Paper detail

Revisiting $d$-distance (independent) domination in trees and in bipartite graphs

The $d$-distance $p$-packing domination number $γ_d^p(G)$ of $G$ is the minimum size of a set of vertices of $G$ which is both a $d$-distance dominating set and a $p$-packing. In 1994, Beineke and Henning conjectured that if $d\ge 1$ and $T$ is a tree of order $n \geq d+1$, then $γ_d^1(T) \leq \frac{n}{d+1}$. They supported the conjecture by proving it for $d\in \{1,2,3\}$. In this paper, it is proved that $γ_d^1(G) \leq \frac{n}{d+1}$ holds for any bipartite graph $G$ of order $n \geq d+1$, and any $d\ge 1$. Trees $T$ for which $γ_d^1(T) = \frac{n}{d+1}$ holds are characterized. It is also proved that if $T$ has $\ell$ leaves, then $γ_d^1(T) \leq \frac{n-\ell}{d}$ (provided that $n-\ell \geq d$), and $γ_d^1(T) \leq \frac{n+\ell}{d+2}$ (provided that $n\geq d$). The latter result extends Favaron's theorem from 1992 asserting that $γ_1^1(T) \leq \frac{n+\ell}{3}$. In both cases, trees that attain the equality are characterized and relevant conclusions for the $d$-distance domination number of trees derived.

preprint2025arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.