Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T02:01:13.472Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

UPPER BOUNDS ON THE SEMITOTAL FORCING NUMBER OF GRAPHS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

YI-PING LIANG*
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Statistics, Gansu Center for Applied Mathematics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, PR China
JIE CHEN
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Statistics, Gansu Center for Applied Mathematics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, PR China e-mail: chenjie21@lzu.edu.cn
SHOU-JUN XU
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Statistics, Gansu Center for Applied Mathematics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, PR China e-mail: shjxu@lzu.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Let G be a graph with no isolated vertex. A semitotal forcing set of G is a (zero) forcing set S such that every vertex in S is within distance 2 of another vertex of S. The semitotal forcing number $F_{t2}(G)$ is the minimum cardinality of a semitotal forcing set in G. In this paper, we prove that it is NP-complete to determine the semitotal forcing number of a graph. We also prove that if $G\neq K_n$ is a connected graph of order $n\geq 4$ with maximum degree $\Delta \geq 2$, then $F_{t2}(G)\leq (\Delta-1)n/\Delta$, with equality if and only if either $G=C_{4}$ or $G=P_{4}$ or $G=K_{\Delta ,\Delta }$.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Australian Mathematical Publishing Association Inc.

1 Introduction

Forcing and its variations in graphs are now well studied. The (zero) forcing number of a graph was first introduced by the AIM Minimum Rank–Special Graphs Work Group [Reference Barioli, Barrett, Butler, Cioabǎ, Cvetković, Fallat, Godsil, Haemers, Hogben, Mikkelson, Narayan, Pryporova, Sciriha, So, Stevanović, van der Holst, Meulen and Wangsness2] to bound the maximum nullity/minimum rank of the family of symmetric matrices associated with a graph. Total forcing and semitotal forcing are two variations of forcing, which were first introduced and studied by Davila and Kenter [Reference Davila and Kenter8] and Chen [Reference Chen6]. The definitions are as follows.

For any two-colouring of the vertex set V of a graph G, say black and white for the two colours, define the colour-change rule: a white vertex v is converted to black if it is the only white neighbour of some black vertex $u$ . We say $u$ forces $v$ , written $u\rightarrow v$ , and also that u is a forcing vertex. Let S be a subset of V. Define a two-colouring of G by colouring S black and all other vertices white. The derived set $D(S)$ of S is the set of black vertices obtained by iteratively applying the colour-change rule until no more changes are possible. If $D(S)=V$ , then we say S is a forcing set (also called a zero forcing set) of G. The procedure of colouring a graph using the colour-change rule applied to S is called a forcing process with respect to S. A minimum forcing set of G is a forcing set of G of minimum cardinality and the forcing number, denoted by $F(G)$ , is the cardinality of a minimum forcing set. If S is a forcing set of G and $G[S]$ contains no isolated vertex, then S is a total forcing set of G; if S is a forcing set of G and every vertex in S is within distance 2 of another vertex of S, then S is a semitotal forcing set of G. The total forcing number (respectively, semitotal forcing number) of G is the cardinality of a minimum total forcing set (respectively, semitotal forcing set) in G and denoted by $F_{t}(G)$ (respectively, $F_{t2}(G)$ ).

Determining the forcing number and the total forcing number for a graph are NP-complete (see [Reference Aazami1, Reference Chekuri, Korula, Albers, Marchetti-Spaccamela, Matias, Nikoletseas and Thomas5] and [Reference Davila and Henning7], respectively). Therefore, it is difficult to compute the forcing number or the total forcing number of a graph accurately and it is interesting to establish some bounds on these two parameters. Amos et al. [Reference Amos, Caro, Davila and Pepper3] proved $F(G)\leq {((\Delta -2)n+2)}/{(\Delta -1)}$ for a connected graph G of order n and maximum degree $\Delta \geq 2$ , with equality if and only if G is either $C_{n}, K_{n}$ or $K_{\Delta ,\Delta }$ (see Gentner et al. [Reference Gentner, Penso, Rautenbach and Souza9] and Lu et al. [Reference Lu, Wu and Tang11]). Caro and Pepper [Reference Caro and Pepper4] used a greedy algorithm to obtain an improved bound $F(G)\leq {((\Delta -2)n-(\Delta -\delta )+2)}/{(\Delta -1)}$ , where $\delta $ is the minimum degree of G. We gave a complete characterisation of the extremal graphs for this bound in [Reference Liang and Xu10]. For the total forcing number, Davila and Henning [Reference Davila and Henning7] showed that if G is a connected graph of order $n\geq 3$ with maximum degree $\Delta \geq 2$ , then $F_t(G)\leq {\Delta n}/{(\Delta +1)}$ , with equality if and only if $G= K_{\Delta +1}$ or $K_{1,\Delta }$ .

In this paper, we study the semitotal forcing number of a graph. In Section 2, we give some basic definitions as preliminaries. In Section 3, we prove that it is NP-complete to determine the semitotal forcing number of a graph. In Section 4, we provide some upper bounds on the semitotal forcing number of a graph in terms of its order and maximum degree.

2 Preliminaries

Throughout this paper, we only consider simple, undirected and finite graphs.

Let $G=(V(G),E(G))$ be a graph with vertex set $V(G)$ and edge set $E(G)$ . Let $u, v$ be two vertices of G. If $uv\in E(G)$ , then we say u, v are adjacent, u is a neighbour of v and vice versa. The open neighbourhood of v is $N_G(v)=\{u\in V(G) \mid uv\in E(G)\}$ and the closed neighbourhood of v is $N_G[v]=N_G(v)\cup \{v\}$ . Similarly, for any set $X\subseteq V(G)$ , $N_G(X)={\cup }_{v\in X}N_G(v)$ and $N_G[X]=N_G(X)\cup X$ . The degree $d_{G}(v)$ of v is the number of vertices in $N_{G}(v)$ . The minimum degree and maximum degree of G are denoted by $\delta (G)$ and $\Delta (G)$ , respectively. We call a path connecting u and v a $(u,v)$ -path. The distance between u and v is the length of a shortest $(u,v)$ -path in G, denoted by $d_{G}(u,v)$ . For a vertex v and a vertex set X, let $d_{G}(v,X)=\min \{d_{G}(u,v) \mid u\in X\}$ . If the graph G is clear from the context, we write V, E, $N(v)$ , $N[v]$ , $N(X)$ , $N[X]$ , $d(v)$ , $\delta $ , $\Delta $ , $d(u,v)$ , $d(v,X)$ for short.

An independent set of a graph is a set of pairwise nonadjacent vertices, whereas a clique of a graph is a set of pairwise adjacent vertices. A dominating set in a graph G is a set D of vertices of G such that every vertex not in D is adjacent to at least one vertex in D. For a set of vertices $X\subseteq V(G)$ , the induced subgraph by X, denoted by $G[X]$ , is the graph with vertex set X, in which two vertices are adjacent if and only if they are adjacent in G. We denote by $G-X$ the induced subgraph $G[V\setminus X]$ ; if $X=\{x\}$ , we write $G-x$ for short.

Denote a path, a cycle and a complete graph on n vertices by $P_n$ , $C_n$ and $K_n$ , respectively. A complete bipartite graph with parts of sizes a and b is denoted $K_{a,b}$ .

Two vertices u and v in a nontrivial connected graph G are twins if u and v have the same neighbours in $V(G)\setminus \{u,v\}$ .

Observation 2.1. If u and v are twins of a connected graph G, then every forcing set of G contains at least one vertex of $\{u,v\}$ .

3 Complexity of semitotal forcing

In this section, we show that the semitotal forcing problem is NP-complete. The decision version of the semitotal forcing problem is as follows.

Problem 3.1 (Semitotal Forcing)

Instance: a graph $G=(V,E)$ of order n and a positive integer $k\leq n$ . Question: does G have a semitotal forcing set of size at most k?

Theorem 3.2. The semitotal forcing problem is NP-complete.

Proof. We first show that the semitotal forcing problem is in NP. Given a set S of vertices of G, it can be checked in polynomial time whether there is a vertex in S with exactly one neighbour not in S. Moreover, there cannot be more than $|V|$ steps in a forcing process. Thus, a nondeterministic algorithm can check in polynomial time whether a subset of vertices of V is forcing and further semitotal forcing, and whether it has size at most $k+1$ .

To show the hardness, we give a polynomial reduction from the forcing problem, which has been shown to be NP-complete in [Reference Aazami1, Reference Chekuri, Korula, Albers, Marchetti-Spaccamela, Matias, Nikoletseas and Thomas5].

Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph, where $V=\{v_1,\ldots , v_n\}$ . We construct a connected graph $G'=(V',E')$ with vertex set $V'=V\cup \{u,w_1,w_2\}$ and edge set

$$ \begin{align*}E'=E\cup\{uv_i \mid i\in[n]\}\cup\{uw_1,uw_2\}.\end{align*} $$

We will show that G has a forcing set of size at most k if and only if $G'$ has a semitotal forcing set of size at most k.

Suppose that G has a forcing set S of size at most k. We claim that $S'=S\cup \{w_1\}$ is a semitotal forcing set of $G'$ . First, we colour all vertices in $S'$ black and the other vertices of $G'$ white. Then $w_1\rightarrow u$ and further all vertices of $V(G)$ can be forced by applying the colour-change rule to S. Finally, $u\rightarrow w_2$ . Hence, $S'$ is a forcing set of $G'$ . Since every vertex in S is within distance 2 of the vertex $w_1$ , $S'$ is a semitotal forcing set of $G'$ of size at most $k+1$ .

Conversely, suppose that $G'$ has a semitotal forcing set $S'$ of size at most $k+1$ . By Observation 2.1, at least one vertex of $\{w_1, w_2\}$ belongs to $S'$ . Renaming vertices if necessary, we may assume that $w_1\in S'$ . We can choose a semitotal forcing set $S'$ such that u does not force any vertex of $V(G)$ . This is because if u forces a vertex v of $V(G)$ , then $w_2\in S'$ , and $S"=(S'\setminus\{w_2\}) \cup\{v\}$ is also a semitotal forcing set of $G'$ . Thus, each force between vertices of $V(G)$ in $G'$ can also be applied for $S:= S'\cap V(G)$ in G, since if $v\in V(G)$ has a single white neighbour in $G'$ at some step of the forcing process, it will have the same white neighbour in G. Moreover, since u does not force any vertex in $V(G)$ , all vertices in $V(G)$ must be forced by the vertices of $S'$ which are in $V(G)$ . Thus, S is a forcing set of G. Additionally, $|S|= |S'\cap V(G)|\leq k+1-1=k$ , so S has size at most k.

4 General upper bounds

We emphasise that it is NP-hard to compute the semitotal forcing number for a general graph, so it is particularly interesting to find efficient bounds for the semitotal forcing number. In this section, we give some upper bounds on the semitotal forcing number of a graph in terms of its order and maximum degree. We use the following result.

Theorem 4.1 (Davila and Henning, [Reference Davila and Henning7]).

If G is a connected graph of order $n \geq 3$ with maximum degree $\Delta \geq 2$ , then

$$ \begin{align*} F_t(G)\leq\frac{\Delta}{\Delta+1}n, \end{align*} $$

with equality if and only if $G= K_{n}$ or $G=K_{1,n-1}$ .

Since every total forcing set is also a semitotal forcing set, we have the consequence.

Corollary 4.2. If G is a connected graph of order $n \geq 3$ with maximum degree $\Delta \geq 2$ , then

$$ \begin{align*}F_{t2}(G)\leq\frac{\Delta}{\Delta+1}n, \end{align*} $$

with equality if and only if $G= K_{n}$ or $G=P_{3}$ .

We will give two improved upper bounds for the semitotal forcing number.

We define a weak partition $(V_1, \ldots , V_k)$ of the set V as a partition where some of the sets may be empty. Algorithm 1 outputs a weak partition of the vertex set V of G. According to Algorithm 1, lines 3–8 iteratively find a pair of vertices u and v with distance 2 in the current graph $G^{k-1}$ , set $v_k=v$ and delete all vertices in $N_{G^{k-1}}[N_{G^{k-1}}[v_k]]$ until the remaining connected components are complete graphs. Again, lines 10–14 iteratively delete the connected components whose order is greater than 2 in the remaining graph. Hence, $G[R]$ is a null graph or every component of $G[R]$ is either an edge or an isolated vertex. For each vertex in $A\cup A'$ , its neighbours are in $B\cup B'\cup C$ . Thus, the set $A\cup A'$ is independent. Similarly, for $1\leq i<j\leq r$ , there is no edge between $B_i$ and $B_j$ ; and there is no edge between R and $A\cup A'\cup B\cup B'$ .

We now restrict to $G\neq K_n$ . By using Algorithm 1, we present another upper bound on the semitotal forcing number of G in terms of its order and maximum degree.

Algorithm 1 Weak partition.

Theorem 4.3. If $G\neq K_n$ is a connected graph of order $n \geq 4$ with maximum degree $\Delta \geq 2$ , then

$$ \begin{align*} F_{t2}(G)\leq \frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}n, \end{align*} $$

with equality if and only if $G=C_{4}$ or $G=P_{4}$ or $G=K_{\Delta ,\Delta }$ .

Proof. Let $G\neq K_n$ be a connected graph of order $n \geq 4$ with maximum degree $\Delta \geq 2$ . If $\Delta =2$ , then $G=P_n$ or $G=C_n$ . In both cases, $F_{t2}(G)=2\leq {n}/{2}= (\Delta-1)n/\Delta $ , as desired. Further, if $F_{t2}(G)= (\Delta-1)n/\Delta$ , then $n = 4$ . Thus, $G= C_4$ or $G = P_4$ . Hence, we assume that $\Delta \geq 3$ in what follows.

Applying Algorithm 1 to $G=(V,E)$ , we get a weak partition $(A,B,C,A',B',R)$ of V, and $A=\{v_1, \ldots , v_k\}$ , $B=\{B_1, \ldots , B_k\}$ , $C=\{C_1, \ldots , C_k\}$ , $A'=\{v_{k+1}, \ldots , v_r\}$ , $B'=\{B_{k+1}, \ldots , B_r\}$ . Since $G\neq K_n$ , the sets A, B and C are not empty. For $1\leq i\leq k$ , let $G_i$ be the graph induced by $\{v_i\}\cup B_i\cup C_i$ ; for $k+1\leq i\leq r$ , let $G_i$ be the graph induced by $\{v_i\}\cup B_i$ . Note that r may be equal to k. Let $G_i$ have order $n_i$ and $|B_i| = b_i$ , $|C_i| = c_i$ . In what follows, we consider $G_i$ and divide into two cases.

Case 1: $1\leq i\leq k$ . We divide into two subcases.

Subcase 1.1: $b_i=1$ and $c_i=1$ . In this subcase, $G_i=P_3$ and $n_i=3$ . Let $S_i=\{v_i\}\cup B_i$ . Then $S_i$ is a semitotal forcing set of $G_i$ and

(4.1) $$ \begin{align} |S_i|=2=\frac{2}{3}\times 3\leq \frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}n_i. \end{align} $$

Subcase 1.2: $b_i\geq 2$ or $c_i\geq 2$ . By Algorithm 1, we note that the set $B_i$ dominates the set $C_i$ . Let $D_i$ be a minimum set of vertices in $B_i$ that dominate $C_i$ and $|D_i| = d_i$ . Note that $1 \leq d_i \leq b_i$ . Let $D_{i}=\{x_1^i, \ldots , x_{d_i}^i\}$ . By the minimality of the set $D_i$ , each vertex $x_j^i$ in $D_i$ dominates a vertex $y_j^i$ in $C_i$ that is not dominated by the other vertices in $D_i$ , where $j\in [d_i]$ . Now, let $D^{\prime }_i=\{y_1^i, \ldots , y_{d_i}^i\}$ and $L_i=C_i\setminus D^{\prime }_i$ . Let $|L_i|= l_i$ . Then $c_i= d_i + l_i$ and $n_i = b_i + c_i +1 = b_i + d_i + l_i + 1$ . Each vertex in $D_i$ is adjacent to $v_i$ and to exactly one vertex in $D^{\prime }_i$ , and therefore is adjacent to at most $\Delta - 2$ vertices in $L_i$ , implying that $l_i \leq d_i(\Delta - 2)$ . Let $S_i= V(G_i)\setminus (D^{\prime }_i\cup \{x_1^i\})$ . By the construction, $S_i$ is semitotal. Further, the set $S_i$ is a forcing set of $G_i$ since $v_i\rightarrow x_1^i$ first, and then $x_j^i\rightarrow y_j^i$ for $j\in [d_i]$ . Thus, the set $S_i$ is a semitotal forcing set of $G_i$ . Moreover,

(4.2) $$ \begin{align} |S_i|=b_i+ l_i &\leq b_i + d_i(\Delta-2) =b_i -d_i+ d_i(\Delta-1)\nonumber\\ &\leq \Delta-1+ d_i(\Delta-1) = (d_i+1)(\Delta-1), \end{align} $$

which implies that $d_i+1\geq |S_i|/(\Delta-1)$ . Thus, $n_i=b_i+ l_i+d_i+1=|S_i|+d_i+1\geq |S_i|+|S_i|/(\Delta-1)$ and further $|S_i|\leq (\Delta-1)n_i/\Delta$ .

Case 2: $k+1\leq i\leq r$ . In this case, $G_i=G[\{v_i\}\cup \{B_i\}]$ is a complete graph. Since $G\neq K_{\Delta +1}$ , we have $2\leq b_i\leq \Delta -1$ . Let $S_i= B_i$ . It is clear that $S_i$ is a semitotal forcing set of $G_i$ . Thus, $n_i=b_i+1$ and

$$ \begin{align*} |S_i|=b_i\leq\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}(b_i+1)=\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}n_i. \end{align*} $$

The set $S_i$ constructed for each $i\in [r]$ (see Cases 1 and 2 above) is a semitotal forcing set of $G_i$ . We now let $S'=\mathop {\cup }_{i=1}^{r} S_i$ . Thus,

$$ \begin{align*} |S'|=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r} |S_i|\leq\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}n_i =\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}n_i. \end{align*} $$

If $R=\emptyset $ , then $V(G)=\mathop {\cup }_{i=1}^{r} V(G_i)$ . We claim that $S=S'$ is a semitotal forcing set of G. As shown earlier, each set $S_i$ is a semitotal forcing set of $G_i$ for all $i\in [r]$ . By the construction, S is semitotal. We colour all vertices in S black and the other vertices white. When we apply the colour-change rule, all vertices of $G_i$ will become black in the order i and

$$ \begin{align*} |S|=|S'|\leq\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}n_i=\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}n. \end{align*} $$

Now we consider $R\neq \emptyset $ . Suppose $G[R]$ has order $n_R$ . Recall that every component of $G[R]$ is either an edge or an isolated vertex and there is no edge between R and $A\cup A'\cup B\cup B'$ . Since G is connected, every component of $G[R]$ is adjacent to some vertex of C. If there exists a vertex $v\in R$ which is not adjacent to some vertex of C, then v belongs to a $P_2$ -component of $G[R]$ and its neighbour is adjacent to some vertex of C. Take all the vertices that are the same as v and put them into T. Let $|T|=t$ and $W=R\setminus T$ . Note that $W\neq \emptyset $ . Let $D\subseteq C$ be a minimum dominating set of W and $|D|=d$ , $D=\{x_1,\ldots , x_d\}$ . By the minimality of the set D, each vertex $x_j$ in D dominates a vertex $y_j$ in W that is not dominated by the other vertices in D, where $j\in [d]$ . Let $D'=\{y_1, \ldots , y_{d}\}$ and $L=W\setminus D'$ . Let $|L|= l$ so that $n_R=d+l+t$ .

If $l=0$ , then $S=S'$ is a semitotal forcing set of G. Additionally,

$$ \begin{align*} |S|=|S'|\leq\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}n_i <\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}n. \end{align*} $$

Now assume that $l\neq 0$ . If $d(v, L\cup S')\leq 2$ for any $v\in L$ , then set $S"=L$ . Then $S=S'\cup S"$ is a semitotal forcing set of G; we will justify this claim at the end of the proof. Since each vertex in $D\ (\subseteq C)$ is adjacent to a vertex of B and to exactly one vertex in $D^{\prime }_i$ , we have $l\leq d(\Delta -2)$ . Recall that $n_R=d+l+t\geq d+l$ , so $|S"|=l\leq d(\Delta -2)\leq (n_R-|S"|)(\Delta -2)$ . This implies that $|S"|\leq ({(\Delta -2)}/{(\Delta -1)})n_R< ({(\Delta -1)}/{\Delta })n_R$ . Thus,

$$ \begin{align*} \begin{aligned} |S|=|S'|+|S"| <\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}n_i+\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}n_R =\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}\bigg(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}n_i+n_R\bigg) =\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}n. \end{aligned} \end{align*} $$

Suppose that there exists $v\in L$ such that $d(v, L\cup S')\geq 3$ . Take all the vertices that are the same as v and put them into X. For any $w\in X$ , there exists $u\in D$ such that u is adjacent to w and $u\in C_i$ for some i as in Subcase 1.2. Here, u is adjacent to $x_1^i$ , that is, $u=y_1^i$ and $x_1^i$ is its neighbour in $G_i$ . Since $d(w, L\cup S')\geq 3$ , we have $N_{R}(y_1^i)=\{w,w'\}$ , where $w'\in D'$ . Take all the vertices that are the same as $w'$ and put them into Y. Now replace $G_i$ with $G^{\prime }_i=G_i\cup \{w,w'\}$ and again divide into two cases. In the case $b_i\geq 2$ , we set $x\in B_i\setminus \{x_1^i\}$ and $S^{\prime }_i=(S_i\setminus \{x\})\cup \{x_1^i,w\}$ . In the case $b_i=1$ , $c_i\geq 2$ , clearly, $D_i=\{x_1^i\}$ , $D^{\prime }_i=\{y_1^i\}$ and $L_i\neq \emptyset $ . Since $L_i\subseteq S_i$ , we set $y\in L_i$ and $S^{\prime }_i=(S_i\setminus {y})\cup \{y_1^i,w\}$ . In both cases, it is not hard to check that $S^{\prime }_i$ is a semitotal forcing set of $G^{\prime }_i$ . Then for $G^{\prime }_i$ , $n^{\prime }_i=n_i+2=b_i+d_i+l_i+3$ and $|S^{\prime }_i|=|S_i|+1=b_i+ l_i+1\leq b_i + d_i(\Delta -2)+1={\kern1pt} b_i -d_i+ d_i(\Delta -1)+1\leq \Delta -1+ d_i(\Delta -1)+1{\kern1pt}={\kern1pt} (d_i+1)(\Delta -1)+1$ , which implies that $d_i+1\geq {(|S^{\prime }_i|-1)}/{(\Delta -1)}$ . Thus, $n^{\prime }_i=b_i+ l_i+d_i+3=|S^{\prime }_i|+d_i+2\geq |S^{\prime }_i|+{(|S^{\prime }_i|-1)}/{(\Delta -1)}+1={(\Delta |S^{\prime }_i|+\Delta -2)}/{(\Delta -1)}> {\Delta |S^{\prime }_i|}/{(\Delta -1)}$ and further $|S^{\prime }_i|<({(\Delta -1)}/{\Delta })n^{\prime }_i$ .

Now return to W. Let $W'=W\setminus (X\cup Y)$ , $D"=D'\setminus Y$ and $S"=L\setminus X$ . Let $R'=W'\cup T(=(D'\setminus Y)\cup (L\setminus X)\cup T)$ and $G_{R'}$ have order $n_{R'}$ . Then $n_{R'}=d"+|S"|+t\geq d"+|S"|$ , where $d"=|D"|$ . Thus, $S=S'\cup S"$ is a semitotal forcing set of G, where some $S_i$ in $S'$ is replaced by $S^{\prime }_i$ . We have $|S"|\leq (\Delta -2)d"\leq (\Delta -2)(n_{R'}-|S"|)= (\Delta -2)n_{R'}-(\Delta -2)|S"|$ . This implies $|S"|\leq ({(\Delta -2)}/{(\Delta -1)})n_{R'}<({(\Delta -1)}/{\Delta })n_{R'}$ . Thus,

$$ \begin{align*} \begin{aligned} |S|=|S'|+|S"| <\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}n_i+\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}n_{R'} =\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}\bigg(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}n_i+n_{R'}\bigg) =\frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta}n. \end{aligned} \end{align*} $$

We now show that the set S is a semitotal forcing set in G. By the construction, S is semitotal. In the first stage of the forcing process, we colour all vertices in $G_i$ for $i\in [r]$ black. As shown earlier, when we apply the colour-change rule to $S_i$ in $G_i$ with the order from small to large, all vertices of $G_i$ turn black.

In the second stage of the forcing process, we colour all vertices of R black. Now we play each of the vertices of D in turn, thereby colouring all vertices in $D'$ black. Finally, all vertices of T can be forced and all vertices of G are coloured black.

Thus, $F_{t2}(G)\leq |S|\leq ({(\Delta -1)}/{\Delta })n$ , as desired. Suppose next that $F_{t2}(G)= ({(\Delta -1)}/{\Delta })n$ . Then S is a minimum semitotal forcing set in G and $|S|= ({(\Delta -1)}/{\Delta })n$ . Recall that by our earlier assumptions, $\Delta \geq 3$ . If $R\neq \emptyset $ , then, as shown above, $|S|< ({(\Delta -1)}/{\Delta })n$ , which is a contradiction. Hence, $R=\emptyset $ , implying that $|S_i|=({(\Delta -1)}/{\Delta })n_i$ . For all $i \in [k]$ , the set $S_i$ must have been constructed as in Subcases 1.1 and 1.2 and equality holds in (4.1) and (4.2), which implies that ( $\Delta =3$ , $G_i=P_3$ ) and ( $b_i=\Delta $ , $d_i=1$ , $l_i=\Delta -2$ ), respectively.

We claim that G is a regular graph. Otherwise, $\delta < \Delta $ and we can choose a weak partition $(A,B,C,A',B',R)$ of V such that $v_1$ is a vertex of minimum degree. Thus, $b_1\neq \Delta $ . Further, $\Delta =3$ and $G_1=P_3$ , where $d(v_1)=1$ . Let $B_1=\{z\}$ . We find that $d(z)=2$ . Now we reselect a weak partition $(A,B,C,A',B',R)$ of V such that $v_1=z$ . Then $d(v_1)=b_i=2<\Delta $ and, by the previous analysis, equality holds in (4.1) and (4.2) for $i=1$ , which is a contradiction. Thus, $\delta =\Delta \geq 3$ .

Now consider $i=1$ . With $S_1$ constructed as in Subcase 1.2, we have $b_1=\Delta $ , $d_1=1$ , $l_1=\Delta -2$ . Then, $d(v_1)=d(x_1^1)=\Delta $ . First, we show that $B_1$ is an independent set. Otherwise, there exist $u,v\in B_1$ different from $x_1$ such that u is adjacent to v. Since $\Delta $ is the maximum degree, there exists $w\in C_1$ such that w is not adjacent to v. Let $S_1'=V(G_1)\setminus \{u,x_1,w\}$ . Then $v\rightarrow u$ and further $v_1\rightarrow x_1^1\rightarrow w$ . Thus, $S_1'$ is a semitotal forcing set of $G_1$ smaller than $S_1$ , and so $(S\setminus S_1)\cup S_1'$ is a semitotal forcing set of G smaller than S, which is a contradiction. Since $\Delta $ is the maximum degree, it is not hard to see that $N(v)=\{v_1\}\cup C_1$ for each $v\in B_1$ . Therefore, $G=K_{\Delta ,\Delta }$ , as desired.

This completes the proof.

As an immediate consequence of Theorem 4.3, we have the following result.

Theorem 4.4. If G is a connected graph of order $n \geq 3$ with maximum degree $\Delta \geq 2$ , then

$$ \begin{align*} F_{t2}(G)\leq \frac{(\Delta-1)n+1}{\Delta}, \end{align*} $$

with equality if and only if $G=K_{n}$ or $G=P_{3}$ .

Proof. Let G be a connected graph of order $n \geq 3$ with maximum degree $\Delta \geq 2$ . If $G=K_n$ , then $F_{t2}(G)=n-1= ({(\Delta -1)n+1})/{\Delta }$ . Now consider $G\neq K_n$ . If $n=3$ , then $G=P_3$ and $F_{t2}(G)=2= ({(\Delta -1)n+1})/{\Delta }$ , as desired. If $n\geq 4$ , then $F_{t2}(G)\leq {(\Delta -1)n}/{\Delta }<({(\Delta -1)n+1})/{\Delta }$ by Theorem 4.3. Thus, $F_{t2}(G)\leq ({(\Delta -1)n+1})/{\Delta }$ , with equality if and only if $G=K_{n}$ or $G=P_{3}$ .

If G is a connected graph of order n with maximum degree $\Delta $ , then $n\geq \Delta + 1$ and

(4.3) $$ \begin{align} \frac{(\Delta-1)n+1}{\Delta}\leq \frac{\Delta}{\Delta+1}n. \end{align} $$

The equality holds in (4.3) if and only if $n = \Delta + 1$ . Thus, $F_{t2}(G)= ({(\Delta -1)n+1})/{\Delta }=\Delta n/(\Delta+1)$ if and only if $G=K_{n}$ or $G=P_{3}$ . Thus, the upper bound of Theorem 4.2 follows as an immediate consequence of the upper bound of Theorem 4.4.

Footnotes

This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants Nos. 12071194, 11571155).

References

Aazami, A., Hardness Results and Approximation Algorithms for Some Problems on Graphs, PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, 2008.Google Scholar
AIM Minimum Rank–Special Graphs Work Group (Barioli, F., Barrett, W., Butler, S., Cioabǎ, S., Cvetković, D., Fallat, S., Godsil, C., Haemers, W., Hogben, L., Mikkelson, R., Narayan, S., Pryporova, O., Sciriha, I., So, W., Stevanović, D., van der Holst, H., Meulen, K. Vander and Wangsness, A.), ‘Zero forcing sets and the minimum rank of graphs’, Linear Algebra Appl. 428 (2008), 16281648.Google Scholar
Amos, D., Caro, Y., Davila, R. and Pepper, R., ‘Upper bounds on the $k$ -forcing number of a graph’, Discrete Appl. Math. 181 (2015), 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caro, Y. and Pepper, R., ‘Dynamic approach to $k$ -forcing’, Theory Appl. Graphs 2(2) (2015), Article no. 2.Google Scholar
Chekuri, C. and Korula, N., ‘A graph reduction step preserving element-connectivity and applications’, in: Automata, Languages and Programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5555 (eds. Albers, S., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Matias, Y., Nikoletseas, S. and Thomas, W.) (Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg, 2009), 254265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Q., ‘On the semitotal forcing number of a graph’, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. 45 (2022), 14091424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davila, R. and Henning, M., ‘On the total forcing number of a graph’, Discrete Appl. Math. 257 (2019), 115127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davila, R. and Kenter, F., ‘Bounds for the zero forcing number of graphs with large girth’, Theory Appl. Graphs 2(2) (2015), Article no. 1.Google Scholar
Gentner, M., Penso, L., Rautenbach, D. and Souza, U., ‘Extremal values and bounds for the zero forcing number’, Discrete Appl. Math. 213 (2016) 196200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, Y.-P. and Xu, S.-J., ‘On graphs maximizing the zero forcing number’, Discrete Appl. Math. 334 (2023), 8190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, L., Wu, B. and Tang, Z., ‘Proof of a conjecture on the zero forcing number of a graph’, Discrete Appl. Math. 213 (2016), 223237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar