Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.06569

On the Roots of Connected Domination Polynomials

Pingping Shao·Chengye Zhao
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We determine the distribution of the roots of the connected domination polynomial $D_c(G,x)$. The main tool is a substitution formula for the lexicographic product with a complete graph, $D_c(G[K_n],x)=D_c(G,(x+1)^n-1)$, which we prove here. Combining the formula with two explicit families of seed roots, the real roots of the cycles $C_n$ and the real roots of the joins $C_m\vee C_n$ lying in $(-1,0)$, we prove that the closure of the real connected domination roots is $(-\infty,0]$, and that the closure of all connected domination roots is the whole complex plane. These are the connected domination analogues of the root-density theorems of Brown and Tufts and of Brown and Beaton for the ordinary domination polynomial.

Explore related subjects

math.CO

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Pingping Shao, Chengye Zhao. 2026-09-14. On the Roots of Connected Domination Polynomials. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.06569

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

On Perfect Divisibility of Bull-Free Graphs Without Long Paths

A graph $G$ is {\em perfectly divisible} if, for every induced subgraph $H$ of $G$, $V(H)$ can be partitioned into $A$ and $B$ such that $H[A]$ is perfect and $ω(H[B])<ω(H)$. Chudnovsky and Sivaraman [J. Graph Theory \textbf{90} (2019) 54-60] proved that every ($P_5$, bull)-free graph is perfectly divisible, while Chen and Xu [Discrete Appl. Math. \textbf{372} (2025) 298-307] proved the same for ($P_7,C_5$, bull)-free graphs. We extend these results by proving that every ($P_8,C_5$, bull)-free graph is perfectly divisible and that, letting $F$ denote the Grötzsch graph, a ($P_6$, bull)-free graph is perfectly divisible if and only if it is $F$-free.

math.CO↗
arXiv2026

Covering graphs by isometric trees

A connected subgraph of a graph is isometric if it preserves distances. Recently, graphs admitting a vertex or edge covering by a small number of isometric paths have been studied. In this paper, we consider the analogous problem for isometric trees, focusing on the treewidth of graphs admitting a vertex or edge covering by a small number of such trees. Baste, De Meyer, Giocanti, Objois, and Picavet showed that for coverings by two isometric trees, the treewidth is bounded. We show that already for three isometric trees, the treewidth can be linear in the number of vertices. On the positive side, we show that for graphs of bounded degree coverable by a small number of isometric trees, the treewidth is sublinear in the number of vertices.

math.CO↗
arXiv2026

Tree-independence number of $P_5$-free graphs with no large bicliques

The tree-independence number of a graph is the minimum, over all tree-decompositions of the graph, of the maximum size of an independent set contained in a bag. Graph classes of bounded tree-independence number have strong structural and algorithmic properties; however, the parameter can be unbounded even in quite restricted classes. In particular, the presence of an induced biclique $K_{\ell,\ell}$ forces tree-independence number at least $\ell$. This leads to the question whether large induced bicliques are the only obstruction to bounded tree-independence number in natural hereditary classes. A conjecture of Dallard, Krnc, Kwon, Milanič, Munaro, Štorgel, and Wiederrecht states that for all positive integers $t$ and $\ell$, ${\{P_t,K_{\ell,\ell}\}}$-free graphs have bounded tree-independence number. We prove this conjecture for ${t=5}$ by showing that every ${\{P_5,K_{\ell,\ell}\}}$-free graph has tree-independence number at most ${4\ell-4}$. We also obtain related bounds for the weaker parameter of $α$-degeneracy and answer a question of Hilaire, Milanič, and Vasić whether tree-independence number of ${\{P_5,K_{\ell,\ell}\}}$-free graphs exceeds $\ell$ by at most an additive constant.

math.CO↗