Next Article in Journal
Stability of Maximum Functional Equation and Some Properties of Groups
Next Article in Special Issue
Cryptanalysis of a Group Key Establishment Protocol
Previous Article in Journal
Blockchain-Based Diversion-Point System for Balancing Customer Flow in Shopping Mall
Previous Article in Special Issue
Total Domination in Rooted Product Graphs

Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

# Secure w-Domination in Graphs

by
Abel Cabrera Martínez
,
* and
Juan A. Rodríguez-Velázquez
Departament d’Enginyeria Informàtica i Matemàtiques, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Av. Països Catalans 26, 43007 Tarragona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Symmetry 2020, 12(12), 1948; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12121948
Submission received: 31 October 2020 / Revised: 19 November 2020 / Accepted: 23 November 2020 / Published: 25 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Theoretical Computer Science and Discrete Mathematics)

## Abstract

:
This paper introduces a general approach to the idea of protection of graphs, which encompasses the known variants of secure domination and introduces new ones. Specifically, we introduce the study of secure w-domination in graphs, where $w = ( w 0 , w 1 , … , w l )$ is a vector of nonnegative integers such that $w 0 ≥ 1$. The secure w-domination number is defined as follows. Let G be a graph and $N ( v )$ the open neighborhood of $v ∈ V ( G )$. We say that a function $f : V ( G ) ⟶ { 0 , 1 , … , l }$ is a w-dominating function if $f ( N ( v ) ) = ∑ u ∈ N ( v ) f ( u ) ≥ w i$ for every vertex v with $f ( v ) = i$. The weight of f is defined to be $ω ( f ) = ∑ v ∈ V ( G ) f ( v )$. Given a w-dominating function f and any pair of adjacent vertices $v , u ∈ V ( G )$ with $f ( v ) = 0$ and $f ( u ) > 0$, the function $f u → v$ is defined by $f u → v ( v ) = 1$, $f u → v ( u ) = f ( u ) − 1$ and $f u → v ( x ) = f ( x )$ for every $x ∈ V ( G ) \ { u , v }$. We say that a w-dominating function f is a secure w-dominating function if for every v with $f ( v ) = 0$, there exists $u ∈ N ( v )$ such that $f ( u ) > 0$ and $f u → v$ is a w-dominating function as well. The secure w-domination number of G, denoted by $γ w s ( G )$, is the minimum weight among all secure w-dominating functions. This paper provides fundamental results on $γ w s ( G )$ and raises the challenge of conducting a detailed study of the topic.

## 1. Introduction

Let $Z + = { 1 , 2 , 3 , … }$ and $N = Z + ∪ { 0 }$ be the sets of positive and nonnegative integers, respectively. Let G be a graph, $l ∈ Z +$ and $f : V ( G ) ⟶ { 0 , … , l }$ a function. Let $V i = { v ∈ V ( G ) : f ( v ) = i }$ for every $i ∈ { 0 , … , l }$. We identify f with the subsets $V 0 , … , V l$ associated with it, and thus we use the unified notation $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ for the function and these associated subsets. The weight of f is defined to be
$ω ( f ) = f ( V ( G ) ) = ∑ i = 1 l i | V i | .$
Let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $w 0 ≥ 1$. As defined in [1], a function $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ is a w-dominating function if $f ( N ( v ) ) ≥ w i$ for every $v ∈ V i$. The w-domination number of G, denoted by $γ w ( G )$, is the minimum weight among all w-dominating functions. For simplicity, a w-dominating function f of weight $ω ( f ) = γ w ( G )$ is called a $γ w ( G )$-function. For fundamental results on the w-domination number of a graph, we refer the interested readers to the paper by Cabrera et al. [1], where the theory of w-domination in graphs is introduced.
The definition of w-domination number encompasses the definition of several well-known domination parameters and introduces new ones. For instance, we highlight the following particular cases of known domination parameters that we define here in terms of w-domination: the domination number $γ ( G ) = γ ( 1 , 0 ) ( G ) = γ ( 1 , 0 , … , 0 ) ( G )$, the total domination number $γ t ( G ) = γ ( 1 , 1 ) ( G ) = γ ( 1 , … , 1 ) ( G )$, the k-domination number $γ k ( G ) = γ ( k , 0 ) ( G )$, the k-tuple domination number $γ × k ( G ) = γ ( k , k − 1 ) ( G )$, the k-tuple total domination number $γ × k , t ( G ) = γ ( k , k ) ( G )$, the Italian domination number $γ I ( G ) = γ ( 2 , 0 , 0 ) ( G )$, the total Italian domination number $γ t I ( G ) = γ ( 2 , 1 , 1 ) ( G )$, and the ${ k }$-domination number $γ { k } ( G ) = γ ( k , k − 1 , … , 0 ) ( G )$. In these definitions, the appropriate restrictions on the minimum degree of G are assumed, when needed.
For any function $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ and any pair of adjacent vertices $v ∈ V 0$ and $u ∈ V ( G ) \ V 0$, the function $f u → v$ is defined by $f u → v ( v ) = 1$, $f u → v ( u ) = f ( u ) − 1$ and $f u → v ( x ) = f ( x )$ whenever $x ∈ V ( G ) \ { u , v }$.
We say that a w-dominating function $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ is a securew-dominating function if for every $v ∈ V 0$ there exists $u ∈ N ( v ) \ V 0$ such that $f u → v$ is a w-dominating function as well. The securew-domination number of G, denoted by $γ w s ( G )$, is the minimum weight among all secure w-dominating functions. For simplicity, a secure w-dominating function f of weight $ω ( f ) = γ w s ( G )$ is called a $γ w s ( G )$-function. This approach to the theory of secure domination covers the different versions of secure domination known so far. For instance, we emphasize the following cases of known parameters that we define here in terms of secure w-domination.
• The secure domination number of G is defined to be $γ s ( G ) = γ ( 1 , 0 ) s ( G )$. In this case, for any secure $( 1 , 0 )$-dominating function $f ( V 0 , V 1 )$, the set $V 1$ is known as a secure dominating set. This concept was introduced by Cockayne et al. [2] and studied further in several papers (e.g., [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
• The secure total domination number of a graph G of minimum degree at least one is defined to be $γ s t ( G ) = γ ( 1 , 1 ) s ( G )$. In this case, for any secure $( 1 , 1 )$-dominating function $f ( V 0 , V 1 )$, the set $V 1$ is known as a secure total dominating set of G. This concept was introduced by Benecke et al. [10] and studied further in several papers (e.g., [7,11,12,13,14]).
• The weak Roman domination number of a graph G is defined to be $γ r ( G ) = γ ( 1 , 0 , 0 ) s ( G )$. This concept was introduced by Henning and Hedetniemi [15] and studied further in several papers (e.g., [5,6,16,17]).
• The total weak Roman domination number of a graph G of minimum degree at least one is defined to be $γ t r ( G ) = γ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) s ( G )$. This concept was introduced by Cabrera et al. in [12] and studied further in [18].
• The secure Italian domination number of G is defined to be $γ I s ( G ) = γ ( 2 , 0 , 0 ) s ( G )$. This parameter was introduced by Dettlaff et al. [19].
For the graphs shown in Figure 1, we have the following:
• $γ ( 1 , 1 ) s ( G 2 ) = γ ( 1 , 1 , 0 ) s ( G 2 ) = γ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) s ( G 2 ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 0 ) ( G 2 ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 1 ) ( G 2 ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) ( G 2 ) = 3 .$
• $γ ( 1 , 1 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 1 , 1 , 0 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 2 , 1 , 0 ) ( G 3 ) = γ ( 3 , 0 , 0 ) ( G 3 ) = 3 < 4 = γ ( 2 , 0 , 0 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 2 , 1 , 0 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 3 , 1 , 0 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 0 ) ( G 3 ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 1 ) ( G 3 ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) ( G 3 ) = γ ( 3 , 2 , 0 ) ( G 3 ) < 5 = γ ( 2 , 2 , 0 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 3 , 2 , 0 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 1 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 3 , 1 , 1 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 3 , 2 , 1 ) s ( G 3 ) = γ ( 3 , 2 , 1 ) ( G 3 ) = γ ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) ( G 3 ) < 6 = γ ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) s ( G 3 ) .$
This paper is devoted to providing general results on secure w-domination. We assume that the reader is familiar with the basic concepts, notation, and terminology of domination in graph. If this is not the case, we suggest the textbooks [20,21]. For the remainder of the paper, definitions are introduced whenever a concept is needed.

## 2. General Results on Secure $w$-Domination

Given a w-dominating function $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$, we introduce the following notation.
• Given $v ∈ V 0$, we define $M f ( v ) = { u ∈ V ( G ) \ V 0 : f u → v as a w - dominating function }$.
• $M f ( G ) = ⋃ v ∈ V 0 M f ( v )$.
• Given $u ∈ M f ( G )$, we define $D f ( u ) = { v ∈ V 0 : u ∈ M f ( v ) }$.
• Given $u ∈ M f ( G )$, we define $T f ( u ) = { v ∈ V 0 : u ∈ M f ( v ) and f ( N ( v ) ) = w 0 }$.
Obviously, if f is a secure w-dominating function, then $M f ( v ) ≠ ⌀$ for every $v ∈ V 0$.
Lemma 1.
Let f be a secure w-dominating function on a graph G, and let $u ∈ M f ( G )$. If $T f ( u ) ≠ ⌀$, then each vertex belonging to $T f ( u )$ is adjacent to every vertex in $D f ( u )$ and, in particular, $G [ T f ( u ) ]$ is a clique.
Proof.
Since $T f ( u ) ⊆ D f ( u )$, we only need to suppose the existence of two non-adjacent vertices $v ∈ T f ( u )$ and $v ′ ∈ D f ( u )$ with $v ≠ v ′$. In such a case, $f u → v ′ ( N ( v ) ) < w 0$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, the result follows. □
Remark 1
([1]). Let G be a graph of minimum degree δ and let $w = ( w 0 , w 1 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$. If $w 0 ≥ w 1 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$, then there exists a w-dominating function on G if and only if $w l ≤ l δ .$
Throughout this section, we repeatedly apply, without explicit mention, the following necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a secure w-dominating function on G.
Remark 2.
Let G be a graph of minimum degree δ and let $w = ( w 0 , w 1 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$. If $w 0 ≥ w 1 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$, then there exists a secure w-dominating function on G if and only if $w l ≤ l δ .$
Proof.
If f is a secure w-dominating function on G, then f is a w-dominating function, and by Remark 1 we conclude that $w l ≤ l δ .$
Conversely, if $w l ≤ l δ$, then the function f, defined by $f ( v ) = l$ for every $v ∈ V ( G )$, is a secure w-dominating function. Therefore, the result follows. □
It was shown by Cabrera et al. [1] that the w-domination numbers satisfy a certain monotonicity. Given two integer vectors $w = ( w 0 , … , w l )$ and $w ′ = ( w 0 ′ , … , w l ′ )$, we say that $w ′ ≺ w$ if $w i ′ ≤ w i$ for every $i ∈ { 0 , … , l }$. With this notation in mind, we can state the next remark which is a direct consequence of the definition of w-dominating function.
Remark 3.
[1] Let G be a graph of minimum degree δ and let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) , w ′ = ( w 0 ′ , … , w l ′ ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $w i ≥ w i + 1$ and $w i ′ ≥ w i + 1 ′$ for every $i ∈ { 0 , … , l − 1 }$. If $w ′ ≺ w$ and $w l ≤ l δ$, then every w-dominating function is a $w ′$-dominating function and, as a consequence,
$γ w ′ ( G ) ≤ γ w ( G ) .$
The monotonicity also holds for the case of secure w-domination.
Remark 4.
Let G be a graph of minimum degree δ and let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) , w ′ = ( w 0 ′ , … , w l ′ ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $w i ≥ w i + 1$ and $w i ′ ≥ w i + 1 ′$ for every $i ∈ { 0 , … , l − 1 }$. If $w ′ ≺ w$ and $w l ≤ l δ$, then every secure w-dominating function is a secure $w ′$-dominating function and, as a consequence,
$γ w ′ s ( G ) ≤ γ w s ( G ) .$
Proof.
For any $γ w s ( G )$-function f and any $v ∈ V ( G )$ with $f ( v ) = 0$, there exists $u ∈ M f ( v )$. Since f and $f u → v$ are w-dominating functions, by Remark 3, we conclude that, if $w ′ ≺ w$ and $w l ≤ l δ$, then both f and $f u → v$ are $w ′$-dominating functions. Therefore, f is a secure $w ′$-dominating function and, as a consequence, $γ w ′ s ( G ) ≤ ω ( f ) = γ w s ( G ) .$
From the following equality chain, we obtain examples of equalities in Remark 4. Graph $G 1$ is illustrated in Figure 1.
$γ ( 3 , 0 , 0 ) s ( G 1 ) = γ ( 3 , 1 , 0 ) s ( G 1 ) = γ ( 3 , 2 , 0 ) s ( G 1 ) = γ ( 3 , 2 , 1 ) s ( G 1 ) = γ ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) s ( G 1 ) .$
Theorem 1.
Let G be a graph of minimum degree δ, and let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $w i ≥ w i + 1$ for every $i ∈ { 0 , … , l − 1 }$. If $l δ ≥ w l$, then the following statements hold.
(i)
$γ w ( G ) ≤ γ w s ( G ) .$
(ii)
If $k ∈ Z +$, then $γ ( k + 1 , k = w 1 , … , w l ) ( G ) ≤ γ ( k , k = w 1 , … , w l ) s ( G )$.
Proof.
Since every secure w-dominating function on G is a w-dominating function on G, (i) follows.
Let $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ be a $γ ( k , k = w 1 , … , w l ) s ( G )$-function. Since f is a $( k , k = w 1 , … , w l )$-dominating function, $f ( N ( v ) ) ≥ w i$ for every $v ∈ V i$ with $i ∈ { 1 , … , l }$ and $w 1 = k$. If $V 0 = ⌀$, then f is a $( k + 1 , k = w 1 , … , w l )$-dominating function, which implies that $γ ( k + 1 , k = w 1 , … , w l ) ( G ) ≤ ω ( f ) = γ ( k , k = w 1 , … , w l ) s ( G )$. Assume $V 0 ≠ ⌀$. Let $v ∈ V 0$ and $u ∈ M f ( v )$. If $f ( N ( v ) ) = k$, then $f u → v ( N ( v ) ) = f ( N ( v ) ) − 1 = k − 1$, which is a contradiction. Thus, $f ( N ( v ) ) ≥ k + 1$, which implies that f is a $( k + 1 , k = w 1 , … , w l )$-dominating function. Therefore, $γ ( k + 1 , k = w 1 , … , w l ) ( G ) ≤ ω ( f ) = γ ( k , k = w 1 , … , w l ) s ( G )$, and (ii) follows. □
The inequalities above are tight. For instance, for any integers $n , n ′ ≥ 4$, we have that $γ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) ( K n + N n ′ ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) s ( K n + N n ′ ) = 3$ and $γ ( 3 , 2 , 2 ) ( K 2 , n ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) s ( K 2 , n ) = 5$.
Corollary 1.
Let G be a graph of minimum degree δ and order n. Let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $w i ≥ w i + 1$ for every $i ∈ { 0 , … , l − 1 }$ and $l δ ≥ w l$. The following statements hold.
(i)
If $n > w 0$, then $γ w s ( G ) ≥ w 0$.
(ii)
If $n > w 0 = w 1$, then $γ w s ( G ) ≥ w 0 + 1$.
Proof.
Assume $n > w 0$. By Theorem 1, we have that $γ w s ( G ) ≥ γ w ( G )$. Now, if $γ w ( G ) ≤ w 0 − 1 < n − 1$, then for any $γ w ( G )$-function f there exists at least one vertex $x ∈ V ( G )$ such that $f ( x ) = 0$ and $f ( N ( x ) ) ≤ ω ( f ) < w 0$, which is a contradiction. Thus, $γ w s ( G ) ≥ γ w ( G ) ≥ w 0$.
Analogously, if $w 0 = w 1$, then Theorem 1 leads to $γ w s ( G ) ≥ γ ( w 0 + 1 , w 1 , … , w l ) ( G )$. In this case, if $γ ( w 0 + 1 , w 1 , … , w l ) ( G ) ≤ w 0 < n$, then for any $γ ( w 0 + 1 , w 1 , … , w l ) ( G )$-function f there exists at least one vertex $x ∈ V ( G )$ such that $f ( x ) = 0$ and $f ( N ( x ) ) ≤ ω ( f ) < w 0 + 1$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, $γ w s ( G ) ≥ γ ( w 0 + 1 , w 1 , … , w l ) ( G ) ≥ w 0 + 1$. □
As the following result shows, the bounds above are tight.
Proposition 1.
For any integer n and any $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $w l ≤ ⋯ ≤ w 0 < n$,
Proof.
Assume $n > w 0$. Let $S ⊆ V ( K n )$ such that $| S | = w 0 + 1$ if $w 0 = w 1$ and $| S | = w 0$ otherwise. In both cases, the function $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$, defined by $V 1 = S$, $V 0 = V ( G ) \ V 1$ and $V j = ⌀$ whenever $j ∉ { 0 , 1 }$, is a secure w-dominating function. Hence, $γ w s ( K n ) ≤ ω ( f ) = | S |$. Therefore, by Corollary 1 the result follows. □
Theorem 2.
Let G be a graph of minimum degree δ, and let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) , w ′ = ( w 0 ′ , … , w l ′ ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $l δ ≥ w l$, $w i ≥ w i + 1$ and $w i ′ ≥ w i + 1 ′$ for every $i ∈ { 0 , … , l − 1 }$. If $w i ≥ w i − 1 ′ − 1$ for every $i ∈ { 1 , … , l }$, and $max { w j − 1 , 0 } ≥ w j ′$ for every $j ∈ { 0 , … , l }$, then
$γ w ′ s ( G ) ≤ γ w ( G ) .$
Proof.
Assume that $w i ≥ w i − 1 ′ − 1$ for every $i ∈ { 1 , … , l }$ and $max { w j − 1 , 0 } ≥ w j ′$ for every $j ∈ { 0 , … , l }$. Let $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ be a $γ w ( G )$-function. We claim that f is a secure $w ′$-dominating function. Since $f ( N ( x ) ) ≥ w i ≥ w i ′$ for every $x ∈ V i$ with $i ∈ { 0 , … , l }$, we deduce that f is a $w ′$-dominating function. Now, let $v ∈ V 0$ and $u ∈ N ( v ) ∩ V i$ with $i ∈ { 1 , … , l }$. We differentiate the following cases for $x ∈ V ( G )$.
• Case 1. $x = v$. In this case, $f u → v ( v ) = 1$ and $f u → v ( N ( v ) ) = f ( N ( v ) ) − 1 ≥ w 0 − 1 ≥ max { w 1 − 1 , 0 } ≥ w 1 ′$.
• Case 2. $x = u$. In this case, $f u → v ( u ) = f ( u ) − 1 = i − 1$ and $f u → v ( N ( u ) ) = f ( N ( u ) ) + 1 ≥ w i + 1 ≥ w i − 1 ′$.
• Case 3. $x ∈ V ( G ) \ { u , v } .$ Assume $x ∈ V j$. Notice that $f u → v ( x ) = f ( x ) = j$. Now, if $x ∉ N ( u )$ or $x ∈ N ( u ) ∩ N ( v )$, then $f u → v ( N ( x ) ) = f ( N ( x ) ) ≥ w j ≥ w j ′$, while if $x ∈ N ( u ) \ N [ v ]$, then $f u → v ( N ( x ) ) = f ( N ( x ) ) − 1 ≥ max { w j − 1 , 0 } ≥ w j ′$.
According to the three cases above, $f u → v$ is a $w ′$-dominating function. Therefore, f is a secure $w ′$-dominating function, and so $γ w ′ s ( G ) ≤ ω ( f ) = γ w ( G ) .$
The inequality above is tight. For instance, $γ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) s ( K n , n ′ ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) ( K n , n ′ ) = 4$ for $n , n ′ ≥ 4$.
From Theorems 1 and 2, we derive the next known inequality chain, where G has minimum degree $δ ≥ 1$, except in the last inequality in which $δ ≥ 2$.
$γ s ( G ) ≤ γ 2 ( G ) ≤ γ × 2 ( G ) ≤ γ s t ( G ) ≤ γ × 2 , t ( G ) .$
The following result is a particular case of Theorem 2.
Corollary 2.
Let G be a graph of minimum degree δ, and let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$ and 1 $= ( 1 , … , 1 )$. If $0 ≤ w j − 1 − w j ≤ 2$ for every $j ∈ { 1 , … , i }$, where $1 ≤ i ≤ l$ and $l δ ≥ w l + 1$, then
$γ ( w 0 , … , w i , 0 , … , 0 ) s ( G ) ≤ γ ( w 0 + 1 , … , w i + 1 , 0 , … , 0 ) ( G ) ≤ γ w + 1 ( G ) .$
For Graph $G 2$ illustrated in Figure 1, we have that $γ ( 1 , 1 ) s ( G 2 ) = γ ( 1 , 1 , 0 ) s ( G 2 ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 0 ) ( G 2 ) = γ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) s ( G 2 ) = γ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) ( G 2 ) = 3$. Notice that $γ w s ( G 2 ) = γ w + 1 ( G 2 )$ for $w = 1 = ( 1 , 1 , 1 )$.
Next, we show a class of graphs where $γ w ( G ) = γ w + 1 ( G )$. To this end, we need to introduce some additional notation and terminology. Given the two Graphs $G 1$ and $G 2$, the corona product graph$G 1 ⊙ G 2$ is the graph obtained from $G 1$ and $G 2$, by taking one copy of $G 1$ and $| V ( G 1 ) |$ copies of $G 2$ and joining by an edge every vertex from the ith copy of $G 2$ with the ith vertex of $G 1$. For every $x ∈ V ( G 1 )$, the copy of $G 2$ in $G 1 ⊙ G 2$ associated to x is denoted by $G 2 , x$.
Theorem 3
([1]). Let $G 1 ⊙ G 2$ be a corona graph where $G 1$ does not have isolated vertices, and let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$. If $l ≥ w 0 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$ and $| V ( G 2 ) | ≥ w 0$, then
$γ w ( G 1 ⊙ G 2 ) = w 0 | V ( G 1 ) | .$
From the result above, we deduce that under certain additional restrictions on $G 2$ and w we can obtain $γ w s ( G 1 ⊙ G 2 ) = γ w + 1 ( G 1 ⊙ G 2 )$.
Theorem 4.
Let $G 1 ⊙ G 2$ be a corona graph, where $G 1$ does not have isolated vertices and $G 2$ is a triangle-free graph. Let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $l − 1 ≥ w 0 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$. If $| V ( G 2 ) | ≥ w 0 + 2$, then
$γ w s ( G 1 ⊙ G 2 ) = ( w 0 + 1 ) | V ( G 1 ) | = γ w + 1 ( G 1 ⊙ G 2 ) .$
Proof.
Since $G 1$ does not have isolated vertices, the upper bound $γ w s ( G 1 ⊙ G 2 ) ≤ ( w 0 + 1 ) | V ( G 1 ) |$ is straightforward, as the function f, defined by $f ( x ) = w 0 + 1$ for every $x ∈ V ( G 1 )$ and $f ( x ) = 0$ for the remaining vertices of $G 1 ⊙ G 2$, is a secure w-dominating function.
On the other hand, let $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ be a $γ w s ( G 1 ⊙ G 2 )$-function and suppose that there exists $x ∈ V ( G 1 )$ such that $f ( V ( G 2 , x ) ) + f ( x ) ≤ w 0$. Since $| V ( G 2 , x ) | ≥ w 0 + 2$, there exist at least two different vertices $u , v ∈ V ( G 2 , x ) ∩ V 0$. Hence, $f ( N ( u ) ) = f ( N ( v ) ) = w 0$, which implies that u and v are adjacent and, since $G 2$ is a triangle-free graph, $f ( x ) = w 0$ and $f ( y ) = 0$ for every $y ∈ V ( G 2 , x )$. Thus, by Lemma 1, we conclude that $G 2 , x$ is a clique, which is a contradiction as $| V ( G 2 ) | ≥ 3$ and $G 2$ is a triangle-free graph. This implies that $f ( V ( G 2 , x ) ) + f ( x ) ≥ w 0 + 1$ for every $x ∈ V ( G 1 )$, and so $γ w s ( G 1 ⊙ G 2 ) = ω ( f ) ≥ ( w 0 + 1 ) | V ( G 1 ) |$.
Therefore, $γ w s ( G 1 ⊙ G 2 ) = ( w 0 + 1 ) | V ( G 1 ) |$, and by Theorem 3 we conclude that $γ w + 1 ( G 1 ⊙ G 2 ) = ( w 0 + 1 ) | V ( G 1 ) | ,$ which completes the proof. □
Theorem 5.
Let G be a graph of minimum degree δ and $l ≥ 2$ an integer. For any $( w 0 , … , w l − 1 ) ∈ Z + × N l − 1$ with $w 0 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l − 1$ and $l δ ≥ w l − 1$,
$γ ( w 0 , … , w l − 1 , w l = w l − 1 ) s ( G ) ≤ γ ( w 0 , … , w l − 1 ) ( G ) + γ ( G ) .$
Proof.
Let $f ( V 0 , … , V l − 1 )$ be a $γ ( w 0 , … , w l − 1 ) ( G )$-function and S a $γ ( G )$-set. We define a function $g ( W 0 , … , W l )$ as follows. Let $W l = V l − 1 ∩ S$, $W 0 = V 0 \ S$, and $W i = ( V i − 1 ∩ S ) ∪ ( V i \ S )$ for every $i ∈ { 1 , … , l − 1 }$.
We claim that g is a secure $( w 0 , … , w l − 1 , w l = w l − 1 )$-dominating function. First, we observe that, if $x ∈ W i ∩ S$ with $i ∈ { 1 , … , l }$, then $x ∈ V i − 1$ and $g ( N ( x ) ) ≥ f ( N ( x ) ) ≥ w i − 1 ≥ w i$. Moreover, if $x ∈ W i \ S$ with $i ∈ { 0 , … , l − 1 }$, then $x ∈ V i$ and $g ( N ( x ) ) ≥ f ( N ( x ) ) ≥ w i$. Hence, g is a $( w 0 , … , w l − 1 , w l = w l − 1 )$-dominating function.
Now, let $v ∈ W 0 = V 0 \ S$. Notice that there exists a vertex $u ∈ N ( v ) ∩ V i − 1 ∩ S$ with $i ∈ { 1 , … , l }$. Hence, $u ∈ N ( v ) ∩ W i$. We differentiate the following cases for $x ∈ V ( G )$.
• Case 1. $x = v$. In this case, $g u → v ( v ) = 1$ and, as $N ( v ) ∩ S ≠ ∅$, we obtain that $g u → v ( N ( v ) ) = g ( N ( v ) ) − 1 ≥ f ( N ( v ) ) ≥ w 0 ≥ w 1$.
• Case 2. $x = u$. In this case, $g u → v ( u ) = g ( u ) − 1 = i − 1$ and $g u → v ( N ( u ) ) = g ( N ( u ) ) + 1 ≥ f ( N ( u ) ) + 1 ≥ w i − 1 + 1 > w i − 1$.
• Case 3. $x ∈ V ( G ) \ { u , v } .$ Assume $x ∈ W j$. Notice that $g u → v ( x ) = g ( x ) = j$. If $x ∉ N ( u )$ or $x ∈ N ( u ) ∩ N ( v )$, then $g u → v ( N ( x ) ) = g ( N ( x ) ) ≥ f ( N ( x ) ) ≥ w j$.
Moreover, if $x ∈ ( N ( u ) \ N [ v ] ) ∩ S$, then $x ∈ V j − 1$ and so $g u → v ( N ( x ) ) = g ( N ( x ) ) − 1 ≥ f ( N ( x ) ) ≥ w j − 1 ≥ w j$. Finally, if $x ∈ ( N ( u ) \ N [ v ] ) \ S$, then $x ∈ V j$ and therefore $g u → v ( N ( x ) ) = g ( N ( x ) ) − 1 ≥ f ( N ( x ) ) ≥ w j$.
According to the three cases above, $g u → v$ is a $( w 0 , … , w l − 1 , w l = w l − 1 )$-dominating function. Therefore, f is a secure $( w 0 , … , w l − 1 , w l = w l − 1 )$-dominating function, and so $γ ( w 0 , … , w l − 1 , w l = w l − 1 ) s ( G ) ≤ ω ( g ) ≤ ω ( f ) + | S | = γ ( w 0 , … , w l − 1 ) ( G ) + γ ( G ) .$
From Theorem 5, we derive the next known inequalities, which are tight.
Corollary 3.
For a graph G, the following statements hold.
• Ref. [15]$γ r ( G ) ≤ 2 γ ( G )$.
• Ref. [12]$γ t r ( G ) ≤ γ t ( G ) + γ ( G )$, where G has minimum degree at least one.
• Ref. [19]$γ I s ( G ) ≤ γ 2 ( G ) + γ ( G )$.
To establish the following result, we need to define the following parameter.
$ν ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) = max { | V 0 | : f ( V 0 , … , V l ) is a γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) - function . }$
In particular, for $l = 1$ and a graph G of order n, we have that $ν ( w 0 , w 1 ) s ( G ) = n − γ ( w 0 , w 1 ) s ( G )$.
Theorem 6.
Let G be a graph of minimum degree δ and order n. The following statements hold for any $( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$ with $w 0 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$.
(i)
If there exists $i ∈ { 1 , … , l − 1 }$ such that $i δ ≥ w i$, then $γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) ≤ γ ( w 0 , … , w i ) s ( G ) .$
(ii)
If $l ≥ i + 1 > w 0$, then $γ ( w 0 , … , w i , 0 , … , 0 ) s ( G ) ≤ ( i + 1 ) γ ( G ) .$
(iii)
Let $k , i ∈ Z +$ such that $l ≥ k i$, and let $( w 0 ′ , w 1 ′ , … , w i ′ ) ∈ Z + × N l$. If $i δ ≥ w i ′$ and $w k j = k w j ′$ for every $j ∈ { 0 , 1 , … , i }$, then $γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) ≤ k γ ( w 0 ′ , … , w i ′ ) s ( G ) .$
(iv)
Let $k ∈ Z +$ and $β 1 , … , β k ∈ Z +$. If $l δ ≥ k + w l > k$ and $w 0 + k ≥ β 1 ≥ ⋯ ≥ β k ≥ w 1 + k$, then $γ ( w 0 + k , β 1 , … , β k , w 1 + k , … , w l + k ) s ( G ) ≤ γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) + k ( n − ν ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) )$.
(v)
If $l δ ≥ w l ≥ l ≥ 2$, then $γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) ≤ l γ ( w 0 − l + 1 , w l − l + 1 ) s ( G ) .$
Proof.
If there exists $i ∈ { 1 , … , l − 1 }$ such that $i δ ≥ w i$, then for any $γ ( w 0 , … , w i ) s ( G )$-function $f ( V 0 , … , V i )$ we define a secure $( w 0 , … , w l )$-dominating function $g ( W 0 , … , W l )$ by $W j = V j$ for every $j ∈ { 0 , … , i }$ and $W j = ⌀$ for every $j ∈ { i + 1 , … , l }$. Hence, $γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) ≤ ω ( g ) = ω ( f ) = γ ( w 0 , … , w i ) s ( G )$. Therefore, (i) follows.
Now, assume $l ≥ i + 1 > w 0$. Let S be a $γ ( G )$-set. Let f be the function defined by $f ( v ) = i + 1$ for every $v ∈ S$ and $f ( v ) = 0$ for the remaining vertices. Since $i + 1 > w 0$, we can conclude that f is a secure $( w 0 , … , w i , 0 … , 0 )$-dominating function. Therefore, $γ ( w 0 , … , w i , 0 … , 0 ) s ( G ) ≤ ω ( f ) = ( i + 1 ) | S | = ( i + 1 ) γ ( G )$, which implies that (ii) follows.
To prove (iii), assume that $l ≥ k i$, $i δ ≥ w i ′$ and $w k j = k w j ′$ for every $j ∈ { 0 , … , i }$. Let $f ′ ( V 0 ′ , … , V i ′ )$ be a $γ ( w 0 ′ , … , w i ′ ) s ( G )$-function. We construct a function $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ as $f ( v ) = k f ′ ( v )$ for every $v ∈ V ( G )$. Hence, $V k j = V j ′$ for every $j ∈ { 0 , … , i }$, while $V j = ⌀$ for the remaining cases. Thus, for every $v ∈ V k j$ with $j ∈ { 0 , … , i }$ we have that $f ( N ( v ) ) = k f ′ ( N ( v ) ) ≥ k w j ′ = w k j$, which implies that f is a $( w 0 , … , w l )$-dominating function. Now, for every $x ∈ V 0$, there exists $y ∈ M f ′ ( x )$. Hence, for every $v ∈ V k j$ with $j ∈ { 0 , … , i }$, we have that $f y → x ( N ( v ) ) = k f y → x ′ ( N ( v ) ) ≥ k w j ′ = w k j$, which implies that $f y → x$ is a $( w 0 , … , w l )$-dominating function. Therefore, f is a secure $( w 0 , … , w l )$-dominating function, and so $γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) ≤ ω ( f ) = k ω ( f ′ ) = k γ ( w 0 ′ , … , w i ′ ) s ( G )$. Therefore, (iii) follows.
Now, assume that $l δ ≥ k + w l > k$ and $w 0 + k ≥ β 1 ≥ ⋯ ≥ β k ≥ w 1 + k$. Let $g ( W 0 , … , W l )$ be a $γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G )$-function. We construct a function $f ( V 0 , … , V l + k )$ as $f ( v ) = g ( v ) + k$ for every $v ∈ V ( G ) \ W 0$ and $f ( v ) = 0$ for every $v ∈ W 0$. Hence, $V j + k = W j$ for every $j ∈ { 1 , … , l }$, $V 0 = W 0$ and $V j = ⌀$ for the remaining cases. Thus, if $v ∈ V j + k$ and $j ∈ { 1 , … , l }$, then $f ( N ( v ) ) ≥ g ( N ( v ) ) + k ≥ w j + k$, and if $v ∈ V 0$, then $f ( N ( v ) ) ≥ g ( N ( v ) ) + k ≥ w 0 + k$. This implies that f is a $( w 0 + k , β 1 , … , β k , w 1 + k , … , w l + k )$-dominating function. Now, for every $x ∈ V 0 = W 0$, there exists $y ∈ M g ( x )$. Hence, if $v ∈ V j + k$ and $j ∈ { 1 , … , l }$, then $f y → x ( N ( v ) ) ≥ g y → x ( N ( v ) ) + k ≥ w j + k$, and if $v ∈ V 0$, then $f y → x ( N ( v ) ) ≥ g y → x ( N ( v ) ) + k ≥ w 0 + k$. This implies that $f y → x$ is a $( w 0 + k , β 1 , … , β k , w 1 + k , … , w l + k )$-dominating function, and so f is a secure $( w 0 + k , β 1 , … , β k , w 1 + k , … , w l + k )$-dominating function. Therefore, $γ ( w 0 + k , β 1 , … , β k , w 1 + k , … , w l + k ) s ( G ) ≤ ω ( f ) = ω ( g ) + k ∑ j = 1 l | W j | = γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) + k ( n − | W 0 | ) ≤ γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) + k ( n − ν ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) )$, concluding that (iv) follows.
Furthermore, if $l δ ≥ w l ≥ l ≥ 2$, then, by applying (iv) for $k = l − 1$, we deduce that
$γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) ≤ γ ( w 0 − l + 1 , w l − l + 1 ) s ( G ) + ( l − 1 ) ( n − ν ( w 0 − l + 1 , w l − l + 1 ) s ( G ) ) = l γ ( w 0 − l + 1 , w l − l + 1 ) s ( G ) .$
Therefore, (v) follows. □
In the next subsections, we consider several applications of Theorem 6 where we show that the bounds are tight. For instance, the following particular cases is of interest.
Corollary 4.
Let G be a graph of minimum degree δ, and let $k , l , w 2 , … , w l ∈ Z +$ with $k ≥ w 2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$.
(i’)
If $δ ≥ k$, then $γ ( k + 1 , k , w 2 , … , w l ) s ( G ) ≤ γ ( k + 1 , k ) s ( G )$.
(ii’)
If $δ ≥ k$, then $γ ( k , k , w 2 , … , w l ) s ( G ) ≤ γ ( k , k ) s ( G )$.
(iii’)
If $l δ ≥ k ≥ l ≥ 2$, then $γ ( k , k , … , k ︸ l + 1 ) s ( G ) ≤ l γ ( k − l + 1 , k − l + 1 ) s ( G )$.
(iv’)
Let $i ∈ Z +$. If $l ≥ k i$ and $δ ≥ 1$, then $γ ( k , … , k ︸ l + 1 ) s ( G ) ≤ k γ ( 1 , … , 1 ︸ i + 1 ) s ( G )$.
Proof.
If $δ ≥ k$, then by Theorem 6 (i) we conclude that (i’) and (ii’) follow. If $l δ ≥ k ≥ l ≥ 2$, then by Theorem 6 (v) we deduce (iii’). Finally, if $l ≥ k$ and $δ ≥ 1$, then by Theorem 6 (iii) we deduce that (iv’) follows. □
To show that the inequalities above are tight, we consider the following examples. For (i’), we have $γ ( 2 , 1 , 1 ) s ( K 1 + ( K 2 ∪ K 2 ) ) = γ ( 2 , 1 ) s ( K 1 + ( K 2 ∪ K 2 ) ) = 3$. For (ii’) we have $γ ( k , k , w 2 , … , w l ) s ( G ) = γ ( k , k ) s ( G ) = k + 1$ for every graph G with $k + 1$ universal vertices. Finally, for (iii’) and (iv’), we take $l = k = 2$ and $γ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) s ( K 2 + N n ) = 2 γ ( 1 , 1 ) s ( K 2 + N n ) = 4$ for every $n ≥ 2$.
We already know that $γ t ( G ) = γ ( 1 , 1 ) ( G ) = γ ( 1 , 1 , w 2 , … , w l ) ( G )$, for every $w 2 , … , w l ∈ { 0 , 1 }$. In contrast, the picture is quite different for the case of secure $( 1 , 1 )$-domination, as there are graphs where the gap $γ ( 1 , 1 ) s ( G ) − γ ( 1 , … , 1 ) s ( G )$ is arbitrarily large. For instance, $lim n → ∞ γ ( 1 , 1 ) s ( K 1 , n − 1 ) = + ∞$, while, if $l ≥ 2$, then $lim n → + ∞ γ ( 1 , … , 1 ︸ l + 1 ) s ( K 1 , n − 1 ) = 3$.
Proposition 2.
Let G be a graph of order n. Let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $w 0 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$. If $G ′$ is a spanning subgraph of G with minimum degree $δ ′ ≥ w l l$, then
$γ w s ( G ) ≤ γ w s ( G ′ ) .$
Proof.
Let $E − = { e 1 , … , e k }$ be the set of all edges of G not belonging to the edge set of $G ′$. Let $G 0 ′ = G$ and, for every $i ∈ { 1 , … , k }$, let $X i = { e 1 , … , e i }$ and $G i ′ = G − X i$, the edge-deletion subgraph of G induced by $E ( G ) \ X i$.
For any $γ w s ( G i ′ )$-function f and any $v ∈ V ( G i ′ ) = V ( G )$ with $f ( v ) = 0$, there exists $u ∈ M f ( v )$. Since f and $f u → v$ are w-dominating functions on $G i ′$, both are w-dominating functions on $G i − 1 ′$, and so we can conclude that f is a secure w-dominating function on $G i − 1 ′$, which implies that $γ w s ( G i − 1 ′ ) ≤ γ w s ( G i ′ )$. Hence, $γ w s ( G ) = γ w s ( G 0 ′ ) ≤ γ w s ( G 1 ′ ) ≤ ⋯ ≤ γ w s ( G k ′ ) = γ w s ( G ′ )$. □
As a simple example of equality in Proposition 2 we can take any graph G of order n, having $n ′ + 1 ≥ 2$ universal vertices. In such a case, for $n ′ = w 1 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$ we have that
$γ ( n ′ , n ′ = w 1 , … , w l ) s ( K n ) = γ ( n ′ , n ′ = w 1 , … , w l ) s ( G ) = γ ( n ′ , n ′ ) s ( K n ) = γ ( n ′ , n ′ ) s ( G ) = n ′ + 1 .$
From Proposition 2, we obtain the following result.
Corollary 5.
Let G be a graph of order n and $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $w 0 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$.
• If G is a Hamiltonian graph and $w l ≤ 2 l$, then $γ w s ( G ) ≤ γ w s ( C n )$.
• If G has a Hamiltonian path and $w l ≤ l$, then $γ w s ( G ) ≤ γ w s ( P n )$.
To derive some lower bounds on $γ w s ( G )$, we need to establish the following lemma.
Lemma 2
([1]). Let G be a graph with no isolated vertex, maximum degree Δ and order n. For any w-dominating function $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ on G such that $w 0 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$,
$Δ ω ( f ) ≥ w 0 n + ∑ i = 1 l ( w i − w 0 ) | V i | .$
Theorem 7.
Let G be a graph with no isolated vertex, maximum degree Δ and order n. Let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $w 0 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$ and $l δ ≥ w l$. The following statements hold.
• If $w 0 = w 1$ and $w 0 − w i ≤ i$ for every $i ∈ { 2 , … , l }$, then $γ w s ( G ) ≥ ( w 0 + 1 ) n Δ + 1 .$
• If $w 0 = w 1$, then $γ w s ( G ) ≥ ( w 0 + 1 ) n Δ + w 0 .$
• If $w 0 = w 1 + 1$ and $w 0 − w i ≤ i$ for every $i ∈ { 2 , … l }$, then $γ w s ( G ) ≥ w 0 n Δ + 1 .$
• $γ w s ( G ) ≥ w 0 n Δ + w 0 .$
Proof.
Let $w 0 = w 1$ and $w 0 − w i ≤ i$ for every $i ∈ { 2 , … , l }$. Let $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ be a $γ ( w 0 + 1 , w 1 , … , w l ) ( G )$-function. By Lemma 2, we deduce the following.
$Δ ω ( f ) ≥ ( w 0 + 1 ) n + ∑ i = 1 l ( w i − w 0 ) | V i | ≥ ( w 0 + 1 ) n − ∑ i = 1 l i | V i | = ( w 0 + 1 ) n − ω ( f ) .$
Therefore, Theorem 1 (ii) leads to $γ w s ( G ) ≥ ω ( f ) ≥ ( w 0 + 1 ) n Δ + 1 .$
The proof of the remaining items is completely analogous. In the last two cases, we consider that $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ is a $γ w ( G )$-function, and we apply Theorem 1 (i) instead of (ii). □
The bounds above are sharp. For instance, $γ ( 1 , 1 , 0 ) s ( G ) ≥ 2 n Δ + 1$ is achieved by Graph $G 2$ shown in Figure 1, the bound $γ ( k , k , 0 ) s ( G ) ≥ ( k + 1 ) n Δ + k$ is achieved by $G ≅ K n$ for every $n > k ( k − 1 ) > 0$, the bound $γ ( 2 , 1 , 1 ) s ( G ) ≥ 2 n Δ + 1$ is achieved by the corona graph $K 2 ⊙ K n ′$ with $n ′ ≥ 4$, while $γ ( 2 , 0 , 0 ) s ( G ) ≥ 2 n Δ + 2$ is achieved by $G ≅ C 5$, $G ≅ K n$ and $G ≅ K n ′ ∪ K n ′$ with $n ≥ 2$ and $n ′ ≥ 4$.
To conclude the paper, we consider the problem of characterizing the graphs G and the vectors w for which $γ w s ( G )$ takes small values. It is readily seen that $γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) = 1$ if and only if $w 0 = 1$, $w 1 = 0$ and $G ≅ K n$. Next, we consider the case $γ w s ( G ) = 2 .$
Theorem 8.
Let $w = ( w 0 , … , w l ) ∈ Z + × N l$ such that $w 0 ≥ ⋯ ≥ w l$. For a graph G of order at least three, $γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) = 2$ if and only if one of the following conditions holds.
(i)
$w 2 = 0$, $γ ( G ) = 1$ and one of the following conditions holds.
• $w 0 = w 1 = 1$.
• $w 0 = 1$, $w 1 = 0$, and $G ≇ K n$.
• $w 0 = 2$, $w 1 ∈ { 0 , 1 }$ and $G ≅ K n$.
(ii)
$w 0 = 1$, $w 1 = 0$, and $γ ( 1 , 0 ) s ( G ) = 2$.
(iii)
$w 0 = w 1 = 1$ and $γ ( 1 , 1 ) s ( G ) = 2$.
(iv)
$w 0 = 2$, $w 1 ∈ { 0 , 1 }$, and $G ≅ K n$.
Proof.
Assume first that $γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) = 2$ and let $f ( V 0 , … , V l )$ be a $γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G )$-function. Notice that $( w 0 , w 1 ) ∈ { ( 1 , 0 ) , ( 1 , 1 ) , ( 2 , 0 ) , ( 2 , 1 ) }$ and $| V 2 | ∈ { 0 , 1 }$.
Firstly, we consider that $| V 2 | = 1$, i.e., $V 2 = { u }$ for some universal vertex $u ∈ V ( G )$. In this case, $w 2 = 0$, $γ ( G ) = 1$, and $V i = ⌀$ for every $i ≠ 0 , 2$. By Lemma 1, if $w 0 = 2$, then $G [ T f ( u ) ] = G [ V ( G ) \ { u } ]$ is a clique, which implies that $G ≅ K n$. Obviously, in such a case, $w 1 < 2$. Finally, the case, $w 0 = 1$ and $w 1 = 0$ leads to $G ≇ K n$, as $γ ( 1 , 0 … , 0 ) s ( K n ) = 1$. Therefore, (i) follows.
From now on, assume that $V 2 = ⌀$. Hence, $V i = ⌀$ for every $i ≠ 0 , 1$. If $w 0 = 1$ and $w 1 = 0$, then $G ≇ K n$ and $V 1$ is a secure dominating set. Therefore, (ii) follows. If $w 0 = w 1 = 1$, then $V 1$ is a secure total dominating set of cardinality two, and so $γ ( 1 , 1 ) s ( G ) = 2$. Therefore, (iii) follows. Finally, assume $w 0 = 2$. In this case, $V 1$ is a double dominating set of cardinality two, and by Lemma 1 we know that $G [ T f ( x ) ] = G [ V ( G ) \ V 1 ]$ is a clique for any $x ∈ V 1$. Hence, $G ≅ K n$ and, in such a case, $w 1 < 2$. Therefore, (iv) follows.
Conversely, if one of the four conditions holds, then it is easy to check that $γ ( w 0 , … , w l ) s ( G ) = 2$, which completes the proof. □

## Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work. Investigation, A.C.M., A.E.-M., and J.A.R.-V.; and Writing—review and editing, A.C.M., A.E.-M., and J.A.R.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

## Funding

This research received no external funding.

## Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

## References

1. Cabrera Martínez, A.; Estrada-Moreno, A.; Rodríguez-Velázquez, J.A. From Italian domination in lexicographic product graphs to w-domination in graphs. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2011.05371. [Google Scholar]
2. Cockayne, E.J.; Grobler, P.J.P.; Gründlingh, W.R.; Munganga, J.; van Vuuren, J.H. Protection of a graph. Util. Math. 2005, 67, 19–32. [Google Scholar]
3. Boumediene Merouane, H.; Chellali, M. On secure domination in graphs. Inform. Process. Lett. 2015, 115, 786–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Burger, A.P.; Henning, M.A.; van Vuuren, J.H. Vertex covers and secure domination in graphs. Quaest. Math. 2008, 31, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Chellali, M.; Haynes, T.W.; Hedetniemi, S.T. Bounds on weak Roman and 2-rainbow domination numbers. Discret. Appl. Math. 2014, 178, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Cockayne, E.J.; Favaron, O.; Mynhardt, C.M. Secure domination, weak Roman domination and forbidden subgraphs. Bull. Inst. Combin. Appl. 2003, 39, 87–100. [Google Scholar]
7. Klostermeyer, W.F.; Mynhardt, C.M. Secure domination and secure total domination in graphs. Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 2008, 28, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Valveny, M.; Rodríguez-Velázquez, J.A. Protection of graphs with emphasis on Cartesian product graphs. Filomat 2019, 33, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Klein, D.J.; Rodríguez-Velázquez, J.A. Protection of lexicographic product graphs. Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 2019, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
10. Benecke, S.; Cockayne, E.J.; Mynhardt, C.M. Secure total domination in graphs. Util. Math. 2007, 74, 247–259. [Google Scholar]
11. Cabrera Martínez, A.; Montejano, L.P.; Rodríguez-Velázquez, J.A. On the secure total domination number of graphs. Symmetry 2019, 11, 1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
12. Cabrera Martínez, A.; Montejano, L.P.; Rodríguez-Velázquez, J.A. Total weak Roman domination in graphs. Symmetry 2019, 11, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
13. Duginov, O. Secure total domination in graphs: Bounds and complexity. Discret. Appl. Math. 2017, 222, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Kulli, V.R.; Chaluvaraju, B.; Kumara, M. Graphs with equal secure total domination and inverse secure total domination numbers. J. Inf. Optim. Sci. 2018, 39, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Henning, M.A.; Hedetniemi, S.T. Defending the Roman Empire—A new strategy. Discret. Math. 2003, 266, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
16. Cabrera Martínez, A.; Yero, I.G. Constructive characterizations concerning weak Roman domination in trees. Discret. Appl. Math. 2020, 284, 384–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Valveny, M.; Pérez-Rosés, H.; Rodríguez-Velázquez, J.A. On the weak Roman domination number of lexicographic product graphs. Discret. Appl. Math. 2019, 263, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
18. Cabrera Martínez, A.; Rodríguez-Velázquez, J.A. Total protection of lexicographic product graphs. Discuss. Math. Graph Theory 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
19. Dettlaff, M.; Lemańska, M.; Rodríguez-Velázquez, J.A. Secure Italian domination in graphs. J. Comb. Optim. 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Haynes, T.W.; Hedetniemi, S.T.; Slater, P.J. Domination in Graphs: Advanced Topics; Chapman and Hall/CRC Pure and Applied Mathematics Series; Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
21. Haynes, T.W.; Hedetniemi, S.T.; Slater, P.J. Fundamentals of Domination in Graphs; Chapman and Hall/CRC Pure and Applied Mathematics Series; Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The labels of black-colored vertices describe the positive weights of a $γ ( 2 , 1 , 0 ) s ( G 1 )$-function, a $γ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) s ( G 2 )$-function, and a $γ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) s ( G 3 )$-function, respectively.
Figure 1. The labels of black-colored vertices describe the positive weights of a $γ ( 2 , 1 , 0 ) s ( G 1 )$-function, a $γ ( 1 , 1 , 1 ) s ( G 2 )$-function, and a $γ ( 2 , 2 , 2 ) s ( G 3 )$-function, respectively.
 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

## Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Martínez, A.C.; Estrada-Moreno, A.; Rodríguez-Velázquez, J.A. Secure w-Domination in Graphs. Symmetry 2020, 12, 1948. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12121948

AMA Style

Martínez AC, Estrada-Moreno A, Rodríguez-Velázquez JA. Secure w-Domination in Graphs. Symmetry. 2020; 12(12):1948. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12121948

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martínez, Abel Cabrera, Alejandro Estrada-Moreno, and Juan A. Rodríguez-Velázquez. 2020. "Secure w-Domination in Graphs" Symmetry 12, no. 12: 1948. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12121948

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.