1. Introduction
Over the last decade, many variants associated with classical domination parameters in graphs have been defined and studied. In particular, variants related to domination and independence in graphs have attracted the attention of many researchers.
One of the most analysed ideas, and from which many parameters have been defined, is considering dominating sets whose complements form independent sets. Some recent references about some of these remarkable variants can be observed in [
1,
2] for total outer-independent domination, in [
3,
4] for outer-independent double Roman domination, in [
5,
6,
7,
8] for outer-independent (total) Roman domination, and in [
9,
10,
11,
12] for outer-independent (total) 2-rainbow domination.
This note mainly deals with providing new results about one of the aforementioned parameters: the outer-independent 2-rainbow domination number (OI2RD number) of a graph. Given a graph G, we say that a function  is an outer-independent 2-rainbow dominating function (OI2RD function) on G if the following two conditions hold.
- (i)
-  is an independent set of G. 
- (ii)
-  for every vertex . 
Let  for . We will identify an OI2RD function f with the subsets , , , and  of  associated with it, and so we will use the unified notation  for the function and these associated subsets. The OI2RD number of G, denoted by , is the minimum weight  among all OI2RD functions f on G. A -function is an OI2RD function with weight .
As previously mentioned, this parameter has been studied by different researchers. For instance, in [
9,
10] interesting tight bounds were obtained for general graphs and for the particular case of trees. Moreover, in [
9] graphs with small and large OI2RD numbers were characterized. Finally, in [
11] the authors studied the OI2RD number for the Cartesian products of paths and cycles.
The note is organised as follows. In 
Section 2, we provide new tight bounds which improve the well-known bounds 
 given in [
9], where 
 denotes the vertex cover number of 
G. Finally, in 
Section 3 we provide closed formulas for this parameter in the join, lexicographic, and corona product graphs.
  Additional Definitions and Tools
In this note, we consider that all graphs are simple and undirected, meaning that they have only undirected edges with no loops and no multiple edges between two fixed vertices. Given a graph  of order  and a vertex , the open neighbourhood of v is defined to be . Now, we consider the following sets of vertices: , , and .
A set  is a dominating set of G if  for every . The domination number of G, denoted by , is the minimum cardinality among all dominating sets of G. A dominating set D with  is defined as a -set. This classical parameter has been extensively studied. From now on, for a parameter  of a graph G, by -set we mean a set of cardinality .
Two of the best-known variants of dominating sets, which they are also related to each other, are the independent sets and the vertex cover sets. A set  is an independent set of G if  for every . The maximum cardinality among all independent sets of G, denoted by , is the independence number of G. Moreover, a set  is a vertex cover set of G if  is an independent set of G. The minimum cardinality among all vertex cover sets of G, denoted by , is the vertex cover number of G. In 1959, Gallai established the following well-known relationship.
Theorem 1 ([
13])
. If G is a nontrivial graph, then Finally, we state the following useful tool. For the remainder of the paper, definitions will be introduced whenever a concept is needed.
Proposition 1. Let G be a graph with no isolated vertex. Then, there exists a -function  such that .
 Proof.  Let  be a -function such that  is maximum among all -functions. Suppose that there exists a vertex . This implies that . Notice that the function , defined by ,  for every  and  otherwise, is a -function with , which is a contradiction. Therefore, , which completes the proof.    □
   2. New Bounds on the Outer-Independent 2-Rainbow Domination Number
Kang et al. [
9] showed that, for any graph 
G with no isolated vertex,
      
The following theorem shows that the bounds given in (
1) have room for improvement, since 
 and 
.
Theorem 2. For any graph G with no isolated vertex,  Proof.  We first prove the lower bound. Let 
 be a 
-function which satisfies Proposition 1. Hence, 
 is a vertex cover and 
, which implies that
        
Now, we proceed to prove the upper bound. Let 
D be a 
-set and 
S a 
-set. Let 
 be a function defined as follows.
        
We claim that g is an OI2RD function on G. If , then we are done. Hence, we assume that . Notice that  is an independent set of G because S is a vertex cover set of G. We only need to prove that  for every . Let . Since S and D are both dominating sets of G, we deduce that either  or  and . In both cases, and by definition of g, we obtain that . Thus, g is an OI2RD function on G, as required.
Therefore, , which completes the proof.    □
 The following result, which is a direct consequence of Theorem 2, the upper bound given in (
1), and the fact that 
, provides a necessary condition for the graphs that satisfy the equality 
.
Proposition 2. Let G be a graph with no isolated vertex. If , then .
 The converse of proposition above does not hold. For instance, the graph 
G given in 
Figure 1 satisfies 
 and 
.
As a second consequence of Theorem 2 we can derive the next proposition.
Proposition 3. Let G be a graph with no isolated vertex. If  is a dominating set of G, then  Proof.  If  is a dominating set of G, then . Therefore, Theorem 2 leads to the equality, which completes the proof.    □
 The next theorem improves the upper bound given in Theorem 2 for the case where G is a tree.
Theorem 3. For any nontrivial tree T,  Proof.  Let S be a -set such that . Now, we construct a partition  of S as follows. Let  and , where  represents the distance between w and u. Now, we need to introduce some necessary definitions. Let  be the eccentricity of u, and, for any vertex , the  is the vertex adjacent to x on the unique  path.
Let  and , where  and  and for  we define  and  as follows. For every , define the class  such that  if and only if Parent  = Parent . From  to eccentricity , we consider the next cases for every , where we fix .
        
- (i)
- . In this case, we set . 
- (ii)
-  (notice that  and ). If , then we set , otherwise we set . 
It is clear that 
 is a partition of 
S. By condition (ii) in the construction above, it follows that 
 and 
 for every vertex 
. With this property in mind and the fact that 
 is an independent set, it is easy to deduce that the function 
f, defined below, is an OI2RD function on 
T.
        
Therefore, , which completes the proof.    □
 From Theorems 2 and 3, we obtain that for any nontrivial tree 
T,
      
The following result is a direct consequence of the previous inequality chain.
Proposition 4. If T is a tree such that , then    3. The Cases of the Join, Lexicographic, and Corona Product Graphs
In this section, we consider the OI2RD number of three well-known product graphs (join −+, lexicographic −∘, and corona −⊙). If  and  are any two graphs with no isolated vertex, then
- The  join graph-  is the graph with vertex set  -  and edge set  - . For instance, the graph  G-  given in  Figure 1-  is isomorphic to the join graph  - , where  -  is the empty graph of  r-  vertices. 
- The  lexicographic product graph-  is the graph with vertex set  - , and two vertices  -  are adjacent if and only if  -  or  -  and  - .  Figure 2-  shows the graph  - . 
- The  corona product graph-  is the graph obtained from  -  and  - , by taking one copy of  -  and  -  copies of  -  and joining by an edge every vertex from the  - -copy of  -  with the  - -vertex of  - .  Figure 2-  shows the graph  - . 
The following equalities are part of folklore, and these can be found for instance in [
14,
15,
16], respectively.
Theorem 4. If  and  are two nontrivial graphs, then
- (i)
- [ 14- ] 
- (ii)
- [ 15- ] 
- (iii)
- [ 16- ] 
 The following results show that the join, lexicographic, and corona product graphs reach the equality in the lower bound given in Theorem 2.
Theorem 5. If  and  are two nontrivial graphs, then the following equalities hold.
- (i)
- (ii)
 Proof.  We first proceed to prove (i). By Theorem 2, it follows that  and Theorems 1 and 4-(i) lead to  We only need to prove that  Let D be a -set. By definition,  or . Without loss of generality, we consider that . Let  be a function defined as follows:
        
- ,  and . 
-  and . 
Notice that g is an OI2RD function on . Thus, , as required, which completes the proof of (i).
Finally, we proceed to prove (ii). Theorem 2 leads to , and, by Theorems 1 and 4-(ii), it follows that  In order to conclude the proof, we only need to prove that  For any ,  will denote the copy of  in  containing x. Let S be a -set and . By definition, it follows that  is a -set. Now, let us define a function  on  as follows.
        
- ,  and . 
-  and  for every vertex . 
Notice that f is an OI2RD function on , which implies that , as required. Therefore, the proof is complete.    □
 Theorem 6. If  and  are two graphs with no isolated vertex, then  Proof.  By Theorem 2 it follows that 
, and Theorems 1 and 4-(iii) lead to 
 We only need to prove that 
 For any 
, 
 will denote the copy of 
 in 
 associated to 
x. Let 
 be a 
-set for every 
. Now, we consider the function 
 on 
 as follows.
        
Notice that f is an OI2RD function on , which implies that , as required. Therefore, the proof is complete.    □