {(ui , v1 ) : h(ui ) ≥ 1} and B0 = V (G ◦ H) \ B2 . Since h is a total Roman dominating function, for every vertex ui ∈ V (G)
there exists us ∈ V (G) such that ui us ∈ E(G) and h(us ) ≥ 1. So, every (ui , vj ) ∈ V (G ◦ H) is adjacent to (us , v1 ) and h′ (us , v1 ) = 2.
Since (ui , vj ) is arbitrarily taken, we note that the subgraph induced by B2 has no isolated vertices, which means h′ is a total
Roman dominating function for G ◦ H. Note that ω(h′ ) = 2|B2 | = 2|V2 | + 2|V1 | = (2|V2 | + |V1 |) + |V1 | = ω(h) + |V1 | and
therefore, γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ γtR (G) + |V1 |. □
We notice that these bounds are tight. For example, we get the equality in the lower bound for the case of Kn ◦ Kn ∼ = Kn 2 ,
with n ≥ 3, since γtR (Kn ) = γtR (Kn ◦ Kn ) = 3. The equality in the upper bound can be seen by taking G and H as the paths P5 and
P4 (see Fig. 1). In fact, let V (G) = {u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 , u5 } and let f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) be a γtR (G)-function where V1 is minimal. It is easy
to see that |V2 | = 2 and that |V1 | = 1, and so γtR (G) = 5. Now, let V (P4 ) = {v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 } and consider a γtR (P5 ◦ P4 )-function
f ′ = (V0′ , V1′ , V2′ ). We note that there must be one vertex (u, v ) ∈ {u1 , u2 } × V (P4 ) with f ′ (u, v ) = 2. Analogously, there
must exist a vertex (u′ , v ′ ) ∈ {u4 , u5 } × V (P4 ) with f ′ (u′ , v ′ ) = 2. If there is exactly one vertex (u, v ) ∈ {u1 , u2 } × V (P4 )
with f ′ (u, v ) ≥ 1 (in such case it must be f ′ (u, v ) = 2), then there are vertices in {u1 , u2 } × V (P4 ) which are not totally
dominated by V1′ ∪ V2′ , which is a contradiction. Thus, either there is another vertex (u′′ , v ′′ ) ∈ {u1 , u2 } × V (P4 ) such that
f ′ (u′′ , v ′′ ) ≥ 1, or there is a (u′′′ , v ′′′ ) ∈ {u3 }× V (P4 ) such that f ′ (u′′′ , v ′′′ ) = 2. As a consequence, either f ′ ({u1 , u2 }× V (P4 )) ≥ 3
or f ′ ({u1 , u2 , u3 } × V (P4 )) ≥ 4. Equivalently, either f ′ ({u4 , u5 } × V (P4 )) ≥ 3 or f ′ ({u3 , u4 , u5 } × V (P4 )) ≥ 4. Therefore,
γtR (P5 ◦ P4 ) ≥ 6. On the other hand, consider now the function s = (V0′′ , ∅, V2′′ ) where V2′′ = {(u2 , v1 ), (u3 , v1 ), (u4 , v1 )} and
 N. Campanelli and D. Kuziak / Discrete Applied Mathematics 263 (2019) 88–95 91

Fig. 1. A TRD-function for the graph P5 ◦ P4 where white vertices have value 2 and black vertices have value 0.

V0′′ = V (P5 ◦ P4 ) \ V2′′ . It is easy to see that s is a total Roman dominating function and so, γtR (P5 ◦ P4 ) = 6, which leads to
γtR (G) + |V1 | = 6 = γtR (P5 ◦ P4 ).
From Theorem 4, we moreover note that if |V1 | = 0 for some γtR (G)-function f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ), then we have the equality
γtR (G ◦ H) = γtR (G). One could think that probably, the equality in the lower bound would lead to the existence of a γtR (G)-
function g = (V0′ , V1′ , V2′ ) such that |V1′ | = 0. However, this is not true. To see this, consider for instance the graph Kn ◦ Km ,
n ≥ 3, for which γtR (Kn ) = γtR (Kn ◦ Km ) = 3 and any γtR (Kn )-function h = (V0′′ , V1′′ , V2′′ ) satisfies |V1′′ | = 1.
On the other hand, one could also think that if γtR (G ◦ H) ̸ = γtR (G), then probably γtR (G ◦ H) = γtR (G) + |V1 | for any γtR (G)-
function f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ). However, this is again far from the truth and there are several situations which are producing
differences between γtR (G ◦ H) and γtR (G) + |V1 |. The first situation occurs whether the considered function f is not of the
minimum possible cardinality for the set V1 . For instance, consider a graph G obtained from a star Sn of order n + 1, by
subdividing once all its edges and then by adding three pendant vertices to each leaf of the subdivided star. We can notice
that such G has a γtR (G)-function f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) where V0 is formed by the leaves of G, V2 by the support vertices and V1
by the remaining vertices. Thus, γtR (G) = 3n + 1 and |V1 | = n + 1. In order to simplify the computation, we consider for
instance the graph G ◦ K2 . For such case it follows γtR (G ◦ K2 ) ≤ 4n < 3n + 1 + n + 1 = γtR (G) + |V1 |. Note that, if {u, v} is the
vertex set of K2 and x is the central vertex of G (that one corresponding to the central vertex of the original star Sn ), then the
function g = (V (G ◦ K2 ) − ((V1 ∪ V2 ) − {x}) × {u}, ∅, ((V1 ∪ V2 ) − {x}) × {u}) is a total Roman dominating function of weight
4n on G ◦ K2 . Notwithstanding, for this specific graph G, there is another γtR (G)-function f ′ = (V0′ , V1′ , V2′ ) where |V1′ | = n − 1
(we just need to redefine f by making the central vertex of G to have label zero and one of its neighbors label two), which
will possibly give an equality in our bound.
According to these facts, one now could think that the requirement of having a γtR (G)-function f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) for
which |V1 | is minimum would produce equality in our considered bound. Nevertheless, this is again not true. For instance,
consider the graph K2 in which the only γtR (K2 )-function is (∅, V (K2 ), ∅). If we consider the graph K2 ◦ K3 , then we have
that γtR (K2 ◦ K3 ) = γtR (K6 ) = 3 < 2 + 2 = γtR (K2 ) + |V1 |. Clearly, such example is rather specific. But, as we next
show, there are other more complicated cases where γtR (G ◦ H) < γtR (G) + |V1 |. In fact, we next prove that the difference
γtR (G) + |V1 | − γtR (G ◦ H) can be as large as possible. This is presented in the following remark.

Remark 1. For any positive integer q, there exist a graph G with a γtR (G)-function f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) such that |V1 | is minimum,
and a graph H such that γtR (G) + |V1 | − γtR (G ◦ H) ≥ q.

Proof. Let Gt be the graph constructed as follows. Gt is obtained from a star St with central vertex v by subdividing t − 1 edges
twice and subdividing the remaining edge exactly once (we must mention that this family of graphs was already used in [2],
although for another different purpose). See Fig. 2 for the example G4 . Let S, L, and A be the support vertices, the leaves, and
the neighbors of v corresponding to the edges which were subdivided twice, respectively. Also, let v ′ and v ′′ be the remaining
support and leaf of Gt , respectively. In [2] was already noted γtR (Gt ) ≤ 2t + 2. In order to see that also γtR (Gt ) ≥ 2t + 2,
we observe that any leaf in L must be totally dominated by the vertices labeled with 1 or 2 in any total Roman domination
function. This gives γtR (Gt ) ≥ 2t − 2. Similarly, the vertex v ′′ must be totally dominated, which now makes γtR (Gt ) ≥ 2t.
If γtR (Gt ) = 2t or γtR (Gt ) = 2t + 1, then one can easily find a contradiction while trying to label the vertices of Gt with a
function of weight 2t or 2t + 1. Thus, γtR (Gt ) ≥ 2t + 2 which leads to the equality γtR (Gt ) = 2t + 2. On the other hand, and
according to these facts already described, we observe that any γtR (Gt )-function f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) such that |V1 | is minimum
satisfies V0 = A ∪ {v ′′ }, V1 = S ∪ L and V2 = {v, v ′ }.
Now, we consider the graph Gt ◦ Kn for some n ≥ 2. Let V (Kn ) = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vn } and let f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) be a γtR (Gt )-
function f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) such that |V1 | is minimum.
Hence, let g = (V0′ , V1′ , V2′ ) be a function on Gt ◦ Kn defined as follows: V2′ = (S ∪ V2 ) × {v1 }, V1′ = L × {v1 } and
V0′ = V (Gt ◦ Kn ) − (V2′ ∪ V1′ ). Since v1 is adjacent to any other vertex of Kn , we can easily see that g is a total Roman
92 N. Campanelli and D. Kuziak / Discrete Applied Mathematics 263 (2019) 88–95

Fig. 2. The graph G4 with a labeling for a γtR (G4 )-function f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) such that |V1 | is minimum.

dominating function on Gt ◦ Kn . Thus γtR (Gt ◦ Kn ) ≤ 3t + 1 while γtR (G) + |V1 | = 2t + 2 + 2t − 2 = 4t. Thus,
γtR (G) + |V1 | − γtR (G ◦ H) ≥ 4t − 3t − 1 = t − 1 which can be as large as possible. □
Once presented the main general bounds for γtR (G◦H) and made a discussion on the tightness of it, we center our attention
into studying other possible situations which lead to general bounds concerning other parameters, and some particular cases
of lexicographic product graphs. For instance, a direct consequence of Theorem 4 is the next Vizing’s-like result.

Corollary 5. If G and H are nontrivial connected graphs, then γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ γtR (G)γtR (H).

Proof. By Theorem 4 we have that γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ γtR (G) + |V1 | for every total Roman dominating function f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ).
Since |V1 | ≤ γtR (G), it follows γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ γtR (G) + |V1 | ≤ γtR (G) + γtR (G) = 2γtR (G) ≤ γtR (G)γtR (H) since γtR (H) ≥ 2 for any
graph H. □
It is natural to think that total Roman domination and total domination are related for the lexicographic product of graph.
At next we give a total domination related bound.

Proposition 6. If H is a graph and G is a graph without isolated vertices, then γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ 2γt (G).

Proof. Let H = (V (H), E(H)) be a graph with V (H) = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vm }. Let G = (V (G), E(G)) be a graph with no isolated
vertices, and V (G) = {u1 , u2 , . . . , un }. Let S ⊂ V (G) be a total dominating set in G. So, for every ui ∈ V (G) there exists
us ∈ S such that ui us ∈ E(G). Now, consider the function f = (V0 , ∅, V2 ) where V2 = {(ui , v1 ) ∈ V (G ◦ H) : ui ∈ S } and
V0 = V (G ◦ H) \ V2 . Note that for every vertex (ui , vj ) ∈ V (G ◦ H), there exists a vertex us ∈ S such that ui us ∈ E(G) and by
Observation 3, (ui , vj )(us , v1 ) ∈ E(G ◦ H). Thus, (ui , vj ) is adjacent to (us , v1 ) ∈ V2 and since (ui , vj ) is arbitrarily taken, there
are no isolated vertices in V2 . Therefore, f is a total Roman dominating function for G ◦ H and the theorem follows. □
Since for any graph G, it is well known that γt (G) ≤ 2γ (G) (see [14,16]), the next consequence is obtained from the result
above.

Corollary 7. If H is a graph and G is a graph without isolated vertices, then γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ 4γ (G).
The result above can be improved for several cases as we next show.

Proposition 8. If H is a graph with γtR (H) ≤ 3 and G is a graph without isolated vertices, then γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ 3γ (G).

Proof. Let S be a γ (G)-set. Let V (H) = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vm } and assume that γtR (H) ≤ 3. By Observations 1 and 2, H has a universal
vertex, say v1 . Let f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) be a function on G ◦ H where V2 = S × {v1 }, V1 = S × {v2 } and V0 = V (G ◦ H) \ (V1 ∪ V2 ).
It is easy to see that f is a total Roman dominating function for G ◦ H and so, γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ 3γ (G). □
We next center our attention into finding some families of graphs for which the bounds given in Propositions 6 and 8 are
achieved. To this end, we need some terminology and notation, and some basic lemmas. A graph G is called an efficient closed
domination graph, or ECD graph for short, if there exists a set P, P ⊆ V (G), such that the closed neighborhoods centered at
vertices of P partition V (G), which means that NG [u] ∩ NG [v] = ∅ for every different u, v ∈ P. Such a set P is called an efficient
closed dominating set (ECD set) of G (in some literature such set is also called as a perfect code of G). The study of ECD sets
in graphs was initiated by Biggs [3]. Also, a graph G is called an efficient open domination graph, or an EOD graph for short,
if there exists a set D, D ⊆ V (G), such that open neighborhoods centered at vertices of D partition V (G), which means that
NG (u) ∩ NG (v ) = ∅ for every different u, v ∈ D. Such a set D is called an EOD set. EOD sets have been presented under the
names: total perfect codes [7], efficient open domination [11] and exact transversals [9]. See Fig. 3 for the example of some
ECD and EOD sets.
It is well known from several references (for instance these ones cited before) that if G is an ECD graph, then for every
ECD set D, γ (G) = |D|. Similarly, if G is an EOD graph, then for every EOD set D, γt (G) = |D|, and every EOD set D partition
V (G) into |D|/2 sets. Moreover, notice that every EOD set has even cardinality and the subgraph of G induced by the EOD set
is the union of K2 . On the contrary, let D be an EOD set of G. Hence, there exists x ∈ D such that NG (x) ∩ D ≥ 2 and the open
neighborhoods centered at vertices of D do not partition V (G). We next particularise Propositions 6 and 8 whether G is an
ECD graph or an EOD graph with some extra conditions.
 N. Campanelli and D. Kuziak / Discrete Applied Mathematics 263 (2019) 88–95 93

Fig. 3. The ECD set of G = P5 □P2 is given by the white vertices (on the left) and the EOD set of the same graph is given by the white vertices (on the right).

Proposition 9. If H is a graph and G is an EOD graph in which every γt (G)-set is an EOD set, then γtR (G ◦ H) = 2γt (G).

Proof. Since every γt (G)-set is an EOD set, any γt (G)-set D = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vr } (notice that r must be an even number) partition
V (G) into r /2 sets A1 , A2 , . . . , Ar /2 such that for every i ∈ {1, . . . , r /2} and every vertex x ∈ Ai , x is adjacent to exactly one
vertex of D which is precisely in Ai (including the vertices of D). We assume that v1 , v2 ∈ A1 , v3 , v4 ∈ A2 and so on. Also,
the subgraph induced by D is isomorphic to the union of r /2 graphs K2 . Now, we form the partition of V (G ◦ H) into r /2
sets A1 × V (H), A2 × V (H), . . . , Ar /2 × V (H). Let f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) be a γtR (G ◦ H)-function. Since the vertices of D ∩ Ai are
only dominated by vertices in Ai , and every vertex of Ai is adjacent either to v2i−1 or to v2i , in order to totally dominate every
vertex of Ai × V (H), there must exist two vertices (u1 , v1 ), (u2 , v2 ) ∈ Ai × V (H) such that f (u1 , v1 ) = f (u2 , v2 ) = 2. Thus,
f (Ai × V (H)) ≥ 4 and
r /2
∑
γtR (G ◦ H) = w(f ) = f (Ai × V (H)) ≥ 2r = 2γt (G).
i=1

Therefore, by using Proposition 6, we obtain the desired equality. □

Examples of EOD graph in which every γt (G)-set is an EOD set are for instance path graphs P4k and cycles C4k for some
integer k ≥ 1. Also, double stars satisfy such requirements.

Proposition 10. If H is a graph with γtR (H) ≤ 3 and G is an ECD graph in which every γ (G)-set is an ECD set, then
γtR (G ◦ H) = 3γ (G)

Proof. The procedure is very similar to the proof of Proposition 9. However, we include it by the completeness of the work.
Since every γ (G)-set is an ECD set, any γ (G)-set D = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vr } partition V (G) into r sets A1 , A2 , . . . , Ar such that for
every i ∈ {1, . . . , r } and every vertex x ∈ Ai , x is adjacent to exactly one vertex of D. Assume vi ∈ Ai for every i ∈ {1, . . . , r }.
We form a partition of V (G ◦ H) into r sets Ai × V (H). Again let f = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) be a γtR (G ◦ H)-function. Since the vertex
vi ∈ D ∩ Ai is only dominated by vertices in Ai , in order to totally dominate every vertex of Ai × V (H), there must exist two
vertices (u1 , v1 ), (u2 , v2 ) ∈ Ai × V (H) such that f (u1 , v1 ) ≥ 1 and f (u2 , v2 ) = 2. Thus, f (Ai × V (H)) ≥ 3 and
r
∑
γtR (G ◦ H) = w(f ) = f (Ai × V (H)) ≥ 3r = 3γ (G).
i=1

Therefore, by using Proposition 8, we obtain the desired equality. □

Examples of ECD graphs in which every γ (G)-set is an ECD set are for instance path graphs P3k and cycles C3k for some
integer k ≥ 1. Also, the hypercube Q3 and the double stars in which the edge joining the centers is subdivided twice satisfy
such requirements.
We now continue our exposition with some bounds for γtR (G ◦ H) whether G and/or H are given by specific families of
graphs.

Theorem 11. If H is a graph and G is a path or a cycle of order n, then

n, if n ≡ 0 (mod 4),
{
n ≤ γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ n + 1, if n ≡ 1, 3 (mod 4),
n + 2, if n ≡ 2 (mod 4).

Proof. Let V (H) = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vm } and let G be a path or a cycle of order n with V (G) = {u1 , u2 , . . . , un } and E(G) = {ui ui+1 :
1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1} if G is a path and E(G) = {ui ui+1 : 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1} ∪ {u1 un } if G is a cycle. In [2] (Proposition 12), the authors
show that if G is a path or a cycle with n ≥ 2 vertices, then γtR (G) = n and so, by Theorem 4 we have that n ≤ γtR (G ◦ H). For
the upper bounds, we shall give the proof by considering four cases.
Case 1: n ≡ 0 (mod 4). In this case, G is an EOD graph in which every γt (G)-set is an EOD set and 3γ (G) = 3 ⌈n/3⌉ ≥ n =
2γt (G). Thus, by Proposition 9 we have γtR (G ◦ H) = 2γt (G) = n.
Case 2: n ≡ 1 (mod 4). Consider the function f1 = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) where V2 = {(ui , v1 ) : i = 2 + 4k or i = 3 + 4k, 0 ≤ k <
n−1
4
} ∪ {(un−1 , v1 )}, V1 = ∅ and V0 = V (G ◦ H) \ V2 . Note that each vertex (ui , vj ) where i = 1 + 4k, 3 + 4k is adjacent to a
vertex (u2+4k , v1 ) ∈ V2 and each vertex (ui , vj ) with i = 4 + 4k, 2 + 4k is adjacent to a vertex (u3+4k , v1 ) ∈ V2 . Moreover, since
94 N. Campanelli and D. Kuziak / Discrete Applied Mathematics 263 (2019) 88–95

each vertex (un , vj ) , 1 ≤ j ≤ m is adjacent to the vertex (un−1 , v1 ) ∈ V2 , we conclude that f1 is a total Roman dominating
function and therefore, γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ w (f1 ) = n + 1.
Case 3: n ≡ 2 (mod 4). Consider the function f2 = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) where V2 = {(ui , v1 ) : i = 2 + 4k or i = 3 + 4k, 0 ≤ k <
n−2
4
} ∪ {(un−2 , v1 ), (un−1 , v1 )}, V1 = ∅ and V0 = V (G ◦ H) \ V2 . Similarly to Case 2, f2 is a total Roman dominating function
and therefore, γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ w (f2 ) = n + 2.
Case 4: n ≡ 3 (mod 4). In this case, the same structure as that of function f2 in Case 3 works as a total Roman dominating
function of G ◦ H. Thus, γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ n + 1. □

Notice that, if we use Proposition 10 in the result above, we can deduce some equalities for some cases. That is, if
n ≡ 0 (mod 3), then Pn and Cn are ECD graphs G in which every γ (G)-set is an ECD set and 2γt (G) ≥ 3γ (G). Thus,
γtR (G ◦ H) = 3γ (G) = n. This case is interesting for instance, if n ≡ 0 (mod 3) and n ̸≡ 0 (mod 4), where the bound
above gives n + 1 or n + 2.
For our next result we need the following definition. A graph G is said to be traceable if G contains a Hamiltonian path,
i.e., a path (not necessarily induced) that visits every vertex of G exactly once.

Proposition 12. Let H be a graph with γtR (H) ≤ 3. If G is a traceable graph of order n ≥ 3, then γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ n.

Proof. Let u1 , u2 , . . . , un be a Hamiltonian path and let V (H) = {v1 , v2 , . . . , vm }. Clearly, since γtR (H) ≤ 3, H must have a
universal vertex, say v1 . We consider the next cases.
Case 1: n ≡ 0 (mod 3). Consider the function f0 = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) where V2 = {(u2+3k , v1 ) : 0 ≤ k ≤ n− 3
3
},
V1 = {(u2+3k , v2 ) : 0 ≤ k ≤ 3 } and V0 = V \ (V1 ∪ V2 ). Note that every vertex (ui+3k , vj ), i = 1, 2, 3, k = 0, 1, . . . , 3
n−3 n−3

is adjacent to a vertex (u2+3k , v1 ) ∈ V2 . Since (u2+3k , v2 )(u2+3k , v1 ) ∈ E(G ◦ H) for every 0 ≤ k ≤ n− 3

3
, f0 is a total Roman
dominating function for G ◦ H. Therefore, γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ ω(f ) = 2|V2 | + |V1 | = 2 3n + 3n = n.
Case 2: n ≡ 1 (mod 3). Consider the function f1 = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) where V2 = {(u2+3k , v1 ) : 0 ≤ k ≤ n− 3
4
} ∪ {(un−1 , v1 )},
V1 = {(u2+3k , v2 ) : 0 ≤ k ≤ 3 } and V0 = \(V1 ∪ V2 ). Note that every vertex (ui+3k , vj ), i = 1, 2, 3 is adjacent to a vertex
n−7

(u2+3k , v1 ) ∈ V2 and every vertex (un , vj ) is adjacent to the vertex (un−1 , vj ) ∈ V2 . Also, since (un−1 , v1 )(un−2 , v1 ) ∈ E(G ◦ H)
and for every 0 ≤ k ≤ n− 3
7
, (u2+3k , v2 )(u2+3k , v1 ) ∈ E(G ◦ H), it follows that f1 is a total Roman dominating function for G ◦ H.
Thus, γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ ω(f ) = 2|V2 | + |V1 | = 2( n− 3
4
+ 2) + ( n−3 7 + 1) = n.
Case 3: n ≡ 2 (mod 3). Consider the function f2 = (V0 , V1 , V2 ) where V2 = {(u2+3k , v1 ) : 0 ≤ k ≤ n− 3
5
} ∪ {(un−1 , v1 )},
V1 = {(u2+3k , v2 ) : 0 ≤ k ≤ 3 } ∪ {(un−2 , v1 )} and V0 = V \ (V1 ∪ V2 ). Similarly, f2 is a total Roman dominating function for
n−8

G ◦ H. Thus, γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ ω(f ) = 2|V2 | + |V1 | = 2( n− 3

5
+ 2) + ( n−3 8 + 2) = n. □
We close our exposition with a formula which is obtained as a consequence of some previous results.

Corollary 13. If H is a graph with γtR (H) ≤ 3 and G is a path or a cycle on n ≥ 3 vertices, then γtR (G ◦ H) = n.

Proof. In [2] (Proposition 12), the authors showed that if G is a path or a cycle, then γtR (G) = n. Since γtR (G) ≤ γtR (G ◦ H) (
Theorem 4), n ≤ γtR (G ◦ H). On the other hand, since path and cycles are traceable, by Proposition Proposition 12 we have
that γtR (G ◦ H) ≤ n, and therefore the proof is complete. □

3. Concluding remarks

The total Roman domination number γtR (G ◦ H) of lexicographic product graphs is studied in this work. We have first
given general lower and upper bounds (Theorem 4) for γtR (G ◦ H) in terms of γtR (G) as the main results of the article. We
have further discussed several situations concerning the tightness of these bounds. We have next presented some secondary
general bounds (Propositions 6 and 8) for γtR (G ◦ H) in terms of other related parameters (domination number and total
domination number) in order to give more insight into the problem of computing γtR (G ◦ H). The tightness of such bounds
were then dealt with throughout introducing the concept of EOD graphs and ECD graphs. Finally, we ended the article with
studying γtR (G ◦ H) for some specific graphs classes, like for instance paths and cycles. As a conclusion, we have observed
that in most cases, the bounds and formulas for γtR (G ◦ H) depend only on the structure of G, which is not that surprising
since it very frequently occurs in graph theory parameters studied on lexicographic product graphs. The results obtained
also show that the value of γtR (G ◦ H) can be computed for large families of graphs, contributing to some open problems
already described in [2].

References

[1] H. Abdollahzadeh Ahangar, M.A. Henning, C. Löwenstein, Y. Zhao, V. Samodivkin, Signed Roman domination in graphs, J. Comb. Optim. 27 (2) (2014)
241–255.
[2] H. Abdollahzadeh Ahangar, M.A. Henning, V. Samodivkin, I.G. Yero, Total Roman domination in graphs, Appl. Anal. Discrete Math. 10 (2016) 501–517.
[3] N. Biggs, Perfect codes in graphs, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 15 (3) (1973) 289–296. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0095895673
900427.
 N. Campanelli and D. Kuziak / Discrete Applied Mathematics 263 (2019) 88–95 95

[4] B. Brešar, P. Dorbec, W. Goddard, B.L. Hartnell, M.A. Henning, S. Klavžar, D.F. Rall, Vizing’s conjecture: A survey and recent results, J. Graph Theory
69 (1) (2012) 46–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgt.20565.
[5] B. Brešar, T.R. Hartinger, T. Kos, M. Milanič, On total domination in the Cartesian product of graphs, (2016) arXiv preprint. arXiv:1607.01909.
[6] E.W. Chambers, B. Kinnersley, N. Prince, D.B. West, Extremal problems for Roman domination, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 23 (3) (2009) 1575–1586.
[7] E. Cockayne, B. Hartnell, S. Hedetniemi, R. Laskar, Perfect domination in graphs, J. Comb. Inf. Syst. Sci. 18 (1993) 136–148.
[8] E.J. Cockayne, P.A. Dreyer Jr., S.M. Hedetniemi, S.T. Hedetniemi, Roman domination in graphs, Discrete Math. 278 (1–3) (2004) 11–22. URL http:
//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012365X03004473.
[9] R. Cowen, S.H. Hechler, J.W. Kennedy, A. Steinberg, Odd neighborhood transversals on grid graphs, Discrete Math. 307 (17–18) (2007) 2200–2208.
[10] O. Favaron, H. Karami, R. Khoeilar, S.M. Sheikholeslami, On the Roman domination number of a graph, Discrete Math. 309 (10) (2009) 3447–3451.
[11] H. Gavlas, K. Schultz, Efficient open domination, Electron. Notes Discrete Math. 11 (2002) 681–691.
[12] T. Haynes, S. Hedetniemi, P. Slater, Domination in Graphs: Volume 2: Advanced Topics, Chapman & Hall/CRC Pure and Applied Mathematics, Taylor &
Francis, 1998. URL http://books.google.es/books?id=iBFrQgAACAAJ.
[13] T.W. Haynes, S.T. Hedetniemi, P.J. Slater, Fundamentals of Domination in Graphs, Chapman and Hall/CRC Pure and Applied Mathematics Series, Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York, 1998. URL http://books.google.es/books?id=Bp9fot_HyL8C.
[14] M.A. Henning, A survey of selected recent results on total domination in graphs, Discrete Math. 309 (1) (2009) 32–63. URL http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0012365X07010400.
[15] M.A. Henning, D.F. Rall, On the total domination number of Cartesian products of graphs, Graphs Combin. 21 (1) (2005) 63–69.
[16] M.A. Henning, A. Yeo, Total domination in graphs, in: Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2013.
[17] M.S. Jacobson, L.F. Kinch, On the domination of the products of graphs ii: Trees, J. Graph Theory 10 (1) (1986) 97–106.
[18] D. Kuziak, I. Peterin, I.G. Yero, Efficient open domination in graph products, Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci. 16 (1) (2014) 105–120. URL http:
//www.dmtcs.org/dmtcs-ojs/index.php/dmtcs/article/view/2514/4390.
[19] C.-H. Liu, G.J. Chang, Roman domination on 2-connected graphs, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 26 (1) (2012) 193–205.
[20] C.-H. Liu, G.J. Chang, Upper bounds on Roman domination numbers of graphs, Discrete Math. 312 (7) (2012) 1386–1391.
[21] C.-H. Liu, G.J. Chang, Roman domination on strongly chordal graphs, J. Comb. Optim. 26 (3) (2013) 608–619.
[22] R.J. Nowakowski, D.F. Rall, Associative graph products and their independence, domination and coloring numbers, Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 16
(1996) 53–79.
[23] P. Pavlič, J. Žerovnik, Roman domination number of the Cartesian products of paths and cycles, Electron. J. Comb. 19 (3) (2012) 19.
[24] N.J. Rad, L. Volkmann, Changing and unchanging the Roman domination number of a graph, Util. Math. 89 (2012) 79–95.
[25] C.S. ReVelle, K.E. Rosing, Defendens imperium romanum: A classical problem in military strategy, Amer. Math. Monthly 107 (7) (2000) 585–594.
[26] I. Stewart, Defend the Roman Empire!, Sci. Am. 281 (6) (1999) 136–138. URL http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v281/n6/pdf/
scientificamerican1299-136.pdf.
[27] T.K. Šumenjak, P. Pavlič, A. Tepeh, On the Roman domination in the lexicographic product of graphs, Discrete Appl. Math. 160 (13–14) (2012) 2030–
2036. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2012.04.008.
[28] Y. Wu, An improvement on Vizing’s conjecture, Inform. Process. Lett. 113 (3) (2013) 87–88.
[29] I.G. Yero, On Clark and Suen bound-type results for k-domination and Roman domination of Cartesian product graphs, Int. J. Comput. Math. 90 (3)
(2013) 522–526.
[30] I.G. Yero, J.A. Rodríguez-Velázquez, Roman domination in Cartesian product graphs and strong product graphs, Appl. Anal. Discrete Math. 7 (2013)
262–274. URL http://pefmath.etf.rs/vol7num2/AADM-Vol7-No2-262-274.pdf.