Search

In this paper we begin the study of well-failed graphs, that is, graphs in which every maximal failed zero forcing set is a maximum failed zero forcing set, or equivalently, in which every minimal fort is a minimum fort. We characterize trees that are well-failed. Along the way, we prove that the set of vertices in a graph that are not in any minimal fort is identical to the set of vertices that are in no minimal zero forcing set, which allows us to characterize vertices in a tree that are in no minimal fort.

A graph in which all minimal zero forcing sets are in fact minimum size is called ``well-forced." This paper characterizes well-forced trees and presents an algorithm for determining which trees are well-forced. Additionally, we characterize which vertices in a tree are contained in no minimal zero forcing set.

In zero forcing, the focus is typically on finding the minimum cardinality of any zero forcing set in the graph; however, the number of cardinalities between $0$ and the number of vertices in the graph for which there are both zero forcing sets and sets that fail to be zero forcing sets is not well known. In this paper, we introduce the zero forcing span of a graph, which is the number of distinct cardinalities for which there are sets that are zero forcing sets and sets that are not. We introduce the span within the context of standard zero forcing and skew zero forcing as well as for standard zero forcing on directed graphs. We characterize graphs with high span and low span of each type, and also investigate graphs with special zero forcing polynomials.

The study of token addition and removal and token jumping reconfiguration graphs for power domination is initiated. Some results established here can be extended by applying the methods used for power domination to reconfiguration graphs for other parameters such as domination and zero forcing, so these results are first established in a universal framework.

Let $D$ be a simple digraph (directed graph) with vertex set $V(D)$ and arc set $A(D)$ where $n=|V(D)|$, and each arc is an ordered pair of distinct vertices. If $(v,u) \in A(D)$, then $u$ is considered an \emph{out-neighbor} of $v$ in $D$. Initially, we designate each vertex to be either filled or empty. Then, the following color change rule (CCR) is applied: if a filled vertex $v$ has exactly one empty out-neighbor $u$, then $u$ will be filled. The process continues until the CCR does not allow any empty vertex to become filled. If all vertices in $V(D)$ are eventually filled, then the initial set is called a \emph{zero forcing set} (ZFS); if not, it is a \emph{failed zero forcing set} (FZFS). We introduce the \emph{failed zero forcing number} $F(D)$ on a digraph, which is the maximum cardinality of any FZFS. The \emph{zero forcing number}, $Z(D)$, is the minimum cardinality of any ZFS. We characterize digraphs that have $F(D)

Let $G$ be a simple graph with vertex set $V$ and edge set $E$, and let $S \subseteq V$. The \emph{open neighborhood} of $v \in V$, $N(v)$, is the set of vertices adjacent to $v$; the \emph{closed neighborhood} is given by $N[v] = N(v) \cup \{v\}$. The \emph{open neighborhood} of $S$, $N(S)$, is the union of the open neighborhoods of vertices in $S$, and the \emph{closed neighborhood} of $S$ is $N[S] = S \cup N(S)$. The sets $ \mathcal{P}^i(S), i \geq 0$, of vertices \emph{monitored} by $S$ at the $i^{\ {th}}$ step are given by $\mathcal{P}^0(S) = N[S]$ and $\mathcal{P}^{i+1}(S) = \mathcal{P}^i(S) \bigcup\left\{ w : \{ w \} = N[v] \backslash \mathcal{P}^i(S) \ { for some } v \in \mathcal{P}^i(S) \right\}$. If there exists $j$ such that $\mathcal{P}^j(S) = V$, then $S$ is called a \emph{power dominating set}, PDS, of $G$. We introduce and discuss the \emph{failed power domination number} of a graph $G$, $\bar{\gamma}_p(G)$, the largest cardinality of a set that is not a PDS. We prove that $\bar{\gamma}_p(G)$ is NP-hard to compute, determine graphs in which every vertex is a PDS, and compare $\bar{\gamma}_p(G)$ to similar parameters., Comment: 13 pages, 6 figures