# Complexity aspects of the computation of the rank of a graph.

1 Introduction

When considering the spread of an infection, information or advertisement over a network, a natural model consists of starting with an initial set of nodes to which new ones are added whenever enough neighbors are already inside the set [JR09]. Such a model is strongly related with abstract convexities [vdV93]. in particular, if a vertex gets infected when at least two of its neighbors already are, we have a strong connection with the so-called [P.sub.3]-convexity.

We consider the problem of finding the largest set such that none of the elements is infected by the others. More formally, for a graph G and a subset S [subset or equal to] V (G), the hull of S, denoted H(S) is the smallest convex set containing S. We say that S is convexly independent if v [not member of] H (S\{v}), for each v [member of] S, and convexly dependent otherwise. The rank of G, denoted by rk(G) is the cardinality of the largest convexly independent set of G.

Recently, complexity aspects of the [P.sub.3]-convexity have been considered extensively for many convexity parameters such as the Hull number [BRdSS13, [CDP.sup.+]11, CPRPdS13], the Radon number [[DRdS.sup.+] 13b, [DRdS.sup.+]12, DRdSS12, HRS13] and the Caratheodory number [[BCD.sup.+]12, [DRdS.sup.+]13a] as well as for the partition problem [[CDD.sup.+]10]. In this paper we are interested in the complexity of finding the rank of G, in the [P.sub.3]-convexity. We start by giving some definitions in Section 2. In Section 3 we show that the problem is NP-complete even if the input graph is restricted to some well studied graph classes. Still, we are able to show how to find the rank in polynomial time for some restricted cases, as shown in Section 4. Finally, motivated by the hardness of the problem, we give a tight upper bound for the general case in Section 5. Additionally, in Section 6 we show that the problem is NP-complete also in the context of the monophonic convexity.

2 Definitions

Before we proceed with the results, we begin by recalling some definitions. We consider finite, simple and undirected graphs. For any graph G, let V(G) denote its vertex set and E(G) its edge set. For a vertex v [member of] V(G), we call d(v) the degree of v, i.e., the number of edges adjacent to v. Also, for a pair of vertices u, v [member of] V(G), we denote their distance by dist(u, v). The diameter of a graph G is the greatest distance between two of its vertices. [delta](G) and [DELTA](G) represent, respectively the smallest and the greatest degree of a vertex that belongs to G.

We are mostly concerned with the convexity of paths of order three on simple undirected graphs, unless we clearly state otherwise. The convex hull of a set S is the smallest convex set that contains S and is represented by H (S). We can think about the computation of the hull iteratively. Initially H (S) = S and, on each step, a vertex with at least two neighbors inside H(S) is added to H(S). This computation stops when no such vertex exists. Because of this, sometimes we say that a vertex that belongs to H(S) is generated by S.

A set R is called a Radon set if it can be partitioned in two subsets R = Ri U R2 with intersecting convex hulls, that is, H ([R.sub.1]) [intersection] H ([R.sub.2]) [not equal to] 0. The cardinality of the largest Radon set of a graph G is called its Radon number and is denoted by r(G). Also, any set S [subset or equal to] V(G) that generates the whole graph, i.e, H (S) = V (G) is called a hull set and we call hull number the size of the smallest set that satisfies such property. We represent the hull number of a graph G by h(G).

A convexly independent set S [subset or equal to] V (G) is a set such that, for all v [member of] S, v [member of] H (S\{v}). Otherwise, S is called convexly dependent. We can say that a set is convexly independent if none of its vertices is generated by the others. The rank of a graph is the cardinality of its maximum convexly independent set, denoted by rk(G). We call the problem of determining the rank of a graph the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem. Its decision version is the main object of study of this paper and is given below.

PROBLEM: MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET

INPUT: A graph G and an integer k

QUESTION: Is rk(G) [greater than or equal to] k?

An Open Packing of a graph G is a set S [subset or equal to] V(G) such that no pair of its vertices have intersecting open neighborhoods. This concept was introduced and proved to be NP-hard to determine even on chordal graphs by Henning and Slater [HS99]. The cardinality of the largest set with this property is called the open packing number and is represented by [[rho].sub.o](G). The decision version of the OPEN PACKING NUMBER problem is stated as follows.

PROBLEM: OPEN PACKING NUMBER

INPUT: A graph G and an integer k

QUESTION: Is [[rho].sub.o](G) [greater than or equal to] k?

A split graph G is one whose vertex set admits a partition V(G) = C [union] I into a clique C and an independent set I.

A clique separator is a subset of vertices that induces a complete graph whose removal disconnects the graph. An atom G is a graph without a clique separator.

Finally, a bipartite graph G is one whose vertex set can be partitioned in two sets A and B such that A [union] B = V(G), A [intersection] B = 0 and there is no edge from a vertex of A to a vertex of B.

3 Hardness Results

3.1 Split graphs

We show that computing the rank of a split graph with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2, in the context of the [P.sub.3]-convexity, is already NP-hard. The following simple result is employed.

Lemma 1 Let G be a graph, C a complete subset of it, and [v.sub.1], [v.sub.2] distinct vertices of C. Then H ([v.sub.1], [v.sub.2]) [contains or equal to] C.

We can now state the NP-completeness.

Theorem 1 MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET is NP-complete, even for split graphs with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2.

Proof: Since the hull of a subset of vertices can be computed in polynomial time for any graph, the problem clearly lies in NP. For the reduction, we employ the MAXIMUM SUBSET PACKING problem, which is known to be NP-complete [Kar72]. The latter problem has as input a family S' of subsets [S'.sub.i] [member of] S' of some ground set, together with an integer k'. The question is whether S' contains k' or more mutually disjoint subsets [S'.sub.i]. Given S' and k', we construct the following instance of MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET. The elements of the ground set [union][S'.sub.i] of the subsets [S'.sub.i] [member of] S' are all vertices of the graph G. Besides, G contains also a pair of new distinguished vertices [w.sub.i], [z.sub.i], for each subset [S'.sub.i] [member of] S'. The edges of G are as follows. The set of vertices of G corresponding to the ground set of S', together with the set of all vertices [z.sub.i] form a clique C of G. In addition, for each of the distinguished vertices [w.sub.i], add an edge [w.sub.i][z.sub.i] and edges [w.sub.i]v, for each v [member of] C that corresponds to an element of the subset [S'.sub.i] [member of] S'. Finally, define k = k'. The construction of the input to the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem is completed. Observe that the set of vertices [w.sub.i] [member of] V(G) form an independent set I of G, and therefore G is a split graph with bipartition V(G) = C [union] I. Finally, without loss of generality, we restrict to values k = k' [greater than or equal to] 3.

We prove that S' contains k' mutually disjoint subsets if and only if G has a convexly independent set of size k,

Suppose that S' contains k' mutually disjoint subsets [S.sub.1], [S.sub.2], ..., [S'.sub.k']. We show that the subset {[w.sub.1], [w.sub.2], ..., [w.sub.k]} of V(G) is a convexly independent set of G. Because [S'.sub.i] [intersection] [S'.sub.j] = 0, for i [not equal to] j, it follows that [N.sub.G][[w.sub.i]] [intersection] [N.sub.G][[w.sub.j]] = 0, for i [not equal to] j. Consequently, [dist.sub.G]([w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]) > 2, implying that H({[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}) = {[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}, for any 1 [less than or equal to] i < j [less than or equal to] k. The latter means {[w.sub.1], ..., [w.sub.k]} is convexly independent.

Conversely, by hypothesis G has a convexly independent set S of size k. First, we show that S [subset or equal to] I. If S contains three vertices [v.sub.1], [v.sub.2], [v.sub.3] [member of] C, by Lemma 1, H ({[v.sub.1], [v.sub.2]}) [subset or equal to] C and therefore H (S) = H (S\{[v.sub.3]}), contradiction. If S contains exactly two vertices of C then [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3 implies that there is some [w.sub.i] [member of] S [intersection] I. Again, Lemma 1 and the fact that [absolute value of N([w.sub.i])] [greater than or equal to] 2 imply that [w.sub.i] [member of] H({[v.sub.1], [v.sub.2]}), hence S must be convexly dependent. Finally, if S contains exactly one vertex [v.sub.1] [member of] C then there are at least two distinct vertices [w.sub.i], [w.sub.j] [member of] S [intersection] I. In this case, because N([w.sub.i]) [greater than or equal to] 2, we conclude that [w.sub.i] has a neighbor [v.sub.2], distinct from vi. That is, [v.sub.2] [member of] H({[v.sub.1], [w.sub.i]}), and using Lemma 1, we conclude that [w.sub.2] [member of] H({[v.sub.1], [w.sub.i]}), implying that {[v.sub.1], [w.sub.1], [w.sub.2]} is already convexly dependent, a contradiction. Consequently, it is true that S [subset] I.

Finally, choose a pair of arbitrary distinct vertices [w.sub.i], [w.sub.j] [member of] S, and examine N([w.sub.i]) [intersection] N([w.sub.j]). We show that they are disjoint. Suppose the contrary, and let [v.sub.1] [member of] N([w.sub.i]) [intersection] N([w.sub.j]). Because [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3, there is [w.sub.p] [member of] S, such that [w.sub.p] [not equal to] [w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]. Then [v.sub.1] [member of] H({[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}). Consequently [z.sub.i] [member of] H({[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}), meaning that C [subset or equal to] H ({[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}) and finally [w.sub.p] [member of] H ({[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}). Consequently, N ([w.sub.i]) [intersection] N ([w.sub.j]) = 0, for all distinct [w.sub.i], [w.sub.j] [member of] S. Since N([w.sub.i]) and N([w.sub.j]) respectively, are exactly the subsets [S'.sub.i] and [S'.sub.j] of S', we conclude that S' contains k' mutually disjoint subsets, completing the proof.

Corollary 1 The OPEN PACKING NUMBER problem is NP-complete for split graphs with ([delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2.

The above corollary strengthens a result of Henning and Slater [HS99], which stated that the OPEN PACKING NUMBER was NP-complete for chordal graphs, and is simpler to understand with the aid of the following lemmas.

Lemma 2 Let G be a split graph with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2 and split partition V (G) = C [union] I. If a set S C [??] (G) with [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3 is convexly independent, then S [subset or equal to] I.

Proof: Suppose S [??] V(G) is a convexly independent set with [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3 and that there is some v [member of] S [intersection C. Consider any u [member of] S such that u [not equal to] v. If u [member of] C, all other vertices in C and, therefore, the whole set of vertices of G is generated by u and v alone. If u [member of] I, u and v have a common neighbor in C that is added to the convex hull and, together with v, also generates the whole graph. In both cases a third vertex of S is generated, which means S is convexly dependent.

Lemma 3 Let G be a split graph with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2. A set S [??] V(G) such that [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3 is convexly independent if and only if H (S) = S. Moreover, V (G) is not convexly independent.

Proof: Let G be a split graph with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2 and split partition V(G) = C [union] I in which C is a clique and I is an independent set. Since, by Lemma 2, no vertex of C can be in a convexly independent set, V(G) is convexly dependent.

Now let S [??] V(G) be a convexly independent set with [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3. Suppose that vertices u, v [member of] S generate w [not member of] S. Since S [subset or equal to] I and I is stable, w must be in C, as it is a common neighbor of u and v. Since either u or v, together with w can generate the whole graph, a third vertex of S is present in H({u, v}), hence S is not convexly dependent.

Conversely, suppose there is some S [??] V (G) such that H (S) = S and S is convexly dependent. Since S is not convexly independent, there is some v [member of] that has at least two neighbors in S. That implies the existence of u [member of] [intersection] S, for I is stable. This is a contradiction with Lemma 2 and, therefore, no such set can exist.

We can now easily prove Corollary 1.

Proof: Let G be a split graph with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2. Lemma 3 shows that, in G, every convexly independent set is also an open packing. Besides, every open packing is clearly a convexly independent set. This means that knowing the open packing number of G is the same as knowing the rank of said graph, thus the OPEN PACKING NUMBER problem is NP-complete for split graphs with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2.

3.2 Bipartite graphs with diameter at most 3

We prove that computing the rank of a bipartite graph with diameter at most 3, in the context of the [P.sub.3]- convexity, is NP-hard.

Theorem 2 MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET is NP-complete, even for bipartite graphs with diameter at most three.

Proof: As stated in the proof of Theorem 1, the problem lies in NP. We present a reduction from the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem for split graphs with minimum degree at least 2, which we have already proved to be NP-complete. As stated before, this problem receives a graph G and an integer k as input and decides whether or not rk(G) is greater than k.

Given a split graph G' with [delta](G') [greater than or equal to] 2 and k' [greater than or equal to] 4, let k = k'. We will construct a bipartite graph G as follows. Let V(G') = C' [union] I' be a split partition of the vertices in V(G') in which C' is a clique and I' is an independent set. Now let V(G) = C [union] I, with C = C' [union] {y} and I = I' [union] {[x.sub.1], [x.sub.2]}. For every two adjacent vertices of G' that are not both in C', add an edge between them in G. Also add edges from [x.sub.1] and [x.sub.2] to all vertices in C and from y to the vertices in I. For simplicity, we will call [x.sub.1], [x.sub.2] and y universal vertices. Notice that G is bipartite and that the distance between any two of its vertices is not greater than 3, since it is always possible to use the universal vertices to form a path with at most 3 edges from any vertex to any other.

We prove that G' has a convexly independent set of size greater or equal to k' if and only if G has a convexly independent set of size greater or equal to k.

Suppose there is a convexly independent set S' [subset or equal to] V(G') with [absolute value of S'] [greater than or equal to] k'. Let S = S'. Since [absolute value of S] = [absolute value of S'] and k = k', we know that [absolute value of S] > k. By Lemma 2, we know that S [subset or equal to] I and, by Lemma 3, that no vertex in C but y is adjacent to more than one vertex in S. From that we can conclude that H(S) = S [union] {y}. Since all vertices in S only have neighbors in C and there is only one vertex of C in H(S), no v [member of] S is generated by a subset of S and, therefore, S is a convexly independent set with [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] k.

Conversely, suppose that S [subset or equal to] V(G) is a convexly independent set of G with [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] k and let S' = S. We show that a S' is convexly independent in G'. In order to prove this, we show that S c I, that xi, x2 e S and that no vertex in C but y is generated by S, meaning that H(S') = S', which suffices to prove that S' is convexly independent as stated on Lemma 3.

First, notice that any two vertices of C generate the whole graph, because they add [x.sub.1] and [x.sub.2] to the convex hull which, in turn, generate all other vertices in C. That leads to the convex hull being V(G). Since [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 4, there is some vertex in S that is generated by these two and, therefore, S would not be convexly independent. The same applies if there is exactly one vertex from C in S. Any pair of vertices of I generates y, thus y cannot be in S, and y, together with any other vertex in C, generates the whole graph which means the set is not convexly independent.

Now suppose that [x.sub.1] is in S. Let v [member of] I be any other vertex from S. Since [x.sub.1] is an universal vertex, all the neighborhood of v is generated and, since [delta](G') [greater than or equal to] 2 and the neighborhood of the vertices in I is preserved, we now have 2 vertices in C which, in turn, generate the whole graph. S could not be convexly independent if that was the case and, therefore, [x.sub.1] is not in S. The same argument applies to [x.sub.2].

We must show, at last, that no vertex in C but y is generated. It is clear that it could not happen, though, for it would lead to H (S) = V (G). Since the adjacency of the vertices in I ' is preserved when we create I and C, we know that H (S') = S' and, by Lemma 3, S' is convexly independent and [absolute value of S'] [greater than or equal to] k', which concludes the proof.

4 Polynomial time algorithms

4.1 Threshold graphs

Since the problem of finding the rank of a graph G is NP-hard even for split graphs, we may ask about the complexity of calculating this parameter for a threshold graph.

Theorem 3 If G is a connected threshold graph with [absolute value of V(G)] [greater than or equal to] 3 and D [subset or equal to] V(G) is the set with all v [member of] V(G) such that d(v) = [delta](G), then:

(i) if G is a star, then rk(G) = [absolute value of V (G)] - 1;

(ii) otherwise, if [delta](G) = 1, then rk(G) = [absolute value of D] + 1;

(iii) otherwise, rk(G) = 2;

Proof: In (i), it is clear that D itself is a maximum convexly independent set.

Moreover, (iii) is the case in which d(v) > 1 for all v [member of] D. That means that, no matter the choice of vertices, the nested neighborhood of vertices that characterizes threshold graphs implies that at least two vertices of the clique will be in the convex hull of any S [??] V(G) such that [absolute value of S] = 2. The two vertices in the clique, in turn, will generate the whole graph. This implies that there is no third vertex that we could add to S without making it convexly dependent and, therefore, rk(G) = 2.

In (ii), if we take two vertices u, v [member of] V (G)\D and define S = {u, v}, we will have H (S) = V (G)\D. The only candidates to enter S without making it convexly dependent, then, are the vertices in D, but any one of them, together with one of u or v, would generate the other vertex in S; therefore this set cannot be made any larger. From this we can understand that no convexly independent set of cardinality greater than two can be made with two or more vertices from V(G)\D. If we take all vertices in D into a set S, since G is a threshold graph, we know that only one vertex of G, besides those in D, is in H (S). We can add to the set, then, any other vertex in the graph, for it was not yet generated by the others and no vertex in D can be generated by the remaining elements of S. Since this addition makes H (S) = V (G) and [absolute value of D] + 1 [greater than or equal to] 2, we know that rk(G) = [absolute value of D] + 1.

Since we can determine the degree of all vertices in O([absolute value of E]) time and [absolute value of D] can be computed in O([absolute value of V]) time given we have the vertices degrees, it is possible to solve the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET in O([absolute value of E] + [absolute value of V]) time for threshold graphs.

4.2 Trees

Let T be a tree rooted in r [member of] V(T). We denote the subtree with root in a vertex v [member of] V(T) as [T.sub.v].

We use a dynamic programming algorithm to find a maximum convexly independent set [S.sup.*] in polynomial time for T.

We say that a vertex u [member of] V(T) sends one unity of charge to v [member of] V(T) if and only if u [member of] [H.sub.T-v] (S\{v}) and v [member of] N(u), i.e., although u and v are neighbors, u does not depend on v to be in the convex hull of S\{v}. The total amount of charge received by v with respect to S is represented as ch(v), that is, ch(v) = [absolute value of N(v) [intersection] [H.sub.T-v](S\{v})].

Lemma 4 Let S [subset or equal to] V(T) be a convexly independent set in T. v [member of] V(T) is generated by S\{v} if and only if ch(v) [greater than or equal to] 2.

Proof: If ch(v) [greater than or equal to] 2, then v has at least two neighbors, say [u.sub.1] and [u.sub.2], such that [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] [H.sub.T-v](S\{v}). Since adding a vertex to a graph does not remove any other from the convex hull of a set in the [P.sub.3]-convexity, we can put v back into T - v and still have [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] [H.sub.T](S\{v}). Therefore, v is generated by S\{v}.

Conversely, if v is generated by S\{v}, that means that there are [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] N(v) such that [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] [H.sub.T](S\{v}) and that this does not depend on v also being in [H.sub.T](S\{v}). If, by removing v from T, [u.sub.i] is not in [H.sub.T-v] (S\{v}), that means that [u.sub.i] has exactly two neighbors in T that are also in [H.sub.T](S\{v}) and v is necessarily one of them, which is a contradiction. We know, then, that [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] [H.sub.T- v](S\{v}) and, since [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] N(v), ch(v) [greater than or equal to] 2, which completes the proof.

Corollary 2 S is convexly independent ifand only ifthere is no v [member of] S such that ch(v) [greater than or equal to] 2.

In order to describe the algorithm, we must introduce the recurrence relation. Let us define [P.sub.v](i, j, k), the contribution of v, as the size of the maximum convexly independent set using only vertices from the subtree rooted in v in the state defined by i, j and k as stated below. In case [P.sub.v](i, j, k) is not well defined, we say that v's contribution is -[infinity], so this value cannot be misused in other calculations.

* i = 1 means that v receives 1 unity of charge from its parent, while i = 0 means it does not.

* j = 1 means that v is part of the convexly independent set, while j = 0 means the opposite.

* k is the amount of charge that v receives from its children.

Notice that, when computing a certain [P.sub.v](i, j, k), ch(v) = i + k.

Say that [p.sub.v] is the parent of v and that N'(v) = N(v)\{[p.sub.v]}. Also, let us define the following functions:

f(v, i) = max{[P.sub.v] (i, 0,0), [P.sub.v](i, 0,1)} (1)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (2)

g(v, [i.sub.1], [i.sub.2]) = h(v, [i.sub.1]) - f(v, [i.sub.2]) (3)

Since, in (1), ch(v) < 2 or, else, ch(v) = 2 and v depends on [p.sub.v] to be in H (S), we can be sure that v sends no charge to its parent. If j = 1 or k [greater than or equal to] 2, v will always be in H (S) independently of the charges that may come from [p.sub.v]. The function f(v, i), then, determines the maximum contribution of v while sending no charge to its parent.

The function h(v, i), comprising all the possibilities for j and k not covered by f, represents the maximum contribution of v when it must send a unity of charge to its parent.

Moreover, the function g(v, [i.sub.1], [i.sub.2]) is the gain, in terms of the contribution, of forcing a vertex v that is not sending charge to its parent to do so.

We can now determine the value of [P.sub.v](i, j, k) for any vertex v [member of] V(T).

[P.sub.v](0, 0, 0) = [summation over (u[member of]N'(v))] f(u, 0); (4)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (5)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (6)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (7)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (8)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (9)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (10)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (11)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (12)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (13)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (14)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. (15)

Theorem 4 The previous recurrence relation computes [P.sub.v] (i, j, k) correctly and this calculation can be done in polynomial time.

Proof: We prove the correctness of the recurrence relation above by induction. Let us consider a vertex v [member of] V(T) and all the possibilities for i, j and k.

In case v is a leaf of [T.sub.r], k must be 0, otherwise the contribution is said to be -[infinity]. There are four cases in which this occurs: [P.sub.v](0,0,0), [P.sub.v](0,1,0), [P.sub.v](1,0,0) and [P.sub.v](1,1,0). Since v is a leaf, we know that its only neighbor is [p.sub.v], and that means that [P.sub.v](i, j, 0) is always a valid contribution. In this case, it can be seen in (4), (8), (11) and (14) that [P.sub.v] (i, 0,0) = [[summation].sub.ueN'(v)] f(u, 0) and [P.sub.v](i, 1,0) = [[summation].sub.ueN'(v)] f(u, 1) +1. Since all sums amount to zero, we have [P.sub.v](i, 0,0) = 0 and [P.sub.v] (i, 1,0) = 1, which is correct, as the maximum contribution of [T.sub.v] can only be 0 when v [not member of] S and 1 otherwise.

For all other vertices, we must make some further analysis.

If i = 0, j = 0 and k = 0, we want the maximum number of nodes in a convexly independent set that are also in [T.sub.v], given that v receives no charge either from [p.sub.v] or from its children. For that, each u [member of] N'(v) must give the maximum contribution without sending any charges to v, that is,

[P.sub.v](0, 0,0) = [summation over (u[member of]N'(v))] f(u, 0).

If we change i to 1 while the values of j and k remain the same, the idea is absolutely the same, though we must consider the case in which v is the root and, therefore, has no parent that could send it any charge.

When we consider i = 0, j = 0 and k = 1, it is necessary to take into account that some u [member of] N'(v) must send a charge to v and, therefore, its maximum contribution is given by h(u, 0) instead of f (u, 0). Since v is not in H (S) and since we must choose u to be the child that maximizes the overall contribution of v, we can write

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

We can, however, add f(u, 0) - f (u, 0) to [P.sub.v](0,0,1) without changing the result, which ultimately leads us to

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

Considering any other case in which j = 0 and k > 0 we have the same situation. We must only be aware that the value of ch(v) influences the amount of charge v sends to its children and, therefore, the parameter i given to functions f and g. If ch(v) < 2, then v does not send any charge to its children. However, if ch(v) = 2, then v sends charge to all its children, except for the ones that send a unity of charge to v. This implies the use of f with i = 1 and the use of g with [i.sub.1] = 0 and [i.sub.2] = 1. Furthermore, if ch(v) > 2, then v does not depend specifically on any of its neighbors to be in H(S) and, therefore, both f must be used with i = 1 and g with [i.sub.1] = [i.sub.2] = 1. To choose which of v's children will send charges to v, we can also use the same argument and simply add the k greatest values of g to [P.sub.v](i, 0,0).

At last, when j = 1 and k > 0, there are two possibilities. If ch(v) [greater than or equal to] 2, we know that we cannot make a convexly independent set and, therefore, [P.sub.v](i, 1, k) = -[infinity] whenever i + k [greater than or equal to] 2. If ch(v) < 2, however, v is allowed into S, though it will never depend on any neighbor to be in H (S) and will always send charge to them. Also, it must be added to the count of the vertices in S that belong to [T.sub.v]. This means that we can still use the same formulas above, but every time f or g are used i or [i.sub.2] must be 1 and we must add 1 to each [P.sub.v] (i, 1,k).

Considering the time to compute [P.sub.v](i, j, k), in the worst case, it will be necessary to calculate f and g for all vertices in V(T). We may assume we must compute f(v, 0), f(v, 1), h(v, 0) and h(v, 1) for all v [member of] V(T). The function f can be evaluated in O(1) given we have the corresponding [P.sub.v](i, 0,0) and [P.sub.v](i, 0,1). The function h requires O([DELTA](G)) for each vertex, but, since the graph is a tree, the sum of the degrees of all vertices is O([absolute value of V[), so the time required to evaluate h(v, 0) and h(v, 1) for all v [member of] V(T) if we have all required [P.sub.v] (i, j, k) is O([absolute value of V]). To evaluate each [P.sub.v](i, j, k) it may also be necessary to choose the k greatest values of g(u, [i.sub.1], [i.sub.2]) for all u [member of] N'(v). For each v [member of] V(T), there are O(d(v)) different values for k and, by sorting the values of g in non-increasing order and using accumulated sums, this can be done in O(d(v) logd(v)) [less than or equal to] O(d(v) log [DELTA](T)). The total time complexity for all vertices is, thus, [[summation].sub.v[member of]V(T)] O(d(v) log [DELTA](T)), which, in turn, can be rewritten as O(log [DELTA](T)) [[summation].sub.v[member of]V(T)] O(d(v)). Replacing the sum of the degrees of all vertices of T by O([absolute value of V]), the total time to compute all [P.sub.v](i, j, k) is O([absolute value of V] log[DELTA](T)).

Corollary 3 [absolute value of [S.sup.*]] is given by

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

Moreover, it can be obtained in O([absolute value of V] log [DELTA](T)) time.

Proof: Since [P.sub.v] (i, j, k) is the maximum number of vertices in the subtree with root in v that can be in a convexly independent set under the conditions imposed by i, j and k, when we have r = v, we have the size of a maximum convexly independent set for the whole graph, that is, the rank of T. Also, since we can compute all [P.sub.v](i, j, k) in O([absolute value of V] log [DELTA](T)) time, it is possible to obtain the rank of T in O([absolute value of V] log [DELTA](T)) time.

5 A general upper bound

We remark that every minimum hull set is a convexly independent set, hence h(G) [less than or equal to] rk(G). A Radon partition of a set of vertices R is a partition of R into two disjoint sets [R.sub.1] and [R.sub.2] such that H([R.sub.1]) [intersection] ([R.sub.2]) [not equal to] 0. The set R is Radon independent if it has no Radon partition. Since every Radon independent set is a convexly independent set and the Radon number is exactly the size of the largest Radon independent set plus one, we also have r(G) - 1 [less than or equal to] rk(G). It is known [HRS13] that r(G) - 1 [less than or equal to] 2n/[delta](G) + 1. We now show that in fact this is also an upper bound for the rank of a graph getting a simpler proof of the bound in [HRS13] as a byproduct. Note that this also shows that the rank of a graph can be used as a tighter bound for the Radon number, since r(G) - 1 [less than or equal to] rk(G) [less than or equal to] 2n/[delta](G)+1].

Theorem 5 Let G be a graph with minimum degree ([delta](G). Then rk(G) [less than or equal to] 2n/[delta](G)+1. Moreover, this bound is tight.

Proof: First note that for complete graphs the equality holds, showing that the bound is tight.

Let S [subset or equal to] V(G) be a convexly independent set. We define [S.sub.i] as the subset of S of vertices containing exactly i neighbors in S and [R.sub.j] as the subset of vertices of R = V(G)\S containing exactly j neighbors in S. For notational simplicity we also define [r.sub.i] = [absolute value of [R.sub.i]] and [s.sub.i] = [absolute value of [S.sub.i]].

First note that from the independence we have [S.sub.i] = 0 for i [greater than or equal to] 2, hence S = [S.sub.0] [union] [S.sub.1]. Moreover, note that no vertex of [S.sub.1] can have a neighbor in [[union].sub.i[greater than or equal to]3] [R.sub.i] and that, if a vertex v [member of] [S.sub.0] has more than one neighbor in [U.sub.i[greater than or equal to]3] [R.sub.i], then v [member of] H (S\{v}). Also note that the sets [S.sub.i] and [R.sub.j] define a partition of V (G) and that [[summation].sub.v[member of]S] [absolute value of N(v) [intersection] R] = [[summation].sub.w[member of]R] [absolute value of N(w) [intersection] S].

it follows from the previous observations that the optimal solution of the following linear program is an upper bound for rk(G), since any convexly independent set must satisfy all the linear constraints of (P).

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

From the last two constraints we have

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Combining the previous inequality with the first constraint of (P) we get

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],

which completes the proof.

6 Monophonie convexity

In this section we deal with the monophonic convexity instead of the [P.sub.3]-convexity. A set S [subset or equal to] V(G) is convex in the monophonic convexity if, for all pairs of vertices u, v [member of] S, every vertex that lies on an induced path from u to v is also in S. We prove that the problem MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET is also NP-complete when considering the monophonic convexity.

We use the following result as stated by Dourado et al [DPS10].

Theorem 6 If G is an atom that is not a complete graph, then every pair of non-adjacent vertices is an m-hull set of G.

We also introduce the following lemma.

Lemma 5 The MAXIMUM CLIQUE problem is NP-complete even for graphs with no clique separator.

Proof: The problem is clearly in NP. We present a reduction from the Maximum Clique problem for general graphs.

Consider a connected graph G' given as input for the MAXIMUM CLIQUE problem for general graphs. If G' is already an atom there is nothing to prove, so we must assume that G' has a clique separator. Also, we restrict [absolute value of V(G')] [greater than or equal to] 3. We construct an atom G by making the disjunct union between G' and [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]], which is a cycle with [absolute value of V(G')] vertices. Also, each vertex of [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]] is adjacent to exactly one vertex of G' and each vertex of G' has exactly one neighbor in [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]].

None of the clique separators of G' can disconnect the vertices of G, since it is always possible to go from a vertex to any other going through the vertices of [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]]. Also, since no vertex from [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]] is adjacent to more than one vertex of G', they cannot be part of any clique separator. Furthermore, no clique of G is larger than the maximum clique of G', since we only add cliques of size 2 and no clique of G' can grow by the addition of a vertex from [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]]. This implies that the size of the maximum clique of G is the same as the size of the maximum clique of G' and, being G an atom, we prove that the MAXIMUM CLIQUE problem is NP-complete for atoms.

We can now state de the NP-completeness.

Theorem 7 The MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem is NP-complete in the monophonic convexity even for atoms.

Proof: We present a reduction of the MAXIMUM CLIQUE problem for atoms to the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem. Let G be a graph with no clique separator. According to Theorem 6, any two non-adjacent vertices generate the whole graph, thus no convexly independent set with size greater than two exists in which two of its vertices are not neighbors. This implies that any convexly independent set of G with size at least three must be a clique. on the other hand, a clique is always a convexly independent set in the monophonic convexity, since the only induced path between any two of its vertices is the edge that connects them and, therefore, no vertex is generated. From this it is clear that the rank of G in the monophonic convexity coincides with the size of its maximum clique, thus determining the former immediately gives us latter. From Lemma 5, we know that the MAXIMUM CLIQUE problem is NP-complete for atoms. Therefore, so is the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem in the monophonic convexity.

References

[[BCD.sup.+]12] Rommel M. Barbosa, Erika M. M. Coelho, Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. On the Caratheodory number for the convexity of paths of order three. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 26(3):929-939, 2012.

[BRdSS13] Rommel Barbosa, Dieter Rautenbach, Vinicius F. dos Santos, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. On minimal and minimum hull sets. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, 44(0):207-212, 2013.

[[CDD.sup.+]10] Carmen C. Centeno, Simone Dantas, Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. Convex partitions of graphs induced by paths of order three. Discrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science, 12(5), 2010.

[[CDP.sup.+]11] Carmen C. Centeno, Mitre C. Dourado, Lucia D. Penso, Dieter Rautenbach, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. Irreversible conversion of graphs. Theoretical Computer Science, 412(29):3693 -3700, 2011.

[CPRPdS13] Carmen C. Centeno, Lucia Penso, Dieter Rautenbach, and Vinicius P. de Sa. Geodetic number versus hull number in [P.sub.3]-convexity. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 27(2):717-731, 2013.

[DPS10] Mitre C. Dourado, Fabio Protti, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. Complexity results related to monophonic convexity. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 158(12):1268-1274, 2010. Traces from LAGOS'07 IV Latin American Algorithms, Graphs, and Optimization Symposium Puerto Varas--2007.

[[DRdS.sup.+]12] Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, Vinicius F. dos Santos, Philipp M. Schafer, Jayme L. Szwarcfiter, and Alexandre Toman. An upper bound on the [P.sub.3]-Radon number. Discrete Mathematics, 312(16):2433-2437, 2012.

[[DRdS.sup.+]13a] Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, Vinicius F. dos Santos, Philipp M. Schafer, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. On the caratheodory number of interval and graph convexities. Theoretical Computer Science, 2013.

[[DRdS.sup.+]13b] Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, Vinicius F. dos Santos, Philipp M. Schafer, Jayme L. Szwarcfiter, and Alexandre Toman. Algorithmic and structural aspects of the [P.sub.3]-Radon number. Annals of Operations Research, 206(1):75-91, 2013.

[DRdSS12] Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, Vinicius F. dos Santos, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. Characterization and recognition of Radon-independent sets in split graphs. Information Processing Letters, 112(24):948-952, 2012.

[HRS13] Michael A. Henning, Dieter Rautenbach, and Philipp M. Schafer. Open packing, total domination, and the [P.sub.3]-Radon number. Discrete Mathematics, 313(9):992-998, 2013.

[HS99] Michael A. Henning and Peter J. Slater. Open packing in graphs. Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 29:3-16, 1999.

[JR09] Paul A. Dreyer Jr. and Fred S. Roberts. Irreversible k-threshold processes: Graph-theoretical threshold models of the spread of disease and of opinion. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 157(7):1615-1627, 2009.

[Kar72] Richard M. Karp. Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In Raymond E. Miller, James W. Thatcher, and Jean D. Bohlinger, editors, Complexity of Computer Computations, The IBM Research Symposia Series, pages 85-103. Springer US, 1972.

[vdV93] Marcel L. J. van de Vel. Theory of Convex Structures. North-Holland Mathematical Library. Elsevier Science, 1993.

Igor da Fonseca Ramos (1) * Vinicius F. dos Santos (2) ([dagger]) Jayme L. Szwarcfiter (3) ([double dagger])

(1) DCC/IM, PESC/COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

(2) Departamento de Matematica Aplicada, IME, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

(3) DCC/IM, NCE, PESC/COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

received 2nd Dec. 2013, revised 3rd June 2014, accepted 1st Aug. 2014.

* Email: igor.f.ramos@gmail.com. Work funded by FAPERJ.

([dagger]) Email: vinicius.santos@gmail.com.

([double dagger]) Email: jayme@nce.ufrj.br. Partially supported by CAPES, CNPq and FAPERJ, Brazil.

When considering the spread of an infection, information or advertisement over a network, a natural model consists of starting with an initial set of nodes to which new ones are added whenever enough neighbors are already inside the set [JR09]. Such a model is strongly related with abstract convexities [vdV93]. in particular, if a vertex gets infected when at least two of its neighbors already are, we have a strong connection with the so-called [P.sub.3]-convexity.

We consider the problem of finding the largest set such that none of the elements is infected by the others. More formally, for a graph G and a subset S [subset or equal to] V (G), the hull of S, denoted H(S) is the smallest convex set containing S. We say that S is convexly independent if v [not member of] H (S\{v}), for each v [member of] S, and convexly dependent otherwise. The rank of G, denoted by rk(G) is the cardinality of the largest convexly independent set of G.

Recently, complexity aspects of the [P.sub.3]-convexity have been considered extensively for many convexity parameters such as the Hull number [BRdSS13, [CDP.sup.+]11, CPRPdS13], the Radon number [[DRdS.sup.+] 13b, [DRdS.sup.+]12, DRdSS12, HRS13] and the Caratheodory number [[BCD.sup.+]12, [DRdS.sup.+]13a] as well as for the partition problem [[CDD.sup.+]10]. In this paper we are interested in the complexity of finding the rank of G, in the [P.sub.3]-convexity. We start by giving some definitions in Section 2. In Section 3 we show that the problem is NP-complete even if the input graph is restricted to some well studied graph classes. Still, we are able to show how to find the rank in polynomial time for some restricted cases, as shown in Section 4. Finally, motivated by the hardness of the problem, we give a tight upper bound for the general case in Section 5. Additionally, in Section 6 we show that the problem is NP-complete also in the context of the monophonic convexity.

2 Definitions

Before we proceed with the results, we begin by recalling some definitions. We consider finite, simple and undirected graphs. For any graph G, let V(G) denote its vertex set and E(G) its edge set. For a vertex v [member of] V(G), we call d(v) the degree of v, i.e., the number of edges adjacent to v. Also, for a pair of vertices u, v [member of] V(G), we denote their distance by dist(u, v). The diameter of a graph G is the greatest distance between two of its vertices. [delta](G) and [DELTA](G) represent, respectively the smallest and the greatest degree of a vertex that belongs to G.

We are mostly concerned with the convexity of paths of order three on simple undirected graphs, unless we clearly state otherwise. The convex hull of a set S is the smallest convex set that contains S and is represented by H (S). We can think about the computation of the hull iteratively. Initially H (S) = S and, on each step, a vertex with at least two neighbors inside H(S) is added to H(S). This computation stops when no such vertex exists. Because of this, sometimes we say that a vertex that belongs to H(S) is generated by S.

A set R is called a Radon set if it can be partitioned in two subsets R = Ri U R2 with intersecting convex hulls, that is, H ([R.sub.1]) [intersection] H ([R.sub.2]) [not equal to] 0. The cardinality of the largest Radon set of a graph G is called its Radon number and is denoted by r(G). Also, any set S [subset or equal to] V(G) that generates the whole graph, i.e, H (S) = V (G) is called a hull set and we call hull number the size of the smallest set that satisfies such property. We represent the hull number of a graph G by h(G).

A convexly independent set S [subset or equal to] V (G) is a set such that, for all v [member of] S, v [member of] H (S\{v}). Otherwise, S is called convexly dependent. We can say that a set is convexly independent if none of its vertices is generated by the others. The rank of a graph is the cardinality of its maximum convexly independent set, denoted by rk(G). We call the problem of determining the rank of a graph the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem. Its decision version is the main object of study of this paper and is given below.

PROBLEM: MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET

INPUT: A graph G and an integer k

QUESTION: Is rk(G) [greater than or equal to] k?

An Open Packing of a graph G is a set S [subset or equal to] V(G) such that no pair of its vertices have intersecting open neighborhoods. This concept was introduced and proved to be NP-hard to determine even on chordal graphs by Henning and Slater [HS99]. The cardinality of the largest set with this property is called the open packing number and is represented by [[rho].sub.o](G). The decision version of the OPEN PACKING NUMBER problem is stated as follows.

PROBLEM: OPEN PACKING NUMBER

INPUT: A graph G and an integer k

QUESTION: Is [[rho].sub.o](G) [greater than or equal to] k?

A split graph G is one whose vertex set admits a partition V(G) = C [union] I into a clique C and an independent set I.

A clique separator is a subset of vertices that induces a complete graph whose removal disconnects the graph. An atom G is a graph without a clique separator.

Finally, a bipartite graph G is one whose vertex set can be partitioned in two sets A and B such that A [union] B = V(G), A [intersection] B = 0 and there is no edge from a vertex of A to a vertex of B.

3 Hardness Results

3.1 Split graphs

We show that computing the rank of a split graph with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2, in the context of the [P.sub.3]-convexity, is already NP-hard. The following simple result is employed.

Lemma 1 Let G be a graph, C a complete subset of it, and [v.sub.1], [v.sub.2] distinct vertices of C. Then H ([v.sub.1], [v.sub.2]) [contains or equal to] C.

We can now state the NP-completeness.

Theorem 1 MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET is NP-complete, even for split graphs with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2.

Proof: Since the hull of a subset of vertices can be computed in polynomial time for any graph, the problem clearly lies in NP. For the reduction, we employ the MAXIMUM SUBSET PACKING problem, which is known to be NP-complete [Kar72]. The latter problem has as input a family S' of subsets [S'.sub.i] [member of] S' of some ground set, together with an integer k'. The question is whether S' contains k' or more mutually disjoint subsets [S'.sub.i]. Given S' and k', we construct the following instance of MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET. The elements of the ground set [union][S'.sub.i] of the subsets [S'.sub.i] [member of] S' are all vertices of the graph G. Besides, G contains also a pair of new distinguished vertices [w.sub.i], [z.sub.i], for each subset [S'.sub.i] [member of] S'. The edges of G are as follows. The set of vertices of G corresponding to the ground set of S', together with the set of all vertices [z.sub.i] form a clique C of G. In addition, for each of the distinguished vertices [w.sub.i], add an edge [w.sub.i][z.sub.i] and edges [w.sub.i]v, for each v [member of] C that corresponds to an element of the subset [S'.sub.i] [member of] S'. Finally, define k = k'. The construction of the input to the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem is completed. Observe that the set of vertices [w.sub.i] [member of] V(G) form an independent set I of G, and therefore G is a split graph with bipartition V(G) = C [union] I. Finally, without loss of generality, we restrict to values k = k' [greater than or equal to] 3.

We prove that S' contains k' mutually disjoint subsets if and only if G has a convexly independent set of size k,

Suppose that S' contains k' mutually disjoint subsets [S.sub.1], [S.sub.2], ..., [S'.sub.k']. We show that the subset {[w.sub.1], [w.sub.2], ..., [w.sub.k]} of V(G) is a convexly independent set of G. Because [S'.sub.i] [intersection] [S'.sub.j] = 0, for i [not equal to] j, it follows that [N.sub.G][[w.sub.i]] [intersection] [N.sub.G][[w.sub.j]] = 0, for i [not equal to] j. Consequently, [dist.sub.G]([w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]) > 2, implying that H({[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}) = {[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}, for any 1 [less than or equal to] i < j [less than or equal to] k. The latter means {[w.sub.1], ..., [w.sub.k]} is convexly independent.

Conversely, by hypothesis G has a convexly independent set S of size k. First, we show that S [subset or equal to] I. If S contains three vertices [v.sub.1], [v.sub.2], [v.sub.3] [member of] C, by Lemma 1, H ({[v.sub.1], [v.sub.2]}) [subset or equal to] C and therefore H (S) = H (S\{[v.sub.3]}), contradiction. If S contains exactly two vertices of C then [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3 implies that there is some [w.sub.i] [member of] S [intersection] I. Again, Lemma 1 and the fact that [absolute value of N([w.sub.i])] [greater than or equal to] 2 imply that [w.sub.i] [member of] H({[v.sub.1], [v.sub.2]}), hence S must be convexly dependent. Finally, if S contains exactly one vertex [v.sub.1] [member of] C then there are at least two distinct vertices [w.sub.i], [w.sub.j] [member of] S [intersection] I. In this case, because N([w.sub.i]) [greater than or equal to] 2, we conclude that [w.sub.i] has a neighbor [v.sub.2], distinct from vi. That is, [v.sub.2] [member of] H({[v.sub.1], [w.sub.i]}), and using Lemma 1, we conclude that [w.sub.2] [member of] H({[v.sub.1], [w.sub.i]}), implying that {[v.sub.1], [w.sub.1], [w.sub.2]} is already convexly dependent, a contradiction. Consequently, it is true that S [subset] I.

Finally, choose a pair of arbitrary distinct vertices [w.sub.i], [w.sub.j] [member of] S, and examine N([w.sub.i]) [intersection] N([w.sub.j]). We show that they are disjoint. Suppose the contrary, and let [v.sub.1] [member of] N([w.sub.i]) [intersection] N([w.sub.j]). Because [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3, there is [w.sub.p] [member of] S, such that [w.sub.p] [not equal to] [w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]. Then [v.sub.1] [member of] H({[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}). Consequently [z.sub.i] [member of] H({[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}), meaning that C [subset or equal to] H ({[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}) and finally [w.sub.p] [member of] H ({[w.sub.i], [w.sub.j]}). Consequently, N ([w.sub.i]) [intersection] N ([w.sub.j]) = 0, for all distinct [w.sub.i], [w.sub.j] [member of] S. Since N([w.sub.i]) and N([w.sub.j]) respectively, are exactly the subsets [S'.sub.i] and [S'.sub.j] of S', we conclude that S' contains k' mutually disjoint subsets, completing the proof.

Corollary 1 The OPEN PACKING NUMBER problem is NP-complete for split graphs with ([delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2.

The above corollary strengthens a result of Henning and Slater [HS99], which stated that the OPEN PACKING NUMBER was NP-complete for chordal graphs, and is simpler to understand with the aid of the following lemmas.

Lemma 2 Let G be a split graph with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2 and split partition V (G) = C [union] I. If a set S C [??] (G) with [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3 is convexly independent, then S [subset or equal to] I.

Proof: Suppose S [??] V(G) is a convexly independent set with [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3 and that there is some v [member of] S [intersection C. Consider any u [member of] S such that u [not equal to] v. If u [member of] C, all other vertices in C and, therefore, the whole set of vertices of G is generated by u and v alone. If u [member of] I, u and v have a common neighbor in C that is added to the convex hull and, together with v, also generates the whole graph. In both cases a third vertex of S is generated, which means S is convexly dependent.

Lemma 3 Let G be a split graph with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2. A set S [??] V(G) such that [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3 is convexly independent if and only if H (S) = S. Moreover, V (G) is not convexly independent.

Proof: Let G be a split graph with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2 and split partition V(G) = C [union] I in which C is a clique and I is an independent set. Since, by Lemma 2, no vertex of C can be in a convexly independent set, V(G) is convexly dependent.

Now let S [??] V(G) be a convexly independent set with [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 3. Suppose that vertices u, v [member of] S generate w [not member of] S. Since S [subset or equal to] I and I is stable, w must be in C, as it is a common neighbor of u and v. Since either u or v, together with w can generate the whole graph, a third vertex of S is present in H({u, v}), hence S is not convexly dependent.

Conversely, suppose there is some S [??] V (G) such that H (S) = S and S is convexly dependent. Since S is not convexly independent, there is some v [member of] that has at least two neighbors in S. That implies the existence of u [member of] [intersection] S, for I is stable. This is a contradiction with Lemma 2 and, therefore, no such set can exist.

We can now easily prove Corollary 1.

Proof: Let G be a split graph with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2. Lemma 3 shows that, in G, every convexly independent set is also an open packing. Besides, every open packing is clearly a convexly independent set. This means that knowing the open packing number of G is the same as knowing the rank of said graph, thus the OPEN PACKING NUMBER problem is NP-complete for split graphs with [delta](G) [greater than or equal to] 2.

3.2 Bipartite graphs with diameter at most 3

We prove that computing the rank of a bipartite graph with diameter at most 3, in the context of the [P.sub.3]- convexity, is NP-hard.

Theorem 2 MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET is NP-complete, even for bipartite graphs with diameter at most three.

Proof: As stated in the proof of Theorem 1, the problem lies in NP. We present a reduction from the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem for split graphs with minimum degree at least 2, which we have already proved to be NP-complete. As stated before, this problem receives a graph G and an integer k as input and decides whether or not rk(G) is greater than k.

Given a split graph G' with [delta](G') [greater than or equal to] 2 and k' [greater than or equal to] 4, let k = k'. We will construct a bipartite graph G as follows. Let V(G') = C' [union] I' be a split partition of the vertices in V(G') in which C' is a clique and I' is an independent set. Now let V(G) = C [union] I, with C = C' [union] {y} and I = I' [union] {[x.sub.1], [x.sub.2]}. For every two adjacent vertices of G' that are not both in C', add an edge between them in G. Also add edges from [x.sub.1] and [x.sub.2] to all vertices in C and from y to the vertices in I. For simplicity, we will call [x.sub.1], [x.sub.2] and y universal vertices. Notice that G is bipartite and that the distance between any two of its vertices is not greater than 3, since it is always possible to use the universal vertices to form a path with at most 3 edges from any vertex to any other.

We prove that G' has a convexly independent set of size greater or equal to k' if and only if G has a convexly independent set of size greater or equal to k.

Suppose there is a convexly independent set S' [subset or equal to] V(G') with [absolute value of S'] [greater than or equal to] k'. Let S = S'. Since [absolute value of S] = [absolute value of S'] and k = k', we know that [absolute value of S] > k. By Lemma 2, we know that S [subset or equal to] I and, by Lemma 3, that no vertex in C but y is adjacent to more than one vertex in S. From that we can conclude that H(S) = S [union] {y}. Since all vertices in S only have neighbors in C and there is only one vertex of C in H(S), no v [member of] S is generated by a subset of S and, therefore, S is a convexly independent set with [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] k.

Conversely, suppose that S [subset or equal to] V(G) is a convexly independent set of G with [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] k and let S' = S. We show that a S' is convexly independent in G'. In order to prove this, we show that S c I, that xi, x2 e S and that no vertex in C but y is generated by S, meaning that H(S') = S', which suffices to prove that S' is convexly independent as stated on Lemma 3.

First, notice that any two vertices of C generate the whole graph, because they add [x.sub.1] and [x.sub.2] to the convex hull which, in turn, generate all other vertices in C. That leads to the convex hull being V(G). Since [absolute value of S] [greater than or equal to] 4, there is some vertex in S that is generated by these two and, therefore, S would not be convexly independent. The same applies if there is exactly one vertex from C in S. Any pair of vertices of I generates y, thus y cannot be in S, and y, together with any other vertex in C, generates the whole graph which means the set is not convexly independent.

Now suppose that [x.sub.1] is in S. Let v [member of] I be any other vertex from S. Since [x.sub.1] is an universal vertex, all the neighborhood of v is generated and, since [delta](G') [greater than or equal to] 2 and the neighborhood of the vertices in I is preserved, we now have 2 vertices in C which, in turn, generate the whole graph. S could not be convexly independent if that was the case and, therefore, [x.sub.1] is not in S. The same argument applies to [x.sub.2].

We must show, at last, that no vertex in C but y is generated. It is clear that it could not happen, though, for it would lead to H (S) = V (G). Since the adjacency of the vertices in I ' is preserved when we create I and C, we know that H (S') = S' and, by Lemma 3, S' is convexly independent and [absolute value of S'] [greater than or equal to] k', which concludes the proof.

4 Polynomial time algorithms

4.1 Threshold graphs

Since the problem of finding the rank of a graph G is NP-hard even for split graphs, we may ask about the complexity of calculating this parameter for a threshold graph.

Theorem 3 If G is a connected threshold graph with [absolute value of V(G)] [greater than or equal to] 3 and D [subset or equal to] V(G) is the set with all v [member of] V(G) such that d(v) = [delta](G), then:

(i) if G is a star, then rk(G) = [absolute value of V (G)] - 1;

(ii) otherwise, if [delta](G) = 1, then rk(G) = [absolute value of D] + 1;

(iii) otherwise, rk(G) = 2;

Proof: In (i), it is clear that D itself is a maximum convexly independent set.

Moreover, (iii) is the case in which d(v) > 1 for all v [member of] D. That means that, no matter the choice of vertices, the nested neighborhood of vertices that characterizes threshold graphs implies that at least two vertices of the clique will be in the convex hull of any S [??] V(G) such that [absolute value of S] = 2. The two vertices in the clique, in turn, will generate the whole graph. This implies that there is no third vertex that we could add to S without making it convexly dependent and, therefore, rk(G) = 2.

In (ii), if we take two vertices u, v [member of] V (G)\D and define S = {u, v}, we will have H (S) = V (G)\D. The only candidates to enter S without making it convexly dependent, then, are the vertices in D, but any one of them, together with one of u or v, would generate the other vertex in S; therefore this set cannot be made any larger. From this we can understand that no convexly independent set of cardinality greater than two can be made with two or more vertices from V(G)\D. If we take all vertices in D into a set S, since G is a threshold graph, we know that only one vertex of G, besides those in D, is in H (S). We can add to the set, then, any other vertex in the graph, for it was not yet generated by the others and no vertex in D can be generated by the remaining elements of S. Since this addition makes H (S) = V (G) and [absolute value of D] + 1 [greater than or equal to] 2, we know that rk(G) = [absolute value of D] + 1.

Since we can determine the degree of all vertices in O([absolute value of E]) time and [absolute value of D] can be computed in O([absolute value of V]) time given we have the vertices degrees, it is possible to solve the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET in O([absolute value of E] + [absolute value of V]) time for threshold graphs.

4.2 Trees

Let T be a tree rooted in r [member of] V(T). We denote the subtree with root in a vertex v [member of] V(T) as [T.sub.v].

We use a dynamic programming algorithm to find a maximum convexly independent set [S.sup.*] in polynomial time for T.

We say that a vertex u [member of] V(T) sends one unity of charge to v [member of] V(T) if and only if u [member of] [H.sub.T-v] (S\{v}) and v [member of] N(u), i.e., although u and v are neighbors, u does not depend on v to be in the convex hull of S\{v}. The total amount of charge received by v with respect to S is represented as ch(v), that is, ch(v) = [absolute value of N(v) [intersection] [H.sub.T-v](S\{v})].

Lemma 4 Let S [subset or equal to] V(T) be a convexly independent set in T. v [member of] V(T) is generated by S\{v} if and only if ch(v) [greater than or equal to] 2.

Proof: If ch(v) [greater than or equal to] 2, then v has at least two neighbors, say [u.sub.1] and [u.sub.2], such that [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] [H.sub.T-v](S\{v}). Since adding a vertex to a graph does not remove any other from the convex hull of a set in the [P.sub.3]-convexity, we can put v back into T - v and still have [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] [H.sub.T](S\{v}). Therefore, v is generated by S\{v}.

Conversely, if v is generated by S\{v}, that means that there are [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] N(v) such that [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] [H.sub.T](S\{v}) and that this does not depend on v also being in [H.sub.T](S\{v}). If, by removing v from T, [u.sub.i] is not in [H.sub.T-v] (S\{v}), that means that [u.sub.i] has exactly two neighbors in T that are also in [H.sub.T](S\{v}) and v is necessarily one of them, which is a contradiction. We know, then, that [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] [H.sub.T- v](S\{v}) and, since [u.sub.1], [u.sub.2] [member of] N(v), ch(v) [greater than or equal to] 2, which completes the proof.

Corollary 2 S is convexly independent ifand only ifthere is no v [member of] S such that ch(v) [greater than or equal to] 2.

In order to describe the algorithm, we must introduce the recurrence relation. Let us define [P.sub.v](i, j, k), the contribution of v, as the size of the maximum convexly independent set using only vertices from the subtree rooted in v in the state defined by i, j and k as stated below. In case [P.sub.v](i, j, k) is not well defined, we say that v's contribution is -[infinity], so this value cannot be misused in other calculations.

* i = 1 means that v receives 1 unity of charge from its parent, while i = 0 means it does not.

* j = 1 means that v is part of the convexly independent set, while j = 0 means the opposite.

* k is the amount of charge that v receives from its children.

Notice that, when computing a certain [P.sub.v](i, j, k), ch(v) = i + k.

Say that [p.sub.v] is the parent of v and that N'(v) = N(v)\{[p.sub.v]}. Also, let us define the following functions:

f(v, i) = max{[P.sub.v] (i, 0,0), [P.sub.v](i, 0,1)} (1)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (2)

g(v, [i.sub.1], [i.sub.2]) = h(v, [i.sub.1]) - f(v, [i.sub.2]) (3)

Since, in (1), ch(v) < 2 or, else, ch(v) = 2 and v depends on [p.sub.v] to be in H (S), we can be sure that v sends no charge to its parent. If j = 1 or k [greater than or equal to] 2, v will always be in H (S) independently of the charges that may come from [p.sub.v]. The function f(v, i), then, determines the maximum contribution of v while sending no charge to its parent.

The function h(v, i), comprising all the possibilities for j and k not covered by f, represents the maximum contribution of v when it must send a unity of charge to its parent.

Moreover, the function g(v, [i.sub.1], [i.sub.2]) is the gain, in terms of the contribution, of forcing a vertex v that is not sending charge to its parent to do so.

We can now determine the value of [P.sub.v](i, j, k) for any vertex v [member of] V(T).

[P.sub.v](0, 0, 0) = [summation over (u[member of]N'(v))] f(u, 0); (4)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (5)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (6)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (7)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (8)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (9)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (10)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (11)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (12)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (13)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; (14)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. (15)

Theorem 4 The previous recurrence relation computes [P.sub.v] (i, j, k) correctly and this calculation can be done in polynomial time.

Proof: We prove the correctness of the recurrence relation above by induction. Let us consider a vertex v [member of] V(T) and all the possibilities for i, j and k.

In case v is a leaf of [T.sub.r], k must be 0, otherwise the contribution is said to be -[infinity]. There are four cases in which this occurs: [P.sub.v](0,0,0), [P.sub.v](0,1,0), [P.sub.v](1,0,0) and [P.sub.v](1,1,0). Since v is a leaf, we know that its only neighbor is [p.sub.v], and that means that [P.sub.v](i, j, 0) is always a valid contribution. In this case, it can be seen in (4), (8), (11) and (14) that [P.sub.v] (i, 0,0) = [[summation].sub.ueN'(v)] f(u, 0) and [P.sub.v](i, 1,0) = [[summation].sub.ueN'(v)] f(u, 1) +1. Since all sums amount to zero, we have [P.sub.v](i, 0,0) = 0 and [P.sub.v] (i, 1,0) = 1, which is correct, as the maximum contribution of [T.sub.v] can only be 0 when v [not member of] S and 1 otherwise.

For all other vertices, we must make some further analysis.

If i = 0, j = 0 and k = 0, we want the maximum number of nodes in a convexly independent set that are also in [T.sub.v], given that v receives no charge either from [p.sub.v] or from its children. For that, each u [member of] N'(v) must give the maximum contribution without sending any charges to v, that is,

[P.sub.v](0, 0,0) = [summation over (u[member of]N'(v))] f(u, 0).

If we change i to 1 while the values of j and k remain the same, the idea is absolutely the same, though we must consider the case in which v is the root and, therefore, has no parent that could send it any charge.

When we consider i = 0, j = 0 and k = 1, it is necessary to take into account that some u [member of] N'(v) must send a charge to v and, therefore, its maximum contribution is given by h(u, 0) instead of f (u, 0). Since v is not in H (S) and since we must choose u to be the child that maximizes the overall contribution of v, we can write

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

We can, however, add f(u, 0) - f (u, 0) to [P.sub.v](0,0,1) without changing the result, which ultimately leads us to

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

Considering any other case in which j = 0 and k > 0 we have the same situation. We must only be aware that the value of ch(v) influences the amount of charge v sends to its children and, therefore, the parameter i given to functions f and g. If ch(v) < 2, then v does not send any charge to its children. However, if ch(v) = 2, then v sends charge to all its children, except for the ones that send a unity of charge to v. This implies the use of f with i = 1 and the use of g with [i.sub.1] = 0 and [i.sub.2] = 1. Furthermore, if ch(v) > 2, then v does not depend specifically on any of its neighbors to be in H(S) and, therefore, both f must be used with i = 1 and g with [i.sub.1] = [i.sub.2] = 1. To choose which of v's children will send charges to v, we can also use the same argument and simply add the k greatest values of g to [P.sub.v](i, 0,0).

At last, when j = 1 and k > 0, there are two possibilities. If ch(v) [greater than or equal to] 2, we know that we cannot make a convexly independent set and, therefore, [P.sub.v](i, 1, k) = -[infinity] whenever i + k [greater than or equal to] 2. If ch(v) < 2, however, v is allowed into S, though it will never depend on any neighbor to be in H (S) and will always send charge to them. Also, it must be added to the count of the vertices in S that belong to [T.sub.v]. This means that we can still use the same formulas above, but every time f or g are used i or [i.sub.2] must be 1 and we must add 1 to each [P.sub.v] (i, 1,k).

Considering the time to compute [P.sub.v](i, j, k), in the worst case, it will be necessary to calculate f and g for all vertices in V(T). We may assume we must compute f(v, 0), f(v, 1), h(v, 0) and h(v, 1) for all v [member of] V(T). The function f can be evaluated in O(1) given we have the corresponding [P.sub.v](i, 0,0) and [P.sub.v](i, 0,1). The function h requires O([DELTA](G)) for each vertex, but, since the graph is a tree, the sum of the degrees of all vertices is O([absolute value of V[), so the time required to evaluate h(v, 0) and h(v, 1) for all v [member of] V(T) if we have all required [P.sub.v] (i, j, k) is O([absolute value of V]). To evaluate each [P.sub.v](i, j, k) it may also be necessary to choose the k greatest values of g(u, [i.sub.1], [i.sub.2]) for all u [member of] N'(v). For each v [member of] V(T), there are O(d(v)) different values for k and, by sorting the values of g in non-increasing order and using accumulated sums, this can be done in O(d(v) logd(v)) [less than or equal to] O(d(v) log [DELTA](T)). The total time complexity for all vertices is, thus, [[summation].sub.v[member of]V(T)] O(d(v) log [DELTA](T)), which, in turn, can be rewritten as O(log [DELTA](T)) [[summation].sub.v[member of]V(T)] O(d(v)). Replacing the sum of the degrees of all vertices of T by O([absolute value of V]), the total time to compute all [P.sub.v](i, j, k) is O([absolute value of V] log[DELTA](T)).

Corollary 3 [absolute value of [S.sup.*]] is given by

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].

Moreover, it can be obtained in O([absolute value of V] log [DELTA](T)) time.

Proof: Since [P.sub.v] (i, j, k) is the maximum number of vertices in the subtree with root in v that can be in a convexly independent set under the conditions imposed by i, j and k, when we have r = v, we have the size of a maximum convexly independent set for the whole graph, that is, the rank of T. Also, since we can compute all [P.sub.v](i, j, k) in O([absolute value of V] log [DELTA](T)) time, it is possible to obtain the rank of T in O([absolute value of V] log [DELTA](T)) time.

5 A general upper bound

We remark that every minimum hull set is a convexly independent set, hence h(G) [less than or equal to] rk(G). A Radon partition of a set of vertices R is a partition of R into two disjoint sets [R.sub.1] and [R.sub.2] such that H([R.sub.1]) [intersection] ([R.sub.2]) [not equal to] 0. The set R is Radon independent if it has no Radon partition. Since every Radon independent set is a convexly independent set and the Radon number is exactly the size of the largest Radon independent set plus one, we also have r(G) - 1 [less than or equal to] rk(G). It is known [HRS13] that r(G) - 1 [less than or equal to] 2n/[delta](G) + 1. We now show that in fact this is also an upper bound for the rank of a graph getting a simpler proof of the bound in [HRS13] as a byproduct. Note that this also shows that the rank of a graph can be used as a tighter bound for the Radon number, since r(G) - 1 [less than or equal to] rk(G) [less than or equal to] 2n/[delta](G)+1].

Theorem 5 Let G be a graph with minimum degree ([delta](G). Then rk(G) [less than or equal to] 2n/[delta](G)+1. Moreover, this bound is tight.

Proof: First note that for complete graphs the equality holds, showing that the bound is tight.

Let S [subset or equal to] V(G) be a convexly independent set. We define [S.sub.i] as the subset of S of vertices containing exactly i neighbors in S and [R.sub.j] as the subset of vertices of R = V(G)\S containing exactly j neighbors in S. For notational simplicity we also define [r.sub.i] = [absolute value of [R.sub.i]] and [s.sub.i] = [absolute value of [S.sub.i]].

First note that from the independence we have [S.sub.i] = 0 for i [greater than or equal to] 2, hence S = [S.sub.0] [union] [S.sub.1]. Moreover, note that no vertex of [S.sub.1] can have a neighbor in [[union].sub.i[greater than or equal to]3] [R.sub.i] and that, if a vertex v [member of] [S.sub.0] has more than one neighbor in [U.sub.i[greater than or equal to]3] [R.sub.i], then v [member of] H (S\{v}). Also note that the sets [S.sub.i] and [R.sub.j] define a partition of V (G) and that [[summation].sub.v[member of]S] [absolute value of N(v) [intersection] R] = [[summation].sub.w[member of]R] [absolute value of N(w) [intersection] S].

it follows from the previous observations that the optimal solution of the following linear program is an upper bound for rk(G), since any convexly independent set must satisfy all the linear constraints of (P).

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

From the last two constraints we have

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Combining the previous inequality with the first constraint of (P) we get

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII],

which completes the proof.

6 Monophonie convexity

In this section we deal with the monophonic convexity instead of the [P.sub.3]-convexity. A set S [subset or equal to] V(G) is convex in the monophonic convexity if, for all pairs of vertices u, v [member of] S, every vertex that lies on an induced path from u to v is also in S. We prove that the problem MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET is also NP-complete when considering the monophonic convexity.

We use the following result as stated by Dourado et al [DPS10].

Theorem 6 If G is an atom that is not a complete graph, then every pair of non-adjacent vertices is an m-hull set of G.

We also introduce the following lemma.

Lemma 5 The MAXIMUM CLIQUE problem is NP-complete even for graphs with no clique separator.

Proof: The problem is clearly in NP. We present a reduction from the Maximum Clique problem for general graphs.

Consider a connected graph G' given as input for the MAXIMUM CLIQUE problem for general graphs. If G' is already an atom there is nothing to prove, so we must assume that G' has a clique separator. Also, we restrict [absolute value of V(G')] [greater than or equal to] 3. We construct an atom G by making the disjunct union between G' and [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]], which is a cycle with [absolute value of V(G')] vertices. Also, each vertex of [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]] is adjacent to exactly one vertex of G' and each vertex of G' has exactly one neighbor in [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]].

None of the clique separators of G' can disconnect the vertices of G, since it is always possible to go from a vertex to any other going through the vertices of [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]]. Also, since no vertex from [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]] is adjacent to more than one vertex of G', they cannot be part of any clique separator. Furthermore, no clique of G is larger than the maximum clique of G', since we only add cliques of size 2 and no clique of G' can grow by the addition of a vertex from [C.sub.[absolute value of V(G')]]. This implies that the size of the maximum clique of G is the same as the size of the maximum clique of G' and, being G an atom, we prove that the MAXIMUM CLIQUE problem is NP-complete for atoms.

We can now state de the NP-completeness.

Theorem 7 The MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem is NP-complete in the monophonic convexity even for atoms.

Proof: We present a reduction of the MAXIMUM CLIQUE problem for atoms to the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem. Let G be a graph with no clique separator. According to Theorem 6, any two non-adjacent vertices generate the whole graph, thus no convexly independent set with size greater than two exists in which two of its vertices are not neighbors. This implies that any convexly independent set of G with size at least three must be a clique. on the other hand, a clique is always a convexly independent set in the monophonic convexity, since the only induced path between any two of its vertices is the edge that connects them and, therefore, no vertex is generated. From this it is clear that the rank of G in the monophonic convexity coincides with the size of its maximum clique, thus determining the former immediately gives us latter. From Lemma 5, we know that the MAXIMUM CLIQUE problem is NP-complete for atoms. Therefore, so is the MAXIMUM CONVEXLY INDEPENDENT SET problem in the monophonic convexity.

References

[[BCD.sup.+]12] Rommel M. Barbosa, Erika M. M. Coelho, Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. On the Caratheodory number for the convexity of paths of order three. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 26(3):929-939, 2012.

[BRdSS13] Rommel Barbosa, Dieter Rautenbach, Vinicius F. dos Santos, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. On minimal and minimum hull sets. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, 44(0):207-212, 2013.

[[CDD.sup.+]10] Carmen C. Centeno, Simone Dantas, Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. Convex partitions of graphs induced by paths of order three. Discrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science, 12(5), 2010.

[[CDP.sup.+]11] Carmen C. Centeno, Mitre C. Dourado, Lucia D. Penso, Dieter Rautenbach, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. Irreversible conversion of graphs. Theoretical Computer Science, 412(29):3693 -3700, 2011.

[CPRPdS13] Carmen C. Centeno, Lucia Penso, Dieter Rautenbach, and Vinicius P. de Sa. Geodetic number versus hull number in [P.sub.3]-convexity. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 27(2):717-731, 2013.

[DPS10] Mitre C. Dourado, Fabio Protti, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. Complexity results related to monophonic convexity. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 158(12):1268-1274, 2010. Traces from LAGOS'07 IV Latin American Algorithms, Graphs, and Optimization Symposium Puerto Varas--2007.

[[DRdS.sup.+]12] Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, Vinicius F. dos Santos, Philipp M. Schafer, Jayme L. Szwarcfiter, and Alexandre Toman. An upper bound on the [P.sub.3]-Radon number. Discrete Mathematics, 312(16):2433-2437, 2012.

[[DRdS.sup.+]13a] Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, Vinicius F. dos Santos, Philipp M. Schafer, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. On the caratheodory number of interval and graph convexities. Theoretical Computer Science, 2013.

[[DRdS.sup.+]13b] Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, Vinicius F. dos Santos, Philipp M. Schafer, Jayme L. Szwarcfiter, and Alexandre Toman. Algorithmic and structural aspects of the [P.sub.3]-Radon number. Annals of Operations Research, 206(1):75-91, 2013.

[DRdSS12] Mitre C. Dourado, Dieter Rautenbach, Vinicius F. dos Santos, and Jayme L. Szwarcfiter. Characterization and recognition of Radon-independent sets in split graphs. Information Processing Letters, 112(24):948-952, 2012.

[HRS13] Michael A. Henning, Dieter Rautenbach, and Philipp M. Schafer. Open packing, total domination, and the [P.sub.3]-Radon number. Discrete Mathematics, 313(9):992-998, 2013.

[HS99] Michael A. Henning and Peter J. Slater. Open packing in graphs. Journal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing, 29:3-16, 1999.

[JR09] Paul A. Dreyer Jr. and Fred S. Roberts. Irreversible k-threshold processes: Graph-theoretical threshold models of the spread of disease and of opinion. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 157(7):1615-1627, 2009.

[Kar72] Richard M. Karp. Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In Raymond E. Miller, James W. Thatcher, and Jean D. Bohlinger, editors, Complexity of Computer Computations, The IBM Research Symposia Series, pages 85-103. Springer US, 1972.

[vdV93] Marcel L. J. van de Vel. Theory of Convex Structures. North-Holland Mathematical Library. Elsevier Science, 1993.

Igor da Fonseca Ramos (1) * Vinicius F. dos Santos (2) ([dagger]) Jayme L. Szwarcfiter (3) ([double dagger])

(1) DCC/IM, PESC/COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

(2) Departamento de Matematica Aplicada, IME, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

(3) DCC/IM, NCE, PESC/COPPE, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

received 2nd Dec. 2013, revised 3rd June 2014, accepted 1st Aug. 2014.

* Email: igor.f.ramos@gmail.com. Work funded by FAPERJ.

([dagger]) Email: vinicius.santos@gmail.com.

([double dagger]) Email: jayme@nce.ufrj.br. Partially supported by CAPES, CNPq and FAPERJ, Brazil.

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback | |

Author: | Ramos, Igor da Fonseca; dos Santos, Vinicius F.; Szwarcfiter, Jayme L. |
---|---|

Publication: | Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science |

Article Type: | Report |

Date: | Jun 1, 2014 |

Words: | 7894 |

Previous Article: | Influence of the tie-break rule on the end-vertex problem. |

Next Article: | On permutation complexity of fixed points of some uniform binary morphisms. |

Topics: |